"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Otsego County DA John Muehl was not assigned to investigation of burglary in my house - he lied to me

I posted on this blog the story about Otsego County DA John Muehl being (allegedly) assigned to the investigation of burglary to our house (my husband's and mine) at 203 Main Street, Delhi NY - or so he told me.

Since I had only his letter claiming that he was assigned to that case, and, with the government, you cannot believe their words, only documents, I asked DA John Muehl to send me his order of assignment.

I received it from John Muehl today.

Here it is.

It shows that John Muehl was assigned to a grand jury investigation into a burglary committed in August of 2012 at 205 Main Street, Delhi, NY, 13753. 

That's our neighbor's house where, according to our neighbor, there was, indeed, a burglary.

So, John Muehl was assigned to the burglary case at my neighbor's house, according to the court order I just posted, but is claiming that I have nothing to worry about regarding preservation of evidence in my case?

When John Muehl does not even know what case he is investigating and what case he is assigned to?

I guess, whenever John Muehl is not on additional contract to be attentive to cases he is investigating, he can be beyond sloppy - even investigating a case he was never assigned to.

John Muehl should really consider a rehab.

I will certainly turn into the respective authorities both John Muehl and Richard Northrup as to:

(1) their botching up of the investigation into a violent felony at the home of a civil rights attorney and an outspoken critic of judicial misconduct;

(2) their lying to me about preservation of evidence;

(3) their lying to me as to the contents of the file; and

(4) Muehl's false representations that he was even on my case.

Of course, Judge Mulvey (whom I sued in the past and who was ardently trying to push my former client to file a complaint against me) can concoct another order of assignment to save Muehl's hide.

Mulvey has fabricated evidence in many of my cases and escaped without any discipline - now I know why - because the NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct allowed practice of law in front of the Commission by the Commission's members, former members and their law firms.  

So, while we will never know which of the members, former members of the Commission or their law firms, snuck in a word on behalf of Mulvey, it is entirely an entirely likely scenario.

I will also have to alert as to Muehl's and Northrup's behavior NYS Senator DeFransisco, the initiator of a separate Commission for prosecutorial misconduct - because the current attorney disciplinary committees never prosecute prosecutors (including themselves).

As the Chinese say, constant dripping of water wears away the stone.

Even if the stone is brazen corruption and stupidity of New York State government officials.

No comments:

Post a Comment