"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.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Unanimous vote by self-interested Judiciary Committee of the New York State Senate for Janet DiFiore - but the Senate did not confirm her yet

So Janet DiFiore was not confirmed as Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals yet - despite a corrupt unanimous vote of NYS Judiciary Committee, including its disqualified attorney-Senators/members.

Predictably, NYS Senator and Chair of Senate Judiciary Committee (and attorney) Bonacic lied to the public today at the confirmation hearing of Janet Difiore for the position of Chief Judge for NYS Court of Appeals - in many ways:

  • by not disclosing that he denied anybody but bar associations and Janet DiFiore a right to testify at her confirmation hearing;
  •  by not disclosing the fact that he and all other attorney senators were requested to be disqualified from voting - because they had personal financial stakes in the vote, as licensed attorneys, voting for their regulator.

Predictably, Senator Bonacic did not conduct the necessary due diligence investigation about Janet DiFiore and left open the question whether, if confirmed, a long-time hardened corrupt criminal, with a long record of corruption and with reported ties to the mafia, will head the NYS Court system.

In order to dupe the public - and the NYS Senate - Bonacic claimed that there were written submissions that were "negative" against the judiciary and the Court of Appeals, without details, and without mentioning that witnesses did not voluntarily make written submissions, but were forced to do so because they were denied their requests to testify, see the list of "uninvited witnesses" and their statements.  My blogs are mentioned there, too, I will also publish my e-mails to the Judiciary Committee that Senator Bonacic's was supposed to post on the NYS Senate website.

When praise comes in live testimony and the live opposition is blocked and is presented through mischaracterization  of a person with a personal interest in the outcome of proceedings, like Bonacic and other attorneys-Senators, are - that conduct smacks of corruption.

As I said before, New Yorkers are voting with their feet against that corruption, and will continue to leave the state if the government, instead of cleaning its pigsties of corruption, will try to put perfumed handkerchiefs of praise over them.

It is already clear - through the actions of NYS Judiciary Committee that unanimously voted to put a criminal (and criminal conduct of Janet DiFiore is well-documented) at the head of the NYS Court system, without proper investigation of her criminal and corrupt background - that no amount of perfume will be able to cover the stink.

No comments:

Post a Comment