THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Andrew Cuomo's tweets about himself, his father, the NYS Court of Appeals and Janet DiFiore - when bliss grows into delirium

At this time, I am analyzing the contents of the swearing-in hearing for New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.

It is a lot of work, and it will take me some time - especially that there is a lot of interesting material available in that one hearing.

Meanwhile, I would like to present to my readers some "tweets" of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (Janet DiFiore's friend and likely partner in crime - real crime), as I discussed earlier on this blog, the crime of corruption and cover-up of that corruption by Janet DiFiore, and reimbursement of Janet DiFiore by Andrew Cuomo by giving her husband a position on casino siting board, and by giving to DiFiore the job of the State's Chief Judge.

Here is the picture of Andrew Cuomo from his Twitter account.  It is a public record.  Andrew Cuomo is obviously presenting himself to the public as some kind of a "people person".

That is, while catering to the big gaming business and having DiFiore help him hide his financial connections to that industry.




Cuomo twitted several times yesterday that he was going to attend and deliver a speech at the swearing-in ceremony of DiFiore.




Then, Cuomo made some twits indicating that "Janet" is apparently a champion in PREVENTING and REVERSING wrongful convictions, even though there is evidence (that the NYS Senate refused to consider) that Janet DiFiore is behind CREATING those wrongful convictions.  Here is the happy "champion", sitting right next to her benefactor.


Cuomo also had the audacity to stress that DiFiore was the best choice out of multiple candidate for the position.

By the way, Preet Bharara was present at the ceremony.  While he was clearly invited to be appeased and not to pursue Cuomo and DiFiore for their crimes, I wonder whether Bharara used the opportunity to collect evidence of Cuomo's and DiFiore's misconduct.  I guess, we will learn about that in the future.


Cuomo posted some other tweets in connection with the swearing-in ceremony that are clearly bizarre and shows the state of mind (or lack of any mind, rather) of the New York State Governor.


If a judge, even the state Chief Judge, even the deceased former state Chief Judge, says something stupid, it is not necessary to repeat it.

Cuomo did.

He stated that allegedly Judge Judith Kaye, former and now deceased Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals said that "Court of Appeals was lawyer heaven".  The statement is clearly dubious on so many levels that, once again, it has better not be repeated during a swearing-in ceremony of a new Chief Judge - of all occasions.

But, since Cuomo wanted to introduce the name of his also recently deceased father into the ceremony, it did not matter whether the statement of Judith Kaye he quoted was dubious and inappropriate for the occasion - as long as he could state that heavens "acquired" "a couple of pretty good lawyers - Kaye and Mario Cuomo" (Andrew Cuomo's father).

How Cuomo knows whether Kaye and his father went to heaven rather than to hell or purgatory - is anybody's guess.  

How Cuomo knows whether Kaye was even religious, and whether the concept of "heaven" was in accordance with her religion, is also anybody's guess.  

The important thing for Cuomo obviously was to inject his father's name into the ceremony.

He did it once again later.


Cuomo is proud that, like his father, he is "only one of two governors to have appointed the entire court".

Yet, since judges of the Court of Appeals are replaced only when the previous one's terms run out, or when they retire through mandatory or voluntary retirement during their terms, I wonder what is this point of pride - that judges on the highest court reached their retirement age, their term expired or they decided to retire voluntarily during the time when the Cuomos - father and son - were Governors?

That is some kind of pride?

Nothing else to be proud of?

And - what Mario Cuomo, his passing, his allegedly being an "excellent lawyer" or his allegedly going to heaven has to do with swearing in of the new Chief Justice of New York State Court of Appeals?

But, to crown it all, Cuomo posted the following:




A shrine to justice is a "holy or sacred place".

 The courthouse and the courtroom is, admittedly, beautiful, even though the expense of creating and maintaining a palace for several people to gather and resolve disputes (which is what courts do) is completely unwarranted from a taxpayer point of view.

 But, since the New York State Court of Appeals is "a shrine" now, are now supposed to treat it as an untouchable holy relic instead of a place where our public servants are supposed to work properly - or be fired if they do not work well?

 On the other hand, once you call something "a shrine", it will look bad if anybody would dare to criticize how the "shrine" works.  A shrine should not work, it is there to be admired and worshiped.  

 Right?

 Well, nothing unexpected from Cuomo - and I will provide the full analysis of the swearing-in hearing/ceremony when I am finished with reviewing it.

 Stay tuned.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)