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.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Delhi Town Court Clerk Kathy Fletcher reportedly offered a bribe to a criminal defendant's father in exchange for having the son's alleged back sentencing fees reduced
With the legitimacy of arrest warrant out the door, the claim that police officers Bowie, Haqq and Alexander were on her property legally, as a pre-requisite for legal dog-bite charges, was also out the door.
When Gumo testified at the hearing in Barbara's case, his court clerk #KathyFletcher was reportedly ordered sequestered (out of the courtroom), but lingered in the doors, and Barbara's counsel had to ask once again to have Fletcher removed and make sure she is not listening by the doors.
Fletcher was not subpoeaned to testify, and her attempted presence in the courtroom for Gumo's testimony was interesting to begin with, since the question was who is signing arrest and search warrants in Delhi Town Court - Gumo or Fletcher, by using Gumo's rubber-stamp signature?
It is very possible that Fletcher stamped Barbara's arrest warrant - and how many more arrest and search warrants? How many people are doing jail and prison times because of invalid search and arrest warrants stamped by court clerk #KathyFletcher while claimed to be signed by #DelhiTownCourtJudgeRichardGumo?
Moreover, Fletcher and Gumo are reportedly stalling now the FOIL request of Barbara O'Sullivan for security videos, and the NYS Court Administration claims that such videos are in the "custody" of Fletcher - a court clerk.
And Fletcher has a death grip on that "custody" - because, very possibly, the security cameras tell a story Fletcher does not want to be heard.
Gumo was reportedly turned into the Commission for Judicial Conduct for his actions in Barbara's case.
After that, Fletcher's high-standing friends in the government reportedly swarmed in her support and started to exert pressure on potential witnesses of her misconduct.
By the way, a good question is - why Gumo is not prosecuted criminally for (1) perjury when testifying in court in February of 2016, perjury reflected in the court order of Judge Lambert; (2) filing a false arrest warrant, (3) prosecuting a person based on an arrest warrant Gumo knew was false.
I do not know how the various investigations against Gumo are going on, but the temperature is up for Fletcher for sure, as evidenced by her reported bizarre behavior.
Recently, #KatchyFletcher reportedly went so far that she offered an exchange to a son of a criminal defendant - to forgive a personal bill against herself in exchange of Flecther "forgiving" that business owner's son's court costs which, Fletcher alleged, are due and owing.
It was not simply a solicitation of a bribe. It was blackmail.
It was a hint - forgive my personal debt, and I will have the judge go easy on your son for allegedly owed back-sentencing fines.
Enforce my personal debt - and you will see what happens.
By the way, a parent is not legally responsible in New York for the child's sentencing costs in a criminal case.
By the way, a court clerk has no authority to reduce sentencing fines and surcharges already imposed by the court, it could be done - if at all - only on a motion on notice to both parties, and decided by a judge.
"Court costs" is part of a criminal sentence, a resolution of a criminal case.
Fletcher is now offering to fix a criminal case in exchange for going easy on her own personal debt?
And is not so subtly threatening the father - forgive my personal debt, or see what will happen to your son?
Fletcher has that much influence upon Judge Gumo that Fletcher is the one deciding which court fines may be forgiven - in exchange for a personal favor from the defendant's father?
Isn't that called a bribe?
Isn't that called a crime?
Will anybody investigate and prosecute that crime?
How many more criminal cases were "fixed" by Fletcher through Gumo in exchange for personal favors?
Post a Comment