Now that I am safely (for the court system) suspended and materials of my disciplinary proceedings became public in all senses and for all purposes, I am starting to publish them.
Before, when I published evidence of misconduct and fabrication of transcripts in my proceedings, I was charged with criminal contempt of court - for violating my own privacy (charges were dismissed sua sponte by the court, but not after putting stress on me for 4.5 months and driving me out of the State of New York to prevent further harassment).
Now that there is not a single reason not to consider the materials of my disciplinary proceedings public, but knowing that the court will not make it public even if the law says they are public (as the court already did before, on multiple occasions), I am staring to publish those materials (there are a lot of them) myself.
It is a lot of work, I have to scan a lot of documentary exhibits, misconduct of the judge upon whose sanctions my law license was ultimately suspended was legendary and spanned many years, many cases and was targeting many attorneys, not just myself.
Since Becker ultimately ran from the bench and was allowed to use "early retirement" to hide his misconduct and was not disciplined in any way, I think these materials must be published as a matter of public service, so that people know at least the small extent of his misconduct - in my case and in cases that I knew and complained about.
The public should also be able to see how New York courts squash criticism of judicial misconduct and misconduct of politically connected attorneys.
The motion I am publishing today was made in March of 2014 to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.
The 3rd Department did not know what to do with it and transferred it, in an ex parte manner, as a hot potato, to the 4th Department.
The 4th Department did not know what to do with it either, and, probably, it was just too much to read for the lazy court, so the 4th Department did the following with this motion:
1) denied it without an explanation or reasoning in September of 2014 - I made a motion to vacate, renew and rehear, as allowed by law, and for a REASONED decision.
Enraged by that, the 4th Department then
2) denied the motion once again, once again without an explanation and reasoning (the motion was raising constitutional issues of public importance, but treaded too much, I guess, on protected turf that the court had a self-interest not to reach), but with an imposition of an anti-filing injunction (without notice or opportunity to be heard on that) and with a sealing order aimed against me, even though the sealing order was based on the statute that protects my privacy that I did not need,
then
3) the, one of the charges that I sought to dismiss and that the 4th Department denied to dismiss - twice, without an explanation or reasoning, but with an anti-filing injunction against me for asking for it - was withdrawn by the Committee and one other charge that I sought to dismiss, and the motion was denied twice without an explanation or reasoning, was ultimately granted.
No sense in all of that at all.
The charges that were sustained were clearly unsustainable, as my Affidavit/Memorandum of Law in support of this motion says.
There are over 100 documentary exhibits supporting the motion. They are referenced in the affidavit. It takes a lot of time to scan them, but I will do that.
At this time, I am publishing the Affidavit/Memorandum of Law only, so that it gives people an idea what exactly I was punished for by suspension of my law license for 2 years, and why the 4th Department and its attorney disciplinary Committee fought tooth and claw to deny me my right to an open public disciplinary proceeding.
Especially because my order of suspension mentions only that I was suspended because "a judge" sanctioned me "for frivolous conduct", but does not mention that the "frivolous conduct" was making motions to recuse that same judge for egregious misconduct - or that that judge, Carl F. Becker recused from one of my cases BEFORE he sanctioned me and AFTER he sanctioned me, and then quickly "retired" before his term was out under circumstances suggested that he ran from the bench before he was booted from there (the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission's annual report for 2015 mentioned that several judges went off the bench during investigation without making public that the reasons were disciplinary, and I there are reasons to believe that Becker was one of them).
The motion was scanned in 4 batches because of my scanner's limitations.
Here is the motion:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Supporting documentary exhibits to this motion will be scanned and published at a later time, when I have time to do that (again, it is a lot of work), but I will do that.
My disciplinary case has startling similarities with the recent disciplinary case in Louisiana, also against a female attorney, Christine Mire, also because of motions to recuse a judge, see my blogs on the matter here and here.
I did not finish covering Christine Mire's case either, I will post some more analysis of some additional materials I was able to obtain in that case shortly.
Stay tuned.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment