"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.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Janet DiFiore's ceremonial swearing-in fraternity gathering at taxpayers' expense - Part I

Being a Russian American who immigrated to the U.S. from the recently-dissolved Soviet Union and whose youth was spent in the Soviet Union, where we were forced to watch endless "ceremonial" speeches of various public officials, at work, at the college and on TV, I am very wary of official ceremonies.

Not only they are a tremendous waste of time and money.

In my opinion, they also should not be taking place in a democratic society, because all there is to such gatherings is forging and reinforcing connections, establishing for the future conflicts of interest and tainting the celebrated public official with appearance of corruption.

If a person has been appointed to a public office, that's it.  

You've been appointed, good for you, you need to be sworn it, it's two minutes to do that - now get over with it and start doing your job.

There is no need for people to sit in "panels", make speeches, congratulate each other on coming, on being appointed, on "serving" the taxpayers, the same taxpayers the whole gathering is robbing by attending an unnecessary ceremony instead of doing their taxpayer-paid jobs.

You do not need to pluck (oops, invite) a courthouse full of people from their jobs, and you especially do not need to invite them to travel across a large state that is larger than several European countries, to a lengthy "swearing-in" ceremony.

As I said, just be sworn in in two minutes and get to doing your job.

Not so with Janet DiFiore, who was recently appointed as Chief Judge of the State of New York.

I wrote about DiFiore's background, her unfitness to be a judge and a lawyer, and the likelihood that she committed multiple crimes, and that the appointment by Governor Cuomo to the position of Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals was payment to DiFiore for covering up Cuomo's corruption at the time DiFiore was the Chairwoman of New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

You can read my prior blogs about DiFiore's nomination here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I also filed a complaint against DiFiore with the Judicial Conduct Commission, requesting to investigate what the Senate refused to investigate, possible criminal activities of DiFiore and her misconduct as Westchester County District Attorney, and to take her off the bench.  

The complaint is now under review, but DiFiore, at this time, is still on the bench, and this blog is about the disgusting start of her career as the Chief Judge, through an unnecessary and costly gathering of taxpayer-paid "public servants".

After getting appointed the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals by fraud - while opponents of her appointments were blocked from testifying before the New York State Senate and while the requested and necessary investigations into DiFiore's likely criminal activities that should have her disbarred and locked up for the rest of her life, instead of elevated to the position of Chief Judge of the huge New York State were not done by the sycophanting Judiciary Committee of the New York Senate, consisting of attorneys - Janet DiFiore wanted to celebrate her newly acquired power.

And so she did.

Look at the full courthouse of people she invited to the ceremony.

I could not shake off parallels in watching the "swearing-in ceremony".

This is what I grew up with, the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev giving a speech, the sycophants' gathering around, with rounds of applause celebrating The Chief:

This is Janet DiFiore's swearing in ceremony this year, the sycophants' gathering around, with applause at the ready, celebrating The Chief-ess

Both gatherings are useless.  Both gatherings are at people's expense.  Both gatherings are at the time when majority of the respective state's residents are struggling financially - not that the sycophants or the celebrants cared.

I will publish in separate blogs, the transcript of the gathering, and then the names and salaries of the people who attended the gathering, at public expense - at least those whose attendance can be confirmed by the video.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment