"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.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Sons-of-judges, burned kittens and the rule of law - the story continues

I wrote on this blog recently about a slap on the wrist of judge Daniel P. Sullivan, of Whitestown Town Court, Oneida County, in attempting to influence the police in not "overcharging" his sadistic son who attempted to burn alive two bound-up kittens.

I also wrote that the son-of-a-judge did receive lenient treatment in only having been charged with a misdemeanor, and allowed to plead to even a lower misdemeanor, with no jail time, a fine, a conditional discharge, 50 hours of community service, and a prohibition to enter the public park where he planned to burn the kittens, and to stay away from cats.  I understand, he can burn other animals - or people - instead.

And, the judge was all upset that his monster son was charged at all, because the judge wanted nothing to stand in his son's way to a job in the Oneida County Sheriff's Department.

Sadistic tendencies and all.

Yet, what the son-of-a-judge could and should have been charged with is a felony attempt of aggravated cruelty to animals.

And other people, who are not sons of judges, are charged with that particular felony in New York.

A reader tipped me off to such a recent charge against a bank analyst who reportedly had a "hobby" of torturing animals.

The bank analyst was charged with a felony - as was only proper under the reported circumstances.

#JudgeDanielSullivan's son #JosephSullivan, on the other hand, got away with practically no punishment (money will be paid by father, otherwise it is just 50 hours of community service), and can still surface sometime in the future somewhere in "law enforcement".  

And - actually, Oneida County does have a general employee by the name of Joseph B. Sullivan, who has been employed in that county since 2012, and continues to be employed there, with a very high salary:

I wonder whether this Joseph B. Sullivan is Judge Sullivan's brother, and Judge Sullivan wants to get his monster kid get under his uncle's wing into the Sheriff's Deparment, or whether the monster kid got into the Oneida County employment at a young age of 18 (2012) with such a salary because of his father's position as a judge.

I will try to verify who is the Joseph B. Sullivan, the "general employee" of Oneida County.

Meanwhile, I've found this information about a "Joe Sullivan", "network administrator" of "many years" with Oneida County, New York on LinkedIn.

The "network administrator" Joe Sullivan left a recommendation to a Tim McGurk, indicating that the Joe Sullivan guy worked with Tim McGurk in Oneida county "for many years".

Appears to be an uncle to the monster kid of Judge Daniel P. Sullivan, but I will try to verify the connection through a separate FOIL request.

Yet, the whole idea of getting the monster kid into the Sheriff's Department where his doting father wants him to be, instead of the prison where he belongs, is ridiculous.

With such people on the police force, no wonder why the social media is getting more and more reports posted of completely unconscionable acts of police brutality.

With each one of police officers caught in unspeakable acts of violence, the question is - who got their jobs for them, who kept them in their job, can it be that they are sons of some untouchable public officials and are, by extension, untouchable themselves?

No comments:

Post a Comment