"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, May 21, 2016

#FraudsterAttorneyWoodruffCarroll offers a court witness $100,000 for a false affidavit against me to save his law license

I wrote yesterday morning about attorney Woodruff Carroll, of Syracuse, NY who, when caught in lying to the court, tried to coerce his clients to make further false affidavits - and threatened to come to their house, while they told them not to come, to obtain those false affidavits.

Then, he threatened to withdraw from the civil rights case that he was trying to kill, obviously paid by defendants social services.

Just how much he may have been paid by social services, was revealed yesterday night.

According to a witness, Mr. Carroll arrived yesterday to the plaintiffs' residence with two documents - a settlement agreement that they told them ahead of time they did not want to sign and want to proceed to trial, and a long drafted affidavit on their behalf against me.

The drafted affidavit against me, among other things, stated that plaintiffs did not send their retainer agreement with me to Mr. Carroll.

The circumstances of why Mr. Carroll wants that particular issue denied are described in my yesterday's blog, but, briefly, he asked the court to strip me of my fees for 3.5 years of litigation because allegedly I did not have a written retainer agreement, after (according to one of the plaintiffs) asking her to send that same retainer agreement to him, and after she sent that retainer agreement to him.

Lying to the court is a crime.

Lying to federal court is a federal crime.

Mr. Carroll, who is practicing law since 1984, that is, for 32 years so far, certainly knows that.

So, when I filed a motion to vacate the order of the court stripping me, on Mr. Carroll's request, of my legal fees for 3.5 years of litigation, and for sanctions for fraud against Mr. Carroll, Mr. Carroll became desperate.

Since I relied upon the statement to me of one of the plaintiffs in reporting to the court that my retainer agreement was sent to Mr. Carroll, at Mr. Carroll's request, before Mr. Carroll claimed to the court under oath that there is no such retainer agreement, Mr. Carroll had only three options of dealing with it:

1) admit the truth and ask for leniency for his misconduct; or

2) deny misconduct and plead the 5th, or

3) commit a further crime and providing further false statements to the court to save his sorry hide.

According to the statement of a witness, Mr. Carroll chose option # 3.

Mr. Carroll, in front of two witnesses, tried to solicit yesterday night a false affidavit from his client claiming that the retainer agreement was never sent to him, and accusing me of lying.

Mr. Carroll knew that what he was doing was wrong and criminal.

He begged plaintiffs to sign those affidavits "to save his law license" (his words, reportedly), and offered them $100,000 in exchange for signing those false affidavits.

Yes, according to two witnesses to whom I talked personally yesterday, attorney Woodruff Carroll, of Syracuse, NY, offered $100,000 to tamper with a witness in a federal court proceeding.

He did not bring that money with him, mind, he only said that if they sign that affidavit against me - which he knew to be false - he will get them $100,000.

Let's remember that before that time, Mr. Carroll told them that the poor Chenango County and its social workers are dictated by their insurance company that they cannot pay more than $30,000.

Imagine how much Carroll was offered to kill a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Chenango County Department of Social Services if he was offering $100,000, 3 times more than the recovery offered to plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.

In view of suddenly increased numbers, and a clear statement that $100,000 will be paid for signing the false affidavit and signing the settlement agreement plaintiffs did not want to sign - and I doubt Carroll was offering that out of his own pocket - a criminal investigation is in order as to whether defendants and their attorney Erin Donnelly, of Levine, Gouldin and Thompson were in collusion with Carroll on that offer to bribe a witness in order to continue to defraud a federal court, avoid attorney discipline and criminal prosecution for prior fraud and prevent the case from going to trial.

Mr. Carroll knew that my former clients were not wealthy.

Mr. Carroll knew that my former clients need money very much.

Mr. Carroll was trying to coerce them to sign the false affidavit by stating that I will otherwise take their home, sue them for millions of dollars and put them to jail.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll, for a good idea - of course, I will be doing all of the above against you and not against my honorable former clients.

They declined to sign the false affidavit, called me and reported the bribe solicitation by Mr. Carroll.

I am honored and humbled with that amount of trust.

When your former clients, even after your suspension, have faith in you not to harm them, rather than in their present attorney - that is something.

The witnesses also told me that Mr. Carroll was so upset and excited he was "ready to be tied".

Mr. Carroll also refused to take the word "fired" at its face value, and insisted that he will not withdraw from the case, even when plaintiffs told him he was fired, and told him they would be better of on their own (without any legal training) than with him.

Well, Mr. Carroll also hardly has any legal training, having been admitted to the bar after a "clerkship", not a law school.

Mr. Carroll also promised plaintiffs that he will return again, today, to have them sign the same papers.

The plaintiffs told him that he is fired, he is not welcome and that they will not be home and the door will be locked.

Mr. Carroll claims he is still coming.

What can I say.

The story gets more and more bizarre.

It is the first time I have an actual confirmation from a witness that somebody offered a witness money - $100,000 in this case - to file a false affidavit against me.

I am sure such rigging was occurring in other setting, for money or other quid-pro-quo, but there witnesses simply did not come forward.

Now I have proof of at least one such case.

I will continue reporting on how this bizarre situation develops.

Apparently, only exposure can help in such cases.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment