"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.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

New York Chief Judge Janet DIFiore recognizes appeals "as of right" - for the gaming industry only, in order to fix a case for her benefactors

I wrote on this blog that a judge of New York State Court of Appeals Eugene Pigott claimed at the swearing-in proceeding of the new Chief Judge Janet DiFiore on February 8, 2016 that the court gets to "pick" its cases.

I also wrote that such policy was in violation of New York State Constitution and statutes establishing "as of right" appeals to the New York State Court of Appeals.

I described 4 appeals "as of right", filed on behalf of myself or my husband, that were dismissed unlawfully by the New York State Court of Appeals as if they are discretionary between 2011 and 2016, including one by Janet DiFiore personally, after I testified before New York Senate asking to investigate and prosecute DiFiore criminally for corruption instead of elevating her to the position of New York Chief Judge.

Yet, with all of the dismissals of "as of right appeals", yesterday, Janet DiFiore suddenly saw the light and admitted an appeal "as of right" to be heard by the court, and even authored the decision of the court and reversed the decision in the court below.

In that decision, she acknowledges that the appeal was "as of right":

"Respondents — PERB (and its Chairman), GOER, and the Racing Board — appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601 (a)".

So, Janet DiFiore recognizes that appeals "as of right" to her court exist -  with one small exception.

Such an appeal must be filed by those who she has connections with and for whom she is willing to risk her career to fix a court case.

The appeal "as of right" in question that DiFiore fixed for the gaming industry was filed by an administrative board connected with the gaming industry, the industry with which DiFiore, her husband and her benefactor Cuomo who recently nominated her to her position as Chief Judge - have connections.

So, hallelujah! The law works - for people with connections.

We will see how the same precedent will play out if used in favor of somebody as disfavored and hated by DiFiore as I am.

I will cover the case DiFiore fixed yesterday in more detail in the next blog.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment