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.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
On target practice against female attorneys: bash public defenders and civil rights attorneys, spare female judges who commit crimes, but "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit" in changing illegal rules instituted by men
I just put in a blog describing how female attorneys raising constitutional arguments for the poor are being handcuffed, arrested, embarrassed, humiliated, disrespected and strip-searched in front of male security guards and detainees.
There is a difference in treatment though if a woman commits a crime - but where the criminal is also a judge.
Enters Judge Janet Madonia Calano, an "outstanding woman", a judge and a licensed attorney who committed the crime of fraud and altering public records in 2011 and 2012.
On May 9, 2016, Judge Janet Madonia Calano, a part-time judge of a local court in Westchester County received the discipline of admonishment for delegating judicial decisions to a prosecutor, a local Deputy Town Attorney.
Here are the charges:
Judge Calano is a licensed attorney and remains a licensed attorney "with no record of public discipline", notwithstanding her fraud noted by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct (altering court record during investigation against her, adding her "approvals" to dispositions where she allowed the prosecutor to decide those cases).
Altering court records is a crime. Doing that in order to create a false impression is also a fraud, which is also a crime
No records of public discipline?
For committing two crimes?
Just because it is a judge and an attorney, and nobody wants to "mar her reputation" - even if she committed a crime?
And, since the local prosecutor expects the judge to rule in the prosecutor's favor, good luck waiting that Judge Calano will be investigated and prosecuted.
You know who did not investigate or prosecute Judge Calano for committing two crimes of altering court records and doing that with intent to defraud the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct?
Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore, an attorney who was elevated to Chief Judge of New York Courts.
The crime of alteration of public records and fraud was committed in 2012.
Commission of fraud in New York by a licensed attorney is an offense that leads to disbarment.
DA Janet DiFiore did not prosecute Judge Calano for fraud and alteration of public records in 2012, and let that 2-year statute of limitations for such a prosecution lapse.
The NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct was aware of misconduct of Janet DiFiore as a prosecutor, but still endorsed her for the seat of Chief Judge, and recently tossed two meritorious complaints against her without an explanation.
Yet, Judge DiFiore likely committed crimes before her elevation to the position of Chief Judge (and nobody wants to investigate or prosecute that) and did not stop in her corrupt efforts after her elevation.
If Chief Judge of New York State can be allowed to commit crime without any accountability, all other judges can follow suit.
Thanks to DA Janet DiFiore's non-prosecution, thanks to slap on the wrist by NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, thanks to inaction of attorney disciplinary committees, Attorney-Judge Calano can now continue altering court records and lying in court documents, as a judge, or as an attorney.
Judge Calano clearly stated to the Commission, by the way, that she, "as a woman", had other priorities in the first year of her judgeship than to make sure she follows the law:
Judge Calano, a licensed attorney, preferred not to learn what the applicable law is, and to "tread very lightly", "hold back a little bit" with respect of "making changes in the court" (in other words, in following lawful procedure rather than delegating judicial duties to prosecutors), and had "other priorities" than to follow the law, "including improving court security and learning about handling criminal matters".
I wonder whether Judge Calano told voters during her election campaign that making sure she acts lawfully in court proceedings was not on her list of priorities.
And that, being an "outstanding woman", and "senatorial woman of distinction" (according to Judge Calano's resume I will describe below), she would prefer to "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit", not to ire male prosecutors and the fellow male judge - while deciding cases pending in front of her personally.
After all, see what happens to women who do not "tread very lightly" and make pesky constitutional arguments to courts - they are suspended without a hearing, handcuffed, detained, strip-searched, you name it.
No, it's definitely better to "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit".
Judge Calano knows what she is talking about.
She is a survivor in the profession still dominated by old white males.
Most likely, Janet Calano's connections in such a lenient disciplinary sentence and in lack of criminal prosecution played a role.
Here is a resume of Judge Janet Calano.
The resume very clearly indicates that, in addition to what Janet Calano did wrong - and what she was admonished for - she also had undisclosed conflicts of interest in presiding over cases prosecuted by a Town of Eastchester Deputy attorney, as a prosecutor, while having ties to the executive and legislative part of the government of the Town of Eastchester, in addition to be the Town judge.
Judge Calano prides herself on having "redrafted" the Zoning Code of the Town of Eastchester and for being an Executive Board Recording Secretary for the "Eastchester School Foundation".
Two many hats for a judge, don't you think?
Calano is also a very "outstanding woman", according to her own resume:
You can't take a "Senatorial Woman of Distinction" and an "Outstanding Woman in the Community" off the bench, disbar her and prosecute her for criminal conduct.
You simply can't.
There are civil rights attorneys and public defenders to be bashed out there, just don't touch connected "outstanding women" committing crimes on the bench.
Protection of the public be doomed.