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.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Otsego County DSS has a brand spanking new policy: assignment of counsel at a pre-filing stage of a child protective proceeding without a court order. Otsego County DSS changed New York Family Court Act - without having any authority to do that, simply to dupe the parent out of her rights
All actions of Social Services in such a case are governed by Article 10 of the Family Court Act.
Family Court Act allows a temporary removal of the child on consent of parent, Section 1021.
There is no consent of Alecia Bracci for removal of her child.
Of course, when no child neglect petition is filed, a court can issue a pre-filing temporary order of removal - if there are grounds for it, Family Court Act 1022.
There are no grounds for removal of the child in this case, and it is very obvious that no judge will sign such an order, especially that all judges in the area are involved in this controversy one way or another.
An attorney can be assigned to a parent in child neglect proceedings in New York only if the child is removed upon a court order, Family Court Act 1022-A, not when social services are trying to coerce the parent to remove the child "on consent".
Otsego County DSS worker was trying to coerce Alecia Bracci to "talk" to the social worker without an attorney, Alecia insisted she will only speak with an attorney present, and that she does not have funds for an attorney.
The social worker immediately offered to Alecia to "have an attorney appointed", and to "bring paperwork" to apply for an attorney.
Yet, the DSS worker knew that before a child neglect petition is filed, an attorney cannot be assigned, unless there is a court order.
There is no court order under FCA 1022 at this time.
There is also a procedure for an "emergency removal" under Section 1024 of the Family Court Act.
The emergency removal is not warranted because (1) there is enough time to apply for a court order, which was not done by DSS of Otsego County (where the baby is now), and (2) because there are no grounds for the emergency removal.
Moreover, there is a specific provision in the Family Court Act 1024 when a hospital seizes the child on request of social services, Family Court Act 1024 (d) and (e):
d) Where the physician keeping a child in his custody pending action by the local department of social services or appropriate police authorities does so in his capacity as a member of the staff of a hospital or similar institution, he shall notify the person in charge of the institution, or his designated agent, who shall then become responsible for the further care of such child.
(e) Any physician keeping a child in his custody pursuant to this section shall have the right to keep such child in his custody until such time as the custody of the child has been transferred to the appropriate police authorities or the social services official of the city or county in which the physician maintains his place of business.
If the social services official receives custody of a child pursuant to the provisions of this section, he shall promptly inform the parent or other person responsible for such child's care and the family court of his action.
At this time, here is what we have:
1) social services did not formally "receive custody of the child" under Family Court Act 1024 (e), because they did not notify the parent of that removal;
2) there is no court order of removal under FCA 1022,
3) there is no consent for removal of the child by the parent under FCA 1021, and
There is a seizure of the child by the hospital, complete with a lock on the child's foot:
So, at this time Basset Hospital is violating Alecia Bracci's constitutional rights and is facing a major lawsuit in the future, as well as the Otsego and Delaware County Departments of Social Services and individuals who personally participated in violation of Alecia Bracci's rights.
Moreover, when the Otsego County DSS was trying to coerce the mother to "just talk" to them and were telling the mother that the hospital will not release the child unless she talks to social services, DSS knew that they had no authority to coerce the mother into any kind of talking, because such procedure is not part of the Family Court Act.
Parents of newborns in Otsego and Delaware County, especially those who sued the Counties or County officials or who have run-ins with any county officials - be aware of how the Counties can use child protective proceedings to violate your parental rights and to retaliate against you for your criticism of governmental misconduct.