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.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Who are 279 people employed in Delaware Opportunities Inc. and its "affiliates"?

After reading the audit of the Delaware County by the New York State Comptroller conducted in 2015 and showing that Delaware County funneled millions of dollars into Delaware Opportunities Inc. "and its affiliates" without public bidding;

and

after reading the audit report of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. indicating that it applied and received "pass-through" grants from Delaware County Department of Social Services, Town of Deposit and Village of Hancock, some of them for "community development", 



and 

 after seeing in Delaware Opportunities Inc. the self-characterization that it is a "community action AGENCY"


and

 after reading this advisory opinion of the New York State Committee for Open Government, citing to court opinions that "community development corporations", even though having an official status of non-profit corporations, are nevertheless deemed "agencies" within the meaning of Public Officers Law 86(3) and are subject to Freedom of Information Law - 

I decided to FOIL Delaware Opportunities, Inc. for certain records that may be of public interest.

Delaware Opportunities Inc. is, of course, trying to mislead those who come to read the "About Us" section on the website its website that it is not part of the local government (at least for purposes of FOIL) by saying this:


It is called "Delaware Opportunities", putting the name of the county into the name of the corporation, in violation of New York Business Corporations law, sending to people a message that it IS part of the government - because usually when this "corporation" is mentioned by the government (such as social services), social services do not say "Delaware Opportunities, Inc.", they say "Delaware Opportunities", clearly sending a message that it IS a part of the local government.

Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is funded by the government, it involves members of the local government in its Board of Directors, it claims to be a "community action AGENCY" on its tax returns, it performs governmental functions and services, it gets "pass-through" grants from the government for "community development" - and yet they say that they are are an "agency" that is "not a part of local government"?

 Well, as the 1993 advisory opinion of the NYS Committee for the Open Government stated, citing to court decisions, it IS part of the local government - at least for purposes of being subject to Freedom of Information Law.

 I will file FOIL requests with Delaware Opportunities, Inc. and will let the public know how they will respond.

Because I really want to know who are 279 people employed, as per the latest published tax return, with Delaware Opportunities Inc., and who are people employed with this "community action" and "community development" "agency" now.

And not only that.

Stay tuned.





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)