"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.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Cuomo announces that New York "Stands with Israel" while New York Attorney General defends violent Anti-Semitic actions of judge Kevin Dowd in a civil rights lawsuit

New York governor Andrew Cuomo, with much fanfare, announced today his executive order divesting public funds from all campaigns that support Boycotts, Divestments or Sanctions against the State of Israel.

The press-conference about this Executive Order, held on a Sunday, was transmitted on Twitter and Facebook, among other social media sources.

First of all, I do not believe that the Executive Order of Governor Cuomo is legal - because it refers to national foreign policy, to the State of Israel being an "invaluable ally", and expressing a standpoint on a sensitive international policy issue.

Governor Cuomo, as a state Governor, has no right to make any decisions impacting foreign policy of the United States.

Moreover, if, as it was mentioned at the press-conference introducing this executive order, the order was meant to fight anti-semitism, Governor Cuomo should then start practicing what he preaches - and see that New York Attorney General's Office and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct do not receive public funds, since both of these entities openly support anti-semitism:

1) New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct - by refusing to prosecute anti-semitic conduct of Chenango County Supreme Court judge Kevin Dowd; and

2) New York State Attorney General - by representing Judge Dowd against a now-pro se appellant Moshe Schtrauch and claiming on behalf of Judge Dowd that Judge Dowd's violent unlawful anti-semitic behavior regarding Moshe Shtrauch was justified as "preventing disruptions of court proceedings" (Judge Dowd ordered a known anti-Semitic security officer, a Nazi sympathizer, who was armed, to forcibly eject Moshe Shtrauch, the citizen of the State of Israel, out of the Chenango County courthouse AFTER Judge Dowd recused from Moshe Shtrauch's divorce case - because Moshe Shtrauch had the audacity of bringing a motion to recuse Judge Dowd, which Judge Dowd granted).

The transcript of the conference after which Judge Dowd recused and ordered ejection of Moshe Shtrauch does not show any disrespectful statements by Moshe Shtrauch or any other signs of claimed "disruption" of the court proceedings, and no proof of such disruption was ever provided to the court since the case was dismissed before discovery on the grounds of "absolute judicial immunity" for malicious and corrupt acts.

And those malicious and corrupt acts include Anti-Semitic acts on the bench by New York judges.


In view of today's Executive Order - has Judge Dowd just been stripped off services of the New York State Attorney General?

After all, the Executive Order prohibited the use of taxpayer money to support anti-semitism.


So, Judge Dowd should not be represented by New York State Attorney General any more in opposition of Moshe Shtrauch's pro se appeal in his civil rights case against Judge Dowd.


Or, is it just lip service by Cuomo to the "largest Jewish population out of the State of Israel" (in New York) while Cuomo is the target of a criminal investigation by the feds?

A cry for help to the wealthy Jewish community to apply some pressure upon U.S. Assistant Attorney Preet Bharara?

The investigation against Cuomo has gotten that bad?

What remains is - while New York Attorney General continues to assert violent Anti-Semitism of a judge against a citizen of the State of Israel (or anybody else), even after he recused from a case, as subject to "absolute judicial immunity" - the executive order is nothing other than hypocrisy, a distinguishing feature of Cuomo.

No comments:

Post a Comment