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.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

#TheThiefJudgeJanetDiFiore - of the State of New York - and her generous donation of other people's money to a powerful nonprofit, one day before her confirmation hearing in the NYS Senate

I wrote on this blog, multiple times, about the corrupt new Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore.

I publicly opposed, through written statements to the New York State Senate (NYS Senate did not allow testimony of witnesses against DiFiore who wanted to testify, including myself), the appointment of Janet DiFiore to this position and publicly asked the senate - a request which the senate ignored - to criminally investigate Janet DiFiore's activities.

Since then, DiFiore was appointed as a Chief Judge and, of course, retaliated against me in two court cases - denying me review of constitutional appeal "as of right" of my unconstitutional suspension for criticism of a judge in motions to recuse, twice, and denying me a constitutional appeal from another case, I wrote about that case here and here.

 DiFiore also readily showed her corruption and payback to those who were backing her up, as well as her total lack of integrity and the fact that she is using her high position for her own personal gain in a court case I wrote about which DiFiore apparently fixed fixing for a gaming-regulator, the industry that supported DiFiore's benefactor NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo.

  DiFiore chose to hear a case of a subdivision of New York government where DiFiore's own husband Dennis Glazer worked and decided it in favor of her husband's agency.  DiFiore not only did not disqualify herself from that case, but wrote the opinion in that case favoring her husband's agency.  Not to mention that her husband was appointed to that agency by Cuomo after DiFiore saved Cuomo's hide from a corruption investigation by corrupt acts in her position as the Chairwoman of the New York Public Ethics Commission.  Talking about letting foxes into chicken coups.

To add to the picture, recently some reports emerged about Janet DiFiore's "generous donation" of $940,000 to law internships from her re-election campaign for the position of the Westchester County District Attorney.

The media so far tended to glorify that donation instead of characterizing it for what it is - improper allocation of donations to the election campaign.

Yet, the whole story about the donation - made in January of 2016, but filed and reported only in July of 2016, in obvious violation of the law that required to include the fact of the donation into the January, and not July report, begs investigation of the "donation" story.

DiFiore was given donation towards her re-election to the Westchester County DA's office.

I preserved the donation reports for Janet DiFiore available from the NYS Board of Elections before posting this blog, in view of the government's usual swiftness to remove potentially incriminating public records from public view.

When donations are made for a certain purpose and by certain individuals, and when the purpose to be re-elected for the Westchester DA's office is no longer a valid purpose because of the appointment of Janet DiFiore as New York State Chief Judge, donations had to be returned to those who gave them.

Yet, Janet DiFiore, instead of returning donations back to the donors, gave the donors' money to a certain non-profit, the Fund for the City of New York.



First of all, I doubt that Janet DiFiore had a right to give the donations to anybody other than the donors.

Of course, the donors are now hostages of Janet DiFiore's high status and may be afraid to say that the Chief Judge of the State of New York stole their money - money given towards her election campaign for the seat of the Westchester County DA - when Janet DiFiore was appointed the Chief Judge of the State and no longer wanted to be re-elected as Westchester County DA.

Yet, the donation that was made on January 19, 2016, ONE DAY BEFORE Janet DiFiore's confirmation hearing in New York State Senate.


Not too corrupt, is it?

While I lack information about the current officers and employees of the Fund for the City of New York, the latest published IRS report shows the following names (for 2013), and I doubt that those names changed, since people are usually carried out of these "funds" feet first:





I encourage my readers, as I will do myself, to research backgrounds of these people and their connections to:

(1) the NYS Senate;
(2) the NYS Senate's Judiciary Committee and its members;
(3) cases so far decided by Janet Difiore and her court.

I already wrote about one case that DiFiore apparently fixed - for an organization which is part of New York government where DiFiore's husband plays a major role.

With DiFiore's prior record of apparent corruption - which authorities apparently do not want to touch - DiFiore feels she can continue with her corrupt ways for an eternity.

I will publish results of my research into this interesting donation - as well as into whether there are connections between donations to DiFiore - made at any time to any of her election campaigns - and DiFiore's decisions as a judge or as a District Attorney.

That research requires a lot of work and time, and I request my reader's patience, but I will complete it and I will publish the results.

I can tell you right now that Janet DiFiore received donations towards her re-election as Westchester County DA every single year between 2006 and 2016, which seems extraordinary to me since the actional elections to that position happen only once in every 4 years.

Since donations went non-stop, it is interesting to see the backgrounds of those who financed DA DiFiore for her future re-election as Westchester County DA while she was already Westchester County DA.

I will publish my findings.


Maybe, it is time for the FBI to look at DiFiore's "generous donation", too - as well as at DiFiore's prior and recent trail of apparent corrupt conduct?

Since her campaign fund does not have money any more, she will now have to find her own money, or more generous donors, to get her out of the mess she created and continues to create by her apparent dishonesty and greed.

Stay tuned.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)