A future civil rights litigant against the Delaware County filed a Notice of Claim against the county to preserve her state-lawsuit rights - a lawsuit for the common law causes of action for battery, assault, unlawful imprisonment etc. (a civil rights action does not require a Notice of Claim or preliminary depositions).
She was callled to the Municipal Law 50-h deposition, handled by the Frank Miller Law Firm associate.
She arrived pro se, without counsel.
She arrived with a newborn in tow and her mother as a witness.
It was hot outside.
It was cool inside the building, with air conditioning funded by us, Delaware County taxpayers.
The County's litigation attorney at the 50-h deposition are also funded by us, Delaware County taxpayers.
A 50-h deposition, a deposition that is preliminary to a public court proceeding, is also a public proceeding.
At 50-h depositions, Delaware County allows a lot of its own personnel to be present who are not directly involved in litigation, but come there to be present as witnesses and support group.
That is what the pro se litigant did - brought her mother as a support group.
The associate abused the situation that the litigant was pro se and without an attorney who could protect her rights and rudely asked the mother of the litigant to leave the deposition because it is a private proceeding.
Then, the associate of Frank Miller's Law firm proceeded to ask her questions - for 5 hours.
Several questions, according to the litigant, was - when exactly did I represent her, and was it after suspension of my law license (of course, the associate knew it wasn't because representation was concerning court proceedings in which Delaware County was participating and thus had access, and knew my representation ended a year before my suspension).
I thought it would be interesting for Delaware County taxpayers to know that Delaware County is spending money on the "valuable time" of their litigation attorneys to ask irrelevant questions, simply to follow the grudges of Delaware County officials.
Even if they know the answer to the question - in the negative.
Eve though the question was irrelevant.
At least it shows how deep the grudge is and how connected actions of the Delaware County against my friends are to me.
The series of questions about me was practically an admission that Delaware County illegally persecutes my friends.
I will publish the transcript of the deposition when it becomes available.
Stay tuned.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment