"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, November 1, 2016

When honest prosecutors are fired for doing their jobs and nobody dares to prosecute prosecutors who commit crimes

Meet Jeffrey Domachowski, a New York attorney with 21 years of experience, according to his registration information.

The registration information of attorney Domachowski is not current though - attorney Domachowski is no longer employed at the Cayuga County District Attorney's office.

According to Attorney Domachowski's Notice of Claim filed against the Cayuga County, Cayuga County District Attorney Jon A. Budelmann

fired Jeffrey Domachowski in July of 2016 for being faithful to his duty as an attorney and an honest prosecutor - for turning over to criminal defense attorneys the so-called "Brady material", in violation of what Jeffrey Domachowski claims is Jon Budelmann's order (and, obviously, policy) of non-disclosure.

Now, while non-disclosure of Brady material is a routine occurrence - and thus policy - of prosecutors in New York, that same non-disclosure led to termination and disbarment of North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong.

There is no question that Jon Budelmann, an attorney with 23 years of experience

knew about his Brady obligations to disclose any evidence that tends to either exonerate the defendant, or diminish his guilt.

In cases where Budelmann, according to his former subordinate, former Assistant District Attorney Domachowski, ordered his subordinates not to disclose such evidence, at least one of the criminal defendants could have been convicted for 23 more years than his case warranted.

That is fraud upon the court and the party, a crime under Judiciary Law 487, and a disbarring offense - yet, DA Jon Budelmann remains very much in office, and with "no record of public discipline" - apparently, when a prosecutor repeatedly commits crimes, urges his personnel to commit crimes and fires his personnel for refusing to commit crimes - that is not a serious enough disciplinary violation for the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee to pursue.

DA Budelmann may or may not be reachable with a civil rights lawsuit by criminal defendants for failing to disclose the Brady material - because such nondisclosure would necessarily involve fabrication of higher-than-warranted charges.  Yet, the court will look very closely whether such fabrication is attributed to the investigative stage of DA Budelmann's job or to the prosecutorial side - and it is very likely that DA Budelmann will escape such a lawsuit with absolute prosecutorial immunity.

He cannot invoke prosecutorial immunity though in a retaliation lawsuit of an employee suing for retaliation.

DA Budelmann's "wisdoms" posted on his Facebook page are, of course, completely opposite to the policies he reportedly practices in his office.

Here are some of them.

First of all, Budelmann appears to be completely undeterred by the serious allegations of misconduct, continuing to post (see October 24 and October 19 of 2016 postings) his happy pictures on Facebook, with comments of thanks for "striving to make our community drug free".

Does Budelmann do that - and then some.

DA Budelmann also assigns much value to integrity - integrity for him is allegedly "doing the right thing even when no one is watching".  

I wonder how far that claim will go with the jury against Jeffrey Domachowski's testimony.

DA Budelmann also assigns great value to being kind.  He was very kind to criminal defendants whose charges he trumped up by, as Domachowski said, illegally withholding Brady material that could put those defendants in prison for years and DECADES longer than the cases warranted.

Budelmann was very kind, indeed, in treating Domachowski, too, by firing him for doing his job - against illegal orders of his Chief.

Jon Budelmann also points out to us that we must always strive to do our best.

If hiding Brady material in 15 criminal cases and firing an attorney for opposing his criminal activity is Budelmann's best, then he is a good candidate for impeachment - in addition to criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

DA Budelmann also believes in doing "as much good as you can, as long as you can, any way you can, wherever you can, for anyone you can, until you no longer can".

In this case, Budelmann's "do-goodness" got so far that the best thing to do with Budelmann is to make sure that he "no longer can" do good in his understanding.  

Budelmann likes to pose with the local Republican Committee and with local politicians.

 These pictures provide an idea of why a person with such a criminal policy which was reported to defense attorneys long time ago, still remains in public office - nondisclosure of Brady material, later disclosure, is based on documentary evidence, making investigation quite simple, if anybody wants to honestly do it.

And, Jon Budelmann made several postings on his Facebook page that he stole from the mouth of his own future sentencing judge (hopefully):

For a withholder of Brady material, pandering about subverters of the U.S. Constitution is rich, isn't it?

I will continue to cover this story, as well as the peculiar blindness of criminal and disciplinary authorities as to Jon Budelmann's transgressions - despite the fact that a Notice of Claim was filed which is required by law to be sworn, and an affidavit from a witness with personal knowledge is all that is needed to start a criminal proceeding.

The problem is - who will prosecute the prosecutor.

And when a prosecutor who knowingly and arrogantly breaks the law, and remains unreachable by attorney discipline or by criminal laws, such a setup does not inspire respect to the criminal justice system - or to prosecutors.

I also wonder whether attorney Jeffrey Domachowski has filed a criminal complaint with the Cayuga County Sheriff and the Auburn, NY local police to commence criminal proceedings against Budelmann, or he is afraid to lose not only his job, but also his license if he does that.

Budelmann has not only an adorable pug, 

but also, apparently, influential friends in the local government.

Not that it should mean a fig in a country governed by the rule of law.


No comments:

Post a Comment