"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.

Monday, February 6, 2017

A new FOIL request was filed with Delaware County, New York, regarding experimental juvenile sex offender treatment of children in foster care authorized by the County

In a videotaped statement to voters (available here) the just-resigned Delaware County Attorney (NY) Porter Kirkwood made statements about the experimental treatment by Delaware County of "juvenile sex offenders" in its custody/foster care.

Kirkwood told the voters in the fall of 2015 in his fail run for a judicial seat that he invited the allegedly best authority in New York, a Dr. Hamill, to treat "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care in Delaware County, that Dr. Hamill came to Delaware County, designed an experimental program of treatment of "juvenile sex offenders" and actually subjected children kept in foster care in Delaware County to experimental sex offender treatment, which was allegedly a "boon" to Delaware County taxpayers, first, because children remained, for treatment purposes, in Delaware County and were not sent someplace else, and second, because, as compared to a $250,000 price tag per child per year to send children away to an outside facility, Delaware County paid a meager $56,000 per child per year for Dr. Hamill's program.

I already verified, through the Delaware County's answer to my FOIL request, that the County did not ask for any permissions from state authorities to subject children in foster care to the sex offender treatment - which is always "experimental", as such treatment has never been scientifically validated or standardized, and has been pronounced "extraordinarily invasive", inappropriate and inapplicable for rehabilitation of even adult sex offenders by the 2nd Circuit in 2013.

After I published the FOIL response by Delaware County, with my commentary, somebody close to Delaware County tried to threaten me with a defamation lawsuit, accusing me of "spreading dangerous misinformation", without any specifics though, as to what was the "misinformation" part, and of not understanding who is the decision-maker in foster care.

Well, who is the decision-maker in foster care is a no-brainer, it is the Delaware County in whose custody children in foster care are placed by the Family court (and, at the time Kirkwood was discussing, the judge placing children into the care of Delaware County, and Kirkwood as the legal adviser of Delaware County, was Carl Becker, Kirkwood and Delaware County Commission for Social Services William Moon's personal friend, who represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for 27 years before coming, likely illegally, to the bench, since there is no record Becker was a legally elected judge in 2002).

And, the same Porter Kirkwood and the same Delaware County are also PROSECUTING juvenile sex offenders, making "decision-making in foster care", subjecting children to "sex offender treatment", mired in irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

It is interesting that, when reports started to circulate about an FBI investigation of Commissioner Moon and his interesting activities in the Delaware County Department of Social Services, Porter Kirkwood quickly resigned.

Today, I filed a FOIL/FOIA (state and federal) access to records request to Delaware County asking for more information about the juvenile sex offender "treatment" program run by Kirkwood.

I am also filing access to records requests with other agencies that may have records about such programs - I will not say with which agencies I am filing records requests until I get answers - just to verify how much Delaware County is lying in response to FOIL/FOIA requests.

Here is the FOIL request.  In an additional FOIL/FOIA request I asked for the age range of children subjected to such "treatment".

In separate articles I am currently preparing, I will describe in specific detail what such "treatment" programs entail - what kind of sexual abuse of children Kirkwood authorized at taxpayers' expense.

It is the spread of TRUTHFUL information that Delaware County is fearing as "dangerous".

But it will be published.

Because taxpayers of Delaware County must know what kind of atrocities to children in foster care their money was used to buy - to be able to demand to hold perpetrators accountable.

No comments:

Post a Comment