"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, May 1, 2017

Happy Walpurgis - oops - Law Day! Witch - oops - Judge Peters has something to say to you...

Yesterday was Walpurgis night, the night when witches meet.

Today, witches came out into the open and promised to protect your rights.  

For example, Karen Peters, the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department, sued multiple times for civil rights violations - and always claiming her "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts" against any liability, Karen Peters who sat forever on the State Commission for Judicial Conduct protecting judges from discipline, and at the same time on the disciplinary court taking away attorney's licenses for criticism of such judges, claimed support of the 14th Amendment and especially its due process clause.

I will re-post her article in larger font, piece by piece, so that those who sued Peters for misconduct would see the witch's lies pouring, like frogs, out of her mouth.

Who can celebrate what does not exist?

Only witches like Peters do, because that's her job to make sure that the rule of law is substituted by the rule of whim of Peters and her politically connected friends.  By the way - Peters will soon turn, if she did not turn yet, 70, let's see which law firm takes her under their wing, to grease the "wheels of justice" and the "rule of law".

Here is another frog from Peter's mouth:

That's a big ugly, bold, green frog.  Because, first, how can one, with clear conscience, reinforce "public faith" in what does not exist?

On the other hand, Peters is right - only public FAITH, like in "blind faith", like in "religious faith" can be maintained in the "rule of law" (and reinforced, I guess - which is what Peters is doing by taking law licenses of critics of judicial misconduct) in the absence that rule of law.

After all, Peters is not just a witch, she is an educated witch, and she knows what fideism means - only faith is independent of reason, you believe something because it cannot be proven right or wrong, but because your "leaders" (parents, community 'leaders', church leaders) tell you that this is what you absolutely MUST believe - and, importantly, never question.

So, witch Peters confirmed that, by heading the court that disciplines lawyers for criticism of judicial misconduct, and by denial of reinstatement motions no matter how the law changes after the initial discipline, she is doing "her part to reinforce public FAITH in the rule of law".

So, faith it is.  Like immaculate conception.  You will not come to a court of law claiming that a child was born through an immaculate conception, will you?  Similarly, when a judge who is regularly sued for civil rights violations, including MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts in office, suddenly claims that she embraces and toils to "reinforce public faith in the rule of law", that's a large big frog jumping out of that judge's mouth - and it is not a stand-up comedy act, because this judge is hurting real people with her actions.

Here is the list of lawsuits against Karen Peters in federal courts:

Peters even has a civil rights cases where she sues - me - as a plaintiff.  Of course, that IS a stand-up comedy act, because it was my civil rights lawsuit against Peters that the incompetent NDNY staff reversed so that Peters would sound as a plaintiff, and I - as a defendant - see Case No. 3:2013-cv-00180 highlighted in the list above.  Of course, I am not a "state actor" (Peters is), so Peters could not possibly have sued me in a civil rights action (code 440 next to the Case No. is a civil rights case) - but who cares for the "rule of law".

Peters also let out of her witch's mouth yet another frog:

Who serves whom is a big question.

For example, Karen Peters did not include into her frog-dropping article, among descriptions of how she honors, cherishes and reinforces "the rule of law", that, while she was sued in federal court since 2004, a judge of her court (Thomas Mercure), who is an all-around expert in judicial ethics, was part of the so-called "State-Federal Judicial Council" "as one of five state judges meeting regularly with five federal judges to facilitate the disposition of cases in both court systems".

So, while she was sued in a federal court, her colleague was having backroom meeting with judges of the same court to fix cases where she appeared as a defendant. 

Nor did Peters disclose that her colleague on that "Council" was "advised" by a law partner of a member of attorney disciplinary committee that Peters appointed - of John R. Casey - and that that firm also had in their pocket, and was wining and dining Judge Lawrence Kahn, and magistrate David Peebles, through yet another secret membership organization, the American Inns of Court.

So, let me count:

  1. Judge Peters' colleague Thomas Mercure was fixing federal lawsuits against her through a secret Council, composition of which I will have to sue both court system to disclose - they both are stalling my Freedom of Information requests;
  2. Thomas Mercure was "advised" in that Council by Hiscock & Barclays partner, an attorney who was appearing before both courts she was "advising";
  3. Judge Peters appointed another partner from  Hiscock & Barlays, John R. Casey, to the attorney disciplinary committee, so that he would eliminate critics of the judiciary - and he did, he started disciplinary proceedings against both my husband and myself (by the way, we both ran a free legal clinic in an under-served rural area of upstate New York, without any fanfare on Law Day, like other local lawyers did - advertising that they will provide a whole of 15 minutes of free consultations on that Law Day as a "service to the public".  We, and that especially refers to my husband, were on-call with free consultations around the clock for many years, my husband gave consultations for free for 37 years of his legal career);
  4.  Hiscock & Barclay partners were also appointed to the disciplinary committee of the court where they advised (through State-Federal Judicial Council) and wined and dined (through American Inns of Court) U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn and U.S. Magistrate David Peebles  -
all the while advertising their connections with judges and all the while appearing in their courts nevertheless, despite glaring conflicts of interest.

Judge Peters allowed her colleague on the Commission for Judicial Misconduct to appear in front of her court, and ruled in his favor at all times - see how her court dismissed a prima facie tort case against her colleague on the Commission Stephen Coffey.

It was then Judge Peters' appointee to the disciplinary committee John R. Casey out of Hiscock & Barclay (look up all other connections of Hiscock & Barclay to judge Peters court and to the federal court where Judge Mercure was fixing court cases for Judge Peters and their court above, and in this blog, and in this one).

So, Peters had connections everywhere that counted:

  • her own law license was protected because she appointed to attorney disciplinary committee regulating her own law license a law firm that appeared in front of her and "advised" her court how to fix lawsuits against it through the State-Federal Judicial Council, as well as wined-and-dined federal judges;
  • she was protected from any liability, because, again, federal judges, well wined and dined by her "advisors", would not have let her down;
  • she was on the Commission for Judicial Conduct;
  • one of the judges of her court fed that Commission with "judicial ethics" opinions, as an expert - without disclosing that he is also an "expert" in case-fixing, that he confessed to only when he got off the bench, as part of his attorney advertising; and
  • her court allowed to appear that colleague from the Commission in front of the court, ruled in favor of that colleague and eliminated attorneys who dared to sue him.

Judge Peters is right - only blind FAITH would require to believe in the rule of law under such circumstances.

I don't know how Peters can promote what she is doing "across our nation", she is not in the U.S. Supreme Court yet, but she sure did built a nice little stable in "her courts", there is no doubt about that.

So - happy Law Day, folks.

No comments:

Post a Comment