"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.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

The public's right to know about the health of federal judges before they drop into a vegetative state. The case of Judge Patricia Minaldi and her boy-toy Justin Gray

Recently, I wrote about a federal judge, the "wet-brained" judge Patricia Minaldi who, after a DWI conviction, was:

  • allowed to proceed with cases;
  • continued to drink herself to delirium and incompetence;
  • was sued by her own magistrate judge for being mentally incompetent after the magistrate who "coincidentally" had the power of attorney to handle Judge Minaldi's affairs (why would that be necessary?) reportedly figured out that Judge Minaldi's 30-year-junior live-in boy-toy Justin Gray 

Only then, Judge Minaldi was:
  • taken off cases; and
  • swiftly put into a rehab.
But, when details of the lawsuit for mental incompetence filed against her by her own magistrate became known, Judge Minaldi was yanked out of rehab by her superiors and apparently made to publicly claim that she did not go to the rehab voluntarily, but that it is her boy toy who has cruelly "dumped" her at he rehab.

First, if Judge Minaldi was ordered by the court system to go into the rehab, but it took a boy toy to "dump" her there, the boy toy deserves a medal, doesn't he?

That was a good thing, not a bad thing, that somebody actually made Judge Minaldi comply with the order of her superiors to go into the rehab.

Second, if Judge Minaldi did not obey the order to go into the rehab, but was involuntarily "dumped" there, she is not at all so competent to proceed on the bench.

Third, if you are a competent person and a federal judge, how can anybody drive you as a sack of potatoes to a location and "dump" you there?

If Judge Minaldi could be handled as an inanimate object, how can it be that her condition did not affect court cases where she - allegedly - presided - while having her magistrate "handle" her affairs through a power of attorney?

Did that magistrate also sign Judge Minaldi's orders, with the same power of attorney?

Yet, the lawsuit by the magistrate against the judge in state court was sealed, the boy toy was criminally charged, and Judge Minaldi quickly came out of the rehab and made a statement that her "wet-brained" condition did not affect cases.

And, of course, attorneys of record in Judge Minaldi's cases will, likely, be seezed by the fear of having their licenses revoked if they peep anything against all of this garbage happening in a publicly financed court system.

Whenever judges are involved, apparently, crimes are hush-hushed, disciplinary violations are denied or downplayed, and especially judicial disability is downplayed.

I already wrote about the example of New York's former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler who is still praised, now, as a "luminary", for lying to the federal court about his mental health condition, and thus "saving" the New York court system from a flood of motions to vacate - the same flood that should be happening now in Judge Minaldi's court.

In Judge Minaldi's case, even when she committed a crime of drunk driving, the police investigation was extremely evasive.

She was reportedly not given a sobriety test, not issued an open alcohol container citation, and was not charged with a felony.

Now, she is dragged by the court system out of rehab, which was obviously badly needed for her, in order to prop her up to the point of her being able to see that she is good to go and to deny her obvious and already publicized alcohol psychosis diagnosis.

Yet, trying to conceal a medical condition and trying to continue to function when a person, especially a federal judge, cannot be functioning, is not doing Judge Minaldi any good healthwise.

And, it is obviously not doing the public any good.

Medical and mental health records and medications of public officials in whose hands are life-changing decisions of a lot of people, should be public.

We have a right to know about the health of a federal judge the same way as we have a right to know about the health of this country's President.

We have a right to know whether our judges are competent and coherent before they deteriorate to the point when they:

  • start stalking people like former NY Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, dressed as a Texan private eye,
  • get wandering around in cars on highways and then get lost in the woods like federal judge in Pennsylvania Edwin Kosyk;
  • get dumped as a sack of potatoes at a rehab, and fleeced of her money, by live-in 3-decades-younger boy-toys.
The U.S. Congress should do its job and issue federal legislation:

1) making medical and mental records, as well as medication records of the federal judiciary public records, easily obtainable by the public;

2) impose term limits on federal judiciary;

3) make all federal judges undergo mandatory annual health checkups, publishing the results.

If that happens, I wonder how many more judges will run off the bench claiming that they now urgently need to spend time with family or write memoirs.

No comments:

Post a Comment