"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, August 7, 2017

Fair trial in #ChenangoCountyNewYork in the death of #JacelynDOConnor? With a jury pool this illiterate in the law and this contaminated and inflamed by publicity - dream on.

On July 30, 2017, in the town of Norwich, Chenango County, New York, it was reported that an 11-year-old girl Jacelyn D. O'Connor, was first reported as having a cardiac arrest, then charges of rape and murder were filed at a town court level (before the indictment) against first one man, James R. Brower, then a second defendant, Brower's alleged gay partner Tobias Tobias Rundstrom-Wooding, was also charged for the same crime.

The police and the prosecution, those people who should have been neutral and who should have prosecuted the law while preserving the defendants' right to a fair trial, instead bent over backwards to contaminate the jury pool by inflaming details they fed to the media.

The judge, who, under the circumstances, was supposed to impose a gag order to protect the jury pool from contamination and preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, imposed no gag order.

The judge at arraignment in Norwich Town Court was, for some inexplicable reason, Chenango County Court judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., the infamous judge who in 2014, yelled during the court proceedings that making a constitutional argument is the equivalent of lying.  He knows a lot of constitutional law, obviously, to preside over a criminal proceeding of this magnitude.

Since no gag order was imposed, the police and prosecution inflamed the public through leaking juicy bits of information to the press.

Of course, that is police and prosecutorial misconduct, but in New York courts, police and prosecution never get accountable for such misconduct and contamination of the jury pool.

And the public did get inflamed.

It did not matter that every statement in the accusation, from the fact that the girl did not die of natural causes (cardiac arrest), but was smothered "during rape", as the police and prosecution assert - all of that must be proven beyond the reasonable doubt to the jury picked from the cross-section of population of County of Chenango, State of New York.

After an indictment by a grand jury.

At this time, there was no indictment.

But, both defendants are already guilty by Facebook - which is exactly what the prosecution is seeking in this case.

Here is what people think of these two men who are presumed innocent under the law of the State of New York - based on information about the case fed to the press by the police and prosecution.

I put my two cents into comments, asking the volunteer torturers and killers a simple question - yet, a question that caused quite a bit of agitation among the readers of press reports about these criminal proceedings.  Readers who are potential jurors in this case.

Here is this revolutionary question.

And here is the lengthy discussion where people explain to me why they consider that stating the law of the state of New York and constitutional of the United States is sick, moronic, shameful, you name it.

And why, because I posed that question, I should not be blessed with children, and should not be called a mother, a sister, or a woman.

Here come my ardent critics - let's remember, for what they are criticizing me, for asking, why are we discussing these men as if they were already found guilty by the jury, what about their presumption of innocence, which is the law in the State of New York?

Let's see the march of potential jurors in this case.

Critic # 1.  Brooke Cogshall admonished me for asserting the concept of presumption of innocence, because an innocent child died.  I understand that.  Yet, presumption of innocence applies notwithstanding the identity of the alleged victim of a crime.

Critic # 2, Karen Simpson Johns teaches me that the girl was killed because of what was said in an article Karen Simpson Johns is not sure she read.

Imagine Karen Simpson Johns on the jury deciding your fate.

Critic # 3 Anna Hopkins resorted to blocks and asks me how many 11-year-olds die of natural causes each year.  I am not aware of any such statistics, and my knowledge of such statistics is nor relevant. Children do die of natural causes, and the girl was initially reported to have been in cardiac arrest. That the death is not of natural causes, remains to be proven by the prosecution - which Anna Hopkins appears to have a problem with, considering a news report as all the proof she needs to call people names for simply stating the law of her own state and of the United States, presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.

Again, God help anybody who has Anna Hopkins on the jury.  She jumps to assumption, flies into passion against people who dare to know more than she does, and makes decisions based on her flighty grudges.

Critic # 4, Nikki Lynne, immediately calls me a moron for stating the law of presumption of innocence, and advises me that "they", whoever "they" are, "obviously have enough evidence to charge them".

"They", "them", the variety of Nikki Lynne's vocabulary in, I presume, her native language, stuns.  Yet, what I invoked is a simple concept of presumption of innocence that covers criminal defendants despite charges and because of charges, until and unless they are proven guilty by the jury of their peers, and the two criminal defendants in question were not indicted yet, so they cannot be tried yet, but Nikki Lynne already calls people "morons" simply because they state the law of her own state.

Beware of Nikki Lynne on the jury pool.

Critic # 5, Trisha Ann, goes personal and, because I cited the law of her own state, prays to a Deity to deny me children and shames me.

 Then, Critic #5 refuses to waste any more time on me, save for a long tirade, accusing me of threatening her with publicity with this "silly little blog".  Judging by the length of the tirade, Trisha Ann and the verbal explosion aimed at me, was upset with the prospect of publicity.

Imagine Trisha Ann on the jury if you or your loved one is charged with a crime.  She will convict you simply because sitting on the jury takes longer than ranting on Facebook, and because she does not care about the laws of her own state that she is presumed to know.

Next comes Critic # 6, Denning Marie Tina,  who calls me, once again (let's keep the cause of this agitation in perspective), for pointing out that in New York State presumption of innocence until and unless a jury of the defendant's peers pronounced the defendant guilty beyond the reasonable doubt.  Pointing out the law of her own state was called by Denning Marie Tina "preaching", so Denning Marie Tina obviously is not happy about that law, but obviously does nothing to change that law.

The next critic, Critic #7, Courtney Lynne Washburn, takes personal accusations for stating the law of her own State of New York even further and asserts that, because I reminded of that law, I am "not a mother, aunt, sister" or "a woman".  

Imagine Denning Marie Tina and/or Courtney Lynne Washburn on the jury.  They will pay lip service to the judge telling them about presumption of innocence and will convict simply because they think presumption of innocence is the wrong concept.

And, last but not least, Critic #8, Raelynn Ashby who took considerable time to educate me in the criminal law of the State of New York, considering my notions of the law foolish and unenlightened.

Is this discussion funny, dear reader?

A little girl is dead.

Two men is on trial for her death, and, if justice is to be served, and if the society is to be assured of integrity of court proceedings, at the very least, the law at least of presumption of innocence should not be subverted.

Yet, this commentator considered our discussion with Raelynn Ashby who was trying to accuse me of believing what the law presumes about this men (while I never said I believed they are innocent, only that the law presumes them to be innocent) - very funny.

Entertainment with popcorn.

To which my critic # 5 Trisha Ann laughingly agreed.

If you are charged with a crime, and when people are ready to torture and kill you based on accusation alone, and when people are viciously attacking those who, like me, had the audacity to cite the rule of law to the lynching crowd, you tell me - is it funny that the crowd does not give what is shown below

the rule of law?

I am sure that people who were exonerated from death row, do not consider the concept of presumption of innocence funny, nor did those who were not exonerated and spent years in prison, or died because somebody on that jury considered that concept unnecessary and those who invoke that concept morons who should be ashamed of themselves.

The two critics, Critic # 8 and Critic # 5, just came back laughingly (remember the deceased girl?) exchanging such comments:

Defense attorneys in the area, beware of Critic # 8 Raelynn Ashby as a jury candidate.  She thinks that:

  • an indictment is evidence, and
  • an arrest would not have happened without good evidence; and
  • that invocation of presumption of innocence is wrong.
And - just in - beware of Critic # 9, Jessica Morris-Klossner, who outdid all of the previous critics by claiming that I am "obviously a pedophile protecting fellow pedophiles hiding behind a fake profile" - once again, all for reminding people of what the judge usually reminds potential jurors, of the concept of presumption of innocence.

Imagine Jessica Morris-Klossner as your juror.

I will continue to cover this story, and developments in that story, with as full a list as possible of people who are making comments on the media incompatible with their role as potential jurors in this case, with their respective backgrounds.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment