"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, March 27, 2018

Like a good old wine

This lawsuit (dismissed before it was served) is a rather amusing reading 4 years after it was dismissed.

Here is the text of the lawsuit.

It is about verification of various records pertaining to corruption in the judicial and attorney regulation (also judicial) system in New York courts.

Of course, the lawsuit was blocked.

In this case, I sued David Peebles (judge).

The case was dismissed - before defendant even appeared in it - by NDNY court (Chief Judge) in 2014.

My state law license was suspended in 2015 by state court 

My federal law license was ALLEGEDLY suspended in 2015 - because there is no public docket of the case, yet, I am listed as suspended, and Judge Norman Mordue threw me out of a case and denied me attorney fees in 2016 for 3.5 years of successful litigation against CPS because I am allegedly suspended.  Even though secret court dockets are unconstitutional and hiding court docket is considered grave misconduct and scandalous behavior for courts - but what legality means, after all, for those who call the shots?

Correct.  Nothing.

For Judge Peebles - who
presided over the case where he was a Defendant, "authored" a motion to recuse without mentioning that he was a defendant in the case, and then, in 2016, together with his colleague Judge Norman Mordue, changed a statute, 42 U.S.C. 1988, and stripped indigent civil rights plaintiff of any hope of ever obtaining a representation of a civil rights attorney - in order to retaliate against me and to deny me 3.5 years' worth of attorney fees in a successful litigation against CPS on behalf of three clients.

For Monica Duffy - sued in this case for concealing records, filed another record after the lawsuit was filed, and is concealing it until now.

For Judge Mae D'Agostino - was sued for participation in a secret organization, I sought by the lawsuit to verify her participation.

The lawsuit was dismissed.

In 2016, through a FOIL request, I verified her participation in yet another secret-membership organization, New York State-Federal Judicial Council.

To this day, the 2nd Circuit is denying me information as to other judges in that Council, and access to the records of their meetings.  Since Mae D'Agostino (and other judges sued in this lawsuit) were deciding my lawsuits against judges, it was very relevant information that she did not disclose, that she may have been a member of a committee where, together with defendants appearing in front of her in a civil action, she was deciding that same civil action (fixing a court case).

And, in 2018, an attorney from California, Linda Shao, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, filed a motion to recuse the entire U.S. Supreme Court (with the exception of its newest addition, Judge Neil Gorsuch), and went public and gave a videotaped interview to a journalist about  disqualifying conflicts of interest of SCOTUS judges based on their participation in American Inns of Court and on sponsorship by AIC of their law clerks for annual all-expenses-paid month-long trips to England, while members of AIC appeared with cases in front of SCOTUS.

A good financial incentive for judges (law clerks who routinely write SCOTUS decisions instead of judges) to please attorneys appearing in front of SCOTUS, AIC members.

Disclosure of involvement of judges with American Inns of Court is what this "old wine" lawsuit was about.

And, of course, it was dismissed as "frivolous" - thrown out as a very, very, very dangerous thing.

Think about it - she wanted information that could show the true scope of judicial corruption in the country!

Now, access to such evidence can never be safe for a commoner.

And the commoner was denied access, and then punished.

Etc. etc. etc.

This "old wine lawsuit" makes for a very interesting reading 4 years down the road.

History is created before your own eyes.

It is like reading a manuscript.

It is like a good wine.

I guess, it will make for even more interesting reading some more years down the road.

Judges like writing memoirs and boasting after they retire - or when they give various interviews, or attorneys like to boast at times in various public settings.

Internet search is a wonderful invention to search for such records.

This lawsuit, like that old good wine, is waiting for its reinstatement based on new evidence.

And, this commoner has a lot of patience.

Funny though, how scared judges are that somebody, anybody, will access just LISTS.

Membership lists.

Of an organization that claims it exists to "promote excellency in the legal profession".

No comments:

Post a Comment