THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Sunday, October 21, 2018

Why voters should not believe judicial candidates "pre-screened" and approved by attorney associations. The case of #GinoGiorgini, Part II. The composition of the "firing squad".

Voting, including voting for judicial candidates, is just about 2 weeks away, and voters need to make up their minds who to vote for.

In New York, voting for a candidate for the seat of a Supreme Court Justice is giving somebody the power to take away your property, split your family, take away your kids and/or put you or your loved one in jail for a very long time - and that power you give to that person for 14 years, if it is a County/Surrogate's/Family Court seat, then you give that same power for 10 years.

People who vote for just about anybody on the ballot thinking that nothing will happen to them because they are never going to be facing a court proceedings, should think again.  That can happen out of the blue, and then, again, your liberty, family integrity, children, good name, job, right to get a treatment or not to be forced into mental health evaluations or treatments - will be in the hands of the person you are voting for.

Usually, judicial candidates are "pre-screened" by "Independent committees" - consisting of mostly of attorneys and being part of appellate courts, or by "bar associations", organizations of attorneys.

Such "pre-screening" must create in the public eye the perception that the particular candidate approved by attorneys is qualified, competent and honest.

That, in reality, may be, and most likely, is, diametrically opposite from the truth.

Attorneys in this country, and in the State of New York, are regulated by judges, in a very direct way.  Judge give or revoke attorneys' licenses to work as attorneys ("practice law"), and the biggest misstep that an attorney may commit in this country - which usually leads to losing his license and livelihood - is to criticize a judge or judicial candidate, no matter whether it is fair or not.

That means that attorneys approving a judicial candidate as eligible most likely LIE to the voters in order to 1. preserve their own licenses and livelihoods, and 2.

Those few attorneys who do not succumb to the rule of fear by judges and continue to do their jobs and criticize judges, are severely and inevitably punished by monetary sanctions and/or by their law licenses being taken away.

On this blog, I collect the names of such courageous attorneys.

In 2018, the election year, New York has increased its onslaught on attorney speech and sanctioned several attorneys for criticism of the judiciary.

The most egregious case, right in the middle of the judicial election campaign, is the case of attorney Gino Giorgini, whose license was suspended, without a right to reinstatement (which means, the 3-months suspension may result in a permanent disbarment if attorney Giorgini continues to criticize judges for misconduct and does not bow his head and does not acknowledge that criticizing judges for misconduct was wrong) on September 25, 2018, effective October 25, 2018, 4 days away from now.

I have given an overview of that case in my previous blog article about this year's judicial election campaign.

In this blog, I will provide a the background of judges who decided the fate of attorney Giorgini and sent the intimidating message to other New York attorneys, in the middle of a judicial election campaign, not to criticize judges, and thus, to misinform the voters through their silence or praise of judges who do not deserve that praise.

In the article I plan to publish after this one, there will be a more thorough and in-depth analysis of constitutional violations (federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. 242) that the judges who decided Gino Giorgini's case committed (judges of New York's intermediate appellate court that handle attorney licensing call themselves "Justices", presuming about themselves that whatever comes from under their pens is "just", which is, as this case will show, far from being so).

Here are the "heroes" that suspended the law license of the attorney who practiced for 27 years, Gino Giorgini, for criticism of 3 judges:

  1. David Friedman, Justice Presiding, who has not worked a single day in private practice as an attorney, but has always been a student law clerk to a judge, a law clerk to a judge, and then a judge;

2. Rosalyn H. Richter, a former prosecutor,


3. Richard T. Andrias, a 75-year old "Justice" who is 5 years past the New York mandatory retirement age for judges and who must be "serving" on a certification about his good mental health - which I will try to obtain from the New York State Governor's office on a Freedom of Information request.  "Justice" Andrias reportedly 
admitted to the bar in 1971, see the scan from NYS attorney registration site from today, but reportedly practiced for a year before the admission for a private firm,Gilbert, Segall & Young,  committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law (by the way, Justice Andrias is a licensed attorney and there is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct in NY, but who is going to discipline Justice Andrias for UPL - Justice Andrias himself? or a criminal prosecutor whose license he controls?);




"Justice" Andrias has ruled in February of this year regarding one other New York State-licensed attorney, John O'Kelly, confirming the trial judge's right to sanction John O'Kelly for the same as he suspended attorney Giorgini, criticism of a judge, see the decision here and the analysis of the decision here.

4.  Barbara R. Kapnick - yet another member of the panel that supported punishment of attorney John O'Kelly for criticism of a judge;

Barbara Kapnick is a second "justice" on this panel who has not worked a single day as an attorney in private practice.  

 Here is the today's scan of her attorney licensing history:


So, she was issued her law license in August of 1981.

 And here is her official biography from the Appellate Division:


"Between 1980 and 1991, Justice Kapnick worked as a Law Clerk to both the Hon. Ethel B. Danzig and the Hon. Michael J. Dontzin in the Civil and Supreme Courts of New York County.


Justice Kapnick was elected to the Civil Court in 1991, appointed an Acting Supreme Court Justice in April 1994, and was elected to the Supreme Court, New York County in 2001. She was assigned to the Commercial Division in 2008, where she handled many high profile cases, and was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo in January 2014. She was a member of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics from June 2008 - June 2018, and now serves on its Ethics Faculty."

So, judge Kapnick started to work as a law clerk for two judges before she was admitted to the bar, and worked as a law clerk for these two judges until she was herself elected a judge.

Her biography indicates that she has never worked in private practice, not a single day, and yet she "regulates" attorneys in private practice and tells them what is proper and what is not proper for them to do.  Having worked for judges her entire life, since 1980, for 38 years, "Justice" Kapnick, naturally, has a bias against attorneys daring to criticize their holinesses, judges.

Note also that being able to be assigned to a Commercial Division, and in Kings County no less, signals BIG connections this judge has, such appointments are not done without a lot of graft passing through a lot of hands.  Yet, this judge now "advises" on judicial ethics and is teaches about judicial ethics - which is important in review of her own decision in both John O'Kelly's case, and in Gino Giorgini's case.  The constitutional violations and violations of judicial ethics that this judge committed in both cases were done deliberately, as the judge is a teaching expert in the area of both attorney regulation and judicial ethics, and is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - the text of which the judge presumably must know in order to be able to uphold it.

5.  Troy K. Webber, a new appointment to this court (2016) and a former career prosecutor





committed in suspending attorney Giorgini's law license in the middle of judicial election campaign in order to send an intimidating message to other New York State attorneys and force them to give to voters only their praises of judges and judicial candidates, in other words, forcing attorneys to misinform voters in order to prolong the reign of crooked judges and judicial candidates.

So, the panel that suspended the license of attorney Gino Giorgini consisted of 5 judges, out of them:

  • 2 judges who never practiced a day as private attorneys and have always been either assistants to judges or judges for scores of years (Friedman, Kapnick);
  • 2 former career prosecutors (Richter, Webber); and
  • 1 past-retirement age judge who practiced law without a license for a year before being admitted to the bar and never punished for that.
Moreover, 2 out of 5 judges (Kapnick and Friedman) were members of the "firing squad" for another attorney, also for criticism of a judge, and also this year - that attorney was not subjected to attorney discipline, but the decision against him set a precedent to do that to him and to any other attorney who would dare to criticize a judge within the jurisdiction of the 1st Department, including attorney Giorgini.

So, at the very outset, the judicial panel formed to review and decide the fate of attorney Giorgini did not promise anything good to that attorney, as it was biased on the issue of attorney criticism of the judiciary at the very outset.

Let's see how the panel arrived at its decision to suspend attorney Giorgini for 3 months, but "until further order of the court" (which means "indefinitely", like in a "disbarment") - and during a judicial election campaign.

I will also dedicate a separate article to whether these Justices were properly authorized to "serve" on this court - which may affect validity of their decisions.

Stay tuned.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)