"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.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

The law I have set in New York at the price of my law license and livelihood - that attorney disciplinary committees are not collection agencies for the "Fund for Client Protection" from civil rights attorneys fighting for their rights in court

In November of 2015, more than 3 years ago now, my law license was suspended for making constitutional arguments in motions to recuse judge Carl F. Becker, who has since run from the bench amid the triple investigation:

  1. by the New York State Comptroller;
  2. by the State Judicial Conduct Commission, and
  3. by the FBI.
The suspension is obscure as to the causes of suspension, only mentioning that I was sanctioned - by Becker - for "frivolous conduct", for those same motions to recuse Becker (Charge IV was dismissed, about that - later in this blog):

This was a cowardly - but very convenient, for the court, move.

Because people believe the government, believe it or not.  The government cannot do anything wrong, right?

And, whenever they cannot provide arguments on the merits, they dive into this case and start bashing me as a suspended attorney - suspended for "misconduct", what misconduct, nobody knows, including myself and the court.

Despite the ancient principle that a judge cannot sit in judgement of his own case,

 in New York judges are not only allowed to do just that, when dealing with criticism of themselves in motions to recuse - but are given an "absolute discretion" to do whatever they want in such cases, both with the motions and with those who made them.   

Moreover, when they think they were "defamed" by those same motions, that "their integrity were impugned" by those motions, they are allowed, in New York State, something that other residents of New York who are feeling defamed by anybody, are not allowed to do.

When mere mortals must sue for defamation in court, satisfy the elevated pleading standards, and risk sanctions - for that same frivolous conduct - for making a lawsuit that is barred by litigation immunity (where the supposed defamation happened during litigation), and, barred by the constitutional jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court that elevated the bar in such cases for plaintiffs who are public officials - 

judges in New York have invented a different procedure for themselves when they feel "defamed", a sort of "defamation-lite".

They simply start a proceeding-within-a-proceeding, a so-called "frivolous conduct" proceeding when the judge is, at the same time:

  • an accuser (the moving party, on his own Order to Show Cause);
  • an unsworn factual witness;
  • an unsworn expert witness;
  • a prosecutor, and
  • an adjudicator.
So, there was, of course, 
  • no filed court case, 
  • no Judge Becker as a plaintiff against me for defamation, 
  • no paying of court filing fees, 
  • no discovery, 
  • no depositions of Judge Becker that I would have been entitled to, 
  • no right for me to make a motion to dismiss on litigation immunity and 1st Amendment grounds, as I would have had he sued me for defamation, as he was supposed to, on par with mere mortals, and 
  • no right for me to a jury trial where I would be able to cross-examine Becker as to the supposed defamation.
And, this "frivolous conduct" procedure was not even enacted by the Legislature, people's representatives, it was made by courts for their own use, separately from any other litigant.

The mentality of judges is like that: 

  • I sit in my own case, 
  • as a witness, 
  • accuser, 
  • prosecutor and 
  • adjudicator, 
  • I start proceedings within proceedings if I feel a need to punish the critic and destroy her livelihood, 
  • I allow myself to punish her, in my own discretions, with "fines" that are at the level of a felony requiring a grand jury indictment and the whole 9 yards of criminal procedure to impose, 
  • I allow myself to impose sanctions in various court cases in retaliation for being sued for OUT OF COURT misconduct, and, 
  • when I get sued in federal court for that retaliation in addition to state court, I 
  • 1. invoke self-given absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, 
  • 2. use the State Attorney General (whose law license I control) to DEFEND myself, at taxpayers' expense, and to ADVANCE this argument of my immunity for corruption, instead of prosecuting me for corruption, and 
  • 3. I participate, behind the scenes, ex parte, in fixing that same case, through a State-Federal Judicial Council - and do not tell my opponent in litigation that such a thing is even happening.

That is all instead of following procedure required for every other mere mortal and suing the person for defamation if one feels himself defamed - and allow the court (another court, another judge, and the jury) to decide the fate of your claim.
Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that this combustible combination of functions is unconstitutional, but - might is right, and the practice continues.

After all, judges are "honorable" and have a right to protect their supposed honor by dishonorable means.

I have tried to prove the obvious unconstitutionality of punishing an attorney for trying to secure for her pro bono indigent client, through the ONLY procedural tool provided for this purpose by the State of New York, the client's federal constitutional right for access to court and impartial judicial review, in several courts:

  1. The Delaware County Supreme Court;
  2. The Appellate Division 3rd Department;
  3. The New York State Court of Appeals; then, when the 3rd Department, acting also as a licensing court and a prosecutor of the licensing proceeding (another unconstitutional combination of functions) filed disciplinary charges against me, I
  4. removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, when it was remanded back,
  5. I appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
  6. on remand to the 3rd Department, that transferred the case to the 4th Department, I filed motions asserting the lack of constitutionality of proceedings against me - that nobody read, since the case was pre-judged from the very beginning;
  7. filed an appeal from the suspension to the Court of Appeals; 
  8. filed a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
No answer.

With all the ocean of jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, supposedly mandatory and binding on all other courts, prohibiting discrimination of speech based on its content, courts make one exception to that constitutional rules - criticism of themselves.

That is unforgiveable treason.

Several people in New York received promotion for their role in my unconstitutional suspension:

  • the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini who was prosecuting me for (1) not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law in 2008 when I was not an attorney, by not appearing, as an attorney, on behalf of clients in a court case, apparently, inability to read is basis for promotion in New York, 
  • Judge Eugene Fahey who refused to read my constitutional arguments in a motion, as well as factual exhibits, including affidavits of witnesses - was promoted to the New York State Court of Appeals;
  • Judge Robert Mulvey who refused to protect me from retaliation of Carl F. Becker and kept assigning him to my cases, knowing that Becker is bent on revenge for my complaints against him to the Judicial Conduct Commission - was promoted to the Appellate Division Third Department;
  • Andrew Ayers - the Assistant Solicitor General who, same as Gasparini, cannot read and, having in the record court documents showing that the deposition where I supposedly failed to appear as an attorney on behalf of clients and the motion that I supposedly did not answer as an attorney on behalf of clients, all happened in 2008 when I was not an attorney and when appearing at a deposition and answering a motion would have been, for me, 2 counts of the crime of unauthorized practice of law - was promoted to the position of the Director of the Government Law center of the Albany Law School.
1 month after my suspension for 2 years that happened 3.5 years ago, without the right of automatic reinstatement, of course, New York State changed the rules of reinstatement, now requiring of me to retake the bar examination.

Oh, well.

But - you know what silver lining I DID obtain for all attorneys in New York through the order of my suspension?

Freedom from harassment of the so-called "Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection" which was founded, supposedly, to protect clients from FRAUD and MALPRACTICE of their own attorneys, but instead became a lapdog of the judiciary in harassing attorneys who faithfully pursue their indigent clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review in court.

That lapdog was actually one of the complainant to the disciplinary authorities about me, that I supposedly did not pay the rain of fines imposed upon me by Becker in several cases right after I sued him on behalf of an indigent client for misconduct.

I stupidly paid some of those fines, which I know regret, because I was threatened to be put in jail for non-payment.  

The Lawyers' Fund still turned me in, because I did not pay - as I was allowed to do by law - while I was appealing the first three fines, while putting the necessary amounts into the court's own escrow, and thus ceding my own control over money.

And, attorney Mary Gasparini (since promoted for her hard work) asserted to the disciplinary court, in earnest, that her function in the disciplinary proceeding is, indeed, not only to prosecute supposed violations of attorney ethics, but also:

  • being a criminal prosecutor trying to get me convicted and jailed for, allegedly, recording two conferences before a referee, comparing those recordings with transcripts, finding vast differences showing that the transcripts were cooked, and publishing the recordings online, into public access - she failed in that, but the 4th Department refused to disqualify her for lack of impartiality despite her acting in criminal proceedings instituted by her as the sole witness for her own prosecution;
  • A COLLECTION AGENT for the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.
She put it right in so many words in her pleadings - that it is her duty to help the Lawyer's Fund collect money from me.

Guess what.

The 4th Department, I do not know what came upon judges who issued that decision on suspension, suddenly saw the light and told Gasparini in their decision to suspend me that she does not actually have authority to act as a collection agency in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

That was the same court that skipped through all constitutional infirmities of the case, and that punished me with the de facto permanent suspension, as a matter of pre-judgment and in retaliation for pointing out the court's own misconduct, that the court, same as Becker did, reviewed in their own case and rejected "as a matter of procedure":

because I "did not admit misconduct" and "did not express remorse" BEFORE they determined my liability in the case.

It is like punishing a criminal defendant for not pleading for leniency in sentencing before he is found guilty of a crime.

And, don't ask me what was meant in this decision by "was not an isolated incident and involved a pattern of abuse of the legal process" - because no such thing was asserted in the disciplinary petition or argued in the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment.

So, I do not know what the court used as grounds of my suspension, and neither does anybody else reading this decision.

But, again, here is my gift to attorneys of the State of New York, that I obtained for them at the expense of my law license:

Attorney disciplinary authorities are not a collection agency for the Lawyer's Fund for "Client Protection" (from civil rights attorneys fighting for their federal constitutional right to impartial judicial review in court).


No comments:

Post a Comment