"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, January 13, 2020

As upstate New York bleeds population, judges invent new ways of feeding their non-profits with business. Judge Brian Burns and his new additional grab-and-treat court.

Here is a full text by the Oneonta "Daily Star"'s staff writer about a yet another "treatment" court opened by the corrupt Judge Brian Burns, the Otsego County court judge .

"Otsego County has launched a specialized court that addresses the unique challenges presented by opioid addiction.

It was created as part of the statewide effort by the state Unified Court System to address these issues, according to a media release from the state Unified Court System.
The new Opioid Court is an outgrowth of the county's already existing Drug Treatment Court, improving the treatment court model by focusing on early intervention and treatment, Otsego County Court Judge Brian Burns said. The new court's first session was Dec. 13, he said. 

According to the release, the court will accept both felony and misdemeanor cases from the Otsego County Court and any town or village court in the county. The court will also accept referrals from local attorneys, police agencies, first responders, probation officers and any other agencies working with at-risk opioid users, according to the release.
Traditional treatment court typically involves someone pleading guilty and being sentenced in treatment court, a process that can take weeks, Burns said.
"For someone with an opioid substance use disorder, they may not have weeks," Burns said. "We put the prosecution on hold and do everything we can to intervene and provide access to treatment immediately."
Burns said while he doesn't believe anyone has died waiting to get into treatment court, several drug court participants have died of overdoses while they're in the program. With the new court, treatment isn't conditional on the legal process happening first, he said.
"We don't want someone to overdose and die because of a slow legal process," Burns said.
Participants are immediately assessed for their needs, which includes a level of care determination, transportation to a treatment facility, housing assistance when they're discharged, employment assistance and help addressing mental health issues. Participants are subject to drug testing, a curfew and they also do community service, Burns said.
While overall, fewer people are dying of overdoses, it doesn't mean the crisis is over, he said.

"We still have people dying from opioid overdoses both in this county and across the state every day," Burns said. "The advantage of the opioid intervention court is it allows us to focus immediately on getting people into treatment."
The court is focused on opioids because of the highly lethal nature of heroin and fentanyl, Burns said. The court is modeled after others around the state, typically in more urban areas, Burns said. It could potentially expand and address other substance abuse issues. For now, things are being taken one step at a time, he said.
"Substance abuse disorders in general are more effectively addressed through a public health system, not the criminal justice system," Burns said. "This opioid intervention court is much closer to a public health response than a criminal justice response, so I think it would be effective if applied for people who suffer from any substance abuse disorder."
Shweta Karikehalli, staff writer, can be reached at or 607-441-7221. Follow her @DS_ShwetaK on Twitter."
Nice, nice, nice.
Very kind words said by the judge.
Now, why is it that I do not believe a single one of them?

Not even looking at this crook's very honest looking face?

Here are some comments under the article posted on Facebook:

And, the input of the former Treatment court co-ordinator Leo Giovagnoli who was finally pushed out of that court because of politics, does not add anything positive to my already dismal opinion of the proponent of this "court", judge Brian Burns.
Judge Burns has the dubious notoriety of having sent a teenager to jail because his father dared to demonstrate in front of his house.

Who has hired a federal judge's own law firm to defend himself - instead of the New York Attorney General, who usually defends judges in such federal cases at taxpayers' expense - in order to have the judge (David Peebles) give Burns a break and stretch judicial immunity beyond the breaking point.

As a result of hiring the judge's own former law partner, Burns WAS actually given immunity in a criminal proceeding where there was ANOTHER judge, and where Burns was very clearly the complaining witness and not a judge.

I have written a whole chapter in my 2018 book 

about Judge Burns' ties to the "service provider" industry, about making "treatment courts" - and Family Court - his own private business, for himself and members of "providers' association", a business funded by us, the taxpayers.

You are welcome to read it.

But, also consider the demographics of the Otsego County.

It already did not boast a boost of population, and now it is, as other upstate New York counties, is heavily bleeding population.

Less population - more taxpayer money paid for new "undertakings", like this new "court".

If, as the judge says, one person has died "while in the program" - in their treatment court, maybe, you need to fix the old one, not create a brand new one.

And, Judge Burns, as a member of the Board of Directors of association providing services court-ordered by such a "court" (by judge Burns himself) is uniquely Disqualified from presiding over the old one (treatment court) and from creating an additional one.

My question, too, is, will Judge Burns now be creating a separate court - with taxpayer money - for every different drug to which people are addicted?

An alcohol court?
An opioid court?
A pot court?

When will it end?

Note, too, how the judge is using the failure of his own court - a person died of an overdose while in the "program" - to his own advantage and to push for stripping people Burns wants "to help", or, rather, to make them into captive patients for members of his "providers' association" of more constitutional rights:

"With the new court, treatment isn't conditional on the legal process happening first, he said."

What the f**k, excuse my exquisite French, does THAT mean?

In a new COURT, treatment is not conditional on "the legal process happening first"?

Meaning, Burns can now court-order and put under the criminal contempt of court powers, anybody WITHOUT first determining whether he has JURISDICTION over the person? Whether the person has committed any WRONGDOING (courts do not adjudicate anything but wrongdoing - as Judge Burns must know).

Now Judge Burns can just grab-and-treat?

Or, rather, give lucrative business to his provider friends/members of his nonprofit who are suffering from bleeding population?

But, the grab-and-treat approach has nothing to do with law, does it, Judge Burns?

No comments:

Post a Comment