"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, July 21, 2022

Judicial candidate John Hubbard will be absolutely disqualified as a matter of law from the majority of Family Court cases in Delaware County, New York, if elected

 In my previous article, I have shown that the current judicial candidate, Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard who is currently running an election campaign to become Delaware County, NY 3-bench judge (County, Family and Surrogate's Court) may be prohibited as a matter of law to sit on the majority of cases in all courts in Delaware County because of his familial relationships going back 6+ generations in a thinly populated, highly tribal and clannish and very interbred area.

There are more mandatory prohibitions that will preclude Hubbard, as a matter of law, from sitting on a large number, if not the majority of, specifically, Family Court cases, which will necessitate taxpayers of the state of New York to pay judges from other areas to fill in the gaps.

 New York State has a statute, Judiciary Law Section 14, containing ABSOLUTE prohibitions for judges to preside over certain cases.

"A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding 

  • to which he is a party, or 
  • in which he has been attorney or counsel, or 
  • in which he is interested, or 
  • if he is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree.  The degree shall be ascertained by ascending from the judge to the common ancestor, descending to the party, counting a degree for each person in both lines, including the judge and party, and excluding the common ancestor."
New York State Court of Appeals has declared that a judge's recusal is a matter of the judge's practically unlimited "discretion" (choice, whim) IF the judge is not disqualified by Judiciary Law 14.

Disqualification by one of the prohibitions of Judiciary Law 14 gives the judge no choice but to recuse from a case.

Two of such prohibitions are that the judge was an attorney or a party in any "action, claim, motion or proceeding".

John Hubbard does not conceal the fact that he has been a criminal prosecutor in Delaware County for over 20 years.

In fact, he makes it one of his running points - that he has "served people" and was "tough on crime".

Good for him - although this is mostly a lie, you can read my other blogs about Hubbard (this blog allows word-searching) to see evidence of that.

Hubbard's position as a criminal prosecutor for 20+ years in Delaware County though is exactly what makes him uniquely disqualified from sitting on a large number, if not the majority, of Family Court cases, especially the so-called "child protective" cases, and the proof of it is in the text of the applicable law. 

New York State Social Services Law 34-a(2)(b), about the so-called "summary of understanding", says the following:

“The regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall require the multi-year services plan and where appropriate the annual implementation reports, to include a summary of the understanding between the local social services district and the district attorney’s office, which outlines the cooperative procedures to be followed by both parties in investigating incidents of child abuse and maltreatment, consistent with their respective obligations for the investigation or prosecution of such incidents, as otherwise required by law.”

Explanation in a human language:  EVERY SINGLE "child protective" investigation of CPS MUST be accompanied by the investigation by the local police, otherwise Social Services cannot receive financing.

Hubbard as a criminal prosecutor was, by law, legal advisor of the "law enforcement" conducting every single child protective investigation in Delaware County for 20+ years, absolutely disqualifying Hubbard from presiding over such cases - that often last for years and may be still on the court docket.

So, in EVERY SINGLE child protective investigation and/or subsequent administrative or Family Court proceeding by Delaware County CPS done before the date Hubbard is sworn in as a judge Hubbard will have been an "attorney or counsel", a legal advisor of the police who conducted joint investigations together with CPS in EVERY SINGLE child protective case.

Given how small the county's population is, how poor, and how dedicated CPS is to go after members of the same families, in generations, again and again, 20+ years' worth of involvement and disqualification by Hubbard from cases prior to January 1, 2023 means the majority of child protective cases, and all other cases in Family Court.

Next, New York State Family Court Act 254-a Subsection 1 says:

1. The county attorney and the district attorney of a county, and the corporation counsel of the city of New York and the district attorney of any county in such city, may enter into an agreement whereby the district attorney shall present the case in support of the petition in which a designated felony act has been alleged.

Explanation in a human language:  The CPS attorney may agree that the local criminal prosecutor be the attorney of record for the petitioner (County, party petitioner in the proceedings) in cases of child abuse, a "civil" proceeding where allegations are made of parent's conduct that is a felony if brought in criminal court.

A petitioner is a PARTY in a proceeding in Family Court, for juvenile delinquency (Article 3 of the Family Court Act), Persons in Need of Supervision (Article 7), Family Offense (Article 8) and Child Abuse (Article 10).

New York State Family Court Act 254 Subsection (b) says:

"(b) In all cases involving abuse, the corporation counsel of the city of New York and outside the city of New York, the appropriate district attorney shall be a necessary party to the proceeding.

That means that in all child abuse proceedings that happened in Delaware County over the 20+ years when Hubbard was a criminal prosecutor Hubbard was also officially, by law, a party to those child abuse proceedings, which ABSOLUTELY, as a matter of law, disqualifies him from presiding over the same proceedings (often lasting for years) as a judge.

Delaware County voters - when you vote in November, you might be advised to take this into account. 

No comments:

Post a Comment