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, December 17, 2023

Attorney Gerard N Misk of Ginsburg & Misk has made a great "advertising" for himself and his law firm by having a lawsuit dismissed against him an embarrassing issue by two "former" attornets, one not even s native speaker of English. Good job, Mr Misk!

This is an update to my blog of December 9, 2023 about the interesting phenomenon of an attorney who - well, read, what he was doing.

And here is the result of his actions.

It happens, it happens.

The one who bad-mouths you in court the most - instead of learning, following and presenting to the court the governing law and solid evidence, had his rear end handed back to him by the judge on Friday, December 15, 2023, when the judge has dismissed the case against me and my husband, a (politically) suspended and a (politically) disbarred attorney.

The lawsuit was stupid to begin with - a purported corporation attempted to allege a so-called easement through our property.

I will not go into more details while the said corporation is rearranging its ruffled feathers and preparing - maybe - to sue us once again.

I wonder though whether the badmouthing Mr Misk will be there for the second lawsuit after so epically failing the first one.  I have a funny feeling that he charged his purported client an arm and a leg for his shenanigans (the purported client is the nasty woman Stephanie Carter Shaake Halberian of Delhi, NY, of the Blue Bee Cafe who has ratified, in writing, my abuse by Mr Misk in writing).

The fun part about her little "ratification" is that we, to a certain degree, gave a present to the sorry "attorney" Misk who can't tell the governing law and competent evidence from rumors, opinions, positions and beliefs.

Now the nasty woman Stephanie Carter will be unable to even sue the sorry excuse of an "attorney" Gerard N Misk (32 years of experience in law practice, mind) for his theatrical performances before the court instead of doing his job and arranging the service of the lawsuit on us in our state the way the law spelled it out for him in detail how to do.

But, attorney Misk does not read the law, considering it petty "ceremony", "games", and simply not available to us - that is what he was arguing to the court in writing, under the penalty of perjury - because we were stripped by the State of NY for being too good of litigators against the State of NY. 

I was not there at the hearing, Misk did cause a very precarious situation with my health,  but we still made our motions on submitted basis, the hearing, with Mr Misk appearing, happened, some of my friends appeared virtually as members of the public, for support and gave me their accounts.

The written decision will be published as soon as it is produced by the court.

Later I will publish the transcript of the hearing when I purchase it.

The "Misk fiasco" against 2, as he kept saying, "former attorneys" who were not even present at the hearing to oppose him clearly shows to the public that a law license has nothing to do with litigation skills or integrity of the lawyer.

BTW, Misk invented a word I will borrow for future use, how to term us since, by law, a disbarred attorney is not an attorney, and a suspended attorney is an attorney in the view of the regulator, but is not in the view of the criminal law.

Mr Misk just called us "experienced litigators" - but still did not prepare for a vigorous and well-researched opposition, firmly believing that "the system" will never let us win, no matter what.

Yet, there happened a judge who simply applied the law - could not believe it, did not hope for it, but it happened. 

The judge has dismissed the action, because Mr Misk could not arrange for service of the summons and Complaint of two sitting-duck elderly defendants whose addressm on an unfenced property on a public road in South Carolina was known to the nasty woman  Stephanie Carter Halberian for 8 years.

A profound waste of the purported client's, the court's, and our own time and resources.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)