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.


Saturday, February 13, 2016

Which one is the misogynistic ass****? On transgender speech "therapy" for young female lawyers to speak like men to be successful

Recently, the State of New York has banned the so-called "conversion therapy" - conversion from gay to straight, and especially such "therapy" directed at children.

I am against outright bans on what people can do with their own health and bodies.  Unless they are doing it to kids who are, by law, incapable of informed consent.

For that reason, if a gay individual wants to try to "convert" - truly voluntarily - he or she should be allowed to do that.  

I support the prohibition on imposing what adults think is good for the child on such a fundamental choice as a choice of sexual orientation.

But - I find detestable when people cave in and start changing who they are, biologically, because of professional discrimination against such people. 

A young female attorney was criticized by the law firm's partner for her performance, because the pitch of her voice is "too high" - for two ears in a row.

Did the attorney sue the sucker for gender discrimination?  Was she even furious?

No, she "doesn't have that type of personality.  She's action-oriented."

So, instead of suing her law firm - and, of course, jeopardizing her legal career - this "action oriented" woman did the following instead:

1) she "Googled 'problems with a very high voice' and 'how to change a high voice'";
2) she looked into surgery (!) "to lower her pitch"; 
3) she engaged in "speech therapy" with a "speech-language PATHOLOGIST", for God's sake (being a female with a female voice is a PATHOLOGY in the legal profession), to learn to follow "speech patterns" to sound like a man.
4) she engaged in treatment used with TRANSGENDER MEN used by the speech-language pathologist to help the transgender men "have more presence" and "sound more assertive";
5) she "learned to open her throat, creating more oral resonance";
6) she learned "to adopt what she now calls her 'big voice';
7) she learned "to use fewer words" (than women normally use, as opposed to men", and "to be more direct".

As an example of that "more direct-ness", instead of POLITELY asking "Got a minute?" when she wants to talk to a colleague, she now declares, "One minute."

If a male colleague would try to summon the attention of any woman with self-respect with this "one minute (servant wench)", he will definitely not get that "one minute", or any time, for his rudeness.

"After months of practice, the difference between Hanna's "big voice" and her small one is subtle. But she says she is perceived differently now at work."
Now, Monica Hanna is an attorney admitted to practice law since 2010.



The article ran in 2014.

The article mentions that Monica Hanna had two critical annual reviews before 2014 and engaged into months of "speech-language pathology therapy" by the time the article was first published on October 1, 2014.

This beautiful young woman did not make law partner since then by trying to change herself into a man by undergoing transgender voice therapy because a law partner in her law firm criticized her for the pitch of her voice (for nothing else), but she did become now a "Senior Associate":








She is not lauded for her low-pitch voice on the firm's webpage though, and I wonder, why.

I also wonder if transgender speech therapy that Monica Hanna underwent to be successful in Kelley Drye & Warren LLP was covered by insurance.

Same as the "conversion therapy" now banned in New York,  "speech-language pathology transgender therapy" teaching a young female professional how to speak like a man to succeed in her profession, should not be covered by insurance either.

And - the law firm Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP should definitely be investigated for its discriminative practices.

And, since 2010 - for 6 years now - Monica Hanna, even though lauded for her successes (while not openly praised for her efforts to change into a man, at least in how she speaks, by the use of transgender speech-language therapies) did not become a partner, even though usually successful attorneys do make partner within 3 years.

To make a partner in a law firm where, out of 138 attorneys, 116 are males (115 being white males) and only 22 are females, Monica Hanna needs to do a complete sex change - if that helps - to make partner.

Here are the heroes, the partners of Monica Hanna's law firm.

The question now is - which one out of the 116 men here is the mysoginistic assh**e who repeatedly criticized Monica Hanna's voice, to the point that she felt she will not succeed in that law firm professionally unless she engages in transgender speech therapy which will make her to speak like a man, pitch, speech patterns, rudeness and all?

The question also is, did all of the 22 women partner undergo such transgender therapies and tried to emulate a man to make partner?
You Searched For:
Position: Partner

Danny E. Adams
Danny E. Adams
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8889
Jason R. Adams
Jason R. Adams
Partner
New York
(212) 808-5056
Robert B. Adams
Robert B. Adams
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7710
Michael A. Adelstein
Michael A. Adelstein
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7540
Talat Ansari
Talat Ansari
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7605
Steven A. Augustino
Steven A. Augustino
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8612
Mark L. Austrian
Mark L. Austrian
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8495
Adisa P. Bakari
Adisa P. Bakari
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8520
David E. Barry
David E. Barry
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7618
Robert D. Bickford Jr.
Robert D. Bickford Jr.
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7638
Joseph A. Boyle
Joseph A. Boyle
Partner
Parsippany
(973) 503-5920
Lee S. Brenner
Lee S. Brenner
Partner
Los Angeles
(310) 712-6125
No Picture Available
Richard G. Brodrick
Partner
Stamford
(203) 351-8026
Pamela Bruzzese-Szczygiel
Pamela Bruzzese-Szczygiel
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7750
Steven P. Caley
Steven P. Caley
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7745
John M. Callagy
John M. Callagy
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7718
Andrea L. Calvaruso
Andrea L. Calvaruso
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7853
Brian J. Calvey
Brian J. Calvey
Partner
Stamford
(203) 351-8070
Kathleen W. Cannon
Kathleen W. Cannon
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8590
James S. Carr
James S. Carr
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7955
Geoffrey W. Castello
Geoffrey W. Castello
Partner
Parsippany
(973) 503-5922
Carolyn R. Caufield
Carolyn R. Caufield
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7625
Richard S. Chargar
Richard S. Chargar
Partner
Stamford
(203) 351-8028
Thomas W. Cohen
Thomas W. Cohen
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8518
Jonathan K. Cooperman
Jonathan K. Cooperman
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7534
Michael J. Coursey
Michael J. Coursey
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8456
Robert E. Crotty
Robert E. Crotty
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7847
Eugene T. D'Ablemont
Eugene T. D'Ablemont
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7830
Wayne J. D'Angelo
Wayne J. D'Angelo
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8525
Richard E. Donovan
Richard E. Donovan
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7756
Paul F. Doyle
Paul F. Doyle
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7786
W. Christian Drewes
W. Christian Drewes
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7535
Robert Ehrenbard
Robert Ehrenbard
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7733
William A. Escobar
William A. Escobar
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7771
David H. Evans
David H. Evans
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8479
David E. Fink
David E. Fink
Partner
Los Angeles
(310) 712-6170
Joseph Philip Forte
Joseph Philip Forte
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7570
B. Harrison Frankel
B. Harrison Frankel
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7568
David E. Frulla
David E. Frulla
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8648
Karyn Corlett Fulton
Karyn Corlett Fulton
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7559
John A. Garraty
John A. Garraty
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7653
Deron L. Green
Deron L. Green
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7589
Parsippany
(973) 503-5935
William M. Guerry Jr.
William M. Guerry Jr.
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8858
Joshua Guyan
Joshua Guyan
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8566
William S. Gyves
William S. Gyves
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7640
Parsippany
(973) 503-5909
Robert L. Haig
Robert L. Haig
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7715
David A. Hartquist
David A. Hartquist
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8450
Stephen G. Hauck
Stephen G. Hauck
Partner
New York
(212) 808-5150
Parsippany
(973) 503-5929
William C. Heck
William C. Heck
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7817
John J. Heitmann
John J. Heitmann
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8544
John M. Herrmann II
John M. Herrmann II
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8488
David T. Hickey
David T. Hickey
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8834
Douglass C. Hochstetler
Douglass C. Hochstetler
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-2629
Barbara E. Hoey
Barbara E. Hoey
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7628
Joseph B. Hoffman
Joseph B. Hoffman
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8857
Bud G. Holman
Bud G. Holman
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7729
August T. Horvath
August T. Horvath
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7528
Alysa Zeltzer Hutnik
Alysa Zeltzer Hutnik
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8603
Michael S. Insel
Michael S. Insel
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7933
Jane E. Jablons
Jane E. Jablons
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7660
William Jack
William Jack
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8521
Beth D. Jacob
Beth D. Jacob
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7624
Pamela D. Kaplan
Pamela D. Kaplan
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7980
Ira T. Kasdan
Ira T. Kasdan
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8864
Jeffrey A. Katz
Jeffrey A. Katz
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7541
Paul A. Keenan
Paul A. Keenan
Partner
Parsippany
(973) 503-5931
New York
(212) 808-5010
Henry T. Kelly
Henry T. Kelly
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-2350
Thomas B. Kinzler
Thomas B. Kinzler
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7775
James J. Kirk
James J. Kirk
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7623
Mark A. Konkel
Mark A. Konkel
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7959
Michael S. Kosmas
Michael S. Kosmas
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8887
Bruce R. Kraus
Bruce R. Kraus
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7714
William A. Krohley
William A. Krohley
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7747
Laurence J. Lasoff
Laurence J. Lasoff
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8530
Timothy R. Lavender
Timothy R. Lavender
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-2630
Robert L. LeHane
Robert L. LeHane
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7573
Randall D. Lehner
Randall D. Lehner
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-7238
Givonna St Clair Long
Givonna St Clair Long
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-7084
Dean E. Loventhal
Dean E. Loventhal
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7752
Parsippany
(973) 503-5968
R. Alan Luberda
R. Alan Luberda
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8835
Richard R. Lury
Richard R. Lury
Partner
Parsippany
(973) 503-5919
New York
(212) 808-7565
Matthew C. Luzadder
Matthew C. Luzadder
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-2623
John J. Lynagh
John J. Lynagh
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7554
Michael C. Lynch
Michael C. Lynch
Partner
New York
(212) 808-5082
Alison L. MacGregor
Alison L. MacGregor
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7891
William C. MacLeod
William C. MacLeod
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8811
Chicago
(312) 857-7070
Christina M. Mason
Christina M. Mason
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7509
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti
Partner
Parsippany
(973) 503-5910
Eric R. McClafferty
Eric R. McClafferty
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8841
Paul McCurdy
Paul McCurdy
Partner
Stamford
(203) 351-8039
New York
(212) 808-7864
Dorn C. McGrath III
Dorn C. McGrath III
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8410
Gregory M. McKenzie
Gregory M. McKenzie
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7689
Neil Merkl
Neil Merkl
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7811
Jack J. Miles
Jack J. Miles
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7574
Andrew E. Minkiewicz
Andrew E. Minkiewicz
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8474
Gonzalo E. Mon
Gonzalo E. Mon
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8576
Deepak Nambiar
Deepak Nambiar
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7982
Frederic S. Nathan
Frederic S. Nathan
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7840
Michael J. O'Connor
Michael J. O'Connor
Partner
Los Angeles
(310) 712-6120
Dustin J. Painter
Dustin J. Painter
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8875
Nicholas J. Panarella
Nicholas J. Panarella
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7889
Andrew P. Pillsbury
Andrew P. Pillsbury
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-7086
Sarah L. Reid
Sarah L. Reid
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7720
David E. Retter
David E. Retter
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7576
Philip D. Robben
Philip D. Robben
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7726
Mark R. Robeck
Mark R. Robeck
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8675
Sarah Roller
Sarah Roller
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8582
Lewis Rose
Lewis Rose
Partner
New York
(202) 342-8821
Dana B. Rosenfeld
Dana B. Rosenfeld
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8588
Paul C. Rosenthal
Paul C. Rosenthal
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8485
Holly A. Roth
Holly A. Roth
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8478
Frederic A. Rubinstein
Frederic A. Rubinstein
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7581
Joel S. Rublin
Joel S. Rublin
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7768
W. Michael Ryan
W. Michael Ryan
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-2537
Barbara J. Shachnow
Barbara J. Shachnow
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7520
Julian Solotorovsky
Julian Solotorovsky
Partner
Chicago
(312) 857-7083
Stephen W. Stein
Stephen W. Stein
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7794
Robert I. Steiner
Robert I. Steiner
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7965
Merrill B. Stone
Merrill B. Stone
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7543
Stamford
(203) 351-8018
Damon W. Suden
Damon W. Suden
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7586
Martin Teckler
Martin Teckler
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8829
Elisheva S. Teitz
Elisheva S. Teitz
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7627
Christie Grymes Thompson
Christie Grymes Thompson
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8633
Laura van der Meer
Laura van der Meer
Partner
Brussels
+32.2.235.2701
David L. Vaughan
David L. Vaughan
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8462
John E. Villafranco
John E. Villafranco
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8423
John F. Ward
John F. Ward
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7530
Allan J. Weiner
Allan J. Weiner
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8431
Andrew M. White
Andrew M. White
Partner
Los Angeles
(310) 712-6110
Jeffery A. Whitney
Jeffery A. Whitney
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8570
Eric R. Wilson
Eric R. Wilson
Partner
New York
(212) 808-5087
John L. Wittenborn
John L. Wittenborn
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8514
Peter Wolfram
Peter Wolfram
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7854
David R. Yohannan
David R. Yohannan
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8616
Chip Yorkgitis
Chip Yorkgitis
Partner
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-8540
David I. Zalman
David I. Zalman
Partner
New York
(212) 808-7985










To make things worse, The American Bar Association actually helps maintain such gender discrimination. 

 In its paper, dated, coincidentally, also 2014 and called "Personality, Presentation, and Passion: A Female Litigator's Primer on Persuasion in the Courtroom" the American Bar Association, professional organization of individuals where each one member is sworn to uphold the law, including anti-discrimination laws, advices the following to the female attorneys only:




So, the American Bar Association thinks that, for a young FEMALE attorney being young and female - with the associated high-pitch voice natural for young females - is bad for professional success in the legal career.

Remember the times when it was considered the woman's fault that she was raped - because she allegedly wore "provocative" clothing?  

Now a male judge or a male attorney-opponent can perceive a female attorney to be "flirtatious" simply because she speaks in her natural voice.

Figure.

But there is a cure to that.

Monica Hanna knows.  Transgender therapy.

There are some other cures.  A female voice can quickly become a male voice if the female would drink and smoke excessively.

And since around 25% of lawyers in America already do for whatever reasons, doing it to succeed in the profession will not make much of a difference.

The American Bar Association gave female attorneys therapeutic advice of more cures:

1) youth is a shortcoming that will not last - so be assured that as soon as you become old and your voice low and husky, you will be as successful (or close) to young male lawyers with baritones;

2) do not wait until you get old and then-equal to young male lawyers, make yourself into men now, speak like them! - and

3) the technique to do that is "to breathe slowly and deliberately" - and, unless the judge ill perceive you as a rhinoceros preparing to charge - like this one - you will be perceived as if you are a male.

But - there is a problem here - male attorneys will still have an advantage over you, female attorneys, even with your brand new rhino voice in a sparrow's body:  THEIR BEARDS!!!


Because, "even today, many would argue that a proper beard makes a man more intimidating to his enemies. And since lawyering is about 90% mental, you should all listen up".

Imagine if all female associates in Kelley Drye Warren LLP will now go under a hormone therapy to kill two birds with one stone - make the voices lower and grow beards?

Will they make partners faster? 

And what do you think will happen more - that women attorneys will try more to become men, like Monica Hanna did, or that they will sue their employers for gender discrimination?

Future will show.  
 

 








Friday, February 12, 2016

Mainstream analysis of prosecutorial misconduct - still keeping their heads in the sand as to the solution

In 2013 ProPublica ran a series of articles that prosecutorial misconduct is not addressed in New York as a matter of policy.

In 2013 the famous (and notorious) judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated that prosecutorial misconduct happens on the scale of an "epidemic".

In 2014-2015 New York Senator DeFrancisco was pushing for creation of a separate Commission for prosecutorial misconduct (the bill is still in the works), and the New York District Attorney's Association "descended upon the Senate as paratroopers" to try to block the bills, asserting that the current disciplinary system - which does not prosecute prosecutors for misconduct - is just fine (that is reflected in the testimony of the co-founder of "It Can Happen to You" at the August 4, 2015 public hearing in Buffalo, NY before the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline).

On February 11, 2016, The Huffpost Politics has posted an article about prosecutorial misconduct.

It said all the right words, provided the scanty statistics of prosecutorial discipline, criminal convictions and jail time for prosecutorial misconduct.


Disbarment of a North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong in 2007 for withholding exculpatory evidence and wrongfully prosecuting RICH white boys on a false accusation.  

I do not say that rich white boys are not entitled to equal protection of laws, I am saying that unless that case was about rich white boys, there would have been no scandal, Nifong would have kept his law license and the defendants would have gone to prison and had their lives ruined.

Mike Nifong was licensed since 1978 and was disbarred after 39 years in office.



Does any reasonable person have a doubt that what he did at the 38th year of his career was something out of the ordinary and that he did not do before?

Here is the disbarment decision of the North Carolina Disciplinary Board about Mike Nifong in its entirety.

Mike Nifong was disbarred, among other things, because he refused to recognize that he did anything wrong by withholding DNA evidence in the case.  

The final paragraph of the decision on disbarment that I provided below (I encourage the readers to read the entire decision that I interlinked above) mentions multiple violations.


Let's look at the summary analysis of aggravating vs mitigating factors in the decision.

Aggravating factors:

Mitigating factors:


But, of course - the mitigating factors were ABSENCE OF PRIOR DISCIPLINE and GOOD REPUTATION - because of the lack of prior discipline.

So, for 38 years an attorney was practicing law, has good reputation and no prior discipline, and then suddenly, out of the blue, in the 38th year of his career he starts displaying a PATTERN of dishonesty, attempts to promote his career by withholding DNA evidence in a high-publicity case racially divisive case and refuses to recognize that he did anything wrong.

Once again, is their any doubt in anybody's mind that there should have been MORE investigation in prior cases prosecuted by Mike Nifong to verify the true extent of his misconduct and to exonerate possible other victims of that misconduct who were not as rich and powerful as parents of Duke Lacrosse defendants and are doing time in prisons?

Actually, Mike Nifong was engaged in misconduct since at least 1995, as the 2014 reversal of a double-murder conviction showed.

And since at least 1995 the public was exposed to his shenannigans, while he was disbarred only in 2007.  How many wrongful convictions did he drum up over those 12 years? 

We know the phrase that has become trite: "justice delayed is justice denied".

For Duke Lacrosse defendants, due to the influence of their parents, justice came quickly.  They were able to pick up their lives, graduate from college and work in professions in which they would not have been permitted to work with felony records

For majority of people exonerated after wrongful convictions, the picture is not that rosy.

It is the picture of health ruined by the many years of humiliation while in prison,  often by the anxiety of the death row, by separation from the family, lack of family life, lack of profession, money, housing, anything that makes life worth living.

For example, in 2014 the 1995 conviction of Darryl Howard for murder was overturned, also because of Mike Nifong's misconduct.

Yet, nobody can give back to Mr. Howard 19 years of his life spent in prison.

Mr. Howard was prosecuted and convicted by Nifong for the murders of a woman and her 13-year old daughter, where the victims were also sexually assaulted.

"In post-conviction, Howard’s attorneys discovered a police memo describing a tip indicating that the murders were the work of a gang called the New York Boys.   The tip seemed particularly reliable because it referred to the fact that the women had been raped, a piece of information that wasn’t public.

The memo was found in both the police file and the file of District Attorney Mike Nifong.  But there’s no evidence it was ever turned over to the defense.  When DNA testing of sperm found in the daughter excluded Howard, Nifong proceeded with the case as if the sexual assaults weren’t part of the crime."

So, a HEINOUS crime was committed - murders AND RAPES of a 13-year-old child and a woman.  A black child and a black woman.

What did the white North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong do, having a memo in his file that the woman and the child were gang-raped?

He maligned the child's memory by denying and not prosecuting the rape at all, because that way it was easier to frame an innocent black man for two murders that he did not commit:

"Nifong and Dowdy instead speculated that the 13-year-old daughter hadn’t been raped, but instead had been sexually active within 24 hours of her murder with a boyfriend that they never produced.  Years later, Nifong would attempt to prosecute innocent men for a rape that never happened. Here, he prosecuted a likely innocent man by pretending two rapes never happened."

To portray vicious ANAL rape of a child as the child's own promiscuity? As having "consensual ANAL sex" before her death?


What do they say about a special place in hell for people like Mike Nifong? 

It was in 1995.

Even though his conviction has been reversed in 2014, based on the application of the Innocence Project, Darryl Howard still remains in prison, and that is the "legacy" of Mike Nifong.

Here is an account of what Darryl Howard missed in his life while in prison, wrongfully convicted of two murders, one of a child, because of prosecutorial misconduct.

But, if Darryl Howard and Duke Lacrosse defendants were to sue Mike Nifong for the DOCUMENTED MISCONDUCT, the lawsuit will be (or already was) dismissed - for absolute prosecutorial immunity.  

Of course, to give prosecutorial immunity was a matter of PUBLIC POLICY.  

Of course, matters of public policy are LEGISLATIVE.  Of course, U.S. Congress never put prosecutorial immunity in the statute, the Civil Rights Act.  

Of course, it was invented by courts - because most judges come from prosecutor's offices, and are likely engaged in the very same conduct as stepping stones of their careers.  

But, of course, the U.S. Congress is asleep at the wheel FOR 40 years since the concept of prosecutorial immunity was illegally introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court and DOES NOTHING to legislatively abolish it.

Prosecutors like Mike Nifong are NOT "honorable" people.  It is very clear from Nifong's actions. 

Here is how Mike Nifong's career reportedly developed:

"After a year as a per diem assistant DA with the Durham County DA's office, he was hired on a full-time basis in 1979.  He eventually worked his way up to chief assistant.  After District Attorney Jim Hardin was appointed to a Superior Court vacancy in 2005, Governor Mike Easley appointed Nifong to fill out the remainder of Hardin's term.   Nifong was sworn in on April 27, 2005."

So, Nifong was appointed District Attorney in 2005 - based on his record that included the wrongful conviction of Darryl Howard - and immediately implemented the same tactics in 2006 in the Duke Lacrosse case.  Withheld evidence.  Only this time he did it to the "wrong kind" of defendants - children of rich and influential white people.  And it backfired.

It is beyond any doubt that the conviction of Darryl Howard for two sexual assaults and two murders, one of a child - wrongful convictions both, based on withholding of evidence to the defense - helped advance Mike Nifong's career.

It would be only fair to require Mike Nifong to return to the taxpayers the money he was paid since 1995 and strip him of his pension and benefits.

Was he?

I highly doubt it.

It would be only fair to put Mike Nifong in jail for fraud and fraud upon the court based on his misconduct in at least these two cases.

Was he?

Wrongful convictions should be PREVENTED.  Sometimes, exonerations are too little too late to restore what was taken from people by those wrongful convictions.

And, discipline of the prosecutor for attempting such a wrongful conviction in Duke Lacrosse team is totally inadequate.  Disbarment - yes.  

Conviction - no.

Having to return and forfeit salary, pension and benefit received at the time of misconduct - no.

And, "the good news today is that Howard will at the very least get a new trial. The bad news is that any systematic effort to look for more Howards seems a lot less likely now than it was two months ago. And even then, it wasn’t very likely."


Moreover, where money is paid - of course, without disclosure to the defense or defendants - to informants for testimony at trial,  where prosecutorial immunity remains the rule (illegal, but vigorously enforced by courts), where prosecutors are not SUED for PUNITIVE MONEY DAMAGES, where their financial livelihoods, assets, cars, homes, are not exposed to liability, where they are not required to return what taxpayers paid them to do their jobs, not to engage in misconduct - we will have a lot more of wrongful convictions coming.

That is one prosecutorial misconduct case discussed by Huffpost Politics on February 11, 2016.

I wrote about one other - the disbarment of the Texas prosecutor who orchestrated a wrongful conviction and death sentence - where it took the Texas bar 10 years to disbar the prosecutor AFTER the wrongful conviction as overturned.

Similarly with Nifong, I did not find any information that the prosecutor was stripped of his pension and required to return salary and benefits paid over the period of time when he was engaged in misconduct.

Ken Anderson, a prosecutor from the same Texas who orchestrated a wrongful conviction of an innocent man for murder was disbarred, and spent a whopping 10 days in jail.

Nifong reportedly spent 24 hours in jail.

That's it.

They kept their ill-gained salaries, benefits, pensions and assets bought with that ill-gained money.  The taxpayers' money paid to them TO DO THEIR JOBS, not to put innocent people behind bars.

Remember Mike Nifong?

There WAS SPERM found in the MURDERED LITTLE GIRL'S ANUS.

There was EVIDENCE OF RAPE.

By putting an innocent man in jail for that murder and by hiding the evidence that the child was raped, the REAL CHILD RAPIST or RAPISTS REMAINED FREE.  

For 21 years.

How many more victims did they have since then?

When sill this society realize that prosecutorial misconduct must be curtailed quickly, resolutely, aggressively, mercilessly?  NOW?

When will this society realize that the judicial system WILL NOT HELP in this reform, because judges ARE FORMER PROSECUTORS, nearly all of them?

When will this society realize that prosecutorial immunity is at the ROOT OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT and must be legislatively abolished and prohibited, if we do not want more wrongful convictions and more child rapists go free because of such wrongful convictions?

Now look at the last two paragraphs of the Huffpost Politics article on prosecutorial misconduct:

[Prosecutors] are politically powerful people who do a tough job under arduous circumstances,” he said. “I think lawyers often give them the benefit of the doubt. This is a huge problem. We must hold them accountable.”

To that end, Sebesta's disbarment is at least a step in the right direction. But it remains an outlier to the broader trend.   To further curb bad behavior, stricter rules must be implemented to crack down on the prosecutors who engage in misconduct. And those rules must be fortified with the promise of stiff and certain punishment for anyone who would undermine the principle of justice in pursuit of an unjust conviction."

Rules - WHOSE RULES?

Who is going to implement them?

Lawyers?

Against prosecutors who will become judges?

While knowing that the disciplinary lawyers' own licenses are regulated by judges who are themselves former prosecutors?

There are NO SOLUTIONS offered by the "experts".  "Stricter rules" without a mechanism of enforcement of those rules BY THE PUBLIC means nothing.

This is where the concept of common law grand juries would be good - because the current situation where prosecutors are allowed decisions whether to turn other prosecutors into the grand juries for prosecutorial misconduct obviously result in non-prosecution of prosecutors or in having them escape jail time and tough sentences.

There should be legislation in place of the "eye for an eye" type.

If a prosecutor orchestrated a wrongful conviction for life - he must be himself sentenced for life.

If he orchestrated wrongfully sending a person to the death row - he should be sent to the death row himself.

And lawsuits for INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT should be allowed, with actual and punitive damages against prosecutors.

Those are SPECIFIC "rules" that need to be implemented.  Talking in a roundabout way about "stricter rules" without nailing the problem and offering specific solutions will not change anything.
 





 

 

 




Thursday, February 11, 2016

The warts on the U.S. Constitution - from the lips of a constitutional law professor

My Constitutional Law professor Stephen Clark, who for some reason no longer teaches Constitutional Law, published an article on constitutional law in connection with the lawsuit against Ted Cruz to declare him disqualified from the presidential race and not satisfying the "natural born" American citizen requirement.

Professor Clark expresses an opinion that the "natural born" disqualification provision in the U.S. Constitution should be narrowly construed in order not to undermine the people's right to elect their own leaders.

Yet, the U.S. Constitution itself is the people's agreement as to how they elect their own leaders, and should be not narrowly, but strictly construed.

Even if "narrowly construed", Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so he is not "natural born".

Of course, Professor Clark has a right to his own opinion.

And, I respect Professor Clark very much, he was a VERY good professor of Constitutional Law and I fondly remember his class.

Yet, I respectfully disagree as to one phrase Professor Clark used, which, in my opinion, continues to erode the respect to the U.S. Constitution which is nearly completely gutted by now by the very government whose every member is sworn to uphold it.

Here is what Professor Clark said in his article:

"While plenty of people may doubt that he is fit to be president, they ought to make their case to voters on the merits. They should not use a wart on the Constitution to disqualify him from the ballot."

Now, we need to remember that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

And that Senator Cruz has been sworn to uphold that U.S. Constitution, in public and private conduct, in its entirety and without exceptions.

To call any provision of that U.S. Constitution that Senator Cruz is sworn to uphold "a wart" because it does not fit Senator Cruz' private bid for presidency, is encouraging a public official to disregard parts of the U.S. Constitution that do not suit their personal needs.

And that is just plain wrong. 

And - wart or no wart - the U.S. court where the lawsuit to declare disqualification of Ted Cruz is filed, is bound by the entire U.S. Constitution and by every part of it.