Never take anything for granted

Editor's note: This Shark believes that "biglaw" fleecing the public in the Probate Court of Cook County should face the same treatment as the Dewey guys.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

 

 

Never take anything for granted is one of the first lessons that a young lawyer learns in his/her very first trial.    Here in Illinois (Cook County) we have a history of corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judicial officials and even juries that can be wrongfully influenced, thus, the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 371, 242 scenario is not a real surprise.   The fact that the IARDC (Lawyer disciplinary board) proceedings are wired and rubber=stamped is par for the course, and Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and myself should have anticipated the same.   We made a conscious choice to stand up and be counted.   When you "fight city hall" expect to bet a black eye - the miscreants do not allow a level playing field.

Some good intentioned  people look that the playing field that the judicial criminals display and are revolted by what they see.  And want to junk the entire process and start from scratch leaving the bad guys with their own playing field.   They said 'let them choke on their perfidy.'    

Unfortunately the adage:  "he who is without sin, can cast the first stone!"  applies.    The Wall Street Journal Law blog is covering the Dewey Trial.   The jury sent the judge a note.   The article will explain, to wit:

2:05 pm ET
Sep 30, 2015

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Dewey Jurors Ask: What Does it Mean to Deliberate?

ARTICLE
COMMENTS (1)
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLPLAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS

 

7

 

16

 

By

 

SARA RANDAZZO

Steven Davis former Chairman for law firm Dewey and Leboeuf exit the courtroom at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, September 16, 2015.

 

Reuters

The seven women and five men weighing evidence against former Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP leaders seem to be taking an existential approach to the task of reaching a verdict in the financial fraud trial.

In a note sent Tuesday in New York state court, the jury asked the judge to explain “the definition of deliberation” and what it is they should “all” be doing, with “all” underlined twice. “What is our job as jurors,” the note continued, “Is the only role of a juror to vote.” (the note lacked question marks, according to lawyers)

The questions came during the ninth day of deliberations in the four-month trial, in which Dewey’s former chairman, Steven Davis, ex-chief financial officer, Joel Sanders, and former executive director, Stephen DiCarmine, are accused of overseeing a scheme to artificially inflate the firm’s finances.

After calling the jurors back into the courtroom, Judge Robert Stolz gave them a few words of clarification on their role before sending them back into the deliberation room, which lawyers say has a nice window with a view of lower Manhattan.

Judge Stolz told the jurors that voting is not their only task. “You are all charged with the responsibility of weighing the evidence in the case,” Judge Stolz said. Deliberating, he said, means discussing the evidence and consulting with one another. “Listen to each other,” he said, and use careful consideration and reason.

The final goal, he noted, is to come to an agreement on the verdict, but “each of you must decide the case for yourself.”

Messrs. Davis, DiCarmine and Sanders each face around 50 counts, including scheme to defraud, grand larceny, and dozens of counts of falsifying business records. The jury must reach a separate decision on each count against each individual.

The concept of jury deliberations is embedded in pop culture, from court TV shows to the famous work “12 Angry Men.” But as the jury’s note indicates, actually doing the task may be more complicated than it seems.

Black’s Law Dictionary has a fairly concise definition, including that it means “to weigh, ponder, discuss, regard upon, consider.” Two academics delved into what jury deliberations tell us about the way we communicate, concluding that “jurors came to trust the good judgment and cultural competence of their fellow citizens.”

While there’s no way to know what’s been going on in the Dewey jury room, the 12 seem to have been busy working Wednesday. So far, their only request has been to receive a few more exhibits, to add to the hundreds of documents they’re already got.

One juror did, however, give the court a warning that she has a doctor’s appointment Oct. 9, noting it would only be an issue “if we are here.”

Juries are instructed by the Court before they are sent to deliberate.   The canned instructions are then sent into the jury room with them.   It is hammered into them that "they are to determine the facts" and they are to consider only the evidence that was presented to them in the light of their common experience.   When they reach a unanimous verdict they are to report to the court their verdict.   

literally millions of ordinary citizens have appropriately performed this task and understood what was being asked of them.    This Jury with the written jury instructions before them apparently had a conflict as to what was required of them!   Such blows my mind!   It is akin to the American Bar Association article disclosing without a single bit of outrage that the Illinois lawyer disciplinary commission (IARDC) and the Illinois Supreme Court had openly and notoriously committed an act of domestic terrorism in assaulting the First Amendment Rights of JoAnne Denison.  A week later the America Bar is still silent!

As pogo pointed out:  "we have met the enemy - it is me!"  

 

Ken Ditkowsky

 

 

when I first started the practice of law, I had the opportunity practice with some of most knowledgeable lawyers.  The credo was very simple.   If you said something, it had better be true and if you promised something you had to provide it.   The judges we practiced before (by in large) were of a similar creed.   We all knew and protected each other from the corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers et al.   Our clients profited because disputes were reduced to their common denominators and we only litigated issues that needed to litigated.   

In short, a Jerome Larkin would have been unable to practice law as not only would those he wronged be uncivil to him, but, most of the lawyers who habited the Courtrooms where real law was practiced.   The system protected all of us, but with the influx of more and more lawyers and more and more corruption in the Cook County courts the system died.   Gone was the oral agreement between lawyers that was worth its weight in gold, and gone was civility.    By 1973 we had the first signs of the cancer that afflicts the legal profession.    I ran into it when an Assistant AG (State) told Judge Lynch " Ditkowsky swore at me!"    Lynch looked at me, and said "is that true?"    I admitted the true fact.    

Lynch then asked me if I had said to Mr. **** everything I wanted to say.   I had not and admitted the same.   Thereupon Lynch ordered both of us to go out in the hallway and finish our conversation.    We did.   Thereafter, Lynch denied Mr. ****'s motion and gave him a look that *****.    As I was rarely at a loss for words, Mr. **** and I had some additional pleasantries.    For the duration of the litigation Mr. **** avoided me like the plague.   His successor and during the long days that were devoted to the proceedings usually broke bread and covered for one another.   

On one occasion a lawyer with whom I had a case, called me on Christmas Day in a panic.  He was in Miami Beach, on Christmas break, and realized that he had a case coming off the trial call.  Trial calls were and are unique in Cook county.   If you were ready for trial, expect that your case would be continued; however, if you were not ready expect to be sent out.   (I once tested this theory - but this is another story).   Anyway, as he could not reach anyone in his office, he called me.   "Would you got before Judge **** at 9:00 A.M tomorrow and ask him for a continuance?"    I agreed.

Promptly, at 9:00 A.M I appeared.   Sometime after 10:45 almost at the end of the call Judge **** called the case.   I answered the call, told the sad story to the Judge.   My opponent informed the Judge that he joined in the motion to continue the case and had no objection.   The judge then sent us to trial.    As it was December 26, the lawyer's office was closed and no one could be reached.   The Judge who was assigned the case was sympathetic, but he had no discretion except to dismiss the case or try it.

Following the tradition of bar, my opponent turned his file over to me, helped me digest the facts and even provided me with "my" clients telephone number.    (We did not have cell phones at the time, and long distance communications were spotty)   The case went to trial.   That evening when the lawyer called to find out the date I was able to tell him that we won the case.    

The winning or losing was not the issue - the fact was that we protected each other and our respective clients.   We had the same opportunities for back biting and back stabbing that exist today, but, we choose to be gentleman first and advocates second.   The First Amendment assaults and coverup promulgated by Larkin and his 18 USCA 371, 242 co-conspirators would never have occurred.   If they did, the lawyers would be united in pressing for Larkin's exile.    

The fact that the American Bar Association and the Journal treated the open and notorious publication of shame, Constitutional violation, Human Rights violation and ethically challenged behavior by Illinois Judicial authorities so matter of factly and without protest does not cover the legal profession or the ABA with glory.    It demonstrates why America is in decline and why it appears that are core values are treated so disreputably.   Hell - the ACLU is loudly silent - and the individual members of the bar are trembling in their 'holes!' 

(NB.  The civil rights organizations = while the movie Selma was raking in millions - could not even raise a single letter of protest as an Icon of the Civil Rights movement and a leader in the March on Selma was denied public accommodations access by Jerome Larkin.  Diane Nash was denied access to the kangaroo hearing involving JoAnne Denison!!!   She was the only person denied access!   Larkin refused to even provide her with the usual insincere apology!)

It has been said that you get the government that you deserve!     

 

Ken Ditkowsky