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.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Judge Mary Work changes the statutory law for the benefit of her former schoolmate and former client?


Judge Mary Work of Ulster County continues to harass me with demands to come to proceedings from which I withdrew by operation of law, after satisfying all conditions under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, or CPLR 321(b).  She sent me a letter order ordering me to appear in court on January 16, 2015 and represent a person who I no longer represent, even though by statute, CPLR 321 (b) the judge has absolutely no right to do so, and I continue to wonder what kind of ties exist between Judge Work, attorney "Delice" Seligman and Seligman's client so that the judge would be at her beck and call to the point of unlawfully attempting to drag an attorney back into a proceeding the attorney withdrew from.  

 That Judge Work is harassing me at Seligman's request is unquestionable to me, as Seligman has harassed me with an e-mail hinting that Judge Work "might not consent" to my withdrawal after I withdrew from the case and Seligman received my former client's notarized consent to change counsel and before Judge Work "refused to consent" to my withdrawal when the court's approval or disapproval of my withdrawal is irrelevant under the applicable statute.

   CPLR 321(b) provides:

                        (b) Change or withdrawal of attorney.  1. Unless the party is a person

                        specified in section 1201, an attorney  of  record  may  be  changed  by

                        filing  with  the  clerk  a consent to the change signed by the retiring

                       attorney and signed and acknowledged by the party. Notice of such change
                       of attorney shall be given to the  attorneys  for  all  parties  in  the
                       action or, if a party appears without an attorney, to the party.

            CPLR 1201 provides:

                       "§  1201. Representation of infant, incompetent person, or conservatee.
                       Unless the court appoints a guardian ad litem, an infant shall appear by
                       the guardian of his property or, if there is  no  such  guardian,  by  a
                       parent  having legal custody, or, if there is no such parent, by another
                       person or agency having legal custody, or, if the infant is married,  by
                       an  adult  spouse residing with the infant, a person judicially declared
                       to be incompetent shall appear by the committee of his property,  and  a
                       conservatee  shall  appear  by the conservator of his property. A person
                       shall appear by his guardian ad litem if he is  an  infant  and  has  no
                       guardian of his property, parent, or other person or agency having legal
                       custody,  or  adult  spouse with whom he resides, or if he is an infant,
                       person judicially declared  to  be  incompetent,  or  a  conservatee  as
                       defined  in  section  77.01  of  the mental hygiene law and the court so
                       directs because of a conflict of interest or for other cause, or  if  he
                       is an adult incapable of adequately prosecuting or defending his rights.

My former client, a competent adult, not an infant, incompetent or conservatee of the court, released me from the case on notarized consent.

The consent was filed and served as required by CPLR 321(b).

Judge Mary Work's clerk's office confirmed receipt of the consent and of the affirmation of service of the consent on opposing counsel.

The only exception to CPLR 321(b), CPLR 1201, does not apply because my former client, on the date she released me from the case by notarized consent, was a competent adult.

CPLR 321(b) does not allow the court to approve or disapprove withdrawal of counsel from the case on notarized consent.

Yet, in front of Judge Mary Work Attorney "Delice" Seligman.  That is the name this lady puts on her pleadings since August of 2013 when I had the displeasure of first meeting her.

Of course, there is no registered attorney in the State of New York by this first and last name, there is only a "Delores Felice Seligman", and New York rules require attorneys to report their change of name or address within 30 days of the change, which "Delice" Seligman did not do since August of 2013 that I know her.

Of course, there is no such law school as "NY" in New York.  There is a school though called "New York University School of Law".

 Yet, Delores Felice ("Delice"?) Seligman did not put into her registration the correct name of her law school, yet another violation of the registration rules.






But apparently nobody gives a damn about compliance with attorney registration rules if the attorney in question is....

Let us figure out who "Delice" Seligman and her client are for Judge Mary Work.
Judge Work is a judge since 1999 (for 16 years), practices law since 1973 (for 42 years).



Likely, Judge Work and Delores Felice ("Delice"?) Seligman graduated from the same law school, one year apart, and were likely acquainted since then.

"Delice" Seligman represented in the proceeding a person who is a former employee of the Ulster County Department of Social Services.

Judge Work represented the Ulster County Department of Social Services as an attorney in 1988-1990.

I do not know whether the time of employment for the Ulster County Department of Social Services Judge Work's and "Delice" Seligman's client overlapped or not, but Judge Work's partiality to "Delice" Seligman and her client in court is staggering.

The judge does not notice frivolous conduct of "Delice" Seligman and her clients from two proceedings that can fill a book on attorney misconduct, but instead changes laws and allows "Delice" Seligman to:

(1) win a motion for a subpoena duces tecum without serving the custodian of the record, despite the requirements of TWO statutes in New York providing that:

      (a) the custodian of the records must be served when a motion for a subpoena duces tecum on the records by the government is made;

      (b) a motion in New York is made only when it is served - so if it was not served, it has not been made.

Judge Work granted to "Delice" Seligman a "motion" for a subpoena duces tecum, seeking records protected by state and federal privacy laws, while the motion has not been properly made under the existing STATUTORY law.

(2) Judge Work refused to vacate a judgment obtained by "Delice" Seligman in another court by misconduct and in violation of several other statutory laws, including the law precluding a divorce action to be filed in one court when it was previously filed and is still pending and not withdrawn in another court.  

The refusal to vacate the improperly obtained judgment of divorce and stalling a motion to vacate in the divorce court for 9 months in order to allow a related action (relying on validity of the judgment of divorce) to proceed was clearly benefiting "Delice" Seligman's client, the Ulster County Social worker.

No disclosures were made by Judge Work as to her knowledge of the social worker.

The social worker in question, judging by her age, could be working in Ulster County Department of Social services at the same time as Judge Work represented that department in 1988-1990. 

Rules of judicial ethics require that Mary Work should disclose her representation of a party in front of her, even if representation was over 2 years prior.

If "Delice" Seligman's client was a social worker at the time Mary Work represented the Ulster County Department of Social Services, Judge Mary Work may have extrajudicial knowledge about a witness in a case where she is deciding the witness' credibility determinations.

I asked for a jury trial, which request Judge Mary Work denied claiming that there is no right to a jury trial in proceedings in that particular court.  In fact, by statute, there is.  But, Mary Work disregards statutes that work in my former client's favor.

 Now, on request of "Delice" Seligman, Judge Work refused to recognize yet another statute, under which I withdrew from the case on a consent to change counsel and issued an unlawful "letter order" for me to appear in the case despite the fact that,  by law, I am no longer attorney of record.

 I will not be surprised that WHEN (not if) I do not appear on January 16, 2015, "Delice" Seligman will also ask her pet judge to impose sanctions upon me, and that the judge may just as well either sanction me for frivolous conduct or put me in civil or criminal contempt of court, both have a possibility of me ending up in jail.
  • Knowing the judicial system in New York the way I do, knowing that I was already prosecuted for "frivolous conduct" by another judge, Judge Becker, in a case where I was not an attorney of record, behind my back, 
  • Knowing that my standoff with the judicial system has reached the temperature where I was denied even a trial on liability that the court previously ordered, without any authority or reasoning given, 
  • Knowing that so far the courts were completely comfortable to violate applicable laws when sanctioning my husband and myself, no matter what those laws said in our favor

I will not be at all surprised if on January 16, 2015 I will be sanctioned, possibly put in jail, by Judge Work for not coming on behalf of a person who is no longer my client by operation of law.
I am just making the public aware of that, of the applicable law, circumstances and possible connections of Judge Work to the party and attorney who are pushing for it to happen.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)