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.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Attorneys and litigants appearing in front of Jonathan Follender, judge in the Town of Denning court, Ulster County - beware of this judge's views that he is above the law and that constitutional rights of litigants are, in fact, "constitutional" rights


I have written on this blog about attorney Jonathan Follender (who is at the same time a judge in the Town of Denning court in Ulster County) who is the author of the following arguments (for which he never was sanctioned by any court):

  • loss of consortium of a dog, a non-existing cause of action in New York (compare what "loss of consortium" is);
  • death of a corporation (Mr. Follender filed a motion for substitution of the wife of his client due to his client's death in a case where his client was a corporation - and the presiding judge Eugene Peckham of Binghamton, now retired and partner to Levine, Gouldin and Thomson LLP, reviewed and granted the motion!);
  • frivolous default (a non-appearance in a civil action may never be considered as frivolous conduct);
  • frivolous deprivation of the court of SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction through "untimely" satisfaction of money judgment - after the same Mr. Follender had me sanctioned in a related case for delaying satisfaction of the same money judgment.
The last one bears specific attention - Mr. Follender claimed, in a case where I never appeared as an attorney, that my alleged influence in satisfaction of money judgment that was "too fast" for his client to grab the home of two people on a homestead sale petition frivolously caused the LOSS OF JURISDICTION by the court.

So, Mr. Follender, at the time of making these arguments, fully realized that he was making them to the court that has lost jurisdiction.

Yet, that did not prevent either Mr. Follender to proceed before the court that has lost jurisdiction, nor Judge Becker from presiding over the case where he lost jurisdiction and making decisions in that case.

Several days ago I received yet another masterpiece from Mr. Follender that got me worried as to his fitness as a judge, so here is what he claimed against me after I finally sued him for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court for falsely running his mouth against me in a case where I never appeared as an attorney of record.

Mr. Follender claimed that:

(1) my constitutional rights  are actually "constitutional" rights, in quotes;

(2) I must be punished for criticizing the judiciary for well documented misconduct for making "unsubstantiated claim of misconduct" in violation of attorney rules.

Apparently, Jonathan Follender, as attorney and judge, is not aware of the federal pre-emption doctrine under which federal law trumps inconsistent state law on issues of the U.S. Constitution, and where my statements were within the core political speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Jonathan Follender asked to punish me for criticizing judges by

(1) sanctions;
(2) paying his legal fees and
(3) imposing on me an anti-filing injunction for trying to prove to the court that Judge Tormey punished me illegally and unconstitutionally without reviewing the record and while treating as one two different underlying court cases, one where I was an attorney of record and the other where I wasn't and where Mr. Follender defamed me.

Mr. Follender asked the court to punish me for untimely filing of the record while I came to the court on my deadline bringing BOXES of that record and faced closed doors because the court chose to close its doors due to election day, even though it was not a national holiday.

I brought that same record the next day, which was accepted by the court - yet Mr. Follender had the audacity that I filed untimely and "failed to explain the reason for delay".  Apparently, the court's actions in closing its doors on my deadline while I made a nearly 200 mile roundtrip with huge boxes of the Record on Appeal is not  good reason enough for Mr. Follender.

Mr. Follender asked the court to sanction me for stating an opinion that Judge Tormey should have been taken off the bench long time ago due to his misconduct resulting in lawsuit after lawsuit by female court employees that New York taxpayers have to pay for, and that had Karen Peters, the presiding judge of the 3rd Department who was a member of the Judicial Conduct Commission for years, did her job on that Commission, Judge Tormey would have been taken off the bench and disbarred by now.

Mr. Follender asked the court to sanction me for my opinion that Judge Tormey has a tendency of discrimnating against women, while my opinion was well documented and expressed based on the two lawsuit prosecuted against Judge Tormey by two different females, a court clerk and a court interpreter, for similar discriminating conduct, as well as for his course of conduct against me showing Judge Tormey as a spiteful male who cannot allow a female to challenge his misconduct without abusing his power and sanctioning that female, no matter how lawful her challenge is.

Mr. Follender made a very interesting statement in his pleadings - that I plead as if "I have nothing to lose".

Apparently, to Mr. Follender, reporting of judicial misconduct, a duty foof attorneys as officers of the court and a right of attorneys as citizens participating in democratic processes of their country, can be done only when an attorney "has nothing to lose".

All in all, this is an attorney who is also a judge who things that: 

  1. asserting constitutional rights is frivolous;
  2. criticizing judges is sanctionable per se, constitutional standards of 1st Amendment do not apply to such criticism despite clear language of constitutional provisions and a long string of cases on that subject by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that no amount of documentary evidence may prevent sanctions for criticism of judges.
Those views, added to the stark incompetence of an attorney who claims, with a straight face, loss of consortium of a dog, death of a corporation, frivolous defaults, frivolously causing delay in satisfying a money judgment and at the same time frivolously satisfying that same money judgment prematurely, a frivolous deprivation of the court of subject matter jurisdiction - those views, ladies and gentlemen, belong to a judge, a person who holds in his hands your liberty, who decides whether you go to jail or not, whether to issue orders of protection or not, whether to evict you from your home or not, whether you should have your property in a small claim action or not.

And that attorneys with that level of incompetence are allowed to be judges is downright scary.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)