It was a sidewalk footage because the Commission's representative, contrary to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law (to expect from a bunch of high-ranking lawyers to abide by the law is too much to expect, I guess), asked the reporter to leave not only the room, he did not even get there, but even the building where the "public" hearing was scheduled to be held, and to disappear even from the sidewalk.
Good for the reporter that he did not disappear from the sidewalk and instead suggested that the Commission can try to call the police to remove him - which, of course, did not happen. High-ranking attorneys know the law they are breaking and know when they are breaking too much, when their breaking the law is against people who have no recourse and when they are asking for a civil rights lawsuit for a 1st Amendment violation, with money damages.
I already covered a lot of statements made in that video footage.
One statement that I did not cover keeps coming back to me, and I decided to run a separate blog post on it.
A lady, an attorney's wife, was speaking about her divorce proceedings (from that attorney) that is lasting for 6 years where the court does not seem to see evidence of her husband's income (for purposes of equitable distribution), while the husband is an attorney practicing in New York State Supreme Court and his cases generating income (that should be joint income for both of them, to be distributed) documented in the E-track system of New York courts.
Many readers who are not married to attorneys were writing and calling me, as a feedback to my blogs about intellectual dishonesty of judges (with documentary evidence), to complain that certain evidence submitted by them to courts was either not taken into account or misrepresented by the courts.
One judge featured in the interlinked blog already retired from the bench 3.5 years before his term (looks like running to me) and the other is still on the bench but is defending against a 2nd lawsuit by a female court employee for discrimination and retaliation, so maybe the NYS Commission will finally take its head from where it is and make sure he leaves the bench or is taken off the bench (the second one a more preferable scenario, to be fair to Judge Tormey's victims).
Here is the list from Pacer.gov of all lawsuits against Judge James C. Tormey, by the way - most are "closed", dismissed based on the concept of "absolute judicial immunity" which should not preclude a disciplinary investigation - but in New York State, nothing is done to a judge if the judge is high enough and has good enough connections.
In the remaining pending lawsuit by Nancy Rodriguez Walker against Judge Tormey, where you, my dear New Yorkers, are footing the bill for legal defense of Judge Tormey against claims of intentional misconduct in office and where Judge Tormey is represented, instead of prosecuted, by the New York State Attorney General's office at your expense, and where the plaintiff conspicously is represented by attorneys outside of the area of Judge Tormey's administrative reach (Tormey is the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District), Judge Tormey's motion to dismiss "for failure to state a claim" is pending. At the taxpayers' expense, remember. Since the presiding judge is the "closer" Lawrence Kahn, and since courts habitually extend judicial immunity far beyond its breaking point, I will hold my breath on that.
I also note that one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff left during the pendence of the motion. I wonder whether any intimidation behind the scenes was taking place, like it was taking place with me when I was litigating federal lawsuits against judges.
Judge Tormey is a master when invisible evidence is concerned. He managed not to notice an entire court proceeding reflected in the court's record when ruling in a case based on comparison of two lawsuits - between the two of them, Judge Tormey saw only one, and adamantly refused to correct his obvious mistakes.
Such things happened to me also, on a systematic basis, with the following slant:
- usually evidence was ignored or misrepresented when a party or attorney affiliated with the judiciary or other branch of the government (usually a high-ranking official) was on the other side.