Yet, what New York State refuses to address in 2015, was already addressed by the State of Washington 5 years ago, in 2010.
In 2010 the Washington State Supreme Court has issued a policy where it specifically prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers of judicial misconduct.
Yet, under the law of precedent and equal protection, and pursuant to 1st Amendment, this policy can certainly be used as evidence that the State Court system of the State of Washington is at least aware that retaliation for complaints against judges exists and declared its readiness to fight it at least as against its own employees.
Once again, I do not know how well the policy is implemented, but at least it exists, which means, the court system at least acknowledged that retaliation for such whistleblowing exists, too.
In New York, the Commission's Report reflects no effort of the Commission to address the problem.
New York State court continue to endorse, through affirmation of sanctions imposed by the challenged judges upon their challengers for making motions to recuse, that New York court system refuses to acknowledge that such a situation is completely improper and shows, instead of the state attempting to remedy the situation, the state endorsing such retaliation.
The ultimate endorsement by the state of such retaliation is law license revocation of attorney critics, like it was done to George Sassower and Doris Sassower, as it is continued to be done today, when a suspended attorney was denied reinstatement because of his testimony to the Moreland Commission on corruption in the judiciary, which testimony (described by an independent source here) was used against him by the 3rd Department Committee and Court (both members of the Commission) as evidence of his alleged unfitness to practice law.
Here is how Leon Koziol describes what happened to him:
All of these three attorneys (George Sassower, Doris Sassower, Leon Koziol) were disbarred, suspended or denied suspension for providing a BENEFIT to the public, for protecting the public's right to the integrity of the court system.
The Commission refused to ask the courts to introduce such an anti-retaliation policy for whistleblowers of judicial misconduct, or to raise the issue that attorney disciplinary system is being used as a tool of retaliation.
Because, as Leon Koziol mentions, the 3rd Department court and the 3rd Department committee were ENGAGED in such retaliation.
The 3rd Department and its disciplinary committee were also MEMBERS of the Commission allegedly attempting to verify how to make these proceedings more fair.
The main point of fairness would have been to dismiss them from their job and prosecute them criminally for witness tampering and intimidation.
Their attorneys resigned for committing other misconduct, falsifying time sheets as to their use of taxpayers' money - and escaped attorney discipline from the committee employees of which they were.
See an article here describes how time sheets of public employees CAN be falsified, because the matter were never made public, even though it is a matter of public concern.
See an article from 2014 stating the following:
"It appears that COPS [3rd Department disciplinary committee - T.N.] is in fact little more than a protective shield for attorneys, shielded from disciplinary action by their fellow attorneys in the department. Complaints filed with COPS by the public seem to be placed in a file and six months later, are summarily dismissed".
The author of the article was not invited to testify before the Commission on this issue of public concern - because the COPS were members of the Commission, an irreconcilable conflict of interest for participating in the Commission.
Not for all attorneys, of course, only for well-connected ones.
So, of course, the Commission will not try to whip its own butt by asking courts to:
- provide for introduction of special investigators and prosecutors to prosecute disciplinary prosecutors for attorney misconduct - which is rampant and unaddressed;
- provide for a policy to introduce the general policy that challenges to judicial integrity raised in pleadings or in public forums, may not be used as basis of retaliation, and as attorney discipline as a specific point.
After all, any such policies that a Commission members would recommend, could be turned against Commission members.
That's why reasonable citizenry does not appoint foxes to preside over the chicken coup in order to decide how to protect chickens better.
Foxes do that instead on behalf of the citizenry.