Harassing public defenders and violating constitutional rights of criminal defendants is a suspendable offense for a judge in Missouri. In New York, only harassment of prosecutors can get a judge off the bench

In an amazing move, the State of Missouri suspended a judge, Chris Kunza Mennemeyer, for harassment of public defenders, and for intentionally delaying cases of criminal defendants in order to charge them money for room and board in jail (!) and to deprive them of counsel.

Here is the "heroine":

This judge was reportedly the subject of THREE writs of prohibition in one month - an extraordinary occurrence.

The subject of one writ was that the judge improperly silenced the testimony of an alternative suspect in a murder case.

Compared to New York, Missouri appears to be the shining example of transparency and accountability in judicial disciplinary proceedings.

In New York, a judge will only be taken off the bench if he displeases prosecutors.

As it happened recently to judge Thomas Keefe, the "sit the F**K down" judge of the Albany City Court.

I actually had a report from a witness from August of 2014 that this particular judge, in an eviction proceeding:

1. used expletives against two women, for example, yelling at a grandmother "sit the F**k down" when she was in the middle of a pro se legal argument;
2. mocked and humiliated pro se respondents for researching the law on their own and yelling at them for referencing the law to him
   

I actually heard the "sit the f**k down" yelling by Judge Keefe on the tape.

Individuals in question were then blocked from getting a transcript or an official audio file of the same proceedings from Judge Keefe's court.

So, When Judge Keefe harassed pro se parties, mocked them for trying to make legal arguments and yelled at them "sit the F**K down!!!" during those legal argument - complaints about him were disregarded, and the court refused to release copies of audio recordings of his rantings to the parties whom he harassed in the courtroom.

Yet, Judge Keefe was recently forced to resign amid investigation of his misconduct.

Misconduct continuing over a LONG period of time.

The press wrote about Judge Keefe's courtroom "style", or in other words, about his extreme rudeness, in 2009 and in 2013 - yet the judge remained on the bench.

This is the judge who ate at the bench and puts his feet on the bench - while not allowing everybody else to eat in his courtroom and put their feet on the tables or chairs in front of them.

So, what drove the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission to draw the line in 2016?

Here is what Judge Keefe was finally charged with - and what caused his disciplinary resignation with implied permission to retaliate by the end of September 2016:

SUMMARY of the 13 charges against Judge Keefe:

Charge No	CHARGE
1	made impatient, discourteous and undignified remarks to and about the Albany County District Attorney's Office and the prosecutors who appeared before him and, by his words and conduct, conveyed an impression of bias against the District Attorney's Office
2	made discourteous and impatient remarks to the prosecutor, failed to accord the prosecutor the right to be heard according to law and sua sponte dismissed the charges without a written motion to dismiss before him, in violation of Criminal Procedure Law §§ 170.30, 170.45 and 210.45.
3	sua sponte dismissed the charges in the absence of a motion to dismiss made in writing and/or reasonable notice to the District Attorney's Office, in violation of Criminal Procedure Law §§ 170.30, 170.45 and 210.45.
4	created the appearance of impropriety by meeting ex parte with the defendant, shortly after pronouncing the defendant's sentence and contemporaneously signing a commitment order indicating a sentence that differed from the pronounced sentence, without providing notice to the attorneys of his meeting with the defendant and the change in sentence
5	created the appearance of impropriety by meeting ex parte with the defendant while his criminal case was pending before Respondent
6	created the appearance of impropriety by engaging in an ex parte conversation with the defendant about, inter alia, the defendant's potential sentence and ineligibility for the drug court program
7	engaged in an improper ex parte conversation with the defendant about the circumstances underlying the defendant's alleged violation of his drug court agreement
8	engaged in an improper ex parte conversation with a representative of the victim of the defendant's alleged crime, and asked the representative to reduce the amount of restitution sought from the defendant
9	engaged in improper ex parte communications with the defendant's mother, S C , who was the alleged victim ofthe crimes
10	engaged in improper ex parte communications with a man who claimed to be relative or friend of a defendant in a case pending before Respondent, regarding the defendant's purported violation of her drug court agreement
11	engaged in an improper ex parte conversation with defense counsel concerning the pending proceeding
12	Directed the defendant not to communicate with her attorney, in violation of the defendant's right to counsel pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New York and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and remanded the defendant to jail for one week for calling her attorney
13	made undignified and discourteous comments to the defendant, who was participating in the Veterans Treatment Court/Track

Out of 13 charges, only 2 charges were directed at some wrongdoing towards a defendant:

Charge 12 - prohibition to a criminal defendant to call her attorney and jailing the defendant for disobeying and calling her attorney;

Charge 13 - rudeness towards a defendant.

All other 11 charges are filed because of ex parte communications with the defense, defense or prosecution's witnesses, displaying bias towards prosecution, being rude to prosecution, dismissing criminal cases without notice to prosecution, changing sentences without notice to prosecution.

Normally, charges of ex parte communications towards a party in a criminal or civil case is disregarded by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct as not warranting even investigation.

My MULTIPLE complaints about documented cases of ex parte communications were tossed by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct without investigation.

Here, the Commission bent over backwards to accommodate the complaint of prosecution about ex parte communications.

So, the No. 1 charge was unwillingness to accept plea bargains for charges reduced from felonies, and for disrespect to prosecutors - not to pro se litigants, not to defendants, but to prosecutors.

While Judge Keefe was complained about by the "sit the f**k down" defendants - and the complaint amounted to nothing (a form letter saying "your allegations did not warrant judicial discipline"), here is what warranted a disciplinary resignation:

Judge Keefe actually had no authority to try felonies in Albany City Court (only County Court and Supreme Court have such authority in New York).

Yet, Judge Keefe did not have to accept plea bargains, he had a full authority to reject a plea bargain. 

The next specification is also for the judge's comments and unwillingness to accept plea bargains down from a felony to a misdemeanor.  Please, note that the threat of the DA as to the defendant "facing prison time" was only valid if the charges are valid - and there is a clear possibility that the criminal charges in New York are so sloppily put together that they cannot withstand an indictment, or post-indictment pre-trial motions, or a trial, and that the defendant was simply steered into an easy (for the prosecution) plea.

So - Judge Keefe was not suspended for something BAD (even though they did through in a couple of charges about violations of defendants' rights).

Judge Keefe was predominantly suspended for taking the defendant's side and hurting the prosecution.

And in New York, inlike Missouri, a judge cannot keep on the bench if it crosses the prosecution.

As Judge Keefe's example demonstrates.