EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"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 cos
t.



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.



“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.

"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.

Monday, October 31, 2016

Carl Becker - the immortal judge. Happy Halloween!

Do you think, anybody can live over 200 years?

You bet.

The name of that phenomenon is Carl F. Becker.

Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker "retired" in July of 2015, before the end of his term and long before mandatory retirement by age, losing, despite his well-known greed, half of his 2015 salary for the remaining 3.5 years until his retirement, and the hope of getting the increased salary at the beginning of 2016, and the increased pension, plus to his current court + social services pension of $114,387, plus after-retirement perks


(compare with the current salary of a Family Court judge Frank B Revoir)




The Becker "retired" and was not booted was incredible, since Becker grabbed his judicial position after a bitter election using fraud upon voters which he won (allegedly won, I won't put anything past Delaware County Board of Elections that already put in a false certificate of elections for Becker in 2011 for his alleged election in 2002) by a margin of 190 votes where he aggrandized himself in front of voters as a Boeing 747 while demeaning his opponent by calling him "a single engine prop plane".

It was all the more incredible that Becker would give up his judgeship voluntarily because, despite his retirement because he allegedly wanted to "spend more time with his granddaughter" who lived on the other coast of the U.S. in Seattle, WA and was reportedly about to leave to Australia, Becker continued to hover around Delaware County courthouse for a while - illegally keeping "judicial" plate numbers on his car, parking in a parking spot reserved for judges, and even fraudulently swearing in a new judge, Northrup - while having no authority to do that after retirement.

is, according to the website of New York State Office of Court Administration, still scheduled to hear court cases:


  1. on Friday, August 27, 2021;
  2. on Thursday, March 13, 2031; and
  3. on Tuesday, September 01, 2201 - figure that one out - when all of people currently living on Earth will be dead, he will still be hearing cases



It appears, that Becker is not only un-retirable, but also immortal - the New York State Court Administration pledges, and we absolutely must believe it, that Becker will never die.

Even though the Boeing 747 has crushed and gave way to the "single engine prop plane", Judge Gary Rosa who is presiding over Delaware County Family Court instead of Becker now - contrary to Becker's hopes to put his puppet Porter Kirkwood there - he is still looming large in the court's scheduling.

How much money do taxpayers have to give NYS Court Administration to simply remove all scheduling of judges who are no longer judges, not to confuse and mislead the public?

But anyway, we are supposed to be happy and give out candy today.

Because - guess what - in the Halloween of 2201, a hundred eighty five years from now, how many of us can collectively haunt the still-alive Carl Becker!!!

That will be a happy haunting.

Happy Halloween!

New York provides whistleblower protection to fired nonprofit employees, but does not investigate nonprofits for misuse of funds - unless the nonprofit under investigation is linked to a presidential candidate of the "wrong" party

An employee of a private non-profit school reported the school's principal for using the school's fund for a personal vacation with some alumnis to Cuba - where, as the lawsuit alleged,

"[t]wo seniors from scandal-scarred Poly Prep shared a hooker, booze and cigars on a school-financed “rite of passage” Cuban getaway hosted by a top school official, a stunning new lawsuit charges", and where, reportedly

the son of the school principal and a son of a "famous musician" participated in the trip.

After blowing the whistle on that misuse of funds, the employee was allegedly harassed by the director of the school, fired - and sued for non-compliance with the new Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that hush money were paid out of the non-profit funds to silence an alumni who was on the trip and witnessed the alleged debauchery of the two students.

The Kings County Supreme Court has recently found for the employee, allowing her whistleblower portion of the lawsuit to continue.

Non-profits handle not only direct donations from individuals, but also act as recipients and "pass-through" agencies for state and federal grants, and it is extremely important for taxpayers to know whether their money is pilfered by high-ranking officers of such non-profits.

This decision, by New York judge Loren Bailey-Schiffman,



is a true step, although a small and incomplete step (the judge dismissed the breach of contract and defamation claims of the fired employee) forward to fight waste of taxpayer money in the State of New York.

Yet, the judge demonstrated courage when, in our day and age, she at least ruled for the employee on the whistleblower issue and allowed this lawsuit to continue - even though it may have involved a child of a celebrity.

Let's see whether this decision will be overruled on appeal.

And, my question is - with the news of reported misuse of nonprofit funds, where is our fearless New York State Attorney General and why do we not hear about criminal charges filed against the school's principal and those who authorized the payout of the trip money and the "silence money"?

Or, is New York nonprofit law good enough for the New York State Attorney General to use only to attack the Republican presidential candidate in the crucial months before the election, for the NYS AG's own personal political gain - but NYS AG is too timid to touch a case that may involve (as it reportedly does) a son of a rock star?





Yet another decision in favor of the defense from a criminal court in Bronx - running down the street in a high crime area does not warrant an arrest and search

I just posted about an unusually correct and impartial decision of a New York criminal court in favor of the defendant - by judge Laurence Brusching in the Bronx Criminal Court

In yet another decision of a Bronx criminal court, Judge Lester B. Adler found that the police did not have right to the level 2 intrusion (out of 4 so-called "De Bour" factors), and thus the arrest, search and identification of defendants should be suppressed - leaving the People with not much to proceed with.

The "level 1" De Bour intrusion factor that the judge found legitimate was when defendants ran towards the police officers in a high crime area, and when the police officers stopped them and asked whether "everything was ok".

Yet, when police officers received an answer that everything was ok, they had, according to the court, no right to arrest, search and identify defendants.

It is a correct and reasonable decision, otherwise the police will be grabbing anybody who runs in their own neighborhood which happens to be a high crime area, which would necessarily have affected poor and minority populations.

Kudoz to Judge Lester B. Adler for the impartial and correct application of the law, even if it resulted in a ruling in favor of a criminal defendant (which, as I said above, rarely happens in New York courts).

In a rare move, a Bronx criminal court (NY) dismisses a case because People's statement of readiness was illusory

There are honest judges in New York out there who do not always bend backwards to the prosecution, as it usually happens.

Judge Laurence Busching, a former prosecutor I must add,


dismissed a criminal case for "Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law [PL] § 120.00 [1]); Menacing in the Third Degree (PL § 120.15); and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1])" - because People's statement of readiness (designated as "SOR" in the decision) was "illusory" - not true.

Assault in the 3rd Degree, PL 120.00(1) (intentional causing an injury to a person), is a Class A misdemeanor  punishable by up to 1 year in local jail.

Menacing in the 3rd Degree, PL 120.15 (threatening a person and putting a person in fear of death or serious bodily injury) is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in local jail.

Harassment in the 2nd degree, PL 240.26(1) (striking, shoving, kicking or otherwise subjecting  another person to physical contact, or attempting or threatening to do the same) is a violation punishable by up 15 days in jail. 

So, the People failed to properly prosecute a criminal defendant who allegedly caused a physical injury and made threats of death or physical injury to another person, blew taxpayers' money by prosecuting the criminal defendant for nearly a year while their witness would not come to trial on multiple occasions - and, as a consequence, the criminal case was correctly dismissed on speedy trial grounds.

Yet, a precedent was made (unless People appeal and the appellate court overrules it) that People cannot do what they always do in criminal court - run their mouth that they are "ready", file whatever they want with the court at whatever time they want, while the court would accept whatever they say or file as Gospel.

Judge Busching applied the New York state statutory law of speedy trial IMPARTIALLY, as judges usually don't, but should rule.

Kudoz to Judge Busching.









The first reaction to the criminal complaint against Delaware County (NY) Clerk Sharon O'Dell and attorney/judge Jonathan S. Follender - the immediate resignation of Sharon O'Dell

On October 19, 2016 I have sent a criminal complaint and a demand of impeachment against Delaware County (NY) Clerk Sharon O'Dell, for knowingly filing a false multi-thousand dollar judgment fabricated by attorney (and town justice) Jonathan S. Follender, and against attorney Jonathan S. Follender and his client on whose behalf (as well as his own) he filed a fabricated judgment.

On October 24, 2016, a Monday, the complaint was received by:

1) Delhi Village Police;



2)  Delaware County Sheriff's Department;



3) Chairman of Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel, with a demand to impeach and fire Sharon O'Dell and members of her personnel who knowingly filed the fraudulent judgment; and




4) Attorney Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division 3rd Department - asking for disbarment of Jonathan S. Follender who, once again, knowingly filed a fraudulent multi-thousand dollar judgment contrary to a clear court order.




On October 25, 2016 I also filed a complaint against Judge Follender with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct demanding the immediate suspension of Follender from his position of Town Justice of the Town of Denning, Ulster County, and to ultimately take him off the bench, after full prosecution, and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.

Today, a reader of my blog has sent to me a photograph from a local newspaper circulated in Delhi, NY, Delaware County - "The County Shopper", of October 27, 2016,




Took Sharon O'Dell 3 days since the filing of the criminal complaint to suddenly and unexpectedly "retire".

Sharon O'Dell is 65.  Of course, all predecessors of Sharon O'Dell died in office - the job of sitting and doing nothing for $63,245 a year in rural Delaware County, NY 



and have "absolute judicial immunity" for malicious and corrupt acts in office (not against a criminal complaint though) was too good to give up, and there was no prior announcement of her planned "retirement" - so it is obvious that Sharon O'Dell ran from office because of the criminal complaint and did not just suddenly "retire".

Sharon O'Dell obviously tried to save her pension - had she been impeached and fired, she could have lost it.  I wonder if she will keep it if she is criminally prosecuted, indicted and convicted.

NO elected public official would suddenly "retire" 12 days before the next elections outside of the election cycle.

Here is the "sample ballot" in Delaware County for the upcoming November 8, 2016 elections.



Delaware County Clerk's position is not on the ballot this year.  The only Delaware County position up for elections this year is that of the County District Attorney - see the last column on the right on the "sample ballot".

Had Sharon O'Dell's decision to "retire" been a regular decision, no tied to my criminal complaint against her, she would have announced her retirement a long time ago, to allow her replacement through elections this coming November.

The "retirement" of Sharon O'Dell eliminates the need for her impeachment - and I wonder who will be her replacement (since the criminal complaint is filed against her AND her personnel who participated in filing of the fraudulent judgment).

Yet, Sharon O'Dell's flight from the position of Delaware County Clerk does not cancel out the request for her criminal investigation and prosecution.  The sworn criminal complaint is filed, is based on irrefutable documentary evidence, and Sharon O'Dell's "retirement" does nothing to stop the criminal investigation and prosecution of herself and members of her now former personnel who knowingly filed the fraudulent multi-thousand dollar judgment, which is a FELONY punishable by years in state prison.

I wonder whether before her retirement Sharon O'Dell corrected her "mistake" or left it in - if she did not correct her mistake and did not annul the fabricated judgment before leaving, that would only aggravates her criminal conduct.

I wonder whether the newly formed and much celebrated "Del-Chen-O [Delaware-Chenango-Otsego County] Women's Bar Association" was notified that
  • a criminal complaint based on documentary evidence was pending against Sharon O'Dell
before they were asked to Congratulate Sharon O'Dell on her early "retirement" and wish her their "Highest Hopes" for a "Beautiful Life Ahead" -

but I would not be surprised to learn that they knew about the criminal complaint and

simply participated covering up the real reason for RESIGNATION of Sharon O'Dell - that she was caught in committing a bad crime and is RUNNING.

A poor start and a poor advertisement for the "#Del-Chen-OWomen'sBarAssociation", supported by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District (Molly Fitzgerald), a Judge of the Appellate Division (Elizabeth Garry) and the local Attorney Grievance Committee (Monica Duffy) - see all of them, together with Delhi, NY attorneys Larisa Obolensky and Rene Albaugh in the picture celebrating the start of the "Del-Chen-O"




to endorse a public official caught red-handed in commission of a felony, and to wish a criminal caught red-handed a "beautiful life ahead". 

In prison, life is usually not that beautiful.

I will now have to ask Monica Duffy's Attorney Grievance Committee to disqualify herself from Follender's case since she endorsed the organization that endorsed Sharon O'Dell after the criminal complaint against O'Dell and Follender was filed.

Of course, the local authorities will try to sweep the criminal complaint against public officials under the rug - as they usually do.  But, I will continue to cover how the criminal complaint against Sharon O'Dell and Jonathan S. Follender is - or is not - investigated and prosecuted in Delaware County.

Stay tuned.





Sunday, October 30, 2016

Time to take the oathbreaker #JudgeRichardPosner off the bench


Richard Posner, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, an appellate judge, presides over trials as a trial judge.

Why?

Because he wants to, because he thinks that presiding over trials (something he did not do before being appointed to the federal bench) enhances his experience and makes him a better appellate judge.

There is a question though as to legality of assignments of Posner as a federal appellate judge to district cases, the conflicts of interest it creates for Posner's work as an appellate judge - and that is especially so that
  • trial experience is not a requirement for an appellate judge (obviously so, since Posner was confirmed to his position as an appellate judge without such experience), and
  • for an appellate judge to seek trial experience is weird - because an appellate judge must be content in restricting himself to the record on appeal and the issues it raises - and the record alone.
The record on appeal is the jurisdictional boundaries within which an appellate court and judge must operate.  If the judge is not happy with those boundaries - he should resign.

Judge Posner appears to be not happy with the boundaries of his job and seeks not so much experience but additional excitement of a trial court where he has more opportunities for in-person communications and to hand out his famous "benchslaps", for which he goes outside of the record and does "his own research" - which is prohibited to an appellate judge by the jurisdictional boundaries of the record on appeal only.

Yet, Judge Posner's job - for which citizens and taxpayers of this country hired him and are paying him, more than they pay a district court judge - is clear.

Judge Richard Posner was appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be an appellate judge, and he draws a salary of an appellate judge - which is higher than the salary of a district court (trial judge).

Judge Posner is one of 12 judges in a very busy federal appellate court:



Federal appellate judges complain of crushing caseloads - in fact, so crushing that they decide 85% of cases and (according to my personal research, probably, 100% of civil rights cases), through "summary orders" instead of full-swing opinions.  In other words, the majority of federal appeals and an overwhelming majority of civil rights cases are decided in a negligent manner, because supposedly judges are too busy to decide "worthier" cases.

Of course, the law of equal protection requires that for the same fee litigants get the same review and the same quality of review - and federal appellate court do not have DISCRETION to give less time to some cases over others.

Yet, that's what they do.

Any additional activities of appellate judges further cut into time they already claim they do not have to provide full opinions for all appellate cases that come in front of them.

Thus, Judge Posner's trial judge activity is hurting appellate litigants, and appellate litigants whose cases are decided by Judge Posner's summary order may have questions whether Judge Posner and his panel decided to rule on a case through a summary order and not a full opinion because Judge Posner found it more entertaining for himself to play at the role of a trial judge in a high-publicity district court case.

He "volunteers for trials" - like he did

Yet, such "volunteering" is not supported by any law.

The assigned district judge must remain on the case from start to finish unless he disqualifies himself.

It is extremely rare - if at all happens - that the entire U.S. District Court would disqualify itself, so that a judge from another court would be invited.

Moreover, if a judge from another court is to be invited, a judge from the court of the same level - a district court judge - will be invited from that other court.

I found no announcements that the entire district courts recused so that Posner could be assigned, so assignment of Posner to trials was a FAVOR of the district court to Posner - a favor which was illegal
  • not only because Posner had no right to preside over trials, not only because
  • such presiding took him away from doing his job as an appellate judge, not only because
  • such assignments created a HUGE conflict of interest when his decision would go to his own court for an appeal, but also because
  • such assignments, catering to the whims of an appellate judge, tainted ALL decisions in ALL appellate cases coming in front of Posner from that court - creating appearances of trading favors.

Finally, is it really such a good idea for appellate judges to have trial experience, and for sitting appellate judges to continue to engage in presiding over trials in a court below?

My opinion is - NO and NO.

First, an appellate judge has a jurisdictional restriction - the Record on Appeal.  That's it.  That's all that the appellate judge is allowed to see and consider, and an appellate judge is allowed to consider ONLY issues "preserved for review".

Whether the appellate judge does or does not have trial experience, whether he is aware of possible trial dynamics - is irrelevant for appellate review.  It reviews only the issues of law and whether the trial court and trial attorneys followed the rules, or whether the trial court "abused its discretion".

When an appellate judge wants to fit the shoes of a trial judge in order to "better" decide appellate cases, that smacks of bias - because if the appellate judge learns about "trial dynamics", he would want to inject his own experience into his decision-making, taking him outside of the record on appeal, and Judge Posner is already known for doing his own investigations outside of the record on appeal, something that even a trial judge is not allowed to do.

In other words, when an appellate judge seeks to also gain trial experience after being appointed as an appellate judge, that indicates not only that the judge is not happy within his boundaries as an appellate judge - and thus is not a good appellate judge and should be removed from his position.

Posner also seems not to be sufficiently entertained as a federal appellate judge - even though, despite the supposedly "crushing" caseloads that cause the 7th Circuit, as all other federal court, to dump over 85% of federal cases and, likely, 100% of civil rights cases through sloppy 2-page "summary orders", Posner have found time to:

Judge Richard Posner


according to his official biography (including his career path) published on his page at the Chicago School of Law:



Judge Posner has not worked in his life for one second other than in taxpayer-backed jobs - and, while he engages in his lucrative hobbies instead of doing his job, and while his lifetime of financial well-being is derived from taxpayer-backed jobs that require an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, he has the audacity to claim that it is useless for a judge who is deciding cases regarding violations of the U.S. Constitution to study the U.S. Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land, the law that Judge Posner has pledged to protect and uphold as a condition to have a law license and as a condition to get on that federal bench).

From a taxpayer point of view, Posner can be brilliancy itself, but since he does not do his job, and instead seeks to entertain himself with anything other than doing his job of a federal appellate judge, the way that job is supposed to be done by law -

and do it within the record on appeal, as the law requires, without additional out-of-the-record investigations by the judge, without "volunteering" for trials to "enhance" his judicial abilities as an appellate judge -

he should be removed from his bench, and stripped of his law license - because he lied to the licensing authorities, lied to the U.S. President, lied to the U.S. Senate and the American people and took oaths of office to the law that he deems worthless to know and research.

Imagine:

law school graduate Richard Posner comes before a law licensing committee and claims - "it is useless to study the U.S. Constitution".   He would have been denied his law license application up front. 

So, he lied to the licensing commission in 1962 that he will uphold the U.S. Constitution that he considers a useless document, and got a lifetime of financial well-being, 54 years so far, from us the taxpayers paying him for that lie.


Imagine that presidential nominee Richard Posner would come to the U.S. Congress and say at his confirmation hearing what he is saying now - "it is not worth it for a judge to study the U.S. Constitution".

He would not have been confirmed - and likely, his career from that time on would have been over, since confirmation hearings are public record and the media would have destroyed him.

So, he lied to the U.S. President and to the U.S. Congress that he will be faithful to the U.S. Constitution - and got his well-paying job, 35 years ago, and sat on the taxpayers' necks for 35 years while treating his oath of office as a joke.

Two days ago, I posted about what a waste to taxpayers the U.S. Supreme Court is, pretending it does a job it physically cannot do with less than 12 minutes per certiorari petition for review and judges pursuing their hobbies and paid trips by litigants while law clerks are slaving as judges.

Today, I am posting about yet another waste of our money - paying lower-level federal judges who do anything but their jobs, at our expense, in order to entertain themselves, enhance the value of their side commercial projects like book-publishing and teaching, and while mocking the very oath that they took to get their public employment jobs and to sucker us for our hard-earned money.

They have no right to remain on our payroll.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Violent judges are not that dangerous - the cases of New York #JudgeFrankLabuda and #AdministrativeLawJudgeRobertBeltrani

Imagine that there is a report from an individual that a neighbor deliberately ran over that individual on an ATV.

What will happen to the alleged perpetrator?


The alleged perpetrator will be immediately arrested, charged with a felony assault, based on the statement of the alleged victim, and kept in jail without bail or with a high bail.

What if the alleged victim is a judge?  In other words, a judge complains that a neighbor deliberately ran over him on an all terrain vehicle?

Most certainly the alleged perpetrator will be held in jail without bail as a very dangerous person.

Now, let's reverse the roles.  An individual alleges that his neighbor who is a judge ran over him in an ATV.

What happens to the alleged perpetrator now?

If the law is blind and is applied equally across the board, there should be no difference - the judge should be held in jail without bail as a dangerous person.

Yet, in the exact same situation the Sullivan County (NY) Judge Frank LaBuda never saw the insides of a jail, he was never arrested or charged, even though statement of the alleged victim is enough to charge him with felony assault (a disbarring offense that would have the judge expelled not only off the bench, but also out of the legal profession), and remains free, pending New York State Attorney General's investigation - while New York State Attorney General, under Public Officers Law Section 17, is also Judge LaBuda's counsel - an irreconcilable conflict of interest that should subject the New York State Attorney General who undertook such an investigation to attorney disciplinary charges.  There should have been a special investigator assigned - and not Judge Labuda's own counsel - to investigate him, an out-of-state investigator, if necessary, if everybody within the state is afraid and has a conflict of interest.

One can say that the investigation is still pending, and that Judge LaBuda is presumed innocent, and I agree.

Yet, anybody else in the same circumstances would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, too, and yet, there would have been immediate charges, jail detention - and the related loss of a job, foreclosure through inability to pay the mortgage, loss of a vehicle for inability to pay, child support contempt orders if that person is paying child support etc.

Presumption of innocence works differently with judges than with average Joes accused of crimes?

Judges are a little bit MORE EQUAL than everybody else?

That was Violent Judges Episode # 1.  That was in September of 2016.

In October of 2016 there came a Violent Judges Episode # 2.

Imagine that a heavy and heavily drunk man "sucker-punches" a man in the street causing the man to fall, unconscious and dislocate his shoulder in the fall. 

Imagine that the drunk left the unconscious man and left the scene.

Imagine that the whole episode was:

1) captured on nearby security cameras; and
2) there is a number of witnesses who
  • took the plate numbers of the perpetrator's car;
  • identified the perpetrator; and
  • provided statements claiming that the perpetrator punched the victim deliberately, claiming: "I do justice.  I f**king kill people";
  • left the scene, while obviously very drunk, driving a car
Now imagine what would have happened in a case where both the victim and the perpetrator are "average Joes from the street"?

Most likely, the police would immediately
  • arrest the perpetrator,
  • charge him with a felony assault causing grievous bodily injuries and with
  • driving while intoxicated,
  • have his driver's license pulled and
  • put him in jail without bail, waiting for his arraignment in criminal court in the morning.
In view of the perpetrator's dangerousness, and statement that he is "killing people", the perpetrator would most likely have been denied bail.

Now imagine that the victim is a judge.

The arrest, charge and jail would then happen with a lightning speed, possibly with an addition of some anti-terrorist charge.

Now imagine that the perpetrator was a judge.


What happened then, after Judge Beltrani was identified by witnesses and while the whole punching and leaving the scene episode was captured IN FULL on video?

Was he arrested?

Was he charged with a felony and DWI?

Was he held in jail without bail as a dangerous person that he is?

Nope.

He "surrendered himself", received a "desk appearance ticket" - and remains free and at large, a dangerous alcoholic who can punch (and kill) people at random, it is the victim's sheer luck that he is alive - and who can also driving drunk.

This man is roaming the streets and can kill you or your loved one - because he thinks he is above the law, and the law enforcement let's him continue to think that's true.




Why such a special treatment?

Obviously because the perpetrator is a judge.

And an attorney:



Think about it - he is not simply a judge, but a judge in the Department of CORRECTIONS and COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.

He should be an example to the litigants - parolees - appearing in front of him.

He is not an example.  He is not even a joke.  He is a danger, a mortal danger to people - and that danger is not addressed because everybody is afraid to upset a judge.

What was reportedly captured on security cameras is a DISBARRING OFFENSE - a crime chargeable as a felony.

I wonder whether that footage will now conveniently disappear, or whether something will happen to it - so that Judge Robert Beltrani would be able to keep his law license.

Remember - this is the country, including New York State, where CRITICIZING a judge for misconduct is a suspension or disbarring offense.

That's why judges are immune not only for "malicious and corrupt acts on the bench", but, apparently, are allowed to commit violent crimes and continue to roam the streets.  Because THEY ARE THE LAW in this country.

The drunk violent and corrupt people in black robes with the sense of absolute impunity no matter what crimes they commit are the law of this country.

Do not expect people to respect the law - or judges and judicial decisions - if even in situation where:


  • a specific individual claims to be a victim of a violent crime committed by a judge (Judge Labuda's case); or
  • a security camera footage and a number of witnesses claim that a judge sucker-punched an individual, said  "I do justice.  I f**king killing people", and left the victim unconscious - for dead, actually - on the sidewalk while fleeing the scene in a car (Judge Beltrani's case);
the perpetrators are still not arrested or charged with felonies, in accordance to witness statements and evidence, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, because everybody is afraid to TOUCH a judge

(and a 2014-2015 Chairman of the Republican Party in Queens, New York - as it is in Judge Beltrani's case, and a politician who has the ear and support of influential former New York State Senator Maltese)

- no matter what evidence exists showing that he has committed a violent felony and is a danger to people.

And, it is very obvious that the system where the state governments regulate attorneys, allegedly to protect consumers of legal services fails all of us, badly, when the government puts that regulation in the hands of judges, and for that reason, criminal prosecutors who are licensed attorneys and whose livelihoods are in the hands of those they may be called upon to investigate and prosecute, are afraid to prosecute judges for violent crimes - or for any other crimes, on or off the bench.

If this country is based on the rule of law - as it is claimed from high official pulpits all the time; if this country has equal protection of law for all, if this country does not have titles of nobility that are implied as soon as a person takes a high position in the government, especially a judicial position - the law then MUST be applied equally to Judges LaBuda and Beltrani.

And, until and unless these judges are charged with violent felonies - based on statements of their alleged victims, as provided by law - and are treated the exact same way as anybody else would be under the circumstances of their cases - there is no rule of law in the State of New York.

Instead, the two rules that litigants appearing in front of ALJ Robert Beltrani may discern from the sordid affair with Beltrani's assault on a lawyer that nobody has courage enough to deal with in accordance with the law, are:

1) Do as Judge Beltrani says, not as he does; and
2) If you want to be above the law, get up here where ALJ Beltrani is, otherwise shut up - the law is only for the cattle like the average Joes, not for the Sky Dwellers like judges.

And those rules can teach those in "corrections and community supervision" only one law - that there is no law, that power is law.

And teaching people already convicted of crimes THAT rule is quite dangerous.

Don't you think?



Friday, October 28, 2016

#IStandWithAttorneyMarcusMumford. Attorney Mumford, beaten up, tasered and arrested for making a legal argument for his clients, and #USDistrictJudgeAnnaBrown - the new face of judicial misconduct

I recently wrote about the Nevada public defender, attorney Zohra Bakhtary who was handcuffed in court for making legal arguments on behalf of her client.

We have another case like that - and worse than that, if it was even possible.

A jury acquitted defendants in the famous Bundy case in federal court, in the State of Oregon.

And by law, when a jury acquits the defendant, the defendant is free to go.

And that is exactly what attorney Marcus Mumford



was arguing to U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, a judge with 35 years of experience as a lawyer and 24 years of experience as a judge - who knew exactly what she was doing.


But, Judge Brown claimed that the defendants were, allegedly, "wanted" on another federal indictment, in Nevada - and that's why she was detaining them in Oregon.

Attorney Mumford asked the judge to show the document she used as a basis of continued detention of his clients.

The judge did not have the document and, thus, did not have jurisdiction to detain the defendants after acquittal.

So, attorney Mumford, faithful to his oath of office and to his duty to his clients, insisted on his clients' release.

The judge refused to release them - obviously, unlawfully, since she was unable to produce the order of detention.

The attorney continued to insist on his clients' release.

The U.S. Marshals continued to grab his clients leading them into custody.

The attorney demanded documents from the U.S. Marshals that they used as a basis of taking attorney Mumford's client into custody.

As a result, attorney Mumford was reportedly:


All for asking, first, for documents used as a basis of his clients' continued detention after acquittal by jury, and for asking for documents justifying his arrest.

And, of course, for his good work in persuading the jury to acquit his clients.

The judge was supposed to maintain order and LAW in her courtroom.

The judge was supposed to PREVENT unlawful detention of defendants, she had the power to do that.

But, apparently, the judge was pissed off by the acquittal.

And she took it out on the "culprit" - the defense attorney.

And, the judge did not protect the attorney, instead she charged her for disobeying a court order.

A month ago Judge Brown already tried, hard, to prevent attorney Mumford from presenting to the jury evidence of governmental misconduct.  She threatened him with contempt and with high monetary fines.  She tried hard to help the prosecutors get a conviction.  The contempt was threatened against Mumford because the judge restricted Mumford's cross-examination of prosecution's witnesses (in violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause).

In February of 2016, another federal judge, in another federal criminal case, also threatened attorney Mumford with contempt for allegedly violating court orders restricting his cross examination - also in violation of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause.

So, the stubborn attorney Mumford who fearlessly does his job for his clients, has been in the cross-hairs of federal judges for a while.

In the Bundy case, the judge's efforts to restrict his constitutional right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses have failed.  The jury acquitted anyway.

So, attorney Mumford ended up physically tackled by 9 people, tased, arrested (without charges), handcuffed, and put into a holding cell - so Judge Brown finally had her dream come true, Attorney Mumford was punished for doing his job.

And, lo and behold, the punished attorney is a criminal defense attorney, as it nearly always is for targets of government rage, not the weasels who destroyed evidence for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The country that arrests, tasers, beats up and criminally charges its criminal defense attorneys in punishment for effective criminal work, and for effectively arguing for their release from unlawful detention, the country that continues to punish attorneys for doing their jobs and for criticism of unlawful actions of judges - has no right to claim it is governed by the rule of law.

Taze the attorney for winning!

That's a new rule.

But definitely not of law.



Judicial caseloads, time of judicial review per case, and why do we need to dismantle the U.S. Supreme Court, as a wasteful and useless institution it is now, and build it back from scratch


On October 26, 2016, a well-known law professor Jonathan Turley made a presentation in front of 1300 federal Administrative Law Judges, and, in his report about that presentation, stated that he considers just 2.5 hours spent per an administrative appellate case a due process violation.

2.5 hours per appellate case = a due process violation

Let's remember that expert opinion.

And, with this number in mind, let's see how much time does the U.S. Supreme Court spend on review of one petition.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court's own admission on its website, takes "approximately" 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari (final appeals) per year.
















There are 365 days in a year and 24 hours in every day - that is indisputable.

365 x 24 = 8,760 hours in a year

Let's compare these two figures:

  1. There are 8,760 hours in a year;
  2. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 8,000 petitions a year, and
  3. The overwhelming majority of petitions are decided within the same year, often within months of when they were filed.
8,760 / 8,000 = 1.095 hours, or 1 hour 6 minutes that would have taken every U.S. Supreme Court Justice to review every filed petition if every U.S. Supreme Court justice would have used every minute of every day, 365 days a year, 24/7, for reviewing those petitions.

That's more than 1/2 of 2.5 hours spent on an administrative appellate case that Professor Turley said was already a due process violation.

But, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court do not and cannot physically use every second of every day to review petitions.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices have

and 
  • 8 hour working days.

When we factor all of it in, U.S. Supreme Court Justices - presumably - work per year:


365-10-(52*2)-65 = 186 days, 8 hours each day

186 x 8 = 1,488 hours

So, U.S. Supreme Court Justices have

1,488 / 8,000 = 0.186 of an hour, or, approximately, less than 1/5 of an hour, that is less than 12 minutes, to review, research and decide each of the certiorari petition, each coming to court with complex legal issues, several underlying court decisions, often reversing one another, after years of litigation.

12 minutes per petition.

Remember, Professor Jonathan Turley stated that 2.5 hours, which is 150 minutes per administrative appellate case, is such an inadequately short time reminding him of a conveyor in Detroit, and a due process violation.

12 minutes is 12.5 times less than that.

And, those 12 minutes do not take into account:

  • cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of its original, not appellate, jurisdiction;

  • review of briefing and oral arguments, legal research and drafting of final opinions for cases accepted for review;

  • the judges' sick leaves - of course, Ruth Bader Ginsburg can claim that she was reviewing cases while undergoing cancer surgeries and chemos, but, first, it is unbelievable, and second, to me as a litigant that would constitute a problem - a review under surgery and/or chemo may suffer through the judge's, let's say, lack of concentration and energy;

  • the time judges take for hobbies such as writing books and then advertise and promote them, including book interviews and book tours; and such as theater performances - and preparation for such performances;


  • the time judges take during working days to attend private events. 

For example, only recently, 6 out of 8 judges attended the ceremony of re-naming George Mason School of Law after the recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

The justices did not attend that ceremony during their 3-month vacation, but cut into their just-commenced new term, into their work time, into somebody's 12 minutes-per-petition time.

The ceremony was held on October 6, 2016, on a Thursday, in the middle of a business week.  Justices who attended the ceremony - instead of doing their jobs - are:


  1. Elena Kagan
  2. Anthony M. Kennedy,
  3. Clarence Thomas,
  4. Stephen G. Breyer,
  5. Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and
  6. Sonia Sotomayor

See picture posted on Twitter from the ceremony announcing attendance by 6 U.S. Supreme Court justices:


See the time stamp when the picture was posted - 2:10 p.m.



Chief Judge Roberts and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wisely did not attend.

Now, these "ceremonies" that have nothing to do with the jobs of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, but which "justices" attend, during their work time and despite the number of petitions that they cannot physically conscientiously review, analyze and decide already (including death penalty appeals), are not the only encroachment on the "justice's" time.

Justices also write books.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg just published a book on October 4, 2016, a 400-page book:







That is in addition to the time it took her to follow the news, give interviews as to her opinions



her recent supposedly planned stint as a theatre actress.

Also, here are books by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:





I wonder when the justice got time to write those.  If justices have so much time to write books, they cannot complain about crushing caseloads, can they? Apparently, they are writing books INSTEAD of doing the jobs taxpayers are paying them for - and need to be replaced by those who will actually do their jobs properly.

*  *  *

So, judges of the U.S. Supreme Court spend even less than 12 minutes per petition (186 days judges work per year, with 8 hours per day = 1,488 hours per year to read, research and resolve 8,000 petitions) given their important hobbies and trips.

Of course, every U.S. Supreme Court justice has 4 law clerks who are hired for a year, at a salary of, reportedly, $86,557 per year.

According to various books published about law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, such law clerks are mandated to work 80 to 100 hours per week, 7 days a week, no vacations, and are not allowed to stop working even during lunch breaks - for law clerks, a separate section of the cafeteria within the courthouse is devised so that they could continue working and discussing cases while eating.

That's 5,200 hours of work per year, 3.5 times more than the judges work.

Yet, we the litigants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court is the last step for JUDICIAL review of our long-suffering cases, expect JUDICIAL review, and not review by inexperienced youngsters who were not (1) nominated by the U.S. President and were not (2) confirmed by the U.S. Senate to decide cases of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have no authority to delegate decisions of cases, including the decision whether the court will or will not exercise its discretion to review a certain petition, to inexperienced privileged youngsters, no matter how well educated, who are NOT JUDGES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

This is one of a book reviews on the book about U.S. Supreme Court Justice's law clerks traded on Amazon.com:



It does appear that, while Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court PHYSICALLY do not have enough time to properly handle their jobs and review their caseloads, it appears that they don't even attempt to do their jobs, instead unlawfully delegating their authority to privileged youngsters, the "Junior Supreme Court" as U.S. Supreme Court Justices "jokingly" call these house slaves, who make decisions to toss 99.9 per cent of cases and have the high court decide only cases from its "Echo Chamber" - the 66 lawyers, connected with the court, whose cases, according to Reuters, are repeatedly heard by the U.S. Supreme Court while others are tossed.

Those people whose certiorari petition, painstakingly prepared following punitive U.S. Supreme Court rules that are designed to block people from filing meritorious cases with the U.S. Supreme Court - and to give judges more time for their worthy pursuits, such as book-writing, theater, white-water rafting and hunting trips with high-ranking litigants - we the average Joes and Janes whose petitions are tossed not even by judges, but by the "sorcerer's apprentices", never even know the names of those people who decided our fates.

Let's face it.

There is NO U.S. SUPREME COURT in this country.

There is NO RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW in that court.

With cases decided by young law school graduates instead of judges - there is no JUDICIAL review in that court - unless you are "connected" with judges through prior clerkships, hunting trips or through other social connections.

12 minutes per petition per judge is NOT judicial review.

Law clerks deciding cases is NOT judicial review.


In the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no impersonation.  Yet, there is no physical possibility for judges to conduct review of petitions and records, and do research in the less than 12 minutes they have during the year for each petition on their caseloads, so there is no avoiding of the fact that it is law clerks and not the U.S. Supreme Court justices who make decisions as to which cases they review and which they toss (save for those cases which come from "their own", connected attorneys and parties, the "Echo Chamber", and the trip sponsors).

Senator Cruz recently came up with a brilliant idea that the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court emptied with the death of judge Antonin Scalia, can remain empty.

I would say that if all other 8 seats are emptied, it will only be better for this country - the way the High Court operates.

A lot of savings for taxpayers who would not need to pay for the posh marble palace, the over 2 million dollars in salaries of judges alone per year, the enormous amount of money for salaries to maintain and provide security for that building - where 9 people (now 8) do nothing for a lot of money of our money, and do something for a little extra for the connected attorneys and parties.

A marble palace that,

  • for over $2,255,100 in salaries of judges per year ($260,700 for the Chief Justice and $249,300 per each of 8 associate justices) and
  • for over $3,182,000 in salaries for clerks per year (approximately $86,000 per each of 4 law clerks per each of 9 justices, 5 law clerks for the Chief Justice) , not even counting the benefits that go with the salaries, and the salaries and benefits of the support and security personnel of the U.S. Supreme Court - decide 80 cases per year, and
  • with a marble building worth many millions of dollars; and
  • with a multi-million budget for support staff.
The court is a huge waste for the American people.

That, of course, is not the position of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, for example, Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the U.S. Senate, asking for MORE money for the U.S. Supreme Court and claiming that the court is the absolute joy and pride of the American people and an example of the rule of law in this country.



==

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. CONGRESSMAN BISHOP, CONGRESSMAN WOMACK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND GREETING TO JUSTICE BREYER AND TO ME, AND WE BRING OUR MESSAGES OF GREETING FROM OUR COLLEAGUES.

WITH US TODAY I'LL JUST GO IN THE ORDER OF WHERE THEY'RE SEATED, ARE JEFF MINIER, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT -- OR COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. AND KEVIN KLINE, OUR BUDGET AND PERSONNEL DIRECTOR.

AND PAM, THE MARSHAL OF THE COURT.

SCOTT HARRIS, WHO'S THE CLERK OF THE COURT.

AND WE -- IS PATRICIA HERE WITH YOU? WE HAVE KATHY AND PATRICIA FROM OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE.

AS YOU INDICATED, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS VERY CAREFUL, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES.

AS YOU WELL KNOW, AS THE COMMITTEE WELL KNOWS, THE BUDGET OF THE SUPREME COURT IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE BUDGET OF THE COURTS AS A WHOLE.

AND THE BUDGETS FOR THE COURTS OF A WHOLE IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE UNITED STATES BUDGET.

AND I THINK A DAY YOU WILL HEAR PRESENTATION FROM JUDGE JULIA GIBBONS OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ON THE BUDGET FOR THE JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE.

AND THIS IS OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE.

SHE DOES A MARVELOUS JOB FOR THE JUDICIARY.

SPENDS MANY DAYS AND WEEKS ON THIS SUBJECT.

AND THE BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE, IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR THE CONGRESS TO REALIZE, IT ISN'T JUST JUDGES.

THERE ARE 7900 PROBATION AND PRESENTENCING OFFICERS.

AND THIS IS COST EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THIS KEEPS PEOPLE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE.

SO THAT THEY'RE NOT IN CUSTODY, WHICH IS COST SAVING. AND OVER THE YEARS, IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WE HAVE A VERY LOW RECIDIVISM RATE FOR OUR -- FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON RELEASE.

IT'S HIGH IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS ONE-THIRD BUT QUITE LOW COMPARED TO THE STATE. SO, THIS IS COST EFFECTIVE.

AND THE FEDERAL COURTS AS A WHOLE, MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE A TANGIBLE, PALPABLE, VISIBLE, CLEAR MANIFESTATION OF OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.

WHEN PEOPLE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES COME, AS JUDGES OFTEN COME, AND THEY SEE THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THEY ADMIRE IT.

THEY'RE INSPIRED BY IT.

AND THEY GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRIES AND SAY THAT THIS IS A NATION THAT'S COMMITTED TO THE RULE OF LAW.

AND LAW IS THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A FREE ENTERPRISE WITHOUT A FUNCTIONING LEGAL SYSTEM. SO WHAT YOU DO IS OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE, AND WE APPRECIATE IT.

AS TO OUR OWN BUDGET, AS YOU INDICATED, MR. CHAIRMAN, OVERALL, WE HAVE A DECREASE IN OUR OWN COURT OPERATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

WE HAVE ALMOST EXACTLY A 1% -- A LITTLE OVER 1% INCREASE.

AND THAT IS FOR MANDATED INCREASES FOR INFLATION AND SALARY INCREASES THAT ARE MANDATED.

AND OVER HALF OF THAT, WE HAVE ABSORBED BY COST CUTTING IN THE COURT.

SO, WE'VE ABSORBED OVER HALF OF THE MANDATED INCREASES IN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE.

THE COURT IS PLANNING TO HAVE, IN THE YEAR 2016, AN ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM SO THAT ALL OF THE PAPERS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE COURT WILL BE ON ELECTRONIC FILING.

WE WAITED, IN PART, TILL THE DISTRICT COURTS AND CIRCUIT COURTS COULD GET ON THAT SYSTEM SO THAT WE COULD THEN TAKE IT FROM THEM.

BUT OF COURSE THIS INCLUDES FILINGS FROM STATE COURTS AND FROM PRISONERS.

WE THINK THIS MAY REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN PERSONNEL BY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE.

WE'RE NOT SURE.

THE PRO SE PETITIONS, OF WHICH THERE ARE -- I DON'T KNOW.

PROBABLY IN THE AREA OF 6,000 A YEAR.

ARE USUALLY HANDWRITTEN, PRISONER HANDWRITTEN.

WHEN THIS IS PUT ON ELECTRONIC RETRIEVABLE SYSTEM, YOU WILL HAVE A DATABASE FROM WHICH SCHOLARS AND ANALYSTS CAN LOOK AT THE WHOLE CRIMINAL SYSTEM, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL AND MAKE COMPARISONS, HOW MANY -- WHAT ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF CASES WHERE THERE'S A COMPLAINT ON INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

AND SO THIS WILL BE A DATABASE THAT WILL GIVE US CONSIDERABLE DATA FOR SCHOLARS SO THAT WE CAN -- SO THAT WE CAN STUDY OUR SYSTEM."

==

And so on, an so forth.

THIS is a supposedly "brilliant legal scholar" who takes just 12 minutes to make a determination which complex legal issues should or should not occupy the court's "valuable time".

Justice Kennedy can barely put two words together!  He is "not sure" about facts that he uses as a basis for his funding request.

If you come to a bank to ask for a loan, and you mumble the way Kennedy did in the U.S. Senate, you will be politely told good bye, with no money given.

All that Kennedy says is some clichés about "the rule of law" in this country - while the same justice undermines that same rule of law by delegating his own duties to a bunch of overworked nameless youngsters.

Kennedy's mumbling testimony raises real questions as to his capacity, competence and energy levels to remain on the bench - as well as who makes "his" decisions in court for him.

Justice Kennedy is on the court for a very long time, and knows how the court operates very well.

Had Justice Kennedy had the residual level of integrity, he should have honestly told the U.S. Senate:

  • our court CANNOT PHYSICALLY handle the caseload we have;
  • we DELIBERATELY delay introduction of the e-filing system;
  • we DELIBERATELY require petition filers to satisfy the costly and unnecessary requirements of our Rule 33, so that less people would file cases with the court;
  • we DELIBERATELY allow law clerks to decide which cases we review and which we don't because there is not enough time in the year for the number of judges on the court to meaningfully review all petitions that are filed;
  • We need to change that if we are seriously talking about the rule of law and the right of judicial review through the U.S. Supreme Court.
But, that is not what Justice Kennedy said.


Justice Kennedy said that the U.S. Supreme Court

(where as we know, judges spend 12 minutes, if they spend any time at all, on certiorari petitions, 12.5 times less time than what Professor Turley believed to be a due process violation in review of federal administrative appeals, or where the judges, rather, let their secret "Junior Supreme Court" decide cases)

is an ideal of how a court should operate, and an envy to all other countries, that's why Justice Kennedy needs more money for the court to continue to decide 80 cases per year for connected attorneys in the Echo Chamber, likely before or after private trips for judges sponsored by the parties and/or their attorneys.


Since the 18th century when the U.S. Supreme Court was first impaneled, the country's population has changed dramatically, the literacy levels grew, caseloads in lower courts and number of appeals grew, it is now, according to my calculations, 55 TIMES more people in the U.S. per one U.S. Supreme Court Justice than it was at the time the U.S. Supreme Court was first impaneled. 

So, a 21st century U.S. Supreme Court Justice does 55 less work for the country than the 18th U.S. Supreme Court Justice did, with a lot more income, power and privilege - which makes no sense at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not pride, joy or envy in the national or international community.

At this time, the U.S. Supreme Court, 
  • the self-serving way it operates deciding cases without disqualification for its own employees and its own benefits (note that Justice Kennedy in his recently testimony to Senate called the court's Marshall 'Pam', while she was appearing in front of the court as an opponent to a petition for the writ of certiorari - decided, without a recusal, in her favor) without a code of conduct that all other attorneys and judges in the country have, 
  • the games legislators undertake to put in "their own" U.S. Supreme Court justice after Scalia's death - even though all candidates for a U.S. Supreme Court seat should be equally competent, impartial, and decide cases on the merits (if that was really happening, nobody would be interested in the nominating game) 
is turning into a laughingstock in the national and international community and a tremendous waste for us taxpayers, if you consider that for the budget of several million dollars per year the court reviews and decides just 80 cases per year, for friends or in high publicity cases.

We do not need this marble circus.

If we do need a U.S. Supreme Court, the one provided by the U.S. Constitution, to ensure that it operates in a way providing MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL review, review BY JUDGES and not by unknown inexperienced youngsters from privileged families, law clerks picked by previous law clerks (according to published books about law clerks, they are picked by "committees" of prior law clerks, practicing attorneys appearing in front of U.S. Supreme Court).

In order for the court to provide meaningful judicial review, we need to scrap the way it operates now top to bottom, and to change the number of judges, the filing system, the life term guaranteeing to the people not independence of judges, but corruption with impunity and waste of public money over nomination fights.

We need to DROP the salaries of U.S. Supreme Court judges.

We need to leave each judge with one law clerk, for research purposes only.

We need to set strict rules for law clerks, such as a 5-day-a-week 8-hour working day, which would discourage judges from using such law clerks as substitute judges.

We need to demand TIME SHEET accountability from such judges, displayed to the public for each day of the judge's work - to make sure that judges write their books, go on their speaking tours and teach in law schools during their spare time, not at the time they have to decide cases.

In Tennessee, a judge is currently being prosecuted in a disciplinary proceedings for leaving the courtroom early - and adjourning a hearing that left a man in pre-trial detention - to speak to schoolchildren.

As to the U.S. Supreme Court, the whole country appears to admire the judge's leaving their office in the middle of their business day in order to attend a "dedication", re-naming of a law school, in exchange for a large private donation, to be now named after Judge Antonin Scalia, who died under mysterious circumstances suggesting corruption by a party in litigation.

Why the double standard?

Why anybody else who leaves their jobs without permission gets sacked, and U.S. Supreme Court justices don't.

Aren't they those with the "crushing caseloads".

Aren't they those who already have only 12 minutes per petition in the entire year, so they should not take an extra trip to the bathroom, much less to a "dedication ceremony" in order to do their job properly.

We also need the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court - as well as in all other courts - to be prohibited to rule on cases while undergoing surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation therapy - due to obvious inability of people to have the necessary level of energy and concentration to make life-changing decisions for people and for the country - as Ruth Ginsburg did.


There is no doubt that, while Ruth Ginsburg was undergoing surgeries, chemo and radiation therapy, we had her clerks deciding cases instead of her. 

We as citizens have a right to know the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether at any time any judges are physically or mentally unable to serve - at all times.

We need to require judges to disclose their disabilities - it is as important for us the citizens of this country to know whether the President who holds his finger on the Big Red Button can be physically or mentally disabled to properly handle that button, as it is important for us to know whether judges of the top court who may be holding their fingers on the Big Red Buttons of our lives are physically and mentally capable to do that.

We need to introduce legislation imposing severe punishment on judges, including criminal punishment, for deciding cases in which judges have personal interest, and to prohibit judges to accept "sponsored" trips of contributions from parties or attorneys of any kind.

We need to make sure that the entire review process in the U.S. Supreme Court:

  1. preliminary review of petitions and records and decisions whether to take the case;
  2. review of briefs;
  3. oral arguments;
  4. research of legal issues involved;
  5. drafting of judicial opinions
is done by JUDGES THEMSELVES, not their clerks.
Those are JUDICIAL tasks, not tasks for apprentices, and litigants applying to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of last resort and of last hope, are entitled to JUDICIAL review, not review by law clerks.

  • When this country's economy is not so great,
  • when many taxpayers are hurting,
  • when people are losing homes if they cannot pay taxes,
  • when people are put in prison for not paying federal taxes,
public officials of all levels must be held CRIMINALLY accountable when they float around during their taxpayer-funded business time, or waste those taxes on activities unrelated to their job duties.

80 cases (mainly for their own connected attorneys or parties or for publicity circus cases) decided per year in a marble palace by a bunch of self-important people for millions of dollars of our money, while spending 12 minutes, if any time at all, to toss MOUNTAINS of people's petitions where 12 minutes is not enough to even read each case, much less research and decide it, is too much of a luxury for us as a country, for us as taxpayers, to allow to continue.

We have other pressing needs in this country than to throw money away on this marble circus.