Since Judge Betty Williams was not entitled to take office on January 1, 2014, because she turned 70 in August of 2013, Judge Williams had no right to even put her name on the ballot in the elections of 2013.
Since she did put her name on the re-election ballot, while knowing full well that she will have to retire until the end of that year, and is not allowed by law to take office on January 1 of 2014, Judge Betty Williams got her re-election by fraud - in my opinion.
I wonder whether the court administration and the New York State Board of Elections let these fraudulent elections come through because Judge Betty Williams is an African American female
- in 2015, for example, yet another African American female attorney, #ChristinaRyba, was elected to the Albany County Supreme Court, after defrauding voters (after she was fired for unethical conduct and misusing her position and the court system in her elections, from her position as counsel to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department),
and now "serves" on the Supreme Court - even though she was supposed to be disbarred by the Attorney Grievance Committee of her own prior employer the 3rd Department (yes, I know what the chances of that happening are, with that particular corrupt Attorney Grievance Committee) and barred from ever coming to the bench, where she won elections by fraud and misuse of her public employment position.
Christina Ryba's fraudulent election was celebrated because of her gender and race - and for that reason, I believe that Judge Betty Williams' fraudulent election was not struck down, and Betty Williams herself was not prosecuted for public fraud criminally.
Judge Betty Williams' "election" resulted in the following expenses for New York taxpayers:
- Judge Betty Williams retired 8 weeks after election in 2013, thus vacating her office without ever being sworn into it, and thus allowing the State Governor to appoint a judge for a year into that position, without any elections;
- Judge Betty Williams at the same time was "certificated" for a full-time salary, and drew a full-time pension,
(a) When a criminal charge against a person is being or is about to be or has been submitted to a grand jury, such person has a right to appear before such grand jury as a witness in his own behalf if, prior to the filing of any indictment or any direction to file a prosecutor's information in the matter, he serves upon the district attorney of the county a written notice making such request and stating an address to which communications may be sent. The district attorney is not obliged to inform such a person that such a grand jury proceeding against him is pending, in progress or about to occur unless such person is a defendant who has been arraigned in a local criminal court upon a currently undisposed of felony complaint charging an offense which is a subject of the prospective or pending grand jury proceeding. In such case, the district attorney must notify the defendant or his attorney of the prospective or pending grand jury proceeding and accord the defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness therein;
(b) Upon service upon the district attorney of a notice requesting appearance before a grand jury pursuant to paragraph (a), the district attorney must notify the foreman of the grand jury of such request, and must subsequently serve upon the applicant, at the address specified by him, a notice that he will be heard by the grand jury at a given time and place. Upon appearing at such time and place, and upon signing and submitting to the grand jury a waiver of immunity pursuant to section 190.45, such person must be permitted to testify before the grand jury and to give any relevant and competent evidence concerning the case under consideration. Upon giving such evidence, he is subject to examination by the people.
(c) Any indictment or direction to file a prosecutor's information obtained or filed in violation of the provisions of paragraph (a) or (b) is invalid and, upon a motion made pursuant to section 170.50 or section 210.20, must be dismissed; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made not more than five days after the defendant has been arraigned upon the indictment or, as the case may be, upon the prosecutor's information resulting from the grand jury's direction to file the same. If the contention is not so asserted in timely fashion, it is waived and the indictment or prosecutor's information may not thereafter be challenged on such ground.
- whether a 22-year-old Israeli national has a command of English sufficient to subject himself to the dangers of
- (1) signing a waiver of immunity and
- (2) testifying in the grand jury (which bears a risk of being indicted for a D felony lying to the grand jury, carrying a sentence of up to 7 years in prison, even if the person is not indicted for the initially sought charges), and
- whether the interpreter provided for the defendant by the court system was adequate.