A lawsuit is being prepared against Otsego County (NY) Judges Burns and Lambert for 1st Amendment retaliation against me as a blogger through my friends and family members

Judges Lambert and Burns of Otsego County (NY):

I know that you are reading this blog.

Read the previous blog I published today and know - I will sue you for 1st Amendment retaliation and for trying to undermine my ties with my family and friends.

I am not Anthony Pacherille Sr or Jr.

I do not need a lawyer to sue you.

I am too far away for you to reach my house in South Carolina to raid it like you did the house of another blogging critic, Pacherille, Sr in Oneonta, New York (and got sued for it).  You won't escape liability this time if you do.

I have no law license, and no corrupt political "bar" of your brown-nosers can punish me anymore with further unconstitutional "discipline ".

And, along with you, I will sue the New York State system and try hard, using knowledge I have been industriously acquiring over these 10 years that the State of New York exiled me for being too successful and vigorous in protecting my clients as a civil rights lawyer, to have overturned in court the entire system of how New York State elects, assigns, allows or not allows to recuse and disciplines or does not discipline its judges.

Stay tuned.  It is coming.

On continued judicial retaliation for blogging and a new account of the old, pre-judgship, shenanigans of Judges Brian D. Burns and John F. Lambert of Otsego County, New York. Part I.

 I wrote a lot on this blog and in my book published in 2018, about intolerable behavior of Otsego County judges Brian Burns and John Lambert.

As to judge Burns, his stark retaliation against a mentally ill 16-year old because his father dared to ask the judge for leniency in a letter and then dared to demonstrate in front of the judge's home and created a website, "The Otsego County Hall of Shame", was and still is all over the Internet.

Not only I, but, as I have recently discovered, Detroit Legal News has written about the peculiar way in which Judge Burns was given an absolute JUDICIAL immunity when he was sued by the child's father for organizing a POLICE RAID upon the father's home in order to seize the father's computers to eliminate the father's blogging and website from the servers, and for being a false WITNESS, not judge, in the criminal proceedings against the father

I was more blunt, found out that judge Burns fired his statutory attorney in the lawsuit, the New York State Attorney General, and hired a law partner of the presiding judge, who had continued close ties with the judge, publicized socialized meetings with drinking, exchange of personnel etc.  - and then stated that the case was not "one of a kind", but simply fixed.

The federal court, made extremely friendly to judge Burns' plight as the raider of the critic's house and the false witness against the critic in a criminal proceeding, did the impossible, stretched the already unconstitutional concept of absolute judicial immunity to its breaking point, giving it where judge burns did not exercises any judicial function whatsoever, being simply a witness in a criminal case.

The case with my criticism of judge Burns created a problem though.  

All of my blogs about judge Burns were posted out of South Carolina where I went to live in June of 2015 - now an adjudicated fact, through a court case my husband and I recently won in Delaware County Supreme Court (a dispute with an alleged neighbor over an old fence).

So, judge Burns could not simply abuse his power - once again - and order Oneonta City Police to go and raid my house in Georgetown, South Carolina, seizing my computers, as he did to Anthony Pacherille, Sr. back in 2011.

Another course of action remained possible though - to retaliate against me through people I love, through family and close friends remaining in the area.

Judge Burns - and judge Lambert, about whom I blogged, too, but who did not, yet, organize police raids on critics' homes - teamed up and ruled, in legally impossible ways, in two of my close friend's cases, using the fact that she was pro se.

Moreover, the two judges also teamed up and ruled against my family member, including the use of their discretion.

Had the family member in question even known about my ongoing criticism of the judges through this blog, and about judge Burns history of abuse of his position for purposes of retaliation against his critics, it was still impossible to claim bias or appearance of bias against these judges at the time they ruled against the family member.

All Burns and Lambert would have done at that time is deny any motion to recuse by saying that they "analyzed their conscience", the ridiculous standard New York court allow judges to use to reject motions to recuse them, and found themselves to be impartial, because blogs do not mean anything to them, and I am a nobody without a law license who does not live in New York or practice law there for 10 years.

Yet, in August of 2023 and February of 2024 Burns and Lambert, I really don't want to call them judges, they do not deserve that position, took a chance to savor their little dirty trick of retaliation against me through my friend and family member, to rub it in that I must understand why they ruled the way they did against them - my blog. 

In a lawsuit against my husband and I as absentee landowners, over an old fence (claimed "obstruction of an easement") on our property in Delhi, NY, both lawsuits since dismissed by an out of the area judge, twice, first on constitutional grounds, second time, when refiled - forever, on the merits, both Burns and Lambert were assigned, one after another, and both of them recused.

Now, my husband was practicing law in the State of New York for 37 years, and I was practicing law for 6 years, before the local clique took our law licenses because of our expanding law business - one daughter got a law degree in 2001, wife got a law degree in 2008, another daughter was in law school at the time of his disbarment, and two more bright and capable younger children could be put through college and law school and added to the business.  The local clique could not tolerate the possibility that a familial law firm of four ready or nearly ready very capable lawyers, and especially of six lawyers in the future would start to dominate the local landscape, so both my husband and I were eliminated under false pretenses.

Nevertheless, neither my husband, I consulted with him on this issue, nor I have ever seen from any judge recusing from any of our cases, whether it was about us as parties or attorneys for clients - and there were many recusals - we never, never saw that any judge would provide any written explanation for the recusal.

Judiciary Law 9 requiring such an explanation exists for a long time, but it contains an exception allowing judges not to disclose when recusing information that may be deemed "embarrassing" for judges or third parties.

Now, you need to realize that an "easement dispute", in our case, as it turned out, a claim that we put a fence on our property allegedly blocking an alleged right of way - where all of the claims were ultimately determined by the court to be untrue and the case dismissed - is not only not a political case on a sensitive subject.  It is also a case in an area of real property, which is heavily regulated by statute, heavily litigated, and a zillion of cases exist for judicial guidance.

It is practically impossible for a judge to exercise any "discretion" in such a case, he is bound to decide based on a statute or court precedent or both.

So, especially that we were out of the system and the state for over 10 years, there was nothing Burns and Lambert could plausibly lack impartiality over.  They simply had to apply clear statutory and precedential law to the clear facts about what was located on real property in full view of the entire local community within 2-minutes walk from the courthouse.

Yet, Burns and Lambert did recuse, and, for the first time in our lives my husband and I saw a written explanation of judges, four of them, as to why they recused.

Here are those explanations, I will post them through direct links to NYSCEF documents, actual recusals e-filed by both Burns and Lambert in our court cases.

Recusal by Burns in August of 2023, click the link and the document will pop up from the court e-filing system NYSCEF;

By Burns in February of 2024;

By Lambert in August of 2023;

By Lambert in February of 2024.

First, note that a Judiciary Law 9 form for recusal of judges EXISTS in the State of New York.  Never in my lifetime as a lawyer of party in litigation did I see anything like that - nor did my husband, on his confirmation to me.

Second, look at the number of items to be checked.

The interesting point is that some of the items to be checked are taken directly from Judiciary Law 14, a MANDATORY judicial DISQUALIFICATION statute (not recusal), but nevertheless it is stated in bold font below that the form is only a "suggestion", and that the judge may make a disclosure in any other form, or not to make it at all.

Note also that the form COMPLETELY LACKS any items concerning APPEARANCES of bias - even though a constitutionally intolerable appearance of bias requires disqualification based on both State and Federal court precedent.

Note that neither of the judges checked boxes about recusal for actual bias.  They both simply lied, twice, by not checking that box, that they do not have actual bias against me and my husband.

Now let's go to the actual declared reason why both Burns and Lambert recused, twice.  Their 2023 and 2024 recusals are identical, so I will post just one scan per each judge.

Burns:

Lambert:

Burns claimed, twice, that one of the defendants, my husband or myself, allegedly sued the judge.

That did not prevent Carl F. Becker, after I sued him twice, from sanctioning me 3 times, after which my law license was taken based on those sanctions, and the federal court refused to review the merits of my retaliation claim, even on declaratory relief grounds, and even mocked me, my husband, and my client for asking.

Now, my husband has disclosed to me that he has never sued Burns in his life, as an attorney, party, judge or anything else.

I, on the opposite, did sue Burns on behalf of two clients, but only once in 2013, 10 and 11 years, respectively, before his recusals on the ground of the lawsuit.

It is interesting to mention that the name of Burns was scrubbed off Pacemonitor's listing of the case, Gray v Stoop, so I am publishing the complete text of the initial lawsuit, with an e-filing stamp of the court on top of every page, listing Burns' name as a a defendant, in his official capacity only.

By the way, Burns lied on the form that he believed that the lawsuit creates a conflict of interest for him in 2023 or 2024.

That same lawsuit did not prevent Burns from  presiding over my motion to vacate Becker's sanction on constitutional grounds, new law, and deny me the motion, specifically because, as he explained, he did not want to upend appellate divisions' rulings based upon the unconstitutional sanctions - a perverted logic for a judge, but at least an open explanation.

Consider - it was important for Burns in 2017 to block me from restoring my law license on constitutional grounds, and then defend in court, as an attorney, my family and friends.

It is no longer important for Burns to preside over a puny fence dispute in 2023, 2024, but it is important for Burns to rub it in to me, personally, and to the public who can verify through court records who did and who did not sue the judge, and when, that I was the reason of Judge Burns' recusal, based on a 2013 lawsuit.

Burns did this trick clearly understanding that his 2017 decision posted here is from Family Court, was not appealed and thus is not available for review of the general public, so he can continue to grandstand in 2023 and 2024 that his lofty and honorable self could not bear presiding over a fence dispute in 2023 and 2024 because I, in my then-capacity as a civil rights attorney, on behalf of two clients, has sued him in 2013 in federal court, in his official capacity, challenging constitutionality of certain portions of child neglect statute because Burns was presiding over a child neglect case and was the required defendant in the case as a matter of law.

The disclosure of Lambert is even more interesting.

Lambert complained VAGUELY that ONE OF the defendants in the fence dispute, my husband or me, "expressed animosity toward [Lambert's] law clerk".

Here, the vagueness again, just like in Burns' disclosure - and I do not need to be a fly on the wall to figure that Burns and Lambert co-ordinated their disclosures.  They are buddies since at least 1999 when Lambert joined the Otsego County DA's office where Burns was toiling at the time, and have been working in the same building ever since, seeing one another every day.  

My husband and I were away from the area for 10 years, and the fence dispute was the first time when Burns and Lambert could rub in their revenge to us directly.  Burns and Lambert were clearly united by a common purpose of revenge, and their fake disclosures was clearly deliberately calculated and followed the pattern of "tell me about Tatiana Neroni without telling me about Tatiana Neroni" vagueness.

Why?

Because, upon disclosure of my husband, and upon reviewing official public records, Judge Lambert became a judge in January 2011, thus gaining a law clerk.

My husband was politically and falsely disbarred on July 7, 2011, see Affidavit of one of the fake "plaintiffs" in his case David Mokay, provided to us after 

the son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem orchestrated a crippling monetary judgment consisting entirely of fake attorney fees for a fake client 

(an attorney involved in SUCH misconduct, claiming a fake client, may not charge any attorney fees, so the entire judgment is fake and void), 

and a fake disbarment against my husband on the basis of a fake lawsuit on behalf of a fake client,

ousting my not-son-of-a-judge "blue collar" Cherokee Italian American attorney husband out of the law practice as Harlem's "too" successful competitor and preventing him from building a familial mammoth law firm that would have taken all clients from Harlem.

Lambert was a judge for just six months when my husband was still an attorney.  Over these six months, my husband, upon disclosure to me, did not criticize Lambert's permanent law clerk Mark Oursler in any way, not then, not since then, ever.

Moreover, criticism of a law clerk, even if it happened in 2011 by my husband, even theoretically, was too attenuated reason to recuse in 2013 and 2014 over a fence dispute.

What actually happened that it is, again, a way of Lambert getting at me and saying to me that he is recusing because of my criticism of LAMBERT HIMSELF, not only his law clerk Mark Oursler, in my blog, because I only ever criticized them, there, apart of my 2013 lawsuit against Lambert, same as in Burn's case, in my capacity as an attorney agaisnt Lambert in his official capacity, on behalf of two clients, Weaver v Lambert in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Now, there is a lot to say about the details of Burns' and Lambert's carefully crafted retaliation for my criticism about them in this blog, that Burns and Lambert achieved by unlawfully abusing their judicial power and punishing my close friend and her family, and my family member.

I also found more about the Pacherille story, including the hilarious law review article out of Detroit, of all places, about Burn's corrupt prank of getting a "one of a kind" (translation: fixed) ruling of the federal court that he was somehow entitled to an absolute JUDICIAL immunity for being a fake witness in a criminal case dismissed against Burns' critic, another blogger, on 1st Amendment grounds.

That article, combined with the Court of Appeals dissent in the Pacherille case and with a couple of other pieces that I have overlooked at the time of my initial blogging about the Pacherille story and Burns' involvement in it, shed a completely new and additional gruesome light upon the corrupt and dishonest predator on the bench that Burns is, and the monster that the New York State judicial system has allowed him to become - same as Lambert - by imposing no discipline upon him whatsoever, while being in full knowledge of his chenanigans and condoning them.

Stay tuned for more, believe me, it will be hilariously interesting.

AND - my home and computer is safe from raids by police sent by Brian Burns, me being in another state nearly 900 miles away from the little fat angry dishonest corrupt god.

So - I can and will write whatever I consider necessary to expose corruption and misconduct of judges around the country, including those idiots who my husband and I know personally - and my husband knows all of their little stories since they started practicing law.

After all, Burns was admitted to the bar in 1992 when my husband was already practicing 18 years.

And, Lambert was admitted to the bar in 1999, when my husband was already practicing 25 years.

And, my husband was silent about those little stories that he knows about both judges, those stories that I never knew existed, from times when my husband of 26 years and I did not even meet yet.

My husband was kind to these two younger idiots, never exposing their misconduct publicly.

That is going to change.

When Burns and Lambert crossed the line by hurting our close family member with their retaliation for my blogging, they crossed the line and all bets are off.  My husband told me many, many, many little stories of Burns and Lambert, and they will be made public here.

Possibly, in videotaped accounts of my husband, so there is no mistake as to personal knowledge of the person reporting it.

So, stay tuned for a hilarious ride.

Can or should the district and appellate federal courts be abolished? Suggestions for the reform of inferior federal courts

 I see a lot of confusion in comments in social media, and in the press, regarding Speaker Johnson's announcement that he may consider enactment of legislation abolishing certain federal courts.

The left all around the world have made a lot of ado from that statement claiming that the skies are falling, this is the end of democracy, Speaker Johnson is catering to the "dictator" President Trump, etc. etc. etc.

These statements have nothing to do with the law or the facts of the situation.

As far as the law is concerned, the only court that is embedded into the U.S. Constitution, Article III, is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The very first phrase of Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

There you go.

Only the "one Supreme Court" is the federal court that Congress may not abolish - but may certainly reform by legislation, changing the number of judges, changing whether they serve for life or not, changing where the court is located - for example, transferring it to somewhere, say, in a small town in Alabama, mandating that it accepts all petitions for review on the merits and not only on a "certiorari" basis, picking and choosing which cases and to what degree the U.S. Supreme Court will review.

All of that is within the power of Congress to change - and Congress may just as well change it once Republicans have the majority both in Congress and in the White House. 

As to "other inferior courts" - both the federal district courts, and the federal appellate courts, they have long became an abomination of privilege and corruption.

The makers of the U.S. Constitution apparently foresaw that, putting into the text of Article III Section I that the "inferior" federal courts are those courts that the Congress may "establish and ordain" only "from time to time", clearly meaning that there may be a time when a certain "inferior" federal court exists, established and ordained by Congress, and there may be a time that it won't.

So, Speaker Johnson said nothing revolutionary, simply invoking Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and the hysterics about his announcement that a certain law is about to be prepared for enactment, and that somehow that is undermining democracy and the so-called "rule of law" is nothing other than irresponsible political fear-mongering.

As to why such federal courts should be abolished or reformed, Speaker Johnson has all the grounds to abolish or reform those courts in every possible way.

The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the power to make or amend laws to the U.S. Congress, the power to enforce the law to the U.S. President and it grants to the judiciary - remember, "one Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress from time to time will establish and ordain", Section I - only limited powers, enumerated in Section 2 of Article III:

"Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Nowhere in the text of the entire Article III of the U.S. Constitution will you find the power of the judiciary to MAKE or CHANGE the laws made by Congress THROUGH INTERPRETATION.  

While the federal judiciary certainly has the right to interpret the law, it may not exceed in its interpretation the plain English meaning and the legislative intent of Congress, nor may it infringe upon the Congress's same legislative intent in determining how exactly such laws are to be enforced.

I have a problem denominating the 235 judges put onto the federal seats in the previous 4 years as put there "by the Biden administration".

Even with all the obvious signs, apparent not only to every American, but to the rest of the world, that the White House was hijacked during the previous term by an unknown person who ruled behind the scenes on behalf of a mentally incapacitated man, I did not see yet any public official with authority to determine the question whether any judges put on the bench during the "Biden administration" were put there lawfully, to determine whether the country was "run" in the previous term by a man without mental capacity to do so  - and to VOID any and all actions.

I believe Speaker Johnson owes it to the American people to hold Congressional hearings on the mental incapacitation of Joe Biden, and the date from which forwards Joe Biden could not be considered, as a matter of law, a man whose decisions could be considered as knowing, voluntary and binding upon the country.

That is not difficult to do.

The looking back into the incapacitation of people is done all the time by courts - in verifying, looking back in time, whether people had the requisite mental capacity to do a variety of things: marry, enter into contracts, be held responsible for crimes, or make wills.

That must be done now.

=======

Coming down to the technicality of what can be done with "inferior" federal courts, of the first level and of the appellate courts, a lot can be done to, if not abolish, to reform them.

First, such courts should be stripped of their marble palaces, transferred to electronic status only, other than for jury trials, and, since jury trials are very rare, a building can be rented for a jury trial also "from time to time", on an "as needed" basis.

That alone will save us, the American taxpayers, tons and tons of money that we can use otherwise for ourselves - our federal taxes can be drastically reduced.

My husband and I have recently experienced the handling of a court case in full electronic mode, complete with an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses testifying remotely, through Microsoft Teams (we won the case on the merits).

New York's electronic filing system, as well as holding hearings remotely through Microsoft Teams may, with proper training materials and proper accommodations provided to individuals with disabilities, as well as with proper arrangements made for attendance of the public, may provide a good basis for such reformed federal courts.

The pool of judges at all levels, federal and appellate, can be one and the same, and I would reform who may become such a judge.

I would certainly not restrict federal judgeship to lawyers, and especially to licensed lawyers, and I will certainly remove the requirement of licensing from representation of individual plaintiffs or defendants in federal court, especially the requirement that such a representative arguing a case in federal court on behalf of a client must be first licensed by a state government, who is often a defendant in the case.

I would also introduce transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review, and effective mechanisms, now lacking, of challenging what a party may consider an incorrect or harmful assignment.

What I mean by transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review - which must certainly apply to state court, too, in my view, is that the backroom dealings of "judge-shopping" should end, the question should be posed as to every case to AI to instantly analyze the existing pool of the judiciary, the case presented, the applicable law, and the decisions of judges present in the pool of judiciary on that applicable law.

I would also require every federal judge to plug into the system their family tree to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity, affinity understood broadly and not only through marriage, given that marriage is no longer needed in this country for a committed relationship, as well as of each of the judge's law partners and close personal friends.

I would have each party and lawyer for the party to submit the same information, with a break for indigent pro se's, allowed to conduct such verification at the taxpayer's expense - funded with the money saved from unnecessary renting or ownership and maintenance of marble palaces/courthouses.

I would have AI-assisted verification of cross-matches and automatic removal of judges related to the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity to any party or any lawyer in the law firm representing the party from consideration for assignment.

I would have judges, parties and lawyers to similarly submit information of their childhood and college friends, and also submit the information to AI-analysis, putting it, not as a point of direct disqualification, but as a question mark, requiring AI analysis of available public data on social media and in the public records across the nation to analyze whether there are any foreseeable problems with conflicts of interest, and pointing such potential problems out before the judge has been chose to preside over a given case.

I would forbid all federal judges any social contacts with the parties and lawyers in front of him, with severe, non-discretionary punishments for violations.

We as a nation do have technology to implement these changes and should get out of the stone age as to how our public servants, judges, decide our disputes regarding our life, liberty, property, custody of children.

By public review and control I mean that any member of the public may have access to the same AI tools to run a double-check on the AI-assisted assignment of judges, and must have access to the full AI-generated report as to each judge's assignment to the case, any potential problems with impartiality or conflicts of interest raised, but discounted in the report.

I would introduce, nevertheless, peremptory challenges of judges and voir dire of judges by parties, to ensure impartiality, same or similar to how voir dire of jurors is done.

I would expressly take away power of judges to review motions to recuse themselves.

I would expressly take away power of judges to punish for motions to recuse.

I would expressly take away power of judges to impose sanctions for legal arguments made on the basis of the U.S. Constitution and seeking to protect civil rights, no matter how novel or improbable the argument seems to the judge.

I would allow free taxpayer funded AI-based legal research to all pro se parties in all cases in federal court.  

I would allow free public access, same as already exists in NYSCEF system in New York, to all documents in all filed public court cases.

I would allow, same as in NYSCEF, any member of the public to file lawsuits without having to first gain permissions from anybody.

I would eliminate all laws that restrict access to court to prisoners, such as "three strikes and you are out" existing now, punishing the often indigent and illiterate pro se prisoners for not being able to navigate the quagmire of rules created by professional lawyers and judges.

I would allow AI-assisted explanations of the law to pro se prisoners and enable access to centralized AI-assisted law libraries in prisons.

I would require of appellate courts the same degree of review, with full memorandums, of all pro se appeals.  Right now pro se federal appeals are discarded without full memorandums, reviewed practically only by non-judicial personnel.

I would require judges to actually take and actually review every case they are presiding over, with assistance of AI, but nobody else.

If the judge is unable to do that, he or she should not be a judge or, if the judge is overloaded, he or she should not be assigned that case, as determined with AI assistance, too.

That will eliminate the current intolerable situation where law clerks and not judges de facto determine cases, putting in question validity of all judicial decisions in state and federal courts.

These proposed sketched changes will eliminate a lot of corruption, strip a lot of privilege off the federal judiciary, and ensure a freer access to court for the public.

Where judges are put into their position for political purposes - as the 235 judges were by the adm, instead of interpreting laws made by Congress and handed over to the executive branch for enforcement, make their own laws through interpretation and attempt to undermine and replace the executive discretion with their own.

 

The ever-self-aggrandizing and sermonizing Judge Brian D. Birns deleted a negative comment against him to raise his book's rating on Amazon - and continues to be paid advocate "for children"

In April of 2022 I wrote about the book Judge Brian D Burns, now of Otsego County Supreme Court, is selling on Amazon, here is the link to that blog article.

I actually bought the book, read it and left a review as a verified purchaser, along with another review that was already there, from a person I do not know, also negative.

Yesterday, I have checked on Amazon - and voila! "His Honor" has deleted one negative comment (left mine intact though), 

and, together with a "5" rating without a review, jumped his rating for this book to 3.1 (3 stars from one).

As a courtesy to Judge Burns, and to the reading public, I will try to brush up the Honor's honor, and republish the link to the book, and the review that the judge deleted, along with Amazon-stamped rating of 1.8.

Enjoy!

It also seems that Judge Burns has spilled his wisdom, on the same topic, into another book, a Kindle edition now, available on Kindle Unlimited, for free for me.  

Note that the dishonorable pig has put his "Honor" in front of his name on a book title.  Vanity, said the very well known character, my favorite sin.

Here is the text of the annotation for the "Honor"'s 2024 book, for easier reading:

"More than half of the four million children born every year in the United States will be raised by parents who were never married or get divorced. As a New York State Family Court and Supreme Court Judge, I have presided over thousands of the resulting custody cases and have interviewed countless children in the course of litigation over the last 23 years. This book is my attempt to help those parents who are currently struggling to co-parent, and to guide those parents to be who find themselves in this situation in the future. Unlike most custody books, this will not tell anyone how to “win” custody. Rather, it is written to express the children’s appreciation for things that their parents do well together and their pain and anguish when their parents fail to co-parent successfully. Unfortunately, I have learned that children who are the subject of custody fights are often too confused, angry, or scared to communicate their deepest feelings directly to their parents. This book gives voice to the children. To emphasize that the “advice” contained in the book comes directly from the children, I have written it in the form of a series of letters from children to their parents. Each chapter consists of the letter followed by my legal and personal commentary. Many of the letters in which children describe their suffering can be gut-wrenching to read – but my commentary offers suggestions to help parents avoid causing unnecessary pain. An equal number of letters are happy missives thanking parents for doing things that the children appreciate and which contribute to their sense of security and of being loved and cherished".

That's him.  Categorizing and sermonizing based on his own bitter small mind.  Great sympathy to those hapless litigants and attorneys who have the misfortune to have to appear in front of him.

Just from the annotation though, you can perceive what a sermonizing bastard the "Honor" is:

parents who never married and who divorced, in his view, are destined to end up in court in a bitter custody dispute.

And, do you think it is appropriate for a sitting judge to continue to openly advocate for children - for money?  What kind of impartiality parents, for example, can expect from him in a proceeding involving the child as an alleged victim?

A judge MUST be neutral, and MUST abstain from being an advocate for whichever party, no matter how vulnerable and likeable.

Apparently, the "Honor's" skull is too thick to get such a simple concept through, after 24 years on the bench.

I promise, I will find time to download and explore the "lessons", compare them with the previous ones and tell you if the pig has acquired any more wisdom, or simply copied and pasted from the first book in order to raise the rating. 

As to Burns being "advocate for children" - maybe, on Amazon, for money, but Anthony Pacherille (plug in this name on the right in the search window and read his story) will disagree.

Will report on what I found in his 2024 book soon.

Until then!