THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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 cost.

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.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"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.

“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.

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

"Justice" Elizabeth Aherne and her time sheets. Oh, boy

As I stated before, I turned a New York State Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Aherne to the New York State police for presiding over her own second employer's (Cornell University's) court cases, without disclosure of her employment, and while repeatedly ruling for her employer.

Part I of the series about Judge Aherne and the Cornell scandal is here.

Part II is here.

Part III is here.

The series is ongoing, and I am discovering that more than one judge may be involved in the corrupt scheme.  Right now I am investigating - and suing - Supreme Court Justice Mark G. Masler, whose criminal misconduct, together with a judge for whom he then clerked, I previously described on this blog.  Now he is a Supreme Court justice, and his misconduct went to another level.

"Justice" Aherne also continues to preside over my own case regarding the wrecking of our house by the local authorities during the drug surveillance operation.  "Justice" Aherne has fixed one case so far for the County officials, but a second case based on the same facts, filed to preserve the statute of limitations, is coming back to Delaware County Supreme Court from federal court soon.  See both cases on NYSCEF, it is Neroni v Mole, EF2024-880 and Neroni v Delaware County, EF2025-447.  

There is a lot of interesting information to inform your voting decisions there.  NYSCEF allows you to download and read these documents for free without any registration, just google NYSCEF guest search and search and download documents as a guest.

I started to file FOILs about Justice Aherne after her extraordinary decision in Neroni v Mole where she pretended not to notice and actually refused to review a hilarious part of the record, unopposed, showing how the former mayor of the Village of Delhi Sridhar Samudrala was evading service of process in that same case with the help of his lover, the Delaware County Supreme Court Chief Clerk Kelly Reynolds/ Sanfilippo, rewarding Kelly for her efforts with a world tour for the entire time service was supposed to be made - to Singapore, Australia and India.

Thosa koalas and penguins are irresistible, you know.

You can see their smiling faces in Neroni v Mole filings that Justice Aherne pretended not to notice.

So...

Considering that Justice Aherne has a second employment, undiclosed to parties in the Cornell scandall, and, possibly, an untold amounts of other side jobs, I FOILed:

(1) for her financial disclosures; 

(2) for her time sheets; and

(3) for camera surveillance footage in the courthouse showing that she was actually at work when a decision in our case was issued bearing her electronic stamp/signature only.

Because - you know what started the fall of Delhi Town Judge Richard Gumo and led to him being booted from the bench?  That he allowed his court clerk to rubber stamp an arrest warrant while he was away, and then he lied about it in court which resulted in Judge Lambert's dismissal of a criminal felony case.

So, I FOILed for all the above information for Justice Aherne to see whether she was, indeed, at work when "she" issued a decision in Neroni v Mole that I am now saddled with the expense of appealing.

Here is what I found.

(1) the "Ethics Commission" of the New York State Office of Court Administration (NYS OCA) told me that unless I make my FOIL request on their particular form (it is illegal to ask that), they will not give me Justice Aherne's disclosures, and even if they do, they may cut out from those disclosures anything they feel like cutting out - I am about to file a lawsuit about that;

(2) NYS OCA told me point blank that they DO NOT HAVE Justice Aherne's time records.  Thus, the claim of legitimacy of all of Justice Aherne's decisions (and, likely, of any other judge, because NYS OCA does not keep time records of ANY judges) goes down the drain.  I am preparing to sue the State of New York in the Court of Claims and elsewhere, and Justice Aherne and other actors who are involved in NOT creating time sheets for a judge who is running additional conflicting jobs while having a full-time judicial position.   

(3) as to camera footage, NYS OCA told me that they will give me an answer in October, but previously, when I made such a FOIL request for a different judge, Joseph McBride of Chenango County Supreme Court, NYS OCA came up with a hilarious runaround trick.

They demanded from me, as a condition precedent to get the footage of the judge coming to and going from a certain courthouse on a certain day at a certain time, that I must disclose TO THEM the name and number of THEIR security cameras from which I need the footage.

Apparently, I do not know, and am not supposed to know, for security reasons, the location and names of THEIR cameras within courthouses.  

Yet, for that reason, the footage was denied - and likely destroyed by now.

I asked NYS OCA not to destroy the footage I requested regarding Justice Aherne, as I will need it for litigation.  I don't know what kind of excuse NYS OCA will come up with about the footage now.  Before, they claimed at different times, also security system malfunction on the particular day when I needed the footage, and that I need to come to the courthouse AFTER HOURS to watch the footage.

The bottom line is this - NONE of NYS judges' judicial decisions, signed or stamped, may be considered legitimate when the public is precluded from knowing of the judges' side jobs and of the judges' whereabouts on the day the decision is issued.

, 



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)