New York's other conjoined twin - Texas. Can putting a high voltage shock through a pro se mentally ill criminal defendant fighting against a death penalty case finally drive this country to abolish the death penalty?

New York and Texas are leading this nation in wrongful convictions.

The difference is though that New York is not enforcing its death penalty now, and Texas is.

On Monday, Texas resumed the criminal trial of a death penalty case against a mentally ill criminal defendant James Calvert.

There was a pause in the trial.

Because James Calvert was ordered to be SHOCKED by high-voltage shock for - guess what - failure to stand up while speaking to a judge, judge Jack Skeen.

The judge reportedly (see the same link) denied the self-represented criminal defendant the right to represent himself, as he wanted while all the defendant wanted was, reportedly:

• that court reporting of his trial should be done accurately - he "objected to the use of a new court reporter and claimed some court reports are under investigation";
• asked for the police records to be allowed into evidence;
• claimed a police log was "untruthful" and "biased".
•  

And don't we know from the depiction of wrongful convictions of people exonerated from the death row that such things DO happen, and this man is PRESUMED INNOCENT, is MENTALLY ILL and is FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE.

All of the above claims of the criminal defendant were legitimate.

Yet, this is what the judge did:

1) reportedly, he ordered to shock the defendant for failure to stand up when talking to the court;
2) denied the criminal defendant the right to defend himself;
3) bickered with the criminal defendant, openly stating to him, in public proceedings: "the only thing that you cannot handle is the truth".

The shock, this statement, and punishing the criminal defendant with stripping him of his right to self-defense BECAUSE he wanted evidence in and BECAUSE he claimed wrongoing on behalf of a court reporter and the police, is evidence of JUDICIAL BIAS.

And judicial bias in a death penalty case EQUALS DEATH for the criminal defendant.

Yet,  a reporter from NBC considered it possible for himself as a human being to state the following in his "journalistic" coverage of the case:  

"the defendant has already experienced a very small taste of how an electric chair might feel: He was given a shock in court for refusing to comply with a judge's orders", the orders being to stand up while talking to a judge.

TASERED for not standing up in court.

A mentally ill person.

A pro se litigant.

A presumed-innocent criminal defendant.

Fighting a death penalty case.

TASERED by the court for not standing up to speak to the judge.

And a journalist is snickering that he has "already experienced a very small taste of how an electric chair might feel".

There were so many people present in the courtroom when it happened.

WHAT KIND OF HUMAN BEINGS have we become to allow this?

And shouldn't THIS CASE put an end to the death penalty in this country - for good.

Because the way it is handled, I would presume that the judge giving the James Calvert the "small taste of how an electric chair might feel" was the real purpose of the judge.  At least it appears this way.  

My opinion is that Judge Skeen should be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted for this episode, for assault and battery.

We will see if Judge Skeen will suffer any consequences of his outrageous conduct.

After all, judges in this country consider themselves not nobility, not royalty, but deity.

No cameras in the courtroom, but there are cameras in the interview rooms? New York State courts are taking hypocrisy to the whole new level

New York and federal court systems REPEATEDLY fought my husband and myself, dismissing our constitutional challenges to New York State Civil Rights Law 52 prohibiting videotaping court proceedings, even for the sake of preserving true and complete appellate record for review - including, obviously, issues of prosecutorial, jury, attorney, witness and judicial misconduct, which is NOT fully reflected by transcript that is first committed to coded script by stenographers and then decoded - often incorrectly.

There is no way of describing in the transcript a facial expression, and that is EXACTLY WHY intermediate Appellate Courts in New York duck their duty of reviewing facts of the case de novo (even though they have such authority) and "defer" to the trial determinations of the court whose decision is appealed.

There is nothing easier to correct that than to require videotaping of court proceedings, and to allow private parties to videotape their own proceedings, especially the proceedings which are PUBLIC.

It makes no sense to not allow videotaping of PUBLIC proceedings for PRIVACY reasons.

Yet, the New York State Court system has obtained dismissals of our federal court challenges to Civil Rights Law 52, in one case with sanctions and attorney fees of the court system (the violator of constitutional rights) against us, a civil rights plaintiff and his attorney - in the amount of $6,995 each.

It is not a pun - a civil rights plaintiff and a civil rights attorney were each sanctioned and made to pay $6,995 for filing a civil rights lawsuit challenging constitutionality of state Civil Rights Law that prohibits litigants and members of the public to document, as a matter of their civil rights, access to court and evidence in court proceedings.   

The name of the case is Neroni v Becker, the deciding federal judge was Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe whose son "coincidentally" worked in the office of the New York State Attorney General at the time NYS AG was litigating the case against us in front of Gary L. Sharpe.

The same person who obtained such a dismissal, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, immediately announced in one of his previous "State of Judiciary Addresses" the plans for "Cameras in the courtroom", and that idea, after being prominently pronounced off the high pulpit, quietly died.

I wrote on this blog about consistent attempts of the court system to destroy and deny access to video footage of security cameras in courthouses, especially when what I seek is clearly evidence of judicial misconduct.

So far I was denied such video footage because:

• I needed to come to the courthouse after closing of the court day (17:00) and sit there for 8 hours (until 1 am) reviewing the tapes, because the NYS Court Administration refused to comply with FOIL and provide me a copy of the video footage;  of course, nobody opened the courthouse for me after hours;
• after I made one FOIL request, the Court Administration suddenly discovered that the security video cameras/recorders were broken - which was a lie, because I was in that same courthouse every day on the dates of video footage and saw court attendants observe the split-screens with security footage, as usual;  the Court Administation denied me copies of records showing payment for repairs of video recorders;
•  After I made another FOIL request, the Court Administration claimed that the footage was "inadvertently" written over, even though I requested the footage immediately after the events, and in answer to my previous FOIL request the Court Administration told me that the courts keep the footage for 30 days.

 OK.

So, we have two rules:

1) the public and litigants are not allowed to videotape court proceedings, under the threat of criminal prosecution, Civil Rights (!) Law 52;

2) the public and litigants are not allowed to see security footage, even though it is allowed by FOIL and FOIL requests are presumed to be made in public interest.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

The Court Administration has built a brand spanking new courthouse in Staten Island where secuity cameras are now spying on confidential discussions between litigants and their attorneys in conference rooms!

That is allowed, that is proper, that is lawful, that is not a civil rights violation. 

Of course, it is claimed not to be spying on confidential communications, but being done "for security reasons" only.

Of course, a criminal defense attorney would tell such well-wishers of the attorney's security to get the ****, you know...  

Courtroom security is important, but everybody is checked by metal detectors at the entrance to the courthouse.

Of course, attorneys come to the courthouse through secure passes, bypassing metal detectors.  So, then, it is the attorneys that are the danger to security, because they are the ONLY people who can have anything on them that would warrant cameras.

But, then, all EMPLOYEES of the courthouse, including JUDGES, come through the back door, bypassing metal detectors.  And some retired judges who are hanging in, are doing that, too.

So, aren't we discriminating against defense attorneys here?  Aren't we?

Of course, one civil rights group does not consider it proper and reportedly plans to file a civil rights lawsuit.

That civil rights group is a legal aid society.  All other attorneys are happy that their confidential communications with clients and witnesses are recorded.  No surprises here - you want to practice, shut up and brown-nose the system - or go work for the Legal Aid society where you will not earn that much...

Yet, knowing how civil rights courts treat civil rights cases brought by civil rights plaintiffs and civil rights attorneys against other courts, I will hold my breath as to the outcome, but I will follow it and report any developments of such a possible lawsuit on this blog.

Stay tuned.

On pontificating law school professorate and slow buffalos

I have written on this blog several times about a law professor testifying to the New York State Commission for Attorney Discipline in a way that omitted to mention material applicable laws and the necessity to revamp attorney regulation system to follow those laws. 

Where revamping will require deregulation of the legal profession - and loss of professorate jobs.

Here is a funny piece where a blogger lost his cool over law school professorate similarly playing dumb as to issues that affect their own well-being, being gainfully employed in a position that does not require too much work and too much stress, as the practice of law does.

Enjoy!

New York and California - identical twins in unbrindled abuse of power by attorney disciplinary authorities

And one more piece out of California, claiming that California is our rival in power abuse by attorney disciplinary authorities!

Yay! We are not alone!  

Are we relieved to know that?

New York and California joined at the hip - prosecutorial misconduct

Here is a piece from 2010 showing that New York is not alone in non-enforcement of prosecutorial misconduct.  California is doing the same.

Are we relieved?

New York and California, merged at the hip by attorney corruption

I have been blogging this past week about the corrupted ways the New York State Statewide Commission ducked the tasks it was charged with - to clean up the mess of attorney regulation in New York.

Apparently, New York is not alone either in attorney/judiciary corruption, or in efforts to cover it up.

Here is a piece out of California.  

As I keep saying, deregulation is the key, and the process has begun, with the U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC which brands "self-regulated" professions engaged in "self-regulation" without state oversight under the guise of state licensing, as antitrust cartels.

I may not see it in my lifetime, but I am positive occupational licenses, including attorney licenses, will be cancelled as hurting the economy, quashing competition and, in attorneys' case, preventing independent representation in court and true access to courts.

Cozier cannot be cozier - or is Barry Cozier just too cozy to practice law while appointing judges and advocating for their pay raises, while trying to make attorney disciplinary system uniform, efficient and fair?

On July 22, 2014, Barry Cozier, private attorney and a retired justice of the Appellate Division 2nd Department (retired since 2006) was appointed by NYC Mayor De Blasio as Vice Chair of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Judiciary.

The Committee is reportedly responsible for "recruiting, screening, and nominating candidates for judicial appointment to the city’s Family Court and Criminal Court, as well as the Civil Court for interim appointments".

On February 17, 2015, in his State of the Judiciary address, New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced creation of the New York State Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, a supposedly independent commission that was charged to "conduct a top-to-bottom review of the system throughout the state to assess what is working well and what can work better, and to offer recommendations on fundamentally reshaping attorney discipline in New York".

On March 30, 2015, Lippman populated the Commission by appointing its members, the overwhelming supermajority of which were attorneys.

On March 31, 2015, Lippman appointed Barry Cozier to Co-Chair to the Statewide Commission for attorney discipline with the then-Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti.


On July 1, 2015 Lippman ALSO appoints Barry Cozier to be Vice-Chair of the Commission on Judicial pay raises.  Of course, Lippman is up for mandatory retirement at the end of this year.  He will not directly benefit from pay raises, but he does have an interest to keep his remaining judiciary buddies satisfied, since his friend Sheldon Silver has gone down and he needs to forge some connections and some favors before he left his position as Chief Judge.

On July 27, 2015 Gail Prudenti, Co-Chair of the Commission for Attorney Discipline, retires to pursue a career as an administrator in Hofstra Law School.

On August 10, 2015 Lippman promotes Barry Cozier as Chair to the Commission for Attorney Discipline.

Barry Cozier is also, reportedly, a long-time adjunct professor at Fordham Law School and he is on the Board of directors of the Fund for Modern Courts.

I also noted that on the website of Fordham Law School Barry Cozier is listed as a Supreme Court justice up to present time - screenshot taken today is below:

 

Here is a screenshot below from NYS judicial directory that does not list Barry Cozier as a Supreme Court Justice.

 

Barry Cozier retired from the bench in 2006, according to his advertising in another place, on the website of the law firm where he is partner.   11 years is enough time to change your information on your adjunct professor page and not mislead the public that you are still a judge.

Of course, Barry Cozier called himself a judge even now, while presiding over hearings in the Commission for Attorney Discipline - and while he announces on the webpage of his firm that he is not a judge, since 2006.

11 years since the retirement is enough to get it through his head that he is no longer a judge, and to get the statement that he is a judge from his advertisement at the Fordham School of Law page.

False advertisement is a disciplinary violation.  Barry Cozier knows the rules, and knows that they must apply equally to all attorneys.

His Commission's report specifically deals with advertisement violations by attorneys and are calling for a "uniform penalty" for such violations:

Are we supposed to believe that Barry Cozier, who picks judges in the De Blasio Commission and advocates for judicial pay raises in the Lippman Commission, ever be disciplined for false advertising?  I doubt that.

But I am positive that Barry Cozier's sitting on panels picking judges, advocating for judicial pay raises, and then presiding over public hearings where judicial corruption is presented as "an elephant in the room" at the core of the mess that attorney regulation in New York is in, that constitutes an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Barry Cozier is a PRIVATE ATTORNEY who is a partner in a large law firm that appears in the same courts for which Barry Cozier appoints judges and sets salaries for judges.

Are we supposed to honestly believe that his activity on those panels does not influence judges in front of whom he and his law firm appears?

Barry Cozier is the WRONG person to be a fact-finder in public hearings raising the issues of:

• judicial corruption;
• self-dealing;
• selective enforcement of attorney discipline;
• violations of attorney advertisement rules

because he is, apparently, ENGAGED in all of the above.

After reading all of the above, I encourage you to watch 

1. Barry Cozier's behavior during the testimony of Elena Sassower at the public hearing in New York City - his tense and hostile body language, his rudeness, his deliberate lack of control over the bulky male armed court officer hovering over the petite Elena Sassower trying to shut her up and following her around the hearing room;
2. Elena Sassower's interview after the hearing where she says that members of the panel - including Barry Cozier - fled without reviewing what she had to offer them, and
3. The video report by Gary Jacobs of the Long Island Backstory indicating that the Cozier-Chaired Commission threw Gary Jacobs out of the building and threatened to throw him off the sidewalk in front of the building where the hearing was supposed to be held, and after that, it lied in its Report, by omission, showing that Gary Jacobs and his PHOTOGRAPHER were present at the public hearing, but omitting the fact that Gary Jacobs and his VIDEOGRAPHER were thrown out of the building, and not providing the link to Gary Jacobs out-of-the-building video report calling the Commission a sham.

Of course, 6 years ago, Elena Sassower testified in New York Senate in opposition to appointment of Chief Judge Lippman, testified about his corruption, about a pending investigation against him by the Judicial Conduct Commission that should have precluded his confirmation for the position of Chief Judge.

That is, the Lippman who was confirmed because the Senate was led by Lippman's childhood buddy Sheldon Silver who, of course, disregarded any opposition to Lippman's appointment.  Sheldon Silver who is now indicted by the feds for corruption.

The Lippman who ruled Sheldon Silver's way as soon as he got the confirmation to the high court with Lippman's help while, reportedly, bypassing multiple Senate rules.

The Lippman who gives Cozier his cozy appointments that Cozier uses to advertise and promote his private business.

So, Elena Sassower could not possibly get a fair review by Cozier, not when she was telling Cozier, part and parcel of the cozy legal cartel between private corporate attorneys and the judiciary, that that cartel is at the core of the problems with the "access to justice" crisis that Lippman hypocritically claims from high pulpit, while organizing behind the scene.


People who sat on that Commission, starting with Cozier, are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

And the only way to upend that apple cart, reduce corruption in court proceedings and ensure independent representation in court is to DEREGULATE the legal profession COMPLETELY, taking it away from the grips of corporate interests like Cozier's.