Just filed a complaint against judge John Wiedman, of Oxford Town/Village Court.
I made a motion to recuse the judge in a criminal case, based on my personal knowledge and affidavits from two witnesses, about judge's ex parte communications, history of misconduct with defendant's brother and disrespectful behavior toward me.
The judge had an opportunity to recuse without any statements, that is what judges usually do when they recuse.
This judge was different.
He waited until I came to argue the motion, ordered me to argue only the portion of the motion to recuse out of the omnibus motion (several motions in one, as required in the criminal case), then repeated my claim that in view of evidence of judge's disrespect to me my client cannot obtain a fair trial from this judge, CONFIRMED that the judge did not respect me, and stated on record that "one gets respect that one deserves".
With that, the judge NEVER DENIED what was in the sworn statements in support of my motion to recuse.
Rules of judicial conduct MANDATE judges to respect attorneys and parties appearing in front of them.
If the judge cannot abide by that requirement of respect, he must recuse - and Judge Weidman did recuse from the case, but only after he claimed his disrespect to me, in violation of the rules of judicial conduct, as a matter of right, and claimed that I do not deserve respect.
And made this claim before a courtroom full of people, sending the present lay individuals and attorneys a message that to make a motion to recuse is wrong, no matter how meritorious such a motion may be, and that making such a motion will subject the defense counsel to humiliation from the court.
I bet that no attorney whose livelihood depends on assigned cases from this judge would dare to make a motion to recuse after today.
Good job, Judge Weidman, in intimidating the public and attorneys into believing that it is YOUR rule and not the rule of law that is the law in the Town of Oxford court.
Naturally, today I filed a complaint about Judge Weidman's behavior to the Judicial Conduct Commission (including two instances of ex parte communications, an improper threat of a bench warrant, disrespectful, demeaning and sexist conduct toward a female attorney).
If the complaint is tossed, we will know that what Judge Weidman did is an allowed and encouraged behavior in New York judges, and we will then expect more of the same, from this judge and from other judges.
As to the judge's expression of disrespect to me, I am not surprised. Usually abusers of women do not respect their victims, especially those who stand up for themselves and for others. And Judge Weidman is no exception.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Saturday, October 4, 2014
A right to due process of law must include a right to a reasoned decision of constitutional challenges
Even before I went to law school, I always thought, as many people who have no law degree whatsoever, that when a person is trying to resolve important issues pertaining to his/her life, property, livelihood, reputation in court, that person is entitled not only to be heard by an impartial judge, but also to get a decision from that judge that at the very least explains to the person the court's reasoning, and especially if fundamental constitutional rights are involved.
Apparently, not so in attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Today, I've got a decision from the 4th Department in my much publicized disciplinary case that was based in its entirety on sanctions from Judge Becker imposed by him on me after I sued him.
Obviously, important 1st Amendment retaliation and due process issues were involved which were not yet reviewed on the merits by any other courts because the issue was either outside of the record or barred by judicial immunity.
I have filed a cross-motion with a supporting affidavit/memorandum of law on 159 pages, and with 101 documentary exhibits.
The decision of the 4th Department that I received today recites the procedural history of the case, it recites documents upon which the decision is made, and it contains:
I will skip my further analysis of what is wrong with the court decision, it will be expressed in writing to the proper tribunals in the future.
I think that, since the court denied me challenges to constitutionality of attorney disciplinary system in New York that were remanded by federal court under the guise that the state court can fairly review and rule on such issues - I am owed just that, a ruling on the issues, or, in other words, an explanation why the court denied my challenges.
And, if decisions regarding other attorneys' reputation and livelihood are made this way by this court, too, this policy of providing no reasoned decisions in proceedings involving attorneys' reputations and livelihoods is a systemic violation of attorneys' due process of law in New York.
Apparently, not so in attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Today, I've got a decision from the 4th Department in my much publicized disciplinary case that was based in its entirety on sanctions from Judge Becker imposed by him on me after I sued him.
Obviously, important 1st Amendment retaliation and due process issues were involved which were not yet reviewed on the merits by any other courts because the issue was either outside of the record or barred by judicial immunity.
I have filed a cross-motion with a supporting affidavit/memorandum of law on 159 pages, and with 101 documentary exhibits.
The decision of the 4th Department that I received today recites the procedural history of the case, it recites documents upon which the decision is made, and it contains:
- 0 (zero) analysis,
- 0 (zero) reasoning, and
- 0 (zero) substantiation of the decision.
I will skip my further analysis of what is wrong with the court decision, it will be expressed in writing to the proper tribunals in the future.
I think that, since the court denied me challenges to constitutionality of attorney disciplinary system in New York that were remanded by federal court under the guise that the state court can fairly review and rule on such issues - I am owed just that, a ruling on the issues, or, in other words, an explanation why the court denied my challenges.
And, if decisions regarding other attorneys' reputation and livelihood are made this way by this court, too, this policy of providing no reasoned decisions in proceedings involving attorneys' reputations and livelihoods is a systemic violation of attorneys' due process of law in New York.
Friday, October 3, 2014
A third complaint has been filed against Judge Revoir
Just filed a third complaint against Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., who was an assigned judge in the Delaware County Family Court, but who is otherwise out of the Chenango County Family Court.
I wrote on this blog about the 1st and 2nd complaints about this judge here and here.
The third complaint was filed because Judge Revoir recused from a case where he engaged in illegal acts, without correcting his illegal acts. I doubt that Judge Revoir somehow did not have knowledge that criminal prosecutions were commenced based on his illegal arrest warrant.
I remind the readers of the essence of the grievance against Judge Revoir:
1/ Judge Revoir presided over a Family Court custody modification proceeding.
2/ Only one petition was in front of Judge Revoir, one filed by the mother.
3/ Judge Revoir dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction on August 29, 2014 orally, but did not enter that order until September 29, 2014.
4/ On September 1, 2014 the mother, together with this writer, complained about Judge Revoir's unlawful and abusive behavior during the court proceedings on August 29, 2014 to the Judicial Conduct Commission;
5/ On September 4, 2014 Judge Revoir issued a written order under the same docket as the petition that Judge Revoir dismissed 6 days earlier for lack of jurisdiction. The order of September 4, 2014, was thus void for lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, the order of September 4, 2014 gave relief on the merits to the petitioner's opponent (the father) who never filed any petitions for relief and was thus not entitled to any relief, especially after the only pending petition of the mother was dismissed.
6/ Judge Revoir's court served the illegal order of September 4, 2014 by mail to the mother's Albany P.O. Box. By law, the mother was expected to receive the letter within 5 days, by September 9, 2014.
7/ Yet, the very next day after the illegal order of September 4, 2014 was issued by Judge Revoir, on September 5, 2014, Judge Revoir accepted a petition from the father to enforce the September 4, 2014, before the mother could have been expected to receive the order of September 4, 2014.
As part of enforcement, Judge Revoir signed an order to show cause demanding the mother to answer the court why she should not be punished for violating the order of September 4, 2014 which was (1) illegal, and (2) was not received by that time by the mother, nor could be presumed to have been received by the court, CPLR 2103 (adding 5 days to any deadlines where pleadings or court orders are served by mail).
Judge Revoir also signed an arrest warrant of the mother on September 5, 2014 to enforce Judge Revoir's illegal order of September 4, 2014 made in the absence of all jurisdiction. In view of invalidity of the order that was being enforced, of September 4, 2014, the arrest warrant was equally illegal.
8/ The mother was arrested at Taser point in front of her child on September 5, 2014.
9/ The grandmother was, according to her lawsuit filed in Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2014-911, assaulted by Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie with the help of his vehicle;
10/ Derek Bowie was not removed from the investigation and prosecution of cases, he did not, upon information and belief, report vehicular assault upon the maternal grandmother Barbara O'Sullivan, and instead proceeded filing, investigating and prosecuting criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter.
11/ "Coincidentally", after I effectively cross-examined Derek Bowie and his co-workers at a felony examination, Derek Bowie's employer the Delaware County Sheriff denied me access to Barbara O'Sullivan who was a pre-trial detainee in the Delaware County Jail at the time, before she was released on bail, claiming that the jail personnel must look at the contents of my attorney file - which is a violation of attorney-client privilege and was never done to me before for 5.5 years that I was visiting that same jail with the same files contained in the same envelopes, as my husband did for 37 years before me.
You can listen by following links contained here to how the chief of Delaware County Jail explains to me about his employee's alleged right to "flip through the pages" of my attorney file and that Delaware County Jail regularly opens legal mail to inmates and pre-trial detainees and how the Delaware County Attorney clumsily tried to wriggle out of the situation where the Chief of Delaware County jail proclaimed a policy that could hurt the County big time if brought up in a federal lawsuit.
Delaware County is, by the way, a county which was the focus of the media for some time, specifically because of "police power gone too far", to the point of creating difficulties for certification of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department with the New York State Criminal Justice Department.
I wonder how the Sheriff's Department may remain certified when it allows police officers assault residents with their police vehicles, not report it, commence criminal proceedings against the victims and continue to handle weapons while claiming that their fingers are "numb" to the point of a serious injury.
12/ Delaware County police aggravated their misconduct further by making leaks to the press about Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci, several times, to Binghamton television (which resulted in a flood of hate comments on Facebook), and to the Oneonta Daily Star, while no corresponding press releases can be found on the website of the Delaware County Jail, see the media releases of the Delaware County Sheriff on his own website.
Apparently, the Delaware County Sheriff has no control over his personnel who make their own leaks to the press, even where the Sheriff does not issue official releases, and make such leaks during the pendency of a criminal proceedings, obviously impairing defendants' right to a fair trial.
13/ Delaware County police claimed under oath to the Delhi Town Court that the dog belonged to Alecia Bracci in their court testimony on September 22, 2014. When they have won relief they sought from the court with that testimony, Derek Bowie turned around and filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan was the dog's owner, and that information was leaked to the Daily Star.
On September 22, 2014 Derek Bowie appeared in court for the testimony in full uniform, with a Taser and a pistol attached to it, as far as I could see.
Yet, he testified about his alleged "serious injury" from the alleged dog bite, and testified that his fingers are "numb".
For the "serious injury" Derek Bowie was sporting, as of September 22, 2014, 4 days after the alleged attack, a band-aid on his arm, and his numb fingers did not prevent him from having access to weapons, one semi-lethal, the other lethal.
13/ The dog warden left the dog "in quarantine" without medical care for more than 24 hours, tazered, maced and clubbed, with a metal taser node sticking through his upper jaw.
Yet, no charges for animal cruelty were brought against the dog warden.
14/ Upon information and belief, on September 24, 2014, the day when I reported my recorded conversation with the Chief of Delaware County Jail and pointed out that life of Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter may be in danger, Derek Bowie filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan, and not her daughter Alecia Bracci, was the owner of the dog, and filed a complaint seeking to deem the dog a dangerous dog (which could lead to court-ordered destruction of the dog).
The "dangerous dog" proceedings which could result in destruction of the dog were, thankfully, dismissed today, but without prejudice, according to Barbara O'Sullivan, no thanks to Judge Revoir.
15/ Coming back to Judge Revoir - on September 29, 2014 Judge Revoir came around to sending a written order of dismissal of the petition filed by the mother, which was allegedly signed by Judge Revoir on August 29, 2014, but was not entered for a month, until September 29, 2014. Judge Revoir, in entering his order of dismissal of August 29, 2014, certainly did not explain why he then made an order on September 4, 2014 under the same docket, or, in other words, out of that same dismissed petition and why he enforced that invalid order through an equally invalid arrest warrant the next day, September 5, 2014.
Even though Judge Revoir dismissed the petition on August 29, 2014, he left pending the motion filed by the father in that same docket, in opposition to that same dismissed petition (filed one day before the returnable date and never served). Such a decision was obviously illegal. When a petition is dismissed, all pleadings pertaining to that petition are dismissed and stop to exist, too.
16/ On September 30, 2014 Barbara O'Sullivan filed a lawsuit against Derek Bowie for vehicular assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in Delaware County Supreme Court.
17/ On October 1, 2014 Judge Revoir communicated to me, through a court clerk, his recusal from all of my cases and from Alecia Bracci's case.
Yet, Judge Revoir recused without vacating his illegal orders that created havoc in the lives of a child, a young woman, a middle-aged disabled woman and an innocent animal.
Since orders of Judge Revoir were made after he announced he is dismissing the mother's petition for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Revoir's order of September 4, 2014 and arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci of September 5, 2014, were, in my legal opinion, made in clear absence of all jurisdiction and may subject Judge Revoir to a federal civil rights lawsuit for money damages.
Judge Revoir recused without any apology for his abusive and insulting behavior in the courtroom.
Did Judge Revoir know about criminal proceedings commenced against vocal critics of the judge based on the judge's illegal orders? News in the court system travel really fast, and it is up to the Judicial Conduct Commission to verify whether Judge Revoir did or did not have such knowledge.
I wonder whether Judge Revoir recused the way he did, without vacating his illegal orders described here, so that criminal proceedings against people who criticized him and dared to complain about him, should go on - whether proceedings are based on illegal orders or not.
Is this a message sent by the local judiciary - if anybody hires me, that person suffers? Or, if anybody criticizes or complains against a judge, that person suffers - along with her relatives, her children and her pets?
Because if this is the message, it is the wrong message to make, and that is exactly why I filed the third complaint against Judge Revoir.
I wrote on this blog about the 1st and 2nd complaints about this judge here and here.
The third complaint was filed because Judge Revoir recused from a case where he engaged in illegal acts, without correcting his illegal acts. I doubt that Judge Revoir somehow did not have knowledge that criminal prosecutions were commenced based on his illegal arrest warrant.
I remind the readers of the essence of the grievance against Judge Revoir:
1/ Judge Revoir presided over a Family Court custody modification proceeding.
2/ Only one petition was in front of Judge Revoir, one filed by the mother.
3/ Judge Revoir dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction on August 29, 2014 orally, but did not enter that order until September 29, 2014.
4/ On September 1, 2014 the mother, together with this writer, complained about Judge Revoir's unlawful and abusive behavior during the court proceedings on August 29, 2014 to the Judicial Conduct Commission;
5/ On September 4, 2014 Judge Revoir issued a written order under the same docket as the petition that Judge Revoir dismissed 6 days earlier for lack of jurisdiction. The order of September 4, 2014, was thus void for lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, the order of September 4, 2014 gave relief on the merits to the petitioner's opponent (the father) who never filed any petitions for relief and was thus not entitled to any relief, especially after the only pending petition of the mother was dismissed.
6/ Judge Revoir's court served the illegal order of September 4, 2014 by mail to the mother's Albany P.O. Box. By law, the mother was expected to receive the letter within 5 days, by September 9, 2014.
7/ Yet, the very next day after the illegal order of September 4, 2014 was issued by Judge Revoir, on September 5, 2014, Judge Revoir accepted a petition from the father to enforce the September 4, 2014, before the mother could have been expected to receive the order of September 4, 2014.
As part of enforcement, Judge Revoir signed an order to show cause demanding the mother to answer the court why she should not be punished for violating the order of September 4, 2014 which was (1) illegal, and (2) was not received by that time by the mother, nor could be presumed to have been received by the court, CPLR 2103 (adding 5 days to any deadlines where pleadings or court orders are served by mail).
Judge Revoir also signed an arrest warrant of the mother on September 5, 2014 to enforce Judge Revoir's illegal order of September 4, 2014 made in the absence of all jurisdiction. In view of invalidity of the order that was being enforced, of September 4, 2014, the arrest warrant was equally illegal.
8/ The mother was arrested at Taser point in front of her child on September 5, 2014.
9/ The grandmother was, according to her lawsuit filed in Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2014-911, assaulted by Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie with the help of his vehicle;
10/ Derek Bowie was not removed from the investigation and prosecution of cases, he did not, upon information and belief, report vehicular assault upon the maternal grandmother Barbara O'Sullivan, and instead proceeded filing, investigating and prosecuting criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter.
11/ "Coincidentally", after I effectively cross-examined Derek Bowie and his co-workers at a felony examination, Derek Bowie's employer the Delaware County Sheriff denied me access to Barbara O'Sullivan who was a pre-trial detainee in the Delaware County Jail at the time, before she was released on bail, claiming that the jail personnel must look at the contents of my attorney file - which is a violation of attorney-client privilege and was never done to me before for 5.5 years that I was visiting that same jail with the same files contained in the same envelopes, as my husband did for 37 years before me.
You can listen by following links contained here to how the chief of Delaware County Jail explains to me about his employee's alleged right to "flip through the pages" of my attorney file and that Delaware County Jail regularly opens legal mail to inmates and pre-trial detainees and how the Delaware County Attorney clumsily tried to wriggle out of the situation where the Chief of Delaware County jail proclaimed a policy that could hurt the County big time if brought up in a federal lawsuit.
Delaware County is, by the way, a county which was the focus of the media for some time, specifically because of "police power gone too far", to the point of creating difficulties for certification of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department with the New York State Criminal Justice Department.
I wonder how the Sheriff's Department may remain certified when it allows police officers assault residents with their police vehicles, not report it, commence criminal proceedings against the victims and continue to handle weapons while claiming that their fingers are "numb" to the point of a serious injury.
12/ Delaware County police aggravated their misconduct further by making leaks to the press about Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci, several times, to Binghamton television (which resulted in a flood of hate comments on Facebook), and to the Oneonta Daily Star, while no corresponding press releases can be found on the website of the Delaware County Jail, see the media releases of the Delaware County Sheriff on his own website.
Apparently, the Delaware County Sheriff has no control over his personnel who make their own leaks to the press, even where the Sheriff does not issue official releases, and make such leaks during the pendency of a criminal proceedings, obviously impairing defendants' right to a fair trial.
13/ Delaware County police claimed under oath to the Delhi Town Court that the dog belonged to Alecia Bracci in their court testimony on September 22, 2014. When they have won relief they sought from the court with that testimony, Derek Bowie turned around and filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan was the dog's owner, and that information was leaked to the Daily Star.
On September 22, 2014 Derek Bowie appeared in court for the testimony in full uniform, with a Taser and a pistol attached to it, as far as I could see.
Yet, he testified about his alleged "serious injury" from the alleged dog bite, and testified that his fingers are "numb".
For the "serious injury" Derek Bowie was sporting, as of September 22, 2014, 4 days after the alleged attack, a band-aid on his arm, and his numb fingers did not prevent him from having access to weapons, one semi-lethal, the other lethal.
13/ The dog warden left the dog "in quarantine" without medical care for more than 24 hours, tazered, maced and clubbed, with a metal taser node sticking through his upper jaw.
Yet, no charges for animal cruelty were brought against the dog warden.
14/ Upon information and belief, on September 24, 2014, the day when I reported my recorded conversation with the Chief of Delaware County Jail and pointed out that life of Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter may be in danger, Derek Bowie filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan, and not her daughter Alecia Bracci, was the owner of the dog, and filed a complaint seeking to deem the dog a dangerous dog (which could lead to court-ordered destruction of the dog).
The "dangerous dog" proceedings which could result in destruction of the dog were, thankfully, dismissed today, but without prejudice, according to Barbara O'Sullivan, no thanks to Judge Revoir.
15/ Coming back to Judge Revoir - on September 29, 2014 Judge Revoir came around to sending a written order of dismissal of the petition filed by the mother, which was allegedly signed by Judge Revoir on August 29, 2014, but was not entered for a month, until September 29, 2014. Judge Revoir, in entering his order of dismissal of August 29, 2014, certainly did not explain why he then made an order on September 4, 2014 under the same docket, or, in other words, out of that same dismissed petition and why he enforced that invalid order through an equally invalid arrest warrant the next day, September 5, 2014.
Even though Judge Revoir dismissed the petition on August 29, 2014, he left pending the motion filed by the father in that same docket, in opposition to that same dismissed petition (filed one day before the returnable date and never served). Such a decision was obviously illegal. When a petition is dismissed, all pleadings pertaining to that petition are dismissed and stop to exist, too.
16/ On September 30, 2014 Barbara O'Sullivan filed a lawsuit against Derek Bowie for vehicular assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in Delaware County Supreme Court.
17/ On October 1, 2014 Judge Revoir communicated to me, through a court clerk, his recusal from all of my cases and from Alecia Bracci's case.
Yet, Judge Revoir recused without vacating his illegal orders that created havoc in the lives of a child, a young woman, a middle-aged disabled woman and an innocent animal.
Since orders of Judge Revoir were made after he announced he is dismissing the mother's petition for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Revoir's order of September 4, 2014 and arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci of September 5, 2014, were, in my legal opinion, made in clear absence of all jurisdiction and may subject Judge Revoir to a federal civil rights lawsuit for money damages.
Judge Revoir recused without any apology for his abusive and insulting behavior in the courtroom.
Did Judge Revoir know about criminal proceedings commenced against vocal critics of the judge based on the judge's illegal orders? News in the court system travel really fast, and it is up to the Judicial Conduct Commission to verify whether Judge Revoir did or did not have such knowledge.
I wonder whether Judge Revoir recused the way he did, without vacating his illegal orders described here, so that criminal proceedings against people who criticized him and dared to complain about him, should go on - whether proceedings are based on illegal orders or not.
Is this a message sent by the local judiciary - if anybody hires me, that person suffers? Or, if anybody criticizes or complains against a judge, that person suffers - along with her relatives, her children and her pets?
Because if this is the message, it is the wrong message to make, and that is exactly why I filed the third complaint against Judge Revoir.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Barbara J. O'Sullivan is suing the Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie for vehicular assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress
A lawsuit has been filed in the Delaware County Supreme Court by Barbara J. O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie, the Deputy Sheriff of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, for vehicular assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress for Derek Bowie's alleged actions on September 5, 2014.
Ms. O'Sullivan is seeking nominal, special, actual and punitive damages against Derek Bowie.
Since September 5, 2014, the date of the alleged vehicular assault of Derek Bowie upon Barbara O'Sullivan, Derek Bowie has brought against Barbara O'Sullivan several criminal proceedings which Derek Bowie himself investigated.
The case name is O'Sullivan v. Bowie, Delaware County Index No. 2014-911.
Ms. O'Sullivan is seeking nominal, special, actual and punitive damages against Derek Bowie.
Since September 5, 2014, the date of the alleged vehicular assault of Derek Bowie upon Barbara O'Sullivan, Derek Bowie has brought against Barbara O'Sullivan several criminal proceedings which Derek Bowie himself investigated.
The case name is O'Sullivan v. Bowie, Delaware County Index No. 2014-911.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
A second complaint has been filed against Judge Revoir for retaliation against the first complainant
I have filed the second complaint against Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., of Chenango County Family Court.
After the first complaint against the judge has been filed on September 1, 2014, Judge Revoir immediately engaged in retaliation against one of the complainants, an indigent mother, and made three unlawful orders, including an unlawful arrest warrant, instead of one lawful one - to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, memorializing what he said earlier on record on August 29, 2014, that he does not have jurisdiction over the only petition pending in front of him.
It is now in the hands of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and I truly hope that Judge Revoir will have the decency not to further retaliate against complainants against him, as he did in his September 4, 2014 order, his September 5, 2014 order to show cause and September 5, 2014 arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci, AFTER he stated that he has no jurisdiction over Alecia Bracci's proceedings.
I asked the Judicial Conduct Commission to take Judge Revoir off the bench because of the level of ignorance of the law, incompetence or, in the alternative, disdain to the rule of law that he demonstrated in Alecia Bracci's case, and especially because Judge Revoir, after he declared he has no jurisdiction over the case, took that jurisdiction and retaliated against the complainant, a young indigent mother, by taking her liberty and causing her child a trauma that will, probably, never be erased from the child's mind.
After the first complaint against the judge has been filed on September 1, 2014, Judge Revoir immediately engaged in retaliation against one of the complainants, an indigent mother, and made three unlawful orders, including an unlawful arrest warrant, instead of one lawful one - to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, memorializing what he said earlier on record on August 29, 2014, that he does not have jurisdiction over the only petition pending in front of him.
It is now in the hands of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and I truly hope that Judge Revoir will have the decency not to further retaliate against complainants against him, as he did in his September 4, 2014 order, his September 5, 2014 order to show cause and September 5, 2014 arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci, AFTER he stated that he has no jurisdiction over Alecia Bracci's proceedings.
I asked the Judicial Conduct Commission to take Judge Revoir off the bench because of the level of ignorance of the law, incompetence or, in the alternative, disdain to the rule of law that he demonstrated in Alecia Bracci's case, and especially because Judge Revoir, after he declared he has no jurisdiction over the case, took that jurisdiction and retaliated against the complainant, a young indigent mother, by taking her liberty and causing her child a trauma that will, probably, never be erased from the child's mind.
Busy courts and trouble reading
I keep hearing from judges that certain motions are "voluminous" meaning that it is difficult for judges to read them.
"Coincidentally", I am never hearing the same about motions filed against my clients, say, in a credit card consumer debt cases, or in foreclosure cases - in those cases courts usually rubber-stamp whatever the corporations want without complaining about "voluminous" motions.
Many times when I receive a judicial decision, not necessarily against my client, I see that judges fail to have read important portions of the record, because they either skip portions that by law they are not allowed to skip, or misrepresent it, showing that they did not read the record attentively, or even at all.
I understand how busy a judge can be and how many cases he may have.
I understand about budget cuts requiring judges to shoulder larger case burdens.
But - nobody dragged judges to benches against their will.
This is a job that has to be done, each case in front of a judge deals with a unique controversy where a litigant exhausted remedies out of court and has to resort to a court of law for assistance.
A judge has no right to claim that he or she is too busy to actually sit down and actually look and analyze the record of a case in front of him, no matter how voluminous the record is, in order to render a decision which may affect the entire life of an individual who came to court with a request for judicial intervention.
If the judge does not have enough time to do his job, he should either adjourn cases on his calendar so that he has enough time. After all, for people who appear in front of him, each case may be life-changing, that's why they come and ask for the court's help and intervention to begin with.
And life-changing decisions should not be made by rushed or lazy people who have no desire to read what was put in front of them.
"Coincidentally", I am never hearing the same about motions filed against my clients, say, in a credit card consumer debt cases, or in foreclosure cases - in those cases courts usually rubber-stamp whatever the corporations want without complaining about "voluminous" motions.
Many times when I receive a judicial decision, not necessarily against my client, I see that judges fail to have read important portions of the record, because they either skip portions that by law they are not allowed to skip, or misrepresent it, showing that they did not read the record attentively, or even at all.
I understand how busy a judge can be and how many cases he may have.
I understand about budget cuts requiring judges to shoulder larger case burdens.
But - nobody dragged judges to benches against their will.
This is a job that has to be done, each case in front of a judge deals with a unique controversy where a litigant exhausted remedies out of court and has to resort to a court of law for assistance.
A judge has no right to claim that he or she is too busy to actually sit down and actually look and analyze the record of a case in front of him, no matter how voluminous the record is, in order to render a decision which may affect the entire life of an individual who came to court with a request for judicial intervention.
If the judge does not have enough time to do his job, he should either adjourn cases on his calendar so that he has enough time. After all, for people who appear in front of him, each case may be life-changing, that's why they come and ask for the court's help and intervention to begin with.
And life-changing decisions should not be made by rushed or lazy people who have no desire to read what was put in front of them.
About foxes watching a chicken coop...
A woman who was punched by a police officer, and where the incident was caught on video, just obtained a 1.5 million dollar settlement, and the cop agreed to resign from his position.
In the case I reported on September 5, 2014 and yesterday, here and here, a police officer has intentionally driven back into a woman standing behind the vehicle while the woman was videotaping the police officer in order to, kill her, injure her and to destroy the tablet in her hands.
When a cop who is trying to kill or injure a woman by intentionally backing up into her a police car in order to destroy evidence in her hands, that cop does not have just anger issues, and the cop clearly puts the destruction of the object in a person's hands above her life, which makes him extremely dangerous on the police force.
This person may have deep emotional problems when he disregards human life to the point he did in Barbara O'Sullivan's case.
The cop had no reason to back up the vehicle at all, so it can be presumed that he did it intentionally, and especially when you consider that he did not close the door, leaving it hanging open while he was driving back (to have a wider span to hit the woman), and put the car in gear and drove it very fast, so that the victim would not be able to jump away.
From the amount of settlement reached above for lesser behavior, it is clear how high the stakes are for the cop here, as well as for his employer, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department which hired that cop, in the event that the police officer in question had anger issues in his background that the Delaware County Sheriff has disregarding when hiring him and giving him weapons and a vehicle that can also be used as a weapon.
It appears that these stakes are the only reasons criminal charges were fabricated against Barbara O'Sullivan, "coincidentally" by the offender cop - to discredit her as a witness and destroy her life in retaliation.
It appears that is why the Delaware County Sheriff's Department suddenly created a one-person policy for Barbara O'Sullivan's attorney not to be able to have access to Barbara O'Sullivan unless she allows the corrections officers, employees of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, to search her confidential attorney file.
In the case I reported on September 5, 2014 and yesterday, here and here, a police officer has intentionally driven back into a woman standing behind the vehicle while the woman was videotaping the police officer in order to, kill her, injure her and to destroy the tablet in her hands.
When a cop who is trying to kill or injure a woman by intentionally backing up into her a police car in order to destroy evidence in her hands, that cop does not have just anger issues, and the cop clearly puts the destruction of the object in a person's hands above her life, which makes him extremely dangerous on the police force.
This person may have deep emotional problems when he disregards human life to the point he did in Barbara O'Sullivan's case.
The cop had no reason to back up the vehicle at all, so it can be presumed that he did it intentionally, and especially when you consider that he did not close the door, leaving it hanging open while he was driving back (to have a wider span to hit the woman), and put the car in gear and drove it very fast, so that the victim would not be able to jump away.
From the amount of settlement reached above for lesser behavior, it is clear how high the stakes are for the cop here, as well as for his employer, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department which hired that cop, in the event that the police officer in question had anger issues in his background that the Delaware County Sheriff has disregarding when hiring him and giving him weapons and a vehicle that can also be used as a weapon.
It appears that these stakes are the only reasons criminal charges were fabricated against Barbara O'Sullivan, "coincidentally" by the offender cop - to discredit her as a witness and destroy her life in retaliation.
It appears that is why the Delaware County Sheriff's Department suddenly created a one-person policy for Barbara O'Sullivan's attorney not to be able to have access to Barbara O'Sullivan unless she allows the corrections officers, employees of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, to search her confidential attorney file.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)