How difficult it is for the court to adhere to the law? It is impossible if the law is on the side of the attorney marked for destruction for criticizing and suing judges

On September 30, 2014, the Appellate Division 4th Department has issued an order in my disciplinary case denying my cross-motion (constitutional issues, sanctions against the disciplinary prosecutor, dismissal of certain charges, including fraudulent charges and moot charges).

The order had NO reasoning at all.  None.

The order appointed a referee in violation of the statutory law requiring that such a referee can only be a retired Supreme Court Justice.  The referee appointed is a retired County Court Judge.

On October 9, 2014 I moved to vacate, renew and reargue, recuse the court because of its behavior towards me, and to sanction my opponent for frivolous conduct, for promoting fraudulent charges.

On October 23, 2014 I had to travel 3 hours one way to appear at a conference before the referee in the case.

The conference took a whole of about 10 minutes during which the referee told me and my opponents that he is not going to schedule any hearings until the court hears my motion of October 9, 2014.

Apparently, I could have been notified by phone simply not to come all the way to hear that, but I wasn't.

At the conference, the referee stated, and it was reflected in the transcript, that he is going to make not simply factual findings, but a decision on the case.

I supplemented my motion by a request to disqualify the referee, as he not only was not qualified to be so appoitned by the statute, but also obviously did not understand what his authority was, even after reading the court order that allowed him only to make factual findings, but no orders.

At the conference of October 23, 2014, the referee and my opponent indicated to me that the expected date when the decision on my motions is going to be made is November 20, 2014.

No decision was made until the date of the conference on December 5, 2014, and the referee adjourned the conference until January 12, 2015, waiting for the decision on my motions.

On December 8, 2014, without making any decisions on my motions, the court made the following order:

It is clear from the order that it did not even mention that a motion is pending since October 9, 2014 to vacate the September 30, 2014 order, recuse the court and the referee and allow me to renew and reargue the cross-motion raising fundamental constitutional issues that the court denied without an explanation.

When a motion to recuse is pending, and until it is resolved, the court has no authority to make any intermediate decisions.

Yet, apparently, the court did just that.

When a motion is made, the moving party is entitled to a written decision, and as a matter of due process of law, to a reasoned written decision.

As the court's decision of December 8, 2014 demonstrates, no mention of my motions is even made.

How difficult it is for a court of law to actually follow the law?  In my case, it appears to be impossible. 

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it granted a hearing without granting or denying a summary judgment of the prosecution, because there is none.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it denied my motion to dismiss the charge seeking to discipline me for not committing a crime of practicing law without a licence in 2008 when I was not licensed to practice law, which is the subject of Charge I Specification I, and for which I provided irrefutable documentary evidence, court records that the opponents did not and could not rebut.  The disciplinary petition stated I was admitted to practice law in 2009.  Court records stated that the deposition and motion where I allegedly did not appear and did not oppose, both happened in 2008.  What else does the court need to dismiss those charges?  I guess, to harass me some more, at the directive of some people who want me to be harassed.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it did not dismiss the charge that I did not pay the sanctions when the charge was filed in 2013 and the sanctions were paid in 2011, immediately after they were imposed, into the escrow of Delaware County Supreme Court.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it skipped ruling on all of my constitutional issues, because the court must do that, and the federal court remanded my case back to state court on the argument that the state court will review and rule on federal constitutional issues.  Apparently, it is too dangerous for the court to do that.  It might create a precedent for the whole country that it is not constitutional to sanction an attorney and deprive an attorney of her reputation, property and livelihood for criticizing misconduct of public officials including judges.  The court is not ready to actually discharge the function of protection the Constitution that each of the judges on the court have been sworn to uphold.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why, while prosecuting me for allegedly frivolous conduct (in the opinion of Judge Becker who imposed the sanctions after I sued him), it fails to sanction my opponents for promoting against me clearly fraudulent charges, which was proven by irrefutable court records.  Of course, my opponents claim to be "part of" the same court that is presiding, which is only more grounds for the court not to preside.

In other words, the only reason why the reasoned decision was not provided by the court was because there can be no reasoning to rule against me other than there is an agreement by the court and, possibly, high-ranking individuals who direct the court, to rule against me no matter what the law says.

To say that, under the circumstances, I am heard by a court of law and not a Star Chamber court would be gross intellectual dishonesty.

The authors of the decision that ignored that a motion to recuse and to vacate, renew and reargue the September 30, 2014 decision is pending before the court and who proceed as if no motion was ever made, are:

• Judge Smith
• Judge Fahey,
• Judge Carni,
• Judge Sconiers
• Judge Valentino.

Shame on you, your Honors.

It appears that the only reason I am prosecuted is because I complained about misconduct of judges, and sued judges - and no matter what the law says, my livelihood and reputation must be destroyed to teach me, and any other attorneys who would contemplate to complain about such misconduct, a lesson, and the court is the tool of destruction that is teaching such a lesson to the legal community.

The rule of law, right.

ACLU Executive Director: pardon the torturers to prove that torture will not be tolerated - a reality check is in order

I read, with total dismay and astonishment, an article in the New York Times by the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Anthony D. Romero calling on the U.S. President to issue "pre-emptive pardons" to the following 7 individuals:

1. George J. Tenet - for authorizing torture at the C.I.A's black sites overseas;
2. Donald H. Rumsfeld - for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantanamo Bay Prison;
3. David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee - for crafting the legal cover for torture;
4. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - for overseeing the torture.

Anthony D. Romero is a lawyer and the head of a law firm advocating for civil rights.

His take on why the "pre-emptive pardons" should be given to perpetrators of torture that led to unspeakable suffering of many human beings and death of some, while they were not only presumed innocent but was not even charged for any crimes are that only this way, somehow, the torture can be condemned as illegal.

Mr. Romero says the following: 

"An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted".   

Now, Mr. Romero is a lawyer, and he clearly understands when saying something like that, that a pardon does not send anybody any such "signals". 

And, as another reader of Mr. Romero's warped-logic article suggested, in order to pardon, by law, you first have to criminally charge, prosecute and convict - and only then think about pardons.  No right of "pre-emptive pardons" exist and, if previous presidents violated that rule, there is an ancient legal maxim that violation of a law does not become the law, abusus non tollit usum. 

Also, I seriously recommend to Mr. Romero to read a well researched book by Glenn Greenwald, "With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful".

It describes in detail the Watergate scandal and how the pardons that Mr. Romero uses as precedents for pardons for the masterminds of torture and murder of innocent people at the hands of the government and states the following:

"By the scandal's conclusion, few contested that not only Nixon's top aides but Nixon himself had committed serious felonies - either in authorizing the break-in and related illegalities, or in obstructing the ensuing investigation.  Nonetheless, Nixon was ultimately shielded from all legal consequences thanks to the pardon granted by his handpicked vice president, Gerald Ford - who, it was widely believed, secured his appointment by agreeing to protect Nixon from prosecution", p. 18.

"Americans would condemn this sort of arrangement as cronyism and corruption of the sleaziest sort if they witnessed it in another country.  In the United States, however, political and media elites (though not the general public) widely agreed that immunizing the felony-committing president from the criminal justice system was the right thing to do", p. 18.

Quite a precedent you've picked, Mr. Romero.     

Mr. Romero acknowledges in his article that "The spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn."  Yet, he insists: "But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again."

What kind of a warped and sick logic is that?  

How pre-emptive pardoning a torturer and murderer in public office will make sure that torture and murder in public office will never occur again?

Two things appear clear from Mr. Romero's article - Mr. Romero has proven the opposite to the point he was trying to achieve.   In my opinion, Mr. Romero has proven with his arguments that no accountability can be reached through "pre-emptive pardons" of the perpetrators, and there is no law supporting such a "pre-emptive pardon".

Second, but as important, it appears that Mr. Romero is definitely the wrong choice for his position of the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

To ensure genuine access to justice in the US and in the State of New York, state and federal statutory prohibitions should be introduced for any public officials, including judges, to sanction critics of their behavior in any forum, with a strict-liability disciplinary component for violations and with statutory voiding of any such punishments

You criticize a public official.  You complain about misconduct of that public official.   You ask disciplinary authorities to discipline that public official.  You sue that public official in his or her individual capacity.

That public official then turns around and deprives you of a benefit.  Moreover, that public official sanctions you for your criticism of that public official.

It is pretty obvious that a major conflict of interest exists under the circumstances.

It is pretty obvious that a public official cannot sit in judgment of a person who criticized the public official, and cannot punish that person, as there will be an appearance that the punishment is in retaliation for criticism and in violation of the person's 1st Amendment rights.

Right?  Not so fast.

In New York State courts, and, as far as my research shows, in other states around the country, judges punish attorneys and parties specifically for making motions to recuse those same judges.

A growing number of states allow peremptory challenges to judges (removal without cause), but New York is not one of them.

If you do not make a motion to recuse, the appellate court will reject your claim of bias on appeal and will "defer" to (rubber-stamp) all factual determinations of the biased judge bent on retaliation against you.

If you do make a motion to recuse, the judge will sanction you and your attorney, so attorneys usually refuse to make such motions.  It is a Hobson's choice, of course.  Everybody knows about it in the court system, nobody wants to address it.  Why? Job security.

Is it a denial to you of effective representation of counsel due to this culture of intimidation?  Definitely.  Is it going to change any time soon?  Not until and unless the people start asserting their claims to change the situation through legislative initiatives, because nothing will be done through courts where judges will always support their own.

Is it constitutional to allow a judge whose conduct is challenged to be the judge of his or her own misconduct?  In my opinion - definitely, not.  Yet, it is happening, in both state and federal courts.  I urge people of the State of New York to write to their legislative representatives to introduce a bill prohibiting judges to sit on motions to recuse those same judges.

Is it constitutional to allow a judge to sanction a person who criticized the judge, for the criticism?  In my opinion, definitely not.  It is a violation of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech, access to court, and a due process right to a fair trial before an impartial court.  A person, no matter how honorable his official position is supposed to be, cannot NOT have favorable bias to himself or herself, it is in the human nature to not take criticism well and not to see your own flaws.  Economic constraints, constraint of caseloads of judges, constraints of understaffing of courts have nothing to do with people's right to a fair trial in front of an impartial judge.  Therefore, a bill should be introduced and statutory law passed, in my humble opinion, prohibiting state and federal judges from presiding over motions challenging their conduct, and a "statute with teeth", with strict disciplinary liability for non-compliance.

A state and federal statutory prohibition should also exist for judges to impose any other sanctions or deprive litigants of any other benefits, such as access to court, where making motions to recuse those judges is any factor or basis for such sanctions.

It is elementary.  You do not get the authority to punish your critic, it is a conflict of interest to any person, honorable and dishonorable.  And if you do punish your critic, you must be punished, too, and your decision to punish your critic must be deemed, as a matter of statutory law, null and void.

Until and unless such statutory law is introduced, nobody in this country will have effective representation of counsel, with counsel shaking in the bushes whenever their client raises the issue of bias of the judge and requests to file a motion to recuse.

A law allowing peremptory (no cause) challenges for judges for the State of New York and in federal court would also be nice to have, but they do not eliminate the problem.

It is a basic due process principle that removal for cause from any position of power should not be within the exclusive discretion of the person whose conduct is challenged and whose removal is sought, whoever the person is and however high and honorable his or her position of power is.

 In fact, if judges claim to be a presumptively honorable profession, they should adhere to such principles more, not less than we mere mortals.

A lawsuit was filed in Delaware County Supreme Court against 6 disciplinary attorneys, the New York State Attorney General and two of Assistant Attorneys General for fraud and fraud upon the court

Today I filed a civil lawsuit in the Delaware County Supreme Court against 9 attorneys working for the New York State government, for fraud and fraud upon the court.

The claims are based on the following:

Upon information and belief and judging by the official records that I have, these 9 attorneys, knowing that their actions were fraudulent, did the following:

(1) investigated and prosecuted me for over 2 years for NOT acting as an attorney at the time when I was NOT admitted to the bar;  the charge is not just bizarre, it is insane, yet, they are pursuing it relentlessly, for 2 years in four courts, at your expense, New York taxpayers, and it is time to hold them accountable;

(2) investigated and prosecuted me for not paying a court sanction imposed upon me by a judge I sued after I sued him, when by the time the claims were filed the sanctions were paid into the escrow of the court 1.5 years prior;

(3) for continuing to harass and prosecute me on these charges, knowing they were false, for 2 years in 4 courts:

•  New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department;
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York;
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit;
• New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department.

Perpetrating fraud at public expense is presented by these attorneys no less than protecting the pubic againt me. 

Of course, the only reason for the disciplinary prosecution against me is becuase I raised issues of misconduct of certain high-standing public officials, including judges and - imagine! - sued judges for their misconduct.

Of course, these high-standing public officials simply cannot leave me unpunished for trying to hold them accountable, no matter whether their punsihment is lawful or unlawful.

Of course, the public never authorized these attorneys to perpetrate fraud on its behalf in order to protect it, and there is nothing to protect it from.

Of course, the public did not pay these attorneys to use their taxpayer-paid time to perpetrate fraud.

It is time our public officials, all sworn to uphold the U.S. and State Constitution, get through their heads that to commit fraud is wrong.

Each of these two attorneys get paid close to or over $100,000.00 for their efforts, much more than an average New York taxpayer is paid.

Taxpayers of the State of New York, especially those struggling to pay taxes - until and unless you start to demand REAL accountability from your public servants, they will continue to deem their offices and jobs as private fiefdoms and will continue to waste your money on perpetrating fraud on members of the public and on the courts, instead of doing their jobs.

One more proof that Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, cannot read

Judge Sharpe filed against my husband, Mr. Neroni, a sua sponte (commenced by the judge) anti-filing injunction action, seeking to preclude my husband from any further filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Of course, a right of access to court to vindicate violatons of constitutional rights, including fundamental constitutional rights, is in itself a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be taken away without a hearing.

No hearing was offered or given to Mr. Neroni despite his demand for such a hearing.

Judge Sharpe is the judge who Mr. Neroni sought to recuse twice before the anti-filing injunction action was initiated by the judge against him.

Mr. Neroni provided to the court multiple exhibits showing that Judge Sharpe is (1) actually biased against Mr. Neroni and me, his wife and attorney in several actions;  (2)  Judge Sharpe sanctioned Mr. Neroni for his actions in still pending actions, including the actions in which no sanctions were imposed.

The Docket Sheet of Gary Sharpe's lawsuit against Mr. Neroni was labeled as a "Civil Rights Action":

Of course, a judge of a federal court cannot bring a civil rights action against a private party as a defendant.  A civil rights action can only be brought by a private party against a state actor.  Judge Sharpe was not acting as a private party when bringing this case, and Mr. Neroni is not a state actor who has violated Judge Sharpe's civil rights.

Yet, I guess that the Northern District of New York is Judge Sharpe's own court and he can do with it and its procedures, as with his own fiefdom, as he pleases.

In his opposition and cross-motion, Mr. Neroni provided 86 documentary exhibits showing that:

(1) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni;
(2) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni, that is me, based on my blogs criticizing Judge Sharpe;
(3) The law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe brought the anti-filing injunction action against Mr. Neroni are politically connected law firms employing relatives of judges;
(4) One of the law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe recently ruled awarding attorney fees agaisnt Mr. Neroni (the sanction is currently on appeal) is serving as a de facto depository of employees of the court after they leave the court for private employment.  Exhibits were provided showing that clerks of judges of the court, including a clerk of Judge Sharpe, were accepted as associates and partners into Hiscock & Barclay of Albany, NY, for whose benefit Judge Sharpe brought the action, which created a huge appearance of impropriety.
(5)  Judges of the court are members of an organization American Inns of Court where Hiscock & Barclays partners and employees are members and sponsors;
(6) A partner of Hiscock & Barclay

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that an anti-injunction order must comply with strict scrutiny as blocking his fundamental constitutional rights.  Mr. Neroni argued that any prior restraint on speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which were dismissed by the court, as a discretionary matter, under Younger abstention, meaning that the court had jurisdicton, but decided to let a state court decide first.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which are still pending, are pending with counsel who was not notified of the anti-injunction proceeding, pending before another judge and where no sanctions were imposed.

In his anti-injunction order issued on November 26, 2014, Judge Sharpe dedicated a grand total of two 1/2 lines to the factual findings supporting his anti-filing injunction against Mr. Neroni. 

Judge Sharpe stated that Mr. Neroni "failed to provide sufficient justification for his previous conduct", whether Mr. Neroni had to justify his "conduct" or not.

It is obvious that, to Judge Sharpe who hates Mr. Neroni and hates me for exposing his misconduct publicly, including this blog, it is apparent that no amount of arguments, facts, documents or legal authorities will be "sufficient justification".

It was obvious that the whole "order to show cause" giving Mr. Neroni an opportunity to respond only in writing and not in person, while a hearing in these kind of cases is required, was a mere formality, and the case was pre-judged before it was even filed.  

Moreover, Judge Sharpe went so far as certifying in the same order that any appeal that Mr. Neroni would seek to undertake from Judge Sharpe's anti-filing injunction will be deemed to be in bad faith.  

Any reasonable person, including myself, knowing what can follow if an appeal is filed against such a certification, would perceive it as a clear threat to Mr. Neroni that if he appeals, he will be sanctioned, so, don't appeal, or else.

Yet, if any reasonable person reads the statute under which the certification was made, the reasonable person will have a question as to whether Judge Sharpe can read, because the statute under which the certification was made was in no way applicable, and thus the certrification was false. 

It is relevant to mention here that I already asked the question whether Judge Sharpe can read in this blog and on the blog of Forbes.com after Judge Sharpe sanctioned me and Mr. Neroni for correctly reading the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and those sanctions were part of Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse in this case.

It is interesting to mention that Judge Sharpe has brought anti-filing injunction proceedings against Mr. Neroni within a couple of weeks of my statement on Forbes.com that Judge Sharpe cannot read, and I cannot deem it a simple coincidence.  There are too many coincidences in how Judge Sharpe treats me and Mr. Neroni and all of those "coincidences" are slanted against us.

Judge Sharpe, as a sworn federal judicial officer, CERTIFIED (which means it is done under oath) that pursuant to a statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (which means that my husband should have been a pro se plaintiff in a civil rights action, and was adjudicated by the court, on his own application, as a poor person), my husband's appeal from his decision, if undertaken, will be undertaken in bad faith.

Of course, I consider the statute itself where a judge of a court below is allowed to block an appeal from his own decision by claiming it is taken in bad faith, unconstitutional and seeking to prevent appellants' access to court in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitutions.

But the beauty of the present situation, where a high-ranking federal judge is using this particular statute in this particular case is that the statute, by its clear and unambiguous language, refers to civil actions and appeals brought by pro se civil rights litigants adjudicated as poor persons.

Let me count how many mistakes the judge has made in his certification in order to block Mr. Neroni from appealing his decision:

(1) Mr. Neroni is not a Plaintiff in this action;
(2) this action is not a civil rights action;
(3) Mr. Neroni was not adjudicated as a poor person.

Here is the portion of the docket report before Judge Sharpe's ruling on November 26, 2014.  It clearly shows that Mr. Neroni is not a plaintiff in this action, and that he never applied for or received a poor person (in forma pauperis) status from the court.

Thus, certification under this statute seeking to preclude Mr. Neroni from filing an appeal and implicitly intimidating him with sanctions for filing an appeal in bad faith, did not have any legal basis.

Either the judge did not read the statute that he was using as a basis for his certification, or he simply did not care what it said, as long as he cites some law, right or wrong, to block my husband from appealing Judge Sharpe's unlawful and unconstitutional order made in favor of a "friendly" law firm that, upon information and belief, provides material benefits for judges of Judge Sharpe's court, helps pick magistrate judges, participates in making local rules of the court and accepts employees of the court as associates and partners.

And this false certification, ladies and gentlemen,  and the reasons behind it, are grounds for impeachment of Judge Sharpe, which is what is going to be sought.

Last, but definitely not least, is the mistakes in how the clerk of the court filed Mr. Neroni's pleadings in this case, in a way that violated rules of court to such electronic filings, made it more difficult for readers on PACER to review the file and made it impossible to word-search the file, as is required by court rules. 

There is a requirement to electronic filings in this court, that all exhibits must be filed separately, and must be scanned into a word-searchable PDF.

Mr. Neroni, as a pro se defendant, was not allowed to file electronically, it was the obligation of the clerk of the court to follow the rules in how documents are scanned and filed, and those rules are not different from rules applicable to counseled parties.

I checked on PACER today how Mr. Neroni's cross-motion with 86 exhibits was filed by the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and found TWO major violations of the court rules:

(1) 86 exhibits were filed in 5 batches, instead of each exhibit separately.  Such defective filing prevents people who are searching this file on PACER and who do not know about this case, from assessing the true number of exhibits.  If a person sees 5 exhibits, he or she may be less interested in the case than if he or she sees 86 exhibits filed;

(2) Exhibits are not filed in word-searchable format, precluding a major utility required for documents filed on PACER.

I do not believe this was done accidentally.  I do believe this was done intentionally, to preclude the word-search of the filed documents and to make it more complicated for the public to review this file.

The judge obviously was protecting himself and his associate judges whose misconduct and conflicts of interest were exposed in the exhibits.

And that will be yet another basis for our petition for impeachment.

Impeachment petition of several federal judges of the Northern District of New York court is being prepared

I put the public on notice that I am in the process of preparation of a petition/request to the U.S. Legislature to impeach the Chief Judge of the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe and several other judges, such as Senior Judge Thomas McAvoy, Judge Lawrence Kahn, Judge Glenn Suddaby, for:

1) Intentional and self-serving violations of their constitutional oath of office;

2) favoritism to politically entrenched law firms and attorneys;

3) presenting to the public an appearance that certain attorneys can influence judicial decisions;

4) using the rule of frivolous conduct as a tool of retaliation against attorneys, family members and clients of attorneys who speak out against judicial misconduct;

5) bringing the judicial office in disrepute by creating an impression that the desired judicial decisions can be obtained by using politically entrenched attorneys;

6) abusing their power in bringing and prosecuting proceedings, as a tool of personal vendetta, designed to block access to court to attorneys and parties who criticized judges and sought their recusal or seeking information about their in- and out-of-court misconduct.

The disciplinary rules as written by the federal judiciary, do not allow to discipline a judge for acts on the bench, even if those acts were malicious, corrupt and/or in violation of his or her constitutional oath of office.

Yet, the judge-created absolute judicial immunity protects judges from lawsuits, even for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, because discipline is available.

Since discipline is not available, the only remaining way of making federal judges accountable is impeachment.

Impeachment is a complex procedure that must be commenced through the U.S. Legislature.  The U.S. Legislature should be notified of judicial misconduct to become aware of it and to commence the procedure.  Hence, I am preparing a petition.  I am preparing the petition because of my own experience with the judges against whom I am seeking impeachment, and because of documented experience of my husband and some other people.  

If any other attorneys and parties who litigated in this court have a basis to seek impeachment of its judges, I request to contact me so that we could do it together.  Thank you for your attention.

Will the U.S. Congress dare to impeach federal judge Fuller for domestic violence against his wife?

It has been reported that Congresswoman Sewell requested the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to commence an impeachment investigation of federal judge Mark Fuller who reportedly assaulted his wife in an Atlanta hotel.

The judge was charged criminally with domestic violence, requested to step down, but so far reportedly refused to do so.

The judge was reportedly stripped of his cases, but continues to draw his salary of $200,000.00, at taxpayers' expense.

Impeachment of a judge is a procedure that the U.S. Congress uses very rarely.  

Judges are human, and, especially with federal judges who are on life tenure and against whom discipline for misconduct on the bench is simply unavailable by federal court rules, and discipline through civil lawsuits by the victims is unavailable through judicially created doctrine of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, such absolute power has a tendency to go to the judges'  heads and corrupt them absolutely.  

Judging by conduct of some federal judges I have dealt with, such power does so corrupt and makes many judges too arrogant in their belief in their own impunity to comply with their constitutional oath of office and not to strike against critics of their misconduct within court proceedings.

Since all disciplinary complaints about judges, which, naturally, complain about judges' misconduct on the bench, are dismissed without review, no statistics of judicial misconduct of federal judges on the bench is collected or exists, and without statistics, the picture appears to be benign.

The only alternative way to get a federal judge disciplined is impeachment, a 3-step tedious procedure which must be initiated by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.


Yet, it appears to be a distinct policy of the federal government not to impeach judges, no matter how bad their behavior is, not to upset the public and not to mar public image of the federal judiciary.

In this case, where the cat is out of the bag and where reports of domestic violence by a judge against his wife are already all over the Internet, the image is already marred and attempting to "save" it can be regarded by the public as nothing other than protecting a judge's career, no matter what he did, simply because he is a judge.

Assaulting a woman tells volumes about a federal judge's judicial temperament.  It would especially tell volumes to female attorneys or parties appearing in front of that judge.  If the judge cannot keep his temper in check not to lay a hand on a helpless woman in a private hotel room, the judge is not fit by temperament to remain on the bench.

Life tenure of federal judges clearly is "during their good behavior".  Assaulting a woman is not good behavior by any definition in a civilized society.

I am a criminal defense attorney myself, and I understand and fully subscribe to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Yet, investigations for impeachment are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings, and the U.S. Congress definitely does not have to wait until the criminal proceeding is complete to commence its own impeachment procedures, especially when the victim/witness and her medical records are, most likely, very available for the investigation.

Not to impeach a judge under such circumstances will be very suspicious and will smack of a policy to condone any misconduct if it is done by the new American aristocracy, a member of federal judiciary.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, should not be tolerated by "We the People", by us.