Arbitration and mediation services will now be provided at 203 Main Street, Delhi, NY. By appointment only.

No matter what is the outcome of my disciplinary proceedings which I described here in detail, I have a right to earn a living.  I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of the court system, and I believe I will be railroaded into a suspension or disbarment no matter what the law says.  Critics of the judiciary should suffer.  But - not too fast, please.


I am now announcing that I will provide arbitration and mediation services at my current office location at 203 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753.  By appointment only.  Make an appointment ahead of time (607) 746-6203.


Arbitration and mediation services are not regulated in the State of New York, and whether I am suspended or disbarred, will not affect my ability to provide arbitration and mediation services.  So, even if I am suspended or disbarred, I will continue providing arbitration and mediation services.


My fees for arbitration and mediation are, and will remain, negotiable in each case.


No legal advice is allowed to be provided, or will be provided as part of arbitration or mediation services.


Thank you for your attention.

Does anybody need an electronic microscope to see judicial retaliation here?

How do you resolve a motion asking the court to vacate its previous decision without an explanation, reasoning or analysis?  While the motion was to resolve fundamental constitutional issues which legal scholars is this country are increasingly focusing on? 

By yet another equally unreasoned and equally illegal decision, coupled with an illegal anti-filing injunction, imposed without a notice or opportunity to be heard and in violation of the attorney's 1st Amendment right GUARANTEEING her access to court.

Well done, Judges Smith, Fahey, Carni, and Valentino of the Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department.

I understand it is difficult to curb your temper and not to retaliate when you are being criticized - especially when the criticism is true.

And what an accelerator my blog was!  What you could not decide in two months, you suddenly decided in two days - since my blog was published.

Well done!  After all, what is the U.S. Constitution to you when you need to settle a score with an attorney who dared to criticize you?

The selective illiteracy epidemic in courts is catching. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is affected

In May 16, 2014 I filed a lawsuit against a number of public officials where, among other requested remedies, I sought disclosure of secret contacts between influential attorneys and law firms with judges who presided and are presiding on my own cases and cases of my clients.  I had information that judges are participating in at least certain named "mentoring" organizations and there is, thus, a likelihood that judges are not only engaged in ex parte communications regarding my cases behind my back, but may be provided material benefits by my opponents.

Membership and benefits in such organizations are secret, and the only way to receive that information was through a lawsuit.

I also sought discovery and damages against the federal court and judges whose employee spied on me on the Internet.

Before any Defendants appeared in the action, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby whose recent law clerk was a Defendant in that action, dismissed the action (where Judge Suddaby's court and its individual judges, including the Chief Judge, were defendants), dismissed it "sua sponte" and called it frivolous - that is, instead of recusing and transferring the case to another court.

Judge Suddaby found grounds for judicial immunity even though the information I sought was in regarding judges out of court activities to which judicial immunity does not apply. 

The whole concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts ON THE BENCH is simply wrong, unconstitutional and self-serving, since it was invented (relatively recently) to protect judges from the civil rights movement, raising recognition of people's civil rights and lawsuits.

Courts routinely state that judicial immunity applies only to judicial acts, acts during court proceedings.

Yet, when anybody tries to test that restriction, usually the restrictions does not work, and in many cases sanctions follow.

In Bracci v. Becker I raised numerous instances of Judge Becker's out-of-court acts, yet, judicial immunity was applied by Judge D'Agostino nevertheless.

I later learnt that Judge D'Agostino is part of the "mentoring" circuit with attorneys who had grudges against me, and I simply wanted to confirm the list of members in that mentoring circuit, what kind of benefits she received and the list of attorneys she met with behind closed doors.

Judge Suddaby protected her by dismissing my lawsuit verifying her possible benefits before she had a chance to appear in the action, and the same for all other powerful defendants.

So, the first step of damage control for the fellow judges was done by Judge Suddaby.

I appealed Judge Suddaby's "sua sponte" dismissal (dismissal on the court's own motion) - and, by the way, the "court's own motion" was never served upon me and I was never allowed to oppose it. 

When I appealed Judge Suddaby's decision, I followed the law and did not serve the Notice of Appeal upon anybody- because no parties had a chance to appear on the other side and the dismissal was sua sponte.

Yet, the appellate court, the 2nd Circuit, named all defendants in the case as "Appellees" - parties to the appeal, my opponents.  That was against the court's two own recent cases:

1) Boddie v. Alexander, 356 F. App'x 438, 439 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2009) ("Because the District Court dismissed this action before service of process, the defendants listed in the complaint are not parties to this appeal");

2) Petway v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 450 F. App'x 66, 66 n.2 (2d Cir. 2011) (Because the District Court dismissed [plaintiff's] complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) prior to its service on any defendant, no defendant has appeared in the case, either in the District Court or on appeal").

Then, bizarre things started to happen.

The 2nd Circuit court received a letter from the New York State Attorney General dated September 26, 2014, clearly stating the above law and indicating that NYS AG is not appearing in that action on behalf of any Appellees.  NYS AG asked the court to remove the NYS AG's office from the list of counsel.

I did not find in the docket of this case any decision of this court on the letter of NYS AG, but it appears that the request was granted without any motions, and NYS AG is not listed on the docket as attorneys for the State Defendants.

Despite the fact that the NYS AG notified the court that, by the court's own recent precedents (2009 and 2011), there are no Appellees in this case, the court stubbornly continued to deem all defendants in the court below as Appellees, see the snippets from the court's docket report as of today:

 

 

Moreover, the court sent out, without copying me, "Default notices" to Appellees, notifying them of their nonexisting "default" and practically inviting them to file notices of appearance to oppose me in the appeal where, by law, I had no opposition.

One Notice of Appearance was filed by Porter L. Kirkwood, Esq., the Delaware County Attorney.

The Notice of Appearance simply stated that Mr. Kirkwood appears on behalf of an "Appellee", without a name.  It was clear that such a "notice" was a nullity and had to be rejected by the court.

I notified the court that

(1) there are no Appellees in the action;
(2) that Mr. Kirkwood "Notice of Appearance" on behalf of an unnamed Appellee is a nullity

and requested to remove Mr. Kirkwood from the case.

The court which sent back to me or my husband appealing Pro Se any documents where the court personnel thought any corrections should be made, including a comma (!) on the front page of an Appellant's Brief, was extremely lenient to Mr. Kirkwood.

The court READ MR. KIRKWOOD'S MIND and PRESUMED that Mr. Kirkwood is appearing on behalf of Richard Northrup, Delaware County District Attorney.

Thus, in regards to governmental parties, the court acts as a kind mind-reader and advocate, and in regards to a civil rights plaintiff/appellant the court acts like an evil stepmother inventing for such civil rights plaintiffs/Appellants, like for Cinderellas, a mountain of unnecessary and burdensome activities.

Specifically, for me, right after NYS AG notified the court of the law in the case, that there are no Appellees, by the court's own recent two precedents, the court sent to me a "notice of defective filing" where the defect was "missing proof of service" - and, where there are no Appellees, there is no duty to serve anybody, and thus, the court has no authority to require proof of service upon non-existing parties.  Here is the notice:

The "defective notice" with "missing proof of service" was filed on October 27, 2014 (see the runner on top of the document above). 

I answered the court that where there are no Appellees, there should not be any service required, and attached to my answer the letter from NYS AG of September 26, 2014, indictating to the court that they were already notified about that not only by myself but by the NYS Attorney General.

Despite that, on November 18, 2014 the court stubbonrly issued a "default notice" to "appellees" and failed to send me a copy of that notice.  So, the court engaged in an ex parte communication with non-parties in the action pertaining to the action.  Here is the notice:

It is interesting to mention that the above ex parte "Default Notice" of November 18, 2014 does not contain an indication to whom it is addressed.

Yet, the docket report does contain such an indication.

So, a little short of 2 months after the New York State Attorney General notified the court that it is NOT appearing on behalf of any parties in this appeal because, by the court's own two recent precedents, there are no appellees in this case, the court continues to communicate with State Defendants as "appellees", and in an ex parte manner, no less.  On an appeal from a civil rights complaint seeking disclosures about possible massive ex parte communications of judges with influential attorneys outside of court proceedings.  Makes a lot of sense and raises a question - can the court personnel read?

As you can note, Porter L. Kirkwood appeared in the action on November 26, 2014, 8 days after the notification to State Defendants only.  It is unclear how he was notified - by phone, possibly?  That is another misconduct on behalf of the court, but - guess what - while applying to themselves absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts ON THE BENCH - BECAUSE - allegedly discipline against such misconduct is available - judicial discipline against federal judges is not available if misconduct occurred ON THE BENCH.  So, if a federal judge commits misconduct on the bench, short of impeachment, you have no remedies.  A motion to recuse is directed to the same judge, and the same judge will - surprise, surprise! - sanction you for making the motion to recuse him/her and award against you thousands of dollars of attorneys fees of your opponent, so that you do not dare to that again in the future.  So much for the rule of law, fairness and justice.

In this case, it gets better.

The docket report indicates (I never received any notices of these filings) that:

On December 4, 2014 attorney Barbara Underwood for a number of State Defendants was "terminated". 

Nowhere in the docket does it show that Barbara Underwood appeared on anybody's behalf. On the opposite, the letter from NYS AG's office of September 26, 2014 (above) clearly stated that nobody is appearing on behalf of State Defendants becuase, by law, on this particular appeal there are no appellees (opponents to the appeal).

On December 8, 2014 attorney Steve D. Clymer is mysteriously "substituted" in blase of attorney Brenda K. Sannes.  Who those people are, I do not know, I was never notified about their roles in this case.

On the same December 8, 2014 the court sent yet another "default notice":

As in the case with the first "default notice", it was sent out ex parte, without notifying me, so it was another ex parte communication with non-parties in my appeal.

As previously, the "default notice" did not list to whom it was sent.

As previously, the docket report on Pacer reflected to whom the default notice was sent.

Of course, the ex parte communication was with judges of the lower court - defendants in the action who were NOT parties in the appeal, by the 2nd Circuit's own two recent precedents.  But - when the appellate court engage in ex parte communication with judges, if they are defendants in a civil rights action, in the 2nd Circuit it appears to be ok.  Identity of the defendants absolves the appellate court from following the law - that is the only conclusion I can arrive at given the pattern of actions of the court in this case.

On the same December 8, 2014 the court received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office on behalf of the above mentioned federal defendants (who never appeared in the action in the court below and, by law, are not appellees in this appeal either, so they are NON-PARTIES).

The U.S. Attorney's letter is similar to the New York Attorney General's letter of September 26, 2014 above, indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office cannot, by law, appear on behalf of any appellees in my appeal.

Both NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General indicated a possibility that they may appear in my appeal with "amicus briefs", even though there are rules restricting who can file "amicus briefs", and in this situation, neither of the offices qualifies (in my opinion), and if they do file "amicus briefs", they will disqualify themselves as attorneys for parties, should the case be reversed, remanded, and should the defendants be served.  I guess, nobody thinks that far into the future.

So, as of December 8, 2014, both the NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney notified the court of its own two precedents and indicated that they are not authorized to appear on behalf of defendants who were not served and did not appear in the action below, and thus are not, as a matter of law, Appellees in this appeal.

The court appears to be deaf and blind to those statements, because the very next day it issues the following order:

There is no explanation as to why my request to exclude Porter Kirkwood, who never properly appeared in the action (appearance on behalf of an unnamed Appellee is a nullity even if there are Appellees in the appeal, and on this appeal there are no appellees, as a matter of law, in accordance to the court's own two recent precedents).

Yet, there is a threat that if I do not serve Porter Kirkwood with my appellate forms, the forms will be stricken from the docket.  It is, in fact, a threat to dismiss my appeal if I do not comply with a clearly unlawful order of the court.

I will, of course, comply, to avoid dismissal of the appeal, which does not mean that I concede that the order above is lawful - it is clearly not.

Moreover, on the same day of December 9, 2014 the following second "notice of defective filing" was sent to me.

I am now notified that if I want to strike Porter Kirkwood's appearance, I need to do that with an attending form.

First of all, the court already denied my request, without any forms.

Second, no notices of defective filings were sent to Porter Kirkwood when he did not list the name of the "Appellee" in his notice of appearance, making such a Notice of Appearance a clear nullity.

Instead of rejecting Porter Kirkwood's notice as a matter of law, the burden is put on me to file motions to strike Porter Kirkwood's "appearance", and such a notice is coupled with an order already denying me the request.

So - should I or should I not even bother to file the "missing motion information statement"?

To me, the above means that the court, both judges and personnel, are either biased, or prejudiced, or illiterate (selectively), or all the above.

In my case the harassment unleashed upon me by the court is egregious enough.  But civil rights law is supposed to serve the underserved population, the illiterate and borderline illiterate and the poor.

How can these civil rights plaintiffs/appellants fight with this stubborn, arrogant and lawless red tape, issued by courts, with a threat of dismissing the appeal if a civil rights appellant does not comply with a clearly unlawful court order catering for the powerful governmental defendants - who are NOT parties in the appeal, as a matter of law.

Let us also consider staffing of federal courts.

According to vacancies posted on Indeed.com for federal court personnel, federal courts only hire "the best of the best".

The hired court employees receive excellent salaries and benefits, must adhere to a "code of conduct" and serve "at will" "at the pleasure of the court".

Yet, judging by the actions of personnel of the 2nd Circuit court, the main "code of conduct" is not adherence to the law or U.S. Constitution, but serving at the whim of judges who would not adhere to the law where they are inventing unlawful barriers to a civil rights appeal that may affect themselves in a profound way.

After all, they are only "at will" employees serving "at the court's pleasure". 

And, once again, so much for the rule of law.

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.