Jonathan Lippman's pal NYS Speaker Sheldon Silver is in custody on federal charges of corruption. Will more charges against more people follow?

Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the NYS Legislature is in federal custody on charges reportedly of corruption, fraud, wire fraud and extortion.  

Silver is bosom friend since childhood of NYS Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, the one who promoted Lippman into his position, the one who fought hard, to the point of using funds from the law firm that represented Silver on charges of corruption before the Moreland commission to change the New York State Constitution so that his pal Lippman could serve 10 more years on the bench, until he is 80.  

Of course, Lippman himself was very active in promoting the change of the NYS Constitution, which many commentators considered inappropriate since Lippman, as an elected judge, could not participate in politics.  

To me, the most important aspect of impropriety was that the judge used his power and influence to advocate the change of the NYS Constittuion that benefited him personally.  

At retirement at the end of this year, Judge Lippman will lose half of his salary, he will be receiving only 1/2 of his current salary in retirement.  

Had his own and his friend Silver's efforts been successful to persuade/coerce New York voters to up the age limit for judges until 80, Lippman could have been earning twice as much for 10 more years.  

Somehow, the consideration of self-dealing did not enter the judge's and his friend Silver's mind during their active public advocacy for the change.

Jimmy Vielkind, of CapitalNewYork.com, reported that "[i]n the days before the election, [the policital action committee] also received a $50,000 check from Weitz & Luxenberg, where Silver is of counsel, as well as a $25,000 check from Kasowitz, Benson & Torres, the firm hired by Silver to represent the Assembly in proceedings before the anti-corruption Moreland Commission".

By the way, the "offending" Moreland Commission was disbanded by Governor Cuomo as soon as it started to investigate Governor Cuomo.

The same federal prosecutor who investigates Governor  Cuomo for disbanding the Moreland Commission, filed charges against Silver.

The 5-count federal charges are alleged to be stretching back "more than a decade".

The charges "focus on outside legal work" of Sheldon Silver for that same firm of his, "Weitz & Luxenberg" that donated $50,000 to the "Political Action Committee" in attempts to change the New York State Constitution to keep Silver's pal Lippman in power for 10 more years.

The charges, according to the news, are for fraud, wire fraud and extortion.

Colby Hamilton, of CapitalNewYork.com, states in his today's article that "[p]rosecutors accuse Silver specifically of taking millions of income from the firm, including a salary that was premised on his official position, not his legal work, along with kickbacks from an attorney-referral scheme.
“[T]here is probable cause to believe that Silver obtained approximately $4 million in payments characterized as attorney referral fees solely through the corrupt use of his official position [as speaker],” reads the complaint."

Is it reasonable to believe that Jonathan Lippman did not know of this little corrupt scheme pertaining to "attorney referral fees"?  Where his bosom friend Silver used his official position to get those attorney referral fees?  Did Silver also use his status as Judge Lippman's bosom friend (which was never a secret) and his influence on Judge Lippman to get those fees?

That is a matter for federal investigation, as well as allegations that were publicly raised by citizens against Lippman, similarly alleging "quid pro quo" schemes in trading power for personal benefits.

A book was published in June of 2014 by an attorney describing in detail Lippman's rise to power which, if the account is true, cannot be called ethically stellar at all.

There were many voices raised in concern that Lippman is promoted to the Chief judgeship by his political connection to Silver, his bosom friend since childhood, see here and here.

These allegations against a public official of this rank are at least worth investigating, at least because of his proximity to Silver and because such accusations are coming from different sources, many of which are insiders of the judicial system.

Will the feds be bold enough to investigate and prosecute Lippman now that his bosom friend Silver is being charged with corruption?

As a taxpayer, the resident of the State of New York and a citizen, I have a lot of questions regarding all this mess, some of them are:

(1) Is there a possibility that Judge Lippman will resign?

(2) Why, even though many of Sheldon Silver's shenannigans were known for years, he was not investigated and prosecuted in New York?  Is it because the New York State Attorney General who was supposed to prosecute him was also his legal counsel "by law"?  Isn't it time to change that law and to eliminate the conflict of interest that prevents prosecutions of corrupt state officials by New York State Attorney General?

(3) Why, throughout all these years that Sheldon Silver was sued in numerous lawsuits, in his individual capacity, for misconduct in office, he was provided taxpayer-funded and free for him legal representation and taxpayer-funded settlements?  And that is when over 80% of New Yorkers could not afford an attorney and Sheldon Silver's pal Jonathan Lippman expounded wherever he appeared about the rule of law and access to justice?

(4) Could it be that Jonathan Lippman, Sheldon Silver's bosom friend, was not aware of Silver's corrupt schemes and was not part of the bounty?  Will Lippman be investigated, too, or is the judiciary beyond the reach of even the federal investigation and prosecution?

(5) Why New York state allows legislators to continue working as lawyers - and, naturally, to use their official position for their own personal benefit and for the benefit of their law firms?

Shouldn't senators who are lawyers surrender their law licenses when they are elected to eliminate any appearance of impropriety and self-dealing in their legislative office?

(6) Why did clients of Sheldon's law firm get state-backed tax breaks without any scrutiny?  Nobody knew in the State of New York it was improper or nobody cared because of the high status of Sheldon and his pal Lippman?

(7) Why prosecute Sheldon now?  Is it that he is too old and the NYS Legislature needs new blood.  It seems to become a new trend to retire NYS legislators by way of criminal proceedings.  Couldn't they be eliminated earlier, before things got that much out of hand? Shouldn't some changes be introduced at legislative and, since this does not seem to be working due exactly to corruption in the Legislature, on state Constitutional level?  And that is the task for us the voters to accomplish.

"Two kids from the Lower East Side - not too shabby?"

Judicial immunity without judicial discipline?

Absolute judicial immunity, even for malicious and corrupt acts, was generously and unconstitutionally given by judges to judges, on the pretext that judges are allegedly amenable to judicial discipline.

As we know, judges are hardly amenable to judicial discipline, since the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, understaffed and permeated by conflicts of interest, operates rather as a glorified shredder of complaints against judges than any effective means of control of rampant misconduct in the New York State judiciary.

Yet, for sitting judges judicial discipline is at least THEORETICALLY available.

Yet, there are categories of judges:

Judicial Hearing Officers;
Referees;

who "technically" are "former" judges and are not amenable to judicial discipline.

Moreover, courts have stretched absolute judicial immunity to cover personnel of courts of court-appointed experts, investigators and attorneys who are not amenable to judicial discipline, and are yet covered by immunity, in contradiction with the principles upon which immunity were initially given by the judiciary to the judiciary.

It appears more and more that any declared restrictions on judicial immunity were given "with a wink and a nod" and with no real intent by the judiciary to apply those restrictions to their brethren and sisters.

Judicial immunity, the way it is applied, therefore, is a dangerous concept corroding this country's democratic principles and foundations, and it should be abolished legislatively and prohibited at the level of state Constitutions.

I wonder how the NYS Appellate Division 4th Department will be wiggling out of the mess created by Referee Sirkin

The procedure set by the NYS Appellate Division 4th Department in attorney disciplinary proceedings is as follows:

(1) if the court orders a hearing to be conducted on issues of fact, the court appoints a referee "to hear and report";

(2) the referee hears facts and reports to the court (without a recommendation or making any decisions on facts or law);

(3) after the referee's report on issues of fact is filed with the court, both the attorney who is subject to the disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary prosecutor may file with the court motions to confirm or disaffirm referee's findings of fact;

(4) the court then confirms or disaffirms the referee's report, makes its own findings of fact and findings of law based on findings of fact.

Now, the Referee Sirkin scrapped all of that and, instead of conducting hearings on liability to "hear and report" findings of fact, "granted a motion", or made a decision on the facts and the law.

In fact, court procedures do not even presuppose conducting a hearing while a motion for a summary judgment is pending, but, if the Referee was ordered to conduct a hearing, that was what he was supposed to do - and he refused to do that.

In the recording that I made of my conversation with Referee Sirkin on January 12, 2015 and posted in this blog, Referee Sirkin promised me that he will send me his written decision on the motion.

I still did not receive either the written decision from Referee Sirkin bypassing any court-ordered hearing and simply "granting the motion" without any hearings, nor did I receive any response from the court to my letter requesting appointment of a competent referee who will do what the court has ordered him to do - conduct a hearing and report his findings of fact to the court.

It becomes increasingly more interesting how the court will be untangling the mess it created with appointment of an incompetent referee and refusal to disqualify him when I provided to the court proof, a transcript, where the referee clearly stated that he was GOING to decide a motion, when that was not what he was appointed to do.

Even more interesting is the question how can people's cases be resolved by judges who are not amenable to judicial discipline - since technically referees, judicial hearing officers, and even some judges of the Appellate Divisions who serve past mandatory retirement, are "former" judges and, as such, according to the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, are not amenable to judicial discipline.

Reading responses from these different agencies I always wonder - does anybody think in creating contradictory laws and implementing them?

Were all judges from the entire recused court simply defrauded in the government corruption case or was there more to it?

A stunning decision in California where a judge ordered recusal of all judges of a certain court in a corruption case involving federal prosecutors and investigators.

Comments as to that are also priceless, especially that they are complemented with documents evidencing judicial misconduct that the blogger describes.

Yet, the question remains - now that all judges of the district court are recused and the case is removed to another court, will there be any investigations into the character and scope of the recused judges' potential involvement in the government corruption case?

And here, where the federal prosecutors and investigators (who would investigate any potential criminal misconduct of judges) are themselves the defendants in a case - who is going to do the investigations and, potentially, prosecutions?

With my knowledge of how incestous connections of the judicial system are with the other branches of the government on state and federal levels, I somehow doubt that the judges' involvement was just that they were allegedly "defrauded" by the federal investigators and prosecutors in a case where a corporation was falsely accused of starting a massive fire and had to pay millions of dollars in fines and cede thousands of acres of land in satisfaction of the false claims of the government.

And yet another question arises.

A victimized corporation obviously has money and power to go against the federal government and make their rights vindicated.

What about the average person from the streets who was falsely accused and hurt by the government at any level?

For an average American - between ignorant, incompetent and biased state courts who deem constitutional claims frivolous and impose anti-filing injunctions for raising such issues, and Younger abstentions dumping all federal constitutional claims from federal courts into biased and incompetent state courts, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "barring jurisdiction", in the opinion of federal courts, from review of constitutional claims filibustered by state courts in federal courts - no remedy for violation of his or her civil rights exists in this country.

And that has to change.

An attorney has been exonerated for protecting his client's privileged information after being slammed for that with contempt of court

The 5th Circuit reversed the order of contempt of court against an attorney who did not disclose information his client confided into the attorney and that was covered by attorney-client privilege.

Kudoz to the 5th Circuit for doing the right thing.

At least some judges are honest, reasonable and can apply the law properly.

With the two new judges on the New York State Court of Appeals with such "stellar" credentials as Leslie Stein's and Eugene Fahey's people of the State of New York will now be royally screwed

Oh, the law of coincidences.

In October of 2014 Governor Cuomo recommended to the NYS Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Stein of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, under circumstances presenting an appearance of corruption, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Now Governor Cuomo nominated to the NYS Court of Appeals judge Eugene Fahey of the Appellate Division 4th Department who (1) denies constitutional motions without arguments; (2) imposes, without notice or opportunity to be heard, anti-filing injunctions on litigants who ask for reasoned court decisions; and (3) refuses to open court proceedings pertaining to litigants' fundamental constitutional rights, even when litigants waive their right to privacy, see here and here.

Two judges who, coincidentally or not, engaged in misconduct in my appellate cases and are trying hard to have me disbarred without looking at the record or law in front of them, for public criticism of rampant judicial misconduct in New York State court system in general, and in their courts in particular.  Two judges who were rewarded, immediately after they ruled against me, with the highest judgships in the State of New York.  A coincidence?  It remains to be seen...

Eugene Fahey called the nomination "humbling".  It would be more humbling for me if Eugene Fahey is taken off the bench for his incompetence and misconduct.  Such arrogance in dealing with constitutional arguments and civil rights as Judge Fahey demonstrated in my case comes only with years of practice, so there must be many more cases that Judge Fahey decided in a similar fashion, with complete and total disregard of the record and the law, including constitutional law, with the only eye at political benefits that his decision will bring him in favoring a politically connected party or the government.  It paid off, as we all now see.

Please, note that New York State Court of Appeals has an extremely restricted jurisdiction, and the only "as of right" appeals that New York state litigants can file there are appeals for violations of constitutional rights.

This particular judge, who rejected constitutional arguments at the previous level without an explanation and punished a litigant for as much as asking for a reasoned explanation with an anti-filing injunction is, certainly, a perfect choice for the job to deflect those pesky litigants from EVER being able to get through the judicial system and to have their constitutional arguments heard anywhere in New York courts.

People of the State of New York!

Remember my prediction.  If these two judges are appointed to the NYS Court of Appeals, you and your civil rights will be truly, completely and royally screwed.

The disciplinary hearing - did Referee Sirkin read the procedure before ruling?

Rules of Appellate Division 4th Department, 22 NYCRR 1022.20(d) provides that a referee must complete an evidentiary hearing in attorney disciplinary proceedings within 60 days of the order of reference.  The parties shall make final submissions, including any proposed findings of fact, within 15 days of the date the hearing's stenographic minutes are completed.  The referee's report is to be completed within 30 days after the stenographic minutes.  The hearing officer makes a report with findings of fact, but does not include a recommendation.

That is ALL that the referee is supposed to do.  A referee is not authorized by law to make any decisions.

And, even though the Appellate Division promptly sent to me after the botched up conference of January 12, 2015, a letter that Appellate Division claimed it sent to my unplugged fax machine on January 9, 2015, that same Appellate Division ( or Referee Sirkin) have yet to send me Referee Sirkin's "decision" "granting" the prosecution's motion.

I wonder how THAT decision is going to be explained to me by the Appellate Division 4th Department, and how the Appellate Division 4th Department is going to explain their blunder of gigantic proportions in appointing such an incompetent referee to such a politically sensitive proceeding.