THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Some statistics on "Schneiderman" cases in federal courts in New York - courts as fast discriminators against the poor, immigrants and minorities

As promised, I am reviewing the 229 lawsuits listed on Pacer.gov with New York Attorney General as a party, attorney or in other designations.

 Interesting information came out of my preliminary research.

 36 lawsuits against Schneiderman are actually pending, here is the list sorted by the filing date (Pacer does not sort cases):

950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 6/9/2011
440 Other civil rights defendant E 1/9/2012
550 Civil rights defendant W 1/11/2012
MC Motion to compel production of records respondent S 3/6/2012
530 General respondent E 7/9/2012
440 Other civil rights defendant N 10/18/2013
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 5/22/2014
530 General respondent S 6/13/2014
442 Employment defendant S 6/18/2014
550 Civil rights defendant N 9/10/2014
440 Other civil rights defendant E 11/19/2014
530 General respondent S 3/5/2015
530 General respondent S 3/11/2015
530 General respondent E 3/16/2015
530 General respondent S 4/3/2015
530 General respondent E 4/16/2015
530 General respondent E 7/21/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/21/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/23/2015
530 General defendant S 7/30/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant S 8/21/2015
530 General respondent E 8/26/2015
550 Civil rights defendant S 9/16/2015
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 9/28/2015
362 Personal injury - medical malpractice defendant N 10/19/2015
530 General respondent S 10/29/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/20/2015
530 General respondent E 12/14/2015
550 Civil rights defendant N 1/15/2016
550 Civil rights defendant E 2/1/2016
530 General respondent W 2/12/2016
550 Civil rights defendant W 2/22/2016
530 General respondent S 3/3/2016
440 Other civil rights defendant E 4/20/2016
440 Other civil rights defendant N 5/6/2016
470 Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations defendant S 6/10/2016

Letters N, S, E, W designate four federal district courts - in Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York.

In all of those lawsuits Schneiderman is listed as a defendant or respondent - so much for his yesterday's claim on the 4th of July that his duty is to protect people from discrimination (protect civil rights). 

Schneiderman is actually actively fighting on the side of the discriminators, as the list of only the open lawsuits against him shows.

Please, note that designation of cases as "General", "Other civil rights", "Civil Rights" and "Constitutionality of State Statutes", as well as with other designations may be interchangeable, those codes are checked off by the plaintiffs when they file the complaints, and they may check only one code box, while many codes may apply.

As to the four courts, analysis of 229 cases listed on Pacer.gov for Schneiderman revealed the following patterns for the four federal district courts in New York - I am just starting to publish the statistics, there may be more:


Shortest time from filing to dismissal, days % of cases resolved within a year of filing
NDNY 2 47%
SDNY 7 58%
WDNY 12 48%
EDNY 21 72%

The statistics above is based entirely on cases of Schneiderman, and only Schneiderman.

Yet, Schneiderman is the one who is litigating most of the civil rights cases - by opposing them - in the State of New York, and thus, the statistics is telling.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is the fastest in dismiss a civil rights case.

Its shortest time from filing to dismissal in a "Schneiderman case" in NDNY, from the list of "Schneiderman cases" currently on Pacer.gov, is 2 days. 

2 days between filing and dismissal means that the plaintiff was not given even a time to serve the lawsuit, the court just decided to act as an advocate for Mr. Schneiderman.

The second fastest is also NDNY - with 6 days from filing to dismissal.

Southern District of New York is the third fastest - the shortest time to dismiss a "Schneiderman case" in SDNY is 7 days. 

131 out of 229 "Schneiderman" cases were dismissed within a year.

Here is the table of these 131 cases, the raw data I used was published yesterday, here.  The "respondent", "defendant" or other designations are designations in the listed lawsuits of the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. 

Code Type of case                                  NY AG role                Court     Date filed        Date closed   # of days
                                                                                                                                                           between filing
                                                                                                                                                           and closing

530 General respondent N 7/27/2015 7/29/2015 2
550 Civil rights defendant N 10/27/2015 11/2/2015 6
440 Other civil rights defendant E 1/2/2014 1/9/2014 7
440 Other civil rights plaintiff E 5/9/2016 5/19/2016 10
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/19/2011 9/30/2011 11
530 General respondent S 5/18/2012 5/30/2012 12
530 General defendant E 12/22/2014 1/5/2015 14
530 General defendant S 9/19/2013 10/3/2013 14
530 General respondent S 8/11/2015 8/25/2015 14
220 Foreclosure defendant E 4/24/2012 5/9/2012 15
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/22/2011 12/8/2011 16
530 General respondent E 1/4/2016 1/21/2016 17
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/26/2011 10/13/2011 17
530 General respondent N 5/7/2012 5/24/2012 17
540 Mandamus & other respondent S 10/27/2015 11/13/2015 17
530 General respondent E 12/8/2011 12/28/2011 20
440 Other civil rights defendant E 3/24/2014 4/14/2014 21
950 Constitutionality of state statutes respondent S 3/3/2015 3/24/2015 21
530 General respondent W 3/22/2011 4/12/2011 21
530 General respondent W 8/29/2011 9/20/2011 22
440 Other civil rights defendant W 5/6/2015 5/29/2015 23
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/18/2011 12/12/2011 24
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/4/2011 11/29/2011 25
550 General defendant N 4/19/2012 5/14/2012 25
443 Housing/Accommodations defendant S 2/19/2014 3/17/2014 26
530 General respondent S 10/9/2013 11/4/2013 26
550 Civil rights defendant S 10/21/2011 11/17/2011 27
550 Civil rights defendant S 7/11/2012 8/7/2012 27
540 Mandamus & other respondent S 5/3/2016 5/31/2016 28
440 Other civil rights defendant E 12/31/2013 1/29/2014 29
530 General respondent S 2/4/2011 3/9/2011 33
530 General defendant W 12/22/2011 1/25/2012 34
530 General respondent E 9/21/2011 10/26/2011 35
440 Other civil rights defendant N 5/16/2014 6/20/2014 35
440 Other civil rights defendant S 3/25/2015 4/29/2015 35
290 All other real property defendant S 1/23/2012 2/27/2012 35
850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange defendant E 10/14/2014 11/20/2014 37
550 Civil rights defendant W 5/9/2016 6/16/2016 38
550 Civil rights defendant E 3/20/2013 5/2/2013 43
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant N 3/10/2011 4/22/2011 43
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/9/2011 4/21/2011 43
530 General respondent E 3/11/2011 4/27/2011 47
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/24/2012 10/11/2012 48
530 General respondent S 5/7/2015 6/24/2015 48
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/7/2011 4/27/2011 51
530 General respondent S 3/30/2015 5/20/2015 51
530 General respondent S 4/19/2013 6/11/2013 53
550 Civil rights respondent E 8/23/2011 10/17/2011 55
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/16/2011 1/13/2012 58
530 Civil rights respondent E 9/22/2011 11/23/2011 62
890 Other statutory actions defendant E 1/21/2014 3/26/2014 64
530 General respondent E 4/13/2011 6/16/2011 64
440 Other civil rights defendant S 8/24/2011 10/31/2011 68
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/18/2011 1/26/2012 69
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/8/2011 11/17/2011 70
440 Other civil rights defendant S 7/21/2015 9/30/2015 71
550 Civil rights defendant N 3/23/2015 6/3/2015 72
440 Other civil rights defendant E 11/10/2014 1/23/2015 74
320 Assault, libel & slander defendant N 2/21/2014 5/6/2014 74
530 General respondent W 12/23/2011 3/8/2012 76
530 General respondent S 8/11/2015 10/27/2015 77
440 Other civil rights defendant S 9/18/2013 12/4/2013 77
530 General respondent E 4/23/2012 7/10/2012 78
440 Other civil rights defendant E 3/15/2016 6/6/2016 83
550 Civil rights defendant S 2/1/2011 4/25/2011 83
440 Other civil rights defendant S 7/15/2014 10/7/2014 84
530 General respondent E 4/8/2014 7/3/2014 86
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/17/2015 2/11/2016 86
550 Civil rights defendant E 1/11/2016 4/8/2016 88
440 Other civil rights defendant S 2/11/2010 5/10/2010 88
440 Other civil rights defendant E 10/19/2015 1/20/2016 93
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/29/2014 12/2/2014 95
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/29/2014 12/2/2014 95
440 Other civil rights defendant S 6/10/2011 9/21/2011 103
550 Civil rights defendant S 8/23/2011 12/8/2011 107
440 Other civil rights defendant N 4/29/2011 8/18/2011 111
555 Prison condition defendant S 9/25/2014 1/14/2015 111
190 Other contract attorney S 11/12/1996 3/10/1997 118
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant E 8/1/2014 12/1/2014 122
540 Mandamus & other respondent W 11/23/2015 3/28/2016 126
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/19/2014 4/2/2015 134
555 Prison condition defendant S 11/10/2014 3/24/2015 134
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/7/2013 7/23/2013 138
550 Civil rights defendant W 11/5/2015 3/23/2016 139
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/26/2012 4/18/2013 143
550 Civil rights defendant S 9/26/2012 2/19/2013 146
463 Habeas corpus - alien detainee respondent E 2/5/2013 7/10/2013 155
550 Civil rights defendant N 8/15/2012 1/22/2013 160
530 General respondent E 8/17/2009 1/25/2010 161
440 Other civil rights defendant E 12/21/2015 6/7/2016 169
550 Civil rights defendant N 3/11/2013 8/27/2013 169
440 Other civil rights defendant S 12/10/2012 5/29/2013 170
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/16/2015 5/5/2016 171
530 General respondent E 8/20/2015 2/19/2016 183
440 Other civil rights defendant N 2/24/2011 8/31/2011 188
440 Other civil rights defendant S 4/24/2012 11/1/2012 191
530 General respondent N 2/25/2013 10/1/2013 218
530 General respondent N 4/11/2011 11/17/2011 220
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant S 9/5/2012 4/18/2013 225
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/17/2015 6/29/2016 225
530 General respondent E 6/28/2012 2/9/2013 226
550 Civil rights defendant S 6/18/2014 2/2/2015 229
440 Other civil rights defendant W 3/10/2015 10/27/2015 231
550 Civil rights defendant E 10/4/2011 5/25/2012 234
440 Other civil rights defendant N 12/24/2013 8/22/2014 241
440 Other civil rights cross-defendant E 5/26/2011 1/24/2012 243
440 Other civil rights defendant E 5/26/2011 1/24/2012 243
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/1/2014 3/5/2015 247
440 Other civil rights defendant S 3/17/2015 12/4/2015 262
555 Prison condition defendant S 2/6/2013 10/31/2013 267
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/26/2012 8/26/2013 273
530 General respondent E 5/12/2012 2/12/2013 276
550 General defendant N 9/12/2013 6/18/2014 279
530 General respondent N 6/26/2006 4/5/2007 283
442 Employment defendant N 1/5/2012 10/15/2012 284
440 Other civil rights defendant W 3/21/2013 1/2/2014 287
530 General respondent N 3/31/2011 1/23/2012 298
555 Prison condition defendant S 1/17/2013 11/15/2013 302
550 Civil rights defendant W 4/1/2015 2/3/2016 308
440 Other civil rights defendant E 2/12/2013 12/19/2013 310
440 Other civil rights defendant S 1/26/2015 12/4/2015 312
440 Other civil rights defendant N 4/4/2012 2/19/2013 321
550 Civil rights defendant N 6/25/2013 5/22/2014 331
890 Other statutory actions respondent S 4/10/2012 3/7/2013 331
555 Prison condition defendant S 5/6/2013 4/4/2014 333
440 Other civil rights defendant E 4/22/2015 3/31/2016 344
550 Civil rights defendant N 1/24/2011 1/6/2012 347
440 Other civil rights defendant S 5/19/2015 5/5/2016 352
550 Civil rights defendant S 5/14/2012 5/2/2013 353
440 Other civil rights defendant S 4/5/2011 3/27/2012 357
550 Civil rights defendant E 4/3/2014 3/27/2015 358

Cases dismissed within 100 days from filing are usually dismissed by the court "on its own motion", without participation of defendants at all.

The court makes a determination that it does not want to hear the case, usually on some court-invented (and illegal) bases of immunities, abstentions or pleading defects - even though the court must allow amendments of pleading defects, and 100 days is not enough to deal with the amendment issue.

In other words, the "Schneiderman" cases show how courts blatantly get rid of civil rights cases, while being the last resort for victims of civil rights violations.

I also noted quite an aberration in statistics, I will repeat the table I posted above once again:

time from filing to dismissal, days% of cases resolved within a year of filing
NDNY247%
SDNY758%
WDNY1248%
EDNY2172%



Note that while the numbers of "resolution" (dismissals) of civil rights cases in Northern, Southern and Western Districts of New York are about the same, around 1/2 of cases are dismissed across these three courts within a year of filing - from 47% in NDNY to 58% in SDNY,

in the Eastern District of New York, 72%, or about 3/4 of cases are dismissed within a year of filing.

I checked out the counties that EDNY covers - it covers  Kings, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, and Suffolk, with 8 million people residing there.

I wonder if the MUCH higher dismissal rate in EDNY is based on:

  1. poverty;
  2. immigration status and
  3. race
of litigants in this court, because it sure appears that way.

These are counties where a lot of immigrants, poor people and non-white people live.

So, the statistics shows right there - do not expect protection from federal courts, even if you filed a civil rights lawsuit.

A more reasonable expectation is that the court will toss your lawsuit with disdain, often even without waiting when you serve your opponent.

I will continue to work with this set of data, reviewing it for other factors and will post my findings on this blog.

Stay tuned.














Posted by at No comments:

Monday, July 4, 2016

NYS AG quickly accepted a plea bargain from bribed judge John Michalek - why isn't NYS AG interested in a public trial of all issues of judicial corruption?

I've just posted a blog showing the contrast between the public statements of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Eric Schneiderman's conduct in engaging in civil rights violations or defending civil rights violators.

Here is another example that Eric Schneiderman is not exactly forthcoming, to say the least, in his efforts to root out corruption in New York State government.

First of all, Eric Schneiderman did not seek an indictment of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and now that the U.S. Supreme Court has amended the Hobbs Act by interpretation in U.S. v. McDonnell, there is a chance that their convictions will be reversed and they will go free and will not be made accountable.

Why?

Until Silver and Skelos were indicted, Eric Schneiderman was their attorney, officially, as a matter of law, under New York Public Law 17.

There is a real conflict of interest where a prosecutor is investigating and prosecuting his own client, for conduct that occurred during such representation.

 The same kind of conflict of interest when the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton while the legal advisor of the FBI is Loretta Lynch, former attorney for Hillary Clinton:
"Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.
According to documents Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Hartson’s New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004".

Under the law of agency, every attorney in a law firm is deemed to represent every client represented by the law firm, and especially if Lynch was a partner in the firm, sharing in every client's payment financially.

Eric Schneiderman, same as Loretta Lynch in relation to investigating and/or prosecuting the Clintons, has an irreconcilable conflict of interest in investigating and prosecuting Judge John Michalek - as he did in investigating and prosecuting in state court of Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver. 

For example, if Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver would be sued for corruption in civil court, Eric Schneiderman will be representing them.

So, how could Schneiderman prosecute them, or his other clients - state employees?

A real conflict of interest, and a conflict put into statutory law by legislators who knew what they were doing in putting upon the same attorney a statutory duty to both defend them in civil rights lawsuits charging corruption, and investigate/prosecute them for corruption criminally.  Legislators knew that such a conflict will effectively kill criminal investigations and prosecution into state government's corruption in New York - as it actually did.

And now we have the consequences where corruption in New York state government is rampant, there are practically no criminal investigations and prosecutions of state government officials for corruption - as the cases of Skelos and Sivler demonstrate, and those cases which are brought, are concluded, as with John Michalek, so that to hush up and not exposed people and documents involved, raising issues of possible corruption of Eric Schneiderman himself to hush up the prosecution.

Eric T. Schneiderman is still, as a matter of statutory law, an attorney for the now former New York Supreme Court Justice John Michalek - if he is sued in civil rights cases (statute of limitations in New York - 3 years) for any civil rights violations. Schneiderman was, for the entirety of Michalek's stay on the bench, Michalek's official legal advisor.

 Anything that Michalek did was committed during the time when Michalek was Schneiderman client - so Schneiderman could not possibly be the prosecutor on the case.

If former Justice Michalek is sued for civil rights violations, Eric T. Schneiderman has a statutory duty, under New York Public Law 17, to represent Justice Michalek in that civil rights lawsuit.

But, Attorney General Schneiderman just obtained an indictment - and a conviction - of John Michalek for accepting a bribe and "filing a false public instrument", and Schneiderman accepted a plea from Michalek eliminating other counts, involving specific lawsuits, documents and people.

 If people on the other side of the case-fixing would sue Judge Michalek in federal court within the next 3 years, Schneiderman will have to DEFEND that lawsuit, after he criminally prosecuted Michalek.

 It is interesting that Schneiderman even considered filing a false public instrument by a judge a crime - he did not consider such conduct by a judge a crime previously.

When I raised the issues of similar fraud in a civil rights action on behalf of my husband Frederick J. Neroni in federal court, specifically, that the now-former judge Carl F. Becker has conspired with the Chief of Republican Committee of the Delaware County (NY) Board of Election and filed a false certificate of 2002 elections, and asked Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to oust Carl F. Becker as a usurper of public office following AG's duty to do that under the writ of quo warranto,

Eric Schneiderman


In fact, Schneiderman regularly obtains dismissals of civil rights lawsuits against judges claiming absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts of those judges.

In other words, if a judge is bribed, and is sued by the victim of the fixed case, Schneiderman will represent THE JUDGE and will seek the dismissal of the civil rights lawsuit on the grounds that the judge is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM LAWUIST FOR FIXING THE CASE - see quote from the court case about the "Kids for Cash" judge Marc Ciavarella in the header of this blog.

For the above reasons, I firmly believe that the recent investigation and prosecution - for accepting a bribe - of Judge John Michalek of Buffalo Supreme Court - has nothing to do with Schneiderman's desire to root out judicial corruption.

There must be some other reasons for the prosecution.

Maybe, the judge's place, now paying $193,000, was needed for somebody else in power.

Maybe, the feds are too close on Schneiderman's own back, so Schneiderman wants to produce some show of MINIMAL prosecutorial zeal to fight corruption of high-raking state officials.

Who knows what the real reasons for the prosecution was, but, the fact remains that Eric Schneiderman is Judge John Michalek's own attorney.  And, Eric Schneiderman's office, even though not Eric Schneiderman himself, represented the presiding judge Donald Cerio in civil rights actions in federal court and, should Donald Cerio be sued, will represent Donald Cerio again.

Eric Schneiderman, by the perverted New York law, Public Law 17, as it is interpreted by federal courts, has been, throughout investigation and prosecution of Judge Michalek, until Judge Michaled plea of guilty and resignation, a standby counsel of all State of New York employees, including BOTH the presiding judge and the defendants in People v. Michalek - judge John Michalek and Judge Donald Cerio.

So, on Schneiderman's indictment, a Supreme Court judge in New York out of Buffalo, a 65-year-old John Michalek, a graduate of Albany Law School, was just convicted on a plea bargain, for only two out of multiple charges, for taking a bribe and for filing a false instrument.  The sentencing of John Michalek is reportedly set for September 1, 2015.

The taking a bribe charge was reportedly from a powerful and politically connected attorney G. Steven Pigeon, a friend, ally and political advisor of:


  • billionaire Tom Galisano;
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton; and
  • Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Here is the picture of the "hero":



Judge Michalek was charged that "he solicited and accepted help from Pigeon, including two box seats to a Sabres hockey game as well as $1,000 to a political fundraiser"., but that was peanuts as compared to Judge Michalek fixing court cases for Pigeon in return for promises to get jobs in state, local and federal government for  the judge's relatives.  According to the indictment, the judge e-mailed and texted Pigeon begging for those jobs and was attaching court decisions fixed how Pigeon wanted them to e-mails requesting such jobs.

 Since Pigeon was a close ally and advisor of billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Cuomo, I can only imagine who those friends were for whom court cases were fixed.

Even though both counts Judge Michalek has pled to were felonies, those were peanuts as compared to what Judge Michalek was charged with.  I am providing a link to what is reported to be the indictment of John Michalek, but I will file my own FOIL request for the original indictment and will post it in the future.

The plea was authorized by judge Donald F. Cerio, a favorite of the former Chief Administrative Judge Mulvey who helped Mulvey fix felony drug court cases.  Cerio reportedly claimed that "not enough" criminal defendants are coming to drug court (and are given leniency instead of going to jail).  Pushing cases in front of drug court jumped several statutory conditions that another judge Blasio DiStefano, insisted must be followed.  Judge DiStefano was taken off drug cases entirely, because he was opposed to ruling on cases the way Mulvey and Cerio wanted, and was quickly forced in an early retirement. 

I wonder whether bribes were involved in Madison drug court cases, too, since Mulvey, a former counsel for Senator Seward, together with Cerio (presiding judge in the Michalek's case) went so far as to eliminate an elected judge from all criminal cases altogether because the judge insisted on following the law in who is and who is not entitled to drug court, while Mulvey and Cerio wanted more criminal defendants to go to drug court.

 I wonder whether Cerio received a handsome bribe himself in accepting a plea to just two, and the least revealing, counts of the indictment.

 Knowing Mulvey's bias against indigent defendants, it is clear that Mulvey's interest was not to help anybody, but there is a very clear possibility that Mulvey and Cerio were bribed in drug court cases in Madison county, too. 

At least from the circumstances, it is quite likely that Judge Cerio was bribed to accept the lenient plea bargain of Judge Muchalek in order to protect those influential people who could otherwise be exposed by a public trial.

 And of course, I do not expect AG Schneiderman to investigate those people, and to investigate other judges outed daily (including on my blog) in acts screaming of corruption - after all, he is busy representing them.

By the way, Schneiderman already demonstrated his propensity to cover up for corrupt judges when he defended, instead of ousting and criminally prosecuting Delaware County judge Carl Becker, yet another judge who was passionately involved with a drug court.

 Schneiderman never indicted Carl F. Becker, who was never indicted for any of his shenanigans, including filing a false certificate of elections in 2011.

 After Becker quickly resigned in July of 2015, he put his friend, the Delaware County DA Richard Northrup, in the position overseeing the drug court (Northrup was running unopposed and had Becker swear Northrup in, even though Becker was by that time a lay individual who had no authority to swear in a judge).  I wonder whether the drug court continues as a money producing operation for both Judge Northrup (in addition to his salary) and Judge Becker. 

Back to the case of John Michalek, assigning the case-fixing judge Donald F. Cerio to preside over the criminal case of another case-fixing judge is like putting one fox to decide the face of another brother-fox. 

And, it is clearly suspicious that with an indictment as long and detailed and charging corruption involving many individuals, lawsuits and documents, AG Schneiderman did not want a public trial on all charges, but agreed to a puny plea on only two, those not naming relatives and parties to the lawsuits fixed by Judge Michalek for attorney Steve Pigeon connected to billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Andrew Cuomo.

 It appears that AG Schneiderman sought to close judge Michalek's case as soon as possible, and before the elections - the sentencing is scheduled for September 1, 2016 - and without much exposure of people involved, and that is NOT conduct of an honest prosecutor.

 As I stated above, I will try to get a copy of the indictment through my own FOIL request, but, knowing how the government usually stalls such requests, I do not expect an answer to it for several months.

 Yet, when I receive an answer, I will report on it.

 Stay tuned.














Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)