Can or should the district and appellate federal courts be abolished? Suggestions for the reform of inferior federal courts

 I see a lot of confusion in comments in social media, and in the press, regarding Speaker Johnson's announcement that he may consider enactment of legislation abolishing certain federal courts.

The left all around the world have made a lot of ado from that statement claiming that the skies are falling, this is the end of democracy, Speaker Johnson is catering to the "dictator" President Trump, etc. etc. etc.

These statements have nothing to do with the law or the facts of the situation.

As far as the law is concerned, the only court that is embedded into the U.S. Constitution, Article III, is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The very first phrase of Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

There you go.

Only the "one Supreme Court" is the federal court that Congress may not abolish - but may certainly reform by legislation, changing the number of judges, changing whether they serve for life or not, changing where the court is located - for example, transferring it to somewhere, say, in a small town in Alabama, mandating that it accepts all petitions for review on the merits and not only on a "certiorari" basis, picking and choosing which cases and to what degree the U.S. Supreme Court will review.

All of that is within the power of Congress to change - and Congress may just as well change it once Republicans have the majority both in Congress and in the White House. 

As to "other inferior courts" - both the federal district courts, and the federal appellate courts, they have long became an abomination of privilege and corruption.

The makers of the U.S. Constitution apparently foresaw that, putting into the text of Article III Section I that the "inferior" federal courts are those courts that the Congress may "establish and ordain" only "from time to time", clearly meaning that there may be a time when a certain "inferior" federal court exists, established and ordained by Congress, and there may be a time that it won't.

So, Speaker Johnson said nothing revolutionary, simply invoking Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and the hysterics about his announcement that a certain law is about to be prepared for enactment, and that somehow that is undermining democracy and the so-called "rule of law" is nothing other than irresponsible political fear-mongering.

As to why such federal courts should be abolished or reformed, Speaker Johnson has all the grounds to abolish or reform those courts in every possible way.

The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the power to make or amend laws to the U.S. Congress, the power to enforce the law to the U.S. President and it grants to the judiciary - remember, "one Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress from time to time will establish and ordain", Section I - only limited powers, enumerated in Section 2 of Article III:

"Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Nowhere in the text of the entire Article III of the U.S. Constitution will you find the power of the judiciary to MAKE or CHANGE the laws made by Congress THROUGH INTERPRETATION.  

While the federal judiciary certainly has the right to interpret the law, it may not exceed in its interpretation the plain English meaning and the legislative intent of Congress, nor may it infringe upon the Congress's same legislative intent in determining how exactly such laws are to be enforced.

I have a problem denominating the 235 judges put onto the federal seats in the previous 4 years as put there "by the Biden administration".

Even with all the obvious signs, apparent not only to every American, but to the rest of the world, that the White House was hijacked during the previous term by an unknown person who ruled behind the scenes on behalf of a mentally incapacitated man, I did not see yet any public official with authority to determine the question whether any judges put on the bench during the "Biden administration" were put there lawfully, to determine whether the country was "run" in the previous term by a man without mental capacity to do so  - and to VOID any and all actions.

I believe Speaker Johnson owes it to the American people to hold Congressional hearings on the mental incapacitation of Joe Biden, and the date from which forwards Joe Biden could not be considered, as a matter of law, a man whose decisions could be considered as knowing, voluntary and binding upon the country.

That is not difficult to do.

The looking back into the incapacitation of people is done all the time by courts - in verifying, looking back in time, whether people had the requisite mental capacity to do a variety of things: marry, enter into contracts, be held responsible for crimes, or make wills.

That must be done now.

=======

Coming down to the technicality of what can be done with "inferior" federal courts, of the first level and of the appellate courts, a lot can be done to, if not abolish, to reform them.

First, such courts should be stripped of their marble palaces, transferred to electronic status only, other than for jury trials, and, since jury trials are very rare, a building can be rented for a jury trial also "from time to time", on an "as needed" basis.

That alone will save us, the American taxpayers, tons and tons of money that we can use otherwise for ourselves - our federal taxes can be drastically reduced.

My husband and I have recently experienced the handling of a court case in full electronic mode, complete with an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses testifying remotely, through Microsoft Teams (we won the case on the merits).

New York's electronic filing system, as well as holding hearings remotely through Microsoft Teams may, with proper training materials and proper accommodations provided to individuals with disabilities, as well as with proper arrangements made for attendance of the public, may provide a good basis for such reformed federal courts.

The pool of judges at all levels, federal and appellate, can be one and the same, and I would reform who may become such a judge.

I would certainly not restrict federal judgeship to lawyers, and especially to licensed lawyers, and I will certainly remove the requirement of licensing from representation of individual plaintiffs or defendants in federal court, especially the requirement that such a representative arguing a case in federal court on behalf of a client must be first licensed by a state government, who is often a defendant in the case.

I would also introduce transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review, and effective mechanisms, now lacking, of challenging what a party may consider an incorrect or harmful assignment.

What I mean by transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review - which must certainly apply to state court, too, in my view, is that the backroom dealings of "judge-shopping" should end, the question should be posed as to every case to AI to instantly analyze the existing pool of the judiciary, the case presented, the applicable law, and the decisions of judges present in the pool of judiciary on that applicable law.

I would also require every federal judge to plug into the system their family tree to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity, affinity understood broadly and not only through marriage, given that marriage is no longer needed in this country for a committed relationship, as well as of each of the judge's law partners and close personal friends.

I would have each party and lawyer for the party to submit the same information, with a break for indigent pro se's, allowed to conduct such verification at the taxpayer's expense - funded with the money saved from unnecessary renting or ownership and maintenance of marble palaces/courthouses.

I would have AI-assisted verification of cross-matches and automatic removal of judges related to the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity to any party or any lawyer in the law firm representing the party from consideration for assignment.

I would have judges, parties and lawyers to similarly submit information of their childhood and college friends, and also submit the information to AI-analysis, putting it, not as a point of direct disqualification, but as a question mark, requiring AI analysis of available public data on social media and in the public records across the nation to analyze whether there are any foreseeable problems with conflicts of interest, and pointing such potential problems out before the judge has been chose to preside over a given case.

I would forbid all federal judges any social contacts with the parties and lawyers in front of him, with severe, non-discretionary punishments for violations.

We as a nation do have technology to implement these changes and should get out of the stone age as to how our public servants, judges, decide our disputes regarding our life, liberty, property, custody of children.

By public review and control I mean that any member of the public may have access to the same AI tools to run a double-check on the AI-assisted assignment of judges, and must have access to the full AI-generated report as to each judge's assignment to the case, any potential problems with impartiality or conflicts of interest raised, but discounted in the report.

I would introduce, nevertheless, peremptory challenges of judges and voir dire of judges by parties, to ensure impartiality, same or similar to how voir dire of jurors is done.

I would expressly take away power of judges to review motions to recuse themselves.

I would expressly take away power of judges to punish for motions to recuse.

I would expressly take away power of judges to impose sanctions for legal arguments made on the basis of the U.S. Constitution and seeking to protect civil rights, no matter how novel or improbable the argument seems to the judge.

I would allow free taxpayer funded AI-based legal research to all pro se parties in all cases in federal court.  

I would allow free public access, same as already exists in NYSCEF system in New York, to all documents in all filed public court cases.

I would allow, same as in NYSCEF, any member of the public to file lawsuits without having to first gain permissions from anybody.

I would eliminate all laws that restrict access to court to prisoners, such as "three strikes and you are out" existing now, punishing the often indigent and illiterate pro se prisoners for not being able to navigate the quagmire of rules created by professional lawyers and judges.

I would allow AI-assisted explanations of the law to pro se prisoners and enable access to centralized AI-assisted law libraries in prisons.

I would require of appellate courts the same degree of review, with full memorandums, of all pro se appeals.  Right now pro se federal appeals are discarded without full memorandums, reviewed practically only by non-judicial personnel.

I would require judges to actually take and actually review every case they are presiding over, with assistance of AI, but nobody else.

If the judge is unable to do that, he or she should not be a judge or, if the judge is overloaded, he or she should not be assigned that case, as determined with AI assistance, too.

That will eliminate the current intolerable situation where law clerks and not judges de facto determine cases, putting in question validity of all judicial decisions in state and federal courts.

These proposed sketched changes will eliminate a lot of corruption, strip a lot of privilege off the federal judiciary, and ensure a freer access to court for the public.

Where judges are put into their position for political purposes - as the 235 judges were by the adm, instead of interpreting laws made by Congress and handed over to the executive branch for enforcement, make their own laws through interpretation and attempt to undermine and replace the executive discretion with their own.

 

The ever-self-aggrandizing and sermonizing Judge Brian D. Birns deleted a negative comment against him to raise his book's rating on Amazon - and continues to be paid advocate "for children"

In April of 2022 I wrote about the book Judge Brian D Burns, now of Otsego County Supreme Court, is selling on Amazon, here is the link to that blog article.

I actually bought the book, read it and left a review as a verified purchaser, along with another review that was already there, from a person I do not know, also negative.

Yesterday, I have checked on Amazon - and voila! "His Honor" has deleted one negative comment (left mine intact though), 

and, together with a "5" rating without a review, jumped his rating for this book to 3.1 (3 stars from one).

As a courtesy to Judge Burns, and to the reading public, I will try to brush up the Honor's honor, and republish the link to the book, and the review that the judge deleted, along with Amazon-stamped rating of 1.8.

Enjoy!

It also seems that Judge Burns has spilled his wisdom, on the same topic, into another book, a Kindle edition now, available on Kindle Unlimited, for free for me.  

Note that the dishonorable pig has put his "Honor" in front of his name on a book title.  Vanity, said the very well known character, my favorite sin.

Here is the text of the annotation for the "Honor"'s 2024 book, for easier reading:

"More than half of the four million children born every year in the United States will be raised by parents who were never married or get divorced. As a New York State Family Court and Supreme Court Judge, I have presided over thousands of the resulting custody cases and have interviewed countless children in the course of litigation over the last 23 years. This book is my attempt to help those parents who are currently struggling to co-parent, and to guide those parents to be who find themselves in this situation in the future. Unlike most custody books, this will not tell anyone how to “win” custody. Rather, it is written to express the children’s appreciation for things that their parents do well together and their pain and anguish when their parents fail to co-parent successfully. Unfortunately, I have learned that children who are the subject of custody fights are often too confused, angry, or scared to communicate their deepest feelings directly to their parents. This book gives voice to the children. To emphasize that the “advice” contained in the book comes directly from the children, I have written it in the form of a series of letters from children to their parents. Each chapter consists of the letter followed by my legal and personal commentary. Many of the letters in which children describe their suffering can be gut-wrenching to read – but my commentary offers suggestions to help parents avoid causing unnecessary pain. An equal number of letters are happy missives thanking parents for doing things that the children appreciate and which contribute to their sense of security and of being loved and cherished".

That's him.  Categorizing and sermonizing based on his own bitter small mind.  Great sympathy to those hapless litigants and attorneys who have the misfortune to have to appear in front of him.

Just from the annotation though, you can perceive what a sermonizing bastard the "Honor" is:

parents who never married and who divorced, in his view, are destined to end up in court in a bitter custody dispute.

And, do you think it is appropriate for a sitting judge to continue to openly advocate for children - for money?  What kind of impartiality parents, for example, can expect from him in a proceeding involving the child as an alleged victim?

A judge MUST be neutral, and MUST abstain from being an advocate for whichever party, no matter how vulnerable and likeable.

Apparently, the "Honor's" skull is too thick to get such a simple concept through, after 24 years on the bench.

I promise, I will find time to download and explore the "lessons", compare them with the previous ones and tell you if the pig has acquired any more wisdom, or simply copied and pasted from the first book in order to raise the rating. 

As to Burns being "advocate for children" - maybe, on Amazon, for money, but Anthony Pacherille (plug in this name on the right in the search window and read his story) will disagree.

Will report on what I found in his 2024 book soon.

Until then!

On owners of public courtrooms

Here is what a public worm, oh, oops, the sworn public servant, the DisHonorable Patrick J O'Sullivan of Madison County Supreme Court has done on today:

The chief court clerk Nicole Olvera confirmed to me on the phone that this piece of art is her handiwork at the order of O'Sullivan,  and tgat she is as a "middle person doing what she is told".

The order was not made on prior notice to us as parties in the action, and was not e-filed into the docket of the case by the DisHonorable Patrick J O'Sullivan, remaining a secret, ex parte, sua sponte,  illegal directive blocking public access to a public court proceeding in violation of the public's and the parties' 1st Amendment, due process rights and state Judiciary Law Section 4 requiring unrestricted and invested access of the public to public court proceedings.

As it was the culmination of many shenannigans of O'Sullivan in this case, I requested the toothless tiger of the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct to find some conscience and take O'Sullivan off the bench already, as a jeopardy to the public. 

Now, imagine yourself coming to a public courtroom to watch a public oral motion term.  

You come to the courthouse, you go through a metal detector, you come to the courtroom, and you are stopped by a court attendant who says - nope, fella, doesn't work this way.

Since today, our new procedure is that you write a personal plea to the judge requesting his kind permission to attend that public oral motion term in question, and state the reason why you want to do so.

Why the judge wants it - we don't know, says the attendant.  

But he wants it anyway, and we are little people, we are middle people, and we simply do what we are told.

And, you are simply turned away.  

And, if you even apply in writing, as the judge unlawfully orders you to do, the judge did not tell you what criteria he applies, did he?  Nope.  He acts like an absolute petty tyrant who owns that public courtroom as his own personal fiefdom and can do whatever the hell he likes to do with your access to court guaranteed by the pesky US Constitution and the pesky New York State statutory laws, and the pesky precedents of the US Supreme Court and the New York State Court of Appeals.  

This petty tyrant might not like your application to be present at a supposedly public court proceedings.

Why?  

That is an impertinent question, you lowlife questioning your betters.

BECAUSE.  

And the courtroom door is closed into your face.

Well.

For you, personally, it may make a difference or it might not make a difference.  After all, you may simply have leisurely come into the courthouse to watch a court proceeding because you simply wanted to out of curiosity.

Yes, it is your right, constitutional (1st Amendment) and statutory (Judiciary Law 4 in the State of New York).

But - well, if you are not a hard core journalist or a hard core court watcher, or a hard core family member or friend of parties who are doing the oral argument or participate in a court hearing, you might let it go.  

It is not so for the parties though who are entitled to a public hearing, but are denied such a public hearing by the judge, sua sponte, without an explanation, arbitrarily, on a BECAUSE basis.

The directives in the scans up above are precisely the same as shutting the door in your face in a physical courtroom.

The secret illegal directive were reported to me by members of the public who wanted to attend a "conference" scheduled to be held as an "open court proceeding", on record, in a highly contested "right of way" dispute, and a public motion hearing in the same case, to be held online on TEAMs.

In the case, the Plaintiff, a corporation, only has an admittedly unreadable supposedly 19th century something that supposedly has in its unreadable depths Plaintiff's "right of way" through our property in Delhi, NY.

The Plaintiff is helpfully complementing this inadmissible "evidence" with its attorney's running his mouth on and on and on about whether the owner of the real estate (my husband and I) does or does not have a law license.  It must be very relevant to whether Plaintiff does or does not have a right of way based on anadmittedly unreadable something.

Unfortunately,  the DisHonorable Patrick J O'Sullivan has bought into this "argument" (or was, simply, bought) line, hook and sinker.

The judge, sorry for the leisurely portray, let's call him Exhibit 1 for brevity, ardently prohibits being photographed or videotaped in the place of performing of his duties of a public servant, that is, in a public courtroom.

So, I had to borrow his photograph from his wife's public Facebook page.

Here goes our Exhibit 1:

Full of self-confidence without competence - that's why he was reversed three times in 2023 alone by the Appellate Division 3rd Department, a record for any judge.  I may run a separate article on these hilarious reversals.

Here is what Exhibit 1 has said in a hearing in the case Berrian, Inc. v. Neroni, EF2023-943 in Delaware County Supreme Court, State of New York.  

The case is "e-filed", which means members of the public can download all documents from the website of NYSCEF, just go to Google, enter "NYSCEF guest search" and enter my name there, Tatiana Neroni, then enter the case number EF2023-943, and you can download all documents for free, you won't be disappointed.

But, back to Exhibit 1.  

On June 6, 2024, Exhibit 1, at the beginning fot the second day of a so-called "Traverse Hearing" where Exhibit 1 was trying to determine whether he had jurisdiction over me and my husband, out-of-state defendants now from South Carolina, in other words, whether service of process was proper, he said the following - spontaneously, nobody made him do it, or asked him to address this issue at that hearing.  

And, please, take into account that he said that addressing court watchers, that was a public hearing:

 

Now, I am writing about access to justice, as a blogger for over 11 years, and for many years as a constitutional legal scholar on Academia.edu. 

I have lost my law license in 2015 for two years (but without the right of automatic reinstatement, so, I am still without it now and let it go) because, as a civil rights attorney, I was too much of a thorn in the side of the State of New York and its various corrupt government officials, including and predominantly judges, both through my lawsuits and through my blog articles in this very blog.

When I heard what Exhibit 1 spontaneously spurted out in the transcript above, boy... He instantly made himself (in)famous and a new antihero of this blog.

Based on his statement to the watching public, who does Exhibit 1 think he is?  

The owner of a public courtroom?  

Does he remember that he is an elected public SERVANT?  

Elected to SERVE the public, specifically, within the boundaries of the law and not for his own private purposes?

And that he has no expectation of privacy while discharging his duties as a public servant in a public court proceeding?

And,  there is specific law (not that Exhibit 1 may be aware of any such laws or care that they exists) making New York State courtrooms presumptively open to the public.  Presumptively.  

What kind of salad is in the head of this elected public servant who is on the judicial bench for many years, by the way, that he claims as he did in the transcript above that he holds the keys from the courtroom and may lock the public out?  

As he is doing now, for undisclosed reasons?

He would "allow" people into the courtroom or "not allow" on his own whim? 

Simply because he would  "learn" something about someone in unknown ways, from unknown and unverified sources, he would block ALL public from every attending future public hearings in the same case? 

How do such worms worm their ways into black robes and materialize in our public courtrooms? 

Think what he said in the transcript above.

 Simply because, let's say, he learns from an unknown source that a certain court watcher on a certain date has recorded a certain public hearing (a big crime, indeed!), he threatened that he will not allow other court watchers to watch other public hearings, and deny to the parties in the court case their right to a public proceeding.

Did he even go to law school, this judge?

So, Exhibit 1 believes he OWNS our public courtroom that we support with our taxpayer money.

And, he just went and did it. 

Blocked public access to a hearing on, so far, 7 motions.

For a completely unknown reason, I checked with the court clerk, she claims the reasons were not given to her.  Just BECAUSE.  Submit written applications directly to the punk - oh, sorry - to the DisHonorable Patrick J. O'Sullivan, explain yourself, why you want to be present at a public court hearing, and yourself better satisfy with your explanation the unknown requirements existing only in the DisHonorable 's head.

So, what is it so scary for the DisHonorable Exhibit 1 in the things scheduled for the motion hearing that he has blocked public access to it?  

Here is what has been scheduled so far in my case:

The scheduling is already a mess, as the scan shows, as different motions in the same case are scheduled for the same date and time for physical presentation in the courtroom and for remote presentation online.

Relief in Motion # 12 above is designated as "Other" because NYSCEF did not have the proper choice to enter when e-filing the motion.  

Motion #12 is a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel because he constantly runs his mouth as a witness and injected himself and continues to inject himself as a witness throughout the proceeding, while it is evident - and he acknowledged as much in a cynical e-mail to me - that he had no personal knowledge of what he claimed to Exhibit 1 he did have, under the penalty of perjury.  Nothing too crooked.

By the way, you can read the great story of the Plaintiff's counsel's life here.  

Let's call this one Exhibit 2.

Now compare Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2:

Don't you think they have found one another?

The same Napoleonic poses that usually only very, very stupid and self-complacent people strike for photographs.

And, as to Exhibit 2, really, really, read his story, following the link above.  It is just sugared sugar, how good he is there.

After that, look through the same person's affirmations e-filed in two Berrian, Inc. v. Neroni cases, ## EF2023-322 and EF2023-943.  

It is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  

Or, as one of my friends' mother said, a "street angel, a house devil".   

This "life lessons" cherub has a vile, vulgar, cynical, filthy tongue towards us, two elderly and disabled individuals who he has never seen in person in his life.  

Hope people remember that when they consider donations for his claimed hypocritical self-serving "causes".

By the way, Exhibit 1 was under obligation mandated by the very recent Joint Appellate Divisions' to control uncivilized vulgar outbursts of Exhibit 2 - but how can a kindred spirit control one's own?  Impossible.  

As long as Exhibit 2 attacked yours truly and her 77-year-old disabled husband, Exhibit 1 kept mum. 

He only got agitated and protective - of Exhibit 2 - if a proper, civilized, professional language of yours truly and her husband ruffled the tender sensibilities of that kindred nitwit.

Then all the claws of Exhibit 1 came out to the rescue the baby.

Now let's see about those claws.

As stated and shown by scans above, what is scheduled by Exhibit 1 so far is 

(1) a wholly unnecessary "conference" - where motions to dismiss and for a summary judgment are already pending, that wonder is to be held tomorrow at 11:00 A.M., and 

(2) an oral argument on many motions held for February 7, 2025.  

By the way, the motions were made from October 2024 to this week, and we did not need oral argument on them.  

Exhibit 1, always to the rescue of Exhibit 2, simply extended and extended and extended time so that Exhibit 2 would find time and gray matter to answer the motions.

Note that what is going to happen tomorrow, behind closed doors, as ordered by Exhibit 1 in protection of himself and his buddy Exhibit 2, is called a "preliminary conference".  

Rule 22 NYCRR 202.12 (available on the Internet for free) that regulates such "conferences" does not allow such "conferences" to be held behind closed doors.

Next, Rule 22 NYCRR 202.12 requires that at the end of such a "conference" a court order is issued.

I have sent a letter to Exhibit 1 saying - please, put 2 and 2 together and figure that you may only make orders in official court "sittings" within the meaning of Judiciary Law Section 4, and all official court "sittings" are presumptively open to the public, hence - hello, court watchers must be able to attend the "conference". 

That proverbial rose by any name... It is a court sitting, no matter how Exhibit 1 wants to name it.

What did Exhibit 1 do?

Not one, not two, but three things.

# 1 sent me and other parties a notification that a court reporter (stenographer) has been hired to record "the conference"

Did it help Exhibit 1's cause rebutting my letter request to open the "conference" to public court watchers?

Of course, not.  On the opposite.  It has only proven, especially when reading this wonder together with the conference scheduling "in chambers" (judge's room) and with the applicable court cases that presence of a court reporter MAKES the conference a presumptive "open-court" proceeding, REQUIRING presence of the public.

But no, logic is not Exhibit 1's big friend.

Thing # 2 that Exhibit 1 did in answer to my letter request to let the public into the "conference" tomorrow: TWO prohibitions.

According to multiple prospective court watchers who have filled out an official application provided by the New York State court system to attend the "conference" (a hearing under another name seeking to result in some kind of an unknown order), here is what they received from the court:

Think about it - the court believes that the "conference", with a court reporter already hired and waiting to take the record, at the end of which Exhibit 1 will issue some unknown court order, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.12 is "distinct from any proceedings", even though it is held in a definite public case and is about to address its core issues.

That was not the end of stupidity though.

Multiple court watchers notified me today that Exhibit 1 prohibited members of the public to attend even oral arguments in multiple motions, unless Exhibit 1's Majesty personally approves a written application of each one of them based on his own unknown personal subjective made up criteria.  A royal snap.

This so-called "directive" of The Right Honorable - or, rather, let's call a spade a spade, The Wrong Dishonorable Patrick J. O'Sullivan, is in reality called a sua sponte (spontaneous, on the court's own initiative) EX PARTE (without notice or opportunity to be heard to us) court order that has TAKEN AWAY our right to a public hearing, a PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL action of the court.

Why such a snap at court watchers that may likely cost Exhibit 1 (it should) some explaining with the Judicial Conduct Commission?

Because last time, at the Traverse Hearing, the court watchers saw something they were not supposed to see - Exhibit 1 ordering us to relocate to another room under a pretext (it was an internet, TEAMS hearing), in order to give Exhibit 2 some more time to coach his witness on the stand.

At the same time, court watchers heard from the court clerk herself that Exhibit 1, for an unknown reason, disregarded an e-mail from that same long-suffering Nicole Olvera (see scan above), court clerk, who notified Exhibit 1 that Exhibit 2 was to blame for interference with the proceedings and not us, but he was not ordered to relocate.

The court system has stonewalled my Judiciary Law 255 request for a copy of that e-mail.  I directed it to Nicole Olvera.  Again, she is doing what she is told.  Including hiding evidence of judicial misconduct.

And, the court watchers also saw that the court reporter did not report exactly everything that she was supposed to, she skipped reporting of what could raise issues of misconduct of Exhibit 1 and 2.

What is worse, a court watcher provided an Affirmation about that to the court - and Exhibit 1 deliberately refused to review it.  Simply skipped it and made a decision without it.  But, obviously, held a grudge in store, to use it now.

So now, when more applications from more prospective court watchers came for new hearings, Exhibit 1 has regurgitated his grudge and snapped.

It was HIS courtroom, and it was HIS rules, and he wants to SCREAM - oh, no - to SCREEN the prospective court watchers and to demand answers from them, first 

(1) who they are - even though New York court form to apply for a virtual attendance of a court proceeding (why do they need such a form, I don't know, the court proceedings should simply be streamed to whoever wants to watch them, don't you think? as other states and countries do), 

(2) they must absolutely spill their guts to Exhibit 1 as to why exactly do they want to attend a public hearing - do they by any chance want to provide affirmations in the future to yours truly catching Exhibits 1 and 2 in more misconduct?

Because then they will not be allowed in.

And in that glorious vein Exhibit 1 very bluntly did not allow ANY court watchers to attend a public hearing on February 7, 2025 UNLESS they apply to him in writing and diligently explain why the F-k do they want to attend the F-king public hearing. 

A preventive measure, just in case.

And he will then decide if their reasoning are good enough to get entry into a public hearing.

So.

Nothing too crooked here either.

Not that I am surprised.  Came across a lot of similar nitwits in black robes before.

Will see what will happen today - if I am even able to attend.  

We have bad weather in South Carolina, you see.  I have freezing rain raging behind my window.  

With a thick veil of snow covering the ground in all the coastal South Carolina, in the absence of snow plows in our subtropical state, nobody drove for 4 days so far, with black ice all over the local roads.

The forecast is that tomorrow morning it will get warmer fast, and a flood is supposed to start, and we may lose, as it usually happens with floods in this area, both our Internet and our phone connection.

And then - I do not know what Exhibit 1 will do in our absence at the "conference", without the public watching, but with the hand-picked loyal court reporter - the same one who the court watcher in her affirmation caught in not reporting misconduct of Exhibits 1 and 2.  A proven professional.

Exhibit 1 is desperate to let Exhibit 2 win this case, where the e-filed discovery and the e-filed motions showed that Exhibit 2 has no case. 

How else does one win when one can't the lawful way?

A no brainer.  Exhibit 1 to the rescue. 

Of course, I have turned Exhibit 1 into the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked the Commission politely to finally take this 9-day-wonder off the bench as a jeopardy to public justice for his little shenannigans with blocking public access to public hearings in order to screen the public based on his whims.

Will they hear me?  I don't know.

And, by the way, a cherry on this mud-cake: Exhibit 1 is a 3rd Party DEFENDANT in the same case where he presides, sued by my husband months ago for violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act -  and Exhibit 1 nevertheless continues presiding over a case where every single confirmation notice for every single e-filed document names him as a 3rd party Defendant.

A perfect reason to snap against us, don't you think?

As this saga unfolds, stay tuned.  I am sure there will be more to come from where this mudslide of "honorable" exhibits came from. 

But you know what is very, very sad about all of this crap, in addition to us and the public being deprived of our rights without any care of this supposed "Honorable" public official as to what the hell he is doing?

Exhibit 1 coerced court personnel, at the threat of their own job security, to engage in unlawful conduct such as closing the courtroom from the public on the whim of this punk in a black robe.

Clerk Nicole Olvera was extremely embarrassed when speaking to me on the phone today, and mumbled that "she is the middle person" and "is doing what she is told to do", and that "she does not know whether it is lawful or not" for a judge to close a public oral argument on multiple motions, ex parte and sua sponte, on an undisclosed whim.

That is the same Nicole Olvera who discussed in front of the court watcher listening as to why Exhibit 1 disregarded her e-mail sent to him that it was Exhibit 2 and not us responsible for interference at Traverse Hearing?  Where Exhibit 1 ordered us, two disabled individuals, to relocate to another room in a rush in order to give time to Exhibit 2 to coach his witness on the stand.

I truly believe that Nicole Olvera is not a bad person, she simply wants to keep her job, with benefits.

The main blame for subversion of court personnel to his unlawful whims lays, of course, on this prime exhibit:

Remember his smiling face, especially when he runs next time for re-election.

Do not allow this king of the hill to play "I own this court" with your life and property again.

Your vote MATTERS.  Make sure he loses the next election.  

An update on January 24, 2025: a lawsuit was filed by me today, Neroni v O'Sullivan, requesting a declaratory judgment that attempting to summarily and arbitrarily pre-screen attendance in public court hearings is unconstitutional,  and seeking to mandate training of Justice O'Sullivan on this issue and put his regulation of public access to court cases under supervision.

Within hours of the filing of the lawsuit, the conference was rescheduled from January 24 with a stenographer to February 7, half an hour prior to the motion hearing, without a stenographer, our requests for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act continue to be denied, in violation of federal law, and the public, including our family members, are blocked from attending the scheduled "public" proceeding.

Update as of January 29, 2025:  Justice O'Sullivan continues to illegally block the public, including new applicants, from attending the virtual February 7 court hearing, and continues to deny our ADA accommodation requests.

Apparently, the DisHonorable InJustice Patrick J O'Sullivan is preparing to do something during that hearing that he does not want the public to be the witness of. 

 Far from being faithful to his oath if office, this judge, very obviously, has no conscience and no shame.

On statutory rape of inmates by their guards in judicial chambers (Kentucky)

All I hear in the news about the Kentucky judge-shooting case is mourning.

It is such a tragedy.

The judge was such a good man.

The murdering sheriff is such a good man.

It is such a loss to the community.

The murderer and the murdered were such upstanding citizens and pillars of the community.

They were such bosom friends.

Nobody expected such a thing to happen.

REALLY?

In 2022 the local deputy sheriff was charged for repeated rapes of a home incarceration inmate which were occurring IN THE CHAMBERS of the now-dead judge.  The case was immediately put - since September of 2022 under control of the State Attorney General.

The locals want to have everybody believe they did not know it?

In a community as small as that, less than 1700 people, and a land of kissing cousins where everybody knows everybody, an everybody is related to everybody in this way or another, everybody discussed this juicy piece of news at their kitchen tables - for years!

And, please, don't insult me by telling me that the judge had no idea that was happening.  Anybody who has any knowledge of the court system know that chambers are off limits to everybody, they have confidential documents and are securely locked, with only a few confidential clerks of the judge, in addition to the judge himself, having access to the room.

Moreover, recently, a local court clerk gave an interview to the press claiming that, even though the conversation between the sheriff and the judge that took place 4 days ago, when the sheriff shot the judge, (1) was happening behind closed doors in the inner chambers, but (2) a video without sound was available of what was happening inside.

If that was true, how come a deputy sheriff had sex with an inmate in those same chambers, several times, for months, and the judicial personnel and the judge did not know?  It is complete BS.

Rape of an inmate - including an inmate on home incarceration - is a STATUTORY RAPE, where the victim cannot legally give consent to sex with her guard, due to her dependent position.

The press is tiptoeing around the word RAPE, and STATUTORY RAPE because of where it was happening and who was involved.

You know what happened to the rapist?  Not much.  Was he convicted of felonies? - Sure.  Was he fired from his job.  - Of course.

But, how much of jail time was he ordered to serve?  Don't laugh.

SIX FREAKING MONTHS.  About the same time as he was raping the inmate.  6 for 6.

The reality is that the presiding judge could not be quick enough to sweep under the rug the gory details of Judge Mullins potentially being involved in statutory rapes of inmates and having to testify at a criminal trial under cross-examination as a witness (at least).

That's why such a "favorable" plea.

Where is the #metoo movement?  Remember theatrical performances of Democrats in Congress for confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh?

Remember the worldwide outrage fomented by the #metoo movement about the just-6-months' sentence of Stanford athlete Brock Turner - for statutory rape of a drunk and unconscious young woman?  It is also a type of statutory rape where the victim cannot give legal consent.  NO DIFFERENT from the rape of an inmate.

Where is the outrage, I am asking?

Where are petitions to take the sentencing judge Eddy Coleman off the bench - because he obviously helped "his own" avoid being a witness under cross-examination as to why he allowed his chambers to be used to rape inmates?

And - you know why else Judge Coleman helped sweep the gory details under the rug for Judge Mullins?

Because a civil rights federal lawsuit was filed back in 2022 on the same topic against both the rapist, and public officials, supervisors of the rapist, including the sheriff (who shot Judge Mullins on 9/19/2024).

The federal court held the lawsuit "in abeyance" (did not do allow anything to be done in the lawsuit), waiting for the outcome of the criminal case.

So, Judge Coleman made sure that there was no trial, no transcripts - and no food for the federal lawsuit.

Justice be damned.  The victim be damned.  The black-robed colleague and the black-robed brotherhood must be protected at all costs.

So, Judge Eddy Coleman has sentenced the rapist to 7 years, 1/2 years of it in jail, the rest - probation.  That was in January of 2024.

6 months is a short time.  So, by this past summer, the rapist was already out on the streets.

But, with his conviction, the movement on the federal lawsuit resumed.

A deposition of the Sheriff was scheduled in the federal lawsuit, according to the seconds-long interview of the victim's attorney to the press.

A deposition was an out-of-court discovery procedure where the victim's attorney was asking the Sheriff questions that the Sheriff had to answer under oath before a notary.  The federal judge overseeing the lawsuit does not have to and usually is not present at such depositions, but the transcript of it may later be used at trial or in support of motions.

Judge Mullins was listed in federal court as a person of interest, a potential witness.

The deposition, reportedly, took hours - as usual for depositions, as it is the first and last time for the attorney to get answers from the opposing party without a judge present and without the opposing party being able to object.  So, the attorney for the victim was thorough and grilled the Sheriff for hours.

As court personnel and other people who saw the sheriff and the judge on the day of the shooting reported, the sheriff had lunch with the judge, then came to the judge's inner chambers, closed the door, and then the video has shown that the sheriff and the judge were sitting, the judge gave the sheriff the judge's cell phone, the sheriff looked at both his own cell phone and the judge's, gave the judge's phone back to the judge, stood up, came up to the judge and shot him multiple times, killing him.

Did the Sheriff go bonkers because of the deposition that took place 4 days prior?

Was the Sheriff, a person entrusted to bear arms and to supervise a whole County police force, also bearing arms, such an unbalanced individual that he could not calm down over a 4-day period and still be "angry" because of the deposition?

Or did he, very simply, eliminate Judge Mullins as a witness in the upcoming federal jury trial?

The local judge in the criminal proceeding eliminated the necessity of Judge Mullins testimony by giving the rapist a sweet deal he could not turn down, but with a federal lawsuit the sheriff obviously had no influence over the victim's attorney, who did call him to a deposition and did grill him - and could similarly call Judge Mullins, as a witness, next.

The killed judge's brother-in-law and coincidentally local prosecutor has appealed to people far and wide not to "gossip" about the case, claiming that it is wrong.

What is wrong though is to RAPE incarcerated women in the judicial chambers.

That could only happen because the women in question did not believe in the integrity of either the presiding judge or the judge whose chambers were used, to complain to them about what was going on.  

And that tells us TONS about what the public REALLY things about integrity of judges.

Crooks? Oh yes.

Now sex slave masters?  Whyever not?

The public is so afraid of judges that nobody will tell what they really think to the press - they only repeat cliche phrases, deathly afraid of retaliation that could cost them to lose a livelihood with no recourse, in a small community.

And they have a good reason to be so afraid.

Nobody charged Judge Mullins for his role in the rapes.

The victim did not sue Judge Mullins in her federal lawsuit - because it is FUTILE, judges invented for themselves absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office.  Even if Mullins was not a presiding judge in the raped inmate's case, his status as a judge alone would have granted him immunity, as happened in countless such lawsuits.

The victim's only chance was to do what she did - submit, wait out her time, give out information when she could, secretly, against a guard that the criminal justice system was not afraid to charge criminally, unlike Judge Mullins - and then SUE who she could sue.

This IS a tragedy.

A man lost his life, his mother lost a son, his wife lost a husband, and his two children lost a father.

But something holds be back from grieving and believing that Judge Mullins was a good man.

Had he been a good man, he would have resigned the moment criminal charges were brought against the deputy sheriff who raped inmates in the judge's chambers.  And, he would have made a public statement about his own involvement in the case.

Judge Mullins did neither.

Judge Mullins plugged right on, in belief that he will be protected by the system from any responsibility, no matter what he actually did and what his involvement in the case was.

Therefore, I suggest that a nationwide investigation into the factors of such impunity that lead to such results - and the rape of inmates in Judge Mullins chambers are only a drop in the bucket of crimes otherwise committed by judge and in chambers, that remain untouched by the law enforcement.

And, when you come to vote for judges in November, remember what kind of impunity they get just be donning that black robe thanks to your vote.

Not all elected judges turn scoundrels.

After all, if you are allowed a free hand to rape, kill, steal and burn, you will not necessarily use that "privilege".

The same with judges - if you are given (rightly or wrongly) absolutely immunity for "malicious and corrupt acts" in office, if you are a person with integrity, you will not necessarily abuse that power.

Apparently, Judge Mullins, the person in charge of his own chambers-turned-sex-slaving quarters, lacked basic integrity to resign, come clean and repent.

While he is now before a higher judge, we the People need to stop what happened to the raped inmate from ever happening to any person involved in court proceedings.

Abolishing the unlawfully self-given absolute judicial immunity is the first step.

My interview with the legal YouTube channel out of the Russian Federation, "3rd Degree Dialogue"

 I was honored by an invitation to give an interview to a Russian Federation legal YouTube channel called "3rd Degree Dialogue".

The program's charismatic host is a Russian criminal defense attorney Mikhail Manukov, out of Sochi (Black Sea region of the Russian Federation).

Mikhail invites Russian-speaking jurists to speak about various aspects of the practice of law, the state of the justice system, regulation of the legal profession in different countries, and anything else his guests consider valuable to share.

The program is non-partisan and invites lawyers holding widely different opinions on the same subjects, which the spectators note as the most valuable feature of the program.

In my interview I shared, in my native Russian, my views and recalled some of my memories about the American Justice system.

I hope that captions in English can be generated for the interview.

Here it is 

My May 21, 2024 Amicus Brief in the 2nd Circuit on the lack of constitutionality of regulation of the practice of law in the State of New York by prohibiting free unlicensed legal advice to the poor and illiterate New Yorkers

 In a very interesting development, on May 20, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has allowed me, despite the suspension of my law license, of which the court is aware, to file an Amicus ("Friend of the Court) Brief with the court in support of Appellees in an appeal Upsolve, Inc. v. James, as an expert in several areas of law: consumer debt, constitutional, constitutional regulation of the practice of law, and criminal law

The Appellant in the case is the New York State Attorney General, and what she considered worth it to appeal and pour thousands upon thousands of dollars into, is the volunteer program meant to help the poor and the illiterate, predominantly black, New Yorkers, to fight a catastrophe created by attorneys licensed by the State of New York - attorneys for debt collectors.

Letitia James, instead of pouring the money she is wasting on this appeal into arranging legal assistance for those same poor and illiterate individuals, is threatening volunteers who are helping so much as to fill out the form available on the New York State website, this one, with criminal prosecution.

The amount of help that volunteers, guided by law professors in that particular area of law, are rendering that Letitia James is attacking is so much as to help people read the court-created form and to check boxes on that form, affirmative defenses, in order to help poor and illiterate New Yorkers avoid default when sued by predatory debt collectors.

I have filed the Amicus because I did not see in other Amicuses filed a straightforward analysis of unconstitutionality of the entire regulation system of the practice of law, since all other Amicuses were filed by licensed attorneys who were simply afraid to touch this issue, as well as the "mainstream" academia in the United States.

I am very surprised that the 2nd Circuit has allowed me to openly speak on this tabooed issue in an Amicus Brief.

I have very low hope that the 2nd Circuit will take my research reflected in the Amicus Brief into consideration since the 2nd Circuit is itself involved in the same type of regulation criticized in the brief, but the point of filing the brief was to make these ideas available to the academia, the public and to American lawyers.  Maybe, these ideas and this research will at least put some seeds of thought into people to move their thinking towards abolition of the unconstitutional scheme depriving people of access to justice.