What is judicial misconduct in Ohio is business as usual in New York...

In Ohio, a judge was recently disciplined with a suspended stay for a year for removing a public defender who dared to criticize a judge for abuse of discretion when the judge refused to accept a guilty plea from an indigent defendant who withdrew his consent and then agreed again.

 

In New York, Delaware County, Judge Carl F. Becker is allowed to do on the bench whatever he wants, while courts bounce lawsuits against him under various judge-created doctrines, the Commission for Judicial Conduct bounces meritorious complaints against him with barely an explanation or without any good faith explanation, while the judge viciously retaliates against complainants, knowing that there will be no discipline against him for such a retaliation.


New York is not Ohio, I guess.

 

So far, I have counted 11 lawsuits against Judge Becker in state and federal courts filed within the period from 2004 to 2013, only three are still pending, others were uniformly dismissed on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity, covering even malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.


Such a dismissal means that the court refuses to review whether Judge Becker did or did not engage in malicious and corrupt conduct on the bench, as claimed by the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, claimed under oath, by the way.

 

Yet, those dismissed cases make interesting reading.  Complaints in federal courts at least, are certified under oath.  By dismissing on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, the courts essentially say in plain English the following:  "we know that what you might be saying about the judge engaging in malicious and corrupt acts on the bench might be true, but the concept of judicial immunity (that judges created in protection of judges) does not allow us to even look in that direction, so we are forced to dismiss your lawsuit, even if such a dismissal leaves you completely without a remedy". 

 

So far, 9 people dared to sue Judge Becker against all odds, obviously considering it important to at least signal to the public what Judge Becker is doing wrong:

 

1. David Roosa
2. Joseph Orlando
3. Michael Hazen
4. Alecia Bracci
5. Frederick J. Neroni
6. Tatiana Neroni
7. Joseph Goodnough
8. Maria Aron
9. Nicholas Mitchell

People who filed lawsuits against Judge Becker over a span of time from 2004 by David Roosa to 2013 by Nicholas Mitchell, claim that Judge Becker was involved in conduct reflecting his bias, discrimination against people with disabilities, retaliation against critics, using extrajudicial evidence and ex parte communications in his decisions, favoritism etc. etc. etc.  The list goes on.  Case law on the issue of judicial misconduct shows that Judge Becker has long ago passed the critical mass of misconduct which requires to take the judge off the bench.  Yet, he is still there.  For some reason that I, as a member of the public, would like to have the State of New York explain to me.


It is not easy to win a lawsuit against a judge.




Remember, his brother (or sister) judge reviews that lawsuit against a judge.




And his brother (or sister) judge will either invent a doctrine covering a member of her class, or will apply the doctrine created by another brother judge, and will not look whether such a doctrine does or does not comport with the Federal Constitution, as long as it serves "independence of the judiciary".  From the tenets of the law.




Lawsuits of David Roosa, Joseph Orlando, Michael Hazen, Alecia Bracci, Tatiana Neroni, Frederick J. Neroni and Joseph Goonough against Judge Becker were dismissed on immunity grounds, and only the case of Frederick J. Neroni was recently partially remanded by the appellate court on a narrow issue whether under the new precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court Mr. Neroni's challenge to constitutionality of two New York statutes can proceed in federal court.  Cases of Alecia Bracci, Tatiana Neroni and Frederick J. Neroni (another case) are pending on appeal.




The case Aron v. Becker, a case where Judge Becker denied a pistol license based on alleged hearsay statements of his own unspecified employees, which somehow outweighed 4 affidavits in support of Ms. Aron from people who knew her and her stellar life record, is still pending.




I already wrote about my own case in one of my first posts, describing how Judge Becker viciously sanctioned me and my husband after I sued him in state court, and added to those sanctions after I sued him for retaliation in federal court.




Time permitting, I will publish all of the lawsuits against Judge Becker (which are public records anyway) online, analyze them in detail and link that analysis, lawsuit by lawsuit, to this blog.


It is time to do something in New York with non-existent judicial discipline. 


Judge Becker continues to sit on 6 benches:

1. Delaware County Supreme Court;
2. Delaware County Court - as trial court;
3. Delaware County Drug Court - as extension of Delaware County Court (trial part);
4. Delaware County Court -as appellate court from local justice courts of Delaware County;
5. Delaware County Family Court;
6. Delaware County Surrogate's Court

Since Judge Becker occupies all benches in his county, people and especially attorneys, are afraid to speak out, because the judge can affect every single aspect of their lives, by taking away their children in Family Court, or holding them in child neglect, stripping them of a possibility of good employment and subjecting them to humiliating supervision of the judge's former client of 27 years Delaware County Department of Social Services, or taking away their property in Supreme Court or taking away their liberty in the criminal County Court...




The vengeance of this particular judge is vicious and systemic, as my case shows, and people have a right to be afraid.  Yet, there comes a time when being afraid will get you nowhere and will not protect you or your loved ones.




Meanwhile, New York State continues to condone Judge Becker's behavior, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how badly he bends or violates the law and people's rights, no matter what kind of trauma, stress, heartbreak, injury he leaves as his "legacy", no matter how openly he favors and disfavors attorneys and parties based on their social and political status and affiliation with the judge himself, or his friends and former co-workers.




New York state even provides to Judge Becker, when he is sued, free legal representation at taxpayer's expense.  Judge Becker's free legal counsel is the New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman or one of 640 attorneys from Mr. Schneiderman's office, and all resources of the state of New York.  By the way, Eric T. Schneiderman was elected by you to the position of the New York State Attorney General on a platform that he will protect New Yorkers from fraud.  Yet, when such fraud, as an example, is committed by a judge on the bench, Eric T. Schneiderman does the reverse and protects the culprit from your rightful lawsuit, at your expense, while you might be scrambling to find an attorney willing to put his license and livelihood on the line to take your case. 




Why does New York State Attorney General, even though he was elected by you to defend you from public officials violating your rights, defends Judge Becker when he violates your rights, from your rightful lawsuits.


Apparently, his "obligation" to defend the politically powerful outweighs his promises to the voters before he was elected.  Moreover, do not forget that NYS Attorney General is himself a licensed attorney, and his license is within the hands of the judiciary.  Thus, the judiciary has independence from the law for malicious and corrupt act, and you have as a result a timid legal profession which scrapes and bows to judges no matter what they do, in order to keep their licenses intact.  Those who criticizes the judge, be he or she an attorney or not an attorney, does it only at her own peril.


But sometimes, no matter what the risk, you need to do what is right.  There are moments in life where you are squarely staring at a choice that you cannot shirk. 


So far, the 9 people from the list made those choices and filed those lawsuits alone.


Of course, whatever they are doing, can only make a dent in the armor of judicial immunity, if at all.


A systemic legislative initiative, or, possibly, a referendum to amend the State Constitution are needed to change the situation where judges usurped the power to be above the law, the power which nobody, not one person in the U.S. can have.




And such an abomination of justice is declared to help you as public in general to maintain independence of your elected judicial officers.  I as a voter do not need or want my elected public servants, judicial officers, to be independent from the law and the very Constitution that they take an oath to protect when and in order to get on that bench.




It is time to do something about it.




I am sure Judge Becker is not alone in having become a tyrant on the bench.




Immunity and impunity made him a tyrant.




You know that absolute power corrupts absolutely.




You will not expect not to discipline a child if he errs.  You know that if you don't discipline him, he'll err more and worse.




Not disciplining public officials, including judges, has the same effect.  Judges are only human.


If you don't treat infection, it has a potential of growing into a gangrene and killing you.




Judicial immunity is undermining America democratic traditions declaring that nobody is above the law and everybody is equal under the law.  It's time to make that maxim work, as applied to our public servants, judicial officers.




If we, the People of the State of New York, do not take action to end this shameful concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts of judges on the bench, we will continue to suffer injuries from judicial misconduct while having no remedies for such injuries.




Maybe also (although there is little hope for that without public outcry and media attention), New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct will finally look into the matter and consider sworn allegations of Judge Becker's victims in those dismissed and pending lawsuits?



As well as sworn allegations of victims of misconduct against other judges? 




Judicial discipline does not require as a pre-requisite a judgment against such a judge and does not have statutes of limitations, at least that is what is being declared to the public.  Maybe it's time to practice what is being preached about equality under the law and that sun is the best disinfectant?




It is in our hands not to be silent, to call on our representatives in the State and Federal Legislatures to put an end to the perversion of justice called "absolute judicial immunity" and to introduce effective, transparent and open system of judicial discipline, with active public participation.

 

 

 

 

What judges in Texas are locked up for, judges in New York are praised and rewarded. The cases of Christopher Dupuy and Carl Becker

I wrote on this blog that my law license was suspended - without a required hearing - based entirely on sanctions imposed upon me by the now-former judge Carl Becker, who sanctioned me for making motions to recuse him based on lack of documents proving legitimacy of his elections in 2002, and based on appearance of impropriety and appearance of multiple conflicts of interest.

Not to mention that Judge Becker sanctioned me - and my pro bono client - after we both sued him, and the lawsuit was pending at the time sanctions were imposed.

Now, other jurisdiction approach the issue of judicial disqualification quite differently.

A lot of states have the following layers of protection for lawyers making motion to recuse a judge:

1) a peremptory challenge to a judge allowing an attorney to remove one judge from the proceedings without explaining reasons why (same as there are rights for peremptory challenges to jurors);

2) a rule prohibiting the challenged judge from ruling on any issue in the case, including the motion to recuse, once the motion is filed;  the motion must be transferred and decided by another judge, and the case is stayed until that is done;

3) a rule allowing the challenged judge to rule on legal sufficiency and/or timeliness of the motion to recuse, but not on the merits.

A lot of states have one, two or all three above protections for lawyers.

New York State has none.

New York State allows challenged judges not only to rule on the merits of a motion to recuse, but to retaliate against the moving party - by sanctions (as was done with me and my pro bono client), and by physical force, as was done by Judge Kevin Dowd with a pro se litigant who dared to move to recuse him.

As I am learning now, other states also deal differently than New York in case judges retaliate against litigants or attorneys for making motions to recuse, or for even presiding over cases of parties who had pending lawsuits against judges.

In South Carolina, a "Merit Selection Board" of judges canned for re-election judge F.P. ("Charlie") Segars-Andrews who withdrew her pledge to recuse because of a conflict of interest and who has ruled in favor of the party and attorney who has benefited the judge's husband with a $300,000 bounty shortly before the judge presided over the case.

In Texas, the State Attorney General brought criminal charges against judge Christopher Dupuy for doing exactly what Judge Becker did to me - retaliating for making a motion to recuse.

In Texas, the now former Judge Christopher Dupuy was criminally charged for retaliation against attorney Lori Laird for making a motion to recuse the judge with abuse of office, perjury, taken off the bench on petition of State Attorney General and convicted of perjury and abuse of office on charges presented by State Attorney General.

At sentencing, a Texas judge reportedly told Judge Dupuy this:

"You brought an incredible dishonor to yourself, your name and this profession.  ... Anybody who reads or knows about this case makes our job as judges harder because of what you did."

Judge Christopher Dupuy, by the way, tried to have his criminal prosecutor sanctioned for bringing criminal charges.

And, in North Carolina, a judge was censured for presiding over a case of a party who had a pending lawsuit against a judge.

In my case, 

• the New York State Attorney General refused to bring a "quo warranto" proceeding against Judge Becker to remove him from office or to prosecute him for fixing cases for friends and abusing his office by retaliating against me and my clients, 
• then,  the New York State Attorney General represented Judge Becker in two lawsuits that I brought against him, one in state court, and one in federal court, for retaliation through sanctions imposed on me and my pro bono client by Becker after we sued him in State court; and asked, on Becker's behalf, to dismiss the lawsuits and leave us without a remedy - which was done;
• the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to sanction Becker, despite Becker's presiding and sanctioning a party and her attorney while having a pending lawsuit filed by that party and attorney against him, and instead 
• I was suspended without a hearing for making motions to recuse Becker.

The bottom-line - New York is a real wonder world when it comes to the rule of law.

What is in common between the State of Nebraska and Tatiana Neroni, or kings of the bench begging to be dethroned

It appears that the common denominator is that both the State of Nebraska and Tatiana Neroni were punished by judges for investigating the judge's backgrounds while appearing before those judges in litigation.

On August 26, 2015 a senior-status federal judge Richard George Kopf of the U.S. District Court of Nebraska, who describes  himself in his blog as "Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 7, 1992, to a seat vacated by Warren K. Urbom. Confirmed by the Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission on May 26, 1992. Served as chief judge, 1999-2004. Assumed senior status on December 1, 2011".

It is not clear why Judge Kopf who assumed his senior status only in 2011, lost his chief judgeship in in 2005, but I suspect that it may have happened because of his "wildly unpopular decision" in 2002, after 4 years of litigation (I checked on Pacer.gov) where the judge retaliated against a whole state forcing it to accept nuclear waste because a reporter from the state dared to make a legal request for the judge's financial disclosure reports from the court administration.  Usually chief judges, once appointed, continue until the end of days.

Yet, only in 2015 Judge Kopf decided to announce to the public, through his blog, the circumstances of how he awarded against the State of Nebraska a 151 million dollar judgment.

In a blog that Judge Kopf named "Ralph Waldo Emerson: When you strike at a king you must kill him" the judge gives insights as to what may have lead him to make that "wildly unpopular" decision.  The judge even provides a citation to the decision, which I will reproduce here - Entergy Arkansas Nebraska v. Nebraska, 226 F.Supp.2d 1047 (D. Neb. 2002), aff’d 358 F.3d 528 (2004).

This is what happened during litigation in the case cited by Judge Kopf, in Judge Kopf's own words:

                        

Since Judge Kopf is still obviously reeling in 2015 from the fact that in 2004 or earlier "some one /sic/ closely related to Nebraska" dared to ask for the judge's financial disclosure reports (pursuant to a legal right established by statute, Freedom of Information Act), and the judge expressed his displeasure in a blog quoting, as a headline, a phrase "When you strike at a king you must kill him", it is obvious that there is an appearance that Judge Kopf may have awarded his "wildly unpopular" decision against the State of Nebraska in retaliation for the reporter asking Judge Kopf's financial disclosure reports.

Look how Judge Kopf assesses an attempt to even obtain financial disclosure reports about a judge or investigate the background of the judge or the judge's relatives, which is a matter of public concern and is not illegal:

And look what triggered the judge's "old wound" to write about the 10-year-old case:

The judge who was obviously irate because somebody dared to request his financial disclosures - even though he pretends to be neutral and magnanimous and claims that he kept that same report at his clerk's office and allowed it to be disclosed without reporting to the judge who asked for it (right!) - has the audacity not to step off the case because he became irate when he learnt that the reporter from the "organ of the state government" requested the judge's financial disclosure reports, but to "give advice" to litigants:

(1) that if the litigants "strike against the king" they "must kill him" - meaning that Judge Kopf 
     (a) considers himself the king, 
     (b) issues a direct threat to the litigants, that if litigants "strike, but do not kill" "the king", they will be - what? - killed themselves, as Judge Kopf did in the nuclear waste dump case?
     (c) perceived a simple - and perfectly legal - request for information about him which was not part of litigation as a personal attempt to strike against him, which perception would clearly have required his recusal from the case, 
      (d) since the perceived "strike" was not successful, the judge perceived what he thought was an attempt at a strike (requesting the judge's financial disclosure reports) as "slimy and ham-handed", and

as an obvious resulting retaliation from "the king", the judge slammed the State of Nebraska with a 151 million dollar lawsuit.  I wonder what happened after that with the reporter.

I do not know why the State of Nebraska did not (1) require a jury trial and allowed Judge Kopf to proceed to a bench trial where he made his own "findings of fact" against the State of Nebraska, nor did the State of Neraska (2) move to recuse the judge immediately after he notified the litigants that he is aware that a reporter from the Nebraska public television asked for his financial disclosure, because it was completely unrelated to litigation.  I checked the case out on Pacer.gov, a motion to recuse or demand for a jury trial were not made, which, in my opinion, was a disservice to Nebraska taxpayers.

I do not know whether the State of Nebraska will dare to challenge the judgment now, after 10 years, based on the judge's yesterday's blog, but I did report what judge Kopf said on Facebook, with a link to the judge's blog, and tagged the Nebraska Attorney General to read the post.

And I am sure that the judge will not be disciplined for his behavior because the policy of federal courts is not to even accept complaints about judge's behavior during litigation (while at the same time giving judges absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts committed during litigation).

And, I am sure that federal prosecutors who regularly appear in front of that judge and that court, will not dare to touch him with a criminal investigation either.  That's why the judge feels safe to expound himself in the blog.

Yet, I do intend to inform through this blog post taxpayers of the State of Nebraska who may want to apply pressure to their State Attorney General to move to vacate the judgment that was paid out of their collective pockets.

As compared to Judge Kopf monumental retaliation against the people of the entire state for something legal that a TV reporter of that state did (and which is presumed by law to be done in public interest), my case involving retaliation for the very same act appears to be small.

In 2011 Delaware County Family Court judge Carl F. Becker (the anti-hero of my most popular blog post) punished me, my client (and, apparently, her child since Judge Becker denied my client perfectly legal and meritorious request to restore her custody of a minor child) for filing a Freedom of Information Request with the New York Court administration , same as in Judge Kopf's case, for the financial disclosure reports that judges in New York must file semi-annually with the court administration.

Judge Becker was so irate that he issued against both me and my client a sua sponte Order to Show cause demanding me to answer why I and my client should not be punished for frivolous conduct.

In that Order to Show Cause he mentioned that he considers it inappropriate when an attorney "investigates a judge while frequently appearing in front of him".

When I pointed it out in opposition that New York law considers Freedom of Information Requests as presumed to be in the public interest, Judge Becker issued a decision where he:

(1) agreed with me on that point; but
(2) punished me and my client anyway by granting his own Order to Show Cause in its entirety, meaning to include the punishment for the FOIL investigation anyway.

Of course, the sanction was also issued 3 days after my client and I sued the judge, based on his actions ON and OFF the bench (what we learnt as a result of the necessary background investigation, because Judge Becker did not disclose his conflicts of interest).

Of course, both in state and in federal courts, lawsuits against Judge Becker were dismissed on "jurisdictional" grounds, because of absolute judicial immunity that is supposed to cover only acts ON the bench, but not OFF the bench.

Of course, in 2013 we discovered that Judge Becker failed to disclose a conflict of interest that arose before he even ascended to the bench in 2002, yet, the federal court rejected that claim.

Of course the judge assigned to Judge Becker's case in the state court, Judge Tormey, failed to disclose his own conflict of interest, that the New York State Attorney General representing Judge Becker was Judge Tormey's own judge in a federal case against Judge Tormey personally that lasted 4.5 years, for retaliation against an employee, and concluded just a month before Judge Tormey was assigned to Judge Becker's case with a $600 000.00 settlement that somehow New York taxpayers had to pay for Judge Tormey's misbehavior that had nothing to do with his judicial duties.

Of course, Judge Tormey also engaged in an ex parte communication with Judge Becker's attorney and, possibly, with Judge Becker himself since Judge Becker was on the 2nd floor of the Delaware County courthouse when the motion was argued, and, on conclusion of the argument, I and my client left the floor, as is required by policies in that courthouse, and Judge Becker's counsel remained on the floor for another 40 minutes.

Of course, evidence of which the New York State court administration refused to give to me claiming that video tapes of what occurred in the courthouse that day are unavailable because the videotaping equipment allegedly broke (while no documents pertaining to payment for repairs of the same equipment were provided to me on a separate FOIL request).

Once again, what my client suffered, what I suffered and continue to be suffering from Judge Becker's retaliation (because Judge Becker's retaliative sanctions imposed after we sued him and after we investigated him under Freedom of Information Law are currently used as the only grounds in a disciplinary proceedings against me) is not comparable with what people of the State of Nebraska have been suffering when Judge Kopf forced their state to pay 151 million dollars and accept nuclear waste from other states on their territory.

Yet, Judge Kopf's beliefs are the same as Judge Becker's - that it is inappropriate for anyone who is appearing before a judge to legitimately ask for copies of the judge's financial disclosures.  It is "a strike against the king", it is slimy and ham-handed, and, if the strike does not kill the king, the king will kill the striker.

And kings like that should be taken off the bench to prevent further abuse of power and harm to the very people such "kings" are supposed to be serving.

Judge, can you, please, attach an X-ray of your conscience and a transcript of what it told you? After you search it to decide my motion to recuse?

Yet another judge "searched his conscience", found no bias against me or my husband, and sanctioned us for pointing out his misconduct.


The hero this time is Judge Kevin Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court, assigned, coincidentally, to the Mokay case that I just blogged about before receiving the "gift" of sanctions from the "unbiased" Judge Dowd.


We made a motion to vacate sanctions against us imposed by Judge Becker after we sued Judge Becker two times.


The "unbiased" Judge Dowd denied the motion and sanctioned me and my husband $1,000.00 each for making it.


The setting of the motion is as follows.


1.  On June 27, 2011 my husband and I sued Judge Becker for misconduct.
2.  Judge Becker sanctioned me or my husband us in 4 different cases after we sued him in state court.
3. We sued Judge Becker in federal court for retaliation.
4. Judge Becker imposed sanctions against both of us in two more actions.


All sanctions were imposed close in time to the lawsuits.


The lawsuits against Judge Becker were dismissed on immunity grounds without reaching the merits.
The Appellate Division affirmed sanctions in Mokay without reaching the issue whether the sanctions were the product of retaliation, because what happened in other cases was not part of the record on appeal from the direct case on sanctions.


We made a motion to vacate sanctions to make the pattern of Judge Becker's misconduct part of the record and to make at least one court review them on the merits.


Judge Dowd presides over the case.  Judge Dowd was assigned to the case under the guidance  and monitoring by the previously recused Judge Coccoma.  My husband sued Judge Coccoma's wife.  Judge Coccoma holds in his hands Judge Dowd's post-retirement financial perks.  Judge Dowd is close in age to mandatory retirement.  Judge Dowd recently gave a monetary favor to Judge Coccoma by refusing to sanction Judge Coccoma's wife in a situation where she concealed the death of her client, made a motion without revealing the fact that she has lost her authority as an attorney, obtained an order on that motion and aggressively continued her attempts to bring my husband to a deposition.


Ellen Coccoma revealed the death of her client (and the resulting abatement of the court's jurisdiction, as well as her own authority) only when I threatened to compel her to produce her client at a cross-deposition.  Only then she revealed the fact, but not the date of the death.  Yet, she has claimed to me in March of 2012 that her other clients' standing in the action is based on their father's  "valid power of attorney". At the time of making the claim, Ellen Coccoma knew that the person who has given the "valid power of attorney" was dead since November 6, 2011, and as of the same date his power of attorney was void.


My husband was disbarred for less.


Ellen Coccoma will never be disbarred.


In fact, Ellen Coccoma will never be even sanctioned - because she is married to a judge, and a high-standing one.


Judge Dowd gave Judge Coccoma a financial favor by not sanctioning Judge Coccoma's wife.


Judge Dowd gave Judge Coccoma a further favor by sanctioning the complainants against Judge Coccoma's wife, using court proceedings to cloak himself with immunity for effecting this conspiracy.


Judge Dowd might be surprised to learn that if the conspiracy arose outside of the courtroom, there is a precedent in federal court in Pennsylvania that provided that where a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights in which a judge engaged was outside of court proceedings, the injury inflicted by the judge who is part of the conspiracy in the court proceedings is not immune, H.T. et al., v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al, 3:09-cv-00286-ARC, Document 1510, page 22.


Judge Dowd does not find any conflict of interest or grounds for his disqualification from the case, after "searching his conscience", even though Judge Dowd previously recused from a related case, Neroni v. Harlem and his presiding over a related case is equivalent to re-entry a case after recusal, which is prohibited by New York law.


At the time of presiding over the case, Judge Dowd was sued by my husband for misconduct in Neroni v. Coccoma's, recently dismissed by Judge Sharpe, where judge Sharpe cloaked Judge Dowd with immunity even though Judge Dowd failed to properly restore jurisdiction of the court after it abated due to the death of Ellen Coccoma's client.


My client will certainly appeal the decision, especially that now there is a precedent out of Pennsylvania which breached the armor of judicial immunity for out-of-court actions that resulted in in-court injury.


On May 16, 2014 I sued Judge Dowd in his individual capacity in federal court seeking a disclosure from him whether he is or ever was a part of the secret-membership organization The American Inns of Court. 


On June 5, 2014 Judge Dowd  made his decision in the Mokay case sanctioning me and my husband $1,000.00 each for making "frivolous" motions.


My husband alleged in his dismissed lawsuit, based on a transcript in a proceeding, that Judge Dowd might lack mental faculties because Judge Dowd discussed in a custody proceedings, without any relevance to anything, that a law school in a certain town was building a statue in Judge Dowd's honor which was in fact a urinal. 


Of course, Judge Dowd had no hard feelings against my husband and was completely unbiased.  Only - to believe that we need to do a collective lobotomy.


This judge is now presiding over the Mokay case, which was botched up big time already by a parade of judges to the point of becoming a major farce. 


Of course, Judge Dowd "searched his conscience" and did not find any "adverse feelings" against my husband or myself.


The X-ray of Judge Dowd's conscience was not attached to the decision and will not be part of the record on appeal that will, for sure, follow.


Whether Judge Dowd has a conscience, whether he, indeed, searched it, what that conscience advised Judge Dowd, was it a proper and lawful advice, and did Judge Dowd follow it will remain forever unreviewable by the Appellate Division.


Judge Dowd claimed that there is nothing new in what we are asserting on our motion to vacate.


Judge Dowd apparently has a difficulty reading or is simply and arrogantly hoping that the Appellate Division where judges are similarly sued to disclose their involvement with the American Inns of Court, will do anything to punish me and block my access to court anyway.  And maybe he is right.


In fact, my friend told me that an attorney she knows keeps telling her exactly that - that I should stop filing lawsuits against judges, that I should stop blogging about judges, then I might have a chance to survive as an attorney...  Otherwise I will never win in any court.


So much for the faith in the integrity of the judicial system.


Judge Dowd stated that all the issues pertaining to Judge Becker's sanctions were already decided by other courts.


I wonder which other courts Judge Dowd means because I am not aware of any courts who decided on the merits the issue whether Judge Becker's sanctions imposed upon us after we sued him, were a product of unconstitutional retaliation. 


Judge Dowd must be dreaming, same as he dreamt about a law school building urinals in his favor in that other proceeding that my husband mentioned in his federal lawsuit.


One must give Judge Dowd credit for one thing, though.  He knows the system well.  He knows that he, most likely, will remain unpunished for his egregious retaliation, because to punish one judge for retaliation will open a can of worms and set a dangerous precedent.


You know why?  Judicial retaliation is pervasive in New York.


To eradicate it you might behead many out of the judicial corps of New York state.  And the system cannot afford such a loss of reputation.


The system would rather bend the law past the breaking point and sacrifice the messengers of such misconduct.


So - if you want to get from under the pile of judicial retaliation, the "unbiased" judges will oblige and will mount some more of the same, claiming all the way that they "searched their conscience" and remain unbiased.


As the last stroke of his "unbiased" opinion Judge Dowd struck Plaintiff's note of issue because they were not ready for trial (for the second time), and allowed them to re-file the trial note of issue without a filing fee - and without a time limit.  


They will be ready when they will be ready - that is the new rule of Judge Dowd's court.  Of course, when you are trying to get post-retirement perks from a certain judge you want to please and when you are trying to prevent Mr. Neroni from vacating his order of disbarment (which would have happened had Judge Dowd dismissed, as he was supposed to, the proceedings for failure to prosecute, based on newly created law, because proceedings are asserting a non-existing cause of action, and are prosecuted by irreconcilably disqualified attorneys) - anything is handy and possible.


After all, who would do anything to a judge...  Judge Ciavarella had to take millions of dollars in kickbacks for the feds to "notice" his wrongdoing and for the courts to finally catch up with him and disbar him, and he still escaped liability for his shenanigans which were "judicial acts" - unlawful sentencing of juveniles in furthering of conspiracy (see the quote from the decision giving Judge Ciavarella immunity placed as a general runner on top of this blog).


Judge Dowd's misconduct in comparison with what Judge Ciavarella did is child's play - he "only" gives favors to a judge who holds the keys to financial perks after Judge Dowd (soon) retires by retaliating against us.


So, the Mokay farce goes on.  With an "unbiased" judge at the wheel.

Should these two judges be taken off the bench for using courts as their own fiefdom to settle personal scores, even if it means misrepresenting the record and misapplying the law?

Intellectual dishonesty is a polite term which is used when judges arrive at decisions which are not warranted by the record, or misstate/misrepresent the record. 

Now, when an attorney does something like that, he will be sanctioned - by the judge.

When a judge is doing it, the Commission on Judicial Conduct takes a position that anything the judge did in litigation must be reviewed on appeal only, and there is no violation of discipline for the judge in misrepresentation of the record.

I am not satisfied with such an answer.

When the judge looks at a sheep and says he sees an elephant, the judge should check out his glasses, his medications or go see a doctor.

Yet, that's what happens in court, and appellate division, astonishingly, affirms.

Name of judge and case name	What the judge said in his ruling	The truth
Carl F. Becker Shields v. Carbone, Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2009-440	·        That I was an attorney at the time administrative proceedings regarding a pond on my husband’s property were held ·        That I made a motion to recuse in those proceedings ·        That I was fined by the DEC Commissioner in those proceedings ·        That my motion to recuse was part of my pattern to make such motions	·        I was admitted to the bar in 2009, the proceedings were held in 2006-2008 ·        I did not make such a motion, I was not allowed to intervene and be a party in that proceeding ·        I was not fined, I was not even allowed to be a party ·        For obvious reasons, that was not true, since I was not a party, not an attorney for a party, was not allowed to participate and did not make the motion
James C. Tormey Neroni v. Follender, Delaware County Index No. 2013-331	·        That there was a case (singular) M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum which was the basis of my lawsuit ·        That I failed to state a cause of action for fraud upon the court and did not plead it with specificity when I said that Attorney Follender defrauded the court by consistently, on record, claiming that I am the attorney of record in Torum II when I wasn’t (coincidentally, also a judge in the Town of Denning, Ulster County, Judge Tormey “happens” to keep being assigned as a judge of choice to preside over cases where judges are parties to an action, whether they are sued as judges or not)	·        There were two cases by such short name, with two different Index No., filed at different times, one where I was an attorney of record and one where I wasn’t ·        Naturally, when the judge refused to see two different cases with two different numbers, different parties, different attorneys of record, different filing dates, different procedural history – I doubt that even a good shrink will help

As an illustration, this is a piece from Judge Becker's decision against me in Shields v. Carbone, Delaware County Index No. 2009-440, dated August 12, 2011 where he clearly states that I participated in DEC proceedings as an attorney, made an improper motion to recuse, was fined $10,000 by the DEC Commissioner and was ordered to conduct remediation on my property.

This is a picture from the New York State court administration website showing that I was admitted to the bar in 2009 (I updated this blog on May 25, 2014).

At the time Judge Becker made his decision in Shields v. Carbone, on August 12, 2011, he had in front of him a motion for a summary judgment in the DEC proceedings he is referring to in Shields v. Carbone.

He made a decision in these proceedings in October of 2011.

These are portions of that decision where Judge Becker shows knowledge that the DEC administrative proceedings occurred before 2009 when I was admitted to the bar:

Moreover, Judge Becker also reflects in his decision that he knew from the record that the only motion I made there is to intervene and vacate the decision on liability for failure to include me as a necessary party, not a motion to recuse, and that the motion was denied, I was not a party to the proceedings and could not, thus be sanctioned, ordered to pay a fine or ordered to do anything with the property:

Yet, having that record in front of him, he says the opposite in Shields v. Carbone:

And, having deciding the DEC case without imposing any sanctions on me for my alleged motion to recuse, without even mentioning such a motion (because it was never made), without affirming any alleged fines against me or any alleged orders of remediation against me (which were non-existent), Judge Becker never went back to Shields v. Carbone, never acknowledged his mistake and never vacated his decision sua sponte.

Instead, he sent his decision to the disciplinary commission, misrepresentations of the record and all.

This is what I call intellectual dishonesty - or dishonesty any way you look at it.

When the Appellate Division affirmed Judge Becker's sanctions against me, while ignoring his misrepresentation of the record of the DEC proceeding, the transcript about his ex parte communication between Judge Becker and the Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney, and despite this obvious dishonesty AND stated that the judge had no bias against me, that was a separate act of intellectual, and any other, dishonesty.

Both of judges made their misstatements in order to be able to impose sanctions upon me, because otherwise there was nothing to impose them for.

Judge Carl F. Becker used my alleged actions as an attorney when I was not an attorney and was not doing anything in an administrative proceeding where I was not allowed to join, where I did not make the motion to recuse and was not fined by the DEC Commissioner, to justify sanctions against me.  The Appellate Division affirmed.

 Judge James C. Tormey sanctioned me, first, for making a motion to recuse him because Attorney Jonathan S. Follender of Arkville, New York had the audacity to ask Judge Tormey to punish me, among other things, for bringing a federal case Bracci v. Becker (dismissed without reaching the merits on jurisdictional grounds) where I asked to join Judge Tormey himself as a supplemental defendant (the case is currently on appeal in the 2nd Circuit).  Judge Tormey considered it appropriate for himself to preside over a case where he is asked to punish me for bringing the federal litigation against himself.  As I said, no shrinks can help with such behavior, only taking off the bench can.

Secondly, Judge Tormey sanctioned me because he allegedly read the record (which he did not, as the court sign-out sheet showed), saw one "Torum" case there while I was talking about two, one where I was attorney of record until August 10, 2011 and where subject matter jurisdiction of the court ended on that date with satisfaction of judgment, and another which was initially heard on August 12, 2011 where I did not represent anybody, which was derivative to Torum I and in which the court (Carl F. Becker, by the way) lost subject matter jurisdiction before the hearing, on August 10, 2011, with the same satisfaction of judgment.

That did not prevent Mr. Follender from trying to squeeze from the case as much counsel fees as he could, given favorable treatment by Carl F. Becker, and to badmouth me for frivolously not appearing in an action where no affidavit of service of the initial pleadings was filed, where I was not retained by any parties, where I did not file a notice of appearance, where I was not assigned by the court, and where subject matter jurisdiction of the court died two days before the initial hearing.

When a motion to renew or reargue was made, Judge Tormey rejected it because he allegedly did not see in it anything new, even though there was plenty of new evidence, and even though it was not based only on new evidence, but also asked to reargue because Judge Tormey imposed sanctions upon me based on his belief that there is only one Torum case while there were two.

Why such an effort?  Because Judge Tormey by that time already sent his sanctions to the disciplinary committee, obviously in a hope that his sanctions will be the last straw to disbar me, especially that he mentioned that an attorney was suspended for what I allegedly did by bringing a lawsuit for fraud, fraud upon the court and defamation against Mr. Follender.

Mr. Follender stated I was an attorney of record in Torum II, that I did not show up when I was supposed to, caused my clients' default and should be sanctioned.

Judge Becker believed it (he would have believed that I fly on a broom in order to sanction me, but anyway) and scheduled a frivolity proceeding, where I did not come, a year after the court lost SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction.

Was it fraud? Of course, it was, both by Mr. Follender, his law firm and his client on whose behalf he was advancing his fraudulent arguments.

Was it defamation? Of course, it was, and it was in fact defamation per se, because Mr. Follender was not only making false claims against me, but false claims damaging my professional reputation, did it knowingly, and did it to gain legal fees from me that attach to a finding of frivolous conduct.

Was any immunity involved?  Of course not - the Torum II court where Mr. Follender was making his claims was without subject matter jurisdiction when the claims were made.

If it wasn't, my claim of fraud upon the court was valid, but, depending on finding or not finding jurisdiction, either fraud and defamation (if there was no subject matter jurisdiction) or fraud upon the court (if there was subject matter jurisdiction) were valid claims against Mr. Follender.

Did Judge Tormey care?

Of course not - all he cared was to exact personal vengeance against me, please the assigning judge Michael Coccoma (whom I pissed off by asking to sanction his wife in a private civil actions where his wife concealed the death of her client from a court and made a motion for a court-ordered deposition after the death of her client and after jurisdiction of the court abated), and save Attorney Follender (a brother-judge) from a lawsuit.

Judge Tormey's personal vengeance was to have me disbarred for daring to make a motion to include him as a supplemental defendant and exposing him on record in federal court and in Neroni v. Follender (motion to recuse) for his ex parte communication with the NYS Attorney General in the state law case Bracci v. Carl F. Becker which he dismissed after that ex parte communication (and NYS Court Administration claimed that the video recorder broke and there are no security tapes of that ex parte powwow for me to see), and for that reason he preferred not to correct his obvious, glaring, screaming mistake of claiming that there was just one underlying Torum case instead of two.

All of that is enough to take any single judge off the bench many times over.

Both Judges Becker and Tormey are still on the bench.

Does Judge Tormey have a history of not caring about the law and using it to achieve his own ends?

Yes, he does.

Why is he still on the bench?

Was he allowed to keep his robe after the political espionage scandal and after the federal lawsuit was settled for $600,000 taxpayer dollars on a condition that he now has to preside over cases against judges as a penance to the court system and make them go away?

Should Judge James C. Tormey be called instead Judge Tormey the Closer?  The hat fits remarkably.

Judge Tormey has "closed" three lawsuits against judges or people associated with judicial system in 2011-2013, and that is only where I was the plaintiff, who knows how many more of such cases Judge Tormey "closed".

My cases are:

1. Bracci v. Carl F. Becker
2. Neroni v. Stephen Zayas (member of attorney disciplinary committee who brought a fraudulent charge against me claiming that I failed to appear in a deposition in the same Torum I case at the time when I was not admitted to the bar)
3. Neroni v. Follender

That Judge Tormey could be disciplined and could lose his robe with or without a decision in the federal lawsuit, is clear from the fate of his co-defendant in the federal lawsuit Judge Bryan Hedges who was taken off the bench on an accusation of sexual misconduct which he committed when he was still a law student, 40 years before the claims were made, when all statutes of limitations already expired.

Records of the federal lawsuit against Judges Tormey and Hedges and records of the disciplinary proceeding against Judge Hedges that I personally reviewed and have copies in my possession, give a glimpse as to why Judge Hedges was thrown under the bus after all these years, and Judge Tormey was spared and was "only" ordered to serve as a "closer" for the judicial system.

According to the affidavit of plaintiff Bobette Morin in the federal action, Docket 143, Judge Tormey and his defendant Voninski asked her to engage in political espionage against a judge of Onondaga County Family Court who was running for the seat of a Supreme Court Justice on a democratic ticket.

When Ms. Morin refused to do that and retaliation followed, it was Judge Hedges who disclosed to her that Judge Tormey's assistant targeted her for destruction.

According to pleadings in Judge Hedges' disciplinary proceedings, Judge Hedges was turned in for discipline by Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick after he refused to pay the alleged victim who was supposed to share that payment with the district attorney - it is in the pleadings (Judge Hedge's Respondent's Brief summarizing the evidence)!

This is as corrupt as it can go, and yet, the District Attorney still is in office, still has his license and is  "serving" on state court commissions and in associations shaping up state policy on sentencing and ethics in government.

My research on Westlaw showed that the district attorney William Fitzpatrick was not even censured, and, since he continues to act as a district attorney, he was not suspended or disbarred for his attempt for extortion from Judge Hedges which was reported, through sworn testimony, to the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct.

On the opposite, in the Orwellian world that we live in, that same district attorney was later selected to serve on the State Committee for Ethics, was appointed in 2010 by Judge Lippman to the New York State Permanent Sentencing Commission where he still serves at this time and is now the Chair of the Ethics Committee of the State District Attorney's Association for the Fair & Ethical Administration of Justice.  Even though I am not a believer in a Supreme Being, all I can say is "God help New Yorkers" because nobody else will...

In December of 2013 Mr. Fitzpatrick co-chaired the NYS Commission for Ethics in Government and submitted a report on investigation of public corruption...   Mr. Fitzpatrick's request to Judge Hedges, through the alleged victim or her mother, to pay the alleged victim of his misconduct 40 years after the fact, when all statutes of limitations were over, in order for Mr. Fitzpatrick to share in the bounty, was not part of the report.

The interesting detail is that it has been reported in Morin's court papers that the district attorney William Fitzpatrick was Judge James C. Tormey's roommate.

It has been also reported in the press that Judge Tormey "did not want" to settle, and allegedly settled only because Judge Hedges did, and Judge Hedges gave an interview to newspapers indicating that Judge Tormey was mad at Judge Hedges settling because he said the lawsuit divided the Family Court personnel.  In fact, there is no such thing as a mandatory settlement in court, whether state or federal, and Judge Tormey did not have to settle simply because judge Hedges did, he could happily proceed to trial which is allegedly what he wanted.

The Commission for judicial conduct apparently turned a blind eye to all of those interesting details indicating that Judge Tormey and his law school buddy William Fitzpatrick who was not a party to the federal lawsuit, but who was mentioned in the court papers, held a huge grudge against Judge Hedges and were bent on destruction of Judge Hedges.

Judge Hedges stepped off the bench himself before brought in front of the Commission, and there was no need to hold a disciplinary proceeding against him.

What Judge Hedges was charged with was not behavior committed when he was on the bench or even when he was an attorney, and Judge Hedges legitimately questioned jurisdiction of the Commission, under the circumstances, to hold disciplinary proceedings against him.


The Commission's chief acknowledged that it was "uncommon" to pursue a judge for something he allegedly did 40 years ago, long before coming to the bench.  The Commission "removed" Judge Hedges from office and the New York State Court of Appeals upheld the "removal".   Yet, legally a person who already resigned from office, as Judge Hedges did before disciplinary proceedings started, and his resignation was accepted, already removed himself from that office as a matter of law and, legally, cannot be removed from the same office for the second time.

The removal decision was heralded as ensuring that Bryan Hedges will never sit on the bench again.  Bryan Hedges resigned in 2012.  He was admitted to the bar in 1973.

Before being admitted to the bar, people are required to have a college degree.   If a person goes to college immediately after high school, and goes to law school immediately after college, he or she will graduate at 25 and be admitted to the bar at 25-26 years of age.

Bryan Hedges was admitted to the bar in 1973, being 25 or 26 at that time.  He resigned in 2012, 39 years later, at that age of 64 or 65.  The mandatory age of retirement in New York is 70.   It would have been highly unlikely that Judge Hedges would ever run for office after he abruptly resigned, or, even if he did, that he would be elected.  Therefore, his disciplinary proceeding was very likely a witchhunt and a revenge on behalf of Judge Tormey and his group of supporters, including William Fitzpatrick, because Judge Hedges actually confirmed Judge Tormey's office's involvement in the witcchhunt against Bobette Morin.

Yet, while the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Hedges were claimed to be done due to the topic of alleged child molestation, the real reason was apparently that the Commission was used as a tool of vengeance by Judge Tormey and the Court Administration, because, once against, Judge Hedges by the time the disciplinary proceedings were held already stepped off the bench voluntarily.

In fact, there was evidence before the commission that the alleged molestation never occurred, and that the alleged victim simply changed her story to get a payoff from Judge Hedges (also from Judge Hedge's Respondent's Brief in the Commission).

The picture that appears out of all of this mess is not pretty at all.

Judge Hedges broke the "rule of silence", told Ms. Morin that she was targeted by Judge Tormey's assistant (and obviously by Judge Tormey, too) for destruction, and refused to cave in for extortion from the alleged victim, her mother and the district attorney.  Judge Hedges was also the most likely reason as to why the lawsuit in Morin v. Tormey had to be settled before trial, because Morin could testify on her personal knowledge about Judge Hedges' statement to her about Judge Tormey's and his assistant Voninski's plans.  It is already in the affidavit and on Pacer.

Given the wealth of information against Judge Tormey and the gravity of sworn accusations based on personal knowledge, there was nothing that could prevent the Commission for Judicial Conduct from prosecuting Judge Tormey.

There is no statute of limitations for judicial misconduct, and so Judge Tormey could and still can be pursued for what he did to Bobette Morin, if the Commission really and genuinely cares about its duties to the people of the State of New York to maintain the ranks of the state judiciary clean of the black sheep.

A federal court's decision is not required to prosecute a judge (as Judge Hedges' case clearly shows - statutes of limitations in both civil and criminal case were long gone, they are 5 years in the state of New York, plus 10 years for the infancy toll).

Yet, Judge Tormey was spared.

Why?

Nobody is going to willingly disclose as to why, but actions, as always, speak louder than words.

Judge Tormey's settlement in Morin v. Tormey in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York was finalized on 9/26/2011, as the docket sheet of the case indicates.

The New York State Attorney General's office represented Judge Tormey in that action in 2011.

The letter of the private counsel requesting participation in the January 12, 2011 conference is highly " irregular", because that counsel is not the official attorney of record at that time.  At the time the letter is presented to the judge, the New York State Attorney General still represents Judge Tormey, and no other attorneys may step in without a court's decision granting them a motion to disqualify, which never happened.

So,  Judge Tormey rules in my case that the NYS AG is the sole decision maker as to whether he has a conflict of interest in representing a state actor, but when that same issue concerns himself, he shared my position, but never disclosed that to me.

Immediately after his settlement, Judge Tormey was assigned by Judges Coccoma and Mercure to the lawsuit Bracci v. Becker in state court, a case for retaliation and misconduct against a judge, a case for which Judge Tormey was uniquely disqualified due to his just finished federal litigation of 4.5 years.

On November 22, 2011, 2 months after his settlement in federal court, Judge Tormey presides over a motion to dismiss where NYS AG's office represents Judge Becker, sued in his individual capacity.

Judge Tormey does not disclose the recent federal litigation against him on the issue of retaliation to me as the attorney for the Plaintiffs, but states in a transcript, in response to my statement that I do not know yet whether I will pursue newly emerged claims in federal court that nobody knows better than him what a pain federal court is.

Judge Tormey was ethically obligated not to preside for 2 years after the end of his federal litigation over a case where NYS Attorney General appears in front of him, and to disclose representation of NYS AG's office, yet, preferred to not disclose the representation by the NYS AG's office in the year where he was presiding over my Bracci v. Becker case, which was a clear ground for disqualification.

Instead, Judge Tormey conducted a powwow with Judge Becker's attorney in the courthouse and dismissed the case against judge Becker, and then the NYS Court Administration claimed that the security tapes of the ex parte communication were unavailable because the video recorder allegedly got broken.

It is interesting to mention that in his decision dismissing the lawsuit against Judge Becker Judge Tormey rejected my argument that there was a conflict of interest in the NYS Attorney General representing Judge Becker, sued in his individual capacity, in Bracci v. Becker lawsuit, and at the same time appearing in front of him in a DEC proceeding.

Judge Tormey stated that it was the sole and absolute discretion of the New York State Attorney General to decide whether NYS AG has a conflict of interest in representing any state actor.  

Yet, Judge Tormey failed to disclose at that same time that he took the same position as I did in his own federal litigation that same year, when he hired a private counsel for himself, claimed conflict of interest of the New York State Attorney General, and claimed that he is entitled for New York State to pay that private counsel, even though he was sued for retaliation against an employee and for attempts to engage the employee in a political espionage, something which had nothing to do with his official duties!

After he dismissed my lawsuit against Judge Becker, without disclosing his disqualification, Judge Tormey dismissed two more lawsuits against people which are part of the judiciary. 

One lawsuit was against Stephen Zayas, sued by me for fraud upon the court when he was still a member of the Committee for Professional Conduct, NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, and since resigned amid investigation (allegedly, over "inaccurate" time sheets), the other was against attorney Jonathan S. Follender ("coincidentally" the Town of Deming Justice, Ulster County), also for fraud upon the court.

Thus, within 2 years of the settlement, Judge Tormey has "served" and paid back the New York judiciary by working as a "closer" on three cases, engaged in ex parte communication to save Judge Becker, misrepresented the record to have the attorney who sued Judge Becker disbarred - and was neither investigated nor disciplined for his political espionage, persecution of attorney Bobette Morin, or for his shenanigans in Bracci v. Becker or Neroni v. Follender cases.

Logical, isn't it?

Only the logic is scary and the whole story reeks to the high skies of corruption.

Judge Tormey's retaliation against me is a matter of public record.

Any reader of this blog can go to the Delaware County courthouse in the state of New York, retrieve cases I am talking about and which are referenced in Neroni v. Follender case and see the truth of what I am saying.

Judge Tormey had the record of two cases in front of him, said there is one and sanctioned me as if there was one.  And sent the sanctions immediately to the disciplinary committee.  And refused to recognize his mistake even when I made the motion to vacate, renew and reargue and caught him in the lies that he reviewed the record when he never even signed it out, and documentary evidence regarding that is also in my motion to vacate, renew and reargue.

What I do know that judges like Judge Tormey and Becker, who go to the length of misrepresentation of the record in front of them in order to set personal scores with attorneys who exposed their misconduct do not belong on the bench, and people who keep them there are complicit in their behavior and are as guilty of fraud as those judges are, whether they are or are not covered by immunity.

In her affidavit to the federal court (Docket 143) Ms. Morin stated under oath that she was threatened by the court administrator Mr. Dowling that she has "pissed the wrong person" and that Judge Tormey wants to "get rid of her". 

Now, both Judges Becker and Tormey, want to get rid of me - both for personal reasons, and the system obliges them.

I believe, a thorough investigation by whatever state or federal authorities who still remain faithful to the U.S. Constitution is in order to get out the hornet's nest of judges who do what they please to serve their own interests and eliminate whoever exposes their misconduct.

Of course, New York State Attorney General's office cannot engage in such an investigation because Judge Tormey is their former client, and that is exactly why New York State Attorney General's office should not be allowed to represent judges sued in their individual capacity for violating people's constitutional rights - because, among other things, it creates a conflict of interest and prevents the NYS AG's office from discharging its duties to investigate and root out corruption in the government.

But, it is my firm belief that judges like Tormey and Becker, who are ready to use/abuse all of their own and their powerful buddies' power in order to rain fire upon people who dared to expose their misconduct, should not be allowed close to the bench and should be taken off the bench a.s.a.p. before they did more damage to more people.

An investigation and disciplinary proceedings against these two judges are long overdue.