Today a client of mine who was a victim of judicial misconduct at the hands of the two judges named in the heading, and I, filed a complaint against these two judges with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
A judge, of course, can shut me up and prevent me from making the record for my client by a threat of contempt of court, but nobody can shut me up and prevent me from reporting judicial misconduct, both to the New York State Commission for Judicial conduct and here on this blog.
Judicial misconduct is unacceptable, it is, unfortunately, too widespread because of the concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts which poisoned the minds of judges and taught them to think about themselves as Gods almighty who can do on the bench whatever they want, no matter how unlawful or unethical, with impunity.
I always reported judicial misconduct and will continue to do so, no matter how various individuals and organizations try to intimidate me and thus prevent me from doing it.
As to this particular complaint, have permission of my client to publish on this blog and in my new "video" blog the full contents of our complaint and the full content of the audio recording and pleadings in court proceedings that was the basis of our complaint about Judge Revoir.
Judge Revoir followed in the footsteps of Judge Kushner whose behavior I described here and here, positioning the Family Court as debtor's court punishing parents for being poor.
I have written about Judge Revoir's conduct on August 29, 2014 and about conduct of judges such as Judge Revoir here, here, and here.
There are, as poor litigants must know, a lot of judges who consider poor people who come to court, and their attorneys who try to properly represent them, as dirt).
I have never looked into Judge Revoir's background, and only after August 29, 2014 proceeding in front of him when he was impermissibly and outrageously rude to me and to my indigent client and actually called my legal arguments lying, did I actually look into his background, and much about his behavior has become clearer to me.
Judge Revoir claimed in his pre-election statement as a judicial candidate that he had Judge Kevin Dowd as his mentor.
You can read about the "honorable" qualities and actions of Judge Dowd here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
If Judge Revoir had Judge Dowd for his mentor, that can explain why Judge Revoir considers legal argument as lying, prejudges actions as he did on August 29, 2014, demonstrates bias to parties with higher social status and is disrespectful and even openly rude with attorneys raising issues of judicial misconduct - I can see Judge Dowd's school right there.
The reason why I even started to take on judicial misconduct is because of egregious bias of just one judge - judge Carl F. Becker about whom I wrote a lot in this blog, just run the search for the keyword "Becker" in the "search" window.
If you are in Judge Becker's court, and especially if you are a female attorney not belonging to a powerful and well-connected law firm, or a party with a low social status, you can count on being put down, humiliated and demeaned by Judge Becker.
Unfortunately, Judge Revoir showed me on August 29, 2014 the same rudeness as I have started to already forget since Judge Becker recused from my cases 2 years ago.
In his rudeness, Judge Revoir even surpassed his mentor, Judge Dowd.
Judge Dowd at least demeans people without much yelling.
Judge Revoir yelled at me at the top of his lungs, simply for trying to put legal arguments on behalf of my client on the record, I thought he will have a stroke.
I am putting in this blog, so that the Judicial Conduct Commission is unable to do what it usually does - toss a complaint against a judge, based on documentary evidence and affidavits of a victim without reviewing it.
The complaint is supported with an affidavit and 11 documentary exhibits.
The recording of the court proceedings where Judge Revoir lost control of himself (I have the official audio recording) is a large file and needs to be broken into pieces in order to be uploaded, which will take some time.
THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment