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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Judge Revoir's revenge against the indigent mother who complained against him to the Judicial Conduct Commission

On September 1, 2014 an indigent mother, a family court litigant, filed a complaint agAinst judge Frank B. Revoir with the  NYS Judicial Conduct Commission.

On September 5, 2014 Judge Revoir issued a bench warrant for complainant's arrest for failure to comply with the judge's order dated September 4, 2014 that was served upon the mother to her Albany P.O. box by mail, so by law she was not required to comply with the order until 5 days after it was served by mail (Civil Practice Law and Rules), and that would be September 9, 2014.

Yet, Judge Revoir issued a bench warrant for her arrest on September 5, 2014, without any legal basis for it, and when she was ready to transfer her child to the father who came unannounced to pick the child up from visitation, she had the Delaware County police, with a TASER gun and handcuffs, on her porch, assaulting the child's middle-aged disabled grandmother with a TASER gun and with the police vehicle in an effort to destroy video recording of the unlawful arrest and arresting the indigent mother in front of her child, with a red spot of the TASER gun trained on the indigent mother's back.
Was all of this Orwellian SWAT-team production somehow in the best interests of the child?
One thing I know - the child might not forget this trauma for the rest of her life, simply because Judge Revoir needed to play out his revenge on her mother in the cruelest way possible.

Moreover, Judge Revoir did not reduce his screaming on the record of August 29, 2014 to a written order and thus prevented the mother's appeal of his decision.
Moreover, there was no petition before the court from the father so that Judge Revoir would be able to rule on such a petition and issue the September 4, 2014 order that was the basis of the September 5, 2014 bench warrant agaisnt the mother.
Moreover, Judge Revoir himself said on August 29, 2014 that all future petitions must be filed in another state, and thus there is no reason for him to accept new petitions in New York state on behalf of the father, nor were there any petitions submitted to result in the September 4, 2014 decision that was used to issue the September 5, 2014 bench warrant.
Moreover, Judge Revoir has failed to search the registries of sex offenders and protective orders which is a jurisdictional requirement for all orders in New York involving custody or visitation, thus making Judge Revoir's orders in this case void.

Additionally, the police came to the mother's house to "help" the father retrieve the child from the mother, while there was no indication the mother was not surrendering the child, on the contrary, the mother texted the father that she is packing the child's belongings and the child will be soon ready to be picked up.
And here, one more curious detail transpires.

Family Court in New York does not have criminal jurisdiction, only jurisdiction for civil contempt of court, to coerce a person into obeying a court order, not to punish her - that is criminal jurisdiction that Family Court does not have.

As I stated above, since the mother was served with Judge Revoir's invalid order of September 4, 2014 by mail, she could, first,  never be held in contempt of an invalid order, or at the very least, she could not be held in contempt until at least 5 days passed after she was served.

Yet, Judge Revoir could not wait with his revenge and harassment that long.

That is obviously why on September 5, 2014 he has ordered the mother arrested for violating the order Judge Revoir knew the mother could not possibly have recieved yet, not to mention that the order was jurisdictionally invalid on many grounds I mentioned above.

But, this is the judge for whom legal grounds and legal arguments are the equivalents of "lying", did not consider lack of authority or legal grounds as a bar for his abuse of power where he could use it to harass the person who dared to complain about his misconduct to the Judicial Conduct Commission.
And I must point out once again that, before being elected, Judge Revoir claimed he has a perfect judicial temperament for the job.
Family court has the most emotional proceedings of all courts, and judges who rule in such courts without a jury, should be of the highest competence, integrity and the most balanced temperament.

Judge Revoir sorely failed that on all points test by committing grievous misconduct against an indigent mother with a low social status, and, when she filed a formal complaint about the judge, retaliated with more misconduct, with worse misconduct and with the illegal use of police power.
The use of police power was illegal because, once the child was returned to the father (coercion to obey the order), the bench warrant from a Family Court judge who did not have criminal jurisdiction, lost its grounds even if it had such grounds (it didn't, as I described above).
Thus, dragging the mother in handcuffs and under a TASER gun and dragging her to the court after the child was delivered to the mother was clearly illegal - and Judge Revoir knew what he was doing when he was issuing such an illegal bench warrant.
It is obvious that this judge, as many other local judges I know, would be guided only by his own whims. 
The temperament that Judge Revoir demonstrated in this case is the temperament of a petty tyrant, not of a balanced, reasoned and competent judicial officer.

I truly believe this judge should be removed from the bench and stripped of his law license for his gross abuse of his power in this case, to the detriment of an indigent parent and of an innocent child.

No comments:

Post a Comment