"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.

Friday, October 3, 2014

A third complaint has been filed against Judge Revoir

Just filed a third complaint against Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., who was an assigned judge in the Delaware County Family Court, but who is otherwise out of the Chenango County Family Court.

I wrote on this blog about the 1st and 2nd complaints about this judge here and here.

The third complaint was filed because Judge Revoir recused from a case where he engaged in illegal acts, without correcting his illegal acts.  I doubt that Judge Revoir somehow did not have knowledge that criminal prosecutions were commenced based on his illegal arrest warrant.

I remind the readers of the essence of the grievance against Judge Revoir:

1/ Judge Revoir presided over a Family Court custody modification proceeding.

2/ Only one petition was in front of Judge Revoir, one filed by the mother.

3/  Judge Revoir dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction on August 29, 2014 orally, but did not enter that order until September 29, 2014.

4/ On September 1, 2014 the mother, together with this writer, complained about Judge Revoir's unlawful and abusive behavior during the court proceedings on August 29, 2014 to the Judicial Conduct Commission;

5/ On September 4, 2014 Judge Revoir issued a written order under the same docket as the petition that Judge Revoir dismissed 6 days earlier for lack of jurisdiction.  The order of September 4, 2014, was thus void for lack of jurisdiction.

Moreover, the order of September 4, 2014 gave relief on the merits to the petitioner's opponent (the father) who never filed any petitions for relief and was thus not entitled to any relief, especially after the only pending petition of the mother was dismissed.

6/ Judge Revoir's court served the illegal order of September 4, 2014 by mail to the mother's Albany P.O. Box.  By law, the mother was expected to receive the letter within 5 days, by September 9, 2014.

7/ Yet, the very next day after the illegal order of September 4, 2014 was issued by Judge Revoir, on September 5, 2014, Judge Revoir accepted a petition from the father to enforce the September 4, 2014, before the mother could have been expected to receive the order of September 4, 2014.

As part of enforcement, Judge Revoir signed an order to show cause demanding the mother to answer the court why she should not be punished for violating the order of September 4, 2014 which was (1) illegal, and (2) was not received by that time by the mother, nor could be presumed to have been received by the court, CPLR 2103 (adding 5 days to any deadlines where pleadings or court orders are served by mail).

Judge Revoir also signed an arrest warrant of the mother on September 5, 2014 to enforce Judge Revoir's illegal order of September 4, 2014 made in the absence of all jurisdiction.  In view of invalidity of the order that was being enforced, of September 4, 2014, the arrest warrant was equally illegal.

8/  The mother was arrested at Taser point in front of her child on September 5, 2014.

9/  The grandmother was, according to her lawsuit filed in Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2014-911, assaulted by Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie with the help of his vehicle;

10/  Derek Bowie was not removed from the investigation and prosecution of cases, he did not, upon information and belief, report vehicular assault upon the maternal grandmother Barbara O'Sullivan, and instead proceeded filing, investigating and prosecuting criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter.

11/  "Coincidentally", after I effectively cross-examined Derek Bowie and his co-workers at a felony examination, Derek Bowie's employer the Delaware County Sheriff denied me access to Barbara O'Sullivan who was a pre-trial detainee in the Delaware County Jail at the time, before she was released on bail, claiming that the jail personnel must look at the contents of my attorney file - which is a violation of attorney-client privilege and was never done to me before for 5.5 years that I was visiting that same jail with the same files contained in the same envelopes, as my husband did for 37 years before me.

You can listen by following links contained here to how the chief of Delaware County Jail explains to me about his employee's alleged right to "flip through the pages" of my attorney file and that Delaware County Jail regularly opens legal mail to inmates and pre-trial detainees and how the Delaware County Attorney clumsily tried to wriggle out of the situation where the Chief of Delaware County jail proclaimed a policy that could hurt the County big time if brought up in a federal lawsuit.

Delaware County is, by the way, a county which was the focus of the media for some time, specifically because of "police power gone too far", to the point of creating difficulties for certification of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department with the New York State Criminal Justice Department.

I wonder how the Sheriff's Department may remain certified when it allows police officers assault residents with their police vehicles, not report it, commence criminal proceedings against the victims and continue to handle weapons while claiming that their fingers are "numb" to the point of a serious injury.

12/  Delaware County police aggravated their misconduct further by making leaks to the press about Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci, several times, to Binghamton television (which resulted in a flood of hate comments on Facebook), and to the Oneonta Daily Star, while no corresponding press releases can be found on the website of the Delaware County Jail, see the media releases of the Delaware County Sheriff on his own website.

Apparently, the Delaware County Sheriff has no control over his personnel who make their own leaks to the press, even where the Sheriff does not issue official releases, and make such leaks during the pendency of a criminal proceedings, obviously impairing defendants' right to a fair trial.

13/  Delaware County police claimed under oath to the Delhi Town Court that the dog belonged to Alecia Bracci in their court testimony on September 22, 2014.  When they have won relief they sought from the court with that testimony, Derek Bowie turned around and filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan was the dog's owner, and that information was leaked to the Daily Star.

On September 22, 2014 Derek Bowie appeared in court for the testimony in full uniform, with a Taser and a pistol attached to it, as far as I could see.

Yet, he testified about his alleged "serious injury" from the alleged dog bite, and testified that his fingers are "numb".

For the "serious injury" Derek Bowie was sporting, as of September 22, 2014, 4 days after the alleged attack, a band-aid on his arm, and his numb fingers did not prevent him from having access to weapons, one semi-lethal, the other lethal.

13/  The dog warden left the dog "in quarantine" without medical care for more than 24 hours, tazered, maced and clubbed, with a metal taser node sticking through his upper jaw.

Yet, no charges for animal cruelty were brought against the dog warden.

14/ Upon information and belief, on September 24, 2014, the day when I reported my recorded conversation with the Chief of Delaware County Jail and pointed out that life of Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter may be in danger, Derek Bowie filed more criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, now claiming that Barbara O'Sullivan, and not her daughter Alecia Bracci, was the owner of the dog, and filed a complaint seeking to deem the dog a dangerous dog (which could lead to court-ordered destruction of the dog).

The "dangerous dog" proceedings which could result in destruction of the dog were, thankfully, dismissed today, but without prejudice, according to Barbara O'Sullivan, no thanks to Judge Revoir.

15/  Coming back to Judge Revoir - on September 29, 2014 Judge Revoir came around to sending a written order of dismissal of the petition filed by the mother, which was allegedly signed by Judge Revoir on August 29, 2014, but was not entered for a month, until September 29, 2014.  Judge Revoir, in entering his order of dismissal of August 29, 2014, certainly did not explain why he then made an order on September 4, 2014 under the same docket, or, in other words, out of that same dismissed petition and why he enforced that invalid order through an equally invalid arrest warrant the next day, September 5, 2014.

Even though Judge Revoir dismissed the petition on August 29, 2014, he left pending the motion filed by the father in that same docket, in opposition to that same dismissed petition (filed one day before the returnable date and never served).  Such a decision was obviously illegal.  When a petition is dismissed, all pleadings pertaining to that petition are dismissed and stop to exist, too.

16/ On September 30, 2014 Barbara O'Sullivan filed a lawsuit against Derek Bowie for vehicular assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in Delaware County Supreme Court.

17/ On October 1, 2014 Judge Revoir communicated to me, through a court clerk, his recusal from all of my cases and from Alecia Bracci's case.

Yet, Judge Revoir recused without vacating his illegal orders that created havoc in the lives of a child, a young woman, a middle-aged disabled woman and an innocent animal.

Since orders of Judge Revoir were made after he announced he is dismissing the mother's petition for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Revoir's order of September 4, 2014 and arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci of September 5, 2014, were, in my legal opinion, made in clear absence of all jurisdiction and may subject Judge Revoir to a federal civil rights lawsuit for money damages.

Judge Revoir recused without any apology for his abusive and insulting behavior in the courtroom.

Did Judge Revoir know about criminal proceedings commenced against vocal critics of the judge based on the judge's illegal orders?  News in the court system travel really fast, and it is up to the Judicial Conduct Commission to verify whether Judge Revoir did or did not have such knowledge.

I wonder whether Judge Revoir recused the way he did, without vacating his illegal orders described here, so that criminal proceedings against people who criticized him and dared to complain about him, should go on - whether proceedings are based on illegal orders or not.

Is this a message sent by the local judiciary - if anybody hires me, that person suffers? Or, if anybody criticizes or complains against a judge, that person suffers - along with her relatives, her children and her pets?

Because if this is the message, it is the wrong message to make, and that is exactly why I filed the third complaint against Judge Revoir.

No comments:

Post a Comment