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.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
How can a judge with an ethnic bias and elementary lack of diligence, such as demonstrated by Rita Connerton, remain on the bench in Family Court?
Instead of Judge Revoir, they assigned Judge Connerton to the case, where my motion to vacate retaliative sanctions of Judge Becker against me and against my then client is pending since April 18, 2014.
Judge Rita Connerton is listed as a "Supervising Family Court judge" on the Broome County Family Court's website.
Now Judge Connerton wants to simply rely on the oral argument before a recused judge where the recused Judge Revoir, as I wrote before, abused, insulted and berated me, not to mention that reliance of a subsequent judge upon any proceedings before a recused judge is not allowed in court proceedings in New York.
Moreover, according to a witness, Judge Connerton made a statement behind my back in front of my opponent that she allegedly has a headache just thinking about reviewing my "500-page motion".
Obviously, instead, she intends to review an oral argument before a recused judge, that is easier than to actually do her job that I as a taxpayer pay her for.
When Judge Connerton was assigned to the case prior to October 2, 2014, she did not schedule a new oral argument on the motion, even though she came from Binghamton, NY to Delhi, NY to hear other outstanding petitions on the same case.
Since I withdrew from representation of my client in that case, thanks to abuse of Judge Revoir, I was not present on October 2, 2014 before Judge Connerton.
According to a witness, Judge Connerton made statements about my motion, behind my back that she allegedly has a headache even thinking about reviewing my "500-page motion".
The statement, according to the witness, was made in open court before parties and counsel in the proceedings, including my opponent on the motion.
On October 3, 2014 I asked the court to provide me with a copy of an audio recording of such an obvious ex parte communication with parties and counsel behind my back and a show of bias against me.
On October 17, 2014 I received from Judge Connerton's chambers by e-mail a letter dated October 16, 2014 where Judge Connerton indicated to me that she "only discussed scheduling" on October 2, 2014, that she believes the motion was only "my" motion, that she does not believe that an oral argument is "necessary", and that she is going to order a CD of my oral argument before the recused Judge Revoir in order to make a decision on the motion.
I have an interesting history with Judge Connerton.
In 2010 Judge Connerton has made a negative inference in a Family Court proceeding against me based on my alleged "furrowed brow", "pressured speech" and that my alleged "manner at times was contemptuous of authority" (not authority of the court - simply "authority").
The opponent in the case was a governmental body, and I was raising issues of misconduct of that governmental body and its officers and employees based on documentary evidence.
Therefore, I understood the "contempt to authority" statement was meant by Judge Connerton as berating my arguments pertaining to documented misconduct of a governmental body, any governmental body. That was a clear bias in favor of a party who was a governmental body. That party was simply another party in a court proceeding, and Judge Connerton was supposed to be impartial and even-handed to both of parties, the one represented by me and the one which was a governmetal body.
Instead, Judge Connerton expected and required from me a special deference to my opponent, even in view of his and his client's well-documented misconduct.
The negative inference for my alleged "furrowed brow" is another interesting statement from a judge.
I am a middle-aged woman with three children, my oldest child is already out of college and graduate school. Naturally, my appearance might not be that of an 18-year old. I was absolutely floored when a FEMALE judge was making a negative inference about a middle-aged FEMALE attorney's "furrowed brow".
Judge Connerton did not like my age? She did not like that I am not 18? Why? Is there somehow an age limit now for female attorneys to appear in court at all and before Judge Connerton specifically?
To this judge, obviously, appearance of age on a female attorney bears against the attorney's arguments in the courtroom, which is simply beyond belief for the judge who is the Chief Family Court judge of a large judicial district.
Drawing negative inference from "furrowed brow" and "pressured speech" of an attorney who very obviously speaks with a Russian accent clearly raises all kinds of red flags that the judge simply does not like Russians.
It must be obvious for a judge that a person for whom English is not a native language may speak the language differently from a native-speaker, and that pertains not only to the accent, but also to the speech tempo and facial expressions ("furrowed brow").
Moreover, many attorneys "furrow" their brows when under stress in a trial and are making argument to the court within a very limited time that the court gives them, and the inferences were made by Judge Connerton against me specifically for my speech during a trial.
For a judge of this rank, it is completely unconscionable to make ethnic-base negative inferences against parties or counsel.
As to Judge Connerton's behavior on October 2, 2014 and afterwards, there was no good reason for her not to give me an opportunity for an oral argument at that point or afterwards, there was no reason for her to talk behind my back to my opponents about her feelings regarding the prospects of reviewing a large motion with a lot of documentary exhibits.
The situation becomes especially bizarre because one of the exhibits before Judge Connerton on the motion was a recording of my opponent where he does not allow my client to speak when she calls to speak to her child, and instead berates her, berates her mother and berates me as a "crazy Russian attorney" in a 15-minute diatribe.
Apparently, Judge Connerton, with her notion that she can draw inferences against a foreign-born middle-aged female attorney based on her allegedly "furrowed brow" and "pressured speech" in a trial, her ethnic bias against me may coincide with ethnic bias of my opponent who hinted to the Albany County Family Court previously that I allegedly am seeking "sensitive military information" through discovery.
The "sensitive military information" was information about his income. Apparently, for my opponent, who has spent years in the military, somehow a naturalized Russian American is still a Russian spy.
I do not believe this concept is taught to military personnel in the U.S. military, as the U.S. military may not teach bias to its own citizens, no matter what is their native country, and I have been a citizen since 2009.
For Judge Connerton, a middle-aged foreign-born attorney speaking with a Russian accent must not "furrow" her brow, must not speak hurriedly, even when hurried by Judge Connerton herself, and must respect any and all "authority" under any circumstances, even when the alleged "authority" is an opponent in litigation committing documented misconduct.
My question to the public is - how judges with such temperaments and viewpoints get elected? How come they remain on the bench for so long? Shouldn't something be done to eliminate people with such obvious biases and temperament flaws from getting to the bench and remaining there?
And, shouldn't the Chief Administrative Judge Robert Mulvey of the 6th Judicial District of the State of New York finally take notice as to the lack of competence, diligence, temperament flaws and ethnic biases in a judge that occupies such a prominent administrative position in the District?
Or - does Judge Mulvey rely upon absolute judicial immunity for even malicious and corrupt acts on the bench in keeping on the bench and assigning to cases a judge who should not be allowed even close to the courtroom and handling people's destinies?