"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.

Monday, January 5, 2015

A second complaint has been filed against Judge Mary Work of Ulster County Surrogate's Court, for retaliation and harassment after the 1st complaint filed September 4, 2014

On December 30, 2014 I withdrew from two court cases in Ulster County where Judge Mary Work was and still is the presiding judge.

I did it on consent of my former client, by filing and serving notarized consents to change counsel in accordance with New York CPLR 321(b), as required by law.

No permission of the court is necessary when an attorney withdraws on consent of the client.  By operation of law I am no longer the attorney of record in those two cases from the moment my consents were filed with the court.  

Yet, today I received a phone call from Judge Work's clerk's office where Judge Work's employee, after acknowledging that I did file notarized consent to change attorney with Jduge Work's court, still claimed that Judge Work "did not relieve me" from the case, that there will be a conference about it,  that I need to accept a fax from the court about it or have the case read to me.

I indicated to Judge Work's employee that I am no longer attorney of record by operation of law, no matter what Judge Work says, pursuant to CPLR 321(b), and that I cannot appear in any further proceedings, as my client has relieved me.

Judge Work's employee continued to claim that Judge Work still issued some directives to me in a letter, which I, once again, refused to accept by fax or by having it read to me.

Judge Work must know the law, she is not a novice on the bench.  

She must know that a consent to change counsel filed with the court ends representation of an attorney, and the court has no power to bring a private attorney back in.  I was not assigned, I was retained, I was relieved, and that's the end of it.

My point is - why is Judge Work so desperate to have me, and not another attorney, or not my former client pro se, in this case, even after I left the case?

Combined with what Judge Work's said in the joint order of November 17, 2014 covering two proceedings which could not be merged or disclosed to one another's parties, I truly believe that Judge Work is retaliating against me and against my now former client for making the motions to recuse and especially for complaining against her to the Commission for Judicial Conduct.  

Since this appears to become a pattern in New York where New York judges engage in a course of retaliation if a motion to recuse is filed, no matter how well founded and supported the motion is, I felt it my obligation to file a 2nd complaint with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct about misconduct of Judge Work and requested to protect my now former client from Judge Work's retaliation.

By the way, this is not the first time when Judge Work manipulated with consents to change counsel specifically with me and this particular client.

In yet another court (the third court) Judge Work issued a decision ignoring my pleadings and claiming that I did not file a consent to change counsel to come into the case, while not only I filed and served such a consent, but I saw it in judge Work's Family Court's file, and the filing of that Consent to Change Counsel was the only reason why I was not only given access to the file, but was allowed into the back room in the Ulster County Family Court's office to make my own copies of the file.

It appears that Judge Work manipulates consents to change counsel, she ignores them when she does not want a certain attorney to be in a case or wants to ignore her pleadings, or, in my case, she wants to keep me in the case to keep retaliating against me and my former client, even though I left the case on my former client's consent.

1 comment:

  1. Judge Work took custody of my son against UCCJEA LAWS and said that me being served by way of entrapment and at 1 am was not enough of a reason to dismiss her custody suit againstme. Just read an FBI post about her ignoring a medicaid lean and giving money to the deceased family.