"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 12, 2015

Retired Judge Sirkin was sued for holding a hearing in the absence of a criminal defendant and not preserving proper record of the criminal proceedings

I wrote today in the blog about a retired judge acting as referee in my attorney disciplinary case who has flaunted the court order ordering him to conduct a fact-finding hearing and report of findings of fact to the court, Appellate Division 4th Department.

Referee Sirkin also hired a stenographer who misrepresented in the previous transcript that the transcript was of a "hearing" instead of a pre-hearing scheduling conference where Referee Sirkin stayed the hearing until resolution of my motion with the Appellate Division.  The stenographer also misrepresented that the prosecution and I allegedly made stipulations as to evidence submitted during the hearing, which never occurred.  I pointed that out to the court on a motion, the court denied my motion to disqualify Sirkin without an explanation, allowing Sirkin to continue to serve as a referee.

On December 8, 2014 the court issued a new scheduling order specifically telling Sirkin what his duties were - to hear and report the factual findings back to the court.

Instead, Referee Sirkin usurped the court's authority to decide motions and, without holding any hearings whatsoever, granted the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment, which the prosecution, knowing that what referee Sirkin is doing is completely unlawful, gleefully accepted the bounty.

I looked up on the Internet whether Referee Sirkin was involved in misconduct as a judge.

I did not have to go very far.

Of course, everything was affirmed on appeal and dismissed "without prejudice" by the federal court, but Steven R. Sirkin was sued by a criminal defendant in federal court in 2010 for misconduct pertaining to not affording a litigant a hearing and not preserving the record of proceedings properly.

In People v. Walker (a criminal proceedings) the criminal defendant claimed that Judge Sirkin held a Sandoval hearing without the presence of the defendant, a reversable error and an error that should take the judge off the bench, and that the court reporter did not reflect presence or absence of the defendant at such a hearing - which was Sirkin's duty as a judge to make sure that the record reflected.

The conviction was affirmed on appeal, after a de novo review by the 4th Department - but with a very strong dissent.

Here is what the indigent defendant says about his absence from the Sandoval hearing in his federal civil rights lawsuit against Sirkin in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York filed in 2010 (a public record that I obtained from

The federal court protected Sirkin from embarrassment by dismissing the lawsuit "for failure to exhaust state remedies", after granting the petitioner a poor person status:

Sirkin was never disciplined for his shenanigans in People v. Walker and was assigned to my attorney disciplinary proceedings, apparently as a "referee of choice".

I wonder (a rhethorical question, of course), why I am so "blessed" with crooked judges presiding over my cases?

Judge James Tormey, the only judge in the history of New York State sued by an employee for retaliation for refusal to engage, at the judge's request, in a political espionage against a fellow judge, presides over all proceedings where judges are involved.

Now Sirkin, another crooked (retired) judge who stubbornly would not follow the court order of appointment while presiding over a disciplinary proceedings over an attorney where Charge IV (fraudulently) claims that the attorney did not obey a court order.

Carl Becker who engages in ex parte communications left and right, conceals his disqualifying and non-discoverable conflicts of interest, sanctions an attorney for making FOIL requests of public records the judge files with the NYS Court Administration, assigns himself to all actions by the attorney who complained about him and sued him, sanctions that attorney after she sued him and turns her into the appellate division for "discipline", or rather, to be the tool of his private vengeance, under the guise of "protecting the public".

Appellate Division 3rd Department which ignores portions of the record in order to affirm Becker's sanctions against me, engages in ex parte communications with the disciplinary prosecution, refuses to give me access to the prosecution's "application" to the court for an ex parte order of transfer, refuses to recuse from any other cases and invents extra rules for me to filibuster my pending appeals.

Appellate Division 4th Department which refuses to give me reasoned decisions on my motions raising constitutional challenges, imposes anti-filing injunctions upon me for making such motions, without a notice or opportunity to be heard, appoints a crooked, disqualified and incompetent referee Sirkin to preside over my proceedings, while knowing his propensity to not allow people to have proper hearings - or proper record of hearings.

Moreover, Appellate Division 4th outdid all other courts by refusing to provide me a public hearing (which was my due process right) in a highly politically-sensitive case involving claims on my behalf of misconduct of multiple judges, as soon as I mentioned that I want public access and access by the media to my records and to my proceedings.

I think by refusing to provide me with a public hearing, New York State judicial system announced loud and clear why I am prosecuted - because I criticized the judiciary, and exposing judicial misconduct in New York is an ultimate taboo and blasphemy, punishable by loss of livelihood.

I am now convinced I need to turn the crew that engaged in prosecuting me, including Sirkin, into the federal investigation of corruption in New York.

No comments:

Post a Comment