I have written on this blog about attorney Jonathan Follender (who is at the same time a judge in the Town of Denning court in Ulster County) who is the author of the following arguments (for which he never was sanctioned by any court):
- loss of consortium of a dog, a non-existing cause of action in New York (compare what "loss of consortium" is);
- death of a corporation (Mr. Follender filed a motion for substitution of the wife of his client due to his client's death in a case where his client was a corporation - and the presiding judge Eugene Peckham of Binghamton, now retired and partner to Levine, Gouldin and Thomson LLP, reviewed and granted the motion!);
- frivolous default (a non-appearance in a civil action may never be considered as frivolous conduct);
- frivolous deprivation of the court of SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction through "untimely" satisfaction of money judgment - after the same Mr. Follender had me sanctioned in a related case for delaying satisfaction of the same money judgment.
So, Mr. Follender, at the time of making these arguments, fully realized that he was making them to the court that has lost jurisdiction.
Yet, that did not prevent either Mr. Follender to proceed before the court that has lost jurisdiction, nor Judge Becker from presiding over the case where he lost jurisdiction and making decisions in that case.
Several days ago I received yet another masterpiece from Mr. Follender that got me worried as to his fitness as a judge, so here is what he claimed against me after I finally sued him for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court for falsely running his mouth against me in a case where I never appeared as an attorney of record.
Mr. Follender claimed that:
(1) my constitutional rights are actually "constitutional" rights, in quotes;
(2) I must be punished for criticizing the judiciary for well documented misconduct for making "unsubstantiated claim of misconduct" in violation of attorney rules.
Apparently, Jonathan Follender, as attorney and judge, is not aware of the federal pre-emption doctrine under which federal law trumps inconsistent state law on issues of the U.S. Constitution, and where my statements were within the core political speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
Jonathan Follender asked to punish me for criticizing judges by
(2) paying his legal fees and
(3) imposing on me an anti-filing injunction for trying to prove to the court that Judge Tormey punished me illegally and unconstitutionally without reviewing the record and while treating as one two different underlying court cases, one where I was an attorney of record and the other where I wasn't and where Mr. Follender defamed me.
Mr. Follender asked the court to punish me for untimely filing of the record while I came to the court on my deadline bringing BOXES of that record and faced closed doors because the court chose to close its doors due to election day, even though it was not a national holiday.
I brought that same record the next day, which was accepted by the court - yet Mr. Follender had the audacity that I filed untimely and "failed to explain the reason for delay". Apparently, the court's actions in closing its doors on my deadline while I made a nearly 200 mile roundtrip with huge boxes of the Record on Appeal is not good reason enough for Mr. Follender.
Mr. Follender asked the court to sanction me for stating an opinion that Judge Tormey should have been taken off the bench long time ago due to his misconduct resulting in lawsuit after lawsuit by female court employees that New York taxpayers have to pay for, and that had Karen Peters, the presiding judge of the 3rd Department who was a member of the Judicial Conduct Commission for years, did her job on that Commission, Judge Tormey would have been taken off the bench and disbarred by now.
Mr. Follender asked the court to sanction me for my opinion that Judge Tormey has a tendency of discrimnating against women, while my opinion was well documented and expressed based on the two lawsuit prosecuted against Judge Tormey by two different females, a court clerk and a court interpreter, for similar discriminating conduct, as well as for his course of conduct against me showing Judge Tormey as a spiteful male who cannot allow a female to challenge his misconduct without abusing his power and sanctioning that female, no matter how lawful her challenge is.
Mr. Follender made a very interesting statement in his pleadings - that I plead as if "I have nothing to lose".
Apparently, to Mr. Follender, reporting of judicial misconduct, a duty foof attorneys as officers of the court and a right of attorneys as citizens participating in democratic processes of their country, can be done only when an attorney "has nothing to lose".
All in all, this is an attorney who is also a judge who things that:
- asserting constitutional rights is frivolous;
- criticizing judges is sanctionable per se, constitutional standards of 1st Amendment do not apply to such criticism despite clear language of constitutional provisions and a long string of cases on that subject by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that no amount of documentary evidence may prevent sanctions for criticism of judges.
And that attorneys with that level of incompetence are allowed to be judges is downright scary.