In my earlier blog, I indicated that the referee in my disciplinary case, the retired Wayne County judge Stephen R. Sirkin, has amended the New York State Constitution by "deciding" (I put it in quotes because it was unlawful, but Sirkin named his Decision without any quotes), again, by "deciding" a motion on liability in my disciplinary case instead of the required 4 appellate justices for quorum and 3 appellate justices for concurrence.
Of course, Sirkin was not authorized by law, New York State Constitution or court order of appointment to decide any motions, but such trifles as restrictions of the law never deterred judges, retired judges, referees and hearing officers covered by absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts during performance of their judicial or quasi-judicial duties.
Really, will you be deterred from doing anything if you know that nobody can do anything to you or against you if you do what you are not supposed to, but what you still can do with impunity?
But once again, my previous story on this blog was that Sirkin has amended the New York State Constitution.
I was wrong.
Sirkin has amended actually a lot more than New York State Constiution, Article VI paragraph 4 subsection b. He also amended CPLR 5524(a) and 22 NYCRR 1000.17(a). The more the merrier, I guess. From my personal impression of Sirkin, he is so old and frail and has such memory, perception and concentration problems that he would readily rubber stamp anything that is put in front of him, as long as it is put in front of him by a member of the government.
Yet, back to Sirkin's amendments.
This is the rule of the New York State Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department about entries of decisions made BY THE COURT on motions (not by retired county judges appointed as referees to hear and report facts in evidentiary hearings).
Well, at least the 4th Department recognized in the rule quoted above that it is "this Court" (and not Sirkin and referees like him) that must determine motions in "this Court" and not anybody else.
On that point, "this Court" is in agreement with the New York State Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 4 subsection b that provides:
"...In each appellate division, four justices shall
constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of three
shall be necessary to a decision... "
Yet, "this Court" has loosened the constitutional requirement by delegating the non-delegable duty to make appellate court decisions, whether on appeals or on motions, to the clerk of the court. Of course, the rule "only" says that the court orders the clerk to "draft" "this Court"'s decisions.
Yet, you know, ladies and gentlemen, as well as I do, that where the clerk of the court - who was never elected as an appellate judge - is given permission by the court to "draft" decisions, the clerk simply makes them, signs them, and judges who are located in their own chambers far away from where the clerk is located, can do whatever they are doing there while they have delegated all that they are supposed to do to their non-judicial personnel.
Judges of the Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department are simply too busy to be bothered to do their job, as it appears from the decisions that the clerk of "this Court" has drafted, or, rather, crafted, in my case - decisions providing no explanation, no legal authorities and punishing me for requesting an explanation for the court's decisions on issues pertaining to my ability to earn a living for myself and for my family and minor child, in accordance with constitutional guarantees of due process of law.
Of course, the word combination "due process of law" has become nowadays a swear-word in the courtroom inviting sanctions for frivolous conduct from judges who took the bench by swearing to uphold the due process of law, so no surprises there.
But let's go back to Rule 22 NYCRR 1000.17(a).
The rule actually relied on New York CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) Section 5524(a) which says absolutely nothing about the right of retired county judges to craft, draft or make decisions for and instead of appellate judges.
So, by crafting, drafting and making such a decision on an appellate motion that was never made in front of him, Sirkin not only amended the New York State Constitution in how decisions are made in the Appellate Division 4th Department, but also amended CPLR 5524(a) requiring the Clerk of the court to enter the decisions of the appellate division on motions and appeals, and amended the requirements of the Appellate Division, 22 NYCRR 1000.17(a) that the clerk of the court should actually draft such decisions.
Halleluja, when people bend over one another trying to outdo each other in violating my rights and please somebody up above who wants my license taken, by law or by ... claw?, sometimes they get confused as to who and how should violate my rights better, faster and more effectively.
Hey, guys (and gals, no gender discrimination here) who have being clawing me for 6 years and are preparing to claw me more! The end of the line of those who want my blood drawn is right there, disappearing around the corner. Hope you do not collapse waiting in line. Or rather, I hope you will.