"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.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Judge Kevin Dowd strikes back for today's blogs and attempts to punish a female immigrant attorney for being on a legitimate medical leave

Today I started to publish my analysis of the trial transcript of the ex parte and secret Mokay trial.

I published two blog posts early in the morning pointing out incompetence and bias of Judge Kevin Dowd which was clear from the record of the transcript.

One thing that a litigant and a litigant's attorney can count on regarding Judge Dowd is his consistency in striking out in revenge against those who he does not like.

I already blogged about outrageous behavior of Judge Dowd pertaining to a pro se litigant in a divorce action where Judge Dowd, even judging by the transcript created by a stenographer who was Judge Dowd's law clerk's Facebook friend, was outrageous.

Here, Judge Dowd struck against me in a lightning-speed strike.

It took Judge Dowd from April 7, 2015 to June 18, 2015 to send me a decision in the Mokay trial - of course, it was dated June 12, 2015, but I wonder what made the judge sign the order on Friday, June 12th and then wait to deliver it to me by e-mail no less until the next Thursday, June 18, 2015.  Looks more like a backdated decision to me, especially that it was accompanied by a decision dated today requiring me to "show cause" why I should not be punished for not appearing at trial - while the court had from me a file medical excuse from work, filed the day prior with the court.

The beauty of the situation is that as of June 12, 2015 when the court has rendered a FINAL decision on damages, without rendering any decision on sanctions, the court has lost subject jurisdiction over proceedings, if it ever had it and if the ex parte trial is to be considered legitimate, and Judge Dowd's knee-jerk reaction to my blogs of June 18, 2015 was completely illegal.

The judge simply did not have any further jurisdiction after he decided the case allegedly on June 12, 2015. 

There are two phases in each civil litigation - liability stage and damages stage.

Once both stages are resolved, and resolved without any decisions on sanctions, the court lacks authority to proceed in the case.

Judge Dowd made a decision on damages - which were in their entirety attorney fees of the conflicted law offices of Richard Harlem (whose client, since the trial date, already filed with another court a sworn affidavit that undermined the entire testimony at trial on April 7, 2015).  That decision, by law, has to be final.

Yet, Judge Dowd apparently thinks that his jurisdiction over a civil case - when he wants it to continue - is practically permanent and never-ending.

Apparently, Judge Dowd's law clerk Claudette Newman did teach Judge Dowd well on the law.

And just think about it - Judge Dowd decided that he needs to issue an additional decision, 6 days after the date of the final decision on damages where no sanctions were mentioned, and "coincidentally" on the date when I published several blogs criticizing his incompetence in this particular litigation.  And Judge Dowd now wants punish me because I:

(1) was injured;
(2) was diagnosed by a doctor as injured - of which there was NOTHING in the decision of Judge Dowd (a subpoenaed witness in the case);
(3) notified the court one day prior that I was injured, have a medical excuse from work and will not be able to appear.

Judge Dowd is now attempting to punish me - for what? - because I did not humiliate myself by CRAWLING into the courthouse writhing in pain from my wrenched back?  I do not think Judge Dowd's power of a judge stretches that far.

Yet, Judge Dowd's June 18, 2015 decision which I provide here in full demonstrates me that Judge Dowd lacks elementary decency as a human being, man, attorney and judge and that if anybody is unworthy of his robe, it is Judge Dowd.

His decision retaliating against me for raising issues of his misconduct in blogs is indecent and dishonorable.

I wonder if the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct will be able to stomach this behavior of a judge as proper and "within judicial discretion".

Not to mention that I represent a plaintiff suing Judge Dowd in federal court in his individual capacity for money damages, for behavior AFTER he recused from a case, which means that the judge is not covered by judicial immunity in those actions.

By the way, I've read in the transcript of the ex parte Mokay trial that Judge Dowd was on a vacation up until the day of the trial - and I filed today, by e-mail a FOIL request about Judge Dowd's vacation schedule from September 1, 2012 to present date.  I wonder what I will find there that upset Judge Dowd so much.

I posted today's blogs about Judge Dowd sometime around 7 am my time, and FOILed the NYS Court Administration at 10:38 am.

The decision was sent to me by Brenda Beckwith, secretary to Judge Dowd (and also a subpoenaed witness at the trial that Judge Dowd refused to adjourn despite my documented illness) at 2:37 pm today, about 4 hours after I FOILed the NYS Court Administration for Judge Dowd's vacation schedule.

Looks pretty much like retaliation to me.

Here is the decision of Judge Dowd demanding me to answer him why he should not sanction me for not appearing at trial while he knew I was sick and had a medical release from my doctor (which was filed with the court the day prior to trial):

One thing is undeniable - Judge Kevin Dowd is consistently vindictive against those who criticize him, I will give him that.

But, same as Judge Carl F. Becker, a judge of legendary temper tantrums, rudeness, challenged ethics (an understatement of the century) and with a legendary record of misconduct and reversals which no authorities in the State of New York wanted to properly address, had to finally "retire" (see here and here) for unknown real reasons many years before the end of his term, even with mandatory retirement, Judge Dowd may not be as invincible as he thinks he is.

The future will show, won't it?


  1. Now you have the incompetence of Frank Revoir sitting in his place

    1. Yep. Revoir is Dowd's former law clerk and student. Revoir actually told me in a Family court proceeding that making constitutional arguments = "lying to the court". I complained about Revoir to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct for that, they refused to even investigate. Thus, making constitutional arguments in Family Court on behalf of parents in New York = lying to the court, and lying to the court is subject to sanctions. Revoir's intellectual star is as bright as Dowd's.