"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.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct approves anti-semitic conduct of Judge Kevin Dowd

I received in the mail a letter from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct where I am informed that "upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline" pertaining to my complaints dated March 23, 2015 and April 1, 2015.

Those two complaints were both against Judge Kevin Dowd (the judge who has, after the complaints were filed, held an ex parte trial despite my illness and is now trying to punish me for not appearing at the trial while being injured, ill and on a legitimate medical leave, diagnosed by my primary physician after an in-person evaluation).

The interesting detail is that the dismissal after "careful consideration" occurred the very next day after I filed a new complaint against Judge Dowd, where I documented his continued retaliation against me AND my client and husband Fred Neroni, by holding an ex parte trial against my husband, blocking my access to trial exhibits, and, at this time, attempting to punish me for being sick and not appearing at the trial because I was injured and had a legitimate medical leave from work, issued by my primary physician after in-person evaluation and diagnosis (Dowd never saw me when he rejected that diagnosis).

Appears that the "careful consideration" by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is just words to justify shredding legitimate complaints regarding judicial misconduct.

And that is why I am making these complaints public.

This is the letter of dismissal in full.

Please, note that the only identifying information is the file numbers.

My records show that I filed on those dates complaints against Judge Kevin Dowd.  I make a point of making such complaints only by e-mail, so that there is a record of the filing that the NYS Commission cannot deny, as it can deny ever receiving complaints by mail or fax.

By the way, an investigator from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct who recently called me to investigate a complaint against Judge Alta Martin (ex parte communication, incompetence), indicated to me that her supervisor prefers her to communicate and receive communications by fax, which, to me, is a problem.  Fax transmissions are unreliable and do not show, as the e-mail does, what exactly was transmitted.  Maybe, that is the reason why the investigator's supervisor "prefers" fax transmissions to e-mail communication?

What was interesting about the phone call by the Commission's investigator was that it was the first and only so far attempt by the Commission to talk to me, and talk to me in a case where I was not even a witness to misconduct, but misconduct was reported to me.  Upon my conversation with the actual witnesses to misconduct, none of them were contacted, even though their contact information is in no way a secret.  Moreover, the "investigated" judge is a village justice.  Statistics of judicial discipline in the State of New York shows that local town/village justices are at least sometimes disciplined, while judges of county and supreme court - and especially of the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals - are never disciplined at all.

Once again, I reported judicial misconduct since 2009, as is my duty as an attorney.  I was the witness in the overwhelming majority of the cases I reported.  At NO time did the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct try to talk to me as a witness to the proceedings or to Mr. Shtrauch as the witness to the other proceeding that was the subject of the March 23, 2015 complaint, before it dismissed all of those complaints "upon careful consideration" - that is the template for shredding the complaints.

Yet, back to the rubber-stamped dismissal "upon careful consideration" dated June 30, 2015 pertaining to my complaint dated March 23, 2015 which I provide below:

Apparently, if the NYS Commission considers retaliation against a pro se indigent litigant, a Jewish immigrant and a foreign national, a person for whom English is not a native language, and retaliation with the help of a known Nazi sympathizer, "insufficient indication" of judicial discipline, first, it sends an undeniable message to all litigants that (1) anti-semitism is endorsed by the State of New York in the court system as the rule of operation, and that (2)

Why I believe that Judge Dowd knew that the armed officer Judge Dowd used to hover behind the back of a pro se litigant who dared to file a motion to recuse in the judge's chambers, search that person's belongings right in the chambers and, after recusal of the judge, to oust the person from the courthouse, was a Nazi sympathizer?

Here is the letter from Judge Robert Mulvey dated October 7, 2014 in response to the pro se litigant's complaint describing the incident with the Nazi sympathizer and asking to investigate:

Dowd put the Nazi sympathizer that he was supposed to investigate as the court administrator, armed, behind his victim's back on November 25, 2014, nearly 2 months after the date of the letter.

Whatever the "investigation" was, Mr. Shtrauch, the witness to the court officer/Nazi sympathizer's behavior, was never interviewed by Judge Dowd as the court administrator.  So, instead of doing his duty as the court adminsitrator, Judge Dowd used his position as the administrator to receive information regarding Mr. Shtrauch's being a victim of a certain court officer's anti-semitic behavior and used that specific court officer to  hurt Mr. Shtrauch even more.

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, by stating that such behavior is "insufficient" to constitute judicial misconduct, endorsed and approved that conduct and allowed it to proceed, repeat itself and multiply in New  York courts.

We'll see what the federal jury will say about the same behavior, since Judge Dowd's conduct is also a part of a pending federal lawsuit, possibly, yet another reason of why Judge Dowd so viciously is trying to hurt me and my husband, and why NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is trying to white-wash Judge Dowd.

It will be interesting, to say the least, if the federal jury in Shtrauch v Dowd finds that Judge Dowd engaged in unconstitutional conduct and in discrimination against a Jewish pro se indigent litigant while NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, "upon careful consideration" no less, found that "there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline".

That was my complaint of March 23, 2015.

My complaint of April 1, 2015 is fully provided here, it is about the Mokay case and Judge Dowd's shenanigans in that case.

Based on dismissal of April 1, 2015 complaint, it is now legitimate in New York for a judge:

1) to preside as a judge over a trial where the judge, his secretary and law clerk are subpoenaed hostile witnesses for a party;

2) delegate judicial duties to a law clerk;

3) allow law clerk to rule while on a vacation (that information was revealed after the trial ,that Judge Dowd was outside of the state of New York on a vacation in Virginia from March 27, 2015 to April 6, 2015 and his law clerk ruled in his stead);

4) to accept filings of motions directly into his chambers bypassing the County Clerk's office.  I do not suggest to try repeating that, since the normal procedure is to file all pleadings with the County Clerk's office and, if you are not a privileged litigant, as the NYS Assistant Attorney General is (especially that NYS AG's office is representing Dowd in a currently pending federal litigation in his individual capacity - a disqualifying factor for the judge to preside over any case where NYS AG is a party, attorney or witness).

As I said before, multiple times, for Judge Dowd the rule of law is nothing, and his own whim and the whims of those who he favors is everything.

Of course, such a judge should not be on the bench.

And in New York, of course, his status of being a judge somehow puts him above the law and prevents discipline or any kind of accountability.

Yet, in its efforts to dismiss complaints agaisnt Judge Dowd, NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has hit the bottom in endorsing vindictive and anti-semitic behavior of this judge - and retaliation against an attorney who exposed that anti-semitic behavior and is prosecuting it in federal court.

Because now, due to dismissal of the complaint against Judge Dowd, New York courts have endorsed anti-semitism as their rule of operation.

Which is beyond disgraceful.

No comments:

Post a Comment