Barry Cozier cannot be cozier than that

When a judge retires from the bench, he descends from his beyond-the-clowd Olympus and re-enters the crowd of us, the mere mortals.  Right?  Wrong.

The retired judge Carl F. Becker continues to drive around in a vehicle with a "judge" license plates, to claim the parking privileges or a court employee and, likely, to have access to the courthouse from behind, without the necessity of passing through metal detectors.

Two more retired judges Barry Cozier and Peter Skelos (both retired from the New York State Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department) were presiding over the New York City "public" hearing of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline.

The transcript reflects that both of these former judges who now work in an active law practice and ARE NOT judges, are called "Honorable" and, throughout the transcript, are called "Judge Cozier" and "Judge Skelos".

Moreover, private attorney Barry Cozier arrogantly and publicly calls himself "Judge Cozier of the Commission", which is a clear misrepresentation to the public of his status as a retired, former judge.

And, private attorney Barry Cozier no less arrogantly calls private attorney Peter Skelos "Judge Skelos", for another misrepresentation, and private attorney Peter Skelos does not object and does not correct Barry Cozier in his misrepresentation.

And, there is no point trying to hold these two private attorneys accountable for their misrepresentations to the public because - guess what - they are insulated by their status of former appellate judges (after all, do you seriously believe that their own former court that they have recently left will discipline them?).

So, these two private attorneys can claim their lifelong status of nobility, of being "Honorable" and publicly calling themselves "Judge" while they are no longer judges - and adding their participation in the Commission to their online advertising as private attorneys, in order to drum up business.

See Cozier's advertising his position on the Commission - and his position as being a member of the "Judicial Screening Committee for the First Department", so when you are talking of corrupt judiciary, he is the one picking them for the bench.

See the bottom of the webpage where Cozier advertised his participation on the Commission where he clearly says that what is on the page is attorney advertising.

By the way, when a disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini recently tried to present to the 4th Department an argument in my case that "Judge Sirkin" made a report to the court (while referee Sirkin was a retired judge and "made a decision" instead of holding a hearing - which he, not being an appellate judge, had no right to make,  but that's exactly what Mary Gasparini was trying to obscure), the 4th Department actually corrected her (at least, they heard some of what I repeatedly stated in my pleadings - that Sirkin is not a judge and should not be allowed to act like one and make decisions like one):

Yet, there is still no consistency in positioning retired judges.

The 4th Department thinks that "perhaps" "we should be referring to Judge Sirkin as Referee Sirkin since he is no longer a sitting judge", an interesting language twisting for people who know exactly what they are saying - the court is not saying "Referee Sirkin is not a judge, and let's not call him a judge".  No, the court says "we should be referring to JUDGE Srikin as Referee Sirkin", so Sirkin, for the "court" is still a judge.

And so are private attorneys Skelos and Cozier for Chief Judge Lippman, because three official transcripts published on the site of the New York State Court Administration call them judges.

Barry Cozier who called himself "Judge Cozier" in the public hearing in NYC, is not a judge since 2006 when he retired - that is for 9 years - and changed two law firms since then, according to his biography on the site of his law firm right now.

Yet, for 9 years he continues to call himself a judge?  And advertise his position as a judge so that he gets more business?

And frown on people, like he did at anybody who would say anything that he did not like at the public hearing?

And have a bulky male court attendant descend upon a middle-aged petite woman simply because what she was saying was pointing out that Barry Cozier, at the time when he was an appellate judge, contributed to the mess that he is pretending to deal with now?

Only it is not a good way to deal with the mess and do the fact-finding by refusing to look at evidence offered.

And it is not a good way to deal with that mess when Cozier's wore his heart on his sleeve expressing on his face displeasure with any criticism toward the legal profession and the judiciary that was pronounced at the hearing (I've seen videos that people made on their phones and posted on Youtube).

And it is not a good way to deal with a public hearing when Cozier shut up the last witness, Elena Sassower, did not allow her to speak, quickly wrapped up the hearing and fled.

Because, after all, Barry Cozier was not at the hearing to help the legal consumers.  He does not identify with low-income people whose rights are screwed by the courts and by legal elite.

His clients are not whose rights are violated.

He himself belongs to the legal elite and belonged earlier to the judiciary who ARE the problem. 

So, he put his participation in the Commission into his advertising, came to the public hearings, shut down all criticism and fled.

I will hold my breath to see his recommendations to Lippman.  But I am sure Cozier will try to make sure no changes in his own status quo and status quo of people like him will occur.