Lambert goes further and states that John Muehl has remaining two counts of "larcenies". In fact, they were grand larcenies.
And says that "they can certainly go through with that" - even while Lambert knows that a larceny is unsustainable against an insurance agent where the insurance company did not rescind the insurance contract under which the insurance agent drew his commission, did not return to policyholders their money and did not ask for Mr. Michaels' commission back.
So, there was no basis to charge Mr. Michaels for larceny or grand larceny.
- he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of saying an "untruth" to the court, setting him up for a new disciplinary violation;
- he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of "badgering the court", setting him for yet another new disciplinary violation;
- he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of incompetence, not making it clear what he wants in his motions - repeatedly.
The purpose is very clear - to intimidate Mr. Michaels and coerce him into a plea bargain, with a waiver of his right to appeal of the legal insufficiency of charges. It worked with so many other scared criminal defendants.
Luckily for Mr. Michaels, he had the courage to proceed to trial, and his attorney Mr. Kindlon had the skills to handle the case in such a way that he made a record upon which a reversal became possible.
Then, Lambert denies Kindlon's request and orders the worthless case to proceed to trial.
What happened next is the trial, the conviction, the sentencing, sending Mr. Michaels to jail, denial of bail, obtaining bail pending appeal from the appellate court - and reversal on the law, with dismissal of the indictment.
In a case where criminal charges
(1) should never have been brought by John Muehl;
(2) should have been tossed by Lambert before trial.
This case is a case study in prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and "how to obtain a wrongful conviction" - as well as "how to intimidate and humiliate a criminal defense attorney", or, as judges, police and prosecutors call criminal defense counsel - "those big-mouth attorneys".
Yet, Kindlon fought for his client against all odds - and in the long run he was right, and he won.
Mr. Michaels was lucky to have Kindlon.
Mr. Michaels was lucky that the Appellate Division was not asleep at the wheel this time, as it usually does, and that the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, even though not exactly on the same (and on the most easy) grounds upon which it could have been dismissed."
The problem remains that - Mr. Michaels cannot return time, effort, health, reputation, money lost in defense against these worthless claims.
The jurors cannot return time spent during that trial and inconvenience and expense it cost them.
The county and its taxpayers cannot redeem money unnecessarily wasted upon this trial and on the work of the appellate court - wasted from the point of view that those proceedings did not have to become needed, and to utilize human and other resources of two courts, had Lambert done his job and tossed the case from the very beginning.
And the main problem remains that both Lambert and Muehl still retain their position and will likely continue on their merry way, engaging in the same misconduct in other cases.
After all, not all people have the money for a private attorney of the caliber of Mr. Kindlon to fight for them like Mr. Kindlon did for Norman Michaels.
And not all convicted criminal defendants have good attorneys on appeal.
And even with good attorneys on both levels, the appellate court does not always do its job and listens, because over 95% of criminal convictions are affirmed on appeal - as a matter of an unwritten policy.
And Lambert and Muehl are shamelessly using people's lack of resources to drum up wrongful convictions.
As Lambert and his court attorney Mark Oursler tell people complaining of Lambert's errors:
Move up (appeal) or move on (suck it up).
No, Judge Lambert.
You were elected to actually do your job, not shift it to the appellate court in the hope that they will be asleep at the wheel and rubber-stamp your decisions.
You were actually elected to faithfully enforce the law.
And if you do not want to do it, maybe, it is not the right job for you?