"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.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Election results for judicial candidate Christine Ryba should be voided because of false advertisement in her election campaign and fraud upon voters

Recently, the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline where the judicial nominee Christine Ryba is a member, issued a Final Report where there was no trace of the problem of selective enforcement (or, rather, non-enforcement) of attorney discipline against politically connected attorneys, and no trace of concern about corruption within the court system.

I already wrote about the reasons for such stark omissions - despite public testimony in the three "public" hearings about such corruption and selective non enforcement.

The reason is simple - because members of the Commission were those who actually participate in such corruption and selective non-enforcement.

Christine Ryba is a good example of unethical behavior that is occurring under the very nose of the Chief Judge of Appellate Division 3rd Department which disciplines, to the point of disbarment, civil rights attorneys, but allowed Christine Ryba to use court computers to pressure court employees to make contributions to her campaign.

I am not familiar with names of court clerks across the State of New York, so I will have to take some time and use this tip, comparing the names on Christine Ryba's financial filings with the New York State Board of Elections with available databases of court employees to see the matches.

I will report as to the matches on this blog.

Chrstine Ryba was also reported to have misrepresented her status in her election campaign - initially, before she was caught - as being already "of New York Supreme Court", instead of being a mere nominee for New York State Supreme Court.

Here are the "before" and "after" screenshots off of Christine Ryba's Facebook campaign page.

The 1,795 "likes" on the screen above are at least 1,795 defrauded potential voters - and this fraud is irreversible.

Christine Ryba also reported in her 30-second video clip that she "recommends and drafts" judicial decisions for the 3rd Department court.

Watch how confidently Ryba tells her voters that she, in fact, does what she has no authority to do ("recommend" decisions), that she, in fact, influences decisions of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, a court which for most litigants is the first and last appellate destination, because the NYS Court of Appeals is a court of extremely limited jurisdiction, and there is no right of appellate review "as of right" in the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention that every new appellate step, on top of its uncertainty, is prohibitively expensive.

If she could exert improper influence upon judges of the Appellate Division before her ascension to the bench, she will retain those connections after she takes the bench, and if she could not be deterred by attorney ethics from influencing judges before she came to the bench, for the sake of her career advancement, think what she can do to prevent reversal of her decisions when she comes to the bench.

In her video clip, in addition to boasting that she "recommends and drafts" decisions of Appellate Division 3rd Department, she claims superior trial experience.

Here is an anonymous comment from the blog featuring her unethical conduct in her election campaign, and they are anonymous for fear of retribution and for real fear of losing law licenses - and from the office that is the legal representative of the 3rd Department AND Cristine Ryba, the New York State Attorney General's office:

So, a colleague of hers who is fearing for his or her livelihood to show his or her name, does not have such a superior opinion of her alleged trial experience, and Ryba did not present a list of cases in her campaign where she would be the 1st chair, so the comment may very well be true.   

Here is another comment, from the same blog:

I think so, too.  If Ryba is behaving this way in her election campaign, just think what she will do on the bench.

And the naive me, an appellate attorney in that court, was hoping, same as my clients do, that it is the judges elected to the Supreme Court and then appointed by the New York State Governor to the Appellate Division that make the decision.

Now I will have to make motions to vacate all decisions made by that court as having been influenced by a non-judge - according to Christine Ryba's video confession to the voters.

Christine Ryba was also quite recently criticized in the press for violating rules of ethics for judicial candidates by not-so-subtly stating in her campaign that a judge of town court handling traffic tickets (which is not the only thing that a town justice do, where a town justice also handles felony arraignments, felony hearings and a full scope of misdemeanor procedure, from arraignment to jury trials - as well as a variety of civil cases) is not sufficiently qualified for the high position of a Supreme Court justice.

People wrote unnamed letters about Christine Ryba's solicitation of funds for her campaign from court employees through the use of court e-mails for fear of retribution from the "ethical" Ryba and her "benefactor" judge Karen Peters.

Here is the letter that was initially reported on this blog - also by an anonymous blogger.

Here is a screenshot from Ryba's Facebook campaign page I took today where Ryba is boasting of endorsements from two bar associations:  

  • Albany County - where the 3rd Department court is sitting and where Ryba is on the executive committee (thus disqualifying attorneys from that committee from appearing in the court through possibilities of ex parte communications); and
  • Ulster County - where Judge Peters' chambers are located (Kingston, NY, Ulster County).  Last year I wrote a blog about an incident that occurred in Ulster County Supreme Court where Supreme Court Judge Cahill's chambers were located on the same floor with Karen Peters' chambers, and I personally sat in the waiting room shared by the two judges in Kingston, NY, Ulster County.

Yet, Ryba lies on her Facebook page above that the endorsement from Ulster County Bar Association is "valuable" for her because there is allegedly no connection between the Ulster County Bar Association and Ryba - who is necessarily working for the judge she serves in that same Ulster County, where her judge's chambers are located.

And she lied not once, but twice, with an hour's interval, deliberately.

So, she is caught in one misrepresentation - and changes her post on Facebook, and immediately puts in another misrepresentation.

What kind of judge she is going to be if for her, the main thing is not to be caught?

And, her reprehensible (although, very likely, true) claim that she had the power to influence the appellate court by "recommending" and "drafting" the court's decisions means that it is Ryba who recommended suspension and disbarment of other attorneys for allegedly unethical behavior!  While considering herself untouchable because of her proximity to and influence upon the Chief Judge.

Reba already posted her "acceptance speech" thanking everybody who she defrauded into voting for her:

Now that she successfully defrauded voters, I suggest that petitions should be filed with the NYS Board of Elections and with the State Supreme Court in the district where Ryba is elected to void her elections based on fraud.  

I also suggest that New York State Attorney General should take his head out of the sand and finally stand up for the People of the State of New York who elected him to protect them from fraud, even and especially when it comes from public officials - and to oust Ryba if she is elected (and she is leading in the race right now, according to reports) based on a write of quo warranto, as a usurper-through-fraud of a high public office of a Supreme Court judge.

I suggest that NYS AG looks in the direction of the trial now occurring against Sheldon Silver and that will soon occur against Dean Skelos.

It was NYS Attorney General's job to protect the public from fraud in the government.

He did not do his job and allowed fraud to thrive for years and decades, hurting people and costing them millions of dollars in public funds.

It is time to start doing his job.

I believe, Ryba's behavior in her election campaign warrants ousting her from the bench she grabbed through fraud, and it also warrants her disbarment.

No comments:

Post a Comment