- Attorneys in the United States and in every state of the United States are licensed to protect consumers of legal services from bad providers of legal services;
- Attorney regulation is, thus, help by the government to the consumers in pre-checking providers of legal services for their knowledge, skills and integrity;
- An attorney's license is proof of their minimally acceptable knowledge, skills and integrity necessary to provide legal services for the public;
- A license can only be given if the attorney passed the bar exam;
- An attorney will only be allowed to sit for a bar exam if he graduated from an ABA-accredited law school;
- since there is an overproduction of attorneys in the United States for paying jobs, and not enough paying clients, less capable law students want to pay for law school;
- since less capable students want to pay for law schools, law schools lower their standards and accept anybody who can line up the money to pay for law school - without any care what kind of providers of legal services law schools will be producing;
- as a result, since standards for admission were lowered by law schools, bar passage plummeted;
- since bar passage plummeted - ABA started to pluck accreditation, and the government started to stop giving loans for tuition of law schools for which ABA plucked accreditation;
- as a result of ABA's threat to pluck accreditation, and of the government to withdraw the lifeline of student loans upon which law schools, and law professors, exist, two law professors, both interested in preserving their livelihood, published an article where they claim that the main goal of law schools is now - gasp! - prepare law students for passing the bar exam.
THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Public schools should not "teach for the test", but law schools should? The glorified brain-dump of the bar exam is further glorified by scared law professors
A reversal in New York for failure to allow pro se representation
A felony conviction was reversed in New York by the 3rd Department because the defendant was denied the right to represent himself.
The 3rd Department made an interesting point in the case - that the extent of legal knowledge to represent himself for the defendant is irrelevant, what is relevant is only the defendant's capacity to waive his right to counsel.
Now the defendant, an inmate, will be retried, representing himself, likely with the same result - because now he will not only be competing against a legally trained professional prosecutor, but also will be building his defense in jail, with only paper - and often inadequate - law library to help him.
At least, the appellate court had the decency of supporting the defendant's claim that the court improperly denied him the negative inference charge to the jury about the missing evidence - the clothes that were washed and not submitted for discovery, eliminating the only physical evidence of defendant's crime, and making the People's case rely upon words of testimony only.
Let's see how the defendant will fair on retrial.
I will continue to monitor this case.
How Ontatio County (NY) DA Michael Tantillo, with the help of Judge Craig Doran, robbed a person of his reputation and of 2 years of his life so far - by trying to hoist upon him DA's son-in-law as a juror
- the trial court did not disqualify, for cause, a juror who was the son-in-law and father of the grandchild of the prosecutor; and because
- the court precluded testimony of a witness to whom the alleged victim made a statement that the defendant did not commit the crime - the Brady evidence.
- that the defendant was forced by the court to take a relative of the DA, disqualified under CPL 270.20(1)(c).
CPL 270.20(1)(c ) is, of course, unconstitutional as it is construed now by courts, as it discriminates against criminal defendants by not allowing them challenges for cause against jurors who are not in an official registered marriage, which is a very large percentage of New York families - but that challenge is not relevant there, because the reversal talks about a "son-in-law" of DA Tantillo, even though I would like the public to know of this problem with the statute.
CPL 270.20(1)(c ) does not have to be changed to be made constitutional though, the only things that needs to be done is to start interpreting "affinity" in a way adequately reflecting family dynamics in New York.
Any attorney working in custody or domestic violence cases in Family Court in New York knows that the majority of cases come from unmarried couples, and that, in my view, reflects not the fact that somehow unmarried couples split and divide children more, or engage in domestic violence more than married couples, but that the family dynamic in New York has changed, and the concept of "affinity", in interpretation of courts, now needs to reflect that.
The problem with jury selection now is that jury questionnaires may ask about "affinity" in the narrowest sense - based on marriage of jurors to individuals listed in CPL 270.20(1)(c ) - but not on a partnership, with or without children, but without a registered marriage - and this may obscure and conceal biases and prevent fair voir dire and jury selection.
Here is the chart of consanguinity degrees:
That child's spouse has to be at least the 1st degree of affinity.
So, DA Tantillo's son-in-law had the 1st degree of affinity to DA Tantillo and was absolutely disqualified under CPL 270.20(1)(c ).
Yet, DA Tantillo opposed removal of his son-in-law from the jury for cause, knowing that his argument is against clear statutory law.
And, Judge Doran sided with DA Tantillo, knowing that both the judge's and the DA Tantillo's positions are against clear statutory law, leaving DA Tantillo's relative on the jury, and forcing the defendant to use one of his limited peremptory challenges to remove DA Tantillo's close relative (which defendant ran out of before the full jury was selected and impanelled).
The difference between challenges "for cause" and peremptory challenges in criminal jury selection in New York is that challenges for cause are unlimited, and peremptory (no cause) challenges are limited.
So, for a very large jury pool - jury pools have to be large in cases of alleged crimes involving children, as many people are prejudiced against the topic and will convict simply because a person is charged for such a thing - and with jury selection that may have many, many panels of jurors to weed through, Judge Doran and DA Tantillo robbed the defendant of 10% of chances (see CPL 270.25[c] allowing only 10 peremptory challenges in any felony cases below C felony, and Todd Collins was charged with a D felony) to strike down jurors without explaining to the obviously biased judge why he is doing it.
It is good that the 4th Department upheld the law and reversed the conviction.
It is bad that the 4th Department did not make a statement about prosecutorial and judicial bias and misconduct (the prosecutor, as a judge, is required to be unbiased in the case), to the point of trying to force the defendant into a Hobson's choice of either accepting the prosecutor's close relative on the jury (which was clearly against statutory law) or take him down by the use of 10% of the precious peremptory challenges - and running out of chances to disqualify one potential hold-out juror, which made a difference between a potential mistrial and a conviction.
Judge Doran's ruling in favor of illegal opposition of DA Tantillo was clearly biased in favor of prosecution - which was not an issue decided by the 4th Department, an appellate court that notoriously does not see issues of bias even if they are screaming in their faces.
The problem with not dealing with the issue of bias is that the 4th Department reversed and remanded the case to the same judge Doran and the same DA Tantillo who will now devise new tricks of how to screw the defendant in another way, in order to gain "tough of crime" and "child protector" badges, while illegally using a man as a stepping stone in their political careers.
It is interesting to mention that the court reversed and granted a new trial "on the first count of the indictment", thus implying that there were other counts upon which the defendant may have been still convicted.
But, Todd Collins' inmate information from the New York State Department of Corrections indicates that the conviction and sentencing for which he is incarcerated had only one count, so his entire conviction is reversed, and his sentencing, necessarily is made void - requiring his removal from state prison where he is serving that sentence, that became void as of December 23, 2016.
The second issue upon which the 4th Department reversed the conviction is that Judge Doran blocked testimony of a witness who wanted to testify that the alleged victim (the child under 11 years old) told the witness that the Todd Collins did not engage in sexual contact with the child.
As you understand, this D felony, with an extreme punishment of up to 7 years in prison (Collins got 6 out of 7), and a lifetime of being stripped of every plausible human right on release, as a registered sex offender and child molester, is provable by testimony only (he said - she said) in cases where "sexual contact" is simply touching - as in "he touched my child's breasts" - "but your child is 3 years old and he was picking her up by the armpits" (a real case, by the way), and blocking the testimony of a witness who claimed that the alleged victim told him that the defendant never committed the crime is of extreme importance and value in such criminal proceedings.
By the way, DA Tantillo had the audacity to oppose Todd Collins' the appeal where he had a clear personal interest.
And, Todd Collins now has to deal with the same biased DA and the same biased judge on re-trial.
I do not make claims whether Todd Collins "did it", or "did not do it".
I simply do not know.
But, his trial did not follow statutory law, he was robbed, by a biased and personally interested DA and by a biased judge of 2 years of his life already that he spent in state prison as a sex offender, with all indignities and dangers that sex offenders are exposed to in prisons, while now he is, first, not being released from prison despite he is presumed innocent, the State of New York stubbornly claims he is to remain incarcerated until 2020, even though his conviction has been voided a week ago, and - he is PRESUMED INNOCENT by law now.
I wonder whether such a thing as the law remains important nowadays.
And I do not wonder whether Judge Doran or DA Tantillo will be held accountable for their egregious misconduct in this case.
They won't be.
They already weren't.
Most likely people will react to this case by stating that a pervert and a pedophile got off on a technicality - failing to see that it is not only about Todd Collins, but about all of people coming in touch with New York criminal justice and court system in general.
If judges and prosecutors, government officials, are allowed to violate the law and rob people of years of their lives without any accountability, they will keep doing it, again, and again, and again, and will continue to climb the career ladder.
Using you as stepping stones.
Unless you the people demand accountability.
The law that prohibits criminal charges against child prostitutes in California is not the same as legalization of child prostitution
Finally, I have found a voice of reason in this article, correctly reflecting what kind of law is going into effect on January 1, 2017 and what it actually means. The article's main point is this:
Victims, not criminals.
The new California law does not make sex with children legal.
It only prohibits charging the children with the crime of prostitution or solicitation of prostitution, even if they come forward to seek protection of the government from those who are exploiting them.
The law, obviously, makes a lot of sense.
First, if a minor cannot give consent for sex, as a matter of law, the minor's consent for sex in exchange for money is invalid, too, and there is nothing to charge THE CHILD for.
Moreover, the law is correctly designated to protect children, so that, if they come forward to disclose their engagement in prostitution, and disclose the name of those adults who are exploiting them, which is already a decision that may put their life in jeopardy, they should not additionally fear that they are confessing to a crime for which they may be charged separately.
Once again, makes a lot of sense.
How will it be carried out practically, is a question though.
The age of majority in California is 18.
Many girls look 18 (physically developed) while they may be 14 or even 13.
And, I doubt that any prostitutes, and especially child prostitutes, exploited by adults, would come out on the streets wearing their true IDs.
So, now police will have to be very attentive to whether a young prostitute may be a minor, ID or no ID - and to check on authenticity on young prostitutes' IDs.
It also means that a child prostitute who is one day away from turning 18 is not chargeable with a crime, while a prostitute who has just turned 18, is already an adult and is chargeable with a crime of prostitution.
It does not make a lot of sense in protecting children, but not protecting WOMEN from being similarly exploited - so, in my view, it makes sense to decriminalize prostitution for adults, too, on the same grounds, safety protection, as it was done for children.
Specifically, as to application of the decriminalization of child prostitution in order to protect children, young women will still be first arrested by the police if they LOOK over 18 - of course, they will have to be let go if they are actually under 18, but there will be some time before that is ascertained, so arrests of minors for prostitution will still happen.
The only thing that will remain the same - unfortunately - is problems with picking up, charging and making charges stick against the "clients" of child prostitutes, and against their pimps.
For charges, a statement and, if the case goes to trial, the testimony by the child prostitute will be required. And that will potentially put the child's life in danger. Which is the same situation that exists now.
But, at the very least, the new law will now protect a desperate child who wants to get out of this situation from having to criminalize herself in order to get protection from the government and to have the criminal who has forced her into sex or who bought her sex (without her consent, as a matter of law) held accountable.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
The 6th Circuit hurriedly, and illegally, created a precedent protecting police officers in shootings during home raids, putting people and people's pet in danger of on-sight execution, and doing it in order to defeat a wrongful death/civil rights lawsuit of a little girl
In 2002 in New York, for example, a court has ruled that there is no cause of action for loss of companionship of a dog - even due to a pharmacist's mistake that killed that dog.
And, recently, in Canada, a judge took his time to mock a childless couple who, while divorcing after 16 years of marriage, asked the court to treat their dogs as their children and to award physical custody and visitation of them. The judge said - I do not have to decide on the custody of kitchen knives, and the same applies to dogs, as property under the law. Thus, crossing out, as unimportant, feelings of childless humans toward family pets as family members, and obviously crossing out feelings of family pets towards humans, too.
There is a whole Nonhumanrights.org project created to assert in court that animals are not JUST property - that, due to their status as living beings, they must have some rights other than property.
Meanwhile, a new court decision about family pets' right to life was reported from a federal court in Michigan - and is causing waves in comments in the social media - that a police officer entering a residence may shoot a dog if the dog moves or barks.
Police shoots family dogs lately in alarming numbers, as an article reporting on the same federal court decision observes, so that even law enforcement publications raise the question whether we are dealing with an "epidemic" of such shootings.
And, for an officer, anything - anything - qualifies as a reason to be afraid for his safety - even when a dog is STANDING over the corpse of her dead companion dog and barking at its killer, but NOT attacking or moving.
Of course, the article recognizes public anger at the decision and claims that "nothing changed" by the decision - that people still have constitutional 4th Amendment "property right" against governmental "unreasonable search and seizure", killing of a family pet qualifying as a "seizure" - the judge "just" found, in that particular incident alone, that the killing was reasonable and "justified".
Yet, that claim, that "nothing changed" is not true.
Under precedential power, in the jurisdiction covered by the 6th Circuit - and, likely, in the entire United States, looking at that decision as a precedent - the "totality of circumstances" "test" now includes a dog "moving or barking", and thus, ANY officer entering ANY residence with a dog, is empower to shoot the dog on sight, and then concoct a story about being "threatened" - unless, of course, every owner installs INTERNAL security cameras and crates dogs within the home at all times - which are, both, unreasonable suggestions which will not work and will not be utilized.
Right now, at 11:20 am Eastern Time, as I am writing this article, there are 324 comments and 702 shares of the article about the 6th Circuit's decision:
Most comments are from people outraged by the decision and indicating that they will protect their pets the same way they will protect themselves - with armed resistance.
And this is just one example of how unreasonable court decisions, made contrary the contents of the record showing that, at the very least, the 2nd dog did nothing to invite the officer to kill her,
decisions made for a pre-judged purpose, in order to protect the government from liability, can cause disrespect to the judiciary and destroy people's belief in the rule of law.
Of course, there were attempts to "calm down" the public - with comments accusing the reporters of "click-baiting" and "misleading the public:
The commentator Rob Cozart is, of course, according to his LinkedIn profile, and according to his FB profile, a retired police Leuitenant:
with the exact same mentality that causes the public to fear the police: look how he reacted to my comment that the decision has a precedential power:
As soon as anybody tries to just point out that a certain precedent is going to be dangerous in application, giving the police extremely broad powers to shoot at family pets - which can, by the way, kill children and people who are inside the house, next to the dogs, and who the dogs may be protecting - the police logic is:
- our "system" - whatever it is - 'isn't perfect, but it's the best one in the world", and
- that "that's why everyone wants to come here" - I do not know whether Rob Cozart was hinting at the fact that I came to the U.S. as an immigrant, but that's what the clear implication is.
And, of course, the "totality of circumstances" "test" is no test at all, giving the widest discretion to police officers to claim they were "threatened", even in situations where they cannot be possibly "threatened" so as to justify the use of deadly force - and that applies not only to dogs, but to police shootings of people, too.
And, of course, the K-9 "units", dogs "working" for the police are, of course, cherished by the police - which does not cancel the fact that police shootings of other people's dogs is on the rise, making, once again, even a law enforcement magazine calling it "an epidemic".
Now, as to the Fox article being a "click-bate" that caused so many angry comments from the public as to the court decision.
The court decision clearly states that:
- the police had a search warrant, but not an arrest warrant;
- that the target of their search warrant was a person who was arrested outside of the house before their search of the house;
- that the police arrested - and handcuffed - one of the plaintiffs, without an arrest warrant, explaining to him that they are going to exercise the search warrant - which was illegal, because there is nothing in the law allowing them to insist that they can only exercise the search warrant in the absence of residents, and especially to arrest residents, who provide no resistance at all and pose no threat, without an arrest warrant, in order to prevent their presence where the search warrant is exercised - such "policies" allow police officers to plant evidence during searches in the absence of witnesses;
- the handcuffed plaintiff offered officers the keys to the house that he just used to open the house and to let the dogs out;
- the police looked inside the residence before ramming into it, and saw two pit bulls - a 92-pound and a 53-pound dog - jumping, "pawing", and barking at the windows;
- the arrested plaintiffs could very well be allowed to get into the house with the police officers in order to calm the dogs down or crate them;
- the police refused the use of keys and rammed the residence instead;
- there was no people inside the house - the handcuffed plaintiff came to the house during his lunch break to let the dogs out - so the justification that somebody will "destroy the evidence" if there is any delay in opening the door is fake;
- that the smaller dog "never barked in her life", and that she disappeared from the upstairs room into the basement after the police entered the house - indicating that she would rather retreat than attack the officers and presents no danger to them;
So, great job, the 6th Circuit - encourage police officers to shoot dogs inside a residence on site, because they "moved or barked", and then justify the killing of a child or an adult that the dog covers with his body by claiming that the officer "felt threatened by a dog", and "did not see a human".
- taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury (the plaintiffs), do the facts alleged in the complaint show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right
- is the right clearly established.
- whether the officers' actions were reasonable and justifiable under the "totality of circumstances"; and
- whether officers are credible as witnesses,
- violated its own "2-prong test" on qualified immunity defense, and
- violated its own law as to how motions for summary judgment must be decided
and a jury trial was set for August 8, 2016, but then the case was stayed, at the request of the Plaintiffs, on a "Colorado River" abstention because of a parallel litigation:
Note that, even though the civil rights/wrongful death lawsuit of Aiyana is listed as "closed", it is closed only "for administrative and statistical purposes", but in reality it is only stayed:
Note that the case languished in state courts and in federal bankruptcy court for no fault of Aiyana's family:
In the civil rights case though, the officer was not out of hot water, and his attorneys resisted disclosure of the officer's official account, made by him within hours of the shooting and with a fresh memory, necessitating Aiyana's family to file a motion to compel production of that document, which production Officer Weekly opposed on contrived and non-meritorious reasons:
- that the officer is, allegedly, "not in possession" of his own statement;
- that the Plaintiff allegedly did not issue discovery request for that particular document, even though the document was subject to mandatory discovery exchange pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
- that the document, the account of the shooting, is allegedly the "work product" of third parties - the police department.
Here is the complaint in Aiyana's case that is stayed, not dismissed by the federal court, and here is the order of stay, over the opposition of Officer Weekly.
Here is the entire docket report in her civil rights/wrongful death case in federal court, obtained by me personally from Pacer.gov today.
Here is the shameful Answer by Officer Weekly raising "qualified immunity defense" for throwing a flash-grenade and shooting into the residence where a child was sleeping, so that the TV crew present get more "action" for their footage to sell it to the viewers.
- the Police officer's motion for a summary judgment;
- the girl's estate's and family's motion to compel production of the officer's just-after-the-shooting account of what occurred;
- the girl's estate's and family's motion to strike and preclude testimony by Officer Weekly's expert for non-compliance with discovery;
- the officer's two motions to preclude Aiyana's experts on police practices and on gun safety and ballistics from testifying before the jury as allegedly "irrelevant" -
All of it was about protecting a reality show star for A&E, police officer Joseph Weekly, from accountability for killing of a little girl on camera. There was also a question whether the flash-grenade was thrown, and the shooting occurred that killed the little girl because the officer was trying to impress and provide material for a TV series "The First 48".
And the practices of the police department who invited a TV crew to film a home raid upon unsuspecting people, with a child inside - where the child died as a result.
And, the dog case - a supposedly unconnected case - was to serve as a convenient vehicle to create a precedent, a court rule indicating, should the case return after a stay, that:
- a federal court, sitting in review of a motion for a summary judgment in a civil rights case litigating the use of force, and deadly force, by a police officer - against anybody - people, as well as pets - may rule on reasonableness on the issue of "qualified immunity" defense, even though the "qualified immunity defense" 2-prong test does not include the "reasonableness"/"justification" question and even though that question is within the jury's, and not the court's, power to decide
And, while the police raids and police killings are predominantly on the homes of minorities and of the minorities, do I have to wonder why all 4 of the judges who decided this case were white?
I will give these 4 white judges credit - they pulled their trick very cleverly.
The "dog" decision made on December 19, right before Christmas time, when people are united with their families, have some spare time on their hands, will be reading accounts in the media and will most certainly be enraged - enraged and concerned about their pets only, since most people are not literate in the law, and especially in federal civil rights litigation law, and will not see through the scheme.
Count on judges acting in collusion with a governmental defendant and ruling to protect the government.
Have them focus the public on pets, deflect the public from the fact that, through precedential power on the issue of the use of "reasonable" deadly force, this is actually also and primarily about people killed.
About children killed.
About the black little girl killed by a Michigan police on camera.
About a toddler injured by a similar flash-bang grenade assault by police in Georgia.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Violent judges are not that dangerous, Part II - Judge Beltrani is spared a felony charge and allowed to be out on the street seeking to kill people
It is also incorrect to call Beltrani's crime an "altercation", while admitting the attorney was "sucker-punched" by the judge - hit with a fist while being unaware of the strike coming, so there was no "altercation".
I am convinced that, had it been another way around,
had a lawyer, being "visibly drunk", intentionally sucker-punched an unsuspecting judge who would be walking in front of him, saying: "I am a lawyer and I f**king kill people", like Beltrani said
and caused a judge to lose consciousness ("knocked out'), as well as causing the judge "a separated shoulder, torn labrum, a black eye and other injuries", the injuries Beltrani caused attorney Roberts, the lawyer would have been put in jail immediately as a pre-trial detention, charged with a felony, and his license would have been suspended pending trial.
Judge Beltrani also left his victim for dead - he could have killed him by "sucker-punching" him, knocking him down on the ground with his weight of 300 pounds, having him fall on the ground and hit his head on a blacktop pavement, and taking off without calling for help:
Since he was raving about "killing people", he could clearly be charged with attempted murder - but wasn't.
I already wrote in my series of blogs about former #NewYorkChiefJudgeSolWacthlerTheSmartShitKicker (his own words), see my blogs here and here, who has never been charged in New York courts for a string of crimes, including violent crimes, committed in New York, including attempt to kidnap a child, criminal impersonation, false report of a crime (he tried to pin his crimes on two other people), the use of his office to commit and cover up his crimes, extortion with threats to kidnap a child, sending obscene material to a minor -
describing how New York embraces and protects its judges from accountability even if they are violent criminals, making it impossible to seek justice from the New York "justice" system against its own, against those who are supposed to be held to the highest (not the lowest) of standards.
Lives of members of the public - and especially of criminal defense attorneys like Sam Roberts, Judge Beltrani's victim - do not really matter.
A misdemeanor, an order of protection, the judge remains free and on the job - and will, likely, be given some reduction or an adjournment-in-contemplation-of-dismissal slap on the wrist thing.
For a violent crime and drunken rampage where the judge made public what he is not expressing when he is sober - that, as a judge, he can kill people, and not be held accountable.
Look at this raging violent alcoholic who claims that, because he is a judge, he can "kill people" - and who nearly succeeded in that with attorney Sam Roberts.
And, consider that he is not put in jail when he committed his crime at the end of October, 2016, was allowed to vote out of jail in November, was allowed to spend Christmas with his family - and only then was arraigned in court today, on a misdemeanor and violation (harassment) charge - and was allowed to go free, with just an order of protection protecting Sam Roberts, but nobody else.
This order of protection is, of course, woefully inadequate, since, judging by Belrani's claim that, as a judge he can kill people, he can do the same to anybody else.
There were no conditions for release imposed either - while the judge definitely had such a right - so Beltrani can continue to drink himself into oblivion (which, judging by his face, he is doing) - and assaulting people after that.
The State of New York thinks he is entitled to be an attorney - and a judge.
He is, of all things, a judge reviewing violations of parole - including for alcohol related reasons.
As of today, Judge Beltrani has "no record of public discipline".
Who would want to even attempt to hold a judge who committed a crime truly accountable in New York?
Beltrani's mindset and behavior - asserting, in a drunken rage, that he cannot be "disrespected", whatever that meant, that people, even those who have just met him in a social setting, must necessarily "learn from him", and that as a judge, he does justice by "f**king kill[ing] people"
did not emerge in a vacuum - this is what the law of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts lead them to believe.
And, apparently, for New York authorities it is better to have Beltrani realize his dream and, since he is free and at large, kill some people feeling that, as a judge, he can do whatever he wants - including killing people - with complete impunity
than impose any true accountability upon him under the law.
It is a matter of time when Beltrani will commit a new act of violence - because he remains drunk, unrepentant,
and, since he was not charged adequately (with felonies) for his crimes, he may still believe in his impunity, no matter what he does.
Journalists were lucky they were not sucker-punched.
His next victim may not be so lucky.