"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.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct dismissed complaints against judges Janet DiFiore, Christina Ryba, Michael Coccoma and Karen Peters without an investigation

I wrote earlier on this blog that I filed 3 separate complaints against judges:

1.  Janet DiFiore - Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals;

2.  Richard Northrup - Delaware County Judge

and, as a group:

3.  Christina Ryba, Supreme Court, Albany County;
     Karen Peters, Chief Judge, Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department;
     Michael Coccoma, Chief Administrative Judge, Upstate New York  

All three complaints were made by e-mail on January 28, 2016.

Here they are:

Against Mr. Northrup - please, note that I requested in this complaint, at the end, to preclude relatives, friends and colleagues of members of the Commission from investigating and prosecuting the complaint (as is the tradition in the Commission).  I do not know whether my request was honored, the letter of dismissal does not show it one way or another.

On the other hand, a perfect solution is to dismiss without ANY investigation - which is what appears to have happened.

Here is the complaint against Janet DiFiore

Here is the complaint against Judges Christina Ryba, Karen Peters and Michael Coccoma:

The letter from the Commission dated March 29, 2016 that I just received claims that my "complaint" (singular) dated January 28, 2016 was dismissed.   

Here is the letter.

Note that all three complaints allege serious judicial misconduct warranting to take judges off their respective benches, if allegations are proven true.

Note that the letter of dismissal mentions "careful consideration", not "investigation" of complaints.

In other words, complaints alleging serious misconduct against high-ranking judges were dismissed without any investigation, whether because of the Commission's policy, lack of funds, outside political influence or inside conflicts of interest, since many members of the Commission are appointees of Governor Cuomo (and, thus, possibly, his friends or connected with his friends, otherwise they wouldn't get the appointment - that is the reality in New York).

As appointees of Cuomo, they wouldn't hurt another appointee of Cuomo, Janet DiFiore, even if she did commit everything described in my complaint against her.

Since the Commission mentions one out of three complaints in one letter, and complaints are identifiable only by dates when I filed them (that's why I am doing it by e-mail, to help identify which dismissed complaint is meant), the Commission may have not even read the complaint, but waited a particular period of time before sending out a form letter of dismissal.

As I stated above, three were three complaints filed by e-mail on that date.

All of complaints were supported by documentary evidence.

All of complaints were about egregious violations of high-ranking judges.

I was never contacted by the Commission with even an attempt to investigate the complaints.

Once again, the complaints were dismissed on March 29, 2016, here is the letter of dismissal.

During the pendency of the complaints,

on March 3, 2016, Karen Peter's court retaliated against me by affirming severe sanctions against me imposed, in retaliation, by Judge James Tormey (twice sued by female employees so far for egregious retaliation) for suing a private attorney for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court - based on underlying court records in two cases that Judge Tormey did not read (I have sign-out sheets from Delaware County Clerk's office to prove it, and provided it as part of the record to the appellate court), and that the 3rd Department appeared not to have read either;

on March 24, 2016, Janet DiFiore retaliated against me by dismissing ON HER OWN MOTION my constitutional appeal "as of right" in my disciplinary case as if it was discretionary appeal, thus leaving undisturbed the facially invalid disciplinary decision against me where (1) I was punished for not "expressing remorse" before the decision on liability was made; and (2) I was punished for criticizing a judge in motions to recuse, in violation of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent on content-based regulation of speech.

Once again, complaints against these judges were dismissed without ANY investigation.

Nobody contacted me, nobody contacted, upon my information, any other witnesses.

I guess, tossing meritorious complaints against high-ranking judges involved in egregious misconduct is part of the "excellence" plan to "improve" the corrupt New York Unified Court system:

After all, if everything is dismissed, everything is excellent, isn't it?

I wonder whether the New York State Commission experiences political pressure, similar to the same Commission in Georgia where its Chairman recently resigned saying that he is unable to do his job because of political influence by judges' high-ranking friends.

Or, whether NYS Commission is so rotten from inside from its own connections to those same friends.

I didn't see anybody resigning from that Commission lately - or ever.

No comments:

Post a Comment