"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.

Monday, July 4, 2016

NYS AG quickly accepted a plea bargain from bribed judge John Michalek - why isn't NYS AG interested in a public trial of all issues of judicial corruption?

I've just posted a blog showing the contrast between the public statements of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Eric Schneiderman's conduct in engaging in civil rights violations or defending civil rights violators.

Here is another example that Eric Schneiderman is not exactly forthcoming, to say the least, in his efforts to root out corruption in New York State government.

First of all, Eric Schneiderman did not seek an indictment of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and now that the U.S. Supreme Court has amended the Hobbs Act by interpretation in U.S. v. McDonnell, there is a chance that their convictions will be reversed and they will go free and will not be made accountable.


Until Silver and Skelos were indicted, Eric Schneiderman was their attorney, officially, as a matter of law, under New York Public Law 17.

There is a real conflict of interest where a prosecutor is investigating and prosecuting his own client, for conduct that occurred during such representation.

The same kind of conflict of interest when the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton while the legal advisor of the FBI is Loretta Lynch, former attorney for Hillary Clinton:

"Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.

Under the law of agency, every attorney in a law firm is deemed to represent every client represented by the law firm, and especially if Lynch was a partner in the firm, sharing in every client's payment financially.

Eric Schneiderman, same as Loretta Lynch in relation to investigating and/or prosecuting the Clintons, has an irreconcilable conflict of interest in investigating and prosecuting Judge John Michalek - as he did in investigating and prosecuting in state court of Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver. 

For example, if Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver would be sued for corruption in civil court, Eric Schneiderman will be representing them.

So, how could Schneiderman prosecute them, or his other clients - state employees?

A real conflict of interest, and a conflict put into statutory law by legislators who knew what they were doing in putting upon the same attorney a statutory duty to both defend them in civil rights lawsuits charging corruption, and investigate/prosecute them for corruption criminally.  Legislators knew that such a conflict will effectively kill criminal investigations and prosecution into state government's corruption in New York - as it actually did.

And now we have the consequences where corruption in New York state government is rampant, there are practically no criminal investigations and prosecutions of state government officials for corruption - as the cases of Skelos and Sivler demonstrate, and those cases which are brought, are concluded, as with John Michalek, so that to hush up and not exposed people and documents involved, raising issues of possible corruption of Eric Schneiderman himself to hush up the prosecution.

Eric T. Schneiderman is still, as a matter of statutory law, an attorney for the now former New York Supreme Court Justice John Michalek - if he is sued in civil rights cases (statute of limitations in New York - 3 years) for any civil rights violations. Schneiderman was, for the entirety of Michalek's stay on the bench, Michalek's official legal advisor.

Anything that Michalek did was committed during the time when Michalek was Schneiderman client - so Schneiderman could not possibly be the prosecutor on the case.

If former Justice Michalek is sued for civil rights violations, Eric T. Schneiderman has a statutory duty, under New York Public Law 17, to represent Justice Michalek in that civil rights lawsuit.

But, Attorney General Schneiderman just obtained an indictment - and a conviction - of John Michalek for accepting a bribe and "filing a false public instrument", and Schneiderman accepted a plea from Michalek eliminating other counts, involving specific lawsuits, documents and people.

If people on the other side of the case-fixing would sue Judge Michalek in federal court within the next 3 years, Schneiderman will have to DEFEND that lawsuit, after he criminally prosecuted Michalek.

It is interesting that Schneiderman even considered filing a false public instrument by a judge a crime - he did not consider such conduct by a judge a crime previously.

When I raised the issues of similar fraud in a civil rights action on behalf of my husband Frederick J. Neroni in federal court, specifically, that the now-former judge Carl F. Becker has conspired with the Chief of Republican Committee of the Delaware County (NY) Board of Election and filed a false certificate of 2002 elections, and asked Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to oust Carl F. Becker as a usurper of public office following AG's duty to do that under the writ of quo warranto,

Eric Schneiderman

In fact, Schneiderman regularly obtains dismissals of civil rights lawsuits against judges claiming absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts of those judges.

In other words, if a judge is bribed, and is sued by the victim of the fixed case, Schneiderman will represent THE JUDGE and will seek the dismissal of the civil rights lawsuit on the grounds that the judge is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM LAWUIST FOR FIXING THE CASE - see quote from the court case about the "Kids for Cash" judge Marc Ciavarella in the header of this blog.

For the above reasons, I firmly believe that the recent investigation and prosecution - for accepting a bribe - of Judge John Michalek of Buffalo Supreme Court - has nothing to do with Schneiderman's desire to root out judicial corruption.

There must be some other reasons for the prosecution.

Maybe, the judge's place, now paying $193,000, was needed for somebody else in power.

Maybe, the feds are too close on Schneiderman's own back, so Schneiderman wants to produce some show of MINIMAL prosecutorial zeal to fight corruption of high-raking state officials.

Who knows what the real reasons for the prosecution was, but, the fact remains that Eric Schneiderman is Judge John Michalek's own attorney.  And, Eric Schneiderman's office, even though not Eric Schneiderman himself, represented the presiding judge Donald Cerio in civil rights actions in federal court and, should Donald Cerio be sued, will represent Donald Cerio again.

Eric Schneiderman, by the perverted New York law, Public Law 17, as it is interpreted by federal courts, has been, throughout investigation and prosecution of Judge Michalek, until Judge Michaled plea of guilty and resignation, a standby counsel of all State of New York employees, including BOTH the presiding judge and the defendants in People v. Michalek - judge John Michalek and Judge Donald Cerio.

So, on Schneiderman's indictment, a Supreme Court judge in New York out of Buffalo, a 65-year-old John Michalek, a graduate of Albany Law School, was just convicted on a plea bargain, for only two out of multiple charges, for taking a bribe and for filing a false instrument.  The sentencing of John Michalek is reportedly set for September 1, 2015.

The taking a bribe charge was reportedly from a powerful and politically connected attorney G. Steven Pigeon, a friend, ally and political advisor of:

  • billionaire Tom Galisano;
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton; and
  • Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Here is the picture of the "hero":

Judge Michalek was charged that "he solicited and accepted help from Pigeon, including two box seats to a Sabres hockey game as well as $1,000 to a political fundraiser"., but that was peanuts as compared to Judge Michalek fixing court cases for Pigeon in return for promises to get jobs in state, local and federal government for  the judge's relatives.  According to the indictment, the judge e-mailed and texted Pigeon begging for those jobs and was attaching court decisions fixed how Pigeon wanted them to e-mails requesting such jobs.

Since Pigeon was a close ally and advisor of billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Cuomo, I can only imagine who those friends were for whom court cases were fixed.

Even though both counts Judge Michalek has pled to were felonies, those were peanuts as compared to what Judge Michalek was charged with.  I am providing a link to what is reported to be the indictment of John Michalek, but I will file my own FOIL request for the original indictment and will post it in the future.

The plea was authorized by judge Donald F. Cerio, a favorite of the former Chief Administrative Judge Mulvey who helped Mulvey fix felony drug court cases.  Cerio reportedly claimed that "not enough" criminal defendants are coming to drug court (and are given leniency instead of going to jail).  Pushing cases in front of drug court jumped several statutory conditions that another judge Blasio DiStefano, insisted must be followed.  Judge DiStefano was taken off drug cases entirely, because he was opposed to ruling on cases the way Mulvey and Cerio wanted, and was quickly forced in an early retirement. 

I wonder whether bribes were involved in Madison drug court cases, too, since Mulvey, a former counsel for Senator Seward, together with Cerio (presiding judge in the Michalek's case) went so far as to eliminate an elected judge from all criminal cases altogether because the judge insisted on following the law in who is and who is not entitled to drug court, while Mulvey and Cerio wanted more criminal defendants to go to drug court.

I wonder whether Cerio received a handsome bribe himself in accepting a plea to just two, and the least revealing, counts of the indictment.

Knowing Mulvey's bias against indigent defendants, it is clear that Mulvey's interest was not to help anybody, but there is a very clear possibility that Mulvey and Cerio were bribed in drug court cases in Madison county, too. 

At least from the circumstances, it is quite likely that Judge Cerio was bribed to accept the lenient plea bargain of Judge Muchalek in order to protect those influential people who could otherwise be exposed by a public trial.

And of course, I do not expect AG Schneiderman to investigate those people, and to investigate other judges outed daily (including on my blog) in acts screaming of corruption - after all, he is busy representing them.

By the way, Schneiderman already demonstrated his propensity to cover up for corrupt judges when he defended, instead of ousting and criminally prosecuting Delaware County judge Carl Becker, yet another judge who was passionately involved with a drug court.

Schneiderman never indicted Carl F. Becker, who was never indicted for any of his shenanigans, including filing a false certificate of elections in 2011.

After Becker quickly resigned in July of 2015, he put his friend, the Delaware County DA Richard Northrup, in the position overseeing the drug court (Northrup was running unopposed and had Becker swear Northrup in, even though Becker was by that time a lay individual who had no authority to swear in a judge).  I wonder whether the drug court continues as a money producing operation for both Judge Northrup (in addition to his salary) and Judge Becker. 

Back to the case of John Michalek, assigning the case-fixing judge Donald F. Cerio to preside over the criminal case of another case-fixing judge is like putting one fox to decide the face of another brother-fox. 

And, it is clearly suspicious that with an indictment as long and detailed and charging corruption involving many individuals, lawsuits and documents, AG Schneiderman did not want a public trial on all charges, but agreed to a puny plea on only two, those not naming relatives and parties to the lawsuits fixed by Judge Michalek for attorney Steve Pigeon connected to billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Andrew Cuomo.

It appears that AG Schneiderman sought to close judge Michalek's case as soon as possible, and before the elections - the sentencing is scheduled for September 1, 2016 - and without much exposure of people involved, and that is NOT conduct of an honest prosecutor.

As I stated above, I will try to get a copy of the indictment through my own FOIL request, but, knowing how the government usually stalls such requests, I do not expect an answer to it for several months.

Yet, when I receive an answer, I will report on it.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment