Meet judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Here is Judge Garuafis' official biobraphy from the court's website:
Judge Garaufis is an Ivy League educated lawyer, and has been a lawyer for 42 years, since 1974.
Judge Garaufis has a Bachelors and a Juris Doctor degree - BOTH rom Columbia University.
So, Judge Garaufis is a highly educated and intelligent person.
With all that, Judge Garaufis, reportedly told attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II who appeared in front of Judge Garaufis in a court conference - this:
So, what was wrong about attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II appearing in front of Judge Garaufis?
Was the attorney unlicensed?
Obviously, the attorney was admitted - otherwise he would have been criminally charged for practicing law without a license.
And, we have this sticky situation that federal district courts act as regulatory agencies for attorneys practicing in that court.
So, if the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York admitted attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II to practice law in that court, that means that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York thus proclaimed to the public and the world that attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II is competent to handle ANY legal issues in that court.
Yet, for judge Garaufis attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II was not good enough.
But, that attitude turns into a real problem.
Is licensing by the Eastern District of New York two-tiered - a "better quality" license for partners and a "second best" for associates?
Is sending an associate a sign that the case is treated as not important?
Should clients know that?
What about solo attorneys?
At what time after admission does their license become "good enough" where they are neither associate nor a partner, but just a solo attorney?
Or is a solo attorney appearing in front of pre-eminent judge Garaufis insulting the judge by his presence?
Does Judge Garuafis just have a bad case of a black robe disease, or is he clinically demented? Is he a danger to other attorneys and the public?
Some bloggers considered it just a bad case of judicial misconduct.
And some bloggers (on Twitter) pointed out Judge Garaufis double-standards, because he does not require the government to sent the U.S. Attorney General where they send just-admitted prosecutors:
and Judge Garuafis does not have the "send the partner only in front of my pre-eminent eyes" in his personal rules:
And fellow Twitterers had a couple of suggestions about what needs to be done with the judge:
1) take him off the case for bias and
2) "kick his belligerent ass"
I am all for #1 - but you know what happens to attorneys who criticize judges in motions to recuse, so it is unlikely a motion to recuse will be made.
And, I am all for #2 in terms of judicial discipline - but, that is not going to happen because the U.S. Congress does not allow discipline of judges for misconduct in court cases.
So, the raving lunatic and bully, federal #JudgeNicholasGaraufis is there to stay - unless we ask the U.S. Congress to impeach him, and change rules of impeachment to allow REAL accountability of federal judges for misconduct IN COURT cases. Because, where else does misconduct of federal judges matter? In their kitchens?
No comments:
Post a Comment