In New York, judges of local justice courts are allowed to practice law part time.
So, attorney Jonathan S. Follender practices law, and is a judge in the Town of Denning, Ulster County.
Yet, off the bench conduct of judges is reviewable by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and it is a relatively frequent occurrence that judges of justice courts are taken off the bench because of their conduct as private individuals, if that conduct reflects on their fitness as judges.
Criminal conduct of judges, whether on or off the bench, certainly reflect on their fitness, and the Delhi Village Police, as well as the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (in New York) received yesterday, by certified mail, my sworn criminal complaint against the #DeningTownJustice #JonathanSFollender and against the #DelawareCountyClerk #SharonODell and her personnel - for filing a fraudulent judgment contrary to a court order.
The court order allowed Jonathan S. Follender to enter a money judgment against me of $1,750.61 plus "allowable costs". Follender claimed that his costs are $740. I will appeal legality of that judgment, but that's not the point here.
The point is that attorney Jonathan S. Follender was allowed by the court, by order of July 18, 2016, to enter only a money judgment for $1,751.60 plus "allowable costs", and the costs claimed by Follender were $740, so the total of the judgment that Follender could enter was $2,491.60.
Follender offered for filing a judgment, and Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell or personnel working under her supervision accepted and entered, with Sharon O'Dell's signature, a money judgment of $10,961.60, plus 9% interest, $8,470.00 plus 9% interest more than the court authorized.
That judgment was knowingly entered despite the fact that another $8,470.00 judgment plus 9% interest remained docketed against me by Follender in the same case, while Follender just received satisfaction of that judgment out of the court's escrow.
Sharon O'Dell personally took that money from me and put it into escrow, and Sharon O'Dell had on file, when entering the SECOND judgment for $8,470, not authorized by court, both the first judgment for the same amount, already satisfied from the escrow, and the "Turnover Order", releasing the amount of the first judgment from the escrow.
So, now instead of one outstanding judgment of $2,491.60 authorized by the court (with the first judgment for $8,470 satisfied out of escrow), Follender, in collusion with Sharon O'Dell, has THREE judgments filed and pending against me for the total amount of $19,431.60 plus 9% interest, nearly 10 TIMES MORE than the court authorized.
The fraudulent judgment was filed by Follender and entered by O'Dell on September 26, 2016 in the office of the Delaware County Clerk's office in the case Neroni v Follender, Index No. 2013-331, in defiance of the court order of July 18, 2016 in the same case.
That is a crime of fraud, fraud upon the court (for Follender, who is an attorney), and of knowingly filing a false public document.
I also filed an impeachment demand against the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell with the Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel,
and, against Jonathan S. Follender, I filed, in addition to the criminal complaint,
an attorney grievance complaint - because padding a judgment authorized by the court with an additional amount not authorized by the court is a fraud upon the court and a disbarring offense, and
and a complaint to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, asking to suspend Follender from the bench immediately, pending investigation and prosecution (the documentary evidence of his fraud is irrefutable), and to ultimately take him off the bench and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.
I will announce how these complaints are progressing.
Attorney Follender also sent the fraudulent judgment to another state, which is a federal crime of mail fraud, so if the State of New York does not prosecute him because he is a judge and has other judges in his pocket, the feds might.
Stay tuned.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment