"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.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

A new criminal and disciplinary complaint was filed against judge Jonathan S. Follender, of Town of Denning Court, Ulster County

I wrote on this blog about a criminal complaint I filed against attorney (and judge) Jonathan S. Follender for filing a false public document, and against the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell and her personnel for knowingly filing that false public document.

I also wrote on this blog about Sharon O'Dell's instant "retirement", endorsement of that retirement by a local "women's bar association" infested with law clerks, judges and relatives and employees of judges, and about the lavish "retirement" party, complete with food and balloons thrown in Sharon O'Dell's "honor", with posting of "mock lockup" pictures of Sharon O'Dell fraternizing with the Sheriff who is supposedly investigating her.  

Now that Sharon O'Dell "retired", Debra A. Goodrich, her deputy, took over - and filed yet another false public document offered for filing by Jonathan Follender, during the criminal investigation of her boss, and of herself. 

On November 4, 2016, Debra A. Goodrich and Jonathan Follender filed a "partial satisfaction of judgment".

The criminal complaint against Jonathan Follender was for filing, on September 26, 2016, a $10,961.50 judgment, with 9% interest

based on a court order that allowed only for a $1,751.60 judgment  with costs allowed by the court, and after the $8,470.00 that I put in escrow during appeal was released to Follender prior to filing a judgment based on the money he just received, as if it is a new judgment, with a 9% interesting ongoing.

See what the Turnover order of July 18, 2016 said:

The Turnover Order clearly allows Follender to file only a judgment for $1,751.60 plus costs, and refers to a "previous judgment" (already entered) for $8,470.00  (which grew during the pendency of appeals to $8,501.05) which the court ordered to be satisfied, by turning over funds to Follender out of the court escrow:

Once again, the September 26, 2016 judgement filed by Follender was based only on the Turnover Order of July 18, 2016.

The Turnover Order of July 18, 2016 ordered satisfaction of a "previous judgment" of April 10, 2016 by releasing funds I put into escrow during the pendency of appeal.

Yet, Follender:

  • took the money ordered to be released to satisfy the April 10, 2016 judgment; and
  • illegally put the amount just received right back into a new judgment of $10,961.60, without court permission, and with an ongoing 9% annual interest.

Then, when I filed a criminal complaint against Follender, and he was caught red-handed, he filed yet another false public document, this "partial satisfaction of a judgment":

In the "partial satisfaction", Follender claimed that

the Judgment he filed on September 26, 2016 was based not on Turnover Order only (which is what the judgment says), but also on the judgment from an April 10, 2014 order (referenced by the judge as "the previous judgment", already existing);  

Follender did not even try to amend the judgment of September 26, 2016 as being based on two orders instead of one, as the text of that judgment says, before filing the "partial satisfaction" of a judgment of September 26, 2016 based on receipt of funds a week prior. 

Follender filed the "partial satisfaction" 10 days after the police received my criminal complaint against him and ONLY because I filed a criminal complaint against him, otherwise the triple judgment would have remained filed, with 9% interest accruing on $8,470 plus $10961.50 - instead of $1,751.60 with costs, total.

Follender also claimed that he has actually received "partial satisfaction" of a judgment filed on September 26, 2016 "on or about September 17, 2016", a full week before he filed a new judgment under the Turnover Order, with an ongoing 9% interest on the amount already received a week prior.

Follender authorized the Delaware County Clerk - who by that time resigned - "to cancel, satisfy and discharge the judgment" (the September 26, 2016 illegal judgment) to the extent of $8,301.00, while leaving the "previous judgment" mentioned by Judge Tormey unsatisfied.

Debra Goodrich, who was herself under criminal investigation because of filing of the previous fraudulent judgment of September 26, 2016, entered and filed the new fraudulent "partial satisfaction" of judgment that tried to represent the judgement of September 26, 2016 as a legitimate judgment, and tried to claim "partial satisfaction" by receiving satisfaction funds prior to entry of a judgment, for the 2nd time, in a full amount - which is abject fraud.

So, I turned Follender in again.

I filed one more criminal complaint against him, and one more complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission, and one more complaint to the Attorney Grievance Committee.

Let's see if the law applies to Follender, or if he is immune.

So far Follender engaged in a frivolous proceeding against several people whose representation I undertook only after a default judgment was entered in 2009, to make motions to vacate and appeal - in M & C Brothers v Torum, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280, claiming breach of contract and fraud where his client did not satisfy conditions precedent of the contract.

Follender's client, the timbering company, was supposed to obtain a large (1 million dollars, as far as I remember) insurance policy before attempting to claim specific performance or breach of contract, and never obtained that policy, nor demonstrated that it had funds to obtain that policy to demonstrate to the court that the client was willing, able and ready to perform the contract.

Thus, the whole proceeding was frivolous in the first place - not that it deterred Follender from prosecuting it.

Then, Follender made in that proceeding an outrageously stupid (and frivolous) motion to substitute a client "nunc pro tunc" because of the client's death, while his client was a corporation (that never dies) - the motion for the "death of a corporation" was actually granted by a Harvard-educated judge, the now retired judge Eugene Peckham

Peckham did not see a problem with a motion made claiming the death of a corporation and granted the motion.

Peckham also did not see a problem that there was no affidavit of service of his Order to Show Cause to strike an answer and to enter a default judgment, a jurisdictional requirement to even review such a motion - and entered the default judgment anyway, and subsequently refused to grant a motion to vacate because of his own illegal actions, and stalled the appeal from the denial of the motion by refusing to settle the transcript, which was his obligation.

I was actually sanctioned and then suspended for withdrawing one of the two pending appeals - which I did only and exclusively because I could not file a settled transcript, since Peckham refused to settle it.  Yet, Peckham was protecting himself by preventing me from filing the settled transcript of the motion hearing - which shows that it is completely wrong to give to judges whose decisions are challenge on appeal control over that appeal by giving them authority to settle transcripts for the appellate record.
Peckham also did not see a problem with awarding the accrual of 9% interest on the judgment Follender's client did not deserve in the first place (because it never obtained the insurance policy as the contract required) covering the periods of adjournments of court proceedings which were not caused by the defendants.  Follender actually got 9% interest on damages for periods of adjournments that he himself requested, thus providing encouragement to connected attorneys like Follender to delay litigation in order to get more money in damages at the end.

Peckham also did not see a problem to join, as a partner, a firm that was litigating a case which he previously handled as a judge, without disclosure of the firm's disqualification. Nor did Peckham see a problem acting, without disclosure, as a "judicial hearing officer" (a retired judge with the same functions as an acting judge) in the same court which handled the case where his law firm appeared.

Peckham fought disqualification

even after I presented to his partner the law requiring his law firm's mandatory disqualification from the case:

Peckham and his law firm were disqualified from the Kilmer v Moseman case, but were never sanctioned.

This was one "stellar" judge on M & C Brothers v Torum case who ruled for a fellow judge Follender - not surprisingly, given the level of competence and integrity demonstrated by Judge Peckham.

The next judge who ruled in favor of Follender in two Torum cases - one where I was an attorney of record, AFTER the default judgment was entered, and one where I wasn't (a homestead petition against my former client's home) - was the legendary Judge Carl F. Becker who sanctioned me simply for breathing.

Becker first sanctioned me for (1) delaying satisfaction of the judgment - because the judgment was satisfied by one of my two clients, but I continued to litigate the motion to compel production of concealed deposition transcripts, or identity of the stenographer and Follender's client's expert.

As soon as Becker sanctioned me for allegedly delaying satisfaction of the judgment, Follender moved in the already dead homestead petition litigation where I never appeared, to sanction me for (1) abandonment of my alleged clients, and for (2) satisfying TOO SOON the judgment that I was just sanctioned for delaying the satisfaction of.

Same as Peckham did not consider a motion for the death of a corporation stupid, Becker did not consider stupid a motion for sanctions against a person who never appeared as an attorney of record, for "satisfying a judgment too soon", because the satisfaction of the money judgment led to the death of subject matter jurisdiction in the case where Follender was invoking that subject matter jurisdiction by asking for sanctions.

Really, with Follender even going through his frivolous reasoning gives you a headache, yet, judges endorse whatever he says or does - because he is one of them, also a judge.

After Becker's recusal from all of my cases, including the homestead petition where Becker believed I was attorney of record, even though I never appeared there, never filed notices of appearance, and where respondents filed pro se affidavits, Judge Kevin Dowd was assigned.

Follender made false claims to Judge Dowd that I filed appeal in the homestead case (first, I was never attorney of record, then, no appeals at all were filed in that case, and none by me).

Follender then made false claims to Judge Dowd that I disobey the court by announcing I will not appear at a conference in the homestead petition - where, again, I was not attorney of record, and where Follender complained I caused the death of subject matter jurisdiction by causing to satisfy a money judgment "too soon", while having been sanctioned for delaying satisfaction of that same judgment.

Just bear with me.

I sued.

I showed in my pleadings, and through documentary exhibits, that I never was an attorney of record in the homestead petition, never abandoned my clients, and that jurisdiction in that case was dead, Follender claimed it himself in his pleadings to Judge Becker, so no "litigation immunity" for defamation applied to Follender. 

But, the next "stellar" judge was assigned to the case - Judge Tormey, the woman-hater whom I sued before in federal court, and
who was sued by three women: a court attorney, a private attorney (me) and a court interpreter.

My lawsuit against Tormey was dismissed on judicial immunity grounds (forgiving, without review, any malicious or corrupt acts to the judge), my cases were assigned to Tormey, and Tormey, naturally, used his power to retaliate and sanction me and imposed the judgment I am talking about in this blog, $8,470 for trying to sue the defamer for defamation - for bringing a meritorious action against Follender, in which he defaulted, but Tormey forgave him the default, establishing a new law in the 3rd Department where all three other departments would have given victory in the same case to me, by default.

Tormey claimed that it is not easy to determine whether an attorney is or is not an attorney of record - and thus Follender, in Tormey's opinion, could not be sued for claiming I was the attorney of record because Follender wanted me to be an attorney of record in a new case, because he wanted to use the known bias of the presiding judge against me to his own advantage - but I did not appear in that case, and he was pissed, so he just claimed that I was the attorney of record.

Yet, being an attorney of record can only be proven by either filing a notice of appearance, appearing physically as an attorney for a party, or being assigned to the case.  None of the three was present in the homestead petition, so, contrary to what Judge Tormey dishonestly said in his ruling, it was very easy to determine whether I was an attorney of record in the homestead petition.  I wasn't.

Tormey completely avoided addressing the issue whether the homestead court, at the time defamatory statements were made, had or did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, a determinative factor in the case whether Follender could claim litigation-related immunity.  And still granted Follender, a private attorney sued as a private attorney, "absolute judicial immunity".

I immediately applied the concept to my husband's case by making a motion to dismiss proceedings against him for lack of jurisdiction - and the motion was denied.

Judge Dowd claimed Judge Tormey's grant of absolute judicial immunity as "dicta" only.

Yet, now that Judge Tormey's grant of absolute judicial immunity is affirmed on appeal by the 3rd Department, it is the law of the 3rd Department - a private attorney sued for fraud has absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts during litigation.

So, Judge Tormey - and the 3rd Department - struck down Judiciary Law 487 completely.

But, I was, of course, not on notice of the "dicta", that Judiciary Law 487 is no longer in existence because private attorneys have absolute judicial immunity for acts of deception during litigation, as Judge Tormey said.

Yet, since Tormey sent his decision about my allegedly "frivolous" conduct to the 4th Department disciplinary proceedings against me, and the 4th Department suspended me based on a motion for a summary judgment containing Tormey's decision as an exhibit, the fact that Judiciary Law 487 no longer exists is also the law now in the 4th Department.

Because court precedents applies equally to everyone, not just to the Neronis - right?

Tormey also lumped the two cases - one where I was an attorney of record, after the default judgment was entered by Peckham, and the homestead petition handled by Becker where I never appeared as the attorney of record - as one case, treated the two cases, with two index numbers and different sets of parties, as one case, and refused to correct his mistake.

On two appeals, judges (3rd Department that recused from my then-pending disciplinary case) and the New York State Court of Appeals, the Chief Judge against whose confirmation I submitted a written testimony to the New York Senate asking to conduct a criminal investigation of her rather than endorse her as the Chief Judge of the State of New York - affirmed that the two cases are one case, no matter what court records say.

So, I stand sanctioned, and robbed by Tormey and Follender to the order of $8,470 and counting - for truthfully stating that Follender defamed me by claiming that I abandoned clients in a case where I never appeared as an attorney of record and by bringing a disciplinary proceedings against me in a case where I never appeared as an attorney of record based on that fraudulent claim.

I now regret putting the $8,470 in escrow, I wouldn't have done it now, but then I was living in New York, and I was afraid that Follender and Tormey will put me in jail for not paying - and that "something will happen" to me in jail.  Things do happen to people in U.S. jails when people criticize the government.

But, once a fraudster is always a fraudster.

Follender was not deterred by the court when he brought a frivolous claim (in an unrelated proceeding where I did not participate) for a non-existing cause of action of loss of companionship of a dog - because he was never sanctioned, being a brother-judge.

As a brother-judge, Follender was never sanctioned, and thus not deterred by court sanctions when he brought a frivolous case in M & C Brothers v Torum where
  • he filed a breach of contract claim without showing satisfaction of condition precedent in the contract,
  • made a motion for the "death of a corporation",
  • obtained a default judgment without providing proof of service and claiming 9% interest on damages for periods of delay caused by his own client,
  • concealed transcript of his expert's deposition, as well as identity of his expert and the stenographer who was taking the deposition;
  • made fraudulent claims to the homestead judge that I "abandoned my clients" and "frivolously caused the loss of subject matter jurisdiction" by the court by causing to satisfy the money judgment too soon - after having me sanctioned for delaying satisfaction of that same money judgment; and
  • Follender got attorney fees for opposing my defamation and fraud action against him, even though my lawsuit was based on irrefutable documentary evidence, and Follender defaulted (imagine having a judge "deeming" record evidence of 2 completely separate court cases as "one" - and sanctioning a party for asserting what is in court records, it is only possible where one attorney is also a judge, the judge is a woman-hater and the sanctioned attorney is the judge's critic).
Follender also obtained against me an anti-filing order (in Delaware County Supreme Court only) and a threat of criminal prosecution if I ever file a civil action against Follender without the state court's permission.

Based on all the above history, Follender thought he can do absolutely anything, commit any fraud, and I will not be able to do anything about it.

Well, there are other legal remedies outstanding though.

Pressing criminal charges for a crime is one of them.

And that's what I did.

Follender partially backtracked, by filing the "partial satisfaction" of the illegal judgment he filed against me - but, by filing it, he confirmed his fraud, and committed additional fraud.

Fraud that is actionable against Follender, and, whatever the outcome with the corrupt criminal investigations or corrupt criminal proceedings against Follender and his co-defendants (if any such proceedings will ever be brought against them due to their status and connections), I have 6 years to sue him for it.

I will continue to post updates on this story.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment