On "binding power" of uncontitutional statutes and court decisions. New York to its popular sovereign: you do not have a right to know whether you pay for employment of a torturer

On March 30, 2017, New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, 1st Judicial Department, issued a decision, authored by 5 judges:

• #JudgeJohnWSweeny,Jr (presiding judge) (by the way, I found only one John W. Sweeney in New York Attorney Registration database - admitted in 1952, and now dead, and another John Sweeney, admitted in 1989 who works for New York City Law Department, the one that is interested in non-disclosure of information about police officers) ;

• #JudgeRolandoTAcosta (member of New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, a group shredding complaints against judges without review or investigation);
• #JudgeKarlaMoskowitz (former prosecutor);
• #JudgeBarbaraRKapnick (a master of the American Inns of Court, a secret membership organization including attorneys and judges that meets with judges behind closed doors and wines and dines judges, as well as funds their national and international travel, and an author of a recent brainless dissent in the recent case People v Smith where Judge Kapnick claimed that a defendant somehow waives his constitutional right to a hearing when a person who is no longer his attorney, nevertheless claims to be one, and screws his case in his absence); and 
• #JudgeMarcyLKahn (former prosecutor who recently, together with Judge Acosta, approved Skype testimony in criminal proceedings - where teleprompting of such testimony cannot be excluded or controlled).

each sworn to protect federal and state Constitutions.

Yet, being sworn to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution did not prevent these 5 judges from making a decision that put a FACIALLY unconstitutional New York Statute - Civil Rights Law 50-a - and a 1999 decision of the New York State Court of Appeals promoting that unconstitutional statute's agenda (blocking the public from knowing whether police officers in the public employ are committing misconduct) above the public's 1st Amendment right to know, and above criminal defendants' right to effective confrontation of police witnesses, guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.

In a decision in Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd., these 5 justice reversed the decision of the lower court ordering release of employment information (complaints against the police officer and their resolution) regarding the police officer whose actions led to the choking death in detention of Eric Garner in New York in 2014.

The U.S. Constitution, through its Supremacy Clause, is the law of the land, trumping all inconsistent state laws.

Of course, justices of the Appellate Division 1st Department, lawyers with up to 51 years of practice (Judge Moskowitz) under their belts, know that. 

But, even though information about public servants regarding safety of the public must be disclosed, and so is the information whether a police officer whose actions resulted in the death of Eric Garner, is predator on the loose whom his employers failed to control and disable, thus exposing the public to danger - the law named "Civil Rights Law", section 50-a, actually blocks the public from knowing whether they are properly protected BY the police FROM the police force, from the bad apples in the police force.

The law was enacted - as the New York State Court of Appeals ruled in 1999 - for these purposes:

"Hence, when access to an officer's personnel records relevant to promotion or continued employment is sought under FOIL, nondisclosure will be limited to the extent reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of Civil Rights Law § 50-a — to prevent the potential use of information in the records in litigation to degrade, embarrass, harass or impeach the integrity of the officer".

That is a clear admission, in so many words, that New York State Legislature enacted a statute MEANT, FACIALLY, to prevent impeachment of police officers as witnesses in litigation - which means in the context of criminal proceedings, to prevent effective cross-examination of police officers as prosecution's witnesses, which is a FACIAL violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

Did these 5 justices rise up in arms and say - I, Justice Sweeny (Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick, Kahn) - took MY OWN oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and I will not uphold a facially unconstitutional statute, which was introduced specifically to undermine effective cross-examination of police officers as witnesses of the prosecution, in violation of the 6th Amendment.

Instead, these justices preferred to sell out their oaths of office in order not to upset the powers-that-be that put them in office.

And, of course, neither of these 5 justices can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for their betrayal of their constitutional oath of office.

After all, one of them, Judge Rolando T. Acosta, is the member of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

No wonder why New York is one of the states from where people run the fastest.

It's called voting with their feet, from the corrupt government, including the highly educated, but still biased (and very likely - corrupt) judges.

People must demand that judges adhere to their constitutional oath of office first and foremost, and that they pay no heed to facially unconstitutional statutes and precedents.

And, judges SHOULD NOT be on Judicial Conduct Commission.  It should be populated only by lay people who have no ties with the legal industry, no connections with a judge or an attorney.