Upon my own experience, and upon the reported experience of many other people I know, it is an exercise in futiliy - the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, an underfunded entity populated exclusively with judges or atttorneys whose livelihood is controlled by judges, usually shreds all complaint against judges, no matter how meritorious and well-documented, without any investigation, sending to complainants insulting false form letters claiming that the investigation actually occurred and found nothing wrong in actions of judges.
Based on the documents I have read today, about a formal complaint that was actually brought by that same entity against an elected judge of the Binghamton City Court Daniel Sieden, a judge who was on the bench since 2008, I now have a notion as to what are the policies and the actual purpose of that commission - to keep judges under control of administrative judges, "judicial independence" can go to hell.
Actually, judicial independence in the State of New York was publicly going to hell in a basket since NYCLU has sued the NYS Office of Court Administration in 2022 for refusing to reveal secret memos with which NYS OCA was pressuing state judges in how to resolve certain types of cases. The lower court - we must give that judge credit - found for NYCLU, the political 1st Department reversed, and now the case is in front of the New York State Court of Appeals.
Administrative judges actually assign judges across the state court system to cases and apparently in control of judicial personnel, minute procedures invading what the judge may or may not do on the bench, and are in control of where these judges will work, literally, geographically, regardless of where they were elected by their voters to serve, see the story below how Judge Sieden was sent into exile and censured for criticism of "his betters".
Administrative judges decide which judges will be or will not be promoted.
Administrative judges, as NYCLU v NYS OCA lawsuit shows, brazenly issue "memos" directing actual judges on the bench how to decide cases.
We cannot talk about judicial independence at all under such circumstances.
And, as a consequence, judges may not claim absolute judicial immunity (illegally) granted to them by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect their independence - that now admittedly does not exist.
I wrote on this blog about how one of the predecesssors of the present Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th judicial district, Robert C. Mulvey, has taken an elected Madison County Judge Blaggio DiStefano off criminal cases, and then forced him into retirement in 2015 because Judge DiStefano stood his ground and refused to obey Mulvey on the issue of how many cases he turned over to "diversity" - or, in other words, to the so-called "drug courts".
I will post separate articles on the drug courts, but I can tell you know that, according to my research, drug courts are illegal entities that are supported only by federal grants - and that's why Mulvey imposed pressure upon Judge DiStefano, to be able to get that grant money.
With Judge DiStefano gone, Mulvey obtained an obedient boy on that same bench, Judge Patrick J. O'Sullivan, who was, apparently doing, what he was told, transferring the necessary number of cases to "diversity" - to get that federal grant money.
But, apparently, Judge DiStefano was not the only rebellious judge who still had a concept of judicial independence and was ready to defend it.
In 2023-2024, NYS administrative judges, the DEI hire Joseph A.Zayas (the "first Latino Chief Administrative Judge") and Eugene Faughnan of the 6th Judicial District, were unable to overpower the stance of independence of the Binghamton City Court judge Daniel Sieden, actively criticizing Eugene Faughnan for turning Judge Sieden into a slave of Judge Faughnan's directives and policies.
To overpower Judge Sieden, the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Eugene Faughnan filed a complaint with the automatic complaint shredder the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct. Complainting about conduct of Judge Sieden protected by the 1st Amendment and by the concept of judicial independence.
And - surprie, surprise! - the Commission switcched off its otherwise automatic complaint shredder, filed formal charges against Judge Sieden for "isubordination" and "creation of hostile work environment", no less - and publicly censured the judge.
You can read th eformal charges with attachments, on 48 glorious pages, here.
I really, really, really advise you to actually read these pages. Faughan is obviously a political hack and has more ambition and zeal for power than brains, otherwise he would not have put the inside power fight into a public.
In the formal complaint that you can read following the link above, you will learn, I am sure, with surprise - the same surprise and astonishment that Judge Sieden felt, I am sure - that apparently court personnel and court clerks and even confidential court secretaries of an elected public official, a city judge, may not be administered by that city judge, but must obey directives from the chief administrative judge of the distirct and from non-judicial personnel, the lapdog of Judge Faughnan, Porter L. Kirkwood, a no less brainless individual and a DEI hire in his own right (the "first African-American District Executive").
I wrote a lot of articles about Kirkwood in this blog, I know him personally, and my articles on this blog, as far as I know, cost him a judgeship in 2015, which I consider a reward for my public service for the people of Delaware County, NY..
Judge Sieden, obviously, did not want to accept such an imposition of the administrative judge mildly, and actively protested that he cannot administer his own staff in his own way, and that his staff, on directions from the administrative judge, interferes with Judge Sieden's actual work on the bench.
The "formal complaint", with its glorious attachments, actually accuses Judge Sieden for his 1st Amendment-protected criticism of the judiciary. And he was actually censured for that criticism. And, the formal complaint actually, shamelessly, endorses Faughnan's retaliative demotion of an elected Binghamton City Court official to Cortland City Court, and his removal from the courthouse where he was elected by the people to serve, by court security personnel.
And, as it always happens, the local "professional" press that is salivating over Judge Sieden's censure, shamelessly ducked the issue of the 1st Amendment retaliation and only robotically reports what the Commission said, without any attempts to give an honest assessment of what is going on, from the position of public interest.
That's what we have in the State of New York.
A judge is "independent" only while he obeys the biddings of the political hack administrative appointees and does not criticize anything that these often brainless political hacks are doing.
Same as an attorney is "independent" only until he or she starts criticizing a judge.
Remember, every judge and every attorney - including members of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct - took an oath to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution.
But, when it comes to protecting their own power struggles, all bets are off, and the 1st Amendment and "judicial independence" can go hang.
I will add some more articles specifically focusing on the content of Judge Sieden's disagreement with Judge Faughan's "drill sergeant " interference into judicial duties of judges Faughan "adminjstrates".
Perhaps, voters may prevail upon the NYS Legislature to address this interference with a specific statute specifically forbidding it and introducing and effective mechanism of enforcement of that ban.
The peacocking administrative unelected judges should be shown their place. THEY are the clerks serving elected judges on the bench, and not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment