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.


Tuesday, April 8, 2025

The reality of the land of kissing cousins in upstate New York: scratch a judge - or his law clerk - find a still raging bias against those villainous Neronis

Recently, I had a hilarious (now, looking back) experience with an idiotic attorney out of Queens who, having no evidence whatsoever to support his claim of "obstruction of an easement" against my husband and myself, brought two lawsuit against us where the only "evidence" he was using was that both of us were "cancelled" as criminal defense and civil rights attorneys by the local judicial/prosecutorial mafia as a thorn in their side.

He lost.

At the last motion hearing - where he lost - he was asking the court to impose sanctions upon me for suing that same judge for blocking access of the public to that same motion hearing.

The judge denied the sanctions and wrapped up the case as quickly as possible.

I do not believe that mooted the lawsuit though - as a case where (1) issues of serious pubic concern are raised which are (2) prone to repetition, but (3) escape review.

 I had a reason to believe that there was more to the judge's personal attitude and unexplained rulings against us before the judge finally forced to grant us a summary judgment, and I have started looking.


Here is what I found.


First of all, in 2016, Justice O'Sullivan replaced Judge Blaggio DiStefano in the position of Madison County judge.

At the time of our appearances before Justice O'Sullivan, I did not even remember about my old blog article covering how a well-known corrupt and politically connected then-Chief Administrative judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Mulvey squeezed Judge DiStefano first out of criminal cases and then into an early retirement.  Judge DiStefano himself went public with the reason for that discrimination, and I simply echoed what he said - that Mulvey required from DiStefano that DiStefano decides certain types of cases in certain ways, and DiStefano felt that to be an imposition on his independence and declined to obey.

It is apparent that O'Sullivan, who was the good boy who came to replace DiStefano as Madison County Judge, and then was quickly promoted to a Supreme Court seat mid-term as the County judge, coincidentally on retirement of Mulvey and replacing Mulvey, could be upset that I clearly implicated anybody who would come to replace DiStefano as "a good obedient boy" who is doing Mulvey's bidding and has not a shred of the required judicial independence.

The fact that was confirmed - at least, in my opinion - in the "old fence" case against us.  

But, ladies and gentlemen, apparently there was a lot more to that than Justice O'Sullivan's old grudge about my 2016 blog article.

When Justice O'Sullivan ascended to the Supreme Court bench in 2022, he hired as a law clerk one Gregory Ivan Monashevsky.

Now, I am a Russia-born native Russian, and to me this is a weirdly americanized Russian name.  In Russian, that name would sound as Grigoriy Ivanovich Monashevsky.  I do not know whether the Gregory Ivan Monashevsky is a first-generation Russian immigrant, or whether his name is his parents' paying dues to their heritage, but that the name is Russian is undeniable.  Monashevsky means "related to a monk" in Russian.


Since biases of law clerks, as a matter of law, are taken into account when considering potential biases of judges, and I have had problems with biased law clerks for myself and my former clients, before, I continued to dig for information about Gregory Ivan Monashefsky's background and connections in the area, primarily to court personnel, other judges that my husband and I knew and prosecutors or attorneys who had grudges against us.

I started to look up on Google, what information is there in public access about this Gregory Ivan Monashefsky - and found the very interesting information I am posting below.


First, Gregory Ivan Monashefsky's now late mother in law Dolores Cahalan was a long-time Chief Clerk of the Norwich City Court in Chenango County, neighboring with Madison and Otsego County, where my husband practiced for decades, and I practicced for several years, too.  That we were disliked by the court personnel in that court is an understatement of the century.

This particular Chief Court Clerk was Monashefsky's mother in law, so court gossip about us were, presumably, regularly aired with the daughter, Monashefsky's wife, and then fed to Monashefsky.

That was not all, unfortunately.

Having obtained from the obituary of Dolores Cahalan the name of her daughter who is married to Gregory Ivan Monashefsky, I looked up the daughter, Mary Monashefsky, and here is what I found.

We are now in 2025.

17 years ago, in 2008, when my husband was a prominent criminal defense attorney practicing for 34 years, and when I have just finished law school and was not practicing yet, a new DA was elected in Madison County.

His name was Bill (William) Gabor.  He is still the Madison County DA, 17 years down the road - meaning, he was re-elected in 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2024, DAs in New York have 4-year terms.

My husband practiced against him from 2008 to 2011, and I practiced against him in court from 2009 to 2015.

We won cases against him (and his ADAs), and he was not happy.

According to available publications on the Internet, in 2008, when Bill Gabor was first elected, the first thing he did was he promoted the former DA's administrative assistant to a "confidential secretary", thus freeing a vacancy of an administrative assistant - and hired for the vacancy of the administrative assistant the wife of his former law partner Gregory Ivan Monashefsky, Mary Monashefsky.

I do not know - and do not care to know - whether Mary Monashefsky is still toiling for Bill Gabor.

What I care for is the ridiculous hypocritical pretense of the local bullshitters in black robes that they are all honorable and "presumed impartial" when both them and their close staff writing their god-damned decisions harbor biases against parties in front of them, based on their old, deep and personal affiliations and grudges, their own and those of their family members and associates.





No comments:

Post a Comment