New complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission submitted

I just submitted complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission about the following judges:


1)  Judge Christopher Cahill of Ulster County - I submitted additional information that court administration destroyed of evidence of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with attorney Delice Seligman by overwriting the security tape of what happened on his floor that day.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill who threatened to "turn me in" went across the hall to complain against me to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Karen Peters who at that time handled my disciplinary proceedings.  To complain to the chief judge of the licensing court would be illegal, but illegality did not deter Judge Cahill from ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill's potential visit to Judge Peters's chambers that day documented by the security tapes was the main reason why the security tapes were overwritten before expiration of 30 days, the time set by NYS Court administration's own policy for such security tapes to remain intact.


Fortunately for me, Attorney Delice Seligman, driven by feelings which had nothing to do with friendship, put her foot into her own mouth and admitted to the ex parte communication in sworn statement to another court - and I provided that admission to the Judicial Conduct Commission as proof of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with her.  I wonder what the Commission will do now, being confronted with irrefutable proof that misconduct happened.


A lot of work - but judicial misconduct should not remain unreported.


2) Judge Mary Work of Ulster County - for her misconduct in a divorce case and another related case involving the same attorney Delice Seligman whose atrociously uncivilized behavior Judge Work seemed to be unwilling to control to protect my client and myself, the "slayer of New York judicial system" (Attorney Seligman's authorship).


3) Appellate Division Third Department and its Chief Judge Karen Peters, of Ulster County for misconduct, including, but not limited to:

•      engaging in ex parte communications with my opponents, see here and here;
• refusing to provide access to documents submitted ex parte;
• failing to provide to the court with the transferred documents the ex parte documents as part of the record
• failing to recuse from other pending proceedings where my husband and I were parties after recusing from one of such proceedings

All complaints were filed by e-mail, so that nobody can claim they were not filed where an electronic evidence of a transaction exists, and a copy was of the Appellate Division 3rd Department complaint was sent to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, also by email.


I pointed out to the Commission that the Commission is responsible for the current state of affairs where judges feel absolutely above the law and commit egregious misconduct with impunity while attorneys are afraid to report it for fear of retribution and losing their livelihoods through that retribution (which is what is happening to me now).


I asked the Commission for Judicial Conduct to do their jobs, for a change, on these complaints.


We will see whether that will happen.

A short answer to a big question. For how long will judicial corruption continue? For as long as you allow it and fund it

As I said in my previous blogposts, I am contacted more and more frequently by readers of this blog asking me when will judicial corruption end?


Judicial corruption seems to be a widespread problem in New York State courts.


No legal remedies that I tried so far, help.


Attorneys are sitting in the bushes trembling and afraid to speak out for fear of losing their licenses.


The public is left on its own to fight an issue that, apparently, cannot be fought in courts - because judges rounded up defenses to protect judges, Commission for Judicial Conduct, as I wrote in this blog, is a glorified shredder of complaints against judges, and judges, very simply, have no accountability FOR WHATEVER they do wrong.


So -  I am asked by my readers who call or e-mail me - when will it end?


And the answer is actually on the surface.


Judges are PUBLIC SERVANTS.  The sovereign in this state and country is - guess? - THE PEOPLE, YOU ARE THE SOVEREIGN, judges are YOUR SERVANTS, they are in YOUR EMPLOY, YOU are paying their salaries and benefits.


What should be done with a bad servant?  Of course, such a servant should be fired.


So - get together, speak out publicly, in writing, in published videotapes, march, picket your other servants in the government, the Legislature and the Governor, to get their attention - and bring about laws that will not allow your black-robed SERVANTS to violate your rights. 


Stop paying your servants who abuse you and who violate the Constitution.


It is that simple.

With their hands in the cookie jar - and continuing to grab the cookies

If a judge recuses from a case, that means, to any objective reasonable disinterested observer that something is wrong and that the judge recused because the judge could not deem it possible to judge the case fairly.






Courts invented for themselves a "presumption of integrity" of judges.






Well, that presumption, which is a laughable matter to begin with because judges ALSO created FOR THEMSELVES the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity FOR MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT ACTS (which cancels any presumptions of integrity in any mind not affected by a lobotomy) - again, this alleged "presumption of integrity" goes out the door when the judge recuses from a party's case.


In my experience, when a judge recuses from a party's case, he must recuse from all cases of the same party.






Logical? Fair? 




There is case law indicating that a judge may not re-enter a case from which the judge recused, it is a due process violation making every decision of that judge void.


And, Judges John F. Lambert and Brian D. Burns, when recused from my cases (even though they did not have to - they recused because of federal lawsuits where I was not a party and where they were named in their official capacity only, on issues of constitutionality of statutes, not because they did anything wrong), they recused from ALL cases in ALL courts at the same time, and never came back on any cases.  That is what I call integrity.






Yet, judges I will enumerate below in a table in this blog decided differently.  I encourage you to word-search names of judges from the table in this blog, there is a "search" window on the left.  I wrote about each one of them at length here, detailing their misconduct, with documentary evidence.




And all decisions that are now under review of my disciplinary court were made by disqualified judges who re-entered my cases after recusals.  Federal courts rejected that argument without review based on the concept of judicial immunity.


Don't you think it looks a like a pattern and a policy of how New York State courts operate?  And that federal courts help them operate that way?
And by the way - one of the appellate cases to be reviewed by the disqualified Appellate Division 3rd Department, and argued in front of this court by the court's own attorney (a disciplinary violation on both sides) is going to happen tomorrow.  I made a motion to recuse - and got no answer so far.  And, of course, I will not go for the oral argument tomorrow - I am not participating in this farce.
Yet, I got an answer on another motion to recuse - motion denied without an explanation, I will run it in a separate blog.
The case to be heard on appeal tomorrow involves the issue how the New York Department of Environmental conservation defrauds New Yorkers into paying fines and doing costly environmental remediation on their property when DEC has absolutely no right to do that - and yet, it continues to do that with the blessing of state courts, federal courts and the New York State Attorney General, who, instead of prosecuting fraud in the government, defends fraudsters in court.
I will shortly publish a separate blog about DEC fraud upon New Yorkers, with documentary evidence.

No.	Name of judge	Name of court	When recused	Reentered?	Recused after reentry?
1.	Carl F. Becker	Delaware County Family Court,  Surrogate’s Court, Supreme Court	October 2009, Delaware County Family Court	Assigned himself to all my cases in February 2011, in Delaware County Supreme Court (after I complained about him to the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked to take him off the bench)	Yes, in August of 2012, after sanctioning me for suing him and referring his own sanctions to disciplinary authorities
2.	Kevin D. Dowd	Chenango County Supreme Court, Delaware County Supreme Court	In the fall of 2012 in Neroni v. Harlem (Delaware),  but failed to recuse in Mokay v. Mokay, with the same party, and claimed it was because of his policy of not presiding over cases of attorneys appearing in front of him, but failed at the same time to recuse from a Chenango case where I was a party	After I confronted him with inconsistent application of his policy, he recused from the Chenango case, but failed to vacate parts of his decisions that were against me
3.	James C. Tormey	Chenango County Supreme Court Delaware County Supreme Court	Recused in Chenango County in the fall of 2013 from the case where Dowd was the judge previously, but refused to recuse in Delaware County and sanctioned me for making a motion to recuse	I qualify non-recusal from a Delaware County case after recusal from a Chenango County case as a re-entry	No, sanctioned me for making a motion to recuse, for bringing a federal case AGAINST HIMSELF, and referred the case to disciplinary authorities
4.	Michael Coccoma	Delaware County Supreme Court, all upstate courts	2007, recused from Mokay v. Mokay	Michael Coccoma’s wife was part of the prosecuting team in the disciplinary action of my husband, based on the case from which Michael Coccoma recused – I consider that a re-entry by Michael Coccoma, Michael Coccoma as the chief administrative judge of upstate New York continues supervising assignment of judges to all cases involving me and my husband as parties, despite requests to transfer all of our cases to downstate, outside of the reach of Michael Coccoma and his direct subordinates; Michael Coccoma assigned Judge Dowd (who is close to retirement and will soon be eligible for financial post-retirement perks from Michael Coccoma) to the case where Michael Coccoma’s wife was a private attorney and where I requested sanctions against her – sanctions were, naturally, denied
5.	The entire court, Karen Peters as a presiding judge (Karen Peters was a member of the Commission for Judicial Conduct that rejected my documented complaints against Judge Becker and allowed him to ascend to the bench of the Supreme Court)	Appellate Division Third Judicial Department	June 11, 2014 Recused from my disciplinary case and from the “case” of my husband (he has no pending disciplinary case in that court, but was on the caption of the order of transfer anyway)	Refused, without an explanation, to recuse from four more actions (appeals) pending in the same court with me, my husband, or me and my husband as parties. All appellate cases involve decisions by similarly disqualified judges (Dowd, Tormey, Becker) regarding our property or reputation.  So, AppDiv3rd ceded one case, but rounded up a protective wall around the 3 above judges

I can only hold the torch (for so long), but it is for New Yorkers themselves, through their Legislature and constitutional intiatives, to clean the mess this state's courts are in

Because of this blog, I am experiencing a surge of requests to represent people in mostly civil proceedings where people ask me to make motions to recuse judges and relate to me stories of judicial misconduct which are really - REALLY - bad.


My heart goes out to these people.


People who otherwise do not have a voice because that voice is stifled by the oppressive court system in New York state have been of the main reasons why I started this blog to begin with - to give them that voice.


Yet, as much as I would wish to help everybody, I cannot do it - and not simply because my time is limited to 24 hours a day, but because I have tried all avenues to make motions to recuse as legitimate as they are presented to the public - and failed.


Civil proceedings (Family Court proceedings, divorce proceedings) are subject to the so-called "rules of frivolous conduct" which were created, obviating the Legislature, directly by the New York State Court Administration.  Under those rules, any party or attorney may be ordered by a judge, in the judge's sole discretion and without much procedure, to pay up to $10,000.00 per "act" that the judge may deem frivolous - and that is including a motion to recuse AGAINST THAT SAME JUDGE that the same judge will review and decide.  And, on top of that, the judge may award attorney's fees for that same frivolous conduct, if the opponent of the party or attorney who asked the judge to recuse, was represented by an attorney.


And attorneys often capitalize on that opportunity, because they often are stuck in cases with non-paying clients with no recourse, and sanctions for frivolous conduct against the opponent provide them a golden opportunity to get paid - usually at any rate they claim to the court.


So, when people ask me to step into the case TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE, I cannot subject the new client and myself to these sanctions.  I've tried and I've been sanctioned.  And I appealed and I lost, and I sued in federal court and I lost. 


And the same dishonest and unconstitutional rules, dishonestly and unconstitutionally applied by dishonest judges who have vested interest to protect themselves from motions to recuse remain in place, hurting people daily.


I already argued to state and federal courts that such rules are unconstitutional for many reasons, one of the main ones is that:


(1) rules of frivolous conduct amount to an important legislative policy and should be introduced only by elected legislative representatives, and not by court administrators;  and that by introduction of these rules, not only attorneys and parties are deterred from asserting their constitutional rights to a fair trial by a competent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, but New York voters are stripped of their voting rights (disenfranchised). 


Courts that reviewed my claims refused to render an opinion on these issues - you will not see opinions on these issues in any of court decisions made against me lately, and I've raised such an issue in nearly every appeal in state court and in every federal action. 


These issues are simply ignored.  When such issues are collectively ignored by all courts on all levels, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that there is an institutional position expressed by such failure to review this issue and that no matter how hard I am going to try to raise it again, it will fail, and that something needs to be done on a legislative, possibly, constitutional level (a referendum for amendment of a State or even Federal Constitution) in order to address this crisis.


It is a crisis because of people who are contacting me, and the majority of these people want to remain unknown for fear of retribution from the judicial system - which, of course, I am going to honor.


(2) rules of frivolous conduct are vague and encourage arbitrary application to parties or attorneys at the judge's "discretion";  imagine the "discretion" of an enraged judge who is mad at an attorney or party because they dared to make a motion to recuse.


I remember the reaction of attorneys to my first motion to recuse Judge Carl F. Becker in August of 2009, during my first year of practice of law.  They made "big eyes" to me in the corners of the courtroom and outside of it and whispered that "they support me", that "everybody knew" what I was raising in the motion, but "nobody would raise it", that I am the "fresh air" that is "much needed in our profession", but "take care not to burn your bridges".


I did not take care - and as a result I am in the middle of a disciplinary proceeding instituted exclusively based on sanctions of a judge imposed upon me after I sued that judge for misconduct, on behalf of myself and my two clients, one of them my husband.


(3) such rules do not provide a "catch-all" provision prohibiting judges to sanction for constitutionally protected conduct - and especially for making constitutional arguments.  I have been sanctioned for raising constitutional arguments on behalf of my clients several times and at this time there is a chance that I will be disbarred BECAUSE of it. 


All public organizations and all law professors who otherwise advance theories against attorney discipline for criticism of judges declined to help me claiming that they are too busy.


Those attorneys who sympathize with what is happening to me and with what I am doing, do that in deep secret, because they are afraid for their own fate if they express sympathy or support me publicly.


Some attorneys tried to get a political capital on my blog and to cement their favorable positions with judges by providing to courts copies of this blog as proof of my alleged psychiatric instability, lack of credibility and unfitness to be an attorney. 


So - it is fashionable to kick me and unfashionable to support me.  I am sure that in the unlikely situation if I actually win the disciplinary proceeding (one may always dream about a court with minimum integrity, as required by the court's oath of office), there will be a lot of people coming forward and telling me that "the supported me all along".


Yet, same as with my fight to restore the license of my husband - tons of people tried to get my free legal advice claiming that "Fred always advised them for free because I am a friend" and thus encouraging me to do the same and none of those alleged friends supported us.  My husband provided free consultations and mentoring to tons of local attorneys during his 37-year legal career, and during time when I was with him and witnessed it, and NONE of them helped me appeal Fred's case or bring it to federal court.


In fact, at this time, not one, but many local attorneys referred "problem clients" to me where issues of judicial misconduct were involved and attorneys did not want to handle those issues on their own, for fear of being "blackballed" and losing their business.  Obviously, for those attorneys, I am expendable. 


So, instead of presenting a united front against judicial misconduct, as an honorable legal profession and ASSOCIATION of attorneys should do, what we have is scattered individuals who, for fear of their own livelihood, would not support their colleague and will instead refer clients to that colleague who may add to that colleague's demise, to protect themselves.


The bottom line is - I've tried it all with motions to recuse and failed.


The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct so far did not discipline a single judge who was involved in very well documented misconduct I complained about.  Instead, judges I complained about have my livelihood and reputation in their hands, assigned themselves or through other disqualified judges to my cases (and such assignment is, as federal courts explained to me, immune from civil liability under the absolute judicial immunity doctrine) and sanctioned me for invented reasons - and, in reality, for complaining about them.


It is not usual for an attorney to start a blog and start speaking out against judges.


In fact, discussing what happens in court and in pending cases is frowned upon.


I only started to do that because NOTHING ELSE HELPS.  THE LAW APPEARS TO BE DEAD and not to work.  CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ARE IGNORED AND/OR SANCTIONED.  Uniformly.  Throughout state and federal courts, on trial and appellate levels.


And people who call me universally report that attorneys refuse to raise issues of judicial misconduct and bias, no matter how well established (and I agreed with a lot of them that misconduct was egregious - after review of transcripts and copies of pleadings and court decisions provided to me).


We have arrived at a situation where there is a human rights crisis CREATED by the state and federal court system - where there is NO WAY, ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for a poor litigant in a civil case (Family Court) to obtain:


(1) effective representation from an independent counsel not fearing to raise all necessary issues;


(2) effective access to a truly impartial and fair court.


And that must be the concern of the New York State Government that an impenetrable wall preventing access to court and fair adjudication of cases has been created in this state,


(1) through apathy and inaction of its Legislature


        (a) that allows the "rules of frivolous conduct" to continue to exist, even though by introduction of those rules the New York State court administration clearly usurped the authority for legislative actions and legislative policy from the New York State Legislature,


        (b) that failed to introduce STATUTES 
  
              (I) for peremptory challenges against judges, as exist in other states, and as exist in New York State if fact-finders are jurors;


             (II) that would PROHIBIT judges to decide motions to recuse that same judge;


             (III) that would demand that a judge must step off ALL CASES INVOLVING THE SAME PARTY if the judge is disqualified from one such case;


              (IV) that would establish mechanisms of disclosure of information disqualifying judges pursuant to Judiciary Law 14 AND due process of law;


               (V) that failed to put into the Judiciary Law 14 a catch-all phrase of constitutional requirements for disqualification;


               (VI) that would prohibit sanctioning attorneys or parties for raising constitutional arguments in court, and especially for making motions to recuse;


(2) through complicity of its Executive branch which represents and protects rogue judges in civil rights actions at taxpayers' expense instead of prosecuting them,


(3) through self-interested actions of judges who:


      (a) introduced all kinds of doctrines which are not part of statutes or state or federal Constitutions, which help them avoid liability, such as immunity doctrines and multiple doctrines blocking civil rights actions in state and federal courts;


      (b) intimidate and chill, if not destroy independent attorneys who raise issues of judicial misconduct - through sanctions at all levels, in state and federal, trial and appellate courts, for making motions to recuse or for otherwise criticizing judges, and through disciplinary proceedings against those same attorneys based on those same sanctions (as it is happening to me as we speak);


     (c) bribe other attorneys with "assigned counsel" privileges in a tight and ever shrinking market of legal services;


     (d ) wine and dine with politically connected and wealthy attorneys behind closed doors to secure support of the legal establishment.




I believe the New York State Legislature has no right to continue to avoid addressing this human rights crisis which affects, yes, myself too, but it affects thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers, every day.


New Yorkers, I am also addressing you directly.  I am not the New York government and I alone cannot resolve this crisis - I can only point out what other attorneys are afraid to point out.


Moreover, you can count on my words that as soon as my license is pulled,


                 (which is very possible, because courts so far unilaterally ignored
                 all constitutional arguments I raised without an explanation or by
                 simply claiming "and we reviewed all REMAINING issues and find them
                 without merit", even though constitutional arguments, under the federal
                pre-emption doctrine and Supreme law of the land constitutional rule,
                should be reviewed FIRST, not LAST)


I will be bad-mouthed in the press, called "disgruntled disbarred attorney" whose words should not be credited - and that is a large part of why judges try at this time to take my license, to discredit me as an outspoken critic of the system.  The trick to tar-and-feather a political opponent is centuries-old, but works every time, especially when used by the government that has power against an individual that doesn't have it - except for speaking out.


And I continue to speak out.


But I will not change the situation until and unless New Yorkers realize that without their own pressure upon the legislatures and without their own movement to introduce the right laws to change the outrage of judicial misconduct that is running amok in state courts, NOTHING WILL CHANGE, and NEW YORKERS WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER - WITHOUT A LEGAL RECOURSE.


What I suggest I can do at this time - and I already started to do that - is offer my services as an investigative journalist and help create videos and publish them on my blog for victims of judicial corruption. 


I am also working with a group of people about starting a non-profit addressing the issue of judicial corruption.   Victims of judicial corruption and New Yorkers who want to bring about a change on this issue are welcome to join.

Is it a disciplinary violation for attorney Thomas Schimmerling of Delhi, NY to not pay village taxes in the amount of $14,456.35 for his law office for 8 years?

At this time I am simply referring to my post in my other blog, dedicated to fiscal responsibility of the government.

It mentions a local attorney, Thomas Schimmerling of Delhi, NY, who is over $14,456.35 in arrears for 8 years while, upon my review of his cases on E-Courts and in just one Appellate Division of New York state out of 4, Mr. Schimmerling was actively generating income out of the  very office for which he did not pay taxes.

Attorney fees for an attorney of Mr. Schimmerling's experience in this area is nowhere lower than $175.00 per hour, the five pages of listings of court cases that I obtained from New York e-courts clearly indicate that Mr. Schimmerling was appearing in the New York State Supreme Court mostly as Plaintiff's attorney, and retainer fees in Supreme Court cases start from $3,000.00.

It is apparent that Mr. Schimmerling generated income out of his office located in the poor area, Delhi, NY, without any intention to share his income, as he was supposed to, and to pay taxes to the Village of Delhi.

I believe, this is a large disciplinary violation, but, since nothing has been done about it for 8 years, I guess, nothing will be done about it anyway - so I decided to go public with it.

How ethical is for attorney Schimmerling to use the services of the Village of Delhi without paying village taxes, in a village where, according to the census, per capita annual income is $13,421 and where "about 8.1% of families and 14.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 17.5% of those under age 19 and 7.1% of those age 65 and over"?

Moreover, had this same attorney not paid income taxes in the same amount, he would have been prosecuted for a federal felony and, possibly, automatically disbarred.

Apparently, not to pay property taxes for the property that helps generate that income is ok.

Yet, the Committee for Professional Conduct of the 3rd Department has no time prosecuting Mr. Schimmerling, because its time and "limited resources" are all tied up in eliminating attorneys who criticize judicial misconduct and misconduct within the Committee.

When judge engages in sex with a court clerk in his chambers AND IN PUBLIC PLACES - that is not a big deal? Obviously, not.

I have written on this blog about a Michigan judge and a son of a judge who engaged in sex in his chambers with a witness in a proceeding where he was presiding.


He was taken off the bench, but not suspended or disbarred and remains an attorney "in good standing".


Recently, two more judges, now in California, also reportedly engaged in sex in the courthouses, one with a court clerk, in chambers and IN PUBLIC PLACES, and the other judge - with multiple different women, in his chambers.  They were neither suspended from the bench,  nor removed - they were simply "censured" and they are continuing to be judges!  Naturally, their law licenses are also intact.


Why such a light discipline?  Is it because the disciplining authorities themselves consist of judges who have a vested interest not to make rulings in such situations which may backfire against themselves.  Is having sex in chambers such a popular pastime among judges?


You know why they were given only a censure and allowed to remain on the bench?  They "admitted wrongdoing" and "expressed remorse".  Imagine.  They did not know they were engaged in wrongdoing when they had sex in chambers, one judge - with a court employee - but as soon as they were caught, they "expressed remorse".  So what?  Didn't they still betray public trust?  Didn't they still dropped the prestige of their profession?  Didn't they still show that their judgment is so poor as to their own actions that they cannot be judges of actions of other people?


Apparently, not.


If this kind of behavior of judges (who are also lawyers) is acceptable - why do we really regulate the legal profession, to give judges power to decide who may and may not earn a livelihood based on whether they criticize such judges or not.


And I am also interested and, frankly concerned, about one more issue:  what is the fate of those who reported the California sex-starved judges?


In Michigan, the judge had the stupidity to "self-report" himself.


In California, there is no information as to how the two judges' embarrassment and discipline came about.


Imagine that they remain in the courthouse where the possible reporter would be their subordinate.


Are the reporters still employed by the court system? 


Or are they the only people really punished for revealing to the public that judges use their chambers as a free tax-funded dating motel?

Pro Se appellants are systematically denied access to their own records in the Chenango County Family Court, New York

I know of at least three people who are ready to come forward with affidavits, who were denied access to their own files by the personnel of the Chenango County Family Court, New York.

 

All three people share certain characteristics.

 

These three people are, according to their own reports to me share a lot of similarities:  

 

1. all of them are middle-aged or elderly;
2. all of them are disabled;
3. all of them could not or cannot at this time afford a private attorney;
4.  all of them wanted to appeal decisions of the Chenango County Family Court;
5. all of them were denied access to the court records in order to prepare their record on appeal, contrary to the rules of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department requiring clerks of the courts that issued orders that are appealed, to actually certify the record for pro se appellants;
6. two of the three appeals in question involved appeals from decisions of Judge Kevin Dowd, the local "hanging judge" who is usually the law unto himself; and, most importantly,
7. in all three of the notices of appeal/pre-calendar statements filed in the Chenango County Family Court,  pro se appellants are raising issues of bias and/or misconduct of judges who made the appealed decision.

 

One of the pro se appellant had to apply for an assigned counsel, even though that appellant wanted to proceed pro se because of a horrific experience in the lower court with an assigned counsel.

 

The second appellant complained to the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Mulvey, and personnel of the Chenango County Family court immediately allowed his access to the record after a letter from Judge Mulvey's chambers explaining to the personnel of the court that there are rules requiring them to give access to the so-called "public file" to pro se appellants in order to allow them to prepare the appeal.

 

In fact, whether a party is or is not represented, Judiciary Law 255 and due process of law allows such a party access to the court files anyway.

 

Personnel of the Chenango County Family Court, in fact, denied that the 2nd appellant was even denied access, and immediately did their job and certified the Record on Appeal for the 2nd Appellant.

 

The third appellant is trying to get access to his file at present.  He has been, according to his statements to me, repeatedly refused access by court employees by the name of "Judy" and then "Carol" who claimed that the pro se appellant will not be given access, and "Judy" claimed that the Appellate Division "will investigate" on its own when the appellant asked her how then will he be able to proceed with his appeal.

 

The appellant reportedly called the chambers of Judge Mulvey, talked to Judge Mulvey's assistant, who explained to him that he has an absolute right of access to the "public file" that is used to prepare the record on appeal, but not to the so-called "court file" with possible notes of the judge.  Judge Mulvey's assistant promised the 3rd pro se appellant to call the Chenango County Family Court and talk with them.

 

He reportedly called and talked to them.

 

After that the Chenango County Family Court personnel, "Carol", continues to deny the 3rd Appellant access to the "public file" and thus prevents him from preparing his record on appeal, while they are fully aware that appeals from Family Court are very fast-paced.  The 3rd pro se appellant has only 60 days to prepare that appeal, and time is running out fast while he cannot even get access to the record.

 

I believe that what I just described is egregious discrimination against indigent pro se appellants and, in my opinion, can be qualified as a deliberate attempt of the Chenango County Family Court to block pro se appeals raising issues of judicial bias and misconduct, because in this state (and, possibly, country), issues of judicial bias and misconduct most often are raised by pro se parties since attorneys are afraid to do it - because they are afraid of retaliation, see here and here.

 

Whether what is being done in the Chenango County Family Court is because of poor training of its personnel, poor administration by the judge who handles that court, or because of deliberate instructions to block appeals by pro se litigants, especially those raising issues of judicial bias and misconduct (and that is easily discernible from the so-called "pre-calendar statements" that accompany notices of appeal filed in that same court) - it is a disgrace.