I have been reading judicial decisions by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in cases involving me as an attorney and/or a party, and civil rights cases where I was not involved in any capacity.
Most of the cases, as I wrote previously in this blog, were rejected without much explanation in "summary" decisions.
My husband and I ventured to ask for the so-called "en banc" rehearing by the entire panel of the court.
With the same result.
The usual template statement in the summary decisions of the 2nd Circuit in civil rights cases affirming decisions of the lower district courts (no matter how unconstitutional those decisions are) are because they are affirming the "thoughtful" decision of the lower court for "substantially the same" reasons.
"Substantially the same" is not the same.
By rules of federal appellate procedure, in pro se civil rights cases the appellate court receives the docket sheet (list of cases) "in lieu" (instead) of the real record.
According to the unspoken rule of the 2nd Circuit that can fit into two short letters: TL;DR (too long, did not read), it is the clerks who read those pesky civil rights appeals, and it is judges on senior status, most of them over the age of 70 and 80, who "hear" and decide those cases.
Since judges send to the clerks an unmistakeable message that civil rights appeals are to be discarded, they are discarded.
But, to discard a civil rights appeal because the court wants to clear its docket of those pesky civil rights appeals would be too arrogant for even today's utmost level of arrogance of the American judiciary.
So, a template phrase is invented that the case is affirmed on appeal "on substantially the same grounds" as the "thoughtful" decision of the district court.
First of all, where there is a phrase "substantially the same", it is not the same, there are differences, and the court is bound, as a matter of due process of law, to explain the EXACT grounds upon which the appeal is rejected.
Furthermore, ANY decision of a judge, no matter how corrupt, unlawful or unconstitutional it may be, is still THOUGHTFUL, because any judicial writing is a product of THOUGHT.
So, to say that a judicial decision is affirmed because it was THOUGHTFUL is to say that the appellate court DOES NOT CARE what the decision was at all - it will rubber stamp any decision anyway.
So much for civil rights litigation.
Yet, the judiciary does not seem to realize that revolutions are made (and the American revolution that we celebrated on the 4th of July included) where legal remedies for violations of basic human rights are not available.
No matter how THOUGHTFUL those violations are.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Judge Kopf is forced to stop blogging - even though he denies it - because his blog shows too much of the (usual warped) working of judicial minds
Judge Kopf of Nebraska federal court was, probably, the only blogging judge in this country.
Same as blogging for lawyers, it is an "unspoken taboo" to spill the guts of the "workings" (or, rather, "non-workings") of the judicial system in the U.S.
My blog, which has recently reached and exceeded 200,000 views from around the world, is an illustration of how spooked the subjects of the criticism are - I was even charged for criminal contempt and the object of my criticism asked the court to put me in jail for what I had an absolute right to do, discussing my own case, and incompetence, laziness and sheer, let's say, irrationality is the polite word, of the people who handled my case, on the judicial and prosecutorial side, in the open. Blogging on issues of public concern is protected by the 1st Amendment - isn't it?
Including Judge Kopf's blogging.
Yet, Judge Kopf did a lot worse to the judicial system than I did.
When I criticized the judiciary, the judiciary could defend by saying that it is just my opinion, and my opinions are - check from a long list of swear words for the one that would be fitting as to how bad and incompetent my opinions must necessarily be (since they criticize the judiciary, they must be incompetent).
Judge Kopf did an indefensible thing by actually revealing the though process of the judiciary and subjected the judiciary and his court to public scrutiny, criticism by scholars and the press, and jeopardized new and old cases pending in court where he participated, due to his publicly announced prejudices and prejudgments.
The rule of courts pertaining to judges - you are immune for malicious and corrupt behavior, do whatever you want to do, but BE DISCREET! It is usually the rule of thieves, of course, but, if the shoe fits...
Judge Kopf lifted the veil of the so-called "judicial deliberation", the sacred cow of the judicial system.
How many things are dumped and explained away because of the "judicial deliberation".
When a judge refuses to recuse and says that he "examined his own conscience" and found that he can remain impartial (even if it is obvious to any reasonable impartial observer that it is an outright blatant lie), that decision is usually assigned to "judicial discretion" and the "deliberative process" of judicial thinking is usually affirmed by appellate courts. After all, there is no record of the "deliberative though process" of judges and there is no way to X-ray their conscience to see whether they reviewed anything, whether they have a conscience to review and consult, and whether, after review of this intangible substance, what they are saying is true.
Once again, Judge Kopf did a lot worse than that.
Judge Kopf actually reveals his views - which, judging by judicial decisions that I reviewed in my career as a legal assistant, law student and then attorney - does not seem to be so much off mainstream of "judicial thinking", at least what glimpses of this "thinking" is available through such decisions.
Judge Kopf instead just spelled out what other judges were too timid or secretive to express.
Judge Kopf is the one who revealed that he would have not one, not two, but three reasons why he would allow an execution of an innocent person to proceed, and one of those prominent reasons would be - he waited too long. Meaning - those pesky people bothering the judge with their pesky rights, including a right to life - why wouldn't they judge go away and not take the valuable judicial time. They waited too long, they sat on their rights and now they want what - to live? How ridiculous.
This is the judge, by the way, who gave "advice" to female litigators not to dress in a way that would cause the law clerks to call such a female attorney "an ignorant slut" behind their backs.
Says a lot about judge-personnel relationship where not only the judge does not control disrespectful outbursts of his personnel against attorneys, and especially from the lips of law clerks who, according to Judge Kopf author his decisions - but Judge Kopf completely endorses those outbursts and lays it out to female attorneys as if it is the law...
I published criciticism of Judge Kopf's "judicial thought process", as well as of other examples of Judge Kopf's thought processes expressed in his blog.
I criticized Judge Kopf's blog on the following topics:
1) his readiness (and three "reasons") to execute an innocent that I criticized both in English and in Russian - as well as on Facebook;
2) his frustration with people supporting the gay marriage - his advice to them: "grow the f**k up", an advice most peculiar in the face of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision also supporting the gay marriage;
3) his belief (amounting to pre-judgment) that all criminal defendants coming in front of him are guilty before he hears the evidence.
Actually, my blog criticizing Judge Kopf on his "stand" against gay marriage supporters is on the first page if you search for it on Google.
And Judge Kopf's open stand against the gay marriage, interestingly, very possibly was the reason for the forcible demise of his blog.
Here is the timeline:
May 3, 2015 - Judge Kopf advises supporters of gay marriage to "grow the f**k up";
May 7, 2015 - date of my blog criticizing that blog post (which is on top of Google search);
June 26, 2015 - the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the right to a gay marriage on equal protection grounds;
July 9, 2015 - Judge Kopf "pulls the plug" on his blog, after profusely stating that pulling the plug was not forced (other than the Chief Judge of the court made it her business to poll the court employees about Judge Kopf's behavior asking them a question if his blog was an embarassment to the court system, the majority allegedly said "yes", and somehow the Chief Judge considered it her duty to impart the results of her alleged public opinion poll to Judge Kopf - without openly telling him to "shut the f**k up").
It is my belief that it is the stance by Judge Kopf on gay marriage which ran contrary to the U.S. Surpeme Court's decision that forced the Nebraska court to finally tell Judge Kopf not to continue to reveal the "judicial thought process" - which, as I said above, I don't believe was any different from "thought process" of other judges, they simply do not reveal this secret of secrets to the public for fear of losing public trust and their own legitimacy.
But what is the most conspicuous is the gap between the date of Judge Kopf's blog on the three reasons as to why he would execute an innocent and his "pulling the plug" date, under obvious pressure from the Chief Judge of the Nebraska federal district court.
On March 25, 2014 Judge Kopf published his blog post indicating that he has a prejudice against female attorneys who do not dress in a way that would please Judge Kopf's law clerks.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On September 10, 2014.Judge Kopf published his opinion that he would execute an innocent person while knowing about his or her factual innocence and found three reasons for doing it.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On December 28, 2014 Judge Kopf revealed that, in his opinion, all criminal defendants are guilty at the time of plea negotiation process - that means, before the evidence is in, and that also means that Judge Kopf are pre-judging criminal cases.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On May 3, 2015 Judge Kopf called supporters of gay marriage "special snowflakes" and suggested for them "to grow the f**k up".
Within a month and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the gay marriage.
At about the same time, on July 6, 2015, Judge Kopf publishes a blog where he criticizes proposal of the U.S. Senator Cruz to conduct intermediate elections for the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal judges and make them accountable to the American people "a wacko".
Moreover, Judge Kopf went so far as claiming that Senator Cruz is unfit to be president because - the horror! - he encroached upon the sacred cow, the judicial unaccountability, which Judge Kopf somehow equated with violating the U.S. Constitution.
Somehow, prejudging criminal cases does not violate the U.S. Constitution in Judge Kopf's eyes.
Somehow, sending an innocent to an execution and finding three reasons for doing it does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Somehow, endorsing discriminatory behavior against female attorney by law clerks does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Attempting to bring accountability to the absolute and unbridled judicial power/tyranny - that is what allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution.
THEN the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court has had her now famous "private opinion poll" of court employees, an extraordinary step which had nothing to do with any kind of legal procedure, and imparted to Judge Kopf that the employees not only judge female attorney's attire, but also Judge Kopf's blogging - which somehow forced Judge Kopf to pull the plug on a blog of many years, and activity protected by the 1st Amendment.
Judge Kopf is on a senior status, meaning that nothing can hurt his position or his pension. Why did he really pull the plug on his blog and what kind of threats were imparted to him, remains a mystery. I highly doubt that the opinion of court personnel mattered to Judge Kopf to the point of stopping his blogging activity.
When somebody stresses that something is NOT the reason to "pull the plug" on the activity protected by the 1st Amendment, and when somebody like Judge Kopf, an outspoken and "cranky" judge, goes out of his way to "explain away" his decision as voluntary and having nothing to do with pressure from the U.S. Legislature or the Chief judge, something stinks.
One does not have to be a mind reader or a detective to see the political pressure to be all over Judge Kopf's decision to pull the plug on his blog - and especially the timing is conspicuous.
Criticism of a presidential candidate on July 6, 2015 - pulling the plug on July 10, 2015.
I doubt that the Chief Judge even COULD poll all court personnel over the week immediately after the 4th of July weekend - when all courts go into deep hibernation and send out their personnel on vacations.
What is interesting though, whether the "private opinion poll" was a reality or a fantastical pretext for coercion of Judge Kopf, is not what was the trigger for Chief Judge's pressure on Judge Kopf, but what WAS NOT such a trigger.
It is not suprising that the Chief Judge was irked into action when Judge Kopf has shown TOO MUCH of the judicial thought process and stepped on the toes of a potential president who may be in charge of future judicial appointments.
It is not surprising that the American judiciary is not only lawless, lazy and incompetent, but is also arrogant and cynical.
The interesting part is - just how arrogant they are. Do they think there is no way of summing up what they DO NOT consider affecting a judge's qualifications to sit on that bench?
So, let's sum it up.
For the American judiciary (as reflected by Judge Kopf's blog and no reaction from the Chief Judge or the Supreme Court to these opinions), it is ok to execute innocents.
For the American judiciary, it is ok to prejudge criminal cases and treat all criminal defendants like trash, the presumption of innocence be damned.
For the American judiciary, it is ok to discriminate against women, including female attorneys.
Yet, for the American judiciary, it is not ok to run contrary to what your superiors say and call "snowflakes" supporters of gay marriage right before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the gay marriage.
And, for the American judiciary, it is not ok to explain to the public in black and white that the American judiciary opposes any law that can impose accountability on it - and call a people's representative's (and a presidential candidate's) proposal on that subject "a wacko". Appearances come first. The judiciary will filibuster such a law without unnecessary fanfare anyway.
So much for the rule of law, but THANK YOU, Judge Kopf, for a unique insight into the workings of judicial mind.
Same as blogging for lawyers, it is an "unspoken taboo" to spill the guts of the "workings" (or, rather, "non-workings") of the judicial system in the U.S.
My blog, which has recently reached and exceeded 200,000 views from around the world, is an illustration of how spooked the subjects of the criticism are - I was even charged for criminal contempt and the object of my criticism asked the court to put me in jail for what I had an absolute right to do, discussing my own case, and incompetence, laziness and sheer, let's say, irrationality is the polite word, of the people who handled my case, on the judicial and prosecutorial side, in the open. Blogging on issues of public concern is protected by the 1st Amendment - isn't it?
Including Judge Kopf's blogging.
Yet, Judge Kopf did a lot worse to the judicial system than I did.
When I criticized the judiciary, the judiciary could defend by saying that it is just my opinion, and my opinions are - check from a long list of swear words for the one that would be fitting as to how bad and incompetent my opinions must necessarily be (since they criticize the judiciary, they must be incompetent).
Judge Kopf did an indefensible thing by actually revealing the though process of the judiciary and subjected the judiciary and his court to public scrutiny, criticism by scholars and the press, and jeopardized new and old cases pending in court where he participated, due to his publicly announced prejudices and prejudgments.
The rule of courts pertaining to judges - you are immune for malicious and corrupt behavior, do whatever you want to do, but BE DISCREET! It is usually the rule of thieves, of course, but, if the shoe fits...
Judge Kopf lifted the veil of the so-called "judicial deliberation", the sacred cow of the judicial system.
How many things are dumped and explained away because of the "judicial deliberation".
When a judge refuses to recuse and says that he "examined his own conscience" and found that he can remain impartial (even if it is obvious to any reasonable impartial observer that it is an outright blatant lie), that decision is usually assigned to "judicial discretion" and the "deliberative process" of judicial thinking is usually affirmed by appellate courts. After all, there is no record of the "deliberative though process" of judges and there is no way to X-ray their conscience to see whether they reviewed anything, whether they have a conscience to review and consult, and whether, after review of this intangible substance, what they are saying is true.
Once again, Judge Kopf did a lot worse than that.
Judge Kopf actually reveals his views - which, judging by judicial decisions that I reviewed in my career as a legal assistant, law student and then attorney - does not seem to be so much off mainstream of "judicial thinking", at least what glimpses of this "thinking" is available through such decisions.
Judge Kopf instead just spelled out what other judges were too timid or secretive to express.
Judge Kopf is the one who revealed that he would have not one, not two, but three reasons why he would allow an execution of an innocent person to proceed, and one of those prominent reasons would be - he waited too long. Meaning - those pesky people bothering the judge with their pesky rights, including a right to life - why wouldn't they judge go away and not take the valuable judicial time. They waited too long, they sat on their rights and now they want what - to live? How ridiculous.
This is the judge, by the way, who gave "advice" to female litigators not to dress in a way that would cause the law clerks to call such a female attorney "an ignorant slut" behind their backs.
Says a lot about judge-personnel relationship where not only the judge does not control disrespectful outbursts of his personnel against attorneys, and especially from the lips of law clerks who, according to Judge Kopf author his decisions - but Judge Kopf completely endorses those outbursts and lays it out to female attorneys as if it is the law...
I published criciticism of Judge Kopf's "judicial thought process", as well as of other examples of Judge Kopf's thought processes expressed in his blog.
I criticized Judge Kopf's blog on the following topics:
1) his readiness (and three "reasons") to execute an innocent that I criticized both in English and in Russian - as well as on Facebook;
2) his frustration with people supporting the gay marriage - his advice to them: "grow the f**k up", an advice most peculiar in the face of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision also supporting the gay marriage;
3) his belief (amounting to pre-judgment) that all criminal defendants coming in front of him are guilty before he hears the evidence.
Actually, my blog criticizing Judge Kopf on his "stand" against gay marriage supporters is on the first page if you search for it on Google.
And Judge Kopf's open stand against the gay marriage, interestingly, very possibly was the reason for the forcible demise of his blog.
Here is the timeline:
May 3, 2015 - Judge Kopf advises supporters of gay marriage to "grow the f**k up";
May 7, 2015 - date of my blog criticizing that blog post (which is on top of Google search);
June 26, 2015 - the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the right to a gay marriage on equal protection grounds;
July 9, 2015 - Judge Kopf "pulls the plug" on his blog, after profusely stating that pulling the plug was not forced (other than the Chief Judge of the court made it her business to poll the court employees about Judge Kopf's behavior asking them a question if his blog was an embarassment to the court system, the majority allegedly said "yes", and somehow the Chief Judge considered it her duty to impart the results of her alleged public opinion poll to Judge Kopf - without openly telling him to "shut the f**k up").
It is my belief that it is the stance by Judge Kopf on gay marriage which ran contrary to the U.S. Surpeme Court's decision that forced the Nebraska court to finally tell Judge Kopf not to continue to reveal the "judicial thought process" - which, as I said above, I don't believe was any different from "thought process" of other judges, they simply do not reveal this secret of secrets to the public for fear of losing public trust and their own legitimacy.
But what is the most conspicuous is the gap between the date of Judge Kopf's blog on the three reasons as to why he would execute an innocent and his "pulling the plug" date, under obvious pressure from the Chief Judge of the Nebraska federal district court.
On March 25, 2014 Judge Kopf published his blog post indicating that he has a prejudice against female attorneys who do not dress in a way that would please Judge Kopf's law clerks.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On September 10, 2014.Judge Kopf published his opinion that he would execute an innocent person while knowing about his or her factual innocence and found three reasons for doing it.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On December 28, 2014 Judge Kopf revealed that, in his opinion, all criminal defendants are guilty at the time of plea negotiation process - that means, before the evidence is in, and that also means that Judge Kopf are pre-judging criminal cases.
That did not cause the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court to conduct a private opinion poll amongst the court employees as to whether Judge Kopf's blog is an embarrassment to the judicial system.
On May 3, 2015 Judge Kopf called supporters of gay marriage "special snowflakes" and suggested for them "to grow the f**k up".
Within a month and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the gay marriage.
At about the same time, on July 6, 2015, Judge Kopf publishes a blog where he criticizes proposal of the U.S. Senator Cruz to conduct intermediate elections for the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal judges and make them accountable to the American people "a wacko".
Moreover, Judge Kopf went so far as claiming that Senator Cruz is unfit to be president because - the horror! - he encroached upon the sacred cow, the judicial unaccountability, which Judge Kopf somehow equated with violating the U.S. Constitution.
Somehow, prejudging criminal cases does not violate the U.S. Constitution in Judge Kopf's eyes.
Somehow, sending an innocent to an execution and finding three reasons for doing it does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Somehow, endorsing discriminatory behavior against female attorney by law clerks does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Attempting to bring accountability to the absolute and unbridled judicial power/tyranny - that is what allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution.
THEN the Chief Judge of Judge Kopf's court has had her now famous "private opinion poll" of court employees, an extraordinary step which had nothing to do with any kind of legal procedure, and imparted to Judge Kopf that the employees not only judge female attorney's attire, but also Judge Kopf's blogging - which somehow forced Judge Kopf to pull the plug on a blog of many years, and activity protected by the 1st Amendment.
Judge Kopf is on a senior status, meaning that nothing can hurt his position or his pension. Why did he really pull the plug on his blog and what kind of threats were imparted to him, remains a mystery. I highly doubt that the opinion of court personnel mattered to Judge Kopf to the point of stopping his blogging activity.
When somebody stresses that something is NOT the reason to "pull the plug" on the activity protected by the 1st Amendment, and when somebody like Judge Kopf, an outspoken and "cranky" judge, goes out of his way to "explain away" his decision as voluntary and having nothing to do with pressure from the U.S. Legislature or the Chief judge, something stinks.
One does not have to be a mind reader or a detective to see the political pressure to be all over Judge Kopf's decision to pull the plug on his blog - and especially the timing is conspicuous.
Criticism of a presidential candidate on July 6, 2015 - pulling the plug on July 10, 2015.
I doubt that the Chief Judge even COULD poll all court personnel over the week immediately after the 4th of July weekend - when all courts go into deep hibernation and send out their personnel on vacations.
What is interesting though, whether the "private opinion poll" was a reality or a fantastical pretext for coercion of Judge Kopf, is not what was the trigger for Chief Judge's pressure on Judge Kopf, but what WAS NOT such a trigger.
It is not suprising that the Chief Judge was irked into action when Judge Kopf has shown TOO MUCH of the judicial thought process and stepped on the toes of a potential president who may be in charge of future judicial appointments.
It is not surprising that the American judiciary is not only lawless, lazy and incompetent, but is also arrogant and cynical.
The interesting part is - just how arrogant they are. Do they think there is no way of summing up what they DO NOT consider affecting a judge's qualifications to sit on that bench?
So, let's sum it up.
For the American judiciary (as reflected by Judge Kopf's blog and no reaction from the Chief Judge or the Supreme Court to these opinions), it is ok to execute innocents.
For the American judiciary, it is ok to prejudge criminal cases and treat all criminal defendants like trash, the presumption of innocence be damned.
For the American judiciary, it is ok to discriminate against women, including female attorneys.
Yet, for the American judiciary, it is not ok to run contrary to what your superiors say and call "snowflakes" supporters of gay marriage right before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the gay marriage.
And, for the American judiciary, it is not ok to explain to the public in black and white that the American judiciary opposes any law that can impose accountability on it - and call a people's representative's (and a presidential candidate's) proposal on that subject "a wacko". Appearances come first. The judiciary will filibuster such a law without unnecessary fanfare anyway.
So much for the rule of law, but THANK YOU, Judge Kopf, for a unique insight into the workings of judicial mind.
Turf sharing by judicial candidates in Delaware County
According to my reliable sources of information, the turf has been divided by two judicial candidates for the seats of Delaware County Judges (New York).
Porter Kirkwood (current Delaware County Attorney, friend, subordinate and colleague of the "retiring" Judge Becker of many years) and Richard Northrup (the current Delaware County District Attorney) who have not been elected as judges yet, already decided that:
First of all, Richard Northrup will preside over cases that may have been in investigation stages while he was still a District Attorneys, and will preside over cases of people whose background he knows, through information not available to the defendants or their attorneys, from confidential sources. That information and not what will be in the record, will be "informing" potential Judge Northrup's decisions.
And, to learn just how dishonest Richard Northrup can be when he needs to save face for the local government official and be a tool of revenge for Judge Becker - consult the Barbara O'Sullivan case.
I am still waiting for Richard Northrup to cough up information to the court that the alleged "victim" of the crime charged against Barbara O'Sullivan (assault by a dog on a police officer), "coincidentally" a defendant in a parallel civil case by Barbara O'Sullivan against that same police officer for vehicular assault upon her several days prior to the alleged "dog incident" after which the police officer should have been taken off the force, or to desk duty, investigated and prosecuted (but never prosecuted by Richard Northrup) happens to be the nephew of a long-time employee of Richard Northrup as a District Attorney.
No, Richard Northrup continues to keep to himself this information to the court which would have instantly cause to have the case tossed - because Richard Northrup, a disqualified person, was present in the grand jury proceeding, directed that grand jury proceeding and obtained an indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan, a person who sued Judge Becker and is hated by Judge Becker with a passion, obviously without revealing to the grand jury that Richard Northrup is doing it not for "the People of the State of New York", but to save a nephew of his own longtime employee and to exact revenge on behalf of a judge against a person who sued him, FOILed information about him and complained about him to authorities on several occasions about Judge Becker's judicial misconduct (one instance involving interfering with jury deliberation in a murder trial of Glenford Hull some years ago).
With this "stellar" integrity, Richard Northrup, as far as I know, is running unopposed. I wonder why no attorney wants to run for a judge in Delaware County, a well-paid job, against Richard Northrup. Fear? Of what?
So, Delaware County residents and litigants will have a district attorney with questionable integrity who will handle criminal and surrogate's court, dealing with people's liberty, property and money.
Delaware County residents and litigants will also have a similarly unscrupulous County Attorney Porter Kirkwood handling Family Court in Delaware County, continuing the "glorious" tradition of Judge Becker who first represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for 27 years and then presided over cases that same department, Judge Becker's client of 27 years (as well as, according to my information, where Commissioner Moon was a petitioner, who also speedily retired, earlier than Becker, during investigation into some fiscal activities of Delaware County).
Porter Kirkwood similarly represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for many years (and was Becker's colleague and subordinate in that representation for many years), and now he will pick up the torch in rubber-stamping decisions for his own client from Becker.
A rhetorical question - why not swap? Why wouldn't Northrup handle Family Court? Why wouldn't Kirkwood handle County Court? Why both of these judicial candidates are so bent on such openly conflicted judgeships? Why they are so blatantly announcing to all who care to hear about their little "turf division", before they are even elected.
Why the very first picture on Porter Kirkwood's fundraiser post on Facebook is featuring Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell, 2nd from left, who by law is the court clerk for the County and Supreme Courts of Delaware County, and both judicial candidates will be, no doubt, "ordained" into positions of "Acting Justices" of the Supreme Court, too - as is the pattern with County/Family court judges?
Apparently, to show that, even though Becker leaves by July 31, 2015, his legacy of lawlessness will stay. Apparently, to show that the law in Delaware County will be the "old boys' club" "law" - and to send a message to opponents of such an arrangement. Bow to it - or else.
Yet, despite fundraisers, "dedicated team of volunteers" (I wonder if Kirkwood is using County employees as "volunteers" who comply for fear for their job security), it is the voters who have the final say whether Kirkwood and Northrup will or will not be judges.
And it is for the honest attorneys with the required qualifications for a judge (over 10 years of practicing) to step up to the plate and oppose both of these "old boys" and run for these judicial seats.
I have a pessimistic view of what is going to happen.
With the County Board of Elections in the hands of the County Attorney (think about it!) who is running for the position of the King of Delaware County (well, now the King will have two heads) that currently Carl Becker occupies, the Board of Elections will bend over backwards for both candidates to "eeke out" a victory, and the voters will never know how that will be done, even if they vote against these two dishonorable injustices.
But, who knows - maybe, a miracle will happen and Delaware County voters will wake up and say "no" at the voting booths to the dishonest people who want to grab absolute and unlimited power over people's lives for 10 years at the least?
Future will show.
Porter Kirkwood (current Delaware County Attorney, friend, subordinate and colleague of the "retiring" Judge Becker of many years) and Richard Northrup (the current Delaware County District Attorney) who have not been elected as judges yet, already decided that:
- Richard Northrup will "take on" the County and Surrogate's court;
- Porter Kirkwood will "take on" the Family court.
First of all, Richard Northrup will preside over cases that may have been in investigation stages while he was still a District Attorneys, and will preside over cases of people whose background he knows, through information not available to the defendants or their attorneys, from confidential sources. That information and not what will be in the record, will be "informing" potential Judge Northrup's decisions.
And, to learn just how dishonest Richard Northrup can be when he needs to save face for the local government official and be a tool of revenge for Judge Becker - consult the Barbara O'Sullivan case.
I am still waiting for Richard Northrup to cough up information to the court that the alleged "victim" of the crime charged against Barbara O'Sullivan (assault by a dog on a police officer), "coincidentally" a defendant in a parallel civil case by Barbara O'Sullivan against that same police officer for vehicular assault upon her several days prior to the alleged "dog incident" after which the police officer should have been taken off the force, or to desk duty, investigated and prosecuted (but never prosecuted by Richard Northrup) happens to be the nephew of a long-time employee of Richard Northrup as a District Attorney.
No, Richard Northrup continues to keep to himself this information to the court which would have instantly cause to have the case tossed - because Richard Northrup, a disqualified person, was present in the grand jury proceeding, directed that grand jury proceeding and obtained an indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan, a person who sued Judge Becker and is hated by Judge Becker with a passion, obviously without revealing to the grand jury that Richard Northrup is doing it not for "the People of the State of New York", but to save a nephew of his own longtime employee and to exact revenge on behalf of a judge against a person who sued him, FOILed information about him and complained about him to authorities on several occasions about Judge Becker's judicial misconduct (one instance involving interfering with jury deliberation in a murder trial of Glenford Hull some years ago).
With this "stellar" integrity, Richard Northrup, as far as I know, is running unopposed. I wonder why no attorney wants to run for a judge in Delaware County, a well-paid job, against Richard Northrup. Fear? Of what?
So, Delaware County residents and litigants will have a district attorney with questionable integrity who will handle criminal and surrogate's court, dealing with people's liberty, property and money.
Delaware County residents and litigants will also have a similarly unscrupulous County Attorney Porter Kirkwood handling Family Court in Delaware County, continuing the "glorious" tradition of Judge Becker who first represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for 27 years and then presided over cases that same department, Judge Becker's client of 27 years (as well as, according to my information, where Commissioner Moon was a petitioner, who also speedily retired, earlier than Becker, during investigation into some fiscal activities of Delaware County).
Porter Kirkwood similarly represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for many years (and was Becker's colleague and subordinate in that representation for many years), and now he will pick up the torch in rubber-stamping decisions for his own client from Becker.
A rhetorical question - why not swap? Why wouldn't Northrup handle Family Court? Why wouldn't Kirkwood handle County Court? Why both of these judicial candidates are so bent on such openly conflicted judgeships? Why they are so blatantly announcing to all who care to hear about their little "turf division", before they are even elected.
Why the very first picture on Porter Kirkwood's fundraiser post on Facebook is featuring Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell, 2nd from left, who by law is the court clerk for the County and Supreme Courts of Delaware County, and both judicial candidates will be, no doubt, "ordained" into positions of "Acting Justices" of the Supreme Court, too - as is the pattern with County/Family court judges?
Apparently, to show that, even though Becker leaves by July 31, 2015, his legacy of lawlessness will stay. Apparently, to show that the law in Delaware County will be the "old boys' club" "law" - and to send a message to opponents of such an arrangement. Bow to it - or else.
Yet, despite fundraisers, "dedicated team of volunteers" (I wonder if Kirkwood is using County employees as "volunteers" who comply for fear for their job security), it is the voters who have the final say whether Kirkwood and Northrup will or will not be judges.
And it is for the honest attorneys with the required qualifications for a judge (over 10 years of practicing) to step up to the plate and oppose both of these "old boys" and run for these judicial seats.
I have a pessimistic view of what is going to happen.
With the County Board of Elections in the hands of the County Attorney (think about it!) who is running for the position of the King of Delaware County (well, now the King will have two heads) that currently Carl Becker occupies, the Board of Elections will bend over backwards for both candidates to "eeke out" a victory, and the voters will never know how that will be done, even if they vote against these two dishonorable injustices.
But, who knows - maybe, a miracle will happen and Delaware County voters will wake up and say "no" at the voting booths to the dishonest people who want to grab absolute and unlimited power over people's lives for 10 years at the least?
Future will show.
Two attorneys suspended for trying to protect the life of an elderly person from surrogate's court abuse. The person is dead. The attorneys' suspension continues.
Ok, when I started to criticize and investigate judicial misconduct in my state - through motions to recuse, FOIL requests, civil rights lawsuits, complaints to the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct (a glorified shredder, I know, but just to make the record), and, finally, when I saw that nothing else helps, through this blog - I was put into the disciplinary proceedings which remain pending up to now, and I was charged with criminal contempt (by the main witness to that alleged crime), simply for blogging about my disciplinary case and incompetence and misconduct of judges and attorneys involved in the case.
I was fined to death when any of my actions, no matter how legitimate, were considered "frivolous" in the "discretion" of the judges whom I sued and investigated and whose misconduct I documented.
I was risking my liberty when the object of my criticism attempted to put me in jail for exercising my 1st Amendment right.
I was, and am trying to continue, to protect people's (and my own) constitutional rights against the ruthless system perversely called "the justice system" where the main actors know and enforce the unspoken rule that there is no such thing as justice, only connections.
Even though what I was doing was rare among attorneys, I as a species, an attorney criticizing judicial misconduct, am not unique.
Courageous attorneys expose judicial misconduct in other states, too, usually with sad consequences.
Yet, they do that anyway, knowing what dire consequences awaits them.
In Illinois, two attorneys were suspended, and their suspension continues at this time, for trying to protect an elderly (relatively wealthy) person who wanted to live and die at home, in the loving care of her daughter and to pass away after receiving her rites from the Roman Catholic priest that the person knew for a long time and trusted.
Those simple pleasures were denied Mary Sykes by the court system, she was placed in the "care" of a guardian who put her in a nursing home (then into a hospice), denied her daughter access to her elderly mother, and finally, now the report is that Mary Sykes passed away in a hospice, while her money will go to attorneys in her surrogate's case.
One of the attorneys was suspended for allegedly "lying" about Mary Sykes case.
One thing I won't believe that she was "lying" about is that Mary Sykes preferred to stay at home to going to a nursing home. Nobody wants to go to a nursing home. Nobody wants to cede freedom of communicating with whoever she wants and making her own decisions.
I bow to the attorneys who put their reputation and livelihoods on the line, and lost their law licenses, trying to save a life of an elderly person from abuse of the court system. They did not save her, but they did make her plight public - at a great sacrifice to themselves., and as far as I know, the social media is picking up on elder abuse and surrogate court corruption.
The fight of these two honest attorneys Joanne Denison and Ken Ditkowsky, at a great personal sacrifice, may be saving lives as we speak and in the future, and not only in the State of Illinois.
Thank you!
I was fined to death when any of my actions, no matter how legitimate, were considered "frivolous" in the "discretion" of the judges whom I sued and investigated and whose misconduct I documented.
I was risking my liberty when the object of my criticism attempted to put me in jail for exercising my 1st Amendment right.
I was, and am trying to continue, to protect people's (and my own) constitutional rights against the ruthless system perversely called "the justice system" where the main actors know and enforce the unspoken rule that there is no such thing as justice, only connections.
Even though what I was doing was rare among attorneys, I as a species, an attorney criticizing judicial misconduct, am not unique.
Courageous attorneys expose judicial misconduct in other states, too, usually with sad consequences.
Yet, they do that anyway, knowing what dire consequences awaits them.
In Illinois, two attorneys were suspended, and their suspension continues at this time, for trying to protect an elderly (relatively wealthy) person who wanted to live and die at home, in the loving care of her daughter and to pass away after receiving her rites from the Roman Catholic priest that the person knew for a long time and trusted.
Those simple pleasures were denied Mary Sykes by the court system, she was placed in the "care" of a guardian who put her in a nursing home (then into a hospice), denied her daughter access to her elderly mother, and finally, now the report is that Mary Sykes passed away in a hospice, while her money will go to attorneys in her surrogate's case.
One of the attorneys was suspended for allegedly "lying" about Mary Sykes case.
One thing I won't believe that she was "lying" about is that Mary Sykes preferred to stay at home to going to a nursing home. Nobody wants to go to a nursing home. Nobody wants to cede freedom of communicating with whoever she wants and making her own decisions.
I bow to the attorneys who put their reputation and livelihoods on the line, and lost their law licenses, trying to save a life of an elderly person from abuse of the court system. They did not save her, but they did make her plight public - at a great sacrifice to themselves., and as far as I know, the social media is picking up on elder abuse and surrogate court corruption.
The fight of these two honest attorneys Joanne Denison and Ken Ditkowsky, at a great personal sacrifice, may be saving lives as we speak and in the future, and not only in the State of Illinois.
Thank you!
Friday, July 10, 2015
NYS Court Administration: do not FOIL for what we do not want to show you
I received a cranky response from the Executive Director of the New York State Court Administration to my administrative appeal of constructive denial of the FOIL request pertaining to the records showing appointments of attorneys to attorney disciplinary committees, names of attorneys on those committeys in the Appellate Division 2nd Department and all supporting documentation for such appointments.
Here it is in its entirety.
The response, in short, is like this:
1) NYS Court Administration already gave you information as to points 1 & 2 - true, but only partially;
2) NYS Court administration does not maintain records as to items
3) in the alternative, NYS Court Administration directed me to find information I was seeking through my FOIL request at the following links:
Second, NONE of these links lead to the information I was seeking.
The "Table 2" that the cranky FOIL response of Mr. Younkins refers to is not responsive to my FOIL inquiry, as it provides only general statistics of how all cases were decided by Appellate Divisions in 2013 (the latest year for which annual reports are available, when I was asking for that information up to present day).
So, the public, I guess, is not entitled to know the names of attorneys who are members of the attorney disciplinary committees in the Appellate Division 2nd Department - no links were provided, no information was provided, and the NYS Court Administration claimed that such records "are not maintained".
So, the 2nd Department disciplinary committees operate in complete secret, even the identity of who is allegedly "protecting the public" from bad attorneys is not revealed - and no records are maintained as to how such attorneys are appointed to disciplinary committees in all of the 4 Appelalte Divisions in New York State.
Simply put, the public does not have a right to know who allegedly "protects" it - while in reality protecting their own turf, protecting politically connected attorneys from liability and going after competitors and critics of misconduct in the government and especially in the judiciary.
And this state of event needs to be changed.
Urgently.
Legislatively.
Here it is in its entirety.
The response, in short, is like this:
1) NYS Court Administration already gave you information as to points 1 & 2 - true, but only partially;
2) NYS Court administration does not maintain records as to items
- # #3-5 (current staff of attorney disciplinary committees, orders for their appointments and supporting papers for their appointments),
- # 6 (statistics of attorney discipline imposed, by type of discipline, by county and by type of employment of disciplined attorneys - public or private);
- # 7 number of disciplinary inquiries (without mentioning names) for all attorneys in the State of New York dating back several years.
3) in the alternative, NYS Court Administration directed me to find information I was seeking through my FOIL request at the following links:
- http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/appellatedivisions.shtml
- http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/annual/index.shtml
- http://www.nysba.org/copdannualreports/
Second, NONE of these links lead to the information I was seeking.
The "Table 2" that the cranky FOIL response of Mr. Younkins refers to is not responsive to my FOIL inquiry, as it provides only general statistics of how all cases were decided by Appellate Divisions in 2013 (the latest year for which annual reports are available, when I was asking for that information up to present day).
So, the public, I guess, is not entitled to know the names of attorneys who are members of the attorney disciplinary committees in the Appellate Division 2nd Department - no links were provided, no information was provided, and the NYS Court Administration claimed that such records "are not maintained".
So, the 2nd Department disciplinary committees operate in complete secret, even the identity of who is allegedly "protecting the public" from bad attorneys is not revealed - and no records are maintained as to how such attorneys are appointed to disciplinary committees in all of the 4 Appelalte Divisions in New York State.
Simply put, the public does not have a right to know who allegedly "protects" it - while in reality protecting their own turf, protecting politically connected attorneys from liability and going after competitors and critics of misconduct in the government and especially in the judiciary.
And this state of event needs to be changed.
Urgently.
Legislatively.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct approves anti-semitic conduct of Judge Kevin Dowd
I received in the mail a letter from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct where I am informed that "upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline" pertaining to my complaints dated March 23, 2015 and April 1, 2015.
Those two complaints were both against Judge Kevin Dowd (the judge who has, after the complaints were filed, held an ex parte trial despite my illness and is now trying to punish me for not appearing at the trial while being injured, ill and on a legitimate medical leave, diagnosed by my primary physician after an in-person evaluation).
The interesting detail is that the dismissal after "careful consideration" occurred the very next day after I filed a new complaint against Judge Dowd, where I documented his continued retaliation against me AND my client and husband Fred Neroni, by holding an ex parte trial against my husband, blocking my access to trial exhibits, and, at this time, attempting to punish me for being sick and not appearing at the trial because I was injured and had a legitimate medical leave from work, issued by my primary physician after in-person evaluation and diagnosis (Dowd never saw me when he rejected that diagnosis).
Appears that the "careful consideration" by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is just words to justify shredding legitimate complaints regarding judicial misconduct.
And that is why I am making these complaints public.
This is the letter of dismissal in full.
Please, note that the only identifying information is the file numbers.
My records show that I filed on those dates complaints against Judge Kevin Dowd. I make a point of making such complaints only by e-mail, so that there is a record of the filing that the NYS Commission cannot deny, as it can deny ever receiving complaints by mail or fax.
By the way, an investigator from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct who recently called me to investigate a complaint against Judge Alta Martin (ex parte communication, incompetence), indicated to me that her supervisor prefers her to communicate and receive communications by fax, which, to me, is a problem. Fax transmissions are unreliable and do not show, as the e-mail does, what exactly was transmitted. Maybe, that is the reason why the investigator's supervisor "prefers" fax transmissions to e-mail communication?
What was interesting about the phone call by the Commission's investigator was that it was the first and only so far attempt by the Commission to talk to me, and talk to me in a case where I was not even a witness to misconduct, but misconduct was reported to me. Upon my conversation with the actual witnesses to misconduct, none of them were contacted, even though their contact information is in no way a secret. Moreover, the "investigated" judge is a village justice. Statistics of judicial discipline in the State of New York shows that local town/village justices are at least sometimes disciplined, while judges of county and supreme court - and especially of the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals - are never disciplined at all.
Once again, I reported judicial misconduct since 2009, as is my duty as an attorney. I was the witness in the overwhelming majority of the cases I reported. At NO time did the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct try to talk to me as a witness to the proceedings or to Mr. Shtrauch as the witness to the other proceeding that was the subject of the March 23, 2015 complaint, before it dismissed all of those complaints "upon careful consideration" - that is the template for shredding the complaints.
Yet, back to the rubber-stamped dismissal "upon careful consideration" dated June 30, 2015 pertaining to my complaint dated March 23, 2015 which I provide below:
Apparently, if the NYS Commission considers retaliation against a pro se indigent litigant, a Jewish immigrant and a foreign national, a person for whom English is not a native language, and retaliation with the help of a known Nazi sympathizer, "insufficient indication" of judicial discipline, first, it sends an undeniable message to all litigants that (1) anti-semitism is endorsed by the State of New York in the court system as the rule of operation, and that (2)
Why I believe that Judge Dowd knew that the armed officer Judge Dowd used to hover behind the back of a pro se litigant who dared to file a motion to recuse in the judge's chambers, search that person's belongings right in the chambers and, after recusal of the judge, to oust the person from the courthouse, was a Nazi sympathizer?
Here is the letter from Judge Robert Mulvey dated October 7, 2014 in response to the pro se litigant's complaint describing the incident with the Nazi sympathizer and asking to investigate:
Dowd put the Nazi sympathizer that he was supposed to investigate as the court administrator, armed, behind his victim's back on November 25, 2014, nearly 2 months after the date of the letter.
Whatever the "investigation" was, Mr. Shtrauch, the witness to the court officer/Nazi sympathizer's behavior, was never interviewed by Judge Dowd as the court administrator. So, instead of doing his duty as the court adminsitrator, Judge Dowd used his position as the administrator to receive information regarding Mr. Shtrauch's being a victim of a certain court officer's anti-semitic behavior and used that specific court officer to hurt Mr. Shtrauch even more.
New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, by stating that such behavior is "insufficient" to constitute judicial misconduct, endorsed and approved that conduct and allowed it to proceed, repeat itself and multiply in New York courts.
We'll see what the federal jury will say about the same behavior, since Judge Dowd's conduct is also a part of a pending federal lawsuit, possibly, yet another reason of why Judge Dowd so viciously is trying to hurt me and my husband, and why NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is trying to white-wash Judge Dowd.
It will be interesting, to say the least, if the federal jury in Shtrauch v Dowd finds that Judge Dowd engaged in unconstitutional conduct and in discrimination against a Jewish pro se indigent litigant while NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, "upon careful consideration" no less, found that "there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline".
That was my complaint of March 23, 2015.
My complaint of April 1, 2015 is fully provided here, it is about the Mokay case and Judge Dowd's shenanigans in that case.
Based on dismissal of April 1, 2015 complaint, it is now legitimate in New York for a judge:
1) to preside as a judge over a trial where the judge, his secretary and law clerk are subpoenaed hostile witnesses for a party;
2) delegate judicial duties to a law clerk;
3) allow law clerk to rule while on a vacation (that information was revealed after the trial ,that Judge Dowd was outside of the state of New York on a vacation in Virginia from March 27, 2015 to April 6, 2015 and his law clerk ruled in his stead);
4) to accept filings of motions directly into his chambers bypassing the County Clerk's office. I do not suggest to try repeating that, since the normal procedure is to file all pleadings with the County Clerk's office and, if you are not a privileged litigant, as the NYS Assistant Attorney General is (especially that NYS AG's office is representing Dowd in a currently pending federal litigation in his individual capacity - a disqualifying factor for the judge to preside over any case where NYS AG is a party, attorney or witness).
As I said before, multiple times, for Judge Dowd the rule of law is nothing, and his own whim and the whims of those who he favors is everything.
Of course, such a judge should not be on the bench.
And in New York, of course, his status of being a judge somehow puts him above the law and prevents discipline or any kind of accountability.
Yet, in its efforts to dismiss complaints agaisnt Judge Dowd, NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has hit the bottom in endorsing vindictive and anti-semitic behavior of this judge - and retaliation against an attorney who exposed that anti-semitic behavior and is prosecuting it in federal court.
Because now, due to dismissal of the complaint against Judge Dowd, New York courts have endorsed anti-semitism as their rule of operation.
Which is beyond disgraceful.
Those two complaints were both against Judge Kevin Dowd (the judge who has, after the complaints were filed, held an ex parte trial despite my illness and is now trying to punish me for not appearing at the trial while being injured, ill and on a legitimate medical leave, diagnosed by my primary physician after an in-person evaluation).
The interesting detail is that the dismissal after "careful consideration" occurred the very next day after I filed a new complaint against Judge Dowd, where I documented his continued retaliation against me AND my client and husband Fred Neroni, by holding an ex parte trial against my husband, blocking my access to trial exhibits, and, at this time, attempting to punish me for being sick and not appearing at the trial because I was injured and had a legitimate medical leave from work, issued by my primary physician after in-person evaluation and diagnosis (Dowd never saw me when he rejected that diagnosis).
Appears that the "careful consideration" by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is just words to justify shredding legitimate complaints regarding judicial misconduct.
And that is why I am making these complaints public.
This is the letter of dismissal in full.
Please, note that the only identifying information is the file numbers.
My records show that I filed on those dates complaints against Judge Kevin Dowd. I make a point of making such complaints only by e-mail, so that there is a record of the filing that the NYS Commission cannot deny, as it can deny ever receiving complaints by mail or fax.
By the way, an investigator from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct who recently called me to investigate a complaint against Judge Alta Martin (ex parte communication, incompetence), indicated to me that her supervisor prefers her to communicate and receive communications by fax, which, to me, is a problem. Fax transmissions are unreliable and do not show, as the e-mail does, what exactly was transmitted. Maybe, that is the reason why the investigator's supervisor "prefers" fax transmissions to e-mail communication?
What was interesting about the phone call by the Commission's investigator was that it was the first and only so far attempt by the Commission to talk to me, and talk to me in a case where I was not even a witness to misconduct, but misconduct was reported to me. Upon my conversation with the actual witnesses to misconduct, none of them were contacted, even though their contact information is in no way a secret. Moreover, the "investigated" judge is a village justice. Statistics of judicial discipline in the State of New York shows that local town/village justices are at least sometimes disciplined, while judges of county and supreme court - and especially of the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals - are never disciplined at all.
Once again, I reported judicial misconduct since 2009, as is my duty as an attorney. I was the witness in the overwhelming majority of the cases I reported. At NO time did the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct try to talk to me as a witness to the proceedings or to Mr. Shtrauch as the witness to the other proceeding that was the subject of the March 23, 2015 complaint, before it dismissed all of those complaints "upon careful consideration" - that is the template for shredding the complaints.
Yet, back to the rubber-stamped dismissal "upon careful consideration" dated June 30, 2015 pertaining to my complaint dated March 23, 2015 which I provide below:
Apparently, if the NYS Commission considers retaliation against a pro se indigent litigant, a Jewish immigrant and a foreign national, a person for whom English is not a native language, and retaliation with the help of a known Nazi sympathizer, "insufficient indication" of judicial discipline, first, it sends an undeniable message to all litigants that (1) anti-semitism is endorsed by the State of New York in the court system as the rule of operation, and that (2)
Why I believe that Judge Dowd knew that the armed officer Judge Dowd used to hover behind the back of a pro se litigant who dared to file a motion to recuse in the judge's chambers, search that person's belongings right in the chambers and, after recusal of the judge, to oust the person from the courthouse, was a Nazi sympathizer?
Here is the letter from Judge Robert Mulvey dated October 7, 2014 in response to the pro se litigant's complaint describing the incident with the Nazi sympathizer and asking to investigate:
Dowd put the Nazi sympathizer that he was supposed to investigate as the court administrator, armed, behind his victim's back on November 25, 2014, nearly 2 months after the date of the letter.
Whatever the "investigation" was, Mr. Shtrauch, the witness to the court officer/Nazi sympathizer's behavior, was never interviewed by Judge Dowd as the court administrator. So, instead of doing his duty as the court adminsitrator, Judge Dowd used his position as the administrator to receive information regarding Mr. Shtrauch's being a victim of a certain court officer's anti-semitic behavior and used that specific court officer to hurt Mr. Shtrauch even more.
New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, by stating that such behavior is "insufficient" to constitute judicial misconduct, endorsed and approved that conduct and allowed it to proceed, repeat itself and multiply in New York courts.
We'll see what the federal jury will say about the same behavior, since Judge Dowd's conduct is also a part of a pending federal lawsuit, possibly, yet another reason of why Judge Dowd so viciously is trying to hurt me and my husband, and why NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is trying to white-wash Judge Dowd.
It will be interesting, to say the least, if the federal jury in Shtrauch v Dowd finds that Judge Dowd engaged in unconstitutional conduct and in discrimination against a Jewish pro se indigent litigant while NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, "upon careful consideration" no less, found that "there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline".
That was my complaint of March 23, 2015.
My complaint of April 1, 2015 is fully provided here, it is about the Mokay case and Judge Dowd's shenanigans in that case.
Based on dismissal of April 1, 2015 complaint, it is now legitimate in New York for a judge:
1) to preside as a judge over a trial where the judge, his secretary and law clerk are subpoenaed hostile witnesses for a party;
2) delegate judicial duties to a law clerk;
3) allow law clerk to rule while on a vacation (that information was revealed after the trial ,that Judge Dowd was outside of the state of New York on a vacation in Virginia from March 27, 2015 to April 6, 2015 and his law clerk ruled in his stead);
4) to accept filings of motions directly into his chambers bypassing the County Clerk's office. I do not suggest to try repeating that, since the normal procedure is to file all pleadings with the County Clerk's office and, if you are not a privileged litigant, as the NYS Assistant Attorney General is (especially that NYS AG's office is representing Dowd in a currently pending federal litigation in his individual capacity - a disqualifying factor for the judge to preside over any case where NYS AG is a party, attorney or witness).
As I said before, multiple times, for Judge Dowd the rule of law is nothing, and his own whim and the whims of those who he favors is everything.
Of course, such a judge should not be on the bench.
And in New York, of course, his status of being a judge somehow puts him above the law and prevents discipline or any kind of accountability.
Yet, in its efforts to dismiss complaints agaisnt Judge Dowd, NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has hit the bottom in endorsing vindictive and anti-semitic behavior of this judge - and retaliation against an attorney who exposed that anti-semitic behavior and is prosecuting it in federal court.
Because now, due to dismissal of the complaint against Judge Dowd, New York courts have endorsed anti-semitism as their rule of operation.
Which is beyond disgraceful.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
4th of July: fireworks, reunions and barbecues. Where did the independence part go?
Today, across America there will be 4th of July celebrations.
People plan reunions with extended family and friends over the 4th of July weekends.
Highways are packed with bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Tickets to observe 4th of July fireworks in historical locations are sold out.
It is summer, it is time to have a good time on the beach, and with family and friends.
Stores start to cell merchandise with 4th of July attributes long before the actual day.
Yet, with all the summer barbecues and fireworks and family reunion celebrations going on, it is easy to forget what the 4th of July was about to begin with - the Independence Day. The day people paid for with their lives.
Independence from arbitrary and absolute power of the government (the King) to do whatever he wants with its subjects.
The King and his men can do no wrong? Americans rejected that concept and established a Constitution to rule them.
The U.S. Constitution has been proclaimed as a supreme law of the land in its Article VI. And that proclamation continues to exist. In the U.S. Constitution. On paper.
All Americans are taught at school that the 4th of July is about Independence of the nation, about founding of the nation upon the "rule of law" (Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution) and that the 4th of July is the uniting holiday for the entire nation.
It is common, when the history of the holiday is taught, for teachers to teach their students "to remember the sacrifices" that have made independence of this country possible.
"Freedom is not free" has become a common phrase.
It is not free, indeed.
It is true that many men and women of this country have laid down their lives - their only lives - their ultimate sacrifice - to abolish arbitrary and absolute power of the government and to establish the rule of law.
And it is true that that absolute and arbitrary power to do whatever the government wants to do with the people - through its judicial branch - has returned full swing.
Somehow people now look at what the 5 judges in the U.S. Supreme Court will say about what the U.S. Constitution says, and not what the U.S. Constitution says.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution does not deem judicial decisions as the Supreme Law of the land, yet, the whole nation, from uneducated people to legal scholars, hold their collective breaths to see what the judicial kings of this country will say, then celebrate certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the streets and call it the binding law of the land.
If the ultimate sacrifice of the men and women of this country to make independence of the U.S. from arbitrary power of the King and the birth of the U.S. as a new nation are to be truly respected, then the U.S. Constitution should be trule respected, followed and enforced, and not used to say the oath of office as a meaningless mantra, in order to get absolute power and forget that oath the moment it was taken.
Judicial decisions are not binding when they violate the Supreme law of the land.
It is very simple.
The U.S. Constitution cannot be the Supreme law of the land, if every judge in this country can "overrule" it, after gaining office and privileges of the office, by pledging to follow and enforce it.
Judicial decisions that violate the U.S. Constitution can only be binding if this nation acts like slaves and allows the absolute power of the government to return - without fanfare, without bloody battles, creeping in through words on paper.
Once again, Article VI does not list judicial decisions as Supreme Law of the land, and judicial decisions that run contrary to the U.S. Constitution, of any judge, including those decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, are not "binding" law.
I did not say anything radical, I did not say anything revolutionary, I just referred to Article VI of the Constitution of this country established after this country has declared independence from Britain, Britain's King and absolute arbitrary power of that King, established at the price of many lives.
Celebrating the 4th of July as an annual ritual, while allowing the absolute and arbitrary power of the government to creep in through judicial decisions based on principles that "the King" (the government) and his men, including judges, can do no wrong and that the victims of such absolute arbitrary power do not have a remedy and should be even punished for attempting to get a remedy, is the same as letting that ultimate sacrifice be for nothing.
I am glad that social media, "next door" people, is picking up on the concept that they, the "next door" people, are "the King" in this country, and that their runaway "public servants" should be put back where they belong, in the place of limited power under the full control of the U.S. Constitution they are all pledged to protect, uphold and enforce.
I am glad that social media, the ultimate tool of democractic government nowadays, is pushing for abolishing of any kind of immunities of "the King and his men" from the rule of law, even when the "mainstream media" is conspicuously silent.
Only when immunities created by public servants (the key word is "servants") for themselves to absolve them from liability to their master - we, the People - are truly placed where they belong, in the waste basket, and are no longer allowed, in real life, is when the 4th of July will regain its original meaning - abolishing absolute and arbitrary power of the government over people and estabilshing the rule of law.
No less. But no more.
People plan reunions with extended family and friends over the 4th of July weekends.
Highways are packed with bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Tickets to observe 4th of July fireworks in historical locations are sold out.
It is summer, it is time to have a good time on the beach, and with family and friends.
Stores start to cell merchandise with 4th of July attributes long before the actual day.
Yet, with all the summer barbecues and fireworks and family reunion celebrations going on, it is easy to forget what the 4th of July was about to begin with - the Independence Day. The day people paid for with their lives.
Independence from arbitrary and absolute power of the government (the King) to do whatever he wants with its subjects.
The King and his men can do no wrong? Americans rejected that concept and established a Constitution to rule them.
The U.S. Constitution has been proclaimed as a supreme law of the land in its Article VI. And that proclamation continues to exist. In the U.S. Constitution. On paper.
All Americans are taught at school that the 4th of July is about Independence of the nation, about founding of the nation upon the "rule of law" (Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution) and that the 4th of July is the uniting holiday for the entire nation.
It is common, when the history of the holiday is taught, for teachers to teach their students "to remember the sacrifices" that have made independence of this country possible.
"Freedom is not free" has become a common phrase.
It is not free, indeed.
It is true that many men and women of this country have laid down their lives - their only lives - their ultimate sacrifice - to abolish arbitrary and absolute power of the government and to establish the rule of law.
And it is true that that absolute and arbitrary power to do whatever the government wants to do with the people - through its judicial branch - has returned full swing.
Somehow people now look at what the 5 judges in the U.S. Supreme Court will say about what the U.S. Constitution says, and not what the U.S. Constitution says.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution does not deem judicial decisions as the Supreme Law of the land, yet, the whole nation, from uneducated people to legal scholars, hold their collective breaths to see what the judicial kings of this country will say, then celebrate certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the streets and call it the binding law of the land.
If the ultimate sacrifice of the men and women of this country to make independence of the U.S. from arbitrary power of the King and the birth of the U.S. as a new nation are to be truly respected, then the U.S. Constitution should be trule respected, followed and enforced, and not used to say the oath of office as a meaningless mantra, in order to get absolute power and forget that oath the moment it was taken.
Judicial decisions are not binding when they violate the Supreme law of the land.
It is very simple.
The U.S. Constitution cannot be the Supreme law of the land, if every judge in this country can "overrule" it, after gaining office and privileges of the office, by pledging to follow and enforce it.
Judicial decisions that violate the U.S. Constitution can only be binding if this nation acts like slaves and allows the absolute power of the government to return - without fanfare, without bloody battles, creeping in through words on paper.
Once again, Article VI does not list judicial decisions as Supreme Law of the land, and judicial decisions that run contrary to the U.S. Constitution, of any judge, including those decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, are not "binding" law.
I did not say anything radical, I did not say anything revolutionary, I just referred to Article VI of the Constitution of this country established after this country has declared independence from Britain, Britain's King and absolute arbitrary power of that King, established at the price of many lives.
Celebrating the 4th of July as an annual ritual, while allowing the absolute and arbitrary power of the government to creep in through judicial decisions based on principles that "the King" (the government) and his men, including judges, can do no wrong and that the victims of such absolute arbitrary power do not have a remedy and should be even punished for attempting to get a remedy, is the same as letting that ultimate sacrifice be for nothing.
I am glad that social media, "next door" people, is picking up on the concept that they, the "next door" people, are "the King" in this country, and that their runaway "public servants" should be put back where they belong, in the place of limited power under the full control of the U.S. Constitution they are all pledged to protect, uphold and enforce.
I am glad that social media, the ultimate tool of democractic government nowadays, is pushing for abolishing of any kind of immunities of "the King and his men" from the rule of law, even when the "mainstream media" is conspicuously silent.
Only when immunities created by public servants (the key word is "servants") for themselves to absolve them from liability to their master - we, the People - are truly placed where they belong, in the waste basket, and are no longer allowed, in real life, is when the 4th of July will regain its original meaning - abolishing absolute and arbitrary power of the government over people and estabilshing the rule of law.
- While such immunities still exist and while American citizens, from uneducated Americans to lawyers and especially legal scholars who know better, slavishly accept them and obey the runaway "servants" to rule their master, the People of the United States,
- while the government, and particularly its judicial branch, have, as it does at this time, absolute and arbitrary power over every aspect of our lives and rule in complete disregard of the same Constitution that every elected and appointed official is pledged to protect, uphold and enforce,
- while American public officials exercise that arbitrary absolute power much more than it is done nowadays in the original country from which the U.S. gained its independence,
No less. But no more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)