I am continuing to analyze the dissents in the same sex marriage case.
One more unifying theme in the four dissents - by judges Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas - is that in defining marriage the majority deviated from the definition of marriage "deeply rooted in history and tradition" of the United States and of the entire world.
Yet, judges demonstrated selective blindness as to what kind of "history and tradition" pertaining to marriage they wanted to consider and what kind they wanted to hide and not touch with a 10-foot pole.
First of all, the issue of constitutionality of the same sex marriage (as well as issues of constitutionality of any other concept or law) have nothing to do with "history and tradition". Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the "due process of law" is restricted to what is "deeply rooted in history and tradition".
The history and tradition, if you look at the Bible is that of incest and polygamy, by the way.
Let's think logically and mathematically - if Adam and Eve were the only human couple on earth, then their progeny had to mate with one another (full brothers and sisters, clear incest) to procreate the human race. Nothing to be proud of, and that kind of "history and tradition" is a felony in most states and most countries of the world at this time.
Moreover, this country is a melting pot of different ethnic groups from around the world. Judges, nevertheless, arrogantly presume as "history and tradition" of marriage only heterosexual monogamous marriage as a model. Yet, humans are historically polygamous, hystorically matriarchal, therefore, the history of marriage must include plural marriage on both sides - polyandric (many husbands) and
In fact, Bible abounds of examples of polygamy (a crime in majority, if not all of the states of the U.S.). And that is also "the history and tradition" of marriage.
Moreover, while the dissenting judges expounded on the alleged goal of the marriage that cannot be fulfilled through a same sex marriage - procreation - judges at the same time recognized that 40% of children in the U.S. are currently born to "unwed mothers" (!). Thus judges, first, denigrated the mothers, and second, assumed that the "unwed mothers" are somehow giving birth alone, and not that the children are born to a mother and father, or to a homosexual couple who did not yet or could not legally, marry, only showing the discriminatory and demeaning look of the judges at women and family.
If 40% of children in the U.S. are born outside of wedlock, and at the time when in vitro fertilization, egg adoption, sperm adoption, sperm adoption, child adoption and birth of children through surrogate carriers/birth mothers are widely available to same sex couples, while there is no restriction on age and reproductive health for heterosexual couples, procreation seems like a weak argument to make a case against legitimizing the same sex marriage.
It is peculiar that one of the dissenters pointed out at a case citing that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that had a goal of procreation, a case decided in January of 1978, while on July 25 of that same 1978 the first in vitro baby was born, paving the path to all sorts of combinations of procreative options for single individuals and same sex couples.
Now, let's go back into common law England where the dissenters delved, but left entire portions of "history and tradition" pertaining to marriage untouched.
Marriage from the time of Magna Carta (the 13th century) to the 20th century was a contract between parents of the couple to be married, the couple to be married had no say in the matter, and most often the marriage was about joining properties and forming political unions, and producing heirs to certain properties and to titles of nobility.
By the way, even the allegedly "noble" goal of procreation and "survival of human race" through such procreation (for which marriage was never necessary at any time, since procreation does not need official permission and happens naturally, and it is needed even less with the onset of IVF, surrogacy and adoption) could not be a realistic goal of the marriage when brides and grooms were betrothed/engaged and often married as infants far below the age of puberty.
A sociological study on the history of the age of consent reports that "[m]ore than 800 years after the first recorded age of consent laws, the one constant is the lack of consistency. Laws around the world define the socially appropriate age of consent anywhere from 13 to 18". Having sex with a 13-year-old is a felony of statutory rape in most states, and it does not matter how the girl looked or behaved, the law simply presumes that a child that young cannot form a consent, cannot fully realize the consequences of her act.
Other sources report the age of consent as low as 7, 7 was reportedly the age of consent in the State of Delaware, following the "tradition" of the English common law, and a bride as young as 9 in the state of Virginia, here in the U.S.
In the U.S. the age of consent was, reportedly, in most states, 10 (!) until the 1960s.
Yet, in the "history and tradition" of marriage, it was that the male leader of the family - the father, brother or other male guardian - decided the fate of the female and married her off, without seeking her consent and without being interested in her consent, at whatever age he wanted to do that, mostly for property reasons and reasons of lust, in other words, marriage was "historically" selling of, mostly, an underage girl without her consent - which constitutes a number of crimes nowadays.
Somehow, the dissenters did not want to consider THAT part of the "history and tradition" of the "sacred" "institution of marriage".
So, when judges of the U.S. Supreme Court get on their high horses to expound on "history and tradition" of marriage, it is important to look what sides of that same "history and tradition" they are omitting from the discussion. It is clearly a rhethorical question to ask why they do that - because it does not help their argument. But such manipulation of the truth in argument does not give these four dissenters much credit.
I will try to show some personal background on judges in how and why they possibly ruled the way they did in the next blog.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Tampering with trial exhibits is the privilege of chosen attorneys? The saga on trial exhibits spans more than one case now
A reader of my blog pointed out to a problem with trial exhibits that occurred in the reader's court case (reader is pro se, the opponent is represented by a "connected" attorney).
The story goes this way:
the reader was allowed by the judge, as well as opposing attorney, to submit to the judge, after a bench trial, a written summation.
The reader wanted to review trial exhibits (the reader's and the opponent's) to rely upon in the summation.
The court clerk told the reader that (1) the reader could not have access to trial exhibits, but that (2) the opposing party's attorney not only could have access to trial exhibits, but could and did take the trial exhibits out of the court's custody and into the attorney's office.
After the reader took an issue with such inequality of treatment, he was actually given access to trial exhibits, after the opposing attorney returned it to the court.
While reviewing the exhibits, the reader found that exhibits, upon the reader's recollection, were re-marked and re-labeled, the markings put on the exhibits by the stenographer were moved from one exhibit to another.
That's why it is very important to have the list of exhibits created immediately as the trial progresses and have the court clerk file that list of exhibits for public access, or, if the record of the case is private, for access by the parties and their attorneys immediately on conclusion of the trial, and not after the judge makes his or her decision on the case.
That prevents tampering with exhibits and preserves the record for purposes of the appeal - if anybody in the court system is genuinely concerned about these issues.
Yet, the issue remains in that particular case that the trial exhibits for BOTH sides were not given (at least, at first) to a pro se party and were released out of the custody of the court into the custody of the opposing attorney without any record in the court files of doing that - and were returned from the custody of that attorney relabeled, or, in other words, there is a likelihood that the opposing attorney or somebody in that attorney's office tampered with public records, a crime in the State of New York.
Apparently, since that attorney misconduct occurred with the help of the court personnel, and since the attorney in question is one of the "connected" attorneys, I doubt that any discipline will be imposed on any participants in what has happened.
Yet, that's why I suggest to my readers that any and all telephone conversations with court clerks about their cases must be audio-recorded. Otherwise, you will never be able to prove that access was denied to you and given to the opposing party.
When you record, you at least have an opportunity to catch court clerks unaware, and have them blurp out the truth before their superiors coach them how to lie.
As it happened recently in my case where NYS Court Administration attempted to deny what was already recorded and published, see here (with links to audio recordings) and here (with a full copy of a letter from NYS Court Administration blatantly denying that I was denied access to trial exhibits by the court clerk at the direction of Judge Kevin Dowd and that the court clerk, and not the County Clerk, had possession of those exhibits at all times after the trial, even though the County Clerk should have had them) - as an illustration of how court personnel lies to protect judges committing misconduct.
Once again - only recordings can prove court personnel is lying to protect their jobs and to protect judges who they think they serve (instead of the public who they are hired to be serving, and paid to be serving).
It is lawful in New York to record conversations secretly, as long as the recording person is a party to that conversation.
So - insist on having a list of trial exhibits right at the end of the trial.
Insist on having that list particularly describe marked and admitted exhibits.
Insist on review of trial exhibits in preparation of your written summations, if such are allowed.
Note if trial exhibits were allowed by court personnel to leave the court's custody and go to the custody of "connected" attorneys.
Be vigilant as to the state of exhibits as they are returned from such attorneys' offices, if that happened - look for signs of tampering, document them, photograph them, write about tampering to the court before the court made its decision based on such exhibits.
Preserve your rights. yourselves. The court personnel sure wouldn't do that for you, at least in New York courts.
The story goes this way:
the reader was allowed by the judge, as well as opposing attorney, to submit to the judge, after a bench trial, a written summation.
The reader wanted to review trial exhibits (the reader's and the opponent's) to rely upon in the summation.
The court clerk told the reader that (1) the reader could not have access to trial exhibits, but that (2) the opposing party's attorney not only could have access to trial exhibits, but could and did take the trial exhibits out of the court's custody and into the attorney's office.
After the reader took an issue with such inequality of treatment, he was actually given access to trial exhibits, after the opposing attorney returned it to the court.
While reviewing the exhibits, the reader found that exhibits, upon the reader's recollection, were re-marked and re-labeled, the markings put on the exhibits by the stenographer were moved from one exhibit to another.
That's why it is very important to have the list of exhibits created immediately as the trial progresses and have the court clerk file that list of exhibits for public access, or, if the record of the case is private, for access by the parties and their attorneys immediately on conclusion of the trial, and not after the judge makes his or her decision on the case.
That prevents tampering with exhibits and preserves the record for purposes of the appeal - if anybody in the court system is genuinely concerned about these issues.
Yet, the issue remains in that particular case that the trial exhibits for BOTH sides were not given (at least, at first) to a pro se party and were released out of the custody of the court into the custody of the opposing attorney without any record in the court files of doing that - and were returned from the custody of that attorney relabeled, or, in other words, there is a likelihood that the opposing attorney or somebody in that attorney's office tampered with public records, a crime in the State of New York.
Apparently, since that attorney misconduct occurred with the help of the court personnel, and since the attorney in question is one of the "connected" attorneys, I doubt that any discipline will be imposed on any participants in what has happened.
Yet, that's why I suggest to my readers that any and all telephone conversations with court clerks about their cases must be audio-recorded. Otherwise, you will never be able to prove that access was denied to you and given to the opposing party.
When you record, you at least have an opportunity to catch court clerks unaware, and have them blurp out the truth before their superiors coach them how to lie.
As it happened recently in my case where NYS Court Administration attempted to deny what was already recorded and published, see here (with links to audio recordings) and here (with a full copy of a letter from NYS Court Administration blatantly denying that I was denied access to trial exhibits by the court clerk at the direction of Judge Kevin Dowd and that the court clerk, and not the County Clerk, had possession of those exhibits at all times after the trial, even though the County Clerk should have had them) - as an illustration of how court personnel lies to protect judges committing misconduct.
Once again - only recordings can prove court personnel is lying to protect their jobs and to protect judges who they think they serve (instead of the public who they are hired to be serving, and paid to be serving).
It is lawful in New York to record conversations secretly, as long as the recording person is a party to that conversation.
So - insist on having a list of trial exhibits right at the end of the trial.
Insist on having that list particularly describe marked and admitted exhibits.
Insist on review of trial exhibits in preparation of your written summations, if such are allowed.
Note if trial exhibits were allowed by court personnel to leave the court's custody and go to the custody of "connected" attorneys.
Be vigilant as to the state of exhibits as they are returned from such attorneys' offices, if that happened - look for signs of tampering, document them, photograph them, write about tampering to the court before the court made its decision based on such exhibits.
Preserve your rights. yourselves. The court personnel sure wouldn't do that for you, at least in New York courts.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
There are exhibits and exhibits
A question occurred to me - why New York State courts claim that it is somehow legitimate to give back exhibits "of a party" back to that party after trial and before the appeal of the decision that came out of that trial where exhibits from a proceeding bypassing a trial (a motion for a summary judgment) remain in the court's custody and are never returned to the party who submitted it?
What is the distinction that makes one type of exhibits - based on which the court bypasses a trial - non-returnable and exhibits used in a trial to arrive at a decision that is subject to an appeal - returnable before the appeal runs through or is even filed?
Does not seem either fair or equitable to me.
Does seem to me as a violation of equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Federal Constitution which pre-empts any inconsistent state law.
What is the distinction that makes one type of exhibits - based on which the court bypasses a trial - non-returnable and exhibits used in a trial to arrive at a decision that is subject to an appeal - returnable before the appeal runs through or is even filed?
Does not seem either fair or equitable to me.
Does seem to me as a violation of equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Federal Constitution which pre-empts any inconsistent state law.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
The unanimous Younger abstention decision and the four dissents in the same sex marriage case - legislation by judges is ok if judges are high up and have no control over them?
I am finishing my analysis of the voluminous four dissents in the same sex marriage case and will start publishing them shortly, as they give a unique perspective as to the necessity of the U.S. Supreme Court at all, its authority and its excesses of authority, and its influence or, rather, undermining the American democracy.
What I must say as a foreword though is that the dissents are united by accusation of the majority opinion judges of exceeding their authority given to them by the American people.
Yet, all of the dissenters have recently participated in the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the so-called Younger abstention where the Younger abstention - a completely unconstitutional creature of courts that restricts, without authority, jurisdiction of the courts to hear civil rights cases - were allowed to live, albeit in a somewhat restricted format which was immediately expanded right back again by district courts.
I guess, in the minds of the same sex marriage dissenters - judges Alito, Roberts, Thompson and Scalia - judges can exceed their authority in some cases (that the dissenters approve) and not others.
The question is - do we need such a court at all where judges arbitrarily, often and grossly exceed their authroity and impose their personal view upon the entire country under the guise of "constitutional interpretation"?
What I must say as a foreword though is that the dissents are united by accusation of the majority opinion judges of exceeding their authority given to them by the American people.
Yet, all of the dissenters have recently participated in the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the so-called Younger abstention where the Younger abstention - a completely unconstitutional creature of courts that restricts, without authority, jurisdiction of the courts to hear civil rights cases - were allowed to live, albeit in a somewhat restricted format which was immediately expanded right back again by district courts.
I guess, in the minds of the same sex marriage dissenters - judges Alito, Roberts, Thompson and Scalia - judges can exceed their authority in some cases (that the dissenters approve) and not others.
The question is - do we need such a court at all where judges arbitrarily, often and grossly exceed their authroity and impose their personal view upon the entire country under the guise of "constitutional interpretation"?
Sunday, July 12, 2015
On thoughtful judicial rubber-stamping of human rights violations
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)