Speak to the insiders - is the new rule of law in the U.S.

I've so far spoken to several attorneys disciplined for misconduct in different states of the United States.

All of their cases, as they related them, were conducted with gross procedural and substantive violations and obviously with a view "to get" them.

Attorneys agreed that the rule of law does not work in the U.S. and that you need to be a local connected counsel to get positive results from the court.

They asked me if I want to consider hiring or consulting with an "insider" attorney who worked previously for the disciplinary committees and is connected to the "disciplinary industry", so that he would be able to "put a word" for me and so that my discipline (if any) would be more lenient in the case which is based on 3 sanctions by a judge after I sued him (and the judge currently left the bench in haste, I understand, forestalling being taken off the bench).

My answer is - NO.

I have adult children.  I raised them not to bend to a lie and not to live a lie.  I owe it to them and to their future not to bend to a lie and not to live a lie myself.

If we all understand that the court system turned into a criminal enterprise where the only way to obtain benefits for yourself and your clients is to be "connected" to the court - we need to fight it, not to bend to it, accept it and "play by the rules", by criminal rules.

I won't bend to criminals and fraudsters.  

And I believe that eventually, not necessarily during my lifetime, justice will prevail.  

The missing pages of Judge Guy's decision arrived - and they are even more hilarious...

Update as of 2:32 pm NorthEastern time on August 17, 2015.

While I was writing the previous blog, about pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Judge Guy's unlawful decision, the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse has sent to me pages 2, 4 and 6 of Judge Guys' unlawful decision which I publish, with commentaries, below.

Judge Guy obviously does not comprehend a clear and unambiguous order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 transferring the case to the Supreme Court.  There are no "citations" issued in the Supreme Court.  Different rules apply.  A different court now has jurisdiction.  Judge Guy does not care.  He did not care, when issuing the citations, to even tell me that the case was removed to the Supreme Court, or send to me his own order of assignment, assignment to the Supreme Court only.  That was, in his words, a "miscommunication".  Right.

Judge Guy omits to mention here that on May 6, 2015 I wrote the above letter before I learned that the case was removed to the Supreme Court as of April 3, 2015 and Judge Guy never had jurisdiction to proceed with the case in the Surrogate's Court as if it was never removed.  That is called "omission amounting to misrepresentation".  Judge Guy - you are committing fraud by stating one without the other.  Do you care?

Now we come to the core of the problem.

Judge Guy admits that the case was removed to the Supreme Court - but "perceives no prejudice" to disobey the clear order of removal and assignment TO ANOTHER COURT by the Chief Administrative Judge, directed to Judge Guy - an order that was never changed by Judge Mulvey.

It is no "no prejudice", Judge Guy, it is "no jurisdiction".  Are you able to comprehend the difference?

And, your opinion whether it is better to handle the case in the Surrogate's Court is - guess what - IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW because - guess what - the case was ALREADY REMOVED before you were assigned, and that is the law of the case that you cannot change.

Here I publish a paragraph from page 3 to page 4 showing what was meant by the first abridged sentence on page 4.

The last phrase does not make sense, grammatically or otherwise.  Judge Guy should go back to grammar school to learn English properly before proceeding his shenanigans on the bench.

Moreover, what is wrong with the whole Mokay saga is that every single judge in the case, lawfully or unlawfully proceeding, reviews the Mokay case "in simplistic terms", like Judge Guy did.

And, judging (no pun intended) as to what Judge Guy did, and how he PERCEIVES the case, shows clearly the incompetence of this guy to be even a law student, not a lawyer, not a judge - even a law student.

Look what he writes.

"Following a stipulated settlement, the decedent executed a deed prepared by petition, in contravention of the settlement".

The law of the State of New York is - SO WHAT?  The deed is not valid unless it is validly delivered.   There is no proof in the Mokay case that the deed was ever delivered. End of story.  Title never transferred, fraud was never committed.

Judge Guy does not mention that the deed was delivered.  Good for him, because it wasn't.  But bad for him, because Judge Guy somehow things that when a third party executed a document that is only valid on delivery, without such delivery, it means that the petitioner (Mr. Neroni) did something wrong - even if the law of the State of New York which Judge Guy is sworn to uphold, says otherwise.

Then goes even more stupid rant about "following decedent's death litigation" which makes no sense at all, "resulting in reversal of the deed" which makes no sense at all, because a deed cannot be "reversed", it can be voided, but a deed that was never delivered, is not valid and does not NEED to be voided, it can be simply IGNORED.

Then, Judge Guy correctly states (let's give the poor guy a break and put some sense into Judge Guy's horribly screwed grammar) that Mr. Neroni was disbarred because of what Judge Guy described - that made no sense as a matter of law.  

At least, Judge Guy is honest enough to acknowledge that Mr. Neroni was disbarred as a result of something that does not make sense as a matter of law - execution by a 3rd party of a deed that was never delivered and was thus void.

Lies, lies, lies, Judge Guy.  This issue is NOT before "this Court", the Surrogate's Court.  "This issue" is before a different court, the Supreme Court, the Court you were assigned to and the court to which you blocked transfer of the removed case and blocked clerks of both courts, the transferring court and the receiving court, from doing their jobs and transfer - and receive - the case and allow me to properly prosecute the case in the court where it was removed. 

So the "narrow issue" is the issue of YOUR misconduct, Judge Guy, and YOUR disobedience to a clear court order that requires YOUR disbarment, as a matter of precedent in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division 3rd Department.

And to determine any issues in this case the Surrogate's Court MAY NOT explore any issues - it has only the authority and duty to obey the court order of removal and transfer the case to the Supreme Court where the case must be TRIED and decided - which you did not allow to do, without authority.

Here Judge David H. Guy religiously repeats the lies of Judge Dowd out of the Supreme Court Mokay action - that "petitioner or his counsel did not appear" at the jury trial, and that's why the case proceeded as a bench trial.  Judge Guy made no mention that a represented party MAY NOT appear without his attorney as a matter of law in the State of New York, and that the attorney (me) was on a legitimate, documented medical leave on the date of trial for a back injury not allowing me to move or appear - and that under such circumstances Judge Dowd had no right to proceed to trial, and proceeding to trial ex parte was ILLEGAL.

Since Judge Guy does not care whether his own actions are legal or not, he did not care whether the actions of another judge were legal or not - that's consistent, even though consistently illegal, behavior.

Now, this is hilarious.

Judge David H. Guy, acting in clear absence of jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court, announces a new rule - since a litigant lost in courts previously (and unlawfully, which Judge Guy knows since he quoted only "execution" of the deed, and not delivery, see explanation above), he will most likely lose in all others.

In other words - Judge Guy is convinced that if judges refused to apply the law in clear favor of a litigant previously, they will continue to disregard the law in the future, referencing the Article 14 contribution case, a case where (1) NO JUDGE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED YET, and where (2) Daniel Mokay filed an affidavit, postdating the trial in the Mokay trial, which undid the whole claim of Richard Harlem that he was not disqualified and is entitled to legal fees.

In other words, Judge Guy, in denying relief in a case in the wrong court and without authority, claimed that, based on prior judicial misconduct, it is predictable that Mr. Neroni's current Article 14 case, based on the decision of the Appellate Division that deemed the decedent (The Estate) a co-tortfeasor subject as a matter of law to the CPLR Article 14 contribution claim, will be decided against Mr. Neroni BY THE JURY (!).

Judge Guy clearly has a crystal ball.  Or, maybe, Judge Guy is an honest guy who honestly blunders the way things are - and admits that judges do whatever they want to achieve the necessary result, to give a son-of-a-judge attorney attorney's fees no matter whether they are warranted by law or not (they are not), and to hurt critic of judicial misconduct and THE ONE WHO SUED JUDGES no matter whether the law warrants that or not.

Once again, when the court has no jurisdiction, the court may not make any "findings".  So, what Judge Guy finds, Judge Guy can just as well flush down the toilet - because what a judge "finds" in a case in court from which the case was removed, has no force of law, and even a judge as stupid as Judge Guy appears to be must realize it.

I already pointed out in my previous blog who exactly Judge Guy's "decision" would have hurt had it been a lawful decision, which is what it pretends to be: not just Mr. Neroni, but ALL parties in the Estate proceedings of the Estate of Andrew Mokay.

All parties are interested in stopping distribution from the Estate pending Mr. Neroni's claim, not to grab pieces of the Estate and run, especially that I predict that distribution will not be to creditor David Mokay, not to the disinherited widow Connie Mokay and not to the adult children of the decedent, but will line the pockets of son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem and his law firm, which is what Judge Guy is trying to secure - without authority.

The remaining piece on page 6 is about "standards" and "elements" for preliminary injunction that Judge Guy could not review in the court he reviewed it, because that court no longer had jurisdiction.

So.

I now received the full "decision" of our disHonorable Judge Guy.


Yet, I did not receive any reaction by the court clerk of the Surrogate's Court to my demand to obey the court order of removal that the court clerk has on file since April 3, 2015 and that requires her to transfer the case to the receiving court, the Delaware County Supreme Court.

Here is our correspondence on the subject.

I wonder what is it that the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse fears more - to disobey the order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 that she has on file, the order of removal of the case to the Supreme Court, or the rage of Judge Guy who told her to stay put and disobey the order of the court.

By the way - will Judge Guy be disbarred for disobeying the order of the court?  There is precedent in Appellate Division 3rd Department for such disbarment, even of an unenforceable order of the court with no proof of disobeying - created specifically for Mr. Neroni.

Yet, by rule of precedent, the same law should be applicable to attorney David Guy who, as judge, disobeyed the court order of Judge Mulvey removing a case from Surrogate's Court and assigning Judge Guy (who is also an attorney) to the Supreme Court.

Will Judge Guy be removed from the bench, disbarred and blackballed now from any work in the legal profession - the way Mr. Neroni was, even though there is no proof and no applicable law allowing his disbarment - now that there is PROOF in the form of documentary evidence and Judge Guy's own admission that Judge David H. Guy disobeyed the order of Judge Robert C. Mulvey removing a case to the Delaware County Supreme Court and assigning Judge Guy to the Supreme court case only, and that Judge Guy did it deliberately?

Stay tuned.

The Mokay saga continues. The hilarious incompetence and misconduct of Judge David H. Guy in admittedly presiding in court to which he was never assigned and from which the case was removed

Today I received by e-mail pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the decision by Judge Guy made in Surrogate's Court in my client's (and husband's) case.  

I will post what I received anyway, and will add pages 2, 4 and 6 when I receive them.

I wrote about this case, with documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy in this case, see here, here, here, here, here and here. 

The linked prior blogs contain ample documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy attempting to block my husband lawful claim to stop distribution (looting) of Andrew Mokay's Estate pending resolution of his lawsuit against the Estate under Article 14 of the CPLR for contribution, and to make Richard Harlem and his law firm return money they were paid out so far to the Estate to make the Estate be able to meet its obligations TO ALL creditors and beneficiaries including:

1/ Creditor David Mokay - with a claim against the Estate (represented by Richard Harlem) of $95,000 while Richard Harlem claims he represented David Mokay in the Supreme Court in a related action, for which New York law completely disqualifies Richard Harlem (an attorney cannot represent clients who sue one another in related actions) - but who in the judicial system cares about the law when the Neronis are concerned;

2/ Creditor Frederick J. Neroni - since the Appellate Division included the decedent Andrew Mokay into the "trio" of tortfeasors, Mr. Neroni has an absolute right, provided to him by law, to sue the Estate of Andrew Mokay (represented NOT by Richard Harlem in the lawsuit for contribution, please, take notice) for contribution and/or indemnification, Article 14 of the CPLR;

3/ disinherited decedent's widow suing for her elective share provided by law (not represented by Richard Harlem, but Richard Harlem drafted affidavits for her acknowledging her as being one of the tortfeasors, and her own attorney Michael Getman claimed to the Supreme Court, Judge Dowd, that his client is "more aligned with" people who are suing her than with the co-defendant who is being sued;

4/ adult children of the decedent, co-beneficiaries of the Estate seeking to obtain distribution under the will Richard Harlem argued in April of 2015 to the Supreme Court in Mokay v. Mokay was not proper:

• Daniel Mokay;
• Andrew Mokay;
• David Mokay;
• Christine Reed;
• Patricia Knapp

Judge Guy did not want to order Richard Harlem to put back the moneys he so far received in order to make the Estate solvent and being able to meet claims of ALL of the above creditors, the disinherited widow and the beneficiaries, not just Mr. Neroni's claim.

I guess, when you are driven with a desire (or somebody's orders) to "get" Mr. Neroni, anybody else who gets hurt by your unlawful "equitable" decisions do not matter.

So, interests of David Mokay, as a creditor or beneficiary of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of Connie Mokay, decedent's widow who, if claims of creditors are satisfied first, will receive nothing out of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of decedent's children 

David Mokay

Daniel Mokay

Andrew Mokay

Christine Reed and

Patricia Knapp

do not matter to Judge Guy.

Judge Guy considered it inequitable to attorneys to take the moneys back from them to make the Estate solvent in view of a potential incoming claim of Mr. Neroni as the Estate's creditor.

In ruling so (without authority, as discussed throughout this blog and referenced prior blog, with supporting documentary evidence) Judge Guy showed that:

• the rule of law does not matter;
• lack of jurisdiction does not matter;
• equity and law requiring the judge to keep the Estate solvent to satisfy creditors first and then beneficiaries, and only then attorneys, does not matter - because there is a need to hurt Mr. Neroni and prevent him from getting any justice and there is a need to satisfy the fraudster Richard Harlem's unlawful claims for attorney fees that Richard Harlem, as disqualified attorney, is not entitled to a penny of, because Richard Harlem is a blue blood attorney, son of a judge to whom laws do not apply.

By the way, as I said before, Richard Harlem learnt at the knee of the greatest, so his fraudulent conduct comes natural given what his father, partner until his father's death, and mentor was caught with.

The above overriding "goals" matter more to Judge Guy than the law, or equity, or fairness - to anyone.

Please, note that on the very first page of the decision made on August 13, 2015 out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court and based on Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, Judge Guy acknowledges that the only case he was assigned to was the Supreme Court of Delaware County to which he was assigned after the case in question was removed out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court, so what you read below is a purely illegal exercise of judicial power without ANY authority and in the wrong court.

As you see, on page 1 Judge Guy acknowledges that the case was removed to the Supreme Court and only then he was assigned - to the Supreme Court - but stubbornly proceeds in Surrogate's court to which he was never assigned and from which court the case is already removed, and by the rules of Surrogate's Court.

In other words, it does not even concern the judge that he is acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, in the court from which the case was removed, with all attendant legal consequences, and to which the judge was never assigned - not in the Surrogate's Court.  Whether it is mere incompetence, or bias, incompetence and disdain to the rule of law, I do not care, but the judge had absolutely no authority to keep the case in the Surrogate's Court and to preside over it when he was assigned to the already removed case in the Supreme Court.

So, guess what - it was a "miscommunication" that I was not notified, as the Petitioner's counsel, of the removal of the case to the Supreme Court and of the specific and exclusive assignment of Judge Guy only to the Supreme Court case - a separate court with its own clerk, its own filing system and its own rules.

After the lip service to the "miscommunication" Judge Guy does the usual lip service as to "searching the conscience" calling himself  "Court" and calling his conscience "its conscience", in an impersonal manner.

While it is correct that New York courts deemed the matter of recusal within the discretion of a judge (incorrectly, in my view, since the judge is not an objective observer of his own behavior and constitutional right to a fair and impartial judicial adjudication is at stake which should not be subject to "judicial discretion", or, in other words, whim), recusal is a function of jurisdiction.  

When Judge GUY ADMITTEDLY was assigned only to the removed Supreme Court case while he stubbornly continued to preside over the Surrogate's Court case while instructing clerks of the Supreme Court that the order of assignment to the Surrogate's Court was "erroneous" - without any basis in law or fact for that contention, he certainly did not have jurisdiction in Surrogate's Court over the case which was removed from that court (by Judge Guy's own admission) as of April 3, 2015.

So, all the usual crap about searching the non-existing conscience of the judge was void, because, once again, there is no discretion where there is no jurisdiction.

Moreover, while Judge Guy correctly invokes Judiciary Law 14 as the only basis in New York for mandatory disqualification of a judge (where courts do not honor the state or federal Constitutions which every judge is sworn to uphold as a condition of coming to the bench), Judiciary Law 14 which requires the judge to recuse when he acts without jurisdiction clearly applies in this case.

Moreover, how much more biased, incompetent or both can the judge be if he KNOWINGLY proceeds without authority IN THE WRONG COURT, where HE WAS NEVER ASSIGNED, and making DECISIONS ON THE MERITS against the party who CAUGHT HIM RED-HANDED and blogged about his misconduct, while admitting that he was never assigned to the Surrogate's Court where he is presiding and ruling?

Did Judge Guy even read the rubbish that he has sent to me posed as a "Decision"?

See how Judge Guy engages in analysis on the merits - once again, in the wrong court, where Judge Guy was never assigned.

After acknowledging that the case has been removed, as of April 3, 2015 to the Supreme Court, Judge Guy rules on August 13, 2015 out of Surrogate's Court that service after April 3, 2015 did not comply with Surrogate's Court rules?

Who gave a law license to this guy?

How does he remain on the bench if he cannot read and cannot apply the law?  A judge really cannot claim stupidity and incompetence as a defense - but there are no other defenses available for this behavior.  It is really the outside of enough.

Once again, analysis on the merits and the claim that the decision as to imposition of the injunction is "within the sole discretion of the Court".  Apparently, Judge Guy does not know the fundamental and basic notion that the discretion is the function of jurisdiction and does not exist in the absence of jurisdiction, and thus no injunctions can be granted or denied in the court from where the case was removed 4 months before Judge Guy made his decision, and by a judge who was never assigned to that court.

If Judge Guy does not know that fundamental and basic notion, I do not understand why this incompetent judge is still on the bench.  By the way, Judge Mulvey whom I notified back in May of this year about Judge Guy's shenanigans in this case and who made no efforts to correct the situation, is no less incompetent than Judge Guy and no less responsible for Judge Guy's misconduct.

So, Judge Guy, a judge without authority to rule in the Surrogate's Court, the judge who blocked even filing the case removed by order of another judge to the court to which he has actually assigned, laments over unfairness to the attorneys who FRAUDULENTLY pursued a case in two courts for 7 years riding contrary to every applicable law, contrary to the facts of the case, but flaunting their pedigrees - of a retired (now late) Supreme Court justice and his son.

Pedigree works, I can tell you.  No law should apply, and, as Judge Guy shows, when you have the right connections, you win even to the point of having a judge holding the case in the wrong court for you, in the court to which the judge was never assigned - and ruling for you and against your opponent where the judge clearly has no authority to be in that court and where the case was long removed to another court.

And, somehow the judge finds, through Surrogate's Court, the court to which the judge was never assigned and from which the case was removed as of April 3, 2015, that the case file of a removed case must be kept in the court from which the case was removed.

Nice job, Judge Guy.  Stupid job - yes.  Unlawful and without authority - yes.  But nice job for Richard Harlem and to prove that the Neronis are outlaws and, as outlaws, are not entitled to elementary application of any rules, any laws, and are not entitled to even adherence to the court orders of removal and assignment.

I will hold my breath as to what the missing pages 2, 4 and 6 contain.

I will publish them as soon as they become available.

And - oh, forgot to tell you - this "decision" that was issued by a judge who was never assigned to the case, out of a court from which the case was removed 4 months prior, is a secret decision that I am prohibited to disclose.

That's what the e-mail of Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse said.

No, Ms. Hulse, it is a public record, and a public record of corruption and misconduct in the New York State Judiciary.  And I will make it as public as I can.

And I demand from you, as I did in my letter, to obey the order of removal that you have on file for 4 months without obeying it, to transfer the case to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

If the case is not transferred, Mr. Neroni will simply resort to the legal remedies remaining to him - and, believe it or not, he still has some legal remedies at his disposal.

Stay tuned as the Mokay saga continues to unfold.

A case in Texas further jeopardizes attorney licensing scheme

A case has been decided by the Texas Supreme Court under the Texas Constitution which invalidated state regulation of the profession of "eyebrow threaders" - as "preposterous", irrational and unreasonable.

The concurrence in the case reads like a book of aphorisms and blasts the government in mounting unreasonable bars to people who want to earn an honest living.

The court in Texas referred to the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission and statistical data that provides that 1/3 of workforce in the U.S. must receive some kind of permission from the government, through licensing, certification or other types of permits, to conduct their business, often without any rational basis for it.

Principles announced in the Texas case, same as in the U.S. Supreme Court case, are fully applicable to attorney regulation throughout the country.

I will try to run several blogs in the nearest future, time permitting, with analysis of the decision, dissent and especially the concurring opinion of Judge Willett.

I promise I will run a separate blog just with aphoristic quotations from Judge Willett's decision.

The name of the case is Patel v Texas State Department of Licensing and Regulation.

Am I mistaken or are courts starting to see the light and starting to make rational and fair decisions - finally, after a long span of Dark Ages?

Stay tuned.

A petition for a writ of certiorari challenging absolute judicial immunity has been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been recently filed and is pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court with a challenge of absolute judicial immunity.

The petition contains brilliant analysis as to why the concept of absolute judicial immunity is, first, an illegal usurpation of exclusive congressional power and legislating from the bench (an argument I was sanctioned for by a federal court as frivolous), and, second, even as written, was improperly applied by the courts below - and are habitually and systematically improperly applied by a variety of federal courts.

The name of the case is Grazzini-Rucki v Knutson.

The petition is worth analysis in several separate blogs, which I will do over the course of the next several days.

The important feature of the lawsuit, by the way, is that it is a class lawsuit asserted on behalf not only of the Plaintiffs, but also on behalf of "all others similarly situated", on behalf of all litigants against whom judicial misconduct is committed without remedy because of the judge-invented self-serving unconstitutional concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupts acts.

Stay tuned.

A petition for a writ of prohibition against Judge Lambert and DA Richard Northrup has been filed

Upon my information, a writ of prohibition was filed by Barbara O'Sullivan in the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.

Ms. O'Sullivan exposes Delaware County District Attorney and judicial candidate Richard Northrup for failure to disclose to her and the court the fact that Mr. Northrup has been employing the uncle of the alleged victim in the criminal proceeding that Mr. Northrup has brought against Barbara O'Sullivan for 20 years and there is an appearance that he is representing in those proceedings not the People of the State of New York, but is exacting a private vendetta on behalf of his employee.

Ms. O'Sullivan is asserting that the Delaware County District Attorney was disqualified from being present in the grand jury proceedings because of the conflict of interest where Mr. Northrup's employee is the uncle of the alleged victim and where the alleged victim committed a vehicular assault upon Ms. O'Sullivan at an earlier date than the alleged events that are used against her, and yet Mr. Northrup chose not to prosecute his employee's nephew for assault and attempted murder of Barbara O'Sullivan, further disqualifying himself from presenting her case to the grand jury and invalidating the indictment against her as the jurisdictional basis of criminal proceedings.

That's quite a blow to the judicial candidate Richard Northrup, as the petition for the writ directly points out his lack of competence, integrity, proper temperament to be a judge or all of the above taken together.

I wish Ms. O'Sullivan good luck in her rightful fight against corrupt prosecutor and collusive judge.

Since Judge Lambert is a newcomer to the bench and since Judge Lambert previously worked as a prosecutor in Otsego County, a County adjoining Delaware County, I am sure he knew that the Delaware County DA has employed for 20 years Jeff Bowie, who is Derek Bowie's uncle.

Yet, having such extrajudicial knowledge and being a witness in the case, Judge Lambert did not step down either from the civil case brought by Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie - since the corrupt Delaware County District Attorney did not do his duty and did not charge his employee's nephew with assault and attempted murder, or from the criminal case brought by the corrupt Delaware County DA against Barbara O'Sullivan, the victim of his employee's nephew.

Which says a lot about integrity or, rather, lack thereof, of Judge Lambert.

By the way, at the arraignment, according to Barbara O'Sullivan, Judge Lambert, responding to Barbara O'Sullivan's statement that the whole prosecution against her that is lasting years and that has culminated with the criminal proceedings has been brought in retaliation by the now retired judge Carl F. Becker, stated that "he knows all about it all too well".

Well, if Judge Lambert "knows all about it all too well", I wonder why, being a witness in the proceedings that has to testify on behalf of the defendant, he continues to preside over two proceedings, one by Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie and another by People of the State of New York (allegedly) on behalf of Derek Bowie as an alleged victim against Barbara O'Sullivan, and has been consistently ruling so far, without legal basis, as far as I could judge from the court records, against Barbara O'Sullivan.

But we do cannot expect honor from the profession who conferred upon itself at the same time a presumption of honor and competence and an absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, can we?

Once again, I wish Barbara O'Sullivan luck on her petition and hope that the 3rd Department will finally see the light and stop the corrupt proceedings, applying the rule of law and restoring in the public the sense of decency, fairness and at least residual faith in the integrity of at least some of judges in New York judicial system.

More and more books on corruption in courts are published

Recently, several books were published on the issue of judicial corruption and misconduct, despite vicious retaliation against such critics by the judiciary.  I keep track of such books and am honored to be able to recommend them to the public.  Please, note that the list is not exhaustive.  I will be supplementing it from time to time, recommending more books to the public.

I am not paid to make these recommendations to the public, nor did any of the authors or their representatives ask me to recommend such books, it is my personal initiative, since I think these books are deserving of public attention.

No	Author	Name	Date of publication	About the book and its author
1	Barbara C. Johnson	Behind the black robes – failed justice	August 24, 2009	A personal story by an attorney disbarred for, apparently, whistleblowing regarding judicial misconduct and attempt to run for governor on a platform to clean the courts of the State of Massachusetts of corruption Includes great analysis of federal civil rights litigation, including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the No. 1 tool of federal courts to clean their dockets of civil rights cases
2	John F. Molloy	The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion	June 14, 2011	Late retired judge, describes mechanisms of collusion and connections between influential attorneys and judges
3	William Ecenbarger	Kids for Cash: Two Judges, Thousands of Children, and a $2.6 Million Kickback Scheme	October 23, 2012	A Pulitzer Prize winner, former editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer describes the corruption scandal in Pennsylvania where two judges were sentencing juveniles to detention in exchange for bribes from a privately run juvenile detention facility.
4	Carrol D. Kilgore	Judicial Tyranny: On the Integrity of the Federal Judiciary	November 11, 2012	Retired attorney with over 40 years of experience, former federal prosecutor analyzes in detail unlawful actions of federal courts committed systematically, as a matter of policy
5	Susan Settenbrino	Unchecked Power Guide: The New York State Court System: A Look at the Entrenched Power, Politics, & Over $2 Billion of NY State Funding - Compromising JUSTICE - for "JUST US"	June 6, 2014	A whistleblower attorney, a former prosecutor, exposes corruption in judicial elections in New York, naming names and episodes of corruption
6	Robert Grundstein	Bad Minds, High Places	January 29, 2015	A whistleblower attorney disbarred for retaliation describes his ordeal, and gives a precise analysis of various ways in which courts in states of Ohio, Washington and (to a lesser degree) Vermont violate litigants’ rights based on partisan connections and collusion with local favored attorneys, political contributors to judges. Great analysis of unconstitutionality of anti-filing injunctions which are increasingly imposed by courts throughout the U.S. upon pro se litigants.

It is interesting to mention that only one author covering corruption from this list is a non-insider, a professional reporter - that is the author of the book about the "Kids for Cash" scandal.

I must add that both judge who were convicted be federal court for taking kickbacks relating to the "Kids for Cash" scandal were referred to disciplinary authorities of the State of Pennsylvania, and escaped undisciplined, until the feds went after them, prosecuted and had them convicted for corruption.

Nobody was interested in publishing victims' stories until the case received overwhelming media attention due to criminal prosecution and conviction of these judges.

Other authors are insiders of the legal system.

The late John F. Molloy was a retired judge who knew insides and outs of the politics of interaction of the judiciary with local politically connected counsel and who felt the need to reveal those inappropriate connections and collusions only after he left the bench and retired from the practice of law, having amassed all financial benefits from both prior to starting his revelations.

The late Carrol D. Kilgore was a retired attorney and former federal prosecutor who published his book "Judicial Tyranny" only after he retired from the practice of law.

Attorneys Barbara C. Johnson and Robert Grundstein published their accounts of judicial retaliation after their law licenses were revoked.

New York attorney Susan Settenbrino does not have a mailing address on her registration information  on the website of the New York State Unified Court System, which indicates that she does not practice law at this time.

All of the books from the list but one, written by a professional reporter, contain scathing and precise analysis by legally trained insiders of the "justice" system throughout the U.S.  Yet, despite the self-anointing by the legal profession, and especially the judiciary as the "honorable" professions, somehow the only accounts of judicial retaliation and misconduct surface when the insiders of the court system leave the practice of law for a variety of reasons.

Such statistics are only confirming that attorneys have a reason to fear retaliation if they criticize judicial misconduct while they continue to practice law.  And that is disturbing, because judges are supposed to be above such petty behavior as retaliation for criticism and are supposed to have been elected and selected for their even temperament allowing them to stomach criticism without exacting revenge against the critics.

I highly recommend all the above books.  They are painstakingly written, are all very good reads, and contain useful information on the topic that is usually under the public radar.