Facebook friends of judge Lisa M. Fisher

Below is the list of Facebook friends of judge Lisa M. Fisher of the Supreme Court of the Greene County, State of New York.

When you see people shown below in Lisa M. Fisher's courtroom, know that presiding over their cases may have an appearance of reimbursement for campaign promotion - Judge Fisher disclosed that she extensively used her Facebook friends in her election campaign.  Judge Fisher also lamented in her podcast interview interlinked in the previous sentence that she could not give "as much" to her contributors as people running for, say, a senator's office. 

I suggest to watch this video after you listen to Judge Fisher's interview, it puts her marketing enthusiasm about judicial elections into proper perspective.  

This blog is trying to prevent opportunities for Judge Fisher to "give back" to her Facebook friends in terms of judicial decisions in their favor in return for their work on her election campaign.

The list also gives the readers an impression of the judge's political connections, as some of her friends are sheriffs, staff members of senators etc.

Here is the list.  It is long, yet, it is provided to the public as a matter of public service, because in my experience, when a judge's Facebook contacts attract public scrutiny, the friend list gets immediately locked up or erased.  I preserved it for you.  

So, here is your evidence for future motions to recuse/disqualify Judge Fisher if she attempts to preside over court cases of her friends.

Male chauvinist pigs on the bench galore - continued

A judge (let's call him Judge # 1) refuses to grant an adjournment of appearance to a young mother and then publicly humiliates her in court for breastfeeding her sick and hungry baby, after making her wait, calling her case only when he sees she is breastfeeding (he was alerted to that fact by a court employee by a note), and then, when the mother asks for a minute to arrange her clothing, puts her on the spot and tells her publicly that he considers her brestfeeding in "his" court in appropriate.

The judge's boss refuses to discipline the judge because he believes, the judge did nothing wrong.

Another judge, Judge # 2, refuses to grant an adjournment to a young mother, an attorney, after she gave birth to a child, causes her appearance in the courtroom and publicly humiliates her for neglecting her child BECAUSE she appeared with her child because she could not arrange for daycare!

Judge # 3, after being sued by a party in litigation, has the party's female attorney arrested during recess of a trial, has her handcuffed to a wheelchair, has court attendants take away from her her pen, case files, GLASSES, and orders her to conduct a trial this way, out of a wheelchair and handcuffed, without glasses or any trial material, and without presence of her client - at the threat of a default to her client.  

Judge Knutson was sued for that, and a petition for the writ of certiorari is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A video of some of what happened to the female attorney in Judge Knutson court is available on the Internet.

Judge # 4, Judge Kevin M. Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court, punishes a female attorney (me) for failure to appear at a trial during my documented medical leave because of a back injury.

It appears that courts have an open hunt on women litigants and women-attorneys, especially those who sue judges or are independent.

The system calls them "judges" and refuses to discipline them because they "did nothing wrong".

I call them male chauvinist pigs that should not be allowed to be judges, or attorneys.

Unlawful local rules of Greene County Supreme Court judge Lisa M. Fisher

I posted today a general blog about "local rules" of judges and courts and how unlawful - and unconstitutional - some of them may be.

This blog post is about local rules of a certain judge - Greene County Supreme Court Justice Lisa M. Fisher.

Judge Fisher's rules are available on the interlinked website of the Greene County Supreme Court in a PDF format.

I will comment on some of the rules of Judge Fisher, those that I consider, in my personal legal opinion, unlawful, biased and some - unconstitutional and causing parties to unnecessarily waste their time and money, and for counsel to unnecessarily incur malpractice liability.

RULE THAT PARTIES MUST PAY COURT’S POSTAGE

Judge Fisher’s rule says that if you send a letter to the court, in order to receive a response from the court parties and counsel must send to the court a postage-paid return envelope, otherwise Judge Fisher will not send her answer, but will leave the answer for a pick-up with the court, no matter how far the counsel or party must travel for that pick-up. 

New York law does not support Judge Fisher’s requirement that parties and counsel must pay the court’s postage.

RULE OF REPEAT NOTICES OF APPEARANCE UNDER A THREAT OF PENALTY

Judge Fisher’s rule requiring Notice of Appearance and acknowledgements of rules from counsel when Judge Fisher steps into cases where Notices of Appearances were already filed previously, does not comply with existing laws or court rules and are nonsensical. 

Parties in civil cases should not be required, under the threat of penalty from a judge, to pay more money to their attorney and incur legal fees for filing unnecessary documentation, especially given the usual attorney’s hourly rates.

RULE OF CHANGE OF COUNSEL CONTRARY TO THE CPLR AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION

1/ Judge Fisher requires that change of counsel from an attorney to a pro se party must occur only through an Order to Show Cause.  Such a requirement is not supported by New York State Law, CPLR 321.

By making such a requirement, Judge Fisher unduly interferes into the right of any party to represent himself or herself without asking Judge Fisher for permission to do so.

Judge Fisher’s rule violates parties’ constitutional right of access to courts through counsel of their own choosing, which can be themselves.

2/ Judge Fisher acknowledges change of counsel between attorneys “by stipulation” - see subsection (B) of Judge Fisher's Rule 6.0.  Such stipulations are not supported by New York state law, CPLR 321(b).

CPLR 321 recognizes change of counsel by either notarized consent of party or court order.

RULE REGARDING ENDING THE CASE BY A SETTLEMENT

Normally, when parties file a stipulation of discontinuance with the court (and the defendant pays - I do not know why the New York law imposed this cost upon the defendant, but that's the law - the $30 filing fee to file such a Stipulation of Discontinuance) of the action, the lawsuit is over, and the court's jurisdiction is over.

Not so in Judge Fisher's court.

Here is Judge Fisher's rule:

So - if parties, after filing the Stipulation of Discontinuance, "did not comply with this Rule", that is, after jurisdiction of "Judge Fisher's court" has ended, then what?  Judge Fisher will grab jurisdiction back to punish parties for not telling her personally that they settled?

RULE OF MOTIONS ADDRESSING DISCOVERY

New York law is very particular about motions addressing discovery.

There are statutory rules and court rules.

Court rules require good faith efforts to ensure compliance with discovery prior to making a motion and filing an attorney affirmation of good faith with the motion to compel discovery or for other appropriate relief (to preclude use of non-disclosed evidence at trial or for a dismissal/summary judgment).

Judge Fisher goes further.  She requires that no motion addressing discovery is filed without a conference 

- thus practically mandating parties to incur travel and attendance fees for their attorneys, and expenses for themselves (daycare, leave from work, travel etc.) - which is not mandated by statute or rules of the New York State Court Administration.

RULES REGARDING ADJOURNMENTS OF APPEARANCES AT CONFERENCES

Judge Fisher requires physical appearances at “final” conferences, allows adjournments of conferences only for medical pain (and even then, reserves a “right” to still require appearance despite such pain, in violation of federal HIPAA, Americans with Disabilities Act and Due Process Clause of the State and Federal Constitutions) and does not recognize long-distance travel to a conference as a good reason not to appear.

There is no “discretion” for a judge not to give adjournment for medical reasons in view of a documented medical condition.  Federal law in this case pre-empts any inconsistent state law.

There are medical conditions that are not painful, but nevertheless disabling, and even life-threatening.  Obviously, they are not considered by Judge Fisher as good reasons to adjourn a court conference.

There are many reasons why a person cannot appear at a conference, from death of a loved one to impossibility to get a leave from work, where livelihood of the party's family depends on the party's holding on to the job that may be lost if the party is going to conferences every so often (and litigants do lose jobs because of frequent court appearances).

If Judge Fisher worked for 18 years prior to the bench as an attorney (as she states in the podcast interview interlinked above), and since she worked in the public defender's office, as her official Facebook election campaign page states, she should know that much.

If she knows it and still makes a requirement for a severely restrictive list of "good reasons" for an adjournment - she does it deliberately, that's the only reasonable explanation that I can find for this rule.

Conferences are a profound waste of time, many judges are using conferences and "mandatory appearances" at such conferences to drain resources of parties and frustrate parties into a settlement, thus clearing the judge's docket.

These tricks have nothing to do with proper administration of justice, and Judge Fisher knows it, no doubt, having practiced for 18 years prior to coming to the bench.

There is absolutely no reason why all conferences cannot be held by phone, and requirement of physical appearance by any attorneys or parties is nothing other than a desire to exercise control and cause submission of parties and counsel, without regard whether it is necessary or not.

RULE OF TRIAL SUBMISSIONS

Judge Fisher requires all “evidence” to be submitted by all parties (Plaintiffs and Defendants alike) a week before trial, and otherwise threatens with a possibility of precluding introduction of evidence at trial.

This way, Judge Fisher unduly advocates for the plaintiffs’ side, in violation of the requirement for the adjudication to be neutral, because Judge Fisher requires the defense to make its case known, including impeachment evidence, before the Plaintiff makes their case, thus teaching the plaintiffs how to sue the defendants more efficiently and how to preclude all of their defenses.

It appears that Judge Fisher wants her trials to be not trials where unexpected things can happen, like impeachment of witnesses, but should be as close as possible to motions for a summary judgments, with no surprises at any time at all.

Such a position (my legal opinion) certainly undermines the very principle of adversarial justice which is the cornerstone of the American justice system.

RULE OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEETS

Judge Fisher requires jury instructions to be drafted by parties "working together" and then submitted to Judge Fisher a week before trial.

Judge Fisher also requires verdict sheets also to be submitted a week before trial (even, I understand, when the verdict sheets are special interrogatories to juries that can only be formed on the basis of what evidence was submitted at trial).

This requirement is clearly pro-plaintiff, and puts Judge Fisher in the shoes of an advocate for plaintiffs (usually, corporations suing in her court) and against defendants, usually common people, often pro se or poor.

Defendants do not have to put on any case in a civil or criminal matter.

Plaintiffs have to.

Defendant’s counsel’s role often is not to wait what kind of case the Plaintiff puts on to then fashion jury intructions that point out Plaintiff’s errors.

To require a defendant to draft jury instructions together with the plaintiffs and then file such jury instructions a week before trial is to require a defendant to teach the plaintiff how to sue and win against the defendant better.

Such a requirement runs contrary to the contractual and ethical obligations of counsel to defendants and may subject counsel to malpractice liability.

Such a requirement is clearly unlawful.

I had judges trying to force me, as a defendant’s counsel, in civil or criminal cases, to submit instructions before the end of the Plaintiffs/prosecution’s case.  I always argued that such a requirement undermines the adversarial nature of justice and requires me as defendant’s counsel to work for the plaintiff, to the detriment of my client.

RULE OF POSTTRIAL SUBMISSIONS AFTER BENCH TRIALS

In a bench trial Judge Fisher goes even further than in jury trial cases and imposes more obligations on trial counsel than in a jury trial.

After bench trials, Judge Fisher requires parties to submit the following:

·      Final statements of facts citing to the record of evidence submitted at trial;

·      Conclusions of laws;

·      Memorandum of Law in the form of an appellate brief;

·      Printouts of all authorities, including statutes, cases and regulations to which the Memorandum of Law refers

Now.

In a bench trial Judge Fisher is a factfinder and the PROVIDER of the law.

Parties are entitled to an oral closing argument as a matter of law.

Parties sometimes ASK the judge to ALLOW them to make their closing arguments in writing.

It is simply a matter of convenience to both the court and the parties to do that after the court proceedings, as it gives parties more time to prepare.

Closing arguments must be done within the trial and not after the trial.

Once again, it is a concession, on request of a party, and cannot be a REQURIEMENT of the court to ALL parties.

Moreover, what Judge Fisher requires sends a clear signal that neither Judge Fisher nor her court attorney want to actually do their job, review the record and research the law.

Instead, they want to decide the case as if it is a summary judgment – with a digest of the facts and the law provided to the court multiple times in conferences, pretrial submissions and now in a post-trial submission.

New York state does not support requirement that parties after a trial must file with the court what Judge Fisher requires parties to file.

Moreover, even in appellate courts there are no requirements to submit every single legal authority cited, printed out, as an attachment to the Memorandum of Law.  That is not only a gross waste of paper (some cases run on 100 pages, while only one issue is used and referenced through a citation in a Memorandum of Law), but also a gross waste of attorney’s time and the party’s money.  Submitting the legal authority to Judge Fisher "by e-mail" does not obviate printing and scanning, which involves hours of work.

Apparently, Judge Fisher makes parties do her own and her court attorney's work, and pay for it. 

In fact, parties should not be MADE to pay their attorneys for post-trial work, especially as extensive as preparing an “appellate brief” based on record after a trial.

Appellate work is expensive specifically because it requires hours of research and hours of working with the record on appeal.

Judge Fisher requires that appellate work to be conducted by trial counsel post trial.

It is clearly better to go in for a jury trial, refuse to submit defendant’s jury instructions to Judge Fisher until the end of the plaintiff’s case – and address Judge Fisher’s refusal to recognize such jury instructions on appeal – than waive your constitutional right (under New York State Constitution) to a jury trial and receive in exchange the requirement to do appellate work, at appellate cost of thousands of dollars, post-trial to allow the judge to not do her work as a fact-finder.

The sum and substance of the rules of Judge Fisher shows:

1)  Judge Fisher is more concerned by form than by substance and fairness of the litigation;

2) Judge Fisher is extremely pro-plaintiff, to the point of advocacy for the plaintiffs through her rules;

3) Judge Fisher disregards the law, including constitutional law, to assert her authority.

Not good, and this is only her first year on the bench.

The law of the (little) land(s)

I assume everybody heard the expression "the law of the land".

I believe, many people who are familiar with litigation heard or read that phrase in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court precedents which are NOT, as a matter of law, the law of the land - yet, courts deem them so and honor them more than the U.S. Constitution, the real law of the land.

Article 6 Clause 2 establishes only the U.S. Constitution, federal statues and treaties as the "law of the land" - that is the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

I was sanctioned for pointing that out to a federal court, that called my constitutional arguments, including this particular argument, "frivolous".  

Yet, the main "law of the land" that every attorney and litigant, probably, got across, has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Clause 2.

It is becoming so much the main "law of the land" that, as I wrote here, the entire country of lawyers pays, through "ethical courses" in Continued Legal Education classes which are required to maintain law licenses in this country, to learn about "pet peeves" of judges, their written and especially unwritten little quirks that, in "their" courts is - the law of the land, or the law of their little lands, their little kingdoms that they created for themselves while YOU THE SOVEREIGN, my dear readers, are asleep at the wheel.

The main "law of the land" is the local rules of judges.

Some judges plainly put it to the parties - my court, my rules, my law, don't try to tell me what the law is. And those "rules", written and unwritten, concern everything, from where and how you file and serve (and be served with) the pleadings, to whether a mother summoned to court can or cannot breastfeed her sick and hungry infant in court, which is a public building belonging not to the judge, but to the people.

Some judges mock pro se litigants for knowing the law and pointing it out to the judge. 

Some dismiss cases and sanction litigants and counsel for not following the "court's local rules".

Some courts, like federal courts, restrict access to court for civil rights plaintiffs and plaintiffs-appellants by imposing, through "local rules" generated by panels with membership from powerful law firms where former clerks of the court are employed, or which sponsor judges through extrajudicial activities like American Inns of Courts, page limits that prevent civil rights plaintiffs and appellants from properly stating all issues in their cases.

I encourage my readers to send to me "local rules" of judges that they find objectionable.  If I find them objectionable, too, I will analyze them and post rules with analysis on my blog.

The problem that I see with local rules is that too often and more often than not they change or cancel statutory law, state and federal, and amend state and federal statutes and even state and federal Constitutions.

And, judges treat their local rules as the primary, governing law operating in "their" courtrooms.

I am preparing at this time a complaint against a judge, I will not disclose the judge's name until I file the complaint, specifically targeting the local rules mandated by that judge.  I believe, the rules are improper and unlawful.  We will see what the Commission for Judicial Conduct will say.

But remember - you and not the government are the sovereign.

The legislature is a bunch of YOUR legal representatives enacting statutory laws on YOUR behalf.

If you do not like laws created by that legislature, you can petition to change that laws, you have that right as the sovereign.

The judge is a "public servant", servant of the people, "servant" being the important word.

The servant operates within the rules set by the sovereign (you, the people) through your legal representatives (the legislature, the Constitution).

Therefore, it is not "my law", it is not "my court", and it is not "my local rules" that reign, but the U.S. Constitution.  And reminding public servants, all of them, including judges, that their power is restricted by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law, is not improper, frivolous or sanctionable.  

It is a necessity.

Video coverage of what the New York State Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline did not want to hear

Predictably, one cannot expect integrity when foxes are charged with guarding a chicken coup.

According to Long Island reporter Gary Jacobs, of "Long Island Backstory", the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline does not want transparency of its supposedly "public" hearing supposedly designed as to how to make attorney discipline more effective to protect the public, and more uniform and fair for he attorneys subject to the disciplinary process.

Gary Jacobs' coverage lasts 29 minutes 23 seconds charged with action and is well worth watching.  The report is made on the in front of the building where the office of the New York County Lawyers' Association is located and where the "public" hearings of the Commission were scheduled for August 11, 2015, which were not so public after all - predictably so.

***

There is one error in the report, as a matter of law, that I want to point out - the reporter mentioned that while complainants to attorney disciplinary authorities do not have a right to appeal if the complaint is dismissed (which is correct), attorneys who are disciplined have a right to appeal their disciplinary action.  That is not correct.  New York State law does not give an attorney a right to appeal, a right given to every other litigant in New York.  The only right, which is usually fictional and summarily dismissed by the New York State Court of Appeals without explanation or analysis, is a right to appeal "as of right" based on alleged constitutional violations.

New York State Court of Appeals dismisses such appeals with a rubber-stamp phrase that it reviewed the record and did not find "substantial violations of constitutional rights".  That means, of course, that New York State Court of Appeals picks and chooses, without authority, which constitutional violations are "substantial" and which are not, but that is another story.

The bottom line is that attorneys in New York DO NOT have a right to appeal from their disciplinary sanctions.

And the U.S. Supreme Court, as a matter of rule and policy, usually does not grant petitions for the writs of certiorari in attorney disciplinary actions, so once an attorney is suspended or disbarred at the Appellate Division level, it is final and usually for life.

***

With that exception as to purely legal error, I highly recommend the video report as it shows clearly that, predictably, the Commission is just another smoke screen to prevent addressing real problems in attorney regulation - that attorney regulation by the judiciary strips the public of independent representation in court, and that selective enforcement of attorney discipline by market players do not protect the public from bad attorneys, but protects high-ranking bad attorneys from accountability and allows the disciplinary proceedings to be used to quash critics of judicial misconduct and high-ranking attorneys' misconduct and deprive the public of services of those few attorneys who are courageous enough to do their jobs properly.

Gary Jacobs reported that he requested presence and permission to videotape the "public hearing" and was denied his request by the Commission.

That was in violation of Open Meetings Law, Section 103(d)(2) providing as follows:

           "2.  A public body may adopt rules, consistent with

            recommendations from the committee on open

            government, reasonably governing the location

            of equipment and personnel used to photograph,

            broadcast, webcast, or otherwise record a

            meeting so as to conduct its proceedings in 

            an orderly manner.  Such rules shall be 

            conspicuously posted during meetings and 

            written copies shall be provided upon request

            to those in attendance".

So, the Commission could adopt rules - which it did not - that would "reasonably govern the location of equipment and personnel to photograph, broadcast, webcast, or otherwise record a meeting".

The reasonableness of the rules that the Commission was allowed to adopt, according to law, would be governed ONLY by the necessity "to conduct its proceedings in an orderly manner".

The only "reasonable" way to conduct the Commission's proceedings in an orderly manner that the Commission could offer reporter Gary Jacobs was to disappear completely, from the room where the hearings were scheduled to be held, as well as from the building and from the sidewalk in front of the building.  

Yet, there were no grounds for deeming reporter Gary Jacobs as a threat to Commission's ability "to conduct its proceedings in an orderly manner", and the Commission certainly did not have a right to oust reporters from the building or sidewalk.

The building, belonging or rented by the New York County Lawyers' Association, while being a private property, became by law bound by Open Meetings Law by offering to host a public meeting, so the owners or tenants of the building could lawfully not oust the reporter either.  It is, in my view, a 4th Amendment issue and a due process issue, as well as a 1st Amendment issue, and a lawsuit waiting to happen.  

Given that the overwhelming majority of members of the Commission were attorneys who are presumed and required to know the law, such a lapse not only invalidates findings of the Commission, in my personal legal opinion, but clearly exposes the Commission for what it is - an affiliate of the old boys' club designed to keep the old boys' privileges, to the detriment of the public.

Also, if the Commission even issued a rule as insane as it enforced - for the video reporter to simply disappear from the Commission's life, room, building and sidewalk - that rule, according to law, was supposed to be "conspicuously posted" during the public hearings.  I doubt that any such rules were ever issued or ever posted.  You can trust the old boys' club to act as an old boys' club, the rule of law should not apply.

Reporter Gary Jacobs stoically left the building, but rebuffed the invitation to get lost from the sidewalk by offering the representative of the Commission to call the police.

The police, of course, was never called, but the fact of intimidation is there, and it is showing that the Commission does not want the public at large to know what was going on in the little room reserved for the allegedly "public" hearing, does not want to comply, as I stated above, with Open Meetings Law, and nothing good can come out of these clandestine meetings where, according to accounts of witnesses who were at the hearings, the absolute majority of witnesses invited to give testimony were market players, attorneys.

Speakers on the sidewalk raised important questions that the Commission obviously did not want to hear.

Issues reported by Gary Jacobs and members of the public who spoke to Gary Jacobs on camera, are as follows - and I offer them with my comments:

Issue # 1  Commission's composition as a virtually all-lawyer panel.  Interested players in attorney disciplinary system in determining how to protect the public, and who instead are protecting themselves and their own livelihood

Gary Jacobs:  "The solutions of the lawyers [for the problem with non-enforceability of attorney discipline] is that they are going to appoint a Committee of another bunch of lawyers to determine whether the lawyers are capable of making their decision".

Issue # 2 Commission's pre-screening of testimony of the public and did not invite those whose statements Commission did not want to hear

Gary Jacobs took on the Commission for restricting public testimony at a public hearing to only "testimony-by-invitation", with a prior submission of the testimony, in writing, to the Commission, for the Commission to decide whether it is worth it to invite the author of the written testimony to testify orally.

The screening makes sure that no real issues get orally heard, and what was submitted in writing and not presented at the oral argument, may be quietly buried, because, I am sure, no rules are created to archive such submissions.

In other words, the Commission wants only to hear sterilized testimony from market players that will not ask for any drastic (and necessary) changes in the system and will not address judicial corruption, because licensed attorneys would fear for their own licenses and will not mention that topic.  The Commission will then base its "recommendations" to the Chief Crook (oops, Judge) Lippman as to the necessary changes in the system based on sterilized testimony of interested market players, leaving members of the public to testify to the press on the sidewalk, "off record" to the Commission.

That is exactly the same trick disciplinary committees are using in NOT having any archives of complaints against attorneys - no index numbers are assigned, no history of complaints are created, and when complaints are dismissed, there is no way to ascertain that they were even made against a particular attorney, cleansing history of prominent lawyers who disciplinary committees, comprised of supermajorities of lawyers themselves, seek to protect, often for their own financial gains and to drum up their own business.

Issue # 4 Oversight of the legal profession is too important to be left to the lawyers

A speaker suggested that oversight of the legal profession should be done only by an independent body.

Issue # 5 - Unfair attorney discipline against civil rights attorneys strips vulnerable populations of proper independent legal representation

Linda Gilbow (phonetic), one of the speakers on the video, and African American lady, addressed authorities through the video with an appeal to restore the law license of Alton H. Maddox, Jr., a civil rights African American attorney suspended in 1990 and then in 1994 (according to the attorney registration website) who served the African American community well.  

She, and other speakers, members of the public, was not invited to testify in front of the Commission and had to testify in front of the building, to a reporter who was thrown out of the building and prohibited to video record the "public hearings", contrary to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.

Mr. Maddox also spoke to Gary Jacobs, he was actually (and surprisingly) allowed to testify in front of the Commission.

Alton H. Maddox, Jr. addressed the issue of judicial racism - which,  I am sure, not many attorneys would dare to address openly.

Members of the public speaking to the reporter also mentioned that not all members of the Commission even considered it their duty to be present at the hearing in question.  They were simply absent - and, as one of the speakers correctly pointed out, they will use the "service" on the Commission, even though they did not care enough about that service to attend the hearing, in their resumes to promote their business for their own financial gain.

So.

No surprises there.

Please, note the information from various civil rights groups that appeared on the video that you may want to research.

The groups featured and their representatives were:

1) Elena Sassower, Center for Judicial Accountability - she was allowed to speak to the Commission;

2) Carl Lansiziera, Americans for Legal Reform - not allowed to speak to the Commission;

3) Ray Rogers, Director, Corporate Campaign, Inc.

One of the speakers for one of such groups, Carl Lansiziera of Americans For Legal Reform, indicated that he was there 25 years ago, before a similar commission, and nothing changed - because members of the Commission do not want that change, and the system does not want that change.

So, I personally do not believe that the Commission will be a messiah for problems riddling judicial system in New York that prevent true access to courts and foreclose opportunities for millions of New Yorkers to obtain real effective remedies in court to their problems and injuries, as well as independent legal representation which is the cornerstone of democratic society.

I believe, instead, that the upcoming Constitutional Convention of 2017 may help solve those problems better, and I will soon start publishing appeals to the public as to issues I suggest should be included into the New York State referendum to change the state Constitution in a way that would provide a mechanism for the public to fight judicial corruption and obtain true access to courts and true remedies in court.

Yet, I do believe in the importance of having your voice heard, but I cannot call upon the public to publish their grievances, since such publication may involve defamation liability.  

Center of Judicial Accountability, according to its director Elena Sassower, is willing to publish your written testimonies and your evidence, but you need to consult a lawyer (or laws) specializing in defamation before sending anything for publication, since litigation immunity does not apply when you publish court documents.

Be protected, be heard and stay tuned.

More on U.S. NDNY Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, employment of his sons, conflicts of interest and taints on cases created by such employment, and on media coverage, and lack thereof, contributing to wrongful convictions

I think media contributes to wrongful convictions.

And I think Judge Sharpe and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York should get off cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office and off civil cases defended by the New York State Attorney General's office.  All of them.

And here is why.

Times Union, a major newspaper out of Albany, New York, the capital of New York State, is reporting on a criminal trial.

A reporter that covers a criminal trial must be minimally aware of presumption of innocence of the criminal defendant.

Yet, the report proudly features a picture of a criminal defendant, who is presumed innocent, in shackles.

What for?

To tip "the scales of justice" against the person against whom such scales of justice are already horribly tipped?

And, as always, it is interesting to mention what the same reporter, or Times Union, or any other "mainstream" media outlet, DID NOT report.

That the U.S. Attorney's office employs the presiding judge's son Robert Alan Sharpe.

As well as the New York State Attorney General's office employs the same Judge Gary Sharpe's other son Michael Aaron Sharpe.

Wouldn't you want to have a job where:

1/ you have a "discretion" to retaliate against your enemies;
2/ to make the rules absolving yourself of any liability for your malicious and corrupt acts;
3/ make the rules absolving you of judicial discipline on the bench;
4/ sit on the disciplinary committee where complaint about yourself are heard;
5/ promote your children by having them employed by public offices of attorneys who appear in front of you and
6/ having a "discretion" to not disclose that fact, punish people who point out that fact and ask for your recusal, claim that employment of your sons do not create an appearance of impropriety in the case and does not taint the case.

Well, to me as an objective reasonable observer, as to any other objective reasonable observer, such employment taints the case, big time.

Let me ask any of my readers a question - would you like to be prosecuted by an office employing as an attorney the presiding judge's son?

Would you like to pursue a civil rights claim in a court where your opponent employs the presiding judge's son?

Will you be absolutely comfortable that the judge will not be advancing his or her child's career and job security and will not rule against you and for the judge's employer just to aid the judge's child?

What would you think of your chances in such a criminal or civil proceeding?

Now, WHY would media NOT cover such an issue of public concern and instead reports about pending criminal proceedings by posting pictures of the criminal defendant in shackles?

Is the media afraid that the editor or the reporter will be the next target of the omnipotent judge's ire?

Then do we have a rule of law in this country?

And - last but not least, if the judge thought his children are worth anything as attorneys, why would he allow them to be hired in offices that appear in front of the judge, creating a potential conflict of interest not only for the judge, but, in the case of Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, for the entire court?

And if Judge Sharpe's children, Michael Aaron Sharpe and Robert Alan Sharpe, think they are competent attorneys, why do they need this "little" leg up by being employed by public prosecutors who regularly appear in front of their father - knowing that that will be a factor in their advancement.

An honorable profession.  Honorable people.  Just kidding.

Male chauvinistic pigs on the bench galore

After I've read enough about judges deliberately humiliating women for being women - and for speaking their minds in what judges perceive should be a male-ordered world - I decided to start running reports on my blog about this particular "phenomenon".

The first "winner case" is the 2011 case of a Michigan judge, Judge Robert Hentchel, a Van Buren County judge who (I believe) deliberately humiliated a young mother, Natalie Hegedus, for breastfeeding her baby son in the courtroom.

According to information that is available on the Internet, this male chauvinistic pig is still "serving" the public, and will be "serving" until 2016.

You can see the picture of the male chauvinistic pig here.

Yet another male chauvinistic pig, judge Hentchel's boss, Circuit judge Paul E. Hamre, who "voluntarily" retired in 2013, and whose picture is available here, refused to impose ANY discipline upon Judge Hentchel because, as Judge Hamre stated, "[Judge Hentchel has] done nothing that would remotely appear to be something that I would reprimand him for".

So, Judge Hamre would not consider behavior of his subordinate judge warranting even a reprimand where:

1) a judge first issued a bench warrant for a mother to appear on "contempt of court charges" for, reportedly, "missing an initial hearing on a case from July when she was ticketed for boating too fast in a no-wake zone and failing to produce her boaters safety certificate".

With a bench warrant like this the woman had no choice but to appear.

She had a son whom she breastfed.

She had no choice but to appear with him in court, because the child developed an ear infection and the mother had to pull him from daycare.

2) Judge Hentchel, seeing a young mother with her baby in court, did the following:

• he did not call her case at once;
• made her wait until her baby became hungry and started crying;
• waited until the mother started to breastfeed the baby; and
• THEN called the mother's case, while she was breastfeeding, and
• while the mother asked for some time to arrange her clothing;
• asked the mother if she considered it appropriate to breastfeed in court, and, when the mother said she thought it is because her son was hungry and because it was not against the law, said the following to the mother:
• "my court, my rules, I consider it inappropriate", and
• reportedly told the mother that she needs to understand that in "his" courtroom, the laws do not apply, it's the "judge's law" that applies.

None of that appeared inappropriate to not one, but to TWO male judges who are put on the bench by the people to uphold the rule of law.

It is interesting to mention that people are so afraid of the power of the judge to punish them in contempt of court, even for lawful behavior, that a "nurse-in" protest by breastfeeding mothers was held OUTSIDE of the courthouse, not IN the male chauvinistic pig Hentchel's courtroom, which is not Hentchel's courtroom, but the courtroom of the People of the State of Michigan who conferred upon Hentchel the DUTY to apply the laws and adjudicate in accordance with the law in that building - and not to express to the world what he considers personally appropriate or inappropriate - if it is lawful.

The mother actually indicated in an online discussion that she wanted to feed her sick son at that point openly, but was afraid to be thrown in jail and for her son to be taken away by social services - even though the mother knew the law was on her side.

The mother's fear was repeated by other breastfeeding mothers when they staged only an "outside" nurse-in as a protest for a public humiliation of a woman inside the courtroom, and that fear is exactly what is wrong with our judicial system - the rule of men presented as the rule of law and instead of the rule of law, which people are afraid of to the point of obeying it while knowing that the judge's actions are unlawful.

I am sure that the pig would not have dared to order breastfeeding mothers, members of the public who came to observe open court proceedings, to be incarcerated or removed for breastfeeding.

I encourage breastfeeding mothers to do what is natural to them anywhere - including in courtrooms.  Breastfeed your children.  Do not try to be discreet.  Just feed them.  And let everybody else go read the law.

As to the male chauvinistic pigs, they two "H" judges, Hentchel and Hamre, put themselves down in history as dishonorable jerks.  May at least that be their discipline.

On the other hand, in the state of New York, for example, there is no statute of limitations on judicial discipline, as well as on attorney discipline.

I bet the same rule exists in Michigan.

It is not late yet to discipline pig Hentchel.

My question is - why attorneys of the state of Michigan do not insist that Hentchel be taken off the bench and disbarred?  The honorable profession?

Here is what the woman said on the day of the appearance:

And here is what people's comments say:

VOX POPULI, VOX DEI.