"Good judge" stories are few and far-between nowadays. Back to the new "normal": a New Mexico judge runs amok in advising a young defendant to be prepared for rapes and beatings in prison

A New Mexico female judge by the name of Christina Argyres reportedly told 20-year-old first time offender that, as an act of mercy, she is putting him on 5-year one-slip-and-you-are-behind-bars-for-15-years probation.

Before she announced her act of mercy - and that is in a courtroom where video cameras are not allowed, so the source I quote indicated it was reporting from a transcript - the judge told the teenager the following:

Quote
--------

“You would probably be raped every day, number one,” she said to Gay.

“You would be beat up every other day.”

Unquote
----------

According to the same source,  "[t]he judge then proceeded to tell him that if she sentenced him to prison he would be someone’s bitch, so in an act of mercy she put him on five year probation instead.
“He’s going to be somebody’s – I hate to use the word bitch, but that’s exactly what he’s going to be, and I don’t want to destroy Mr. Gay’s life.”"

Wow.

So, she recognizes that in prison the young man will await cruel and unusual punishment by uncontrolled mobs of prisoners - uncontrolled by the government that is "carrying out justice" against him and is supposed to follow the law all the way doing it, becuase the government is supposedly on the high horse and is doing the right thing, and is rightfully punishing the young man, on behalf of all people of the State of New Mexico, for his wrongdoing (doesn't matter, what it was).

So, it is legal in New Mexico now to imply that the prison sentence will include everyday rape and every-other-day beatings?  And authorities look the other way to make this "implied sentence" being carried out?

Ok, Mr. Gay escaped jail through the "mercy" of Judge Argyres - very possibly, not for long, because, the same government that allows prisoners to be raped every day and beaten up every other day when the only thing that the government is entitled to do is carry out a court sentence depriving convicted individuals of their liberty - not dignity, not safety, not harm to health or life - that same government can very easily falsify charges and entrap the boy into "tripping up" and going to that prison for 15 years.

Especially when, as it was reported in January of 2015, for-profit prisons in New Mexico get higher profit from their captive labor force than other states.

In Pennsylvania we had a "kids-for-cash" scandal, but the two judges caught and convicted were still not convicted for selling children into slavery, only for receiving kickbacks.

And even then, in a civil lawsuit, the judge was given absolute judicial immunity, in this disgusting wording from his brother judge (that is running on top of this blog):

What will happen to this judge?

Will she - and other judges in New Mexico who fill so profitable "for-profit" prisons, be finally investigated?

Because the "act of mercy" of Judge Argyres could very well be an act of greed.  And it certainly looked like an act of sadism.

I wonder when they will take this woman off the bench?  Will they?

There are good judges out there - at least, there is one

There has been a report that a California judge refused to approve a contract of Bindi Irwin, the daughter of Steve Irwin, without proof that her father is dead.

A media frenzy resulted.

The judge was mocked and insulted in comments on Facebook pointing out that why, stupid, do you need to see a certificate of death of Steve Irwin when "everybody knows" that he has been dead these past 9 years - because the media and his daughter said so.

Yet, the judge stuck to the law and continued to require the death certificate.

Whose mistake is it that in a proceeding approving the contract of a minor, the death certificate of one of the parents was not presented by the minor's lawyers?  Certainly, not the judge's.

The judge did what he would have done in similar contract-approving proceedings for any minor.

Because - the law is the law - and the Lady justice is (or is supposed to be) blind to status of the parties appearing before the judge - and there is equal protection of laws, going both ways, for the good and for the bad.

And you know what lawyers for the show are saying:

"We're told lawyers for the show will do what it takes to get the judge to sign off."

What does that mean?

The are going to bribe the judge?

Intimidate the judge?

Submit the judge to the media frenzy?

And they will do "anything it takes" to do what - make the judge NOT follow the law?

Why?

Why is Bindi Irwin different from you and me, the mere mortals?

Because she stands to earn over $230,000 in 8 weeks?

If money explains-away not following the law, then we are not the country based on the rule of law.

The judge is right.

And the judge should not sign off.

Because the only thing Bindi Irwin should do is to have her Dad's birth certificate FedEx-ed to the court, for the judge to be able to follow the law and approve her contract.

So, the rule of law is not dead yet?

Does Judge Lambert's clerk Mark Oursler have a drinking problem?

I just ran two blogs about two potential drinkers in high positions - Otsego County DA John Muehl and the former Chief Judge and now an "ordinary" judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe.

I also wrote that Otsego County Judge John Lambert, as part of his judicial duties, should not condone drinking among people who are practicing before him.

But the problem is that not only Judge Lambert (former subordinate of John Muehl) would not report Muehl, but he employs as his own law clerk a man, Mark Oursler, whose face is just like Muehl's and suggests the same problem.

Oursler handles the endless conferences for Judge Lambert in civil courts - and talks and talks and talks on issues unrelated to litigation, keeping attorneys as sitting ducks, not able to object the waste of their time - at the expense of their clients, for fear that they and their clients will become targets of Oursler's and Lambert's retaliation.

I wonder whether Oursler's extreme talkativeness on irrelevant issues is caused by his likely drinking problem.

Once again - will authorities dare to investigate this?

Steven Zayas booted again - after I blogged about his employment

I wrote on this blog about the disciplinary attorney who committed fraud upon the court by charging me with neglect of clients (not appearing at a deposition and not answering a motion) at the time I was not an attorney - and insisting upon the charges when I provided to him court documents, the transcript of the deposition and the motion, dated 2008, when I was admitted to the bar in 2009.

Zayas stubbornly insisted on prosecuting me for this fraudulent charge.

Up until he was booted from the disciplinary committee for falsifying time sheets.

No discipline has befallen him, though.

On the opposite, he was picked up by a powerful law firm that employees senators, former judges and law clerks and that "serves" in multiple organizations that organize backroom meetings with judges to discuss, no doubt, how to promote the excellence of the legal profession.

In 2013, before his disgraceful departure from the disciplinary committee, my husband Frederick J. Neroni sued Zayas.

The court, Judges Kahn and Peebles, first allowed the litigation against Zayas to proceed, and then, when the potential drinker Gary Sharpe (the then Chief Judge) interfered and imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband based on the still pending Zayas case, Kahn "changed his mind" and dismissed the claims against Zayas.

Then, things got messed up.

A Commission for Attorney Discipline was created and made a report that was tracking the very same complaint in my husband's case that was dismissed as "incoherent".

A New York court made a decision exactly tracking what Mr. Neroni (and I on his behalf) said in the lawsuit and Judge Kahn claimed it was unreasonable to say that.

I filed a motion to vacate the dismissal of the lawsuit against Mr. Zayas on October 1, 2015.

On October 11, 2015 I posted a blog about Mr. Zayas' interesting employment with a powerful law firm that hires public officials as live shields - by the way, a criminal trial against one of such live shields is going on in Albany as we speak (the Sheldon Silver trial).

Then, at the end of October 2015, I requested and was granted by the court an extension of time to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Mr. Zayas.

Today, I checked out Mr. Zayas' attorney registration.

Guess what - Zayas is no longer with the "live shield firm".  The firm got rid of the ballast.

He is now toiling in the New York State Department of Temporary & Disability Services, possibly, falsifying his time sheets there now, so instead of the partners of the "live shield" firm, us the taxpayers are now saddled, once again, with the upkeep of Mr. Zayas.

But my question is - why was Zayas booted so quickly after I filed the motion and ran a blog?  Because exposure was hurting his employer's reputation?  Or, because the court that favors the employer by having it sitting on various out-of-court "committees" and other organizations where judges of the court and court personnel are participating as "officers" made a direct order to boot him?

And when will the disciplinary committee finally permanently disable Zayas' law license for his fraudulent investigations and prosecutions - fulfilling the promise of the 3rd Department's disciplinary attorney Monica Duffy to the NYS Statewide Commission of Attorney Discipline that her committee does not engage in selective non-prosecutions of prosecutors...

I am waiting.

Is Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York a drinker?

I just posed a question on a blog post, whether the Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl has a drinking problem.

And posted his picture.

I would like to state that the same or worse facial color, plus glassy eyes, plus unnatural laughter unbecoming the occasion of the court proceedings, I heard from Judge Gary Sharpe during my appearance in front of him in the spring of 2015.

I was shocked when I saw the judge.  At that time, he was the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.  He was Chief Judge of that court for several years.

The court handles death penalty cases.

I understand that the economy is bad, that attorneys depend upon judges for their licensing and reputation and may be afraid to report Sharpe if he was indeed drinking.

But doesn't somebody, anybody, any independent authority, monitor whether judges are drunk on the job?

Federal employers randomly drug-check their employees.

Shouldn't the same be done with judges? 

I already raised the issue of drug use by judges on this blog.  See here and here.

The use of alcohol is not less serious.  These people hold in their hands our lives - Sharpe does literally, he handles death penalty cases.  WHO checks whether he is drinking?

The Conduct Commission of the 2nd Circuit certainly doesn't.  They will dismiss any complaint about Judge Sharpe's possible drinking during court proceedings based on the exemption in the Judicial Disability Act that does not allow to review judge's misconduct if it happened during court proceedings.

So, WHO will look into whether Sharpe has a drinking problem?

Moreover, judges may have a tendency to acquire a drinking problem, what with all the receptions attorney associations are inviting them to.

Once again - WHO will be checking on the potential drinking problem of this particular judge?

One more question of public concern - is Otsego County DA a drinker?

I wrote in two previous blogs (here and here) about the outrageous reversal in the People v Michaels case - outrageous because the case was not supposed to ever see the insides of the court, it was legally insufficient to begin with and was never to be brought.

I also wrote on this blog about John Muehl's and Otsego County Judge John Lambert's tactics to coerce criminal defendants into pleas on legally insufficient cases - by dragging them to unnecessary conferences (where they were not allowed into the chambers, where John Muehl and his crew of witnesses already sat inside the chambers when defense attorneys enter the chambers, and never leave those chambers when defense attorneys leave it, conferences held off record), by denying all motions without pre-trial hearings, by harassing and intimidating defense attorneys.

I also wrote on this blog that Judge John Lambert, before coming to the bench, was DA John Muehl's deputy, the Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County.

What I did not write about was John Muehl's apparent habits that John Lambert as John Muehl's subordinate cannot claim he did not know.

I appeared in Otsego County court since 1999 when I came into this country - first, accompanying my husband-attorney, and then as an attorney myself.

I remember John Muehl since he became a DA.  I remember his ruddy face with the facial color that I normally saw on my husband's DWI clients.

It was previously reported by a blogger that John Muehl, before he became a DA, left the scene of an accident because he was drunk.  John Muehl, as far as I know, did not sue that person for defamation.

And whether a DA has a drinking problem or not is a BIG issue of public concern.  

First, if John Muehl does have a drinking problem, he should not be investigating and/or prosecuting cases because his judgment may be clouded by alcohol.

Second, he has no moral right to prosecute felony DWIs where he himself is absolved from such investigations and prosecutions, being put by his position above the law.

And here is John Muehl's picture, a close-up.  A ruddy blotchy face, blood-shot clouded eyes.  The question is, how can such a man be trusted with prosecutions of people, putting people away for years?

The public has a right to know - does DA Muehl or not have a problem with alcohol?

You know who should be asked about it?

Judge Lambert.

First, he should know from his experience in the DA's office.

Second, Judge Lambert regularly sits in close proximity to DA Muehl during the back-room court conferences.  It is a closed space.  He must be able to see - and, possibly, smell - alcohol.

If he knew as an attorney and did not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's attorney misconduct.

If he knows as a judge and does not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's judicial misconduct.

And third, an investigation of John Muehl's possible drinking habit can be easily done based on review of his purchasing history.  I doubt that, if he has a drinking problem, he always pays for his drinks in cash.  There should be tracks.  There should be witnesses, abundance of witnesses. 

But a public authority with a power to investigate the powerful DA should do that.  Because, otherwise, he will lash against citizen investigators as stalkers.

So, will authorities in New York finally take their heads out of where they are and investigate John Muehl?

A follow-up on the People v Norman J. Michaels reversal: Judge Lambert had a chance of not allowing the case to go to trial, but instead chose to badger a veteran defense counsel to favor his former boss, the Otsego County DA

This is a follow-up blog about the reversal in People v. Norman Michaels in the Otsego County Supreme Court - after I initially reported about this case here.

I received some documents from the case, and am starting to publish them here, with comments.  They do warrant public attention.

Today I am publishing portions from the pretrial oral conference, with motions by defendant's counsel Terence Kindlon of Albany, New York.

Terence Kindlon has been practicing since 1974, for 30 years by the time of the trial:

He was already targeted by the Appellate Division 3rd Department's disciplinary system for doing his job as a criminal defense attorney.

In 2012 Mr. Kindlon was sanctioned by the licensing court for reviewing and photographing "without prosecution's permission" documents on prosecutor's table during a recess in a criminal trial.

Of course, nobody wanted to mention in that censure decision that the prosecution cannot have anything on its table by the time of the trial that was not given to the defense, and Mr. Kindlon's actions were not only legitimate, but desirable.

The 3rd Department, nevertheless, sanctioned Mr. Kindlon, following its policy targeting civil rights and criminal defense attorneys and endorsing any misconduct a governmental attorney may engage in.  

Of course, Kindlon publicly accepted the unfair discipline - possibly, likely to prevent further harassment from the disciplinary authorities.

Here is Kindlon's picture, posted in the article about his discipline -and about his successful defense in a murder trial.  The picture clearly shows that Kindlon is not, let's say, a spring chicken.  He is an elderly individual, and I know that he is also an Army veteran.

That will be important for this blog.

Here is what happened before the trial in People v Norman J. Michaels.

Mr. Kindlon made a pre-trial (omnibus) motion.  

Judge John Lambert granted review of grand jury minutes, granted review (by himself, in secrecy, without showing the defense attorney), and said that everything in the Grand Jury minutes is appropriate.

Yet, based on an additional motion from Mr. Kindlon, Lambert later on dismissed count 4 of the indictment, insurance fraud, because at the time of the alleged act there was no such criminal statute.

Obviously, Lambert knew about it when he was reviewing grand jury minutes.

Obviously, Lambert knew that if there was no such crime at the time of the alleged conduct, while endorsing it as legally sufficient to go to trial - and, remember, the reversal was on the law, not on the facts of the case, meaning that Lambert screwed up since the very beginning of the case, he should have dismissed it from the very beginning.

Moreover, the remaining charges were for grand larceny.  Mr. Michaels was an insurance agent who received a commission for obtaining insurance policies.  According to Mr. Michaels, the insurance company did not void the insurance contracts with policyholders and kept the money.  According to Mr. Michaels, no demands were made for him to return the commission.

Under these circumstances, no larceny or grand larceny could be charged.

The prosecutor knew it.  The judge knew it.  The prosecutor John Muehl was the former boss of the judge who was Chief Assistant District Attorney under John Muehl until his election in 2008.

So, the judge decided to play dumb and to play his usual game - "move up or move on".

Here is how he did it.

This is the conference before trial.

Otsego County already expended money to bring in a jury pool, paid per diems to potential jurors, potential jurors already lost their business opportunities, hours of pay in employment, had to arrange for daycare for their kids etc. - went through a lot of expense and inconvenience to be there in court.  Unnecessarily.

Yet, the court still had a chance to save face and dismiss the indictment right there.

No, Judge Lambert decided to play dumb and play into the hands of his former boss John Muehl, who also played dumb and pretended that he was acting in good faith and not, as he was, catering for a corporation that apparently had, for some reason, a grudge against Mr. Michaels.

If the insurance company had a grudge, it could have sued Mr. Michaels.  That did not happen.  Instead, the insurance company decided to save expense of litigation and to shift it upon the Otsego County taxpayers, who are already hurting to the point that their governmental services are cut because of budgetary constraints.  

The judge knew it.

The prosecutor knew it.

Neither cared.

So, here is the pretrial conference.

Mr. Kindlon, quite logically, states that if there cannot be a crime of insurance fraud, there cannot be a crime of a scheme to defraud based on insurance fraud.

Lambert agrees with his former boss who tries to save his case, and repeats like a parrot that it is a "separate crime".   Yet, since the "separate crime" is based on facts that do not constitute a crime, it must be dismissed the same way as the count 4 was.  

But ok, Lambert denied that oral motion.

See what happens next.

Mr. Kindlon then uses Judge Lambert denial and asks for a limiting instruction to the prosecution.  If that is a separate crime, please, do not use terminology from the dismissed crime in any way, describing the remaining "separate" criminal charges.

Mr. Kindlon's position and request is clear as day.

See what happens when Mr. Kindlon makes that request.

The prosecutor acknowledges that, if he is not allowed to play with words and present the already dismissed count of the indictment in a paraphrased form, he will be unable to prove other charges, and the indictment will have to be dismissed.

And that is where Lambert should have put his foot down - and dismiss the indictment right there and then.  After all, that is what the Appellate Court did in the future, on the law, but only after Mr. Michaels who is also not a spring chicken, had to undergo the stress, indignity and expense of the criminal jury trial with wild publicity, undergo loss of his insurance licenses in many states as a result of the conviction that did not have to happen, and more publicity.  Mr. Michaels, as I understand, was sent by Lambert to jail after the verdict, was denied by Lambert bail pending appeal, so Mr. Michaels had to, once again, undergo unnecessary stress, effort and expense to apply to the appellate court for bail...  Only to arrive to the same result as Lambert had to do, as his duty of County Judge dictated, and dismiss the indictment at the time of arraignment, at the time of first and second pretrial motion and at the time of the pretrial conference and the "moment of truth" when John Muehl said that "to say that [Muehl] cannot refer to this as being a fraudulent act in connection with insurance, then you might as well dismiss the indictment now because [Muehl couldn't] prove any of [his] charges".

Mr. Kindlon modestly said that he agreed to the dismissal at that time :).

Yet, Muehl carried on and stated that to dismiss an indictment to him is "an absurd request" and that "he does not see any basis for it whatsoever", even after the basis was squarely laid down by Mr. Kindlon.

And Lambert immediately sides with Muehl.

Kindlon diplomatically says that he does not understand the judge's ruling.  Of course, he does, he sees that the judge is biased, but he simply tries to get the judge to explain himself.

I would have made a motion to recuse at this point.  Many attorneys are afraid to make such motions.  Kindlon was just sanctioned at that time, and could be afraid to make motions that could land him back in the disciplinary court, and there are precedents when attorneys were disciplined as if for misconduct, for doing their duty for their clients and making motions to recuse biased judges.

Lambert states what he allegedly thinks Kindlon's request was - incorrectly.

Kindlon corrects Lambert.

Lambert claimed he understood correctly because he "wrote it down".

Lambert goes further and states that John Muehl has remaining two counts of "larcenies".  In fact, they were grand larcenies.  

And says that "they can certainly go through with that" - even while Lambert knows that a larceny is unsustainable against an insurance agent where the insurance company did not rescind the insurance contract under which the insurance agent drew his commission, did not return to policyholders their money and did not ask for Mr. Michaels' commission back.

So, there was no basis to charge Mr. Michaels for larceny or grand larceny.

Yet, Lambert denies Kindlon's request to preclude mentioning of insurance fraud (already dismissed) in connection with the larceny counts (unsustainable from any point of view), in order to allow his former boss John Muehl to have a chance to win those unsustainable charges and obtain a wrongful conviction against Mr. Michaels.

Kindly still does not give up and continues to fight for his client.

Kindly now starts to call a spade a spade and tells Lambert that Lambert is misinterpreting Kindlon's requests.

Lambert, who is nearly twice younger than Kindlon and certainly not as experienced in criminal trials as Kindlon is, treats Kindlon as an errant schoolboy.

Now, this exchange shows how important it would have been to have a videotape of the trial and all conferences in Lambert's chambers.

Kindlon has to verbalize Lambert's intonation and, likely, body language to  protect his client's interests.  He says that Lambert gave him "a sarcastic look".   Appellate court, that has, by its jurisdictional statute, authority to review all facts in the court below anew (de novo), usually "defers" (rubber-stamps) factual determinations of the lower courts because the lower courts has the opportunity to see the body language of witnesses.

The same refers to the body language of the judges.  

It would have been a lot easier to show bias if a video coverage was available.

The "deference" was, probably, a reasonable idea when video coverage was not as cheap and easily available as it is now.  Now, anybody with a smartphone can record the whole trial without a problem, to preserve evidence for appellate review, and to continue to prohibit the video coverage, and at the same time defer to "trial court factual determinations" BECAUSE video coverage is prohibited is an outrageous violation of litigants', especially criminal litigants', constitutional rights.

Attorneys are usually afraid of discipline and do not verbalize judicial body language for the record, as Mr. Kindlon said, commenting on Lambert giving him "a sarcastic look".

Lambert obviously knew about Kindlon's sanction and likely did not expect such a bravery.  Yet, bravery happened.

And Lambert lashes back at a nearly-70 year old veteran trial lawyer whose only "fault" was that he was diligently doing his job:

• he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of saying an "untruth" to the court, setting him up for a new disciplinary violation;
• he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of "badgering the court", setting him for yet another new disciplinary violation;
• he wrongfully accuses Kindlon of incompetence, not making it clear what he wants in his motions - repeatedly.

All of that is necessarily happening in the presence of Mr. Kindlon's client who is present at all pretrial conferences immediately preceding the felony trial, so the judge is actually badgering Mr. Kindlon, humiliating him in front of his client before trial and is trying to show to Mr. Michaels that his attorneys is not worth going to trial with.

All of that Lambert is doing knowingly, playing into his former boss's hands, on absolutely worthless charges.

The purpose is very clear - to intimidate Mr. Michaels and coerce him into a plea bargain, with a waiver of his right to appeal of the legal insufficiency of charges.  It worked with so many other scared criminal defendants.  

Luckily for Mr. Michaels, he had the courage to proceed to trial, and his attorney Mr. Kindlon had the skills to handle the case in such a way that he made a record upon which a reversal became possible.

Kindlon keeps acting professionally and simply states that he never meant to offend Lambert.

And against all odds, against the unfair resistance of the judge, against sarcasm, harassment, humiliation and badgering by Lambert in front of Kindlon's client, Kindlon continues to do his job and repeats that, as difficult as such a decision may appear to the court, the prosecutor should be precluded from using terminology from the dismissed count in proving the remaining counts.

And diplomatically states that he hopes NOW it is clear - even though what Kindlon was asking for was exceedingly clear from the very beginning.

Lambert arrogantly and patronizingly tells Kindlon that Lambert has actually been "very patient" with Kindlon.

Then, Lambert denies Kindlon's request and orders the worthless case to proceed to trial.

What happened next is the trial, the conviction, the sentencing, sending Mr. Michaels to jail, denial of bail, obtaining bail pending appeal from the appellate court - and reversal on the law, with dismissal of the indictment.

In a case where criminal charges 

(1) should never have been brought by John Muehl;
(2) should have been tossed by Lambert before trial.


This case is a case study in prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and "how to obtain a wrongful conviction" - as well as "how to intimidate and humiliate a criminal defense attorney", or, as judges, police and prosecutors call criminal defense counsel - "those big-mouth attorneys".

Yet, Kindlon fought for his client against all odds - and in the long run he was right, and he won.

Mr. Michaels was lucky to have Kindlon.

Mr. Michaels was lucky that the Appellate Division was not asleep at the wheel this time, as it usually does, and that the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, even though not exactly on the same (and on the most easy) grounds upon which it could have been dismissed."

The problem remains that - Mr. Michaels cannot return time, effort, health, reputation, money lost in defense against these worthless claims.

The jurors cannot return time spent during that trial and inconvenience and expense it cost them.

The county and its taxpayers cannot redeem money unnecessarily wasted upon this trial and on the work of the appellate court - wasted from the point of view that those proceedings did not have to become needed, and to utilize human and other resources of two courts, had Lambert done his job and tossed the case from the very beginning.

And the main problem remains that both Lambert and Muehl still retain their position and will likely continue on their merry way, engaging in the same misconduct in other cases.

After all, not all people have the money for a private attorney of the caliber of Mr. Kindlon to fight for them like Mr. Kindlon did for Norman Michaels.

And not all convicted criminal defendants have good attorneys on appeal.

And even with good attorneys on both levels, the appellate court does not always do its job and listens, because over 95% of criminal convictions are affirmed on appeal - as a matter of an unwritten policy.

And Lambert and Muehl are shamelessly using people's lack of resources to drum up wrongful convictions.

As Lambert and his court attorney Mark Oursler tell people complaining of Lambert's errors:

Move up (appeal) or move on (suck it up).

No, Judge Lambert. 

You were elected to actually do your job, not shift it to the appellate court in the hope that they will be asleep at the wheel and rubber-stamp your decisions.

You were actually elected to faithfully enforce the law.

And if you do not want to do it, maybe, it is not the right job for you?