On November 13, 2015, a law license of an attorney (mine) was pulled for "frivolous" criticism of a judge (and a prosecutor, and the Vice-Chair of the New York Commission of Judicial Conduct drumming favors from a judge dependent on his favors) in several motions to recuse (motions made in order to ensure my client's constitutional right to an impartial judicial review).
On November 30, 2015, a judge of an attorney-licensing court, Judge Sheri Roman of the Appellate Division 2nd Department, testified in front of the NYS Judicial Compensation Commission, and in her testimony, extended, on behalf of the state judiciary, a "resounding thank you" to a law firm and several named attorneys of that law firm for advocating in favor of judicial pay raises, pay raises for those people who hold in their hands licenses and livelihoods of those same attorneys (see interlinked transcript of Judge Roman's testimony, pages 40-41, see also full analysis of her testimony here).
So, in the month of November, year of 2015, the New York judiciary finally threw to the winds its mask of hypocrisy and openly stated to the people what exactly attorney licensing in this state is for:
1) to fight the whistleblowers of judicial corruption and make sure that they cannot earn a living in their own state, or anywhere else they choose to go from the glorious State of New York; and
2) to encourage corruption of the government by the legal elite, as a quid pro quo for keeping their licenses intact, keeping them in business and, no doubt, ruling in their favor.
I wonder if law schools will assign Judge Roman's testimony to law school students as a required reading in their Ethics class - because, as I said before on this blog, brown-nosing the judiciary is THE ONLY rule of "ethics" New York State attorneys need to survive in their "noble profession".
Friday, December 4, 2015
Judge Sheri Roman's testimony before the NYS Commission for Judicial Pay raise - shameless and flowery unwarranted self-praise, invitation for corruption to attorneys and a substantiation for a "judicial pay adjustment", a pay CUT
In her testimony before the New York State Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative Compensation, Appellate Division judge Sheri Roman made many interesting statements.
Here the are, with comments.
1) the Judicial Pay Commission is the "key component to remedy a wrong of constitutional import impacting judicial independence" (pages 34-35 of the transcript) - the word "Constitution" is used by judges in four settings:
No. 1 - judges take their office and start receiving their salary and benefits by taking an oath pledging to protect and enforce the Constitution of the State of New York and of the United States;
No. 2 - when a constitutional argument is brought in court, judges punish those who raise those arguments with multi-thousand-dollar monetary fines and make sure such people cannot earn a livelihood in the State of New York or in any other state;
No. 3 - when judges are sued for violation of constitutional rights, they invoke absolute judicial immunity to violate the U.S. Constitution that they took the oath to protect (No. 1), they assert their right to violate the U.S. Constitution as a necessary condition of maintaining their "judicial independence", and they ask to punish the victims of their constitutional violations for complaining and make sure that those who complain and especially their attorneys suffer monetary fines and be deprived of their livelihood (No. 2);
No. 4 - judges recall the U.S. Constitution when they claim that they need a pay raise to continue to protect their judicial independence, the same judicial independence that they also need to protect by punishing those who raise constitutional arguments and those who sue judges for constitutional violations; judges need the pay raise to continue to protect the U.S. Constitution with immunity (No. 2, No. 3 above).
Quite a "House that Jack built" kind of an argument, isn't it?
Yet, that is the reality of what is happening with the U.S. Constitution, judicial "independence" FROM that U.S. Constitution, and penalties imposed upon people who raise constitutional arguments in court, pro se or through an ever diminishing number of attorneys who are brave enough to do their duty by their clients, including penalties upon victims of judicial constitutional violations for daring to complain about those violations and for daring to ask for help against judges who committed those constitutional violations.
Judge Sheri Roman's testimony before the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation is a good example of setting No. 4.
For licensed attorneys, "officers of the court" similarly sworn to protect the U.S. and State Constitutions, but who do not have absolute immunity for misconduct "in office" like judges gave themselves, raising constitutional arguments is safe only in setting No. 4 - in support of judicial pay raises (see below where Judge Roman extends a "resounding thank you" to licensed attorneys whose licenses she regulates for advocating for her pay raises).
Ok, let's go further with Judge Roman's testimony, here are other quotes.
2)"there is no real controversy for the need for judicial pay adjustment", p. 35 - I guess, Judge Roman polled every one of the millions of New York state taxpayers who she is saddling with that pay raise, what an accomplishment;
3) "across the state, judges dedicate their professional life to the rule of law", p. 35; as far as I know from my professional experience, judges dedicate their professional life to anything but the "rule of law", mostly, they dedicate their lives to using the courtroom to settle their personal grudges, extending their personal favors and demonstrating their power without regard to the rule of law;
4)please, brace yourself to absorb this one: "judges strive to employ every scintilla of their legal acumen accumulated throughout their legal career to achieve just resolutions" - I was always disgusted with people who praise themselves, and especially in a flowery language. It is a "flowery language alert" - whenever you see that, hold onto your pocket, most likely you are being duped.
5) "fairness of course is the bedrock of expectations we are relied upon to mete out to all citizen who cross the thresholds of our courtrooms", pp. 35-36. That declaration may be true because the public does elect judges to fairly resolve disputes in court - which does not happen in reality
As a "consequence" of No. 5,
6) "justices of this state trust that we have finally achieved by this Commission our own path to fair compensation", p. 36 - by "this" Commission comprised of people with financial interest in judicial pay raises "justices of this state" certainly can trust that they have achieved "a path" to RAISED compensation - which has nothing to do with fairness, appropriateness of such pay, or approval of the taxpayers who are being saddled with that pay; nor can the Legislature delegate an important task deeply affecting the State budget to unelected officials, making the Commission and its findings completely illegitimate and void;
7) "this Commission,comprised of successful legal, business and civic leaders, understands the necessity to advance and maintain seasoned, learned and compassionate bench" - that is as thick a hint as it could be made, to the bar dependent for its licenses and livelihoods, as well as for their "successes", upon favors of the "seasoned, learned" and especially "compassionate bench" (this statement of Judge Roman also raises in my, possibly, too-vivid imagination, some disturbing images about inanimate objects (bars) being "successful" and about other inanimate objects ("benches") being "compassionate", p. 36;
8)"the necessity to advance and maintain a seasoned, learned and compassionate bench ... is a prerequisite to the economic vitality and preeminence of New York State" - now, for those of you who thought that the job of judges is to decided just certain cases coming before them, this one is a new, apparently, judges are marketing themselves as an attraction point of the State of New York to businesses - how appropriate (at least, there is no wonder any more when you read judicial decisions openly catering to business litigants over individuals without any regard for that much propounded "rule of law", in foreclosures and consumer debts cases), p. 37
9) "the 12-1/2 year salary freeze diminished the stature of the judiciary in the eyes of our citizens as well as those in the legal profession" - I wish Judge Roman would not speak on behalf of "our citizens", it clearly reminds me of a salesman trying to instill into you why you "deserve no less" than some expensive trinket that you do not need - and the proposition that judicial salary freeze somehow diminished "stature of the judiciary" in the eyes of the legal profession... why should that be even a relevant point? A lawyer is an agent of a litigant who comes to court to advocate for his or her client, a judge is doing his or her job resolving that dispute, that's it - "statures" have no relevancy to that;
10) the importance of the legal profession in whose eyes the salary "freeze" diminishes the "stature of the judiciary" is that the legal profession "is the very well we need to draw upon to fill the ranks of tomorrow's judiciary, as well as prevent the premature retirement of those who personify judicial talent" - and these statements are thrown around by a sitting judge without presentation of ANY data showing that the salary "freeze" at $174,000 a year scares away from the "bench" any number of lawyers, including those who line up for $60 and $75-an-hour assignments (rather, what "scares them away" is the expense and required clout in the judicial election campaigns that those who "personify judicial talent" cannot afford like Judge Sheri Roman did for her own election);
11) "a judge embodies notions of equal treatment and fair play, but how can a judge decree a fair solution in cases before them when they are not empowered to achieve fairness for themselves" - now, that is rich, because for those who are familiar with New York court system and the New York judiciary, a judge in New York courts "embodies" notions of a cantankerous and capricious tyrant whose whim rules over the rule of law every time, yet, what is valuable in this particular false self-praise is that Judge Roman attempts to connect and condition judicial compensation on judicial performance, on its "fairness" part, saying that since judges are fair to everybody else (of course, they are not), they need to be treated fairly by the taxpayers - in that regard, if that principle is invoked by the judiciary, it should be applied: since the judiciary is not fair to "citizens", it cannot expect fairness in its compensation;
12) "12-1/2 years with no salary or cost of living adjustment created an adverse financial situation that was not sufficiently ameliorated by the raises decreed by the last salary Commission" - think about how judges and their families are struggling on only $174,000 a year, do you feel compassion overwhelming you?
13) "anyone who chooses a life in public service makes that career decision understanding they will never accumulate the wealth of their colleagues in the private sector. We need diversity of background for those willing to apply for appointment or election to the bench. We do not want a judiciary comprised of those who aspire because it's viewed as a career with a guaranteed paycheck or a bench comprised primarily of those select individuals wealthy enough to retire to the bench. To achieve this diverse judiciary, we need to assure judicial candidates that it is an economically viable aspiration providing fair compensation" - here Judge Roman pretends to be an economist implying that we need to raise judicial pay to attract better judicial candidates, while, in fact, there are studies by economists showing that raising judicial pay may worsen the quality of the judiciary, I will cover that subject in my next post;
14) "a stagnant period of 12-1/2 years created a twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench. Seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - I was taught as a linguist (I have a Masters degree in teaching English as a foreign language from the Moscow Linguistic University) that metaphors should be used cautiously since perception of the creator of the metaphor may differ, significantly, from the perception of the reader and can invoke reactions other than those sought. Now imagine in your mind's eye the "twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench"... I wonder who wrote the piece for Judge Roman. If it was Judge Roman herself, she definitely is a candidate for a judicial pay CUT, and if it is her clerk, she needs to change that clerk. Look at the next one: "seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - what are "judicial aspirations", why should the public answer those aspirations, why should they answer those aspirations with pay raises of the already inflated salaries, what is the empirical, evidentiary support for the pay raises other than that judges want to be paid the same as their neighbors?
15) "the rippling effects [of the salary "freeze" - T.N.] diminish the stature of the judiciary in tandem with diminishing the ability of our jurists to be bread winners for their families" - as I said above, my heart, as, I am sure, the hearts of New York taxpayers who make on average not more than $52,000 a years, overflows with compassion to the poor judges who cannot provide for their families on $174,000 a year. On the other hand, if they can't do that, they (1) need a course in home economics and (2) they should step off the bench because if they cannot handle their own family budget on more than ample pay, they certainly cannot be trusted with good judgment in making judicial decisions;
16) "our legal system has not tread water. New York judges now hear over 4 million cases. Supreme Court filings have increased more than percent since the 2011 salary Commission last heard testimony. Justice is delivered in staggering quantities, with judicial implementation of innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation". I know of some "innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation". They are: (1) disregard the record; (2) disregard the law, (3) drag people into multiple coerced conferences so that they drain their resources on legal fees to attend those conferences and can no longer afford an attorney for the actual trial of the cases; (4) punish people for making constitutional arguments, (5) dismiss most cases on motions to dismiss or summary judgment disregarding the applicable law, (6) use the "move up or move on" rule; (7) use on appeal the "judicial deference to the biased judge below" rule; (8) use on appeal the "constitutional avoidance" (I do not see your Constitutional argument, along with parts of the record it refers to) rule. Because of those "innovative initiatives" Injustice IS, indeed, "delivered in staggering quantities".
17) judges had "generous support from academia in analyzing the financial and comparative data, which were all included as exhibits in our association's written submission. The Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University School of Industrial Labor Relations has provided us with reliable statistics, including historic data from the archive of the National Center for State Courts. Our ability to pay analysis was compiled under the auspices of James Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute" - of course, Judge Roman omits to mention a strong opposition "in the academia" showing that there is no evidentiary support for the proposition that judges are underpaid and should be paid more, and that there are people in the "academia" who believe that raising judicial salaries will worsen the quality of "justice delivered in staggering quantities", see article "Are Judges Overpaid";
18) judges "recognize that the state's fiscal picture is eons away from the dismal one that confronted us in the past. ...
I urge present and future litigants and attorneys in the State of New York (those who are not in the brown-nosing the "constricted and twisted" "pipeline of the bench" - not my words, Judge Roman's) to note the testimony of Judge Sheri Roman and its apparent invitation to attorneys for corrupt relationships with the state judiciary.
I urge the U.S. Assistant Attorney General Preet Bharara note Judge Sheri Roman's testimony, for the same reason.
On the other hand, Judge Sheri Roman's testimony is a good example that judicial salaries should be, indeed, "adjusted" - it should be adjusted downwards, through a pay cut, until and unless the New York judiciary is thoroughly cleaned of judges such as Sheri Roman.
Here the are, with comments.
1) the Judicial Pay Commission is the "key component to remedy a wrong of constitutional import impacting judicial independence" (pages 34-35 of the transcript) - the word "Constitution" is used by judges in four settings:
No. 1 - judges take their office and start receiving their salary and benefits by taking an oath pledging to protect and enforce the Constitution of the State of New York and of the United States;
No. 2 - when a constitutional argument is brought in court, judges punish those who raise those arguments with multi-thousand-dollar monetary fines and make sure such people cannot earn a livelihood in the State of New York or in any other state;
No. 3 - when judges are sued for violation of constitutional rights, they invoke absolute judicial immunity to violate the U.S. Constitution that they took the oath to protect (No. 1), they assert their right to violate the U.S. Constitution as a necessary condition of maintaining their "judicial independence", and they ask to punish the victims of their constitutional violations for complaining and make sure that those who complain and especially their attorneys suffer monetary fines and be deprived of their livelihood (No. 2);
No. 4 - judges recall the U.S. Constitution when they claim that they need a pay raise to continue to protect their judicial independence, the same judicial independence that they also need to protect by punishing those who raise constitutional arguments and those who sue judges for constitutional violations; judges need the pay raise to continue to protect the U.S. Constitution with immunity (No. 2, No. 3 above).
Quite a "House that Jack built" kind of an argument, isn't it?
Yet, that is the reality of what is happening with the U.S. Constitution, judicial "independence" FROM that U.S. Constitution, and penalties imposed upon people who raise constitutional arguments in court, pro se or through an ever diminishing number of attorneys who are brave enough to do their duty by their clients, including penalties upon victims of judicial constitutional violations for daring to complain about those violations and for daring to ask for help against judges who committed those constitutional violations.
Judge Sheri Roman's testimony before the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation is a good example of setting No. 4.
For licensed attorneys, "officers of the court" similarly sworn to protect the U.S. and State Constitutions, but who do not have absolute immunity for misconduct "in office" like judges gave themselves, raising constitutional arguments is safe only in setting No. 4 - in support of judicial pay raises (see below where Judge Roman extends a "resounding thank you" to licensed attorneys whose licenses she regulates for advocating for her pay raises).
Ok, let's go further with Judge Roman's testimony, here are other quotes.
2)"there is no real controversy for the need for judicial pay adjustment", p. 35 - I guess, Judge Roman polled every one of the millions of New York state taxpayers who she is saddling with that pay raise, what an accomplishment;
3) "across the state, judges dedicate their professional life to the rule of law", p. 35; as far as I know from my professional experience, judges dedicate their professional life to anything but the "rule of law", mostly, they dedicate their lives to using the courtroom to settle their personal grudges, extending their personal favors and demonstrating their power without regard to the rule of law;
4)please, brace yourself to absorb this one: "judges strive to employ every scintilla of their legal acumen accumulated throughout their legal career to achieve just resolutions" - I was always disgusted with people who praise themselves, and especially in a flowery language. It is a "flowery language alert" - whenever you see that, hold onto your pocket, most likely you are being duped.
5) "fairness of course is the bedrock of expectations we are relied upon to mete out to all citizen who cross the thresholds of our courtrooms", pp. 35-36. That declaration may be true because the public does elect judges to fairly resolve disputes in court - which does not happen in reality
As a "consequence" of No. 5,
6) "justices of this state trust that we have finally achieved by this Commission our own path to fair compensation", p. 36 - by "this" Commission comprised of people with financial interest in judicial pay raises "justices of this state" certainly can trust that they have achieved "a path" to RAISED compensation - which has nothing to do with fairness, appropriateness of such pay, or approval of the taxpayers who are being saddled with that pay; nor can the Legislature delegate an important task deeply affecting the State budget to unelected officials, making the Commission and its findings completely illegitimate and void;
7) "this Commission,comprised of successful legal, business and civic leaders, understands the necessity to advance and maintain seasoned, learned and compassionate bench" - that is as thick a hint as it could be made, to the bar dependent for its licenses and livelihoods, as well as for their "successes", upon favors of the "seasoned, learned" and especially "compassionate bench" (this statement of Judge Roman also raises in my, possibly, too-vivid imagination, some disturbing images about inanimate objects (bars) being "successful" and about other inanimate objects ("benches") being "compassionate", p. 36;
8)"the necessity to advance and maintain a seasoned, learned and compassionate bench ... is a prerequisite to the economic vitality and preeminence of New York State" - now, for those of you who thought that the job of judges is to decided just certain cases coming before them, this one is a new, apparently, judges are marketing themselves as an attraction point of the State of New York to businesses - how appropriate (at least, there is no wonder any more when you read judicial decisions openly catering to business litigants over individuals without any regard for that much propounded "rule of law", in foreclosures and consumer debts cases), p. 37
9) "the 12-1/2 year salary freeze diminished the stature of the judiciary in the eyes of our citizens as well as those in the legal profession" - I wish Judge Roman would not speak on behalf of "our citizens", it clearly reminds me of a salesman trying to instill into you why you "deserve no less" than some expensive trinket that you do not need - and the proposition that judicial salary freeze somehow diminished "stature of the judiciary" in the eyes of the legal profession... why should that be even a relevant point? A lawyer is an agent of a litigant who comes to court to advocate for his or her client, a judge is doing his or her job resolving that dispute, that's it - "statures" have no relevancy to that;
10) the importance of the legal profession in whose eyes the salary "freeze" diminishes the "stature of the judiciary" is that the legal profession "is the very well we need to draw upon to fill the ranks of tomorrow's judiciary, as well as prevent the premature retirement of those who personify judicial talent" - and these statements are thrown around by a sitting judge without presentation of ANY data showing that the salary "freeze" at $174,000 a year scares away from the "bench" any number of lawyers, including those who line up for $60 and $75-an-hour assignments (rather, what "scares them away" is the expense and required clout in the judicial election campaigns that those who "personify judicial talent" cannot afford like Judge Sheri Roman did for her own election);
11) "a judge embodies notions of equal treatment and fair play, but how can a judge decree a fair solution in cases before them when they are not empowered to achieve fairness for themselves" - now, that is rich, because for those who are familiar with New York court system and the New York judiciary, a judge in New York courts "embodies" notions of a cantankerous and capricious tyrant whose whim rules over the rule of law every time, yet, what is valuable in this particular false self-praise is that Judge Roman attempts to connect and condition judicial compensation on judicial performance, on its "fairness" part, saying that since judges are fair to everybody else (of course, they are not), they need to be treated fairly by the taxpayers - in that regard, if that principle is invoked by the judiciary, it should be applied: since the judiciary is not fair to "citizens", it cannot expect fairness in its compensation;
12) "12-1/2 years with no salary or cost of living adjustment created an adverse financial situation that was not sufficiently ameliorated by the raises decreed by the last salary Commission" - think about how judges and their families are struggling on only $174,000 a year, do you feel compassion overwhelming you?
13) "anyone who chooses a life in public service makes that career decision understanding they will never accumulate the wealth of their colleagues in the private sector. We need diversity of background for those willing to apply for appointment or election to the bench. We do not want a judiciary comprised of those who aspire because it's viewed as a career with a guaranteed paycheck or a bench comprised primarily of those select individuals wealthy enough to retire to the bench. To achieve this diverse judiciary, we need to assure judicial candidates that it is an economically viable aspiration providing fair compensation" - here Judge Roman pretends to be an economist implying that we need to raise judicial pay to attract better judicial candidates, while, in fact, there are studies by economists showing that raising judicial pay may worsen the quality of the judiciary, I will cover that subject in my next post;
14) "a stagnant period of 12-1/2 years created a twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench. Seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - I was taught as a linguist (I have a Masters degree in teaching English as a foreign language from the Moscow Linguistic University) that metaphors should be used cautiously since perception of the creator of the metaphor may differ, significantly, from the perception of the reader and can invoke reactions other than those sought. Now imagine in your mind's eye the "twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench"... I wonder who wrote the piece for Judge Roman. If it was Judge Roman herself, she definitely is a candidate for a judicial pay CUT, and if it is her clerk, she needs to change that clerk. Look at the next one: "seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - what are "judicial aspirations", why should the public answer those aspirations, why should they answer those aspirations with pay raises of the already inflated salaries, what is the empirical, evidentiary support for the pay raises other than that judges want to be paid the same as their neighbors?
15) "the rippling effects [of the salary "freeze" - T.N.] diminish the stature of the judiciary in tandem with diminishing the ability of our jurists to be bread winners for their families" - as I said above, my heart, as, I am sure, the hearts of New York taxpayers who make on average not more than $52,000 a years, overflows with compassion to the poor judges who cannot provide for their families on $174,000 a year. On the other hand, if they can't do that, they (1) need a course in home economics and (2) they should step off the bench because if they cannot handle their own family budget on more than ample pay, they certainly cannot be trusted with good judgment in making judicial decisions;
16) "our legal system has not tread water. New York judges now hear over 4 million cases. Supreme Court filings have increased more than percent since the 2011 salary Commission last heard testimony. Justice is delivered in staggering quantities, with judicial implementation of innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation". I know of some "innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation". They are: (1) disregard the record; (2) disregard the law, (3) drag people into multiple coerced conferences so that they drain their resources on legal fees to attend those conferences and can no longer afford an attorney for the actual trial of the cases; (4) punish people for making constitutional arguments, (5) dismiss most cases on motions to dismiss or summary judgment disregarding the applicable law, (6) use the "move up or move on" rule; (7) use on appeal the "judicial deference to the biased judge below" rule; (8) use on appeal the "constitutional avoidance" (I do not see your Constitutional argument, along with parts of the record it refers to) rule. Because of those "innovative initiatives" Injustice IS, indeed, "delivered in staggering quantities".
17) judges had "generous support from academia in analyzing the financial and comparative data, which were all included as exhibits in our association's written submission. The Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University School of Industrial Labor Relations has provided us with reliable statistics, including historic data from the archive of the National Center for State Courts. Our ability to pay analysis was compiled under the auspices of James Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute" - of course, Judge Roman omits to mention a strong opposition "in the academia" showing that there is no evidentiary support for the proposition that judges are underpaid and should be paid more, and that there are people in the "academia" who believe that raising judicial salaries will worsen the quality of "justice delivered in staggering quantities", see article "Are Judges Overpaid";
18) judges "recognize that the state's fiscal picture is eons away from the dismal one that confronted us in the past. ...
The state anticipates multi-billions in state
budget surpluses and is in its best fiscal position in many
years, as described by New York State Budget Director Mary
Beth Labate" - I wonder which planet Judge Roman and NYS State Budget Director Labate are from, and I wonder why REAL monetary increases should be based on ANTICIPATED surpluses where the current economic conditions in the State of New York are so far from healthy that the State of New York ranks 47 of 51 states in economic health. Of course, when you are on the bottom, all steps you make are in the "right direction" - upwards, but such "anticipation" in no way justifies spending now what the state economy simply does not have to spend;
19) "our fair compensation request would constitute a small fraction of 1 percent of the state's operating budget" - first, Judge Roman did not indicate how small is the "fraction of 1 percent", second, Judge Roman does not give a real number of all pension related and non-pension related benefits impact of the salary increase, and under conditions where New York already has $250 billion of unreported public employee benefits debt as opposed to just $30 billion reported, such an omission is very telling; Judge Sheri Roman, "the saleswoman" for the judiciary, does not want to show the downside of her unnecessary expensive trinket to the taxpayers upon whom she is thrusting that trinket of judicial pay raise;
20) "the continued declination to promulgate appropriate and fair compensation has created an injury of constitutional proportions and undermines the ability of New York to provide an excellent, enlightened, hard working judiciary. Competitive salaries are required to attract the best and brightest" - now, let's get real: judges in New York are elected, nobody drags them into election campaigns, and when they run for the judicial position, they know the salary they are getting into; judges are getting into a term of 10 (in Family and County Courts) or 14 years (Supreme Court), the salary for those terms are fixed, and there should be no expectation of salary increase by those who are already on the bench. You ran for that position, you got that position, you are paid for the position you applied for, now work for that pay or get out, it is as simple as that. And, the public sector judiciary does not need the "best and the brightest", competent, honest and hardworking are enough, thank you very much.
21) "a resounding thank you must be accorded Stroock and Stroock and Levan, Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker, for their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation" - now, THAT is an open signal to the "citizens and the legal profession" that the law firm of Strook, Strook & Levan and lawyers of that law firm "Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker", are the favorites of Judge Roman and of the State judiciary because of "their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation". That is corruption, ladies and gentlemen.
A judge of the appellate division, a law-licensing agency, a judge who holds in her hands licenses and livelihoods of every one of the lawyers in that same Strook, Strook & Levan, in her public testimony to the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation, which she knows will be published for the whole wide world to see, puts a pointer on a law firm indicating that that law firm is her favorite - because attorneys of that law firm fortified their business, as well as protected their licenses and livelihoods by advocacy that brought more money to the judges in front of whom those attorneys appear. That is also a signal to other lawyers to advocate for judicial pay raise, to earn the same "resounding thank you" from the judiciary, in more than just words. That is an invitation for corruption. You advocate to raise my salary, and I will not take your license and will make judicial decisions in your favor. That's a hint, as clear as it can be. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, Judge Roman.
19) "our fair compensation request would constitute a small fraction of 1 percent of the state's operating budget" - first, Judge Roman did not indicate how small is the "fraction of 1 percent", second, Judge Roman does not give a real number of all pension related and non-pension related benefits impact of the salary increase, and under conditions where New York already has $250 billion of unreported public employee benefits debt as opposed to just $30 billion reported, such an omission is very telling; Judge Sheri Roman, "the saleswoman" for the judiciary, does not want to show the downside of her unnecessary expensive trinket to the taxpayers upon whom she is thrusting that trinket of judicial pay raise;
20) "the continued declination to promulgate appropriate and fair compensation has created an injury of constitutional proportions and undermines the ability of New York to provide an excellent, enlightened, hard working judiciary. Competitive salaries are required to attract the best and brightest" - now, let's get real: judges in New York are elected, nobody drags them into election campaigns, and when they run for the judicial position, they know the salary they are getting into; judges are getting into a term of 10 (in Family and County Courts) or 14 years (Supreme Court), the salary for those terms are fixed, and there should be no expectation of salary increase by those who are already on the bench. You ran for that position, you got that position, you are paid for the position you applied for, now work for that pay or get out, it is as simple as that. And, the public sector judiciary does not need the "best and the brightest", competent, honest and hardworking are enough, thank you very much.
21) "a resounding thank you must be accorded Stroock and Stroock and Levan, Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker, for their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation" - now, THAT is an open signal to the "citizens and the legal profession" that the law firm of Strook, Strook & Levan and lawyers of that law firm "Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker", are the favorites of Judge Roman and of the State judiciary because of "their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation". That is corruption, ladies and gentlemen.
A judge of the appellate division, a law-licensing agency, a judge who holds in her hands licenses and livelihoods of every one of the lawyers in that same Strook, Strook & Levan, in her public testimony to the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation, which she knows will be published for the whole wide world to see, puts a pointer on a law firm indicating that that law firm is her favorite - because attorneys of that law firm fortified their business, as well as protected their licenses and livelihoods by advocacy that brought more money to the judges in front of whom those attorneys appear. That is also a signal to other lawyers to advocate for judicial pay raise, to earn the same "resounding thank you" from the judiciary, in more than just words. That is an invitation for corruption. You advocate to raise my salary, and I will not take your license and will make judicial decisions in your favor. That's a hint, as clear as it can be. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, Judge Roman.
I urge the U.S. Assistant Attorney General Preet Bharara note Judge Sheri Roman's testimony, for the same reason.
On the other hand, Judge Sheri Roman's testimony is a good example that judicial salaries should be, indeed, "adjusted" - it should be adjusted downwards, through a pay cut, until and unless the New York judiciary is thoroughly cleaned of judges such as Sheri Roman.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Fraudster attorney Mary Gasp-arini cannot stop harassing me - and they say it isn't personal?
I wrote on this blog about misconduct of disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini:
1) that Gasparini advanced, without an investigation or due diligence, fraudulent charges against me that I neglected my clients and should be disciplined for neglect at the time when I was not even admitted to the bar and could not by law be an attorney;
2) that Gasparini submitted to court fabricated court records, and I provided to the court evidence of fabrication; Gasparini acknowledged under oath authenticity of what evidence in those audio recordings;
3) that Gasparini, in a personal vendetta against me, fabricated criminal charges against me for violation of my own privacy (one does not have a brain to be a disciplinary attorney in the State of New York), and advanced those criminal charges as a prosecutor AND the sole witness for the prosecution, which disqualified Gasparini as of January of 2015 from the disciplinary proceedings, yet, she proceeded anyway - because you do not have a conscience, integrity or morals to be a disciplinary attorney in New York either when courts will cover and rubber-stamp anything you do anyway.
Today I received yet another shining example showing that:
1) Gasp-arini is on a personal all-out course to harass me and avenge exposure of her stupidity, incompetence and complete lack of integrity on this blog; and
2) that Gasp-arini is trying to spy on me and continue to investigate what I am doing, where I MIGHT be living and what I might be doing next.
Here is the letter that Gasp-arini sent to - guess - The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.
Gasparini did not care enough to serve me with the Notice of Entry of the order of suspension, but she cared very much to notify the state where I am now residing.
In the letter Gasp-arini asserts that "this office" "has reason to believe" that I moved to Georgetown, South Carolina - even though my mailing address is a P.O. Box in Pawleys Island, SC, so Mary Gasparini did not discern the reasons for "their" "beliefs" as to my location, and that I "may seek admission to the South Carolina bar".
Oh, brother. Such mind-readers.
This vicious woman cannot stand the thought that I MAY be applying to any bar of any other state,
without any evidence that I actually AM applying to any bar, or have any DESIRE to apply to any bar.
This woman automatically assumes, without any grounds, that I will lie on my potential application to South Carolina bar as to whether I was disciplined in other states (which I have to disclose IF I apply - which I have no intention of doing), so she is acting as a well-wisher and forewarns the court of my tainting presence in South Carolina. She is definitely judging me by her own example, because it is Gasp-arini and not I who was repeatedly defrauding the court (that was happy to be defrauded) by submitting fraudulent disciplinary and criminal charges and cooked court transcripts.
And this fraudster who escaped disciplinary and criminal liability for her fraud because she blocks any investigation and prosecution of herself for attorney discipline, and because of powerful connections that the Committee has with the local criminal authorities, has the audacity to invoke "professional courtesy" in what is in reality a very personal vendetta.
In fact, she is so stupid that she continues to defraud even the South Carolina court by claiming that she is a "principal counsel" on a letter with a letterhead that says that somebody else is that "principal counsel" and Gasp-arini is simply an "associate counsel".
I am sure Gasp-arini as an "associate counsel" of that office did not have authority to pen such letters, or to use taxpayer-paid time to do that, or to use stationary or postage paid for by taxpayers' money to effect her own personal vendetta.
But, this signature as "principal counsel" on the letter head saying that she is only an "associate counsel" is what Gasp-arini is - she is so stupid that she commits fraud without even caring to look how obvious that fraud is, same as how she was acting throughout the disciplinary proceedings.
Many attorneys move after they are disciplined to pursue other life paths and occupations.
It is definitely an irregular procedure for a disciplinary committee to follow an attorney around and, without any suspicion of any unlawful activity, trying to forewarn local authorities that a suspended attorney has moved into the state.
It is like Gasp-arini considers me on par with a sex offender whose arrival into the area must be announced to the local authorities.
Boy, if that kind of energy would be used to do what she is paid for by New York taxpayers (myself included)...
By the way, I also intend to visit and possibly reside in Russia.
I wonder if Gasp-arini will learn Russian in order to notify Mr. Putin of my possible arrival and tainting presence. Out of professional courtesy. Maybe, learning another language will develop her brain somehow - even though I highly doubt it.
1) that Gasparini advanced, without an investigation or due diligence, fraudulent charges against me that I neglected my clients and should be disciplined for neglect at the time when I was not even admitted to the bar and could not by law be an attorney;
2) that Gasparini submitted to court fabricated court records, and I provided to the court evidence of fabrication; Gasparini acknowledged under oath authenticity of what evidence in those audio recordings;
3) that Gasparini, in a personal vendetta against me, fabricated criminal charges against me for violation of my own privacy (one does not have a brain to be a disciplinary attorney in the State of New York), and advanced those criminal charges as a prosecutor AND the sole witness for the prosecution, which disqualified Gasparini as of January of 2015 from the disciplinary proceedings, yet, she proceeded anyway - because you do not have a conscience, integrity or morals to be a disciplinary attorney in New York either when courts will cover and rubber-stamp anything you do anyway.
Today I received yet another shining example showing that:
1) Gasp-arini is on a personal all-out course to harass me and avenge exposure of her stupidity, incompetence and complete lack of integrity on this blog; and
2) that Gasp-arini is trying to spy on me and continue to investigate what I am doing, where I MIGHT be living and what I might be doing next.
Here is the letter that Gasp-arini sent to - guess - The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.
Gasparini did not care enough to serve me with the Notice of Entry of the order of suspension, but she cared very much to notify the state where I am now residing.
In the letter Gasp-arini asserts that "this office" "has reason to believe" that I moved to Georgetown, South Carolina - even though my mailing address is a P.O. Box in Pawleys Island, SC, so Mary Gasparini did not discern the reasons for "their" "beliefs" as to my location, and that I "may seek admission to the South Carolina bar".
Oh, brother. Such mind-readers.
This vicious woman cannot stand the thought that I MAY be applying to any bar of any other state,
without any evidence that I actually AM applying to any bar, or have any DESIRE to apply to any bar.
This woman automatically assumes, without any grounds, that I will lie on my potential application to South Carolina bar as to whether I was disciplined in other states (which I have to disclose IF I apply - which I have no intention of doing), so she is acting as a well-wisher and forewarns the court of my tainting presence in South Carolina. She is definitely judging me by her own example, because it is Gasp-arini and not I who was repeatedly defrauding the court (that was happy to be defrauded) by submitting fraudulent disciplinary and criminal charges and cooked court transcripts.
And this fraudster who escaped disciplinary and criminal liability for her fraud because she blocks any investigation and prosecution of herself for attorney discipline, and because of powerful connections that the Committee has with the local criminal authorities, has the audacity to invoke "professional courtesy" in what is in reality a very personal vendetta.
In fact, she is so stupid that she continues to defraud even the South Carolina court by claiming that she is a "principal counsel" on a letter with a letterhead that says that somebody else is that "principal counsel" and Gasp-arini is simply an "associate counsel".
I am sure Gasp-arini as an "associate counsel" of that office did not have authority to pen such letters, or to use taxpayer-paid time to do that, or to use stationary or postage paid for by taxpayers' money to effect her own personal vendetta.
But, this signature as "principal counsel" on the letter head saying that she is only an "associate counsel" is what Gasp-arini is - she is so stupid that she commits fraud without even caring to look how obvious that fraud is, same as how she was acting throughout the disciplinary proceedings.
Many attorneys move after they are disciplined to pursue other life paths and occupations.
It is definitely an irregular procedure for a disciplinary committee to follow an attorney around and, without any suspicion of any unlawful activity, trying to forewarn local authorities that a suspended attorney has moved into the state.
It is like Gasp-arini considers me on par with a sex offender whose arrival into the area must be announced to the local authorities.
Boy, if that kind of energy would be used to do what she is paid for by New York taxpayers (myself included)...
By the way, I also intend to visit and possibly reside in Russia.
I wonder if Gasp-arini will learn Russian in order to notify Mr. Putin of my possible arrival and tainting presence. Out of professional courtesy. Maybe, learning another language will develop her brain somehow - even though I highly doubt it.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
The true reason for my suspension, without notice, hearing or service of the order of suspension, from the bar of the U.S. District Court of the State of New York
On November 16, 2015 I filed a motion to vacate, recuse and disqualify with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
That was a related case with the case where my husband and I filed a criminal complaint in the fall of 2014, more than a year ago, with the U.S. Attorney General Preet Bharara to investigate and prosecute New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and the now-New York State Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Stein.
Judge Stein who made a decision in favor of Cuomo's subordinate in a case of extreme importance for New York State landowners (and in terms of New York State liability to landowners for wrongful civil penalties, fines, costly remediations and criminal convictions that would have to be vacated en mass if the case was to be properly decided), within 6 days of being nominated to the seat of New York State Court of Appeals, with a corresponding pay raise, remains undisciplined and unprosecuted, as well as Cuomo.
The criminal complaints against Judge Leslie Stein and against New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo are here, mine and my husband's.
The motion explaining to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York that it may not continue presiding over an action into which it injected itself as a party against my husband over my head as my husband's counsel in an ongoing pending case through a parallel ex parte proceeding and prejudged it is here:
Within 2 days I was suspended from by the disqualified court who lacked authority to do anything against me due to the nature of the motion to recuse, disqualify and vacate, and, most certainly, in retaliation for the motion.
Without a notice.
Without a hearing.
Without even the courtesy of serving upon me the order of suspension.
How predictable - for a tyranny, not for a democracy.
That was a related case with the case where my husband and I filed a criminal complaint in the fall of 2014, more than a year ago, with the U.S. Attorney General Preet Bharara to investigate and prosecute New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and the now-New York State Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Stein.
Judge Stein who made a decision in favor of Cuomo's subordinate in a case of extreme importance for New York State landowners (and in terms of New York State liability to landowners for wrongful civil penalties, fines, costly remediations and criminal convictions that would have to be vacated en mass if the case was to be properly decided), within 6 days of being nominated to the seat of New York State Court of Appeals, with a corresponding pay raise, remains undisciplined and unprosecuted, as well as Cuomo.
The criminal complaints against Judge Leslie Stein and against New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo are here, mine and my husband's.
The motion explaining to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York that it may not continue presiding over an action into which it injected itself as a party against my husband over my head as my husband's counsel in an ongoing pending case through a parallel ex parte proceeding and prejudged it is here:
3) Memorandum of Law in support of motion to recuse, disqualify and vacate
Within 2 days I was suspended from by the disqualified court who lacked authority to do anything against me due to the nature of the motion to recuse, disqualify and vacate, and, most certainly, in retaliation for the motion.
Without a notice.
Without a hearing.
Without even the courtesy of serving upon me the order of suspension.
How predictable - for a tyranny, not for a democracy.
My written statement in opposition of judicial pay raises in New York before the New York Commission for Judicial, Legislative and Executive Compensation
Today is the deadline for e-mailed written submissions to the New York State Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative Compensation.
They say they will post all submissions.
I highly doubt they will post mine.
So, I posted it on Facebook here and I am posting it in this blog, here.
I did not personally appear before the Commission, my testimony was submitted in writing only, as the Commission allowed.
They say they will post all submissions.
I highly doubt they will post mine.
So, I posted it on Facebook here and I am posting it in this blog, here.
I did not personally appear before the Commission, my testimony was submitted in writing only, as the Commission allowed.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Chief Administrative Judge Marks: New York is an expensive state to live in, and NY state economy is strong, so give New York judges 35 million dollars to bring their $174,000 salaries to the $203,000 level
New York State Commission for Legislative, Executive and Judicial Compensation has posted the transcript and the video of the yesterday's public hearing dedicated ONLY to judicial compensation.
The Commission did not indicate when - if at all - public hearings will be held on legislative, administrative or legislative compensation.
The first witness was the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Lawrence Marks.
From Judge Marks I learnt interesting things.
For example, Judge Marks claimed that New York state economy is going strong, and there is no reason for New York taxpayers not to be able to afford a $35,000 increase (and that is only the declared increase, Judge Marks did not indicate how he arrived at such a number, the number is likely to be much higher, considering additionally increased benefits).
Judge Marks seems to wear blinders.
Judge Marks seems not to know (or care) that New York is the leader among the states from which residents are fleeing, due to high corruption, poor economic and job prospects and super-high taxes.
Judge Marks seems not to know (or care) that a recent settlement to have poor criminal defendants be represented by counsel at arraignments (which is not happening now, in violation of people's constitutional right to counsel at important stages of criminal litigation) had to be phased in and considered only a handful of counties - because of budgetary concerns.
Judge Marks seems not to know (or care) about the real state of economy, as presented by the report I blogged about yesterday which puts New York State economy at the 46th place among 51 states.
As to the fact that New York is an "expensive state to live" - I wholeheartedly agree.
Yet, that does not mean that the current judicial salary of $174,000 is inadequate.
After all, the federal poverty level set for all states across the country is $11,700 for a family of one.
Judges currently get $174,000 - that is over 10 times of poverty level.
Those are the same judges who throw in jail parents who are unable to pay child support because they are unemployed, cannot find a job or cannot find a paying job.
These are the same judges who deem that a person can survive on a salary at or lower than poverty guidelines - and pay child support on top of that, or go to jail.
Apparently, there are two poverty levels established, as of yesterday, in the State of New York:
1) the federal poverty level of $11,700 + 135% = $15,795 per year per person (below this level of actual /not imputed/ income New York State child support statute does not allow judges to charge more than $25 a month in child support, which judges regularly and wholeheartedly ignore); and
2) the judicial poverty level of $174,000 per year.
And that is when the average income of a New Yorker - an average between all billionaires and all people who are simply scraping by - is around $52,000 per person per year.
Yet, New York judges consider it fair and morally appropriate to ask for a pay raise when the state economy is going to h*ll, fast.
So, there are no surprises at the level of integrity of New York judiciary.
Oh - and Lawrence Marks is the boss of Judge Coccoma who just hired an attorney who was booted from the 3rd Department for unethical conduct and who, through fraud upon voters, got elected to also be a judge - that is Christina Ryba.
I bet that Christina Ryba's "compensation" is set well over $100,000, over twice the income of an average New Yorker.
It is apparent that hiring Christina Ryba was necessary only as a consolation job (and the letter offer actually said that nearly verbatim), yet was at the expense of taxpayers.
The fraudster Christina Ryba is the future beneficiary of the judicial pay raise, because she is not an exception, rather she exemplifies the caliber of people who occupy benches in New York courts.
Unless you have an ability to brazenly commit fraud and no less brazenly profit by it - like Christina Ryba - you will not be able to get to the bench in New York or survive there.
And these fraudsters, who get to the bench to draw an enormous and already inflated salaries and to cover themselves with self-gifted immunity for CORRUPT acts, for acts in violation of their constitutional oath of office, are adamantly claiming, through Judge Marks as their mouthpiece, that they do not get enough and that they "deserve" more from the already squeezed-to-death New Yorkers.
I will continue reporting on the speeches at the November 30, 2015 hearing before the New York State Commission for Judicial Compensation, with scans - today for some reason my blogger platform did not accept pictures.
Stay tuned.
Unless you have an ability to brazenly commit fraud and no less brazenly profit by it - like Christina Ryba - you will not be able to get to the bench in New York or survive there.
And these fraudsters, who get to the bench to draw an enormous and already inflated salaries and to cover themselves with self-gifted immunity for CORRUPT acts, for acts in violation of their constitutional oath of office, are adamantly claiming, through Judge Marks as their mouthpiece, that they do not get enough and that they "deserve" more from the already squeezed-to-death New Yorkers.
I will continue reporting on the speeches at the November 30, 2015 hearing before the New York State Commission for Judicial Compensation, with scans - today for some reason my blogger platform did not accept pictures.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)