Otsego County DA John Muehl was not assigned to investigation of burglary in my house - he lied to me

I posted on this blog the story about Otsego County DA John Muehl being (allegedly) assigned to the investigation of burglary to our house (my husband's and mine) at 203 Main Street, Delhi NY - or so he told me.

Since I had only his letter claiming that he was assigned to that case, and, with the government, you cannot believe their words, only documents, I asked DA John Muehl to send me his order of assignment.

I received it from John Muehl today.

Here it is.

It shows that John Muehl was assigned to a grand jury investigation into a burglary committed in August of 2012 at 205 Main Street, Delhi, NY, 13753. 

That's our neighbor's house where, according to our neighbor, there was, indeed, a burglary.

So, John Muehl was assigned to the burglary case at my neighbor's house, according to the court order I just posted, but is claiming that I have nothing to worry about regarding preservation of evidence in my case?

When John Muehl does not even know what case he is investigating and what case he is assigned to?

I guess, whenever John Muehl is not on additional contract to be attentive to cases he is investigating, he can be beyond sloppy - even investigating a case he was never assigned to.

John Muehl should really consider a rehab.

I will certainly turn into the respective authorities both John Muehl and Richard Northrup as to:

(1) their botching up of the investigation into a violent felony at the home of a civil rights attorney and an outspoken critic of judicial misconduct;

(2) their lying to me about preservation of evidence;

(3) their lying to me as to the contents of the file; and

(4) Muehl's false representations that he was even on my case.

Of course, Judge Mulvey (whom I sued in the past and who was ardently trying to push my former client to file a complaint against me) can concoct another order of assignment to save Muehl's hide.

Mulvey has fabricated evidence in many of my cases and escaped without any discipline - now I know why - because the NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct allowed practice of law in front of the Commission by the Commission's members, former members and their law firms.  

So, while we will never know which of the members, former members of the Commission or their law firms, snuck in a word on behalf of Mulvey, it is entirely an entirely likely scenario.

I will also have to alert as to Muehl's and Northrup's behavior NYS Senator DeFransisco, the initiator of a separate Commission for prosecutorial misconduct - because the current attorney disciplinary committees never prosecute prosecutors (including themselves).

As the Chinese say, constant dripping of water wears away the stone.

Even if the stone is brazen corruption and stupidity of New York State government officials.

Yale School of Law - the brave defender of oppressed Pakistani attorneys

In my previous blog I described how 21 judges (state and federal, trial-level and appellate-level), participated in punishing me for criticism of the judiciary, in the same way as was recently criticized as an example of political oppression in China.

One of the judges who participated in depriving me of my law license based on the "Chinese" retaliative political sanctions of a state judge, Ralph K. Winter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, is on the faculty of Yale Law School, as an adjunct professor.

My quick search of the law school's website revealed that Ralph Winter is often "honored" by that law school with various programs, prizes and even  lecture program in his name, funded by his former law clerks.

Here is an interesting detail.

In 2007, Ralph K. Winter's employer, the Yale Law School has published the following:

The signature list is long, I do not provide it here in full, you can see the full signature list here.

The idea is - the Yale Law School faculty is protesting.

They are protesting against

(1) suspension of the Constitution;
(2) persecution of attorneys protesting against unlawful behavior of court and other branches of the government.

Yet, the same faculty is repeatedly "honoring" Ralph Winter, a judge who is routinely participating in similar suppression of Civl Rights in the U.S., and who repeatedly upholds the "right" of various public officials to violate their own constitutional oaths of office, with impunity, and thus, to suspend the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn to uphold.

Once again, it is easier to express such bravery towards civil rights violations when they are happening somewhere abroad.

Where such a protest can cause you to lose your bread-and-lobster, the "honorable" legal profession, including the law professors of one of the most elite law schools in the United States, prefers to "honor" the tyrant and oath-breaker rather than to show him the door and lead protests against judicial corruption and suspension of the U.S. Constitution.

Retired Judge Carl Becker and other visionaries of Communist China

The Wall Street Journal recently reported a political disbarment of an attorney in China, in addition to a criminal conviction and a 3-year prison sentence, which was suspended and probation ordered instead for the same period of time.
 
The attorney's "punishment was based on seven messages he posted online criticizing the government’s ethnic policies and certain government officials for incompetence", reports WSJ.
 
The article also describes changes in criminal law in China targeting criticism of the judiciary:
 
"The state has taken other steps to limit lawyers’ activities. Article 309 of the Criminal Law was amended earlier this year with vague language that makes punishable “insulting, defaming or threatening” a judicial officer, and “engaging in other acts that seriously disrupt the order of the court.”
 
But, China was outpaced in this new development of the law by New York retired judge Carl F. Becker and appellate judges of the 3rd Department and of the 4th Department.
 
The now-hastily-retired Carl F. Becker, as far back as in 2011, sanctioned me for "harassing the court" and "threats against the court" (himself).  If you think that "threats against the court" were threats of physical violence, no, Becker perceived as a "threat" my warning to him that I may call him as a witness in the proceeding where he did make himself as a witness (based on documented evidence of his misconduct). 
 
Becker should sue the Chinese government for plagiarism from his sanctions against me that was used to take my law license - Article 390 of the Criminal Law in China tracks what he said in his order of sanctions that were considered valid by:
 
1) 5 judges in the 3rd Department on appeal of the 1st sanction:
 

• Leslie Stein, now elevated to the NYS Court of appeals in exchange for an appellate decision favorable to the State of New York,
• Thomas Mercure, now retired
• Bernard Malone - now retired
• John Egan
• John Lahtinen

 
2) 5 judges in the 3rd Department on appeal of the 2nd sanction
 

• William McCarthy
• Karen Peters - Chief Judge of the court, and former member of the corrupt NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct who refused to allow multiple complaints against Becker to proceed, and participated in a complaint against herself and her own court
• Robert Rose
• Edward Spain - now retired
• John Egan

 
3) 5 judges in the 3rd Department on appeal of the 3rd sanction;
 

• Thomas Mercure - now retired
• Edward Spain - now retired
• Leslie Stein -elevated to NYS Court of Appeals
• William McCarthy
• Elizabeth Garry

 
All in all 10 judges of Appellate Division 3rd Department concurred with the Chinese government on the issue that an attorney criticizing judicial misconduct should be sanctioned.
 
The following federal judges participated in using Becker's Chinese criminal law in order to impose Chinese attorney discipline upon me:
 
4) U.S. District court for the Northern District of New York, former Chief Judge of that court Norman Mordue;
 
5) a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, with participating judges:
 
Ralph Winter
Debra Ann Livingston
Denny Chin
 
and, finally, the following 4-judge panel finalized Becker's Chinese sanctions by pulling my law license based on those sanctions - without giving me a hearing that it initially ordered (because I asked it to be public):
 
6) a 4-judge panel of NYS Appellate Division 4th Department, with participating judges
 
 

• Eugene Fahey - made an interim decision denying my constitutional cross-motion and was then elevated to the NYS Court of Apeals, the State of New York attempted to criminally prosecute me for my blogs discussing misconduct of the 4th Department, including Fahey
• Nancy Smith
• Edward Carni
• Joseph Valentino
• Brian DeJoseph

 
7) two Chief Judges of appellate courts:

• Karen Peters, Chief Judge of the 3rd Department and
•     Henry Scudder - Chief Judge of the 4th Department, now retired and a "certified" associate judge of the same court (I cannot call any of the appellate judges "justices", since what they do has nothing to do with justice) 

 
agreed to transfer the disciplinary case from the 3rd Department to the 4th Department based on an illegal ex parte application of the disciplinary committee that was never served upon me and that was withheld by the 3rd Department from the 4th Department and from me (until this day).
 
21 judges all-in-all handled imposition of "Chinese" sanctions on me, for criticism and "threats" against a judge - threats were criticism.
 
During all that ordeal, I appealed to various mainstream media sources within the U.S. who refused to cover my story.
 
I then started a blog to cover my own story.
 
I was then prosecuted for a crime of criticizing the 4th Department and its attorney disciplinary committee, harassed for several months with criminal proceedings, pushed out of the State of New York, and then charges were dropped, but were efficient to intimidate me enough not to come to the final hearing - which was held against me.
 
I will not call these individuals - or any other judge in the U.S. - "honorable".  Not until the "honorables" refuse to give themselves permission to violate with impunity their oath of office (immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench).
 
In all of above decisions (I interlinked them) all TWENTY ONE judges who imposed political sanctions upon me (the same sanctions as WSJ ardently condemns when applied by the Chinese government to a Chinese lawyer) cowardly refused to state that sanctions were imposed for raising constitutional arguments in motions to recuse.
 
You, my readers, paid, through your nose, I must say, for TWENTY ONE judge to consider and impose sanctions that WSJ heralds as violations of human rights - when similar sanctions are imposed upon a Chinese lawyer by the Chinese government.
 
It does not take much bravery to cover something that happens outside of the borders of your country.
 
And - I proudly present, once again, the list of visionaries, all licensed attorneys, all "honorables", with their "character and fitness" approved by the government, who imposed "Chinese" sanctions upon me, with a suggestion to ship them to China, they will be of great help in enhancing Article 390 of the Chinese Criminal Law.

Such a gift to Chinese government of these 22 experts in how to quash critics of judicial misconduct will certainly save taxpayers a lot of money to support these visionaries (salaries and pensions of state judges are reported as stated on seethroughny.org):
 

1. Carl F. Becker - reported salary in 2014      $170,484
2. Leslie Stein - reported salary in 2014          $183,300
3. Thomas Mercure - last reported salary for 2013   $173,489;  annual pension since 2014 is $113,633
4. Bernard Malone - reported rate of pay for 2012 $1,686, actually received $162,685; pension for 2015 is $33,380
5. John Egan - reported salary in 2014   $183,300
6. John Lahtinen - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,600
7. William McCarthy - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,600
8. Karen Peters - reported salary in 2014   $187,900
9. Robert Rose - reported salary in 2014   $183,300
10. Edward Spain - reported salary for 2013 $176,000, actually received $174,256
11. Elizabeth Garry - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,600
12. Norman Mordue - $174,000, actually Mordue receives $191,921, as an "inflation adjustment"
13. Ralph Winter -  $203,000, on top of his earnings from lecturing in Yale Law School
14. Debra Ann Livingston - $203,000
15. Denny Chin - $203,000
16. Henry Scudder - reported salary in 2014 $187,900, actually received $186,153
17. Eugene Fahey - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,600
18. Nancy Smith - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,682
19. Edward Carni - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $181,600
20. Joseph Valentino - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $182, 092
21. Brian DeJoseph - reported salary in 2014   $183,300, actually received $178,016

 
 Think of savings to the U.S. economy through such expert-sharing!

Maybe, China will forgive the U.S. a couple of loans if the U.S. shares with China its experience in quashing "big-mouth" civil rights attorneys?

Clear and present danger - standing while Muslim is a public disturbance in the U.S.

A woman in a hidjab who silently stood up during a public rally to elect the U.S. president was escorted by the South Carolina state police for "public disturbance".

Many news media sources characterized the actions of 56-year-old female flight attendant Rose Hamid as a "silent protest".

Yet, what she did can hardly be characterized as such.  She simply stood up to make herself visible to the presidential candidate who claimed to a rally full of people that Muslims are dangerous.

She simply wanted Mr. Trump to see her.

The State Police was instructed by Mr. Trump's staffers to escort out from the rally anybody who causes a "public disturbance".

So, as of today, the definition of what may constitute a public disturbance in this "land of the free" and the "beacon of democracy" for other countries is when a beautiful and well dress woman in a hijam stands when everyone else is sitting.

"Standing while Muslim" is now a public disturbance that my trigger governmental action.

I wonder how soon Mr. Trump will start advocating for Muslim reservations in this country.

I also wonder what other "enemies of the people" will become a target of hate-mongers, in addition to Muslims.

After all, finding some enemies ad re-channeling people's discontent is a rule as ancient as is the government.

Divide and rule.

Mr. Trump wants to divide Americans - with the help of police forces which first violate a person's constitutional rights and then (maybe) think - in order to distract their attention from real problems, many of them caused by waste, misconduct and corruption in the government.

What happened to Rose Hamid is not simply discrimination.   It is fascism.

Consider me standing with Rose Hamid.

I faithfully practice skycladding - please, give me a license to practice law. Establishment Clause and "moral character" issues in occupational licensing

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that every judge and every attorney takes an oath to uphold, contains the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Yes, the Establishment Clause.

Church is separated in this country from the State, and the State may not run any of its organizations on requirements of faith, or consider belonging to a church as a factor determining whether a candidate should be given permits by the government to earn a living in his chosen profession.

Yet, that's exactly is what is happening in occupational licensing and especially in the legal profession.

Consider, first, that a lawyer who, once again, takes an oath of office on admission to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its 1st Amendment (including the Establishment Clause that applies to the states, too) is supposed to maintain public trust, or confidence, or, basically, faith in the "integrity of the legal profession", or in the "integrity of the judiciary".

First of all, the only oath of office that a lawyer takes is to strive to uphold and enforce the U.S. and State Constitutions and other laws.

Second, the oath to follow the law is not a pledge of loyalty to the government.

We have a popular sovereignty in this county ("We the People"), and criticism of governmental misconduct is not an act of disloyalty to the law in a democratic society such as the U.S. claims itself to be.

Third, maintaining an illusion that the government is good and sound when it is not so is a betrayal of the oath to protect the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, the legal profession continues to expel lawyers who criticize misconduct of government officials, and especially the most powerful ones in this country, judges.

Admission and expulsion from practicing a licensed profession should be straightforward.

If licensing is done to protect consumers of legal services, the only criteria in admission and in expulsion from the profession is:

(1) will the candidate be providing good services to the consumer or not (for admission), and

(2) did the licensed professional hurt his client's rights by his incompetence or misconduct or not.

Whether by his actions on behalf of a client the professional "put the profession in a bad light", or "put the judiciary in a bad light" should not be a consideration at all, because then it becomes a political issue of content-based regulation of speech - especially when the licensed professional is expelled from the profession for criticism of misconduct of government officials, including those to whom regulation of the profession is delegated.

Moreover, whether a candidate will or will not be providing good services to consumers, is a guessing game of such a subjective nature that it is in itself unconstitutional.

There are a lot of licensed attorneys who are not disbarred only because of their connections and who are incompetent or dishonest.

There are, on the other hand, people who have no formal education and who have criminal felony convictions, but whose knowledge of the law is so good that they beat the claimed "best of the best", Harvard Law students.

The convicted criminals in this situation would provide better legal services than the elite arrogant licensed attorneys with connections, but no real knowledge or willingness to work for their clients, especially when it comes to raising "sensitive" issues, such as criticism of a judge on a motion to recuse.

Moreover, Establishment Clause issues are prominent in admission or reinstatement proceedings into licensed professions.

In reinstatement process in Mississippi, a disbarred attorney claimed he belonged to a church, a factor that should be irrelevant for consideration whether a person should provide legal services and represent other people in court.

Another petition for reinstatement to the bar in Mississippi, the candidate also claimed that he belonged to a church to prove his "moral character and fitness" to provide legal services.

It was noted in denial of his reinstatement that the candidate admitted that, though he belonged to a Lutheran church, he did not frequently attend services because of illness of his mother.  

Both reinstatement decisions (denying reinstatement) considered that the candidates did not involve themselves in "civic or professional organizations".

This is not how a consumer would be choosing a lawyer.

A consumer does not give a rat's behind whether the lawyer or other licensed service provider goes to church, donates to charity, volunteers in a hospice or as a firefighter, "serves" on any "boards" or belongs to any other civic or professional organization.  

Actually, we know that "serving" on such "boards" can be done not out of the goodness of one's heart, but for self-serving and mercenary purposes.

Consider the "service" of attorney Thomas Schimmerling on the board of directors of the largest no-bid contractor of Delaware County (NY) while not paying over $14,000 in taxes.  Mr. Schimmerling robs the poor population of the Delaware County twice, by not paying his taxes and by promoting the business of the non-profit he "serves" through no-public-bidding multimillion contracts extracted out of poor taxpayers' pockets.

Fraud in non-profits is such a big problem that it is no longer an illustration of "good character" to say that a candidate for a licensed profession "serves" on a "board" of some non-profit.

And, a consumer would more likely to choose a service provider who dedicates his or her entire time to providing services to his clients rather the one who splits his time between his business and so many "causes" that the consumer starts to wonder where does the service provider gets the time to do all that the provider claims he is doing.

When the consumer's life, custody of children, property or life are hanging in the balance, the consumer's choice of a defender of his interests will concentrate exclusively on how well that defender knows the law and can argue his case.

Many judges and lawyers running for judicial office, as well as many attorneys attempting to get reinstated to the bar, point out that they belong to a church.

As I said above, if they are given more credibility because of it, that is an Establishment Clause issue, as well as an equal protection issue.

Why equal protection?

Consider the following scenario.

An attorney seeking reinstatement to the bar claims that he or she is a member of the following religions:

(1) a Muslim and that he faithfully practices Islam - at the time when, according to polls, anti-Muslim bigotry is at its worst now, and many Americans think that practicing Islam is "at odds with American values";

I bet, the attitude of the mostly white Judeo-Christian licensing boards to a Muslim will be little better than the attitude to a:

(2) wiccan - and he or she faithfully practices "skycladding", practicing the religious rites in the nude;

(3) Mormons - and he faithfully practices plural marriage;

(4) Satanists - and he faithfully practices animal sacrifices (distasteful, but legal);

(5) faithfully worships some ancient gods in ancient ways - by group sex, for example.

I doubt very much that faithful adherence to such religious tenets will be welcomed by the "character and fitness" boards, mostly Judeo-Christian and mostly white, and that is an Establishment Clause (1st Amendment) and an Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) problem.

To further explore the dangers and the illegality of "moral character" determinations when the government doles out permissions or prohibitions to earn a livelihood, I encourage my readers to read a brilliant article exploring the "ethics of moral character determination", covering the history and ethics of "moral character" determinations in occupational licensing.

Enjoy.

Corrupt NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct leaves yet another drunk driving judge on the bench

The New York State (Corrupt) Commission for Judicial Conduct has issued an order of censure against Supreme Court Justice of Kings County Carl F. Landicino, yet another drunk-driving judge who touted his judgeship in his effort to reduce a felony charge to a speeding ticket.

Judge Landicino admitted to be an alcoholic, claimed to have attended treatment, and through such claims, escaped removal and remains on the bench.

His felony grand jury indictment was reduced to a misdemeanor.

His vehicle was not civilly forfeited, as it could be.

There is no report that his license was suspended, as it should have been because he repeatedly refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Despite his admission as being an alcoholic for many years (which he did not disclose in his election campaign, otherwise, very possibly, he would not have been elected), he was sentenced to a conditional discharge, and not to probation, and was thus not subject to:

1. mandatory Ignition Interlock Device on all vehicles in his family - a costly measure bankrupting many families of drunk drivers;
2. curfew;
3. mandatory warrantless searches of his residence

In fact, had he been placed on probation, Judge Landicino would have been in jail now, because he admitted to several "relapses".

Judge Landicino was not subject to disciplinary proceedings as a lawyer because of his indictment for a felony which requires only preponderance of the evidence, the same evidentiary standard that is required for attorney discipline.

And - New Yorkers, rejoice - Judge Landicino is giving lectures to DWI offenders how, as a drunk driving alcoholic judge he is treated "equally under the law".

Read the full decision about Judge Landicino's slap on the wrist here.

But, since alcoholism cannot be fully cured, watch out if Judge Landicino is drunk on he bench while making decisions about your lives, because the Commission and the criminal court refused to ensure that Judge Landicino's alcoholism that resulted in

1. unsafe aggressive drunk driving on Interstate 87;
2. leading a high speed (80 mph) police chase and jeopardizing lives of other people on that highway;
3. invoking his judicial position in seeking leniency to have his felony charges reduced to a speeding ticket, and that was during the very first year of his judgeship,
4. changing plates right after arrest from standard to "Supreme Court Justice" and then back to standard right before the disciplinary hearing.

Judge Landicino expressed in many ways his position that, as a judge, he is above the law.

And the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct that allows its members to drum up business out of their own positions, allowed Judge Landicino to escape without losing his judgeship, for doing the same.

By the way, here is a decision from Mississippi denying reinstatement of a disbarred attorney.

The Mississippi reinstatement court stated the following:

"We find that Morrison has failed to satisfy us that he has effectively rehabilitated himself “to the point that he should enjoy a license to practice law.”  In coming to this conclusion, we note the seriousness of his offense.   While the felony embezzlement charges were dismissed or nolle prosequied, these were felony level charges involving fraud, deceit, and dishonesty, which he also attempted to hide from an investigation."


Same as in Judge Landicino's case, the attorney was charged, but not convicted for a felony.

Same as in Judge Landicino's case, the attorney "attempted to hide from an investigation".

Moreover, in Judge Landicino's case the judge not only "attempted to hide from an investigation", but did it by engaging in a high-speed chase for 2 miles, on a highway, while the trooper chasing him, with lights and a siren on, had to change the tone of the siren twice before the judge pulled over.

In Mr. Morrison's case, Mr. Morrison simply attempted to hide from an investigation.

In Judge Landicino's case, the judge attempted to hide in a way that jeopardized safety and lives of many other people.

Mr. Morrison was disbarred.

Judge Landicino remains on the bench, with his law license intact.


Why?


Maybe, this is the reason?


"For five years, Landicino, who declined to comment for this story, has been attorney for the Kings County Democratic Party. And over the last 12 years he has made a career out of suing would-be challengers to the Brooklyn Democrats’ favored nominees for legislative and other elected seats."


Landicino was a valuable guy to many influential people, for a very long time before he came to the bench.


For that reason, he can remain on the highways and on the bench, without any restrictions or checks on his alcoholism as other drunk drivers have, and can continue to be the "Honorable" member of the judiciary and the legal profession until he kills somebody, and even then he may be given a slap on the wrist, as Otsego County Judge Burns gave to a rich and influential killer of a young woman recently, see my blogs here and here.


This is New York, ladies and gentlemen.


This is not Mississippi.

NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct admits to corrupt activities

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct that exists since 1974 is proposing a rule under which members and former members of the Commission and their law firms may not practice before the Commission.

This is the full proposed rule.  There is no explanation there as to why the rule was introduced now, after 41 years of existence of the Commission, and why the rule did not exist from the beginning.

Nor does it say which members, former members or law firms of the Commission practiced before the Commission before.  Well, such information must be available under FOIL, and I'll try to obtain it and will report the result of my efforts on this blog.

The "rule" is a no-brainer.  Any judge or member of a judicial panel is prohibited from practicing before that panel under the judge-advocate rule.  The same applies to law firms of part-time judges.

Rules of disqualifications for part-time judges who continue to practice law, exist for an eternity and are fully applicable to Commission's members.

Yet, many times when I asked for disqualification of members of the Commission (for example, on the ground that they are reviewing complaints against themselves, like the now- Chief Judge of Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters) or against judges who participated in misconduct together with them (like the now-retired Delaware County judge Carl Becker and the then Vice-Chair of the Commission Stephen Coffey), the Commission ignored my requests.

The question is, what had to happen for the Commission to see the writing on the all and introduce a rule governing itself (the Commission, apparently, is an investigator, adjudiator and legislator, all things in one), after 41 years of cozy existence since 1974?

So, I presume that before that time, Commission members and their law firms, did practice (and derived financial benefits) in front of the Commission, and the question is - how many decisions of the Commission were invalidated by this practice.

"Practicing in front of the Commission" means "representing judges turned in for discipline".

The fact that such a rule was not in existence until now can pretty much explain why the Commission, as it has been claimed by witnesses in numerous public hearings, acted so far more like a glorified shredder of meritorious complaints against judges (without a right of appeal of dismissals of meritorious complaints) than a fair and impartial governmental body.

In other words, for 41 years, New York State government was bluffing its citizens by claiming that there exists an impartial governmental body that investigates and administers discipline to New York state judges.

In reality, there existed a business where the Commission was an information hub receiving complaints from citizens, and then turning that information source which was confidential to all but members and employees of the Commission, into business for itself and the law firms in which the Commission members and former members were employed.

So, what happens now?

Will the Commission and its activities, including dismissals of all complaints against judges, be investigated by an INDEPENDENT citizen's panel as to:

1. whether any dismissal was caused by representation of any judge by a Commission member, former member or their law firms, and
2. whether milder discipline (any discipline other than taking the judge off the bench) was imposed because of the influence of a member, former member or law firm of such members or former members of the Commission practicing before the court and representing such a judge, openly, or as a confidential "member of the team" representing the judge?

Members of the Commission in 41 years of its existence are easily identifiable.

Their law firms are also easily identifiable.

Complaints against judges should have been archived, I know they are assigned index numbers, so, if they still exist, an independent investigative panel can review them.

I will file a FOIL request about members of the Commission for 41 years and who appointed them, and will report how New York State Unified Court system reacts to the FOIL.

By the way, the last reply of NYS counsel for Office of Court Administration to my FOIL inquiry was downright rude, so I understand that my last FOIL (about Lippman's "Learned Hand" program, a "public-private partnership" formed upon an "anonymous", but private donation of $1 mln) is onto something.

The implications are all the more interesting that many of the appointees of the Commission were appointed by the following individuals:

So, the current members of the Committee were appointed by:

1) Sheldon Silver - convicted for corruption;
2) Sheldon Silver's childhood friend Jonathan Lippman and his predecessor Judith Kaye (Lippman was not a Chief Judge in 2005 and 1999), who both have a record of corruption, see my blogs here and here for Lippman and here for Kaye;
3) Dean Skelos - convicted for corruption;
3)  John Sampson who was convicted in 2015 for trying to thwart a federal investigation and obstructing justice;
4) Governor Cuomo who is, reportedly, currently investigated for corruption, for dissolving the Moreland Commission as soon as it started to probing Cuomo and his administration, and, possibly involving the Buffalo Billion project.

Quite a crew.

So, will New York State Attorney General investigate corrupt activities of the Commission for Judicial Conduct, or will he balk out, as he did with Silver, Cuomo, Skelos and Sampson - because, by law, he is actually representing these scoundrels, so only feds could touch them, after years of corruption?

Will New York State law be finally changed to remove irreconcilable conflicts of interest of the New York State Attorney General?

And will the now-admitted corrupt activities of the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct be a project worth addressing for Preet Bharara?