This one is close to my heart, because I am an attorney suspended for making constitutional argument on behalf of my clients, and asking a corrupt judge to recuse in motions, not admitting that my actions constituted misconduct and not expressing remorse for doing my duty for my clients.
This episode happened 5 years ago.
A judge sent a criminal defense attorney to jail for contempt of court.
The contempt of court was attorney's legal advice to his client NOT to answer the judge's inquiry about the defendant's recent drug use because that would violate the client's 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
I recently wrote about such a scheme done through a drug-counseling court orders in New York, in collusion between judges of Westchester County courts and Westchester County DA and now candidate for Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore.
That was also compelled self-incrimination. I was the only one in a large courtroom packed with people and packed with other attorneys - who protested on the basis that such an order compelling my client to speak of his alleged drug use, is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights.
I was not sent to jail.
Michigan attorney Scott Millard was.
The judge who did that to him - judge Kenneth Post - got a 30-day suspension in 2013 and public censure. That is all.
And you know what Judge Kenneth Post did in 2015, "coincidentally", to the client of the same law firm whose attorney Scott Millard he threw in jail in 2011 for doing his job?
Judge Kenneth Post personally called a represented criminal defendant (a no-no) and left for him a threatening voice-mail.
Attorney Blanchard, the same attorney on whose complaint Judge Post was suspended the last time, filed another complaint against Judge Post.
It is clear that nothing short of removal will work with this judge, he is stone-deaf to notions of propriety.
I wonder what Judge Post will do to future clients of Mr. Blanchard - murder them?
Friday, January 15, 2016
#NewYorkValues - sexual predators and felons convicted for corruption in public office are better than civil rights attorneys
Just wrote a blog about judges and lawyers engaged in sexism and sex crimes, and mentioned Bryan Hedges, a judge who was taken off the bench in 2012 for molestation of a 5 year old child.
And - why, oh why did I check out his attorney registration status?
Because here it is:
That's right, "no record of public discipline".
Let us check out once again our recently convicted felons, New York Senators and attorneys John Sampson, Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver.
John L. Sampson - a convicted felon, former New York Senator, former Chair of Committee for the Judiciary.
Was convicted on July 24, 2015 of obstructing justice and making false statements to the federal authorities.
Felons Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, convicted of corruption, are also listed as practicing attorneys with "no record of public discipline".
I wrote about it last month.
Nothing changed this month.
I guess, I will have to make the appropriate inquiries with the NYS Court Administration as to why it still lists automatically-disbarred felons as practicing attorneys without any record of public discipline.
As to child molestor Bryan Hedges, an attorney with "no record of public discipline" - it is obvious that New York state has a preference, you know, those touted #NewYorkValues.
Better a felon or a sexual predator than big-mouth civil rights attorney who - the horror! - make motions to recuse a corrupt judge. And are suspended for that, like I was.
Hedges, Sampson, Silver and Skelos are surely better to have as licensed attorneys "with no record of public discipline" than somebody like Leon Koziol - a civil rights attorney who testified about judicial corruption to the Moreland Commission. And was not reinstated because of it.
Any fury in the media against government corruption in New York.
Against corruption in New York courts?
To disbar convicted felons?
To reinstate civil rights attorneys whose only fault was that they fought for their clients and against corrupt judges?
No.
The only fury is about fighting for the abstract #NewYorkValues.
And - why, oh why did I check out his attorney registration status?
Because here it is:
That's right, "no record of public discipline".
Let us check out once again our recently convicted felons, New York Senators and attorneys John Sampson, Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver.
John L. Sampson - a convicted felon, former New York Senator, former Chair of Committee for the Judiciary.
Was convicted on July 24, 2015 of obstructing justice and making false statements to the federal authorities.
Felons Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, convicted of corruption, are also listed as practicing attorneys with "no record of public discipline".
I wrote about it last month.
Nothing changed this month.
I guess, I will have to make the appropriate inquiries with the NYS Court Administration as to why it still lists automatically-disbarred felons as practicing attorneys without any record of public discipline.
As to child molestor Bryan Hedges, an attorney with "no record of public discipline" - it is obvious that New York state has a preference, you know, those touted #NewYorkValues.
Better a felon or a sexual predator than big-mouth civil rights attorney who - the horror! - make motions to recuse a corrupt judge. And are suspended for that, like I was.
Hedges, Sampson, Silver and Skelos are surely better to have as licensed attorneys "with no record of public discipline" than somebody like Leon Koziol - a civil rights attorney who testified about judicial corruption to the Moreland Commission. And was not reinstated because of it.
Any fury in the media against government corruption in New York.
Against corruption in New York courts?
To disbar convicted felons?
To reinstate civil rights attorneys whose only fault was that they fought for their clients and against corrupt judges?
No.
The only fury is about fighting for the abstract #NewYorkValues.
Corruption in the government and lenient sentences for corrupt New York politicians - #NewYorkValues?
There is a rage going on in the media and social media about Senator Ted Cruz's insult to "New York values".
I lived in New York for 17 years, and just left it. I like the people. I have friends there. But - I do not like the culture of corruption in the government, and the culture of silent obedience to that corruption in the people.
I described in many blogs the corruption happening in New York courts.
Only in 2015, 4 New York senators were convicted of federal corruption crimes:
Thomas Libous;
John Sampson - attorney and former Chair of the Committee on Judiciary;
Dean Skelos - attorney and Majority Leader of the Senate;
Sheldon Silver - attorney and lifetime friend since childhood of New York Chief Judge (now retired) Lippman, Assembly Leader
Corrupt Governor Cuomo is out there in the media defending #NewYorkValues.
At the same time, Governor Cuomo is promoting a corrupt candidate to the position of Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals.
That is, for Cuomo, obviously also a part of #NewYorkValues.
Treating New Yorkers as obedient and voiceless cattle.
And look what happens to New York Senators even if they are caught, tried, and convicted of a felony corrupt scheme of getting lucrative "no-show" jobs for the Senator's son by touting the Senator's position?
Senator Thomas Libous, convicted of a felony in July of 2015, and, because of his connections, sentenced only to a house arrest, probation and a fine.
Reportedly, "a senator for 27 years, Libous was removed from office after a jury found him guilty of lying to the FBI about a 2005 influence-peddling scheme that landed his son a $150,000-a-year job with Santangelo, Randazzo & Mangone, which was then a politically connected Westchester County law firm".
That's right, he was removed from office only AFTER the jury convicted him.
Don't tell me that he had cancer and was entitled to leniency.
I recently had a client who had a heart surgery and was - for decades - on weekly dialysis, and the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup (elected Delaware County Judge this year) explained to me that there is great medical care in prisons, and pushed for prison time anyway.
And, I read a transcript of criminal proceedings before the now-retired Judge Carl Becker where Becker - in his usual manner - accused a man who had to undergo back surgery, of scheduling the surgery in order to avoid sentencing and angrily told his stunned relatives that he will get a lot of free medical care in prison.
That's the same Becker who sent to prison a legally blind man after claiming he is not as blind as he claims to be because Becker allegedly watched how the man navigated (by feeling out the surfaces) the courthouse - because he was, of course, not given a cane, for "security" reasons.
Convicted felon Thomas Libous was given leniency at sentencing not because of his diagnosis, but because of his identity, recent status as a Senator and political connections.
Government officials should show example of behavior to their constituents.
Those same #NewYorkValues.
#NewYorkValues shown to New Yorkers by its highest-ranking government officials are as follows:
1) we are Gods and will do all we want no matter what the laws (that we make) say;
2) you are cattle and must not raise your voice against it;
3) if you raise your voice, you will regret it;
4) even if we are caught, we will be sent, instead of prison, to spend time with our families and entertain guests at home.
#NewYorkValues?
Right.
I lived in New York for 17 years, and just left it. I like the people. I have friends there. But - I do not like the culture of corruption in the government, and the culture of silent obedience to that corruption in the people.
I described in many blogs the corruption happening in New York courts.
Only in 2015, 4 New York senators were convicted of federal corruption crimes:
Thomas Libous;
John Sampson - attorney and former Chair of the Committee on Judiciary;
Dean Skelos - attorney and Majority Leader of the Senate;
Sheldon Silver - attorney and lifetime friend since childhood of New York Chief Judge (now retired) Lippman, Assembly Leader
Corrupt Governor Cuomo is out there in the media defending #NewYorkValues.
At the same time, Governor Cuomo is promoting a corrupt candidate to the position of Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals.
That is, for Cuomo, obviously also a part of #NewYorkValues.
Treating New Yorkers as obedient and voiceless cattle.
And look what happens to New York Senators even if they are caught, tried, and convicted of a felony corrupt scheme of getting lucrative "no-show" jobs for the Senator's son by touting the Senator's position?
Senator Thomas Libous, convicted of a felony in July of 2015, and, because of his connections, sentenced only to a house arrest, probation and a fine.
Reportedly, "a senator for 27 years, Libous was removed from office after a jury found him guilty of lying to the FBI about a 2005 influence-peddling scheme that landed his son a $150,000-a-year job with Santangelo, Randazzo & Mangone, which was then a politically connected Westchester County law firm".
That's right, he was removed from office only AFTER the jury convicted him.
Don't tell me that he had cancer and was entitled to leniency.
I recently had a client who had a heart surgery and was - for decades - on weekly dialysis, and the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup (elected Delaware County Judge this year) explained to me that there is great medical care in prisons, and pushed for prison time anyway.
And, I read a transcript of criminal proceedings before the now-retired Judge Carl Becker where Becker - in his usual manner - accused a man who had to undergo back surgery, of scheduling the surgery in order to avoid sentencing and angrily told his stunned relatives that he will get a lot of free medical care in prison.
That's the same Becker who sent to prison a legally blind man after claiming he is not as blind as he claims to be because Becker allegedly watched how the man navigated (by feeling out the surfaces) the courthouse - because he was, of course, not given a cane, for "security" reasons.
Convicted felon Thomas Libous was given leniency at sentencing not because of his diagnosis, but because of his identity, recent status as a Senator and political connections.
Government officials should show example of behavior to their constituents.
Those same #NewYorkValues.
#NewYorkValues shown to New Yorkers by its highest-ranking government officials are as follows:
1) we are Gods and will do all we want no matter what the laws (that we make) say;
2) you are cattle and must not raise your voice against it;
3) if you raise your voice, you will regret it;
4) even if we are caught, we will be sent, instead of prison, to spend time with our families and entertain guests at home.
#NewYorkValues?
Right.
Attorneys, judges, sexism and sex crimes - #TexasValues
To impose sexual attentions on an unwilling person is a crime in all states of the United States, and under federal law.
In fact, there is a whole variety of sex crimes characterizing a variety of sexual criminal acts, from unwanted sexual touching to unwanted sexual intercourse. They are all prohibited by law.
Lawyers, and, especially lawyers who are judges are supposed to (1) know that law and (2) abide by it.
Right?
Right.
For example, in November of 2015, an attorney was automatically disbarred in New York on conviction for rape.
Moreover, sexism and unwanted sex-laden remarks can also get employers, colleagues and especially attorneys into trouble - and judges are attorneys.
For example, occupational sexism in the workplace is a vigorously litigated civil rights violation.
Moreover, lawyers even sue their own law firms for sexism, like a Virginia attorney did this month, see her complaint here.
And, in January of 2016, in California, a male attorney was sanctioned and ordered to pay deposition costs plus a $250 fine for so much as telling a female attorney that it is not "becoming" for her as a woman to raise her voice. Obviously, it would have been becoming had she been a man - like the speaker was.
And a Maryland attorney was disbarred for offering to find a "sugar daddy" for ex-girlfriend of his client in a child custody proceeding:
Immediately disbarring a sexual predator is not within #MarylandValues.
He was first suspended, for a very short time each time, twice:
As to judges and sexual misconduct, in 2012, a judge, Bryan Hedges, was taken off the bench in New York for sexual crime committed against a child before the judge even became a lawyer. I provide that case only as an example of the position that the State of New York - at least allegedly - took a position that a judge who committed a sex crime should not be on the bench, even though that crime was never prosecuted and when civil and criminal prosecution was precluded by a statute of limitations.
The real reasons behind that particular case was different, and I wrote about them here.
And, of course, recently Pennsylvania suspended Superior Court Judge J. Michael Eakin who reportedly "sent and received offensive email messages, some containing images of naked women and jokes mocking minorities, women, and others, that have "tainted the Pennsylvania judiciary in the eyes of the public," but at the same time suspending the State Attorney General Kathleen Kane who outed the judge and other "entertainers" like him. Pennsylvania is also attempting to criminally prosecute her and oust her from office.
Those are #PennsylvaniaValues.
All of the above was just a foreword to the story of discipline - or rather - a bonus - that was given by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upon a federal judge of a Waco (Texas) federal court, Walter S. Smith, Jr. who was known in that court for years as an alcoholic and a sexual predator.
That story is intense, fact specific, and was not reported in the press in enough detail.
Moreover, the decision of discipline of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit minimized what happened and did not address the full scope of Judge Smith's misconduct.
I will try to provide full coverage of what Judge Smith and what his personnel did to cover up or even enable Judge Smith's sexual hunt.
Those, I understand, are #TexasValues?
For the full story of Judge Walter Smith, his misconduct and the federal court system's deliberate failure to address that misconduct and criminal behavior - stay tuned.
In fact, there is a whole variety of sex crimes characterizing a variety of sexual criminal acts, from unwanted sexual touching to unwanted sexual intercourse. They are all prohibited by law.
Lawyers, and, especially lawyers who are judges are supposed to (1) know that law and (2) abide by it.
Right?
Right.
For example, in November of 2015, an attorney was automatically disbarred in New York on conviction for rape.
Moreover, sexism and unwanted sex-laden remarks can also get employers, colleagues and especially attorneys into trouble - and judges are attorneys.
For example, occupational sexism in the workplace is a vigorously litigated civil rights violation.
Moreover, lawyers even sue their own law firms for sexism, like a Virginia attorney did this month, see her complaint here.
And, in January of 2016, in California, a male attorney was sanctioned and ordered to pay deposition costs plus a $250 fine for so much as telling a female attorney that it is not "becoming" for her as a woman to raise her voice. Obviously, it would have been becoming had she been a man - like the speaker was.
And a Maryland attorney was disbarred for offering to find a "sugar daddy" for ex-girlfriend of his client in a child custody proceeding:
"Marcalus' client wanted the woman and their daughter to move into his school district. According to court records, during a discussion of settlement options, the woman jokingly said she would need a "sugar daddy" — a man to pay her bills in exchange for other services — to afford to live in that area.
The complaint accuses Marcalus of later trying to find the woman such a man in text messages, phone calls and face-to-face conversations. The woman testified Marcalus told her he had found a potential sugar daddy who would pay $125 to watch her masturbate."
Of course, that particular attorney was not disbarred immediately. Immediately disbarring a sexual predator is not within #MarylandValues.
He was first suspended, for a very short time each time, twice:
"Marcalus' first run-in with the Attorney Grievance Commission was in late 2006, when, according to court records, he was accused of sending a woman sexually explicit text messages and touching her leg suggestively while in a courthouse. He was briefly suspended and then reinstated in November 2007.
Less than two months later, Marcalus told police he had given a woman a Vicodin pill in exchange for a sex act. That incident resulted in a two-month suspension."
Note that selling drugs (giving a drug even for free constitutes a drug sale) in exchange for sex did not result in the lawyer's criminal prosecution.As to judges and sexual misconduct, in 2012, a judge, Bryan Hedges, was taken off the bench in New York for sexual crime committed against a child before the judge even became a lawyer. I provide that case only as an example of the position that the State of New York - at least allegedly - took a position that a judge who committed a sex crime should not be on the bench, even though that crime was never prosecuted and when civil and criminal prosecution was precluded by a statute of limitations.
The real reasons behind that particular case was different, and I wrote about them here.
And, of course, recently Pennsylvania suspended Superior Court Judge J. Michael Eakin who reportedly "sent and received offensive email messages, some containing images of naked women and jokes mocking minorities, women, and others, that have "tainted the Pennsylvania judiciary in the eyes of the public," but at the same time suspending the State Attorney General Kathleen Kane who outed the judge and other "entertainers" like him. Pennsylvania is also attempting to criminally prosecute her and oust her from office.
Those are #PennsylvaniaValues.
All of the above was just a foreword to the story of discipline - or rather - a bonus - that was given by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upon a federal judge of a Waco (Texas) federal court, Walter S. Smith, Jr. who was known in that court for years as an alcoholic and a sexual predator.
That story is intense, fact specific, and was not reported in the press in enough detail.
Moreover, the decision of discipline of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit minimized what happened and did not address the full scope of Judge Smith's misconduct.
I will try to provide full coverage of what Judge Smith and what his personnel did to cover up or even enable Judge Smith's sexual hunt.
Those, I understand, are #TexasValues?
For the full story of Judge Walter Smith, his misconduct and the federal court system's deliberate failure to address that misconduct and criminal behavior - stay tuned.
California commenced disciplinary proceedings against a judge who taunted jurors because they are poor, but not for receiving bribes from prosecutors
On December 24, 2015 the California Commission for Judicial Conduct instituted formal proceedings against Judge Edmund Clarke, here is the complaint against him.
Judge Edmund Clarke, of Los Angeles County Superior Court, was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2007.
At the time of appointment, his salary was reportedly $171,648. The appointment did not say anything about the boon Judge Edmund received from Los Angeles County in addition to his salary, in violation of State Constitution.
In fact, Judge Edmund Clarke would be one of the recipients of additional illegal payouts that attorney Dr. Richard Fine stopped at the cost of his disbarment and incarceration in solitary confinement.
So, Judge Edmund Clarke was certainly not poor, being a lawyer's son and having a lucrative employment all his life, and, on top of his very large salary (with benefits) accepted illegal annual "incentives" from the county officials while presiding over cases handled by that county.
Judge Clarke, during his legal career, actually did a gig in Los Angeles County Public Defender's office, from 1977 to 1981.
So, he was supposed to understand problems of the poor, including poor women and minorities.
And, as a judge, he was supposed to treat all who come in front of him, attorneys, parties, employees and jurors, fairly and in a civilized manner.
Yet, at the end of December 2015 Judge Clarke was disciplined for his "terrible behavior towards poor women, and minorities".
Examples.
According to the complaint against Judge Clarke:
"Clarke excused one prospective juror but then ordered her to wait in the hall for an hour, according to the commission, after becoming angry that she had criticized his clerk. He also drove a native Spanish speaker to tears by suggesting that she had lied about her English abilities to avoid jury duty, according to the notice."
“The commission claims Clarke mistreated one prospective juror after granting her a hardship waiver due to her severe anxiety. Before leaving, the woman complained that Clarke’s clerk had been disrespectful. Clarke seemed to take offense and ordered the prospective juror to wait in the hall until he finished the afternoon session of voir dire, at which point she could “act like an adult”.
So, criticizing a judge for being disrespectful is not "acting like an adult".
Clarke also, reportedly, "made fun at two female prospective jurors whose juror forms indicated that they had less than $35 in their bank accounts, according to the allegations."
"One had asked Judge Clarke to keep the banking information confidential. Then thanked Clarke afterward when he did. However, after leaving the courtroom, Judge Clarke made the low balance, bank account information public, as the butt of a joke."
The article asks a question - what's up with the court personnel not reporting that behavior?
But, we all know "what's up". They were afraid to be fired and blacklisted, that's what's up.
To humiliate a woman because her command of English is not good enough to understand LEGAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS that not all native speakers understand is pathetic.
It is even more pathetic to tell a woman who - privately - disclosed that she has only $25 in her bank account the following: “every one of these lawyers spent more than that on lunch today.”
And, after mocking one poor woman for being poor, he mocked the next one this way: "when talking to the second juror, who said he had $33 in his account, Clarke said, “A little bit more than the other gal. 33 bucks. You are putting her in the shade with that big account.”
Of course, these two poor women did not have the ability, like Judge Clarke, to receive bribes of over $46,000 a year on top of a $171,000 salary, and get away with it by receiving from the legislature a retroactive immunity from civil AND CRIMINAL liability for taking those bribes - and to devastate the life of the person who exposed that criminal behavior.
Note that Judge Clarke is not being disciplined for receiving large bribes from prosecutors for years.
Oh, well.
Judge Edmund Clarke, of Los Angeles County Superior Court, was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2007.
At the time of appointment, his salary was reportedly $171,648. The appointment did not say anything about the boon Judge Edmund received from Los Angeles County in addition to his salary, in violation of State Constitution.
In fact, Judge Edmund Clarke would be one of the recipients of additional illegal payouts that attorney Dr. Richard Fine stopped at the cost of his disbarment and incarceration in solitary confinement.
Reportedly, "L.A. superior court judges were receiving illegal “judicial
benefits” payments from Los Angeles County, despite the fact that
lawsuits against that county were often adjudicated by these same
judges, thus creating clear conflict of interest problems.
By 2007 these
payments amounted to $46,436 per year on top of their state salary of
$172,000, making L.A. superior court judges among the highest paid in
the country. Not only was this a blatant conflict of interest but also
unconstitutional, insofar as the California constitution states clearly
(in Article VI, Section 19) that “the legislature shall prescribe
compensation for judges of courts of record.”
So, Judge Edmund Clarke was certainly not poor, being a lawyer's son and having a lucrative employment all his life, and, on top of his very large salary (with benefits) accepted illegal annual "incentives" from the county officials while presiding over cases handled by that county.
Judge Clarke, during his legal career, actually did a gig in Los Angeles County Public Defender's office, from 1977 to 1981.
So, he was supposed to understand problems of the poor, including poor women and minorities.
And, as a judge, he was supposed to treat all who come in front of him, attorneys, parties, employees and jurors, fairly and in a civilized manner.
Yet, at the end of December 2015 Judge Clarke was disciplined for his "terrible behavior towards poor women, and minorities".
Examples.
According to the complaint against Judge Clarke:
"Clarke excused one prospective juror but then ordered her to wait in the hall for an hour, according to the commission, after becoming angry that she had criticized his clerk. He also drove a native Spanish speaker to tears by suggesting that she had lied about her English abilities to avoid jury duty, according to the notice."
“The commission claims Clarke mistreated one prospective juror after granting her a hardship waiver due to her severe anxiety. Before leaving, the woman complained that Clarke’s clerk had been disrespectful. Clarke seemed to take offense and ordered the prospective juror to wait in the hall until he finished the afternoon session of voir dire, at which point she could “act like an adult”.
So, criticizing a judge for being disrespectful is not "acting like an adult".
Clarke also, reportedly, "made fun at two female prospective jurors whose juror forms indicated that they had less than $35 in their bank accounts, according to the allegations."
"One had asked Judge Clarke to keep the banking information confidential. Then thanked Clarke afterward when he did. However, after leaving the courtroom, Judge Clarke made the low balance, bank account information public, as the butt of a joke."
The article asks a question - what's up with the court personnel not reporting that behavior?
But, we all know "what's up". They were afraid to be fired and blacklisted, that's what's up.
To humiliate a woman because her command of English is not good enough to understand LEGAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS that not all native speakers understand is pathetic.
It is even more pathetic to tell a woman who - privately - disclosed that she has only $25 in her bank account the following: “every one of these lawyers spent more than that on lunch today.”
And, after mocking one poor woman for being poor, he mocked the next one this way: "when talking to the second juror, who said he had $33 in his account, Clarke said, “A little bit more than the other gal. 33 bucks. You are putting her in the shade with that big account.”
Of course, these two poor women did not have the ability, like Judge Clarke, to receive bribes of over $46,000 a year on top of a $171,000 salary, and get away with it by receiving from the legislature a retroactive immunity from civil AND CRIMINAL liability for taking those bribes - and to devastate the life of the person who exposed that criminal behavior.
Note that Judge Clarke is not being disciplined for receiving large bribes from prosecutors for years.
Oh, well.
Did Cuomo nominate a criminal to head New York state courts, as a quid pro quo for covering up his own criminal acts? How appropriate...
Oh, the beauty of Kindle books.
You know what is the main attraction of a Kindle book for a researcher? Availability of a word search. How else can you know, in a book several hundred pages long, where to instantly look for certain information?
My own experience so far with nominations of judges to New York Court of Appeals was that Cuomo promotes those who serves his personal purposes or purposes of his agencies.
Example # 1. Nomination of Leslie Stein. Cuomo announced his "intent" to nominate to the Court of Appeals a judge, Leslie Stein, who was the head of appellate panel deciding a case brought by his subordinate, Commissioner of Department of Environmental Conservation and that, if decided correctly, would have bankrupted New York, led to voiding thousands of convictions, and to return to New York landowners of possibly millions of dollars of unlawfully extracted fines and fees.
What did Stein do to ascertain that the "intent to nominate" becomes the actual nomination and judgeship?
Within 6 days of the public announcement by Cuomo of his "intent to nominate" she decided the case in favor of DEC.
Example # 2. Nomination of Eugene Fahey.
I ran a blog about Cuomo's buying Stein by his nomination.
Cuomo, of course, was pissed off.
So, Cuomo rewarded with the next nomination a judge from the court that handled the unlawful disciplinary proceeding who denied my cross-motion raising constituional issues without an explanation, and when I asked for an explanation, the same panel, including Fahey, slapped me with a sealing order and anti-filing injunction.
At the time of nomination of Fahey I was also suing Cuomo, on my husband's behalf, in a federal civil rights action.
Example # 3. Nominaion of Janet DiFiore
I do not know what OTHER personal considerations went into nominations of Stein, Fahey or other judges by Cuomo to New York Court of Appeals.
Cuomo who refused to pay his own children child support money while promoting child support laws in New York, appears to be a completely immoral creature.
So, with nomination of Janet DiFiore, her confirmation hearing pending on January 20, 2016, and the NYS Senate where corruption is an order of business blocking from testifying at that hearing anybody but the brown-nosing bar associations, I researched the possible reasons what may be the payoff for Cuomo in putting Janet DiFiore in a position of Chief Judge.
The easiest way to look for connections of a politician is in his biographies, especially in biographies that he himself did not commission and that are critical of the politician's behavior.
I found such a biography of Cuomo n Amazon.com.
It is Michael Shnayerson's "The Contender: Andrew Cuomo, A Biography", published in March of 2015.
Based on information supplied in that book, the NYS Senate does not have to go very far to:
(1) reject nomination by Andrew Cuomo of Janet DiFiore for the position of NYS Chief Judge of Court of Appeals as a corrupt quid pro quo; and
(2) start impeachment proceedings of Janet DiFiore to get her off her position of Westchester Couny Attorney.
I would also suggest disbarment for involvement in large-scale public corruption, but we know that DiFiore will never be disbarred, given her connections.
I would also suggest criminal prosecution of Cuomo and DiFiore for engaging in the scheme of public corruption, but Preet Bharara was notified about this particular scheme, and so far did nothing, and found no basis to prosecute Cuomo for disbanding the Moreland Commission (I wonder whether the fact that Cuomo's Leutenant Governor is married to a U.S. Assistant District Attorney in Preet Bharara's office had any weight in that decision).
Janet DiFiore was appointed by Andrew Cuomo to be the Chair of Commission for Public Ethics.
The rules governing the commission required disclosure of donors and their donations to non-profits.
One of such non-profits subject to the rule and to the investigation of the Commission was Committee to Save New York (CSNY).
CSNY was a lobbying group that Cuomo supported and that supported causes supported by Cuomo.
CSNY received large donations from small numbers of anonymous donors.
What was known is that CSNY received a donation of 2 million dollars from a gambling association, where a Malasian company Genting was a member, after Cuomo announced in his State of the State address that Genting is to handle (without public bidding) the construction of a 4 bln dollar convention center in New York.
Genting, once again, a foreign company, previously lobbied for the convention center at Cuomo's fund-raiser.
Here is how a councilman from Westchester County has reportedly reacted to that announcement (as reported in the same article interlinked above):
"Assemblyman Thomas J. Abinanti, a Democrat from Westchester County, said he was disturbed that a group like the Committee to Save New York, which was the largest spender on lobbying last year, was not required to disclose its donor list.
The state ethics commission is developing rules requiring such groups to disclose their donors, though it is unclear when those rules will take effect.
The book states that a "gaming industry source" observed that "if you want to have a good working relationship with the governor, it ws wise to make [a contribution to the CSNY]).
The press had a frenzy about the connection between Cuomo, CSNY, Genting, and Cuomo's private donors of his various agendas.
Cuomo distanced himself from Genting, and claimed that negotiations with Genting over the convention center failed.
Obviously, Cuomo was interested to have CSNY donors never disclosed.
Janet DiFiore, appointed by Cuomo to the Commission, came in handy to help out.
The book states that, according to Ravi Batra, one of the Commissioners of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics who, unlike other commissoners, actually read submissions regarding private donations to non-profits and got shocked by the potential of corruption, got shocked even more when he learned that "Janet DiFiore proposed to start the clock [of donation disclosures] on July 1, 2012", p. 353. and not six months back from that date, as the law required (January 1, 2012).
The book explains the implications of such a proposal:
" July 1 would fall in the year's second reporting period, from July 1 to December 31, 2012. All donors bfore July 1, 2012, culd stay uder the cloak of darkness.
The CSNY's tax filings for 2011 had revealed that $12 million of the $17.5 million donated to it in 2011 had come from just twenty donors. yet the names of these and the rest of about seventy-five donors to the CSNY tat year had been redacted, and neither these nor donors for the first half of 2012 would ever by known if JCOPE changed the starting date of disclosure to July 1, 2012", p. 353.
As the book reports, "Indeed, as Batra saw, starting July 1 not only protected those donors. It also gave them one last changce - intil the end of June - to make more anonymous contributions. After July 1, they could stop writing checks and the CSNY could quietly expire".
That is exactly what happened.
The Committee to Save New York closed in August of 2012, right after the Chair of the Committee for Public Ethics Janet DiFiore, obviously appointed to the Committee to protect Cuomo and his private donors, defied the law and pushed through her unlawful proposal to start the reporting period for donors forward, from January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012, and thus gave CNSY an opportunity to hide its potential misdeeds from public scrutiny.
"The controversial business-backed group that quietly raised $17 million to advance Gov. Cuomo's agenda during his first two years in office is declaring its mission's accomplished and is closing up shop".
Incredibly, in 2014, DiFiore's husband was appointed to New York Gaming Facility Location Board, in other words, a casino siting commission", along with another Cuomo's allies!
Think of a potential for bribes to locate a gaming facility in a certain town! Such a position is a veritable cornucopia for Glazer, DiFiore and those connected to them - like Cuomo and their in-laws, just look what Glazer's Commission was doing at about the time of his appointment and right after he was appointed.
That was the second quid pro quo in exchange for DiFiore's "help" to Cuomo with obscuring the donors for CSNY (the first quid pro quo, of course, being not allowing prosecution of DiFiore and her husband Glazer for fraud upon the government, tampering with governmental investiation and intimidating witnesses (see description of DiFiore's and her husband's fraudulent behavior involving employment of an illegal alien who claimed welfare benefits from the government below.
The third quid pro quo came in December of 2015, when Cuomo nominated DiFiore as for the position of Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals - apparently, since that seat was taken by Lippman and vacated only at Lippman's mandatory retirement, Cuomo could not possibly do that favor sooner.
Naturally, Cuomo opposed Lippman's efforts to get his own retirement age extended to 80. Cuomo needed the seat to be vacated sooner, for DiFiore. After all, for how long could a 60-year-old grandmother wait to be reimbursed by Cuomo for her huge favor to him as Chair of the New York Joint Commission of Public Ethics?
DiFiore is a gem.
According to the press, she was a Republican, but switched to the Democratic party.
She was elected as a Westchester County Court judge in 1998, moreover, she was made a supervising judge of criminal court that added to her pay and status, but then left the bench in 2005 to run for a District Attorney.
In 2006 Cuomo ran for New York State Attorney General, and won.
Usually, once elected as a Supreme Court justice, judges run for reelection in the same office for an eternity and are promoted to the intermediate appellate courts and then Court of Appeals.
Janet DiFiore made a zigzag down and was nominated to the Court of Appeals anyway, for apparent reasons.
At the time DiFiore left the bench of the Supreme Court to run for the position of the District Attorney, she could help Cuomo more as a prosecutor than a judge.
A prosecutor has an absolute discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute crimes committed within her county, including crimes of violating child support orders and crimes of public corruption.
Cuomo did a lot of business in Westchester County, he has ties to the Clinton family who resided in Westcheser County, Chappaqua and then Bedford, NY, since 2000, and Cuomo himself resided in Westchester County since 2011.
Cuomo reportedly did not pay child support, engaged in shady donation schemes, and needed Janet DiFiore as a prosecutor to chair the Commission for Public Ethics and to cover up the tracks of private donations to his lobbying group.
Cuomo reportedly supported DiFiore to get elected as a District Attorney after she left the bench.
The same article which attempted to present DiFiore in a positive light as a candidate for the position of the Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals, yet stated the following:
"Although a Republican at the time, DiFiore's friendship with Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai, a Democrat, helped her land the prestigious post of supervising judge of the criminal courts in the 9th Judicial District. The district covers courts in Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and Orange counties."
So, Janet DiFiore openly flaunts the fact that her promotion as a judge and supervising judge of criminal courts in a large judicial district (from which position she somehow felt motivated to leave to become a Westchester County DA) was because of her "friendship" with her administrative boss.
The fact that DiFiore was promoted in her previous judgeship based on cronyism is enough to make her unfit for the position of the Chief Judge of the entire NYS court system.
DiFiore was criticized for not prosecuting the police as a result of three fatal police shootings. Instead of appointing a special investigator to investiate police misconduct, DiFiore reportedly routinely turned the investigations into the culprit police departments to investigate, with predictable results.
So, DiFiore appears to have a policy not to prosecute police misconduct. obviously, because she has close ties to the police in order to be able to investigate and prosecute criminal cases and to obtain what is reportedly the highest felony conviction rate that her office has as opposed to other counties.
I have an experience as a criminal defense attorney that DiFiore's office, in the absence of physical evidence, and faced with the prospect of a private attorney coming into the case, came into collusion with the public defender to quickly extract a waiver of grand jury proceedings and proceed on a felony superior court information against a young criminal defendant.
DiFiore's office later had to reduce the felony charges to a misdemeanor and then reduce them further to a violation.
Also, I am the witness how DiFiore's ADAs, in collusion with judges (I saw that happenig with two judges), extract coerced self-incrimination from criminal defendants (including in felony cases) under the threat of violation of a court order. If that is how DiFiore maintains her high felony conviction rate, she should go tend her grandchildren and turn in her law license instead of be elevated to the position of a Chief judge of the State of New York.
Yet, with police criminals DiFiore is as lenient as with other goverment criminals. She knows that in New York (and federal) government, not doing your job and engaging in corruption for the benefit of those in power pay off. Big time. Look at her nomination.
In return for DiFiore's favors in not properly investigating and prosecuting police shootings, the police did not investigate Ms. DiFiore and her husband, an attorney, for defrauding the federal and state government in employing a nanny since 1996, while Mr. Glazer stated in an affidavit that he employed the nanny only since 2009, and the nanny/maid herself claimed in 2009 she was disabled, and social services, while initially one honest social worker started an investigation of DiFiore that could have political implications to Cuomo (because he appointed DiFiore as the Chairman of the Commission on Public Ethics), no independent out-of-the county investigator was appointed, and, of course, the investigation died, and the investigator who commenced the investigation, Ms. Dhyalma Vazquez, is no longer listed as working for the Westchester County DSS.
There were reports that Westchester County DSS was "discussing employment status" of Ms. Vazquez at the time she commenced the investigation against DiFiore, her husband and their maid/nanny, and there appears to be an audio tape where the Westchester County DSS reportedly discusses intimidation of Ms. Vazquez.
There is also a report that DiFiore sent her own investigator to investigate on Ms. Vazquez who scared the human resources personnel in the Westchester County DSS office:
“She sent somebody. They had a guy who came in to speak to the lady in human resources,” he said. “It was some D.A. investigator. I don’t know who the guy was. He would know. Phil Gille would know";
" “she sent somebody over to the human resources office to find out, you know, what was going on with (Vazquez’s) position.” He added that the person sent over “scared the (expletive) out of the personnel officer.”
That is interference with official investigation against herself and tampering with witnesses, RIGHT THERE. THIS IS the person who New York wants to put as its CHIEF JUDGE? A criminal who is saved from conviction and disbarment only through her powerful connections?
DiFiore's maid in question, by the way, became a legal resident only in 2007, while she has been workin for DiFiores reportedly since 1980, which means that DiFiore and her attorney husband employed an illegal immigrant (obviously, to pay her less), she was reportedly a live-in nanny for DiFiore and Glazer most of that time. Glazer lied under oath that he only employed the nanny/maid since 2009 - and should be prosecuted for perjury, but who will prosecute him, his wife?
The probe included questions whether DiFiore and Glazer paid Buchanan off the books while she claims government benefits - a fraud upon the government which, if proven, could have resulted in criminal prosecution and disbarment of both Janet DiFiore and her attorney husban Glazer.
DiFiore's daughter, New York county prosecutor Alexandria D Glazer (DiFiore officiated at her daughter's wedding - I wonder what authority a DA had to officiate a wedding?), and her two other children, Michael and Joseph, as well as schoolmates, school teachers, childhood friends and their parents, and neighbors of DiFiore and Glazer can be called to testify as to at what age did their children first got the nanny Buchannan, because this information is important to verify whether NYS Senate is putting a long-time criminal in the position of utmost power by elevating her to the position of Chief Judge of the NYS Court of Appeals.
By the way, consider the connections acquired by DiFiore through her daughter's marriage - the groom's mother is a "regional solicitor in the federal Department of Labor in Philadelphia", and the groom's father is a partner in - guess what - New Jersey # 1 lobbying law firm Gibbons P.C. who also works in Philadelphia (see the wedding article interlinked above).
Gibbons P.C. boasts of its heavy involvement in federal lobbying:
"Our Government Affairs Department is one of just a handful of New Jersey lobbying practices with a regular presence on Capitol Hill. Interacting regularly with members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation and their senior staffs, our lawyer-lobbyists have extensive knowledge of the committee and subcommittee structure in Congress, as well as the procedures governing the annual budget and appropriations processes.
We possess longstanding relationships in Washington and help clients in a hands-on fashion to not only navigate the federal legislative landscape but have their voices heard."
So, protection for DiFiore from a federal investigation was also ensured on the highest "professional" level, from her daughter's mother who works for the federal government and from her daughter's father-in-law with "longstanding relationships in Washington" who can "have her voice heard" in a "hands on fashion".
Of course, they would not have wanted the granny of their grandchild to go to prison.
I wonder if they instead steered some anonymous donors toward Governor Cuomo's "Committee to Save New York" lobbying firm, and DiFiore, as Chair of that Committee, helped keep those anonymous donations anonymous...
So, there is A LOT of physical evidence for the NYS Senate to consider as to fitness, or rather, unfitness, of Janet DiFiore for the position of Chief Judge of New York court system, and a lot of witnesses can be called to testify AGAINST Janet DiFiore's confirmation.
Yet, according to the e-mail to me of Jessica Cherry, attorney for NYS Senator Bonacic, Chair of New York Senate Judiciary Committee, the NYS Senate is currently going to consider at DiFiore's confirmation hearing only the brown-nosing testimony of two bar associations, two - what a coincidence! - lobbying non-profits with foreign capital.
What can I say.
The skills of Janet DiFiore are impressive.
They qualify her - let me see:
1) for impeachment,
2) for disbarment;
2) for incarceration for state and federal crimes committed over the years - and, likely, that incarceration for all shenanigans described in his blog alone can be for Janet DiFiore's remaining lifetime.
She is instrumental in:
1) not prosecuting police shootings;
2) intimidating investigators of her own and her husband's criminal conduct;
3) corrupt cover-up of anonymous donors to Governor Cuomo's lobbying firm.
She was already generously rewarded for her efforts by:
1) having state and federal investigations into her misconduct thwarted;
2) having the investigator of her misconduct removed from her position;
3) having her husband appointing as a fox to guard the chicken coop, with endless bribing opportunities from the gaming industry whose anonymous donations to Cuomo's lobbying firm DiFiore helped save from public scrutiny as Chair of the Commission for Public Ethics; and, to crown it all,
4) being nominated by Cuomo for the position of Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals before that seat got vacated by the previous occupant - and while Cuomo engaged in energetic efforts to prevent that previous occupant, Lippman, from prolonging his stay in that seat
When you read that New York has the highest taxes and is the No. 2 state that residents run from to other states (the No. 1 state is New Jersey where DiFiore's daughter's father-in-law is a partner in the main lobbying law firm) - do not be surprised as to the reasons.
DiFiore's story, and many others, told and untold, are the reason.
Think about it, New Yorkers said "no" to the prospect of prolonging retirement age of one corrupt Chief Judge judge, Jonathan Lippman, so that Cuomo could fulfill his promise of a favor-for-a-favor to a worse criminal.
New Yorkers are already voting with their feet, disgusted with rampant corruption in the state that undermines their prospects good employment, fair taxes, honest law enforcement and the riule of law enforced by courts.
NYS Senate still has time to save its reputation of a corrupt organization, which was much supported by the criminal federal convictions of the heads of both of its chambers, longtime Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, and longtime Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos, in November and December of 2015, and of its Senators Libous and Sampson earlier in 2015.
By the way, Senator Sampson was the former Chair of the NYS Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. It is under his "guidance" that New York was saddled with Jonathan Lippman. Sampson was convicted in July 2015.
I wonder if Senator Bonacic, the current Chairman of NYS Senate's Judiciary Committee who is about to hear the brown-nosing testimony of only two witnesses he invited - from lobbying bar associatons (while refusing to hear testimony against confirmation of DiFiore from witnesses of her misconduct) - if Senator Bonacic realizes that he may very well appear to be quite like Sampson, in all respects, if he saddles New York with DiFiore.
NYS Senate can still disaffirm Cuomo's corrupt nomination of a criminal and block that criminal from presiding over courts of law, pretending to dispense justice while doing what she has been doing all along before - ensuring favors for herself and those in power, in return for favors to herself and to her family and friends, and selling the law to the highest bidder.
I wonder if NYS Senate has the spunk and integrity to vote DiFiore down.
You know what is the main attraction of a Kindle book for a researcher? Availability of a word search. How else can you know, in a book several hundred pages long, where to instantly look for certain information?
My own experience so far with nominations of judges to New York Court of Appeals was that Cuomo promotes those who serves his personal purposes or purposes of his agencies.
Example # 1. Nomination of Leslie Stein. Cuomo announced his "intent" to nominate to the Court of Appeals a judge, Leslie Stein, who was the head of appellate panel deciding a case brought by his subordinate, Commissioner of Department of Environmental Conservation and that, if decided correctly, would have bankrupted New York, led to voiding thousands of convictions, and to return to New York landowners of possibly millions of dollars of unlawfully extracted fines and fees.
What did Stein do to ascertain that the "intent to nominate" becomes the actual nomination and judgeship?
Within 6 days of the public announcement by Cuomo of his "intent to nominate" she decided the case in favor of DEC.
Example # 2. Nomination of Eugene Fahey.
I ran a blog about Cuomo's buying Stein by his nomination.
Cuomo, of course, was pissed off.
So, Cuomo rewarded with the next nomination a judge from the court that handled the unlawful disciplinary proceeding who denied my cross-motion raising constituional issues without an explanation, and when I asked for an explanation, the same panel, including Fahey, slapped me with a sealing order and anti-filing injunction.
At the time of nomination of Fahey I was also suing Cuomo, on my husband's behalf, in a federal civil rights action.
Example # 3. Nominaion of Janet DiFiore
I do not know what OTHER personal considerations went into nominations of Stein, Fahey or other judges by Cuomo to New York Court of Appeals.
Cuomo who refused to pay his own children child support money while promoting child support laws in New York, appears to be a completely immoral creature.
So, with nomination of Janet DiFiore, her confirmation hearing pending on January 20, 2016, and the NYS Senate where corruption is an order of business blocking from testifying at that hearing anybody but the brown-nosing bar associations, I researched the possible reasons what may be the payoff for Cuomo in putting Janet DiFiore in a position of Chief Judge.
The easiest way to look for connections of a politician is in his biographies, especially in biographies that he himself did not commission and that are critical of the politician's behavior.
I found such a biography of Cuomo n Amazon.com.
It is Michael Shnayerson's "The Contender: Andrew Cuomo, A Biography", published in March of 2015.
Based on information supplied in that book, the NYS Senate does not have to go very far to:
(1) reject nomination by Andrew Cuomo of Janet DiFiore for the position of NYS Chief Judge of Court of Appeals as a corrupt quid pro quo; and
(2) start impeachment proceedings of Janet DiFiore to get her off her position of Westchester Couny Attorney.
I would also suggest disbarment for involvement in large-scale public corruption, but we know that DiFiore will never be disbarred, given her connections.
I would also suggest criminal prosecution of Cuomo and DiFiore for engaging in the scheme of public corruption, but Preet Bharara was notified about this particular scheme, and so far did nothing, and found no basis to prosecute Cuomo for disbanding the Moreland Commission (I wonder whether the fact that Cuomo's Leutenant Governor is married to a U.S. Assistant District Attorney in Preet Bharara's office had any weight in that decision).
Janet DiFiore was appointed by Andrew Cuomo to be the Chair of Commission for Public Ethics.
The rules governing the commission required disclosure of donors and their donations to non-profits.
One of such non-profits subject to the rule and to the investigation of the Commission was Committee to Save New York (CSNY).
CSNY was a lobbying group that Cuomo supported and that supported causes supported by Cuomo.
CSNY received large donations from small numbers of anonymous donors.
What was known is that CSNY received a donation of 2 million dollars from a gambling association, where a Malasian company Genting was a member, after Cuomo announced in his State of the State address that Genting is to handle (without public bidding) the construction of a 4 bln dollar convention center in New York.
Genting, once again, a foreign company, previously lobbied for the convention center at Cuomo's fund-raiser.
Here is how a councilman from Westchester County has reportedly reacted to that announcement (as reported in the same article interlinked above):
"Assemblyman Thomas J. Abinanti, a Democrat from Westchester County, said he was disturbed that a group like the Committee to Save New York, which was the largest spender on lobbying last year, was not required to disclose its donor list.
The state ethics commission is developing rules requiring such groups to disclose their donors, though it is unclear when those rules will take effect.
“I think it is a hypocritical situation that small campaign contributors who give $150 get listed, but big-time beneficiaries of state policies don’t have to disclose,” Mr. Abinanti said, adding that he believed the governor and Legislature should make the change immediately.
“The public should be concerned when big money contributors have greater access than the normal voter,” he said.
The book states that a "gaming industry source" observed that "if you want to have a good working relationship with the governor, it ws wise to make [a contribution to the CSNY]).
The press had a frenzy about the connection between Cuomo, CSNY, Genting, and Cuomo's private donors of his various agendas.
Cuomo distanced himself from Genting, and claimed that negotiations with Genting over the convention center failed.
Obviously, Cuomo was interested to have CSNY donors never disclosed.
Janet DiFiore, appointed by Cuomo to the Commission, came in handy to help out.
The book states that, according to Ravi Batra, one of the Commissioners of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics who, unlike other commissoners, actually read submissions regarding private donations to non-profits and got shocked by the potential of corruption, got shocked even more when he learned that "Janet DiFiore proposed to start the clock [of donation disclosures] on July 1, 2012", p. 353. and not six months back from that date, as the law required (January 1, 2012).
The book explains the implications of such a proposal:
" July 1 would fall in the year's second reporting period, from July 1 to December 31, 2012. All donors bfore July 1, 2012, culd stay uder the cloak of darkness.
The CSNY's tax filings for 2011 had revealed that $12 million of the $17.5 million donated to it in 2011 had come from just twenty donors. yet the names of these and the rest of about seventy-five donors to the CSNY tat year had been redacted, and neither these nor donors for the first half of 2012 would ever by known if JCOPE changed the starting date of disclosure to July 1, 2012", p. 353.
As the book reports, "Indeed, as Batra saw, starting July 1 not only protected those donors. It also gave them one last changce - intil the end of June - to make more anonymous contributions. After July 1, they could stop writing checks and the CSNY could quietly expire".
That is exactly what happened.
The Committee to Save New York closed in August of 2012, right after the Chair of the Committee for Public Ethics Janet DiFiore, obviously appointed to the Committee to protect Cuomo and his private donors, defied the law and pushed through her unlawful proposal to start the reporting period for donors forward, from January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012, and thus gave CNSY an opportunity to hide its potential misdeeds from public scrutiny.
"The controversial business-backed group that quietly raised $17 million to advance Gov. Cuomo's agenda during his first two years in office is declaring its mission's accomplished and is closing up shop".
Incredibly, in 2014, DiFiore's husband was appointed to New York Gaming Facility Location Board, in other words, a casino siting commission", along with another Cuomo's allies!
Think of a potential for bribes to locate a gaming facility in a certain town! Such a position is a veritable cornucopia for Glazer, DiFiore and those connected to them - like Cuomo and their in-laws, just look what Glazer's Commission was doing at about the time of his appointment and right after he was appointed.
That was the second quid pro quo in exchange for DiFiore's "help" to Cuomo with obscuring the donors for CSNY (the first quid pro quo, of course, being not allowing prosecution of DiFiore and her husband Glazer for fraud upon the government, tampering with governmental investiation and intimidating witnesses (see description of DiFiore's and her husband's fraudulent behavior involving employment of an illegal alien who claimed welfare benefits from the government below.
The third quid pro quo came in December of 2015, when Cuomo nominated DiFiore as for the position of Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals - apparently, since that seat was taken by Lippman and vacated only at Lippman's mandatory retirement, Cuomo could not possibly do that favor sooner.
Naturally, Cuomo opposed Lippman's efforts to get his own retirement age extended to 80. Cuomo needed the seat to be vacated sooner, for DiFiore. After all, for how long could a 60-year-old grandmother wait to be reimbursed by Cuomo for her huge favor to him as Chair of the New York Joint Commission of Public Ethics?
DiFiore is a gem.
According to the press, she was a Republican, but switched to the Democratic party.
She was elected as a Westchester County Court judge in 1998, moreover, she was made a supervising judge of criminal court that added to her pay and status, but then left the bench in 2005 to run for a District Attorney.
In 2006 Cuomo ran for New York State Attorney General, and won.
Usually, once elected as a Supreme Court justice, judges run for reelection in the same office for an eternity and are promoted to the intermediate appellate courts and then Court of Appeals.
Janet DiFiore made a zigzag down and was nominated to the Court of Appeals anyway, for apparent reasons.
At the time DiFiore left the bench of the Supreme Court to run for the position of the District Attorney, she could help Cuomo more as a prosecutor than a judge.
A prosecutor has an absolute discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute crimes committed within her county, including crimes of violating child support orders and crimes of public corruption.
Cuomo did a lot of business in Westchester County, he has ties to the Clinton family who resided in Westcheser County, Chappaqua and then Bedford, NY, since 2000, and Cuomo himself resided in Westchester County since 2011.
Cuomo reportedly did not pay child support, engaged in shady donation schemes, and needed Janet DiFiore as a prosecutor to chair the Commission for Public Ethics and to cover up the tracks of private donations to his lobbying group.
Cuomo reportedly supported DiFiore to get elected as a District Attorney after she left the bench.
The same article which attempted to present DiFiore in a positive light as a candidate for the position of the Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals, yet stated the following:
"Although a Republican at the time, DiFiore's friendship with Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai, a Democrat, helped her land the prestigious post of supervising judge of the criminal courts in the 9th Judicial District. The district covers courts in Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and Orange counties."
So, Janet DiFiore openly flaunts the fact that her promotion as a judge and supervising judge of criminal courts in a large judicial district (from which position she somehow felt motivated to leave to become a Westchester County DA) was because of her "friendship" with her administrative boss.
The fact that DiFiore was promoted in her previous judgeship based on cronyism is enough to make her unfit for the position of the Chief Judge of the entire NYS court system.
DiFiore was criticized for not prosecuting the police as a result of three fatal police shootings. Instead of appointing a special investigator to investiate police misconduct, DiFiore reportedly routinely turned the investigations into the culprit police departments to investigate, with predictable results.
So, DiFiore appears to have a policy not to prosecute police misconduct. obviously, because she has close ties to the police in order to be able to investigate and prosecute criminal cases and to obtain what is reportedly the highest felony conviction rate that her office has as opposed to other counties.
I have an experience as a criminal defense attorney that DiFiore's office, in the absence of physical evidence, and faced with the prospect of a private attorney coming into the case, came into collusion with the public defender to quickly extract a waiver of grand jury proceedings and proceed on a felony superior court information against a young criminal defendant.
DiFiore's office later had to reduce the felony charges to a misdemeanor and then reduce them further to a violation.
Also, I am the witness how DiFiore's ADAs, in collusion with judges (I saw that happenig with two judges), extract coerced self-incrimination from criminal defendants (including in felony cases) under the threat of violation of a court order. If that is how DiFiore maintains her high felony conviction rate, she should go tend her grandchildren and turn in her law license instead of be elevated to the position of a Chief judge of the State of New York.
Yet, with police criminals DiFiore is as lenient as with other goverment criminals. She knows that in New York (and federal) government, not doing your job and engaging in corruption for the benefit of those in power pay off. Big time. Look at her nomination.
In return for DiFiore's favors in not properly investigating and prosecuting police shootings, the police did not investigate Ms. DiFiore and her husband, an attorney, for defrauding the federal and state government in employing a nanny since 1996, while Mr. Glazer stated in an affidavit that he employed the nanny only since 2009, and the nanny/maid herself claimed in 2009 she was disabled, and social services, while initially one honest social worker started an investigation of DiFiore that could have political implications to Cuomo (because he appointed DiFiore as the Chairman of the Commission on Public Ethics), no independent out-of-the county investigator was appointed, and, of course, the investigation died, and the investigator who commenced the investigation, Ms. Dhyalma Vazquez, is no longer listed as working for the Westchester County DSS.
There were reports that Westchester County DSS was "discussing employment status" of Ms. Vazquez at the time she commenced the investigation against DiFiore, her husband and their maid/nanny, and there appears to be an audio tape where the Westchester County DSS reportedly discusses intimidation of Ms. Vazquez.
There is also a report that DiFiore sent her own investigator to investigate on Ms. Vazquez who scared the human resources personnel in the Westchester County DSS office:
“She sent somebody. They had a guy who came in to speak to the lady in human resources,” he said. “It was some D.A. investigator. I don’t know who the guy was. He would know. Phil Gille would know";
" “she sent somebody over to the human resources office to find out, you know, what was going on with (Vazquez’s) position.” He added that the person sent over “scared the (expletive) out of the personnel officer.”
That is interference with official investigation against herself and tampering with witnesses, RIGHT THERE. THIS IS the person who New York wants to put as its CHIEF JUDGE? A criminal who is saved from conviction and disbarment only through her powerful connections?
DiFiore's maid in question, by the way, became a legal resident only in 2007, while she has been workin for DiFiores reportedly since 1980, which means that DiFiore and her attorney husband employed an illegal immigrant (obviously, to pay her less), she was reportedly a live-in nanny for DiFiore and Glazer most of that time. Glazer lied under oath that he only employed the nanny/maid since 2009 - and should be prosecuted for perjury, but who will prosecute him, his wife?
The probe included questions whether DiFiore and Glazer paid Buchanan off the books while she claims government benefits - a fraud upon the government which, if proven, could have resulted in criminal prosecution and disbarment of both Janet DiFiore and her attorney husban Glazer.
DiFiore's daughter, New York county prosecutor Alexandria D Glazer (DiFiore officiated at her daughter's wedding - I wonder what authority a DA had to officiate a wedding?), and her two other children, Michael and Joseph, as well as schoolmates, school teachers, childhood friends and their parents, and neighbors of DiFiore and Glazer can be called to testify as to at what age did their children first got the nanny Buchannan, because this information is important to verify whether NYS Senate is putting a long-time criminal in the position of utmost power by elevating her to the position of Chief Judge of the NYS Court of Appeals.
By the way, consider the connections acquired by DiFiore through her daughter's marriage - the groom's mother is a "regional solicitor in the federal Department of Labor in Philadelphia", and the groom's father is a partner in - guess what - New Jersey # 1 lobbying law firm Gibbons P.C. who also works in Philadelphia (see the wedding article interlinked above).
Gibbons P.C. boasts of its heavy involvement in federal lobbying:
"Our Government Affairs Department is one of just a handful of New Jersey lobbying practices with a regular presence on Capitol Hill. Interacting regularly with members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation and their senior staffs, our lawyer-lobbyists have extensive knowledge of the committee and subcommittee structure in Congress, as well as the procedures governing the annual budget and appropriations processes.
We possess longstanding relationships in Washington and help clients in a hands-on fashion to not only navigate the federal legislative landscape but have their voices heard."
So, protection for DiFiore from a federal investigation was also ensured on the highest "professional" level, from her daughter's mother who works for the federal government and from her daughter's father-in-law with "longstanding relationships in Washington" who can "have her voice heard" in a "hands on fashion".
Of course, they would not have wanted the granny of their grandchild to go to prison.
I wonder if they instead steered some anonymous donors toward Governor Cuomo's "Committee to Save New York" lobbying firm, and DiFiore, as Chair of that Committee, helped keep those anonymous donations anonymous...
So, there is A LOT of physical evidence for the NYS Senate to consider as to fitness, or rather, unfitness, of Janet DiFiore for the position of Chief Judge of New York court system, and a lot of witnesses can be called to testify AGAINST Janet DiFiore's confirmation.
Yet, according to the e-mail to me of Jessica Cherry, attorney for NYS Senator Bonacic, Chair of New York Senate Judiciary Committee, the NYS Senate is currently going to consider at DiFiore's confirmation hearing only the brown-nosing testimony of two bar associations, two - what a coincidence! - lobbying non-profits with foreign capital.
What can I say.
The skills of Janet DiFiore are impressive.
They qualify her - let me see:
1) for impeachment,
2) for disbarment;
2) for incarceration for state and federal crimes committed over the years - and, likely, that incarceration for all shenanigans described in his blog alone can be for Janet DiFiore's remaining lifetime.
She is instrumental in:
1) not prosecuting police shootings;
2) intimidating investigators of her own and her husband's criminal conduct;
3) corrupt cover-up of anonymous donors to Governor Cuomo's lobbying firm.
She was already generously rewarded for her efforts by:
1) having state and federal investigations into her misconduct thwarted;
2) having the investigator of her misconduct removed from her position;
3) having her husband appointing as a fox to guard the chicken coop, with endless bribing opportunities from the gaming industry whose anonymous donations to Cuomo's lobbying firm DiFiore helped save from public scrutiny as Chair of the Commission for Public Ethics; and, to crown it all,
4) being nominated by Cuomo for the position of Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals before that seat got vacated by the previous occupant - and while Cuomo engaged in energetic efforts to prevent that previous occupant, Lippman, from prolonging his stay in that seat
When you read that New York has the highest taxes and is the No. 2 state that residents run from to other states (the No. 1 state is New Jersey where DiFiore's daughter's father-in-law is a partner in the main lobbying law firm) - do not be surprised as to the reasons.
DiFiore's story, and many others, told and untold, are the reason.
Think about it, New Yorkers said "no" to the prospect of prolonging retirement age of one corrupt Chief Judge judge, Jonathan Lippman, so that Cuomo could fulfill his promise of a favor-for-a-favor to a worse criminal.
New Yorkers are already voting with their feet, disgusted with rampant corruption in the state that undermines their prospects good employment, fair taxes, honest law enforcement and the riule of law enforced by courts.
NYS Senate still has time to save its reputation of a corrupt organization, which was much supported by the criminal federal convictions of the heads of both of its chambers, longtime Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, and longtime Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos, in November and December of 2015, and of its Senators Libous and Sampson earlier in 2015.
By the way, Senator Sampson was the former Chair of the NYS Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. It is under his "guidance" that New York was saddled with Jonathan Lippman. Sampson was convicted in July 2015.
I wonder if Senator Bonacic, the current Chairman of NYS Senate's Judiciary Committee who is about to hear the brown-nosing testimony of only two witnesses he invited - from lobbying bar associatons (while refusing to hear testimony against confirmation of DiFiore from witnesses of her misconduct) - if Senator Bonacic realizes that he may very well appear to be quite like Sampson, in all respects, if he saddles New York with DiFiore.
NYS Senate can still disaffirm Cuomo's corrupt nomination of a criminal and block that criminal from presiding over courts of law, pretending to dispense justice while doing what she has been doing all along before - ensuring favors for herself and those in power, in return for favors to herself and to her family and friends, and selling the law to the highest bidder.
I wonder if NYS Senate has the spunk and integrity to vote DiFiore down.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Attorney-Senator Bonacic builds his own business with confirmation of DiFiore. Can Preet Bharara handle them all?
Here is the response that I received yesterday from Jessica Cherry, the contact responsible for invitations of witnesses to the confirmation hearing of Janet DiFiore, Governor Cuomo's nominee to the position of New York State Chief Judge.
The claim is that invitations to testify at the hearing that is to decide the important question for all New Yorkers - whether the nominee for the Chief Judge of the court system is to be confirmed to the position, whether she is fit for the job - those invitations were given only to two witnesses.
Both witnessess are representatives of bar associations whose business depend on endorsement of judges (while judges regulate their livelihoods).
Both bar associations endorse DiFiore.
Both witnesses who wanted to publicly oppose DiFiore at confirmation hearing, Elena Sassower from the Center of Judicial Accountability and myself, were rejected by Jessica Cherry.
Ms. Cherry claims that, even though the rating by the bar associations of Court of Appeals nominees was published, the scarce time to testify, which was denied to members of general public, witnesses of misconduct of DiFiore's office (and given her many years as a District Attorney, and the way she handles her business, as I learnt in just one case, representing a client as a criminal defense attorney, there must be many victims of her misconduct seeking to testify against her confirmation), will be dedicated to discussions of how ratings of judicial nominees by bar associations occur.
There are several questions in that regard:
1) why should the public confirmation hearing on such an important issue be so short, only one hour?
2) why cannot additional time be added to accommodate testimony of everybody who wants to orally testify?
After all, issues of fitness and potential misconduct of a candidate head the entire court system should be important enough to make her confirmation hearing more than a mere formality with theatricals of endorsements by those who stand to get business before DiFiore once she is confirmed based on such endorsements?
3) why only supporters of confirmation are invited and opponents of confirmation are blocked?
4) why only bar associations are invited?
5) why the policy of invitations could not be reversed - NYSBA's ranking policies to be submitted in writing and opponents with actual evidence of DiFiore's misconduct invited to testify in a live-streamed confirmation hearing?
6) why there can be only two supporting witnesses in an hour-long confirmation hearing?
It appears that attorney and officer of the court (and legislator, which is incompatible) Senator Bonacic has a policy to invite only attorneys who would endorse attorneys for the position that will regulate attorneys' business, which is Senator Bonacic's business, too.
I wonder how much Senator Bonacic and other members of the Committee for the Judiciary are paid, in money, in kind and in promises to them and their friends and family members, in exchange for such a policy.
My position on this subject though remains that if the Senate extended invitations to testify only to supporters of Janet DiFiore, its decision is pre-judged and will be void when made, and especially that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate is headed by a licensed attorney and when 11 out of 23 members of that Committee are licensed attorneys.
After NY Senator Bonacic opponents to confirmation of DiFiore opportunity to testify, and allowed only bar associations who endorsed DiFiore, to testify, I seriously doubt the validity of the resulting confirmation of Janet DiFiore for the position of NYS Chief Judge, which is clearly pre-judged without any opportunity for a proper public hearing.
I wonder what will the Federal Trade Commission say to attorney-Senator Bonacic' witness policy for confirmation of judges - regulators of the market of legal services.
The claim is that invitations to testify at the hearing that is to decide the important question for all New Yorkers - whether the nominee for the Chief Judge of the court system is to be confirmed to the position, whether she is fit for the job - those invitations were given only to two witnesses.
Both witnessess are representatives of bar associations whose business depend on endorsement of judges (while judges regulate their livelihoods).
Both bar associations endorse DiFiore.
Both witnesses who wanted to publicly oppose DiFiore at confirmation hearing, Elena Sassower from the Center of Judicial Accountability and myself, were rejected by Jessica Cherry.
Ms. Cherry claims that, even though the rating by the bar associations of Court of Appeals nominees was published, the scarce time to testify, which was denied to members of general public, witnesses of misconduct of DiFiore's office (and given her many years as a District Attorney, and the way she handles her business, as I learnt in just one case, representing a client as a criminal defense attorney, there must be many victims of her misconduct seeking to testify against her confirmation), will be dedicated to discussions of how ratings of judicial nominees by bar associations occur.
There are several questions in that regard:
1) why should the public confirmation hearing on such an important issue be so short, only one hour?
2) why cannot additional time be added to accommodate testimony of everybody who wants to orally testify?
After all, issues of fitness and potential misconduct of a candidate head the entire court system should be important enough to make her confirmation hearing more than a mere formality with theatricals of endorsements by those who stand to get business before DiFiore once she is confirmed based on such endorsements?
3) why only supporters of confirmation are invited and opponents of confirmation are blocked?
4) why only bar associations are invited?
5) why the policy of invitations could not be reversed - NYSBA's ranking policies to be submitted in writing and opponents with actual evidence of DiFiore's misconduct invited to testify in a live-streamed confirmation hearing?
6) why there can be only two supporting witnesses in an hour-long confirmation hearing?
It appears that attorney and officer of the court (and legislator, which is incompatible) Senator Bonacic has a policy to invite only attorneys who would endorse attorneys for the position that will regulate attorneys' business, which is Senator Bonacic's business, too.
I wonder how much Senator Bonacic and other members of the Committee for the Judiciary are paid, in money, in kind and in promises to them and their friends and family members, in exchange for such a policy.
My position on this subject though remains that if the Senate extended invitations to testify only to supporters of Janet DiFiore, its decision is pre-judged and will be void when made, and especially that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate is headed by a licensed attorney and when 11 out of 23 members of that Committee are licensed attorneys.
After NY Senator Bonacic opponents to confirmation of DiFiore opportunity to testify, and allowed only bar associations who endorsed DiFiore, to testify, I seriously doubt the validity of the resulting confirmation of Janet DiFiore for the position of NYS Chief Judge, which is clearly pre-judged without any opportunity for a proper public hearing.
I wonder what will the Federal Trade Commission say to attorney-Senator Bonacic' witness policy for confirmation of judges - regulators of the market of legal services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)