Do unreasonable laws lead to revolutions?

"I'd like to see a sunset... Do me a favor your majesty... Command the sun to set." 
"If I commanded a general to fly from one flower to the next like a butterfly, or to write a tragedy, or to turn into a seagull, and if the general did not carry out my command, which of us would be in the wrong, the general or me?"
"You would be," said the little prince quite firmly.
"Exactly. One must command from each what each can perform," the king went on. "Authority is based first of all upon reason. If you command your subjects to jump in the ocean, there will be a revolution. I am entitled to command obedience because my orders are reasonable."
"Then my sunset?" insisted the little prince, who never let go of a question once he had asked it.
"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But I shall wait, according to my science of government, until conditions are favorable."
"And when will that be?" inquired the little prince.
"Well, well!" replied the king, first consulting a large calendar. "Well, well! That would be around... around... that would be tonight around seven-forty! And you'll see how well I'm obeyed." 

I didn't say that...  Somebody else did.

200 feet and one inch from the courthouse

New York Penal Law 215.50(7) provides for criminal prosecution and incarceration for up to 1 year in jail for the following conduct:

"A  person  is guilty of criminal contempt in 

the second degree when he engages in any 

of the following conduct:

On or along a public street or sidewalk  within 

a  radius  of  two hundred  feet  of  any  building 

established  as a courthouse, he calls
aloud, shouts, holds or displays placards or signs 

containing written or printed matter, concerning 

the conduct of a trial  being  held  in  such
courthouse  or  the character of the court or 

jury engaged in such trial or calling for or 

demanding any specified  action  or  determination 

by such court or jury in connection with such trial."

If you are a woman or identify as such,

you can, of course, argue that, since criminal 

laws must be strictly construed, and this statute

says applies only to "he"-persons, by its 

clear text. 

We can shout all we want that specific judges

are crooks for specific reasons and demand

courts to provide a specific result - charge 

judges who are crooks criminally and jail them.

Right?

Or, we can carefully measure 200 feet and 1 inch 

away from the courthouse, have our location

documented by videotaping and follow the list of

prohibited conduct to our heart's desire.

Right? 

Of course, the bravest of us can stand right

in front of the courthouse with slogans 

criticizing a judge and then sue the suckers who

attempt to arrest and prosecute them based

on a statute that clearly violates our 

1st Amendment right of self-expression and

political criticism.

I also wonder - why 200 feet?  Why not 100?  Not 300?

Nor a kilometer?  You know, those sound waves

can carry over a megaphone quite well.

And - why having a Nazi parade in front of Holocaust 

survivors not a problem while criticizing courts

is?

Why burning a cross on the lawn in front of

the house of African Americans not a problem while

criticizing courts is?

Why saying nasty things in front of grieving

relatives and friends at the funeral

of a fallen soldier not a problem 

while criticizing courts is?

I guess, I seek logic while, while it is wrong

to do so.  After all, I was already punished

for seeking it, in writing, in pleadings.

When will I learn?  

So, instead of seeking any logic in brazenly

unconstitutional statutes protecting

corrupt judiciary from criticism - you step

200 feet and one inch from the courthouse,

take a megaphone in hand, put a giant sign
"LOCK UP CORRUPT JUDGE DOE" or such like - and

you are good to go. 

Especially if you are a woman, remember, 

this is a "he" statute.  

And you know what is also GOOD about this statute?

It shows that the bastards in that courthouse are 

afraid of exposure.

So exposure is what they should be getting. 

New York allows to criminally prosecute parties and attorneys for objections criticising the court

I already wrote on this blog that my law license was suspended for 2 years for making motions to recuse on behalf of my clients required by the circumstances and my duty to my clients as an attorney.

Of course, such a suspension is a violation of my 1st and 14th Amendment rights, guaranteed to me as an attorney by federal and New York law, and allowing me to do my duty to my clients unimpaired by fear of repercussions or actual repercussions, especially punishments as severe as loss of my livelihood.

Yet, it could have been worse than that for me in New York's
lawless courts.

Had I made those same arguments that I made in written motions to recuse (without hearings that the challenged judge denied me) in the physical presence of that judge, during a hearing, I could have been locked up for a year, and be slapped with a criminal record.

Penal Law 215.50(1) provides: 

 "A  person  is guilty of criminal contempt in 

  the second degree when he
  engages in any of the following conduct:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent  behavior, 

   committed  during the  sitting of a court, 

   in its immediate view and presence and directly
  tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair 

  the respect due to its authority".

Talking about vague statutes violating 1st Amendment.

The government does not have an inherent right to 

"respect to its authority", respect has to be earned.

Attorneys and parties have a right to impartial judicial

review guaranteed to them by the Due Process Clause 

of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

To enforce that right, attorneys and parties must 

have a right to be able to challenge judicial 

misconduct or appearance of impropriety without 

the fear of punishment for that.

Such rights of human rights defenders are also 

guaranteed by a Treaty that the U.S. is part of, 

the International Convention for Civil and Political 

Rights, which is made part of the U.S. Constitution 

through its Supremacy Clause, Article IV, Section 2.

A definition of contempt as "contemptuous" behavior

is a tautology and no definition at all.

It is also clear that what is "disorderly", "contemptous"

and "insolent" behavior is not clearly defined and

is subject to subjective interpretation by cranky

judges, objects of criticism.

It is also clear that this criminal statute allows a

judge to lock up for a year a pro se party or 

an attorney who dared to criticize the judge, and thus

"impair respect due" to the judge's authority.

So, I guess that "only" having my law license stripped

for criticism of a corrupt judge, under the 

circumstances, is a gift.

I could be locked up away from you, my dear readers, for 

a year.

Small blessings, so they say?

Imagine Judge Becker forgetting himself so much as 

to give me my requested hearing on the motions to recuse!

The horror!

That right could have turned into my demise, based

on the same arguments I made in my motion to recuse

in writing.

So, when you are asking for a motion hearing on a 

motion to recuse in New York, ladies and gentlemen, 

think first whether you are asking for a year

in jail for yourself.

And, don't be surprised when your attorney, retained

or assigned, refuses to make oral motions to recuse

a judge involved in an appearance of impropriety or

misconduct, "during the  sitting of a court,  

in its immediate view and presence".

Your attorney may very simply value his or her

freedom too much to sacrifice it for you.

Penal Law 215.50(1) made sure of that. 

New York criminally prosecutes both "knowingly publishing a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court's proceeding" and creating an accurate record of those same proceedings by videotaping

New York Penal Law 215.50(5), an A misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail, provides:

"A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree when he engages in any of the following conduct:

...

5.  Knowingly publishing a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court's proceedings".

On the one hand, the hope is for the jury to see that the report of a proceeding is accurate.

On the other hand, this statute criminalizes journalism, specifically, court monitoring and coverage of court proceedings based on witness impressions, because it is an entirely subjective call that can brand a witness's impression, in the absence of a video of that court proceeding, as "grossly inaccurate" or "false".

And, punishing for "gross inaccuracy" in witness recollection is just that - punishing for faulty memory.  Criminally punishing.  By jail time.

And be assured that the punishment will be visited only upon those who criticize what the court did, not upon court personnel who actually cook court transcripts.

The extremely interesting thing is that, at the same time as criminalizing "grossly inaccurate" witness reports about a court proceeding, courts routinely cook court transcripts (I have proof of it, and was charged with criminal contempt, later dismissed, for exposing that misconduct), New York also criminalizing creation of ACCURATE record of court proceedings, Civil Rights Law 52, making videotaping in court also a Class A misdemeanor, similarly punishable by 1 year in jail.

So, you may be punished with a 1-year jail sentence in New York both for your witness account reflecting, in the court's view "a grossly inaccurate report" about what happened in the court proceedings, and for creating a very accurate review of what happened in that proceeding through videotaping those proceeding.

By the way, when I, as a civil rights attorney, challenged constitutionality of Civil Rights Law 52 in federal court on behalf of my husband, both my husband and I were slapped with $6,995 in sanctions.

Even though Civil Rights Law 52, especially in view of existence of Penal Law 215.50(5), is screamingly unconstitutional.

After all, punishing a person for creating a truthful record of open court proceedings makes no sense.

Right?

Attorney for the New York State Gaming Commission #KentDVanderwall was charged with a felony DWI

The Gaming Commission, I will remind my readers, is the Commission where Governor Cuomo gifted his buddy and likely partner in crime Janet DiFiore's husband Dennis Glazer a seat after DiFiore provided an invaluable favor to Cuomo as the head of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

An attorney of this venerable institution connected with NYS Governor and NYS Chief Judge,  Kent D. Vanderwall, was just charged with a felony DWI after he was reportedly found drunk and with open alcoholic beverages next to him in a van parked against the steps of a daycare center, drunk, with the car still running and in drive.

Here is the "hero":

The police found him after he was reportedly driving erratically from Schenectady to Scotia.

It is sheer luck that he did not kill anybody, including children.

Kent D. Vanderwall was reportedly could not complete field sobriety tests, refused a breathalyzer test, thus forfeiting his driver's license, and fought the police when taken to the police station.

Vanderwall was charged with a felony DWI because he had 2 prior DWI convictions.

I do not believe this is the whole story.

I represented people charged with DWI for years, and know that it is usual to offer a reduction to a violation to first-time offenders where there is no injury to people or damage to property.

Moreover, prosecutors bend over backwards to offer any kind of breaks to attorneys, and especially to attorneys working for the State of New York.

If Vanderwall was actually convicted for misdemeanor DWIs before, there must have been something aggravating, and those DWI conviction may have been preceded by more DWI charges reduced to DAI (driving while ability impaired) violations and thus sealed.

I will follow this case and see whether the State of New York will prosecute its own attorney and whether the State of New York will discipline its own attorney for jeopardizing people's lives by driving drunk.  

Former Albany assistant public defender Shauna Collins charged with aggravated DWI

A recently resigned former Albany assistant public defender,  #ShaunaCollins, who is also reportedly the executive director of "Lark Street Business Improvement District", was recently arrested and charged for aggravated DWI.

She was reportedly found asleep at the wheel in her Volvo SUV on the side of Western Avenue with 0.28 BAC level (3.5 times the permissible alcohol blood level in New York is 0.08).

The question is - is this a freak one-time moment, or did she ever represent indigent clients as a public defender while being drunk?

Is there a right to defy an unlawful court order in the U.S.?

Apple is reportedly defying a court order of a federal magistrate to create a backdoor for its iPhone for the FBI to use to spy on users of iPhone, including American citizens.

Apple reportedly indicated to the court that (1) such a backdoor does not exist at this time, (2) may not be technologically possible, and (3) while Apple has "cooperated" with FBI in the past (I wonder, how), for the government to require Apple to actually create a breach in privacy and security of their devices is going too far.

Apple is right, of course.

Not only it is a privacy problem as against the government, but, once such a backdoor is created, anybody with an iPhone will be open to breaches not only by the government, but by private hackers and to identity theft, exposing Apple to massive liability and loss of customers.

As good as iPhones are, they are not the only ones in the market, and people can always "vote with their feet" and refuse to buy iPhones if Apple complies with this court order.

I wonder how did it happen that a magistrate judge - who was never appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate - is now making decisions of such overwhelming importance for every one of owners of iPhones, in the U.S. and around the world.

I also wonder whether Apple and its executives will be held in contempt of court and otherwise sanctions for defying an obviously unlawful court order.

Because, in this country judges are treated as deities and anything that comes out of their dainty mouths is considered as mandatory law.  Even if what comes out of their dainty mouths is screamingly unlawful and unconstitutional.

We will see whether Apple will be punished for civil disobedience, or whether it will be allowed to set up a precedent of civil disobedience to an unlawful court order.