When a judge decides his own motion to recuse, a party's shooting heroin with the judge's brother is not a basis for recusal

Here is federal Judge John Adams.

In February of 2015, the mayor of the City of Akron, Ohio, accused the judge in an open interview to the press, of displaying his long-standing bias against the city during a trial - and thus affecting the jury:

"Attorneys described your demeanor as “searing judicial temperament against the City.” You continuously used inflections in your voice and negative facial expressions to portray to the jury your obvious disdain for the City as we defended against the Plaintiffs’ unwarranted claims."

Then, in November of 2015, Judge Adams refused to recuse from yet another case where he was supposed to:  a criminal case where the criminal defendant told the judge that he must testify at a criminal theft case involving his girlfriend and the judge's own nephew, and that the criminal defendant in question was using heroin with the judge's brother, sometimes in the presence of his minor son, the judge's nephew, for the period of 14 months.

Here is the judge's order refusing recusal.

Here is the defendant's writ of mandamus.

After the writ of mandamus was filed, Judge Adams agreed to impose a stay on the proceedings in this court until the writ was decided, but held the defendant in pre-trial detention for several months.

When the time of pre-trial detention was about the same as the time that the defendant would have served if convicted by the guidelines, the defense counsel asked Judge Adams to turn the case over for a bond hearing.

Judge Adams immediately retaliated by removing the stay from the proceedings and scheduling a trial, over objection of defense counsel, and while the petition for mandamus was pending.

The defense counsel was forced to file with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit a motion to speed up resolution of the writ of mandamus and to force Judge Adams' recusal.

The motion was filed on May 3, 2016.

It was nearly instantly decided and granted by the 6th Circuit.

The 6th Circuit removed Judge Adams from the case on May 9, 2016.

But, the damage was already done.

The defendant already spent time in pre-trial detention - which may not have happened had another judge presided over the case.

The defendant had to go through the stress and uncertainty of the writ of mandamus and expecting to be tried by an obviously biased judge with a personal, familial, interest in the outcome of the case.

The judge's claims that he did not see his nephew for a long time and that he was "estranged" from his brother really do not mean much when there is a mandate to recuse where close relatives of a judge are involved.

But, the case clearly shows how far the grounds for the so-called "duty to sit" and to "prevent judge-shopping" for parties can be stretched.

Judge Adams assumed the position of the "reasonable objective observer" and observed himself, as having no appearance of impropriety in presiding over the case of defendant who was using drugs with the judge's brother in the presence of the judge's nephew and who was supposed to testify, possibly against the judge's nephew, in an unrelated criminal trial.

And, of course, there will be no discipline upon the judge other than removal from the case.

And that is the whole problem - the judge will not learn his lesson and he will continue to do the same thing, and more, and worse.

The judge is young (for a U.S. judge - they "serve" well into the 90s), born in 1955, so he is "just" 61 now.

I am afraid this is not the last we have heard about this judge's misconduct.

I will follow this judge's future conduct and report it on the blog.

Stay tuned.

Time for robot judges?

According to New York Judiciary Law 90(2)(b), this conduct is prohibited to suspended or disbarred attorneys:

"The giving to another of an opinion as to the law or its application, or of any advice in relation thereto." So, the above behavior, in the eyes of the law, is unauthorized practice of law. Let's consider if a person does something like this:

• understand your questions, 

• respond with a hypothesis backed by references and citation.

In other words, a person asks a question about the law or its application, and the other person understands the question and answers it, with a "hypothesis" (possible solution) supported by research as to how to apply it based on existing law, with references and applications.

So, it is the practice of law, right?

What if the answering person is a robot?

And that robot does the very same thing as I described above?

And, if the valuable "judgment of a lawyer" can be assigned to a machine, what is the whole big thing about licensing?

If people can just ask a machine that is crammed with artificial intelligence to search the world-wide-web and come up with references of the law in a certain jurisdiction and solutions of any legal question.

And why do we need human judges then, with their inflated and ever growing salaries, benefits, entitlements and an entourage of families and friends who they serve - if machines can be better, quicker, fairer, cannot lose temper with you and cannot be corrupted?

For example, robot Ross, if put on the bench, will certainly not seek to spank young male nude criminal defendants and take their nude pictures for later enjoyment.

Or be biased.

Or be sexist, racist, or engage in any other kind of discrimination.

It will be programmed to apply "equality under the law" literally - without regard to status, rank, connection or wealth.

Right?

And, there will be no civil rights violations if Robot Judge Ross (or his clone) would apply the law as it is written, not bend it to the whims of those who greased his iron hand better.

What a wonderful world that would be...

The Delaware County, NY - the land of Jokers. The Tiska joke

Delaware County, New York, is the land of - well, jokers.

How else can one perceive what is going on in the case of People v Theodore Tiska?

Tiska is the former Sheriff's Deputy in Delaware County currently charged with attempted murder in Delaware County and prosecuted by people who knew him and, possibly, who have grudges against him.

Surely, as a matter of fairness, he should be investigated and held in jail not by his former employer.

Tiska's salary stops, as shown on seethroughny.net, stops in 2012, when he retired or resigned from Delaware County.

Tiska retired from Delaware County Sheriff's Department on August 17, 2012:

After Tiska retired - or forced to retire - things started to happen to him.

He was convicted for "criminal mischief" in 2014.

Now he is charged with attempted murder and is "about to lose his home".

And, the joker County has now placed Tiska into the jail where he previously worked - the County does realize it is a safety concern for Tiska and a lawsuit concern for the County taxpayers, but, the County decided they will "save money" that way.

While funneling money into different pet projects of local county officials - like Delaware Opportunities, Inc. or the recently ditched DS&S (ditched only because the patron county official former Social Services Commission William Moon was booted).

And the biggest joke is the "process" in the criminal proceedings.

John Hubbard, who knows Tiska personally, prosecutes him.

Judge Northrup, John Hubbard's former boss who never disclosed when he was himself the District Attorney that his Chief ADA John Hubbard was a law partner of Judge Northrup's predecessor County Judge Becker, and who also knows Tiska personally, presides.

And assigned attorney Andrew Puritz - who immediately signed a consent (waiver of 5th Amendment right to remain silent, yes, they say they won't use it in a trial if the plea negotiations fall through, but who is going to believe them?) for a pre-plea investigation - in an attempted murder case!

Investigation to be conducted by Tiska's prior (possibly, disgruntled) employer.

As I said, jokers abound in Delaware County.

DS&S elimination in Delaware County

No, don't hope that it is a DSS elimination - not yet.

Delaware County (NY) DSS Commissioner proudly announced recently the DS&S elimination - elimination of services of a tumor proprietary company of the former Commissioner, William Moon, that was "contracted" by DSS at the tune of nearly $200,000 a year to do clerical stuff and cleaning, while the same duties were available through employees in direct employment of the County.

The article does not raise the question that what Moon was doing was abuse of his office, personal enrichment, and was criminal.

I wonder what the feds will say about that.

It is also interesting that these issues about "DS&S" arise only after Moon was booted - and Spinney, and Becker, the entire trio.

And, since such issues arise only after a high-ranking public official is booted, the question arises - what other "DS&S"es are lurking out there sucking taxpayer money in a poor county?

Uncontrolled judicial misconduct: Judge Real, on the footsteps of Judges Free and Best

I wrote on this blog earlier about misconduct of judges Free and Best.  

Now comes another judge with a telling name involved in gross, systematic misconduct for decades - Judge Real.  Judge Manuel T. Real of the U.S. District Court for the District of California, to be exact.  Date of birth January 27, 1924.  Yes, Judge Real is 92 years of age.

What Judge Real was doing during his judicial career was absolutely unreal, what is also unreal is the fact that he is still allowed to be on the bench, and not behind bars.

In August of 2016, there was a blog indicating that Judge Manuel T. Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, at the age of 92, is "still abusing his power" - listing such "achievements" by the judge as:

1) interfering with defense's cross-examination in a criminal case, for which he was reversed, and conviction vacated;
2) being removed from cases by the appellate court at least 11 times for lack of objectivity - and that is, as of 2009, he was removed from a case at least one other time, yesterday;
3) having a reversal rate of 10 times "the average" for a federal judge, having been reversed completely 87 times plus 47 partial reversals - as of August 2016, and plus at least one more reversal yesterday;
4) having gone through an impeachment inquiry in the U.S. Conduct in 2006 for misconduct.

In 2015, according to calculations of Reuters reporter Alison Frankel, the then-91-year-old Judge Real was reversed 12 times out of 32 appeals, a rate of reversal of 37.5%, more than 1/3.

Since many cases do not get appealed for various reasons, not the least one of them being lack of funds for a filing fee and/or lawyer, nobody knows how many more cases Judge Real botched up that never came before the appellate court.

The question asked by a defense attorney Victor Sherman who was reportedly hounded by Judge Real for 40 years was whether it was in public interest "for Judge Real to preside over cases only to be reversed so often on appeal" and that it is a waste of public money.

Yet, justice, or lack thereof, does not measure in money only, and this is a judge presiding in a court handling death penalty cases, as well as civil rights cases.

To allow a judge on the bench who lacks competence, integrity and elementary civility because he is unreachable by discipline through immunity, because the Judicial Disability Act does not apply to misconduct during court proceedings, and because the U.S. Congress finally decided that all of the above did not rise to misconduct of "constitutional proportions" is despicable.

Now, Judge Real was removed from yet another case, the one he was stalling, to the detriment of plaintiffs, for 8 years.

Unreal.

The epic in-fight regarding bar prep education, complete with an embattled 92-year-old federal judge messing up with the "wrong" class action, and now removed from it

In 2008, a group of law students filed a lawsuit against West Publishing Corporation bar prep course BarBri claiming that BarBri monopolized the market of bar preparation, squashed competition and that, as a result, consumers (law graduates) preparing for the bar examination are deprived of bar-prep services of a higher quality at a competitive price.

You can see the entire complaint here.

It is 58 pages, and I encourage you to read it.

It alleges, in detail, how BarBri monopolized the market of bar preparation using:

• intimidation;
• unlawful market sharing agreements;
• unlawful price-fixing agreements;
• buying up copyright and then suppressing superior preparation materials, 
• buying up businesses of alternative bar prep courses,
• offering alternative bar-prep businesses lucrative "consulting" contracts as an incentive to oust them from the bar-prep market;
• attempting to destroy credibility of professionals supporting other courses;
• engaging law school professors to post mandatory law school assignments on the Westlaw pages, so that students would not avoid being bombarded by BarBri advertisements etc.

The complaint described one or more of the above tactics in describing interaction of BarBri with the following competitors in the bar prep market: 

1. BRC;
2. Becker;
3. PMBR;
4. Marino;
5. Pieper (New York);
6. West Bar Review;
7. Kaplan;
8. Louisiana;
9. Supreme Bar Review (Ohio);
10. DeVry;
11. Rigos;
12. Bar Secrets;
13. LexisNexis

Moreover, the complaint alleged that BarBri imposes anti-competitive conditions on its "faculty and staff"

And, remember, while teaching law school, "some" professor post their assignments on BarBri owner's website (Westlaw), so that law students must read those assignments on Westlaw and cannot avoid being bombarded with BarBri advertisements.

At this time, the following "award-winning" faculty members are advertised on BarBri's website (I will analyze the conflicts of interest of these professors in a separate blog).

The U.S. district judge Manuel T. Real (date of birth January 27, 1924) presided over the federal class action.  

In that action, Judge Real, who was 84 years of age at the beginning of litigation and 92 years old now:

1) dismissed the complaint in 2008 - in a 2-page decision without an opinion, explanation or reasoning;
2) disapproved the settlement in 2011 after the appellate court directed it and denied all attorney fees to Plaintiffs;
3) denied reconsideration of that disapproval and denial of fees, 

and then approved the settlement, but cut Plaintiffs' attorney fees from $1.9 mln to $585,000 - and the costs of such a class action, including investigation must have been enormous.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit made an epic decision not only reversing Judge Real, but directing the district court to reassign the case, after 8 years of litigation, to another judge, pointing out that Judge Real cannot rule fairly in that case.

Judge Real is on the federal bench since 1966 - for 40 years, he actually served as a Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of California from 1982 to 1993, for 11 years.

In 2006, Judge Real was subject to impeachment investigation as to how he handled a bankruptcy case, which was later dropped, Judge Real remained on the bench, and was given, possibly, a job to stall an antitrust class lawsuit of adamant law students against the omnipowerful bar-prep monopolist - a job he carried out superbly for 8 years.

The 9th Circuit apparently had to end this national embarrassment of a "court proceeding" by requiring reassignment of another judge to this case.

The 9th Circuit's decision is epic because it finally - after 8 years of litigation - recognizes the judge's bias.

I must note that no motions to recuse were filed during these 8 years - consider how intimidated attorneys were that reassignment to another judge had to be directed, obviously sua sponte, by the 9th Circuit.

I am saying "sua sponte" (on the 9th Circuit's own motion) because, since no motion to recuse was made in the court below, such issue could not be raised on appeal.

So, this case is about 

• epic antitrust activities in preparation of law graduates to take the bar - and thus prove to consumers that they are a "safe choice" in the market of legal services;
• epic bias of the federal judge who tried to dismiss or hurt plaintiffs and their attorneys for daring to bring such a lawsuit, dragging litigation for 8 years;  and

an epic question - how can this setup where education of law students is not only not superior, but where superior prep courses are bought up and suppressed, or their authors intimidated, discredited, bought up or drive out of business - how can this setup, this education obtained from an anticompetitive country-wide cartel, be considered a guarantee BY THE GOVERNMENT to the consumers of quality and integrity of the only providers that consumers can choose for court representation?

Does it make any sense to you?

Does not make any sense to me.

As to a separate blog about professors serving BarBri, and about the impeachment proceedings against Judge Real that somehow came to nothing, allowed him to remain on the bench and engage in further  misconduct, stay tuned.

The Town of Colchester (NY) votes to get a Pagillo dog a month after the Pagillo dog was picked up from Texas. The K-9 business appears profitable in Delaware County

On April 21, 2016 I reported on this blog that, according to my source, Rich Pagillo, a police officer son of judge Yvonne Pagillo of Hobart and Watlon Village courts, has been dispatched to Texas to get a new "K-9" "unit".

I remind my readers that Delaware County, NY recently acquired an imported untrained German Shepherd pup (1 year old) by the name of Neron for $7,000 (!) and is claiming that the dog exists on donations from the public, but refuses to release records of donations on FOIL requests.

Lo and behold, the local newspaper, Walton Reporter reported on yesterday, on May 11, 2016, that the Town Colchester approved the dog for Rich Pagillo (after much debates) only now, while he reportedly picked up the dog a month ago?

Was the Town of Colchester aware that the dog was already a done deal before it went to voting?

And, same as in Delhi, NY, it was claimed by Pagillo that the dog will exist on donations only, and that Pagillo HIMSELF (a police officer!) will be running fundraisers to support the dog.

In other words, the Town of Colchester purchased a perfect excuse for drug corruption within its jurisdiction - whoever supports the dog, is free from investigation and prosecution.

So, since the Tractor Supply in Delhi, NY is now supporting TWO police dogs - from Delaware County and from the Town of Colchester, it can run drugs run through its cash system, nobody will investigate it, and the same for SUNY Delhi with vet care.  Vet care routinely involves a narcotic inventory as painkillers.  So, there will be no investigation or prosecution of improper storage of handling of drugs by the SUNY Delhi vet care unit.

The interesting part is that, at the very least, it was disclosed that the donations for the dog's care will be channeled through a non-profit.

Of course, I will FOIL the Town of Colchester for the name of the non-profit and then the non-profit for the donations and handling the donations.

It may be an interesting discovery, so - stay tuned.