A Michigan judge #LisaGorcyca is on trial for ordering three kids jailed for not wanting to see their father

A disciplinary trial has started against a Michigan family court judge Lisa Gorcyca (the last name means "mustard" in Russian, by the way).

Judge Gorcyca incarcerated three children, ages 14, 10 and 9 for defying her orders and disrespecting their father.

The only fault of the children was that they did not want to see their father after the judge ordered them to go have lunch with him because, as one of the children stated to Judge Gorcyca, he saw the father hit the mother.

Judge Gorcyca disregarded the statement and claimed the children were "brainwashed".  

Here is the video of the court proceedings that triggered the disciplinary trial.

The children spent 2 weeks in juvenile detention before the news media initially ran the story, but the "term" of incarceration, without a jury trial or proper contempt proceedings was, respectively:

• 4 years for the 14 year-old;
• 8 years for the 10-year-old; and
• 9 years for the 9-year old.

Literally.

Those kids were ordered to be held in the kiddie jail until they turn 18, or until they change their mind to have a relationship with their father.

Talking about mind control.

The kids were denied any childhood.

Denied a proper education.

Denied communication with friends or outside world.

Because they refused to go to lunch with the father who abused their mother.

Here is the smiling face of kid-jailing judge Lisa Gorcyca:

According to the news reports relying upon court transcripts of what transpired on June 24, 2016 in court, the judge was upset because, even though the judge previously ORDERED the kids "to have a healthy relationship with their father", the kids refused to see him or go to lunch with him.

Just be happy with your father, kids, will you? Even if he hit your mother in front of you.

And if you are not - the kiddie jail is the remedy for you.

Not to mention that the judge compared the children to Charles Manson and his cult.

Let's remember that custody proceedings are governed by the concept of the "best interest of the children".

Their best interests, apparently, are served by being locked up in a juvie prison for years.

The kids were reportedly separated from both parents, from each other, and their mother was not allowed to visit.

In July of 2015, after international protests and demonstrations, Judge Gorcyca, who previously denied a request to release the children, agreed to transfer them from the juvie prison - no, not back to their mother where they would at least start to heal - but to a "summer camp".

Then, in August of 2015, the judge expressed an intention to put the kids into intensive therapy for "healing" and "reunification" with their father.

Judge Gorcyca was allowed to preside over that case until December 23, 2015 when she, at the same time, denied a motion to disqualify/recuse, and disqualified "on her own" - after a disciplinary complaint was filed against her, and the disciplinary complained was, most likely, powered by international protests against lawlessness wielded by the judge against the kids.

Here is the formal complaint against Judge Gorcyca.

Judge Gorcyca apparently threatened jail time against the mother if relationship of kids with father did not improve, and made the mother to read from a pre-written script to her children, out loud, in court, that their father loves them and wants to spend his time with them.

After that did not work, and one of the boys told the judge that he apologizes to the court, but he does not want to apologize, because his father hit his mother and is violent, Judge Corcyca freaked out, held the boy in direct contempt and told him the following:

Now, how having to go to the bathroom in public served the best interests of that child and taught him to reunite with his father, is anybody's guess.

The judge clearly wanted to have the boy who "defied her direct order" "to have a healthy relationship with his father" to be humiliated for his defiance.

The judge, obviously, considered herself a mental health professional, telling the child that, because he said he does not want to communicate with his father because he abused his mother, he is "messed up", has no manners and should do research on Charlie Manson and his cult.

The judge put the keys from the child's prison into the abusive father's hands, like that:

And, the judge told the boy that the case will not be even reviewed again until he turns 18.

18 is the age of majority.

An 18 year old cannot be mandated by the court to have any communication with anybody, including his or her parents.

Nor can an 18-year-old stay in a juvenile facility.

But, the judge had to intimidate the boy by saying that, for his "bad manners", essentially, he will be locked up until further review (not release, but just review) until he is 18.

The younger, 10-year-old, boy read to Judge Gorcyca a pre-written apology.

That was not enough to save him from kiddie jail either.

The judge exercised her sadist self in full on the 9-year-old girl though.

Here is what she did with the girl:

The girl was obviously traumatized from witnessing what was done to her big brother, and was in no shape to defend herself, with the stakes of being separated from her mother and deprived of her liberty.

Did it matter to the judge?

Of course, not.  After all, the judge had the best interests of that girl in mind.  Here is how the judge made sure she took care of those best interests:

Now, how does instilling into a 9-year-old girl that a woman with authority can humiliate her in front of others, disregard her traumatized condition, put her down as stupid, mock her religion and ridicule her brother who is "defiant" and who is "living in jail" - how can that be in her best interests?

After Judge Gorcyca intimidated the two younger kids enough, she ordered them to go to lunch with their father and warned them that she will incarcerate them if "there is any hesitation at all" whether they want to do that.

The judge then hinted to the young children that she does not like their mother and asserted that she likes their father (who abused their mother):

Judge Gorcyca then repeated to the younger kids the threat she already made against their older brother - whether they want to go to the bathroom in front of other people. And added to that threat that the kids will spend their birthdays in prison.  That was supposed to be an incentive to "have a healthy relationship with the father", I understand.

When the younger boy displayed solidarity with his older brother and volunteered to go to jail with his brother rather than to bend to the judge's will, the judge punished the child for that and indicated that she will order the brothers separated:

When the little girl, despite her fear, also refused to go to lunch with the father, the judge called it ridiculous, claimed that "every single adult in the room thinks that kids are brainwashed", ordered the two kids, a 10-year-old and a 9-year-old into jail for contempt of court with no contact with the parents, and the kids were handcuffed and escorted out by the police.

Somehow, that display of intimidation was supposedly in the best interest of those children.

The judge obviously knew that what she was doing was wrong, because she later lied about it to disciplinary authorities, therefore Charge No. 2, for "misrepresentation":

Here is what the Commission found wrong in Judge Gorcyca's actions - as a preliminary matter, that's why the formal complaint was filed:

We will see what kind of discipline will be imposed upon the judge for all of that - where irrefutable proof is available that Judge Gorcyca should not be allowed anywhere near the bench or children, it is in transcripts of proceedings.

The mother made a statement when the kids were released from juvie prison that one cannot terrorize another person into loving anybody - and that is exactly true, and is especially true if one parent is abusive against the other.

Unfortunately, what judge Gorcyca was charged with - the "a to q" charges, can be filed against the majority of New York judges I appeared in front of, and I can recite about each one of them detailed descriptions fitting those charges, pertaining to specific cases.

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct is not interested - and never was.

Judge Gorcyca's case has proven what is very obvious - decisions of child custody may not be entrusted to be done unilaterally by one judge.

With time, judges deciding such cases start to consider themselves Gods who can do anything, law or no law, and their abuse of power causes irreversible traumas in adults and especially in children.

If such cases are to be tried, they need to be tried in front of juries, not judges.

Then, outcomes of custody cases will be much better, and parents will think twice before bringing the case in front of the jury, too, instead of agreeing on custody amicably.

And that is in the best interests of children.

I will continue to cover the disciplinary case of Judge Lisa Gorcyca.

Stay tuned.

Finally, a disciplinary complaint was filed against the Nevada judge Conrad Hafen who handcuffs and sends people to jail for constitutional arguments in criminal court

Only after outrage in the media and especially social media (including this blog), a group of defense attorneys finally filed a complaint against Judge Conrad Hafen who handcuffed a public defender for making a constitutional argument against incarceration of her indigent client, see my blogs on the subject here, here and here.

The complaint reportedly describes two other "contempt of court" cases, when Judge Hafen sent a woman to jail without bail for 2 weeks for an "outburst" in the court without first assigning her a counsel, and when Judge Hafen also held in contempt a pro se defendant who he refused to assign counsel and sanctioned for raising the issue of the 14th Amendment (due process) - practically, the same as in attorney Zohra Bakhtary's case.

Constitutional arguments for this judge are contempt of court.

And, even though the judge's unconstitutional contempt practices were known to the bar before attorney Zohra Bakhtary was handcuffed last week, nobody, apparently, filed complaints against the judge until now.

Which says a lot about the fear in even criminal defense attorneys about judicial retaliation.

Only when an attorney is handcuffed, there is an outrage, when "lay people" from the street are jailed without counsel or opportunity to be heard - that was not enough to file the complaint right there an then.

My interview on "Justice Served with Andy Ostrowsky" tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern Time - tune in

My readers are invited to tune into my interview tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern Time (in North America) by a radio show of Andy Ostrowski called "Justice Served" at "Twigs Cafe Radio".

Andy Ostrowski ran for Congress in 2014 and won an astounding 1/3 of votes while being a first-time candidate and not being endowed by financial support, as his opponent was.

Andy Ostrowski's election platform was judicial reform, and support of voters shows how important that issue has become in this country.

My interview will be largely on the issue of attorney licensing and how it contributes to the justice gap in this country, and why attorney licensing, designed as help offered (or, rather, imposed) by the government upon consumers of court representation services, creates an illusion of protection and hurts rather than helps.

It must be a lively discussion, it will be live-streamed, not pre-recorded, so it will be spontaneous questions and spontaneous answers.

Here is the link to the "Justice Served" radio show.

The radio show also has a call-in line, a text-in line and an e-mail-in line for questions during and after the on-air interview:

Even though the call-in line will not be open tonight, I asked Andy Ostrowski to forward questions to me and will strive to answer as many as I can, whether during the show (though time on the show is limited) or after the show.

Come listen to my interview - 6 p.m. tonight, Eastern Time at "Justice Served" with Andy Ostrowski/Twigs Cafe Radio.

Andy Ostrowski's "Justice Served" covered so far a wide range of sensitive topics that the mainstream media refuses to cover, such as:

1) the use of attorney discipline as a tool of retaliation against attorneys who do their jobs for their clients and criticize misconduct of the government and especially judicial misconduct - in the "Disciplined Attorney series"; 

2) abuses of basic human rights by Homeowners Associations;

3) abuses and corruption in probate and family courts.

I am grateful and honored to have been invited to speak on "Justice Served" show.

Thank you, Andy Ostrowski, and, to my readers - "see" you there.

==
6:21 pm  Update: for some technical reasons, so far the Radio Show could not reach me - some phone glitches, possibly because of a thunderstorm in my area.  I am here by the phone and we are trying to overcome the glitch.

7:20 Fortunately, I was able to get through and appear on the show - for 25 minutes out of the planned hour, but still, we had a productive discussion.

Here is the link to the interview.

Thank you for listening, and apologies for the technical glitches.  

Would the American Founding Father John Adams have been persecuted for representation of the "wrong clients" in our day and age?

I dedicated a lot of posts on this blog to the growing tendency of political persecution of attorneys - human rights defenders, and that occupational licensing of attorneys is used not for its intended use, protection of the public, but as a sword to destroy, in every possible way, attorneys who dare criticize misconduct of government officials on behalf of people whose civil rights are violated.

Recently, I wrote about assassinations - in many countries, including the U.S. - of human rights defenders, including attorneys.

Some attorneys flee from countries where they can be detained and murdered for their views, like civil rights attorneys are fleeing from China.

I also wrote about cowardly policies of the American Bar Association that "require" that "noble" institution to deny support to attorneys who are not "in good standing" in their countries.

That's why, apparently, the American Bar Association denied support to the Chinese civil rights attorney Dr. Teng Biao who immigrated into the U.S. from China to escape political persecution, when ABA pulled the plug on the book deal about civil rights activities that ABA first solicited from Dr. Teng Biao.

ABA takes the same cowardly position as to American attorneys disciplined for standing up for their clients - under ABA's policies, any attorney who is suspended or disbarred, no matter for what reasons, rightly or wrongly, is barred from acceptance into the ABA, even as a non-attorney member.

It has become a well-known fact that civil rights attorneys and criminal defense attorneys are disproportionately targeted with attorney discipline.

What happened to the attorney who brought successful police brutality lawsuits, who brought the first successful lawsuit on behalf of a Guantanamo bay detainee (detained for years without charges), who wrote treatises on federal practice, and who triggered impeachment proceedings against the most-reversed federal judge Manuel T. Real?

He was disbarred, of course.

What is happening to independent criminal defense attorneys?

They are persecuted, humiliated and discredited.

If they dare to step into civil court proceedings, they are sanctioned and suspended on the basis of amorphous court-created "rules of frivolous conduct".

It appears that, had our Founding Father John Adams lived and practiced today, he would have been suspended by now.

After all, he represented - successfully - soldiers and officers involved in the Boston massacre.

The gall!

And, after he was suspended or disbarred, John Adams would have been discredited as a politician and prevented from a political career - that's what is being done to attorneys who criticize the judiciary in the U.S. nowadays.

That is actually the true goal of current attorney regulation - to divide attorneys into "good" and "bad", to lure the obedient with the "golden cage" of monopoly for practice, and to punish those who bite the hand that purports to feed them - the judiciary.

Yet, don't we as a nation want our potential Founding Fathers (and Mothers) to not be beaten up for doing their jobs?

One thing is to pay lip services at history lessons and describe John Adams and his accomplishments.

Quite another is to provide true protection to those who do the same as John Adams did, now - representing unpopular clients, "sensitive" causes, and opposing the government.

If human rights defenders don't have such protection, human rights don't have such protections either.

The New Jersey Governor sends a message to the public by nominating the just-disciplined judge to the new term: judicial discipline MEANS NOTHING

I wrote on this blog about the "crying" New Jersey judge Joseph Portelli - who was not crying when he was committing misconduct, running his court as a petty tyrant and making disparaging and sexist remarks in court to witnesses and attorneys.

Yet, the judge dissolved in tears when he considered the possibility of discipline and being taken off the bench.

Judge Joseph Portelli was not taken off the bench.

He received only a slap on the wrist by the disciplinary authorities.

And, as a parent sometimes gives a reward to an offending child to stop his crying - bad parenting, by the way - New Jersey Governor Christ Christie nominated Joseph Portelli for re-appointment for a new term just a week after Portelli was punished.

Apparently, with an abundance of attorneys in New Jersey, many of them presumably honest people with good temperament for becoming a judge, there was nobody else to nominate for the high judicial bench, but a just-disciplined judge? 

And, the New Jersey Governor sends a message this way to the public that judicial discipline MEANS NOTHING. 

Great job, Governor Christie.

The Argro saga continues: a practice guide of how to screw the poor - just ask NDNY judges David Peebles and Norman Mordue and attorneys Woodruff "Teen Lover" Carroll and Erin Donnelly

I wrote on this blog about the civil rights lawsuit against Chenango County CPS, a case where I was removed from the case purportedly because I was suspended in federal court on November 18, 2015 (there is no public federal order of suspension, and thus no legal court order of suspension, and thus I am not suspended in federal court), but in reality - to prevent me from trying the case and obtaining a multi-million dollar recovery for the plaintiffs against Chenango County Department of Social Services.

Today, I looked it up on Pacer again - my name, cases filed and closed in 2015.

Here is what Pacer returned:

In that case I am listed as an attorney, not a party, it is closed in July of 2015, not November, and the case is not about discipline against me, but a civil rights lawsuit I brought on behalf of a client against an anti-semitic state Judge Kevin Dowd.

The order of suspension must be public to be valid.

As the query from Pacer as of today shows, there is NO public order of suspension of me as an attorney in federal courts.  None.

Which can only mean that, as a matter of law, I am an attorney in good standing in the Argro case, and my removal from that case was unlawful.

I also wrote on this blog how, after my alleged suspension, an attorney recommended by the local "bar association" (which is dominated by attorneys and judges who I sued) sold out the plaintiffs and was fired for misconduct and for repeated fraud upon the plaintiffs.

I also wrote on this blog that the attorney for the Defendants Erin Donnelly was representing to the court for months that the low amount she is offering is because of the low ($100,000-$150,000) payout limit.

Of course, I verified with the Chenango County through a FOIL request that those assurances were fraudulent, and that the Chenango County insurance payout limit per occurrence is $1,000,000.  Not to mention that New York law does not allow insurance coverage of intentional misconduct, and without coverage, insurance cannot control settlement amounts.

I also wrote about efforts of attorney Woodruff Carroll to defraud plaintiffs into signing low settlement of a multi-million dollar case, and into signing an affidavit against me.  The plaintiffs refused and fired Mr. Carroll for misconduct.

And that attorney Woodruff Carroll has a massive support from his well-connected siblings, while also demonstrated such lack of judgment - and morals - when he ran for an elected legislative seat in Onondaga County that he was called as "lacking a filter" in the press because of his outrageous statements that no civil rights attorney, or any self-respecting person would ever make.

Mr. Carroll returned to their residence, from Syracuse to Oxford, NY, three times, trying to force them to sign what they didn't want to sign and what was forced upon them by the combined fraud of Mr. Carroll and attorney Erin Donnelly.

Mr. Carroll came to plaintiffs' residence on Friday, May 20th;  Saturday May 21st; and, plaintiffs suspect, on May 22nd when plaintiffs simply did not open the door for him, but somebody insistently knocked on their doors, like Mr. Carroll did the previous days.

On May 24, 2016, Mr. Carroll notified the court that he has been fired by the plaintiffs.

The court told him that he cannot notify the court of being fired, but must submit a motion.

Mr. Carroll submitted a letter motion to withdraw, and an in-person hearing was scheduled for June 3, 2016, that was beyond the date to oppose my motion, May 31, 2016.

Of course, plaintiffs did not want Mr. Carroll to oppose my motion because they agreed with it.

So, when offering plaintiffs $100,000 for singing a $35,000 settlement and a false affidavit against me did not work, pleas about Mr. Carroll's law license and his sick sister did not work, Mr. Carroll and the defendants' counsel, and, no doubt, the court, put their heads together to defraud the plaintiffs in a new way.

Today, plaintiff Dara Argro called me to tell me that Mr. Carroll called her today (that is important) and notified her that the Defendants CPS filed a motion YESTERDAY which needs to be opposed by May 31, 2016, and that since Mr. Carroll is not yet relieved by the court as plaintiffs' counsel, he should be the one opposing the motion.

So, CPS filed a motion, on a Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, to be responded to not within 17 days, as required by the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, but within 4 days, three of them falling on national holidays.

Here is a portion of the local rules of the NDNY court on the returnable dates for motions:

Here is the motion calendar of the court where, as a filing guide to parties, 31 days are automatically added to the filing date of the motion to determine the returnable date:

Here is how three overlapping motions in the case were scheduled:

My motion:

Mr. Carroll's three motions:

The Defendants' motion filed on 5/27/2016, with responses demanded on May 31, 2016 (within 4 days over the Memorial weekend, and while plaintiffs' counsel was fired and awaiting determination of motion to withdraw).

Defendants' May 27, 2016 motion, even though definitely attempting to infringe upon my rights, were not served upon me, 

so I chose not to look at them, not to be accused of waiving service.

Here is how motions have to be filed in NDNY:

1) a motion is filed, dates of response, reply and motion hearing are set:

I filed my motion on May 13, 2016, so the following dates for the motion were set by the court:

• responses (including cross-motions, if any) - May 31, 2016 (+ 18 days from filing);
• reply to response - June 6, 2016 (+ 6 days from filing of responses);

2) A cross-motion can only be filed against the party who filed the motion.

3) If the motion is a new motion, filed against a party who did not file a motion, it should follow the local rules and 31 days should be added to the filing date for the returnable date, and 17 days for response for the opposing party.

In other words, for a motion filed on May 27, 2016, the returnable date would have to be June 27, 2016, and the response date would have to be, according to the court's own rules, June 13, 2016.

Here is a table of scheduling of how the currently pending, overlapping and interralted motions were actually filed and scheduled:

Date filed	Who filed	What is the motion about	Response deadline	Reply to response deadline	Motion hearing date	Notes
5/13/2016	Tatiana Neroni, plaintiffs previous attorney removed because of purported order of suspension – while there is no public order of suspension in federal court	Motion to vacate order stripping me of legal fees, recuse the court, sanction attorneys Carroll and Donnelly for frivolous conduct	May 31, 2016	June 6, 2016	June 15, 2016	Carroll requested permission to file cross-motion, the court denied his request
5/24/2016	Woodruff Carroll, plaintiffs' new attorney	Motion to withdraw from representation of plaintiffs because plaintiffs fired Woodruff Carroll	No response date set	No reply date set	Hearing in person on June 3, 2016
5/26/2016	Woodruff Carroll	Motion to adjourn dates on my motion because of pending motion to withdraw			Denied, because the hearing date of June 3, 2016 was a "firm date" and was allegedly not "affected" by my motion to withdraw	That plaintiffs' rights were not "affected" in denying them adjournment of all dates until their counsel is removed from the case and until they hire a new counsel, was a lie of the enraged Judge Peebles, because plaintiffs were thus forced to be represented in opposition to my motion they did not want to oppose by an attorney they just fired for fraud that I described in my motion, requesting sanctions against that attorney
5/27/2016	Defendants	To enforce a settlement, dismiss the case with prejudice, deny me opportunity to apply (after the case closes) for legal fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, and to bar me from filing more motions (the motion was not served upon me, and I did not read it and did not waive service, I just read the docket entry)	May 31, 2016	No reply date set	June 15, 2016	Since the motion was not served upon me, it was not a cross-motion, but a new motion, and had to be filed following the usual local rules, in 31 days of advance and with 17 days for response
5/31/2016	Response date for	·       My motion filed 18 days prior ·       Defendant's motion filed 4 days prior				Plaintiffs are not allowed to voice their position "pro se" because they have counsel that the court did not relieve yet, even though he was fired for misconduct
6/3/2016	Hearing date for motion to withdraw					Such a hearing is academic since Mr. Carroll by that time will have done all the damages needed to be done to the case by May 31, 2016
6/15/2016	Motion returnable date for	·       My motion filed on May 13, 2016 ·       Defendant's motion that was not served upon me that was filed on May 27, 2016				Mr. Carroll may be very well removed from the case by that time, so the only reason to set 4 days for response for plaintiffs was to force them to use Mr. Carroll for opposition to the motion seeking a result that Mr. Carroll was trying to force upon the plaintiffs for 3 consecutive days by coming to their house

Now, what Defendants, Mr. Carroll and judges Mordue and Peebles accomplished by this motion and by how responses to this motion and scheduling for Mr. Carroll's motion to withdraw was done - is that indigent plaintiffs who are "technically" still represented by Mr. Carroll have NO CHOICE but allowing the attorney they just fired for fraud to represent them in a case where issues of the same fraud must be brought and discussed.

By court rules, plaintiffs may not proceed pro se while Mr. Carroll is still not relieved by the court.

And, the court conveniently refused to relieve Mr. Carroll at the time he was fired, or to adjourn deadlines for the plaintiffs to have Mr. Carroll removed by the court and to find new counsel.

Does it appear like this case is criminally fixed by the court and attorneys who wanted to kill the case - for money?

Most definitely.

Mr. Carroll has demonstrated, even by the timing of his call regarding the new motion (not when it was made, yesterday, with only 4 days' advance, but today, with 1/4 of that time gone).

Time was of the essence, right?

Yet, for his own benefit, when he wanted plaintiffs to sign a false affidavit against me to save his law license, he didn't just call, he actually came to their residence three days in a row - when plaintiffs told him not to come.

Of course, when it was time of the essence as to plaintiffs' rights, Mr. Carroll did not call right away.

And did not ask the "pissed off" judge for an adjournment until he is removed from the case.

And did not ask the "pissed off" judge for recusal, even knowing that the judge was "pissed off", and thus not impartial, towards the plaintiffs.

Mr. Carroll only called Dara this afternoon, and did not call his other two clients at all.

And, to Dara Mr. Carroll told that, since he is still "officially" Dara's attorney, he "must" oppose the motion - or everything will be lost.

When Dara asked Mr. Carroll to do the most reasonable thing under the circumstances - file a letter motion requesting an adjournment from the judge of opposition to the motion until the time when Mr. Carroll is relieved from his duties (because he has been fired as of May 20, 2016), and until the time when Dara and the other two plaintiffs find a new attorney - Mr. Carroll adamantly refused to file such a letter request.

Mr. Carroll explained his refusal by a claim that allegedly the response date of May 31, 2016, 3 days before the hearing on Mr. Carroll's motion to withdraw because he was fired, was set by "the judge", that the judge was "pissed" with Dara "for some reason", as Mr. Carroll said, and Mr. Carroll did not want to piss off the judge any further.

So, even though Mr. Carroll claimed to be officially an attorney for the plaintiffs until June 3, 2016, the hearing for his motion to withdraw, and even though opposition to the Defendants motion involves issues of his own fraud upon the plaintiffs and his own collusion with defendants' counsel (which, of course, he will not willingly raise against himself in a pleading), and even though Mr. Carroll acknowledged that the judge was "pissed" with his client, Mr. Carroll did not file either a request for adjournment beyond the date of his removal from the case by the court, nor did he file a motion to recuse the judge who was "pissed" off and retaliating against his clients with shortened-to-nothing time to respond.

Of course, it was in Mr. Carroll's interests not to be fired until the end of the case, and this maneuver allowed him to force himself back upon the plaintiffs, claiming to them that if they do not re-hire him and do not allow him to represent their interests - after all the fraud he committed against them - all will be lost for them.

Let's compare the response dates given to Defendants on my motion and given to plaintiffs who "pissed off the judge" on Defendants' motion.

Defendants were given 18 days to respond (May 13, 2016 to May 31, 2016) to a non-dispositive motion;

the "bad" plaintiffs who "pissed off" the judge were given 4 days to respond to a dispositive motion, where those 4 days were over the Memorial Day weekend, after they fired their counsel for fraud and while the court refused to remove the counsel and to give plaintiffs adjournment of all dates until they find new counsel.

Apparently, "Woody" Carroll - who, by the way, has tendencies of hanging out in video-chatrooms that lure teenagers to talk about sex, as demonstrated by his Facebook page (and, of course, nobody investigates him as a possible sexual predator against children because of his connections).

The "Tinychat" video chatrooms, as parents are repeatedly warned, is a direct way to their children's webcams - in the child's bedroom mostly.

And, the "tinychat" has been exposed as a "dirty" site where children may be exposing themselves before a webcam.

"Woody" is a mountain climber and posts on Facebook extremely explicit descriptions even of mountain caves.

THIS is who Chenango County child protective services, their attorneys and two judges, David Peebles and Norman Mordue, teamed up with - to screw up the poor.

And, under "Woody"'s they seem to have reached new heights in that art.

After all, "Woody" said in his election campaign for a legislative seat that the poor need to just be "roughed up a little" to "get 'em motivated".

And "Woody" knows about "roughing them up", doesn't he?

In this case though, roughing up the poor got to completely new levels. 

Where a judge, "pissed off" at the behavior of the plaintiffs who actually want a jury trial instead of being represented by a fraudster attorney who sold them out, and want out of fraudulently induced settlement that they never signed, the judge in question, instead of recusing (because he is pissed off with a party, and can no longer be impartial), fixes everything he can possibly fix:

1) refuses to release an attorney when he is fired;
2) refuses to adjourns pending dates until the time when the attorney is removed from the case by the court and until a new attorney is hired;
3) sets an extremely short date, in violation of the court rules, to answer a dispositive motion - knowing full well that the combination of the rulings will require plaintiffs to use the services of an attorney they fired for fraud.

These two judges, Peebles and Mordue, give professional attorneys 18 days to respond to a non-dispositive motion, and give 4 days over a national holiday to three indigent civil rights plaintiff to answer a dispositive motion, while at the same time forcing them into a situation where they have a "choice" - to re-hire an attorney they just fired for misconduct so that he would oppose the defendants' motion for them (in his favor, of course), or lose the case.

Of course, Dara Argro told me that she realizes now that they have been better off without Mr. Carroll or any attorney than with Mr. Carroll.

As of today, Mr. Carroll refuses to do his duty and refuses to do what Dara Argro asked him to do - file a letter motion asking an adjournment of the date of response to Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement (obtained by fraud) and to dismiss the case with prejudice, until Mr. Carroll is removed from the case and until a new counsel is found and appears in the case.

And the "pissed off" judge, instead of recusing from the case, continues to preside over it and enforce fraud orchestrated, with the help of the court, against three indigent victims of CPS misconduct and of the fraud of two attorneys - Woodruff Carroll and Erin Donnelly.

I will continue to cover this story because, it appears that exposure of fraudsters at this time is the only thing that can help my former clients.

I want you to remember the faces of the people who are screwing the poor so savagely, cruelly, relentlessly and shamelessly.

Woodruff Carroll - the mountain climber, teen lover and fraudster:

Erin Donnelly - just fraudster, who graudated law school in 2005, with "honorary recognitions" as children's advocate (!!), 

got admitted in NY in 2013, 8 years after graduation, and a year AFTER the Argro case was even brought.

Judge David Peebles - the case-fixer judge who does not know when to recuse from a case, even when his bias and case-fixing can no longer be hidden:

Judge Norman Mordue - a "senior" status judge who should have retired by now, instead of openly and unashamedly fixing court cases against the poor, in favor of connected attorneys.  An army veteran, a "Purple Heart", a "Bronze Star", a "Distinguished Service Cross" bearer - and a case-fixing fraudster.  Past honorable acts do not cover the dirty acts of today - which are clearly visible in this case.   Teaming up with a possible child predator and with child protective services sued for misconduct, in order to rob poor people of their day in court and their rightful remedy for civil rights violations.

For shame, Judge Mordue.

Enough already.

On minimum educational requirements of judges - what is a problem in Virginia is an over-qualification in New York

In 2005, New York Times wrote about non-attorney judges in justice courts in the State of New York who do not have any ascertainable levels of education (by the way, there was a letter to the editor of the same New York Times back in 1984 accusing the editor of improperly bashing such judges and praising their performance).

I wrote about misconduct and incompetence of such judges, time and again.

Such judges are guided in their decisions by prosecutors, routinely engage in ex parte communications with prosecutors and decide cases as prosecutors want them to decide.

A legislative reform of the situation have stalled 6 years ago, in 2010.

Interestingly enough, in the State of Virginia recently, there was open criticism that allowing judges (magistrates) with an educational requirement of a 4-year, bachelor's degree, to sign search warrants is improper because judges with a 4-year college education (but no law degree) lack the training to understand the applicable law for purposes of signing a warrant.

So, what is a lack of qualification in the State of Virginia is 17 years more of formal education than judges in New York justice courts are required to have.

That is, in Virginia magistrate judges at least have 13 years of public schools (K + 12) and 4 years of college.

In New York, the judge signing your search and arrest warrant may have NO education whatsoever.  There is NO educational requirement for the judge whatsoever.

And, it is not even a secret that prosecutors run these courts.

If a judge who was an attorney said that she wouldn't change illegal practices where the prosecutor decided cases - what can be said about judges who are not attorneys.

Look what advertisement for the Hancock Town Court (NY) says:

Prosecutors:  "ADA Mary Beth Dumont Lays down the law".

Just like that.

Town of Hancock Court's law is what prosecutor Mary Beth Dumont "lays down".

No need to make it a secret.

Yet, what was pointed out in the Virginia protest is that in federal courts, where all magistrates are lawyers, there is a growing trend to deny law enforcement search warrants for evidence, especially electronic evidence, as baseless and unconstitutional.

Don't make constitutional argument to a New York local criminal court "justice" who, for all you know, may lack basic literacy skills.

Such a judge will simply ask the prosecutor what to think - and, after the prosecutor will "lay down the law" will think (and sign the search and arrest warrants) accordingly.

And, somehow, the issue of untrained judges was not important enough for New York legislators to consider.

Of course - they are making sure they clean up their files so that Preet Bharara wouldn't get them, as he got Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos.