Alabama is to decide today whether it is judicial misconduct to disobey precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court

In June of 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Obergefell v Hodges, a case from Ohio, ruling that same sex couples have a right to marry.

Alabama State Chief Judge Roy Moore instructed the state judges not to issue state licenses for same-sex marriages because (1) it is a matter of state law, and because (2) the U.S. Supreme Court precedents are not the law of the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court precedents are not the Law of the Land under the U.S. Constitution, on this Judge Roy Moore is right - the court's decisions are not included into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Judge Roy Moore is suspended for disobeying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, pending trial seeking to remove him from his position completely.

Today, Judge Roy Moore is on trial in the disciplinary action.

If the State of Alabama suspends Judge Moore for disobeying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it creates its own precedent for other states to follow.

It is important because, left and right, state and federal judges disobey the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on a variety of constitutional issues concerning civil rights - and usually no discipline follows for such disobedience because disciplinary authorities claim that such a disobedience is a matter of "judicial discretion".

So, Alabama's decision against judge Roy Moore can have a long-reaching consequences in judicial accountability.

Let's see what happens in Judge Roy Moore's case today.

I will continue to cover this story.

Stay tuned.

The raving lunatic, #JudgeNicholasGaraufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York - outrageous, irresponsible and insulting

Meet judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Here is Judge Garuafis' official biobraphy from the court's website:

Judge Garaufis is an Ivy League educated lawyer, and has been a lawyer for 42 years, since 1974.

Judge Garaufis has a Bachelors and a Juris Doctor degree - BOTH rom Columbia University.

So, Judge Garaufis is a highly educated and intelligent person.

With all that, Judge Garaufis, reportedly told attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II who appeared in front of Judge Garaufis in a court conference - this:

So, what was wrong about attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II appearing in front of Judge Garaufis?

Was the attorney unlicensed?

Obviously, the attorney was admitted - otherwise he would have been criminally charged for practicing law without a license.

And, we have this sticky situation that federal district courts act as regulatory agencies for attorneys practicing in that court.

So, if the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York admitted attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II to practice law in that court, that means that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York thus proclaimed to the public and the world that attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II is competent to handle ANY legal issues in that court.

Yet, for judge Garaufis attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II was not good enough.

But, that attitude turns into a real problem.

Is licensing by the Eastern District of New York two-tiered - a "better quality" license for partners and a "second best" for associates?

Is sending an associate a sign that the case is treated as not important?

Should clients know that?

What about solo attorneys?

At what time after admission does their license become "good enough" where they are neither associate nor a partner, but just a solo attorney?

Or is a solo attorney appearing in front of pre-eminent judge Garaufis insulting the judge by his presence?

Does Judge Garuafis just have a bad case of a black robe disease, or is he clinically demented?  Is he a danger to other attorneys and the public?

Some bloggers considered it just a bad case of judicial misconduct.

And some bloggers (on Twitter) pointed out Judge Garaufis double-standards, because he does not require the government to sent the U.S. Attorney General where they send just-admitted prosecutors:

and Judge Garuafis does not have the "send the partner only in front of my pre-eminent eyes" in his personal rules:

And fellow Twitterers had a couple of suggestions about what needs to be done with the judge:

1) take him off the case for bias and

2) "kick his belligerent ass"

I am all for #1 - but you know what happens to attorneys who criticize judges in motions to recuse, so it is unlikely a motion to recuse will be made.

And, I am all for #2 in terms of judicial discipline - but, that is not going to happen because the U.S. Congress does not allow discipline of judges for misconduct in court cases.

So, the raving lunatic and bully, federal #JudgeNicholasGaraufis is there to stay - unless we ask the U.S. Congress to impeach him, and change rules of impeachment to allow REAL accountability of federal judges for misconduct IN COURT cases.  Because, where else does misconduct of federal judges matter?  In their kitchens?

How many people have been convicted - and how many were executed - based on the "voodoo science"?

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a report this month where, as Judge Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (member of the council) a large part of "science" used in the courtroom to obtain criminal convictions was exposed as having nothing to do with science.

If that is true, when will we get an accounting from our government, how many wrongful convictions were obtained, how many people were executed, and how much of taxpayers' money was wasted on investigating, prosecuting, incarcerating, medically treating in prison, funding criminal defense and - yes, it costs money - executing people, all based on "voodoo science"?

It is a 174-page report, and I will need time to read it to report on it more thoroughly, which I am planning to do in the future.

Stay tuned.

An armed-to-the-teeth Houston lawyer was shot dead after he engaged in a shooting rampage at a Houston mall

Attorney Nathan DeSai, who reportedly had a degree in psychology from a Houston University and a J.D. from Tulsa Law School, was shot dead today by police after he wounded 9 people in a Houston mall, see another report here.

Nathan DeSai recently split from his law partner, and was reported to have brandished assault-type weapons at roofers in his apartment complex, yet no action was taken against him at that time.

Fortunately, nobody was killed - save for DeSai himself - but people were wounded.

The level of anger of this man highlights once again the problems in the legal profession where an extremely high number of attorneys are prone to drinking, drug abuse, depression and suicide.

Lawyers reportedly rank 5th among occupations as to their levels of depression.

And, depression may lead not only to suicide, but to homicide, too, apparently.

Let me mention that DeSai had no record of public discipline.
DeSai was a seasoned attorney practicing in Texas for 17 years.

But, he lost it and went on a shooting spree with assault type weapons when he had a falling out with his law partner.

So, if you are going to a lawyer's office, you may be entering a lair of a dangerous, and armed, psycho.

But - the most dangerous offenses the regulators of the legal profession continue to see are criticism of the government by attorneys.

So, let me ask you a question - how many more dangerous armed maniacs are waiting for you out there in their law offices across this blessed nation while the regulators of the legal profession are increasingly busy spending your money to remove law licenses of attorneys-whistleblowers?

And how many of these dangerous maniacs are prosecuting cases and are on the bench judging you?

Judicial review turned clerk review. Does the public need to know about the health of our public officials - at all?

The prominent legal blog "Above the Law" said "no", we don't need to know about the state of health of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices.  And did it in a playful way.

It says that nothing is to be gain from the knowledge of frailing health of our U.S. Supreme Court justices, 9 (now 8) people who wield tremendous power in this country.  And that somehow we will undermine public trust in the judicial system if we get to learn about the state of health of those who de facto rule this country.

Justice Ginsburg had two bouts with cancer and has a coronary stent? Doesn't matter.  She did surgery and chemotherapy without stopping to work.  She can do more push-ups than you can.  Of course, nobody saw that, and these "push-up" thingies are self-reported by Justice Ginsburg.  The same justice who recently lost herself so much that she lashed out at a presidential candidate and claimed she will emigrate if he is elected.  And that was in anticipation of a possible tie in presidential elections coming in front of her to hear.

So, when Ruth Ginsburg is not vetted by her law clerks, she can say pretty bizarre things - and that is exactly why the public should know about her real, and not self-reported, state of health.

And the same relates to other justices with coronary stents, not to mention those with grave chronic illnesses and on medications.

We recently learnt that the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had grave chronic illnesses, but we learnt about that only when his corpse was located in Texas under suspicious circumstances, and when his list of chronic illnesses was used to justify his instant "peaceful" death of natural causes, and deflect a murder investigation.

But, disclosing the list of Scalia's illnesses opened quite another can of worms - if he was that sick that he could instantly die at any time, how could he work as a judge, dealing with about 10,000 petitions coming to the court every year?  He wasn't reviewing those petitions, was he?  His clerks did his work for him, isn't that true?  So, the "decisions" by our septuagenarian, octogenarian and nonagenarian justices of all levels may be not THEIR decisions, but the decisions of their law clerks - people who were never appointed by the president and never confirmed by the U.S. Congress.

And that is an issue that is not so funny, as Above the Law is trying to portray it.

As to Scalia's diabetes, this country denies diabetic truck drivers a driving license - because sudden changes in sugar levels can cause hallucinations and visual distortions that can lead to deaths and injuries on the road.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and prevention, 48% of Americans from all age groups. on average, use prescription medications.

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic, reportedly, put that use higher, at 70% across all age groups.

According to a nurse I talked to recently, who works for Medicare, practically ALL people of Medicare age, and that is 62 plus, are on prescription medications, one or more, and the nurse necessarily "surveys", through her work, a large cross-section of that population, and I have no reason to doubt her. 

Prescription medications always mean a possibility of side effects.  Often grave, and mind-altering side effects.

U.S. Supreme Court justices, and other state and federal judges, deal not only with driving their personal vehicles (if they do), but with death penalty cases, long terms of incarceration and other issues of people's constitutional rights.  How it is not important enough to know whether judges are healthy at the time they are making their decisions?

How is it possible that people in their 70s and 80s defy the reality of reduced energy natural for their age, defy the reality of physical and mental frailty that may be the result of their illnesses and medications necessary to treat those illnesses and keep soldiering on and dealing with a volume of work that is not possible for a young physically capable people in their prime to handle?

I will tell you how.

It is only possible when a person claimed to be working does not actually do the work the person is claiming to be doing, and when somebody else is doing that work.

Like law clerks.

But wait - we submit our petitions, as a matter of last resort, hoping against hope that it will be subject to JUDICIAL review, not to CLERK review by privileged youngsters handpicked by "committees" of prior law clerks.

Right?

So, yes, I would like to know whether the judge deciding my fate, and the fate of others, is sick, demented, weak, frail, or on mind-altering medication.

After all, the question whether a person is on mind-altering medications is a standard question in plea allocutions in the United States.

If a person cannot legally waive his constitutional rights when he or she is on mind-altering medications, a person surely cannot decide constitutional rights of others being on the same type of medications - or physically frail, or mentally unstable, or demented, or senile.

Not only we the People, the employer of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, DO have a right to know about their health, but we have a right to know minute details about their health.

Contrary to the brazenly dismissive letter that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court sent to the public recently, stating, in one paragraph, that if judges think the public need to know, they will disclose the state of their health - otherwise they won't.

That's not their choice.  It is ours.

As to Chief Judge Roberts' behavior - try answering a question related to your ability to do your work to your employer like Chief Judge Roberts answered our question.

Remember, WE who pay Judge Roberts' salary, are his employers.

If this country has the rule of law and equal protection of laws, the same thing as would happen to you when you defy your employer, should happen to Chief Justice Roberts.

Right?

#IStandWithJacobHafter. Yet another attorney, #JacobHafter in Nevada, is targeted with a disciplinary proceeding for criticism of #JudgeValorieVega well-known for her outrageous misconduct

I wrote on this blog about the trend in this country to punish attorneys for criticism of the judiciary, listing cases of attorneys so disciplined from across the country.

My petition for the writ of certiorari that is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically raises the issue that removal of competent criminal, family court and civil rights attorneys through disciplinary process for doing their job, criticizing the judiciary in motions to recuse, is contrary to the declared purpose of attorney licensing (protection of consumers) and is widening the already-wide "justice gap" where the majority of Americans cannot afford an attorney.

At this time, two more cases in addition to the statistics of attorney discipline for criticism of judges I published earlier, are pending - one in D.C. and another in Nevada - where attorneys are targeted by the government for criticism of the judiciary.

In D.C., Texas attorney Ty Clevenger is targeted with a disciplinary proceeding after he single-handedly caused the forced retirement of a sexual predator/federal judge Walter Smith whom the federal system protected and refused to hold accountable for years, the same as the federal judicial system protected and refused to hold accountable another sexual predator/judge Samuel Kent.

Ty Clevenger obtained and published the testimony of  the victim of Judge Smith's sexual crimes, published it, caused reopening the disciplinary investigation against Judge Smith, which initially resulted in a slap on the wrist, requested Judge Smith's impeachment, requested an FBI investigation of Judge Smith about Judge Smith allegedly illegally accepting free legal services from an attorney who appeared in front of him in court cases, and wrote to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court asking to speed up the investigation.  Then he was targeted for disbarment.

Interestingly enough, the Chief Judge Richard Warren Roberts, of the D.C. District Court, the court that is now "coincidentally" prosecuting Ty Clevenger on the same charges that were dismissed by the Texas disciplinary authorities as meritless, has recently also "retired" - quickly - after reports of his confession to sex with an underage (16-year-old) girl appeared in the press.

Here are the three federal judges - sexual predators, where two out of three were not prosecuted in disciplinary or criminal proceedings, and escaped with their law licenses and their huge taxpayer-backed pensions intact.

The now-retired Judge Walter Smith, the drunk stalker and sexual harasser of female court employees:

The now-retired Judge Richard Warren Roberts, an accused pedophile who is being sued for statutory rape committed against her by the judge when the judge was an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department and the woman was a 16-year-old witness against a white supremacist on trial.   Even though Judge Roberts "retired" when the U.S. Congress threatened an investigation into the claims of rape, the judge was not investigated or prosecuted criminally or as an attorney after his "retirement".

The convicted felon judge Samuel Kent who repeatedly forced sex upon unwilling court employees, forced one employee out of her job, caused the other to lie against the first one in order to keep her job, and tried to coerce and intimidate a witness to the grand jury against him.

Before:

After:

Once again, Ty Clevenger, an attorney who was instrumental in removal of one of these sexual predator federal judges from the bench and protecting federal court employees from their unlimited power and control,  is targeted with a disciplinary proceeding.

And another case of attorney criticism of a judge is unfolding in Nevada, against attorney Jacob Hafter for criticism posted out of court against Judge Valorie Vega:

In 2010, a blogger wrote about Judge Vega as the most corrupt judge in the United States, citing a motion to recuse her from a habeas corpus petition that pointed out her conflicts of interest, prejudgment of the case, presiding over a case where she had personal knowledge of disputed facts, and where she conducted a hearing without giving a party a notice of that hearing - in other words, the judge held an ex parte hearing.

In the same 2010, it was reported by the local TV station that Judge Vega kept a jury sequestered (locked up) and deliberating overnight - in a MURDER trial - to force them to produce a verdict faster so that she would be able to go on a vacation.  Of course, the criminal defendant was black. 

So, the judge did not care whether the verdict in a murder trial would be rendered out of mere exhaustion and desire to go home.

I know of one other such forced verdict, and also, coincidentally, in 2010 - in New York, in People v Quentin Tompkins, in Delaware County County Court, where the now-also-retired Judge Becker told the jury, after they were out for 2 hours in the courtroom re-hearing evidence on tape and drinking water on a hot summer day, that the judge just received a phone call from a crew working on the water main feeding the courthouse, that the water main is severed and shut off and that there is "just one flush left in the restrooms".  Judge Becker did not adjourn the trial, did not move it to another location, with working restrooms.  He simply forced the jury to reach the verdict fast - and they did.  They returned a "guilty" verdict within 15 minutes, not willing to pee and poop into each other's pee and poop.

The case for 1st degree rape against a young man with no prior criminal history could very well result in an acquittal - because there was evidence presented that the alleged victim, the defendant's fiancé who just broke up with him while keeping the expensive ring he worked hard to buy for her, was jealous after she called his mother and learnt that he was out with other girls.  Otherwise, there was no physical evidence of rape, and there was an egregious video of a 2-hour-interrogation when the young man was forced to sit on his hands with plastic handcuffs eating into it, was crying, and the police officers were using his still-remaining love for the girl by pressing him to confess so that "the love of his life would not have to face a courtroom full of people".

Here is information from New York Department of Corrections about Quentin Tompkins.

This young man worked hard, respected his parents, earned money to buy a ring for his fiance, took care of her ferrets after she split up with him and dumped her animals on him and wanted to go into the Armed Forces.

Instead, he is branded as a rapist, will have to register and undergo restrictions and indignities as a violent sex offender for life, was sentenced by the same corrupt judge for 10 years in prison, and has been incarcerated for 6 years so far, because a corrupt judge Catrl F. Becker and a corrupt prosecutor (now Delaware County Judge) Richard Northrup who was employing (without disclosure) the judge's former law partner, which rendered the whole proceedings against Quentin Tompkins tainted, and his conviction and sentence unlawful. 


This is a young man who fell victim to the misconduct of Judge Carl F. Becker of Delaware County, New York, who forced the jury to deliberate in a room without a working bathroom, in antisanitary conditions, in order to coerce a guilty verdict in favor of the prosecutor's office that employed (without disclosure by the prosecution or by judge Becker) the judge's former law partner John Hubbard - who is now the Acting District Attorney, is running unopposed for the position of the elected District Attorney, and is appearing as a prosecutor in front of his former boss Richard Northrup, who is now the Delaware County Judge, and who obtained the conviction against Quentin Tompkins by conspiracy with the presiding judge to force the jury to deliberate in antisanitary conditions.

Here is the happy face of Carl Becker who retired without judicial or attorney discipline and was not criminally investigated despite his legendary misconduct:

And here is the other "hero" of the wrongful conviction of Quentin Tompkins, Richard Northrup, being sworn by the same Carl Becker as the new Delaware County Judge - while at the time of the swearing-in ceremony, Becker was a retired judge, a private individual, and had no authority whatsoever to swear-in a new judge.  But, so are the ties of friendship that Becker habitually broke the law to unlawfully and without authority swear in another judge, and Northrup, habitually, unlawfully accepted Becker as a swearing-in officiant.

Judge Valorie Vega forced the jurors to deliberate overnight in a murder trial, in order to force a verdict, so that she would be able to go on a vacation.

Judge Becker, in a similar situation, only where there was no jury and the judge was the only fact-finder, in a child abuse case where I was an attorney of record and present in the courtroom, Judge Becker made a statement that the trial in a child neglect case (a statutory priority on a court schedule) will not go into another day because he needs to depart on a vacation - just like that.  Whatever it takes, the trial will end today, he said. 

At the same time, I know of an attorney whose vacation, with airline tickets and hotels paid for - for a family of two adults and three children (I am not talking about myself or my family, but will not disclose the lawyer's name) - was thwarted by a New York judge who forced the attorney to cancel everything and attend a hearing that could be very well adjourned, because it was scheduled after the lawyer bought his tickets.

Back to Judge Valorie Vega, of Nevada.

In 2013, Judge Vega accepted a public reprimand for adjourning trials on 6 occasions in order to attend her daughter's soccer games.

In the same 2013, Judge Vega announced she will not seek re-election for the next term, after 25 years on the bench.

In June of 2014, attorney Jacob Hafter accused judge Vega of racism and anti-Semitism - because she refused to adjourn a trial schedule to accommodate a Jewish holiday.

Remember that the same judge adjourned trials to go to her daughter's soccer games, and kept the jury overnight in a murder trial in order to force a verdict earlier, so that she would be able to go on a vacation.

Attorney Hafter's explanation that his religion does not allow him to work on Wednesday and Thursday during Shavout, fell on deaf ears of Judge Vega.  Adjournment for her daughter's soccer games - yes.  Keeping the jury locked up overnight to force a verdict in a murder case so that the judge could timely depart to a vacation - yes.

Allowing a trial lawyer an adjournment so that he would not work when his religion prohibits him from doing so - no.

Maybe, it was not racism of anti-Semitism.  Maybe, it was simply bias and desire to help attorney Hafter's opponents - because judge Vega's husband is reportedly Jewish, and Judge Vega should have known then that she is scheduling a trial on a Jewish holiday when one of the attorneys could not work for religious reasons.

It was misconduct nevertheless.  And, attorney Hafter said it exactly the way the issue was supposed to be raised - that it appears that either the judge was anti-Semitic, or she was biased, but in any event, she should not be on the case.

So now, with all her shenanigans - and especially with locking up the jury in a murder trial of a black man in order to go on a vacation on time - Judge Valorie Vega is listed as an active judge on Nevada State Bar's registration website.

Let's note that, despite her public reprimand as a judge, she has no matching disciplinary record as an attorney.  As an attorney, she has NO disciplinary record.

Instead, the attorney who raised issue of her obvious bias, is now in hot waters and is subject to a disciplinary proceedings - for being too "outspoken".

And, remember, we are talking about the blessed state of Nevada that did not prosecute - as a judge or as an attorney - judge Conrad Hafen who handcuffed a public defender for making a constitutional argument on behalf of her indigent client.

And, Judge Hafen has a record showing that he is willing to go an extra way to humiliate not only female attorneys, but male attorneys as well:

"When Las Vegas Township Judge Conrad Hafen became a judge in 2011 and noticed some attorneys weren’t wearing ties, he went to a thrift store and picked up a few funky ties from the 1960s and ‘70s along with two children’s clip-on ties. He then gave attorneys who showed up without ties a choice: wear one from his thrift store collection, or have their case heard last or even moved to a different day."

One thing is to require a certain type of attire in the courtroom - which I don't believe courts can do, short of prohibiting dirty clothing - and quite another is to force the judge's choice of clothing, chosen specifically to humiliate the person, for disobeying the judge's prior choice of clothing for an adult man and an attorney.

To put adult men in front of a choice - wear a funky tie or have your client's case heard last or on another day (adding to billable hours for the client, or having the client to appear at a different day, with a respective loss of work time, and additional arrangements to be made for daycare of children, for example), is not funny.   It is judicial misconduct that should have been, but never was addressed as such.

Same as judge Vega, Judge Hafen has no record of public discipline as an attorney.  He is good to continue doing what he did to public defender Zohra Bahtary, and he is good to practice law once he is off the bench (he was recently voted off the bench after the handcuffing episode - thankfully, people of the State of Nevada has more honor, sense of fairness and common sense than the Nevada court officials, criminal officials and disciplinary authorities).

So, these two individuals, who, judging by their reported actions (and I am sure, that is only the tip of the iceberg of their misconduct), should not be on the bench and should not have a law license, have no record of public discipline as attorneys.

Here are their happy faces.

Valerie Vega.

Conrad Hafen.

Instead, an attorney who criticized a judge with a documented record of EGREGIOUS misconduct, is sought out for discipline - for stating the truth, in and out of court, for the sake of getting fairness for his clients.

We, as taxpayers, must come to a realization that these cases not only MULTIPLY injustice and undermine people's already rightfully eroding trust in the so-called rule of law in this country.  Such cases also COST US MONEY, a lot of very real, hard-earned money that can be used for our common good.

When a capable attorney is removed or silenced and cannot do his or her job - the entire society and each taxpayer pays.  Pays in unnecessarily increased fees to house the wrongfully convicted.  Pays for inflated budgets of social services when attorneys who can represent parents in child protective cases are targeted and washed out by discipline, and parents are routinely assigned "yes-men" (and women) who help social services inflate their budgets through wrongful child neglect and abuse adjudications even more.

So, if an attorney working for the people is wrongfully removed - not only your chances of getting justice through good representation in court are shrunk, but you will be paying, as a taxpayer, for the resulting injustice against others.

Look once again at the self-complacent faces of people whose pictures I posted in this blog.

All of them are highly educated, privileged and vested with tremendous power.

All of them used that power for their own personal gain - with no real accountability, with the exception of Judge Vega who was publicly reprimanded, but was not taken off the bench and did not lose in salary or power, and judge Kent who was convicted and sentenced for a very short amount of time in prison, on a plea bargain, despite engaging in unwanted sexual touching of employees of the years and intimidating a witness in a grand jury proceedings - for which any other "lay" person would be incarcerated for a very long time. 

Judge Kent is not even convicted as a sex offender, so he does not have to register as a sex offender, and had the audacity to complain recently in an official motion that he was treated in prison as a sex offender.

Judge Samuel Kent was brought to justice only because of the courage of two women, Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson, both non-attorneys, in coming forward and seeing it through, despite tremendous odds, pressure, humiliation and intimidation, that the powerful judge was indicted and convicted for at least something.

Attorneys were afraid to touch that case.

Because of what is usually happening to attorneys in this country if they criticize a judge or raise issues of judicial misconduct - no matter how right they are.

Until the rule of law starts to be equally applied - with a real bite - against judges and prosecutors, and stops being applied against critics of governmental misconduct, we cannot claim, as a country, that we have the rule of law.

I stand with #JacobHafter.

What is judicial misconduct in Tennessee, is business as usual in New York

I wrote on this blog about a judge who signed an order based on hearing conducted by another judge, who recused.

The name of the judge is Mary Rita Connerton, of Binghamton, New York, see my blogs about what Judge Connerton did, here and here.

Here is Judge Connerton's decision in the entirety.

In that decision, Connerton confirms that I was not present at the time when she claimed she had a headache even thinking about reading my motion. 

Connerton acknowledges that she denied the oral argument, and instead relied upon the transcript of the oral argument in front of a judge who recused before rendering a decision after that argument. 

The required procedure under such circumstances - which Connerton did not follow - is to hold another hearing, in front of Connerton herself.

Connerton's claim that I was not present the October 2, 2014 hearing (which was true) and am not, thus, entitled to the transcript containing Connerton's ex parte statements about my motion (which is not true, since my motion was discussed, I was entitled to such access), is contrary to what the later-cooked transcript says.

The later-cooked transcripts shows that I AM present at the October 2, 2014 hearing - which was not true, and Connerton confirmed it in her decision, but appearances were cooked nevertheless to prevent me from using the transcript in my defense.  This is not the first time when Delaware County Family Court stenographers cook appearances where the issue of judicial misconduct is concerned.  The first time on my memory it was when Becker stated that a female child (who was present) is not "college material" while the child wanted to go to college.  After I raised the issue of judicial misconduct, the transcript was cooked not showing the child's appearance, which blocked a possibility to appeal the issue.

Here is the front page of the cooked transcript of the October 2, 2014 proceeding where I was not present, but am shown as present.

And here is the ex parte communication that Connerton later denied and claimed I was "misinformed" - and blocked my access to the transcript, and then had the stenographer cook the appearances on the transcript:

In the decision, Connerton relies upon the hearing in front of a recused judge and refuses to give me her own hearing.



And, in that decision, Connerton refuses to recuse because there is "no merit" in seeking her recusal, and because she claims she can continue to be impartial.  Right.

So, Connerton issued an order based on a hearing that was held in front of another judge.

And, in New York it is apparently, business as usual.

Yet, in Tennessee recently, Judge Rachel Bell was subject of a disciplinary investigation for signing orders after hearings were held in front of somebody else.

That's the same Judge Rachel Bell who was previously subject of a disciplinary investigation for having no time to do her job and kept a person in jail longer than the statute allows, because she had a meeting with schoolchildren somewhere, see here and here.

In New York, Judge Connerton who has a peculiar disability of developing a headache from reading constitutional arguments in a motion that concerns a person's livelihood, and who then lie about it in official papers, and relies upon a transcript of a hearing in front of a recused judge to decide a motion - is not subject to any investigation.

New York State Commission for judicial conduct tossed my complaint against Judge Connerton,  as it tossed my 3 complaints against Judge Revoir, see my blogs here, here and here, while Judge Revoir promptly retaliated against the indigent mother after the complaint was filed.

Judge Revoir's retaliation resulted in a criminal proceeding of a year and a half against the mother that ended with a jury acquittal, and in a year and a half of criminal proceedings against the maternal grandmother which resulted in dismissal of charges because of invalid arrest warrant and perjury of Judge Richard Gumo of Delhi, NY about that warrant.  By the way, Judge Gumo, according to my information, continues with his tricks of using rubber-stamped warrants in felony cases, I will run a separate blog about that.

After the dismissal of fabricated criminal charges against the mother and grandmother,

1. their two dogs were killed, on two separate occasions, see here and here,
2. their house burnt down where both the then-pregnant mother and the grandmother escaped death in that fire only by sheer luck, while
3. the Delhi Fire Department
1. refused to extinguish the fire,
2. refused to investigate and
3. refused to release reports of the fire (see here, here, here, here, here and here), while the same Fire Department recently followed the protocol to the last "t" when a building on Main Street, Delhi, NY burnt, destroying the local mason lodge's archive (I wonder what was there worth destroying).
4. Departments of Social Services of two counties, Otsego and Delaware, attempted - unsuccessfully - to take the mother's new baby after the pregnant mother escaped the fire meant to kill her and the baby (reportedly, a propelled burning explosive device landed on the then-pregnant mother's bed while the mother was, luckily, away).  DSS claimed they are attempting to take the baby BECAUSE of the house fire, because allegedly the mother has nowhere to live.  So, the policy apparently is not to HELP victims of an apparent arson, but to hurt them more.

All of that was, of course, "coincidental".
And, of course, the Delaware County District Attorney's office refuses to investigate the attempted murder of the mother and grandmother -

1. because the mother and grandmother committed the mortal sin of suing the now-quickly-allegedly-retired judge (Carl Becker) who was the law partner of the Acting District Attorney John Hubbard.  Neither Hubbard, nor Becker ever disclosed the connection, thus having contaminated ALL criminal cases litigated by the Delaware County District Attorney's office between January 1, 2002 and July 31, 2015 in front of Carl Becker as the County Judge, and
2. because the Delaware County DA's office employs as investigator, the uncle of one of the suspects, Jeff Bowie.

So, as opposed to Tennessee, where at least some judicial accountability is shown in Judge Bell's case, in New York we deal with zero accountability of judges for misconduct, and a methodical campaign to use taxpayers' money in order to wield retaliation, in every possible way, against those who raise issues of judicial misconduct.

And, in New York, we have an unspoken policy where judges, like Mary Rita Connerton, refuse to even read motions containing evidence of misconduct and undisclosed conflicts of interest of a judge, no matter what reasoning, what evidence and what mandatory law is cited in support of the motion.

To New York judges, if you do not provide a lot of supporting evidence, you've made a frivolous motion and must be sanctioned.

If you provided a lot of supporting evidence, on the other hand, it gives the presiding judge a headache, and they simply do not read it - and deny it without reading it, as Judge Connerton did, relying on the transcript from the motion hearing in front of Judge Revoir.


Tennessee investigates a judge for the exact same conduct which is allowed in New York for Judge Connerton.

And, in New York,

• calling constitutional argument lying (Revoir);
• issuing arrest orders after claiming the court has no jurisdiction (Revoir);
• engaging in ex parte communications (Connerton);
• lying about it in official papers when confronted with a motion to recuse (Connerton);
• causing the court clerk to refuse to provide the injured party a transcript where her case was discussed (Connerton);
• then, cooking the transcript when another party requested it, so that it appears that I was present at the hearing where I was not present (Connerton), and
• denying motion to recuse herself as being without merit (Connerton) -

is all business as usual.