New York provides whistleblower protection to fired nonprofit employees, but does not investigate nonprofits for misuse of funds - unless the nonprofit under investigation is linked to a presidential candidate of the "wrong" party

An employee of a private non-profit school reported the school's principal for using the school's fund for a personal vacation with some alumnis to Cuba - where, as the lawsuit alleged,

"[t]wo seniors from scandal-scarred Poly Prep shared a hooker, booze and cigars on a school-financed “rite of passage” Cuban getaway hosted by a top school official, a stunning new lawsuit charges", and where, reportedly

the son of the school principal and a son of a "famous musician" participated in the trip.

After blowing the whistle on that misuse of funds, the employee was allegedly harassed by the director of the school, fired - and sued for non-compliance with the new Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that hush money were paid out of the non-profit funds to silence an alumni who was on the trip and witnessed the alleged debauchery of the two students.

The Kings County Supreme Court has recently found for the employee, allowing her whistleblower portion of the lawsuit to continue.

Non-profits handle not only direct donations from individuals, but also act as recipients and "pass-through" agencies for state and federal grants, and it is extremely important for taxpayers to know whether their money is pilfered by high-ranking officers of such non-profits.

This decision, by New York judge Loren Bailey-Schiffman,

is a true step, although a small and incomplete step (the judge dismissed the breach of contract and defamation claims of the fired employee) forward to fight waste of taxpayer money in the State of New York.

Yet, the judge demonstrated courage when, in our day and age, she at least ruled for the employee on the whistleblower issue and allowed this lawsuit to continue - even though it may have involved a child of a celebrity.

Let's see whether this decision will be overruled on appeal.

And, my question is - with the news of reported misuse of nonprofit funds, where is our fearless New York State Attorney General and why do we not hear about criminal charges filed against the school's principal and those who authorized the payout of the trip money and the "silence money"?

Or, is New York nonprofit law good enough for the New York State Attorney General to use only to attack the Republican presidential candidate in the crucial months before the election, for the NYS AG's own personal political gain - but NYS AG is too timid to touch a case that may involve (as it reportedly does) a son of a rock star?

Yet another decision in favor of the defense from a criminal court in Bronx - running down the street in a high crime area does not warrant an arrest and search

I just posted about an unusually correct and impartial decision of a New York criminal court in favor of the defendant - by judge Laurence Brusching in the Bronx Criminal Court. 

In yet another decision of a Bronx criminal court, Judge Lester B. Adler found that the police did not have right to the level 2 intrusion (out of 4 so-called "De Bour" factors), and thus the arrest, search and identification of defendants should be suppressed - leaving the People with not much to proceed with.

The "level 1" De Bour intrusion factor that the judge found legitimate was when defendants ran towards the police officers in a high crime area, and when the police officers stopped them and asked whether "everything was ok".

Yet, when police officers received an answer that everything was ok, they had, according to the court, no right to arrest, search and identify defendants.

It is a correct and reasonable decision, otherwise the police will be grabbing anybody who runs in their own neighborhood which happens to be a high crime area, which would necessarily have affected poor and minority populations.

Kudoz to Judge Lester B. Adler for the impartial and correct application of the law, even if it resulted in a ruling in favor of a criminal defendant (which, as I said above, rarely happens in New York courts).

In a rare move, a Bronx criminal court (NY) dismisses a case because People's statement of readiness was illusory

There are honest judges in New York out there who do not always bend backwards to the prosecution, as it usually happens.

Judge Laurence Busching, a former prosecutor I must add,

dismissed a criminal case for "Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law [PL] § 120.00 [1]); Menacing in the Third Degree (PL § 120.15); and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1])" - because People's statement of readiness (designated as "SOR" in the decision) was "illusory" - not true.

Assault in the 3rd Degree, PL 120.00(1) (intentional causing an injury to a person), is a Class A misdemeanor  punishable by up to 1 year in local jail.

Menacing in the 3rd Degree, PL 120.15 (threatening a person and putting a person in fear of death or serious bodily injury) is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in local jail.

Harassment in the 2nd degree, PL 240.26(1) (striking, shoving, kicking or otherwise subjecting  another person to physical contact, or attempting or threatening to do the same) is a violation punishable by up 15 days in jail. 

So, the People failed to properly prosecute a criminal defendant who allegedly caused a physical injury and made threats of death or physical injury to another person, blew taxpayers' money by prosecuting the criminal defendant for nearly a year while their witness would not come to trial on multiple occasions - and, as a consequence, the criminal case was correctly dismissed on speedy trial grounds.

Yet, a precedent was made (unless People appeal and the appellate court overrules it) that People cannot do what they always do in criminal court - run their mouth that they are "ready", file whatever they want with the court at whatever time they want, while the court would accept whatever they say or file as Gospel.

Judge Busching applied the New York state statutory law of speedy trial IMPARTIALLY, as judges usually don't, but should rule.

Kudoz to Judge Busching.

The first reaction to the criminal complaint against Delaware County (NY) Clerk Sharon O'Dell and attorney/judge Jonathan S. Follender - the immediate resignation of Sharon O'Dell

On October 19, 2016 I have sent a criminal complaint and a demand of impeachment against Delaware County (NY) Clerk Sharon O'Dell, for knowingly filing a false multi-thousand dollar judgment fabricated by attorney (and town justice) Jonathan S. Follender, and against attorney Jonathan S. Follender and his client on whose behalf (as well as his own) he filed a fabricated judgment.

On October 24, 2016, a Monday, the complaint was received by:

1) Delhi Village Police;

2)  Delaware County Sheriff's Department;

3) Chairman of Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel, with a demand to impeach and fire Sharon O'Dell and members of her personnel who knowingly filed the fraudulent judgment; and

4) Attorney Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division 3rd Department - asking for disbarment of Jonathan S. Follender who, once again, knowingly filed a fraudulent multi-thousand dollar judgment contrary to a clear court order.

On October 25, 2016 I also filed a complaint against Judge Follender with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct demanding the immediate suspension of Follender from his position of Town Justice of the Town of Denning, Ulster County, and to ultimately take him off the bench, after full prosecution, and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.

Today, a reader of my blog has sent to me a photograph from a local newspaper circulated in Delhi, NY, Delaware County - "The County Shopper", of October 27, 2016,

Took Sharon O'Dell 3 days since the filing of the criminal complaint to suddenly and unexpectedly "retire".

Sharon O'Dell is 65.  Of course, all predecessors of Sharon O'Dell died in office - the job of sitting and doing nothing for $63,245 a year in rural Delaware County, NY 

and have "absolute judicial immunity" for malicious and corrupt acts in office (not against a criminal complaint though) was too good to give up, and there was no prior announcement of her planned "retirement" - so it is obvious that Sharon O'Dell ran from office because of the criminal complaint and did not just suddenly "retire".

Sharon O'Dell obviously tried to save her pension - had she been impeached and fired, she could have lost it.  I wonder if she will keep it if she is criminally prosecuted, indicted and convicted.

NO elected public official would suddenly "retire" 12 days before the next elections outside of the election cycle.

Here is the "sample ballot" in Delaware County for the upcoming November 8, 2016 elections.

Delaware County Clerk's position is not on the ballot this year.  The only Delaware County position up for elections this year is that of the County District Attorney - see the last column on the right on the "sample ballot".

Had Sharon O'Dell's decision to "retire" been a regular decision, no tied to my criminal complaint against her, she would have announced her retirement a long time ago, to allow her replacement through elections this coming November.

The "retirement" of Sharon O'Dell eliminates the need for her impeachment - and I wonder who will be her replacement (since the criminal complaint is filed against her AND her personnel who participated in filing of the fraudulent judgment).

Yet, Sharon O'Dell's flight from the position of Delaware County Clerk does not cancel out the request for her criminal investigation and prosecution.  The sworn criminal complaint is filed, is based on irrefutable documentary evidence, and Sharon O'Dell's "retirement" does nothing to stop the criminal investigation and prosecution of herself and members of her now former personnel who knowingly filed the fraudulent multi-thousand dollar judgment, which is a FELONY punishable by years in state prison.

I wonder whether before her retirement Sharon O'Dell corrected her "mistake" or left it in - if she did not correct her mistake and did not annul the fabricated judgment before leaving, that would only aggravates her criminal conduct.

I wonder whether the newly formed and much celebrated "Del-Chen-O [Delaware-Chenango-Otsego County] Women's Bar Association" was notified that

• a criminal complaint based on documentary evidence was pending against Sharon O'Dell

before they were asked to Congratulate Sharon O'Dell on her early "retirement" and wish her their "Highest Hopes" for a "Beautiful Life Ahead" -

but I would not be surprised to learn that they knew about the criminal complaint and

simply participated covering up the real reason for RESIGNATION of Sharon O'Dell - that she was caught in committing a bad crime and is RUNNING.

A poor start and a poor advertisement for the "#Del-Chen-OWomen'sBarAssociation", supported by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District (Molly Fitzgerald), a Judge of the Appellate Division (Elizabeth Garry) and the local Attorney Grievance Committee (Monica Duffy) - see all of them, together with Delhi, NY attorneys Larisa Obolensky and Rene Albaugh in the picture celebrating the start of the "Del-Chen-O"

to endorse a public official caught red-handed in commission of a felony, and to wish a criminal caught red-handed a "beautiful life ahead". 

In prison, life is usually not that beautiful.

I will now have to ask Monica Duffy's Attorney Grievance Committee to disqualify herself from Follender's case since she endorsed the organization that endorsed Sharon O'Dell after the criminal complaint against O'Dell and Follender was filed.

Of course, the local authorities will try to sweep the criminal complaint against public officials under the rug - as they usually do.  But, I will continue to cover how the criminal complaint against Sharon O'Dell and Jonathan S. Follender is - or is not - investigated and prosecuted in Delaware County.

Stay tuned.

Time to take the oathbreaker #JudgeRichardPosner off the bench

Richard Posner, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, an appellate judge, presides over trials as a trial judge.

Why?

Because he wants to, because he thinks that presiding over trials (something he did not do before being appointed to the federal bench) enhances his experience and makes him a better appellate judge.

There is a question though as to legality of assignments of Posner as a federal appellate judge to district cases, the conflicts of interest it creates for Posner's work as an appellate judge - and that is especially so that

• trial experience is not a requirement for an appellate judge (obviously so, since Posner was confirmed to his position as an appellate judge without such experience), and
• for an appellate judge to seek trial experience is weird - because an appellate judge must be content in restricting himself to the record on appeal and the issues it raises - and the record alone.

The record on appeal is the jurisdictional boundaries within which an appellate court and judge must operate.  If the judge is not happy with those boundaries - he should resign.

Judge Posner appears to be not happy with the boundaries of his job and seeks not so much experience but additional excitement of a trial court where he has more opportunities for in-person communications and to hand out his famous "benchslaps", for which he goes outside of the record and does "his own research" - which is prohibited to an appellate judge by the jurisdictional boundaries of the record on appeal only.

Yet, Judge Posner's job - for which citizens and taxpayers of this country hired him and are paying him, more than they pay a district court judge - is clear.

Judge Richard Posner was appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be an appellate judge, and he draws a salary of an appellate judge - which is higher than the salary of a district court (trial judge).

Judge Posner is one of 12 judges in a very busy federal appellate court:

Federal appellate judges complain of crushing caseloads - in fact, so crushing that they decide 85% of cases and (according to my personal research, probably, 100% of civil rights cases), through "summary orders" instead of full-swing opinions.  In other words, the majority of federal appeals and an overwhelming majority of civil rights cases are decided in a negligent manner, because supposedly judges are too busy to decide "worthier" cases.

Of course, the law of equal protection requires that for the same fee litigants get the same review and the same quality of review - and federal appellate court do not have DISCRETION to give less time to some cases over others.

Yet, that's what they do.

Any additional activities of appellate judges further cut into time they already claim they do not have to provide full opinions for all appellate cases that come in front of them.

Thus, Judge Posner's trial judge activity is hurting appellate litigants, and appellate litigants whose cases are decided by Judge Posner's summary order may have questions whether Judge Posner and his panel decided to rule on a case through a summary order and not a full opinion because Judge Posner found it more entertaining for himself to play at the role of a trial judge in a high-publicity district court case.

He "volunteers for trials" - like he did

• in 2007, and
• in 2012 for an Apple v Motorola trial where he "experimented" with court-appointed experts to explain unclear scientific terms to jurors - placing the court as an expert witness in front of the jury and thus destroying the court's neutrality and argued for stipulation to "blue-ribbon juries", cancelled the trial, and gave interviews as to his own decisions, expressing his "expert" opinions on intellectual property and declaring his own policies.

Yet, such "volunteering" is not supported by any law.

The assigned district judge must remain on the case from start to finish unless he disqualifies himself.

It is extremely rare - if at all happens - that the entire U.S. District Court would disqualify itself, so that a judge from another court would be invited.

Moreover, if a judge from another court is to be invited, a judge from the court of the same level - a district court judge - will be invited from that other court.

I found no announcements that the entire district courts recused so that Posner could be assigned, so assignment of Posner to trials was a FAVOR of the district court to Posner - a favor which was illegal

• not only because Posner had no right to preside over trials, not only because
• such presiding took him away from doing his job as an appellate judge, not only because
• such assignments created a HUGE conflict of interest when his decision would go to his own court for an appeal, but also because
• such assignments, catering to the whims of an appellate judge, tainted ALL decisions in ALL appellate cases coming in front of Posner from that court - creating appearances of trading favors.

Finally, is it really such a good idea for appellate judges to have trial experience, and for sitting appellate judges to continue to engage in presiding over trials in a court below?

My opinion is - NO and NO.

First, an appellate judge has a jurisdictional restriction - the Record on Appeal.  That's it.  That's all that the appellate judge is allowed to see and consider, and an appellate judge is allowed to consider ONLY issues "preserved for review".

Whether the appellate judge does or does not have trial experience, whether he is aware of possible trial dynamics - is irrelevant for appellate review.  It reviews only the issues of law and whether the trial court and trial attorneys followed the rules, or whether the trial court "abused its discretion".

When an appellate judge wants to fit the shoes of a trial judge in order to "better" decide appellate cases, that smacks of bias - because if the appellate judge learns about "trial dynamics", he would want to inject his own experience into his decision-making, taking him outside of the record on appeal, and Judge Posner is already known for doing his own investigations outside of the record on appeal, something that even a trial judge is not allowed to do.

In other words, when an appellate judge seeks to also gain trial experience after being appointed as an appellate judge, that indicates not only that the judge is not happy within his boundaries as an appellate judge - and thus is not a good appellate judge and should be removed from his position.

Posner also seems not to be sufficiently entertained as a federal appellate judge - even though, despite the supposedly "crushing" caseloads that cause the 7th Circuit, as all other federal court, to dump over 85% of federal cases and, likely, 100% of civil rights cases through sloppy 2-page "summary orders", Posner have found time to:

• author dozens of books - and started publishing when he became a judge, so he used his judicial position as a sales point;
• teach in law school , and
• "volunteer" at trials in high-publicity cases.

Judge Richard Posner

according to his official biography (including his career path) published on his page at the Chicago School of Law:

Judge Posner has not worked in his life for one second other than in taxpayer-backed jobs - and, while he engages in his lucrative hobbies instead of doing his job, and while his lifetime of financial well-being is derived from taxpayer-backed jobs that require an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, he has the audacity to claim that it is useless for a judge who is deciding cases regarding violations of the U.S. Constitution to study the U.S. Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land, the law that Judge Posner has pledged to protect and uphold as a condition to have a law license and as a condition to get on that federal bench).

From a taxpayer point of view, Posner can be brilliancy itself, but since he does not do his job, and instead seeks to entertain himself with anything other than doing his job of a federal appellate judge, the way that job is supposed to be done by law -

and do it within the record on appeal, as the law requires, without additional out-of-the-record investigations by the judge, without "volunteering" for trials to "enhance" his judicial abilities as an appellate judge -

he should be removed from his bench, and stripped of his law license - because he lied to the licensing authorities, lied to the U.S. President, lied to the U.S. Senate and the American people and took oaths of office to the law that he deems worthless to know and research.

Imagine:

law school graduate Richard Posner comes before a law licensing committee and claims - "it is useless to study the U.S. Constitution".   He would have been denied his law license application up front. 

So, he lied to the licensing commission in 1962 that he will uphold the U.S. Constitution that he considers a useless document, and got a lifetime of financial well-being, 54 years so far, from us the taxpayers paying him for that lie.

Moreover, he has been a federal appellate judge since 1981, so 35 years ago he also lied to the U.S. President Ronald Reagan and to the U.S. Congress that he would be faithful to the U.S. Constitution, the law that he despises and does not consider "worth studying for a judge".

Imagine that presidential nominee Richard Posner would come to the U.S. Congress and say at his confirmation hearing what he is saying now - "it is not worth it for a judge to study the U.S. Constitution".

He would not have been confirmed - and likely, his career from that time on would have been over, since confirmation hearings are public record and the media would have destroyed him.

So, he lied to the U.S. President and to the U.S. Congress that he will be faithful to the U.S. Constitution - and got his well-paying job, 35 years ago, and sat on the taxpayers' necks for 35 years while treating his oath of office as a joke.

Two days ago, I posted about what a waste to taxpayers the U.S. Supreme Court is, pretending it does a job it physically cannot do with less than 12 minutes per certiorari petition for review and judges pursuing their hobbies and paid trips by litigants while law clerks are slaving as judges.

Today, I am posting about yet another waste of our money - paying lower-level federal judges who do anything but their jobs, at our expense, in order to entertain themselves, enhance the value of their side commercial projects like book-publishing and teaching, and while mocking the very oath that they took to get their public employment jobs and to sucker us for our hard-earned money.

They have no right to remain on our payroll.

Violent judges are not that dangerous - the cases of New York #JudgeFrankLabuda and #AdministrativeLawJudgeRobertBeltrani

Imagine that there is a report from an individual that a neighbor deliberately ran over that individual on an ATV.

What will happen to the alleged perpetrator?

The alleged perpetrator will be immediately arrested, charged with a felony assault, based on the statement of the alleged victim, and kept in jail without bail or with a high bail.

What if the alleged victim is a judge?  In other words, a judge complains that a neighbor deliberately ran over him on an all terrain vehicle?

Most certainly the alleged perpetrator will be held in jail without bail as a very dangerous person.

Now, let's reverse the roles.  An individual alleges that his neighbor who is a judge ran over him in an ATV.

What happens to the alleged perpetrator now?

If the law is blind and is applied equally across the board, there should be no difference - the judge should be held in jail without bail as a dangerous person.

Yet, in the exact same situation the Sullivan County (NY) Judge Frank LaBuda never saw the insides of a jail, he was never arrested or charged, even though statement of the alleged victim is enough to charge him with felony assault (a disbarring offense that would have the judge expelled not only off the bench, but also out of the legal profession), and remains free, pending New York State Attorney General's investigation - while New York State Attorney General, under Public Officers Law Section 17, is also Judge LaBuda's counsel - an irreconcilable conflict of interest that should subject the New York State Attorney General who undertook such an investigation to attorney disciplinary charges.  There should have been a special investigator assigned - and not Judge Labuda's own counsel - to investigate him, an out-of-state investigator, if necessary, if everybody within the state is afraid and has a conflict of interest.

One can say that the investigation is still pending, and that Judge LaBuda is presumed innocent, and I agree.

Yet, anybody else in the same circumstances would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, too, and yet, there would have been immediate charges, jail detention - and the related loss of a job, foreclosure through inability to pay the mortgage, loss of a vehicle for inability to pay, child support contempt orders if that person is paying child support etc.

Presumption of innocence works differently with judges than with average Joes accused of crimes?

Judges are a little bit MORE EQUAL than everybody else?

That was Violent Judges Episode # 1.  That was in September of 2016.

In October of 2016 there came a Violent Judges Episode # 2.

Imagine that a heavy and heavily drunk man "sucker-punches" a man in the street causing the man to fall, unconscious and dislocate his shoulder in the fall. 

Imagine that the drunk left the unconscious man and left the scene.

Imagine that the whole episode was:

1) captured on nearby security cameras; and
2) there is a number of witnesses who

• took the plate numbers of the perpetrator's car;
• identified the perpetrator; and
• provided statements claiming that the perpetrator punched the victim deliberately, claiming: "I do justice.  I f**king kill people";
• left the scene, while obviously very drunk, driving a car

Now imagine what would have happened in a case where both the victim and the perpetrator are "average Joes from the street"?

Most likely, the police would immediately

• arrest the perpetrator,
• charge him with a felony assault causing grievous bodily injuries and with
• driving while intoxicated,
• have his driver's license pulled and
• put him in jail without bail, waiting for his arraignment in criminal court in the morning.

In view of the perpetrator's dangerousness, and statement that he is "killing people", the perpetrator would most likely have been denied bail.

Now imagine that the victim is a judge.

The arrest, charge and jail would then happen with a lightning speed, possibly with an addition of some anti-terrorist charge.

Now imagine that the perpetrator was a judge.

New York Administrative Judge Robert Beltrani sucker-punched a Legal Aide attorney Sam Roberts, left him, unconscious, on the side of a sidewalk, and according to witnesses, drove away, instead of calling the ambulance - somebody else did that, and the victim was taken to Bellvue Hospital.

What happened then, after Judge Beltrani was identified by witnesses and while the whole punching and leaving the scene episode was captured IN FULL on video?

Was he arrested?

Was he charged with a felony and DWI?

Was he held in jail without bail as a dangerous person that he is?

Nope.

He "surrendered himself", received a "desk appearance ticket" - and remains free and at large, a dangerous alcoholic who can punch (and kill) people at random, it is the victim's sheer luck that he is alive - and who can also driving drunk.

This man is roaming the streets and can kill you or your loved one - because he thinks he is above the law, and the law enforcement let's him continue to think that's true.

Why such a special treatment?

Obviously because the perpetrator is a judge.

And an attorney:

Think about it - he is not simply a judge, but a judge in the Department of CORRECTIONS and COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.

He should be an example to the litigants - parolees - appearing in front of him.

He is not an example.  He is not even a joke.  He is a danger, a mortal danger to people - and that danger is not addressed because everybody is afraid to upset a judge.

What was reportedly captured on security cameras is a DISBARRING OFFENSE - a crime chargeable as a felony.

I wonder whether that footage will now conveniently disappear, or whether something will happen to it - so that Judge Robert Beltrani would be able to keep his law license.

Remember - this is the country, including New York State, where CRITICIZING a judge for misconduct is a suspension or disbarring offense.

That's why judges are immune not only for "malicious and corrupt acts on the bench", but, apparently, are allowed to commit violent crimes and continue to roam the streets.  Because THEY ARE THE LAW in this country.

The drunk violent and corrupt people in black robes with the sense of absolute impunity no matter what crimes they commit are the law of this country.

Do not expect people to respect the law - or judges and judicial decisions - if even in situation where:

• a specific individual claims to be a victim of a violent crime committed by a judge (Judge Labuda's case); or
• a security camera footage and a number of witnesses claim that a judge sucker-punched an individual, said  "I do justice.  I f**king killing people", and left the victim unconscious - for dead, actually - on the sidewalk while fleeing the scene in a car (Judge Beltrani's case);

the perpetrators are still not arrested or charged with felonies, in accordance to witness statements and evidence, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, because everybody is afraid to TOUCH a judge

(and a 2014-2015 Chairman of the Republican Party in Queens, New York - as it is in Judge Beltrani's case, and a politician who has the ear and support of influential former New York State Senator Maltese)

- no matter what evidence exists showing that he has committed a violent felony and is a danger to people.

And, it is very obvious that the system where the state governments regulate attorneys, allegedly to protect consumers of legal services fails all of us, badly, when the government puts that regulation in the hands of judges, and for that reason, criminal prosecutors who are licensed attorneys and whose livelihoods are in the hands of those they may be called upon to investigate and prosecute, are afraid to prosecute judges for violent crimes - or for any other crimes, on or off the bench.

If this country is based on the rule of law - as it is claimed from high official pulpits all the time; if this country has equal protection of law for all, if this country does not have titles of nobility that are implied as soon as a person takes a high position in the government, especially a judicial position - the law then MUST be applied equally to Judges LaBuda and Beltrani.

And, until and unless these judges are charged with violent felonies - based on statements of their alleged victims, as provided by law - and are treated the exact same way as anybody else would be under the circumstances of their cases - there is no rule of law in the State of New York.

Instead, the two rules that litigants appearing in front of ALJ Robert Beltrani may discern from the sordid affair with Beltrani's assault on a lawyer that nobody has courage enough to deal with in accordance with the law, are:

1) Do as Judge Beltrani says, not as he does; and
2) If you want to be above the law, get up here where ALJ Beltrani is, otherwise shut up - the law is only for the cattle like the average Joes, not for the Sky Dwellers like judges.

And those rules can teach those in "corrections and community supervision" only one law - that there is no law, that power is law.

And teaching people already convicted of crimes THAT rule is quite dangerous.

Don't you think?

#IStandWithAttorneyMarcusMumford. Attorney Mumford, beaten up, tasered and arrested for making a legal argument for his clients, and #USDistrictJudgeAnnaBrown - the new face of judicial misconduct

I recently wrote about the Nevada public defender, attorney Zohra Bakhtary who was handcuffed in court for making legal arguments on behalf of her client.

We have another case like that - and worse than that, if it was even possible.

A jury acquitted defendants in the famous Bundy case in federal court, in the State of Oregon.

And by law, when a jury acquits the defendant, the defendant is free to go.

And that is exactly what attorney Marcus Mumford

was arguing to U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, a judge with 35 years of experience as a lawyer and 24 years of experience as a judge - who knew exactly what she was doing.

But, Judge Brown claimed that the defendants were, allegedly, "wanted" on another federal indictment, in Nevada - and that's why she was detaining them in Oregon.

Attorney Mumford asked the judge to show the document she used as a basis of continued detention of his clients.

The judge did not have the document and, thus, did not have jurisdiction to detain the defendants after acquittal.

So, attorney Mumford, faithful to his oath of office and to his duty to his clients, insisted on his clients' release.

The judge refused to release them - obviously, unlawfully, since she was unable to produce the order of detention.

The attorney continued to insist on his clients' release.

The U.S. Marshals continued to grab his clients leading them into custody.

The attorney demanded documents from the U.S. Marshals that they used as a basis of taking attorney Mumford's client into custody.

As a result, attorney Mumford was reportedly:

• physically tackled - by, reportedly, 9 marshals: 6 men and 3 women;
• tasered;
• handcuffed;
• arrested;
• taken into custody, and
• charged for contempt of court.

All for asking, first, for documents used as a basis of his clients' continued detention after acquittal by jury, and for asking for documents justifying his arrest.

And, of course, for his good work in persuading the jury to acquit his clients.

The judge was supposed to maintain order and LAW in her courtroom.

The judge was supposed to PREVENT unlawful detention of defendants, she had the power to do that.

But, apparently, the judge was pissed off by the acquittal.

And she took it out on the "culprit" - the defense attorney.

And, the judge did not protect the attorney, instead she charged her for disobeying a court order.

A month ago Judge Brown already tried, hard, to prevent attorney Mumford from presenting to the jury evidence of governmental misconduct.  She threatened him with contempt and with high monetary fines.  She tried hard to help the prosecutors get a conviction.  The contempt was threatened against Mumford because the judge restricted Mumford's cross-examination of prosecution's witnesses (in violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause).

In February of 2016, another federal judge, in another federal criminal case, also threatened attorney Mumford with contempt for allegedly violating court orders restricting his cross examination - also in violation of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause.

So, the stubborn attorney Mumford who fearlessly does his job for his clients, has been in the cross-hairs of federal judges for a while.

In the Bundy case, the judge's efforts to restrict his constitutional right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses have failed.  The jury acquitted anyway.

So, attorney Mumford ended up physically tackled by 9 people, tased, arrested (without charges), handcuffed, and put into a holding cell - so Judge Brown finally had her dream come true, Attorney Mumford was punished for doing his job.

And, lo and behold, the punished attorney is a criminal defense attorney, as it nearly always is for targets of government rage, not the weasels who destroyed evidence for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The country that arrests, tasers, beats up and criminally charges its criminal defense attorneys in punishment for effective criminal work, and for effectively arguing for their release from unlawful detention, the country that continues to punish attorneys for doing their jobs and for criticism of unlawful actions of judges - has no right to claim it is governed by the rule of law.

Taze the attorney for winning!

That's a new rule.

But definitely not of law.