When honest prosecutors are fired for doing their jobs and nobody dares to prosecute prosecutors who commit crimes

Meet Jeffrey Domachowski, a New York attorney with 21 years of experience, according to his registration information.

The registration information of attorney Domachowski is not current though - attorney Domachowski is no longer employed at the Cayuga County District Attorney's office.

According to Attorney Domachowski's Notice of Claim filed against the Cayuga County, Cayuga County District Attorney Jon A. Budelmann

fired Jeffrey Domachowski in July of 2016 for being faithful to his duty as an attorney and an honest prosecutor - for turning over to criminal defense attorneys the so-called "Brady material", in violation of what Jeffrey Domachowski claims is Jon Budelmann's order (and, obviously, policy) of non-disclosure.

Now, while non-disclosure of Brady material is a routine occurrence - and thus policy - of prosecutors in New York, that same non-disclosure led to termination and disbarment of North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong.

There is no question that Jon Budelmann, an attorney with 23 years of experience

knew about his Brady obligations to disclose any evidence that tends to either exonerate the defendant, or diminish his guilt.

In cases where Budelmann, according to his former subordinate, former Assistant District Attorney Domachowski, ordered his subordinates not to disclose such evidence, at least one of the criminal defendants could have been convicted for 23 more years than his case warranted.

That is fraud upon the court and the party, a crime under Judiciary Law 487, and a disbarring offense - yet, DA Jon Budelmann remains very much in office, and with "no record of public discipline" - apparently, when a prosecutor repeatedly commits crimes, urges his personnel to commit crimes and fires his personnel for refusing to commit crimes - that is not a serious enough disciplinary violation for the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee to pursue.

DA Budelmann may or may not be reachable with a civil rights lawsuit by criminal defendants for failing to disclose the Brady material - because such nondisclosure would necessarily involve fabrication of higher-than-warranted charges.  Yet, the court will look very closely whether such fabrication is attributed to the investigative stage of DA Budelmann's job or to the prosecutorial side - and it is very likely that DA Budelmann will escape such a lawsuit with absolute prosecutorial immunity.

He cannot invoke prosecutorial immunity though in a retaliation lawsuit of an employee suing for retaliation.

DA Budelmann's "wisdoms" posted on his Facebook page are, of course, completely opposite to the policies he reportedly practices in his office.

Here are some of them.

First of all, Budelmann appears to be completely undeterred by the serious allegations of misconduct, continuing to post (see October 24 and October 19 of 2016 postings) his happy pictures on Facebook, with comments of thanks for "striving to make our community drug free".

Does Budelmann do that - and then some.

DA Budelmann also assigns much value to integrity - integrity for him is allegedly "doing the right thing even when no one is watching".  

I wonder how far that claim will go with the jury against Jeffrey Domachowski's testimony.

DA Budelmann also assigns great value to being kind.  He was very kind to criminal defendants whose charges he trumped up by, as Domachowski said, illegally withholding Brady material that could put those defendants in prison for years and DECADES longer than the cases warranted.

Budelmann was very kind, indeed, in treating Domachowski, too, by firing him for doing his job - against illegal orders of his Chief.

Jon Budelmann also points out to us that we must always strive to do our best.

If hiding Brady material in 15 criminal cases and firing an attorney for opposing his criminal activity is Budelmann's best, then he is a good candidate for impeachment - in addition to criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

DA Budelmann also believes in doing "as much good as you can, as long as you can, any way you can, wherever you can, for anyone you can, until you no longer can".

In this case, Budelmann's "do-goodness" got so far that the best thing to do with Budelmann is to make sure that he "no longer can" do good in his understanding.  

Budelmann likes to pose with the local Republican Committee and with local politicians.

 These pictures provide an idea of why a person with such a criminal policy which was reported to defense attorneys long time ago, still remains in public office - nondisclosure of Brady material, later disclosure, is based on documentary evidence, making investigation quite simple, if anybody wants to honestly do it.

And, Jon Budelmann made several postings on his Facebook page that he stole from the mouth of his own future sentencing judge (hopefully):

For a withholder of Brady material, pandering about subverters of the U.S. Constitution is rich, isn't it?

I will continue to cover this story, as well as the peculiar blindness of criminal and disciplinary authorities as to Jon Budelmann's transgressions - despite the fact that a Notice of Claim was filed which is required by law to be sworn, and an affidavit from a witness with personal knowledge is all that is needed to start a criminal proceeding.

The problem is - who will prosecute the prosecutor.

And when a prosecutor who knowingly and arrogantly breaks the law, and remains unreachable by attorney discipline or by criminal laws, such a setup does not inspire respect to the criminal justice system - or to prosecutors.

I also wonder whether attorney Jeffrey Domachowski has filed a criminal complaint with the Cayuga County Sheriff and the Auburn, NY local police to commence criminal proceedings against Budelmann, or he is afraid to lose not only his job, but also his license if he does that.

Budelmann has not only an adorable pug, 

but also, apparently, influential friends in the local government.

Not that it should mean a fig in a country governed by the rule of law.

Right?

Carl Becker - the immortal judge. Happy Halloween!

Do you think, anybody can live over 200 years?

You bet.

The name of that phenomenon is Carl F. Becker.

Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker "retired" in July of 2015, before the end of his term and long before mandatory retirement by age, losing, despite his well-known greed, half of his 2015 salary for the remaining 3.5 years until his retirement, and the hope of getting the increased salary at the beginning of 2016, and the increased pension, plus to his current court + social services pension of $114,387, plus after-retirement perks

(compare with the current salary of a Family Court judge Frank B Revoir)

The Becker "retired" and was not booted was incredible, since Becker grabbed his judicial position after a bitter election using fraud upon voters which he won (allegedly won, I won't put anything past Delaware County Board of Elections that already put in a false certificate of elections for Becker in 2011 for his alleged election in 2002) by a margin of 190 votes where he aggrandized himself in front of voters as a Boeing 747 while demeaning his opponent by calling him "a single engine prop plane".

It was all the more incredible that Becker would give up his judgeship voluntarily because, despite his retirement because he allegedly wanted to "spend more time with his granddaughter" who lived on the other coast of the U.S. in Seattle, WA and was reportedly about to leave to Australia, Becker continued to hover around Delaware County courthouse for a while - illegally keeping "judicial" plate numbers on his car, parking in a parking spot reserved for judges, and even fraudulently swearing in a new judge, Northrup - while having no authority to do that after retirement.

is, according to the website of New York State Office of Court Administration, still scheduled to hear court cases:

1. on Friday, August 27, 2021;
2. on Thursday, March 13, 2031; and
3. on Tuesday, September 01, 2201 - figure that one out - when all of people currently living on Earth will be dead, he will still be hearing cases

It appears, that Becker is not only un-retirable, but also immortal - the New York State Court Administration pledges, and we absolutely must believe it, that Becker will never die.

Even though the Boeing 747 has crushed and gave way to the "single engine prop plane", Judge Gary Rosa who is presiding over Delaware County Family Court instead of Becker now - contrary to Becker's hopes to put his puppet Porter Kirkwood there - he is still looming large in the court's scheduling.

How much money do taxpayers have to give NYS Court Administration to simply remove all scheduling of judges who are no longer judges, not to confuse and mislead the public?

But anyway, we are supposed to be happy and give out candy today.

Because - guess what - in the Halloween of 2201, a hundred eighty five years from now, how many of us can collectively haunt the still-alive Carl Becker!!!

That will be a happy haunting.

Happy Halloween!

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.