A nice solution to disciplinary investigation of #JudgeBrendaWeaver in the death penalty state overhwhelmed with unmet legal problems of largely illiterate population - to abolish its Judicial Qualifications Commission

Georgia is a state with a lot of social problems - and "interesting" solutions for these problems.

Georgia denies access to court to pro se individuals when it arbitrarily deems lawsuits of those individuals "frivolous" (as in claiming misconduct of the government - what constitutes "frivolous" in the eyes of judges is a very vague and arbitrary notion),

and does it despite the high percentage of illiterate population (up to 36%, more than every 3rd citizen in some of Georgia counties), and inability of pro se litigants (80% across the U.S.) to afford "counsel in good standing" (that Georgia highest court said should sign off a "vexatious litigant's" filings - for a fee that the pro se litigant might not have).

Georgia reported in 2009 that every low income family had 3 "legal needs" per year:

with legal assistance received in only 9.1% (9 out of 100) of problems,

and while most of such legal problems causing problems for individuals and/or families:

The State of Georgia, as all other states, also presumes knowledge of the law in everybody, including the poor and the illiterate - while at the same time suing to block its citizens, including the poor and the illiterate, from information about its own laws.

And the State of Georgia is IN-famous for segregating poor young troublemakers and deny to them decent living conditions, or proper education, thus perpetuating their poverty and troublemaking for their lifetime.

And, the State of Georgia, a death penalty state, punishes people, BY DEATH, for choosing to try their case in criminal court.

And, the State of Georgia is known for putting people who profess innocence, to death, without even having the decency of having a qualified person to insert the needle properly - and while the prosecution got the conviction only on a THIRD try (with a prior mistrial and a prior reversal of conviction).

And, the State of Georgia has prosecutors (who are supposed to be neutral) who have battery-operated toy electric chairs in their offices, and who are reportedly "pathologically enthralled with the death penalty" and who remain in office, pursuing the death penalty, in the State with high levels of poverty and illiteracy.

And, of course, such "toy electric chair" prosecutors are not disciplined - and, instead, criminal defense attorneys are sanctions, and put in jail, for "improperly" filing motions in defense of their clients in death penalty cases.

And, Georgia has judges who are indicted for their "tyrannical partiality" - which shows that its Judicial Qualifications Committee that issues a report upon which the judge was indicted, did something right.

And, in Georgia, a judge reportedly allowed himself a racial slur in court, then resigned, and then the judicial establishment, including the Chief Circuit Judge Brenda Weaver (who was at the time also the Chairman of the State Judicial Qualification Commission) trying to cover up the scandal - to the point of having her former law clerk (present prosecutor) arrest and charge a journalist and his lawyer who tried to get access to those records with felonies (a disbarring offense for the lawyer).

It is in that State of Georgia, where the poor cannot expect justice in its courts already - that made litigants lives even harder, by eliminating a possibility for them to even complain about misconduct of the state judges and have those complaints investigated.

Now, whatever misconduct Georgia judges commit, Georgians have nowhere to complain, nobody to deal with their complaints.

Because Georgian voters were duped into passing the "Amendment 3" abolishing its Judicial Qualifications Commission and subordinating the new Commission (which was not yet formed) to the State Legislature, where issues relating to the judiciary are handled by former judges and lawyers regulated by judges.

Amendment 3 asked, on the ballot, the following question:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to

• abolish the existing Judicial Qualifications Commission;
• require the General Assembly to create and provide by general law for the
• composition,
• manner of appointment, and
• governance of a new Judicial Qualifications Commission, with such commission having the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of judge
• require the Judicial Qualifications Commission to have procedures that provide for due process of law and review by the Supreme Court of its advisory opinions; and
• allow the Judicial Qualifications Commission to be open to the public in some manner?”

(structuring of the question added).

Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article112001547.html#storylink=cpy

Before the elections, interestingly enough, both Republicans and Democrats came together to oppose Amendment 3, claiming that oversight of judges by judges in the Judicial Qualifications Commission worked just fine for 44 years, and that transferring oversight to the Legislature will only result in more "power brokerage", and less independence of the Commission.

As a comparison, in New York, the majority of members of the Commission for Judicial Conduct is already appointed by the Legislature - and consists of a supermajority of judges and lawyers (9 out of 10 current members are lawyers), as opposed to "lay" members of the public.

Reportedly, there was "little campaigning on either side of the issue", and, possibly, for that reason, and for the reason that it offered to voters a presumably good solution to the presumably bad problem of lack of oversight and due process in the current Judicial Qualifications Commission, Amendment 3 has passed.

The State Bar of Georgia did not take a position on the issue - predictably taking the coward's way out, since it is a "professional suicide" for lawyers to engage in any discussion, and especially in a public discussion of any issue relating to discipline of judges for misconduct.  Of course, the official reason for taking the coward's way out by the State of Georgia and not informing the public about the issues involved with Amendment 3 was different - that if they make their position known BEFORE voting, they will not be "invited to the table" AFTER VOTING.

Despite the Georgia State Bar taking a position to keep silent in order to be "invited to the table" in case voters say "yes" to the Amendment, there was a bipartisan movements in the State of Georgia, uniting prominent present and former government and State Bar officials and citizen journalists, tried to oppose Amendment 3.

Current Georgia State Senator Josh McCoon, as well as Past President of the State bar, and former Chairman of the Judicial Qualifications Commission Lester Tate - united with citizen journalist Nydia Tisdale campaigned against Amendment 3.

Yet, if the whole reason for Amendment 3 and pandering it to the public to establish "oversight" by "people's representatives" in the State Legislature, the whole idea of inviting lawyers (people whose livelihood is regulated and controlled by judges) "to the table" of shaping and handling discipline of judges seems "counterintuitive" - or deceitful, as in "bait and switch" for the public.  Which is exactly what Amendment 3 is.

First, it was proposed by a former judge who ran from the bench during investigation of misconduct, so he would not propose anything that would benefit the public, as opposed benefiting the judiciary.

Second, oversight by Legislature where sponsors and proponents of bills regarding the judiciary are themselves licensed attorneys and "officers of the court" has nothing to do with "oversight" for the public and everything to do with lobbying for the judiciary and the bar regulated by the judiciary (and, since the State Bar wanted a "place at the table" discussing and handling regulation of judicial behavior, lawyers and judges in the State of Georgia regulate each other, not allowing the public anywhere near that regulation).

Georgia's Judicial Qualification Commission was not the best and the most independence watchdog of judicial discipline in the world - especially, with Judge Brenda Weaver as its recent leader, while a complaint was pending against her.

Yet, what it changed to is a straight-out lobbying body, which is even worse for the public.

And, the additional benefit of Amendment 3 - for judges, not the public - is that all pending investigations handled by the Commission at the time Amendment 3 passed (and that includes the investigation against Judge Brenda Weaver) necessarily stopped with abolishing of the Commission, and the public, at least for the "transition period" before the Legislature comes around to re-establish the Commission, has NO body handling complaints against judges and investigating and prosecuting judicial misconduct.

A brilliant move by the lobbyist former rogue judge and laywers/ legislators who are behind Amendment 3.

New York Law Journal, in a rare bold announcement, claimed that passing Amendment 3 - and thus subjecting the Judicial Qualifications Commission to "oversight" of the Georgia State Legislature, "strips" the Commission of its "constitutional independence".  Of course, New York Law Journal did not dare to say the same of the nearly exact same situation already existing in New York, where the majority of Judicial Conduct Commission is appointed by the State Legislature, and where the State Legislature has the oversight of the Commission, through its Judiciary Committee (and where both the Judiciary Committee, and the Commission for Judicial Conduct are comprised of super-majority of lawyers whose livelihood is controlled by judges).

The organization "Georgians for Judicial Integrity" also campaigned against Amendment 3, claiming that the text of Amendment 3 offered to voters on the ballot, is misleading and stating that "[I]f this amendment is approved by voters, Georgia will have less oversight of and accountability for judges who abuse their power. We must preserve the independence and integrity of the JQC."

Now - the bottomline is that:

1. Amendment 3 passed;
2. There is nowhere for Georgians to file complaints against rogue judges at this time.
3. All investigations against judges pending at the time Amendment 3 passed (including the investigation against Judge Brenda Weaver) are stopped, and, likely, will not be renewed by the "new" Commission.
4. The former rogue judge and lawyers who lobbied within the Legislature for Amendment 3, now got their wish.

Apparently, with the public emotions predominantly focused on presidential elections, such things as Amendment 3 easily slipped through.

Yet, it is time for us as citizens to realize that:

1. allowing all 3 branches of the government to be dominated by lawyers;
2. whose own livelihood is in the hands of the judiciary, and
3. while the judiciary is "regulated" by
1. screening or nominating committees comprised by lawyers;
2. by elections where lawyers (who know a thing or two about judicial misconduct, often seeing judicial candidates every day in the courtroom) gagged by the threat of losing their livelihood if they speak out - and thus the voters do not get the "WikiLeaks effect" and are not informed as to the true background and integrity of judicial candidates; and
3. by lawyers who are too timid to pronounce their position as to the agency dealing with judicial misconduct, in order to have a piece of the pie discussing makeup and operatio of that agency;
4. where rules of ethics by attorneys are written by judges and attorneys;
5. rules of ethics for judges are written by judges,

ALL OF THE ABOVE is NOT meant to protect the public, but is meant to protect the cozy status quo of lawyers, as a privileged class (if they "play by the rules" of their own privileged class, if they don't, another set of rules apply). 

And, such protection of lawyers' status quo has nothing to do with protection of the public - the declared reason for attorney regulation in the first place.

Several days have passed since voters accepted Amendment 3 in Georgia, and the Georgia State Judicial Qualifications Commission was abolished and its investigations and prosecutions stopped.

Yet, no news were available as to any movement of the Georgia State Legislature to institute as least a temporary Commission to handle citizens' complaints against rogue judges, nor are there any news as to enactment of new laws regarding the new Commission promised to the public through Amendment 3.

Which shows the real reason behind promoting Amendment 3 - stripping the public of any body to complain to and to have judicial misconduct investigated and prosecuted.

And that is called voter misinformation and fraud.  Big time.

No terrorist threat when a poor man, physically injured and robbed (literally) by a judicial decision claims judges who refuse to do their duties will be shot or will be hung in federal court from the highest tree - that is contempt of court in New York, but not terrorism

New York Penal Law 490.20 makes it a D felony, punishable by 7 years in state prison, to make a terroristic threat, here is the full text of the penal statute:

==

S 490.20 Making a terroristic threat.
  1. A person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when with intent
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a
unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of
a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she
threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and
thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent
commission of such offense.
  2. It shall be no defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section
that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing
the specified offense or that the threat was not made to a person who
was a subject thereof.
  Making a terroristic threat is a class D felony.

==

A man in Bronx, New York City, was charged with that crime under the following circumstances.

A young man, with two young children and a pregnant wife, was injured and received a workers compensation that was put into a joint account with the wife.

A housing court made a judgement against the wife and ordered automatic payment out of her account, which tapped into the workers compensation.

The young man came, with the pregnant wife and young children, to court to ask a judge to change the decision and return his workers' compensation money.

It was obvious that, when people are dealing with workers compensation, and housing court, and have two young kids and a child on the way, they are on the brink of a disaster.

It was in November of 2015, a cold month in New York City, so having no money and nowhere to go with young children and a pregnant wife is an awful thing at any time, but especially in the bitter cold of New York chilly fall and winter.

By the time Charles Adams went to court to ask to return his workers compensation money, multiple things went wrong.

1. He was injured.
2. His workers compensation attorney - if he had one - did not advise him that it was a bad idea to put his workers compensation money into a joint account with his wife, thus exposing the money to garnishing if his wife has any judgments against her, which is exactly what happened.
3. His family landed in housing court - so obviously, he was not able to pay rent.
4. A housing court made a judgment garnishing the young father's joint account with his wife - and thus his workers compensation money.

Faced with all of this stress, together with his pregnant wife and two young children, the man went to court to ask a judge to restore justice and to return the money to him.

The first judge he went to was judge Robin Sheares.

That was already bad luck, because judge Robin Sheares was transferred from another court for unethical behavior, bias, improper tirades from the bench and, reportedly, for jailing a mother for not allowing her son to go visit a serial rapist father in Arizona state prison, as Judge Sheares ordered her to do.

Judge Sheares jailed the mother, reportedly, after an ex parte communication with the father's family, without the mother's presence - a big no-no for a judge.  Judge Sheares was then disapproved for service as a judge by a judicial screening panel - but still remained on the bench, and was allowed to ruin more lives.

Judge Sheares is not a newcomer to the court system who lacks experience.  Instead, she has been an insider of the court system, as a law clerk/ court attorney, since 1986, according to her biography that she published herself during her election campaign in 2007.

When Charles Adams, the young injured father, appeared in front of Judge Sheares and asked her to return to him his workers compensation money garnished out of his and his wife's joint account by the housing court decision, Judge Sheares asked for evidence.

Charles Adams then claimed that he was a "sovereign citizen" and does not answer to Judge Sheares authority.

Judge Sheares, instead of telling Charles Adams to go, consult with an attorney and then return to the court again, simply denied his application.

So, Charles Adams went to another judge, Judge Theresa Ciccotto, who reportedly asked voters in non-Jewish communities, but not in Jewish communities, to vote for "one of us" (Theresa Ciccotto is not Jewish), which many people, naturally, perceived as anti-Semitic.  Theresa Ciccotto was at that point running against a Jewish judicial candidate Shlomo Mostofsky.

The "one of us" judge Theresa Ciccotto did not help Charles Adams and his family either - she simply refused to vacate another judge (Judge Sheares') order denying them relief - even though she knew that workers compensation money is not garnishable.

Just like that - Judge Sheares denied it, go to Judge Sheares for any other relief.

That's when the desperate young father lost it.

He recalled Article 2 of the New York Constitution - dealing with judicial misconduct and Commission for Judicial Conduct.

He told Judge Ciccotto that she and Judge Sheares will hang from the highest tree for treason IN FEDERAL COURT (not in the yard, at his hand).  And, he pointed A FINGER at the judge and said "pop".

After that, Charles Adams was overpowered, shackled, arrested and indicted with a D felony under Penal Law 490.20, making a terrorist threat against a judge, and for a 2nd degree criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.

It is very likely that Charles Adams was charged with an act of terrorism because of the theories of "sovereign citizen" that he expressed to Judge Sheares - since the FBI, that same FBI that refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for exposing high-clearance national security secrets to the whole wide world through a private e-mail server, consider civil rights movements of those relying upon

• the Declaration of Independence,
• the concept that People and not the government are sovereign (confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court before enactment of the 14th Amendment in the infamous Dred Scott case), and the concept of
• "consent of the governed" that comes directly from citizens and not from the government -

as a form of domestic terrorism.  The irony that the FBI is now targeting African Americans for claiming to be sovereign citizens while the U.S. Supreme Court, nearly 200 years ago, asserted that people are the sovereign - but refused to recognize African Americans as part of that sovereign... 

But, claiming "sovereign citizenship" is a no-no in the present court system.  Judges even have a "guidebook" advising them how to oppose "sovereign citizen" claims.

So, when Charles Adams refused to provide further information to Judge Sheares (rightly or wrongly) claiming he is a sovereign citizen - that, I believe, was a big part as to why he was charged as a terrorist.

Because, nowadays, quoting the Declaration of Independence, the principles upon which the U.S. democracy is founded - as Judge Andrew Napolitano encourages people to do - is considered an act of terrorism.

Fortunately for Charles Adams, reason prevailed in the judge who reviewed his assigned lawyers' motion to dismiss the charge that Charles Adams allegedly made a terrorist threat, ruling that while Charles Adams' behavior under obvious stress did not help things - and even constituted criminal contempt of court - it was definitely not an act of terrorism.

Yet, with the criminal contempt charge remaining pending, what will prosecution do now - call Judge Theresa Ciccotto as a witness, and she will testify that Charles Adams came to her for help, she refused help, and she now wants him to have a criminal record because of his emotional response for that?

Shouldn't a "one of us" judge be a little bit more compassionate than that?

The case of Charles Adams demonstrates how a poor, and injured person, a father of 2, soon to be three children, is horribly wronged by the system, at 4 different levels -

1. at the worker's comp level where nobody explained to Charles Adams not to put his workers' comp money into a joint account with his wife;
2. at the housing court which garnished the worker's comp money of another person, and no lawyer protected that money from garnishment;
3. at Judge Sheares' court where the judge denied a motion to restore justice and return the workman comp money to an injured man to be able to take care of himself and his family, just because he raised the "sovereign citizen" claim;
4. at Judge Ciccotto court where Judge Ciccotto grossly over-reacted to the father's emotional distress and, instead of understanding what he was going through, preferred to simply have him shackled, in front of his pregnant wife and young children, and carted away to jail, and charging him with a D felony that would have kept him away for 7 long years.

To put a poor - and injured - man in jail on $100,000 bond that the court was sure the man could not possibly post, just because he said that a federal court will hang a judge for treason...

An injured father who was robbed by a court of his workers compensation money, so that he was unable to feed his two children and a pregnant wife is a truly dangerous man.

And, it is a very good and reasonable allocation of taxpayer money to spend more on jailing him - and feeding and clothing him in that jail - than helping him out and granting his request to return HIS OWN WORKERS' COMP money.  He did not even ask the government to give him a subsidy.

He only asked to return his own money, wrongfully taken by the government.

And all that the government could give him in return is jail, on a terrorist threat.

For shame.

The New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman fights against remedies for the wrongfully convicted

Shabaka Shakur, a man who was convicted for a double-killing and who has spent 27 years in prison, filed a claim with New York State Court of Claims in 2012.

The Court of Claims refused to consider the claim and dismissed it, justifying the dismissal by the state's alleged "absolute state immunity".  The attorney that obtained the dismissal was New York State Attorney General.  That was in 2012.

Then, in 2014, with much fanfare, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman pushed for the so-called Wrongful Incarceration Act, so that all wrongfully convicted would have access to a "court remedy" - the one that Eric Schneiderman fights in court to block civil rights plaintiffs to obtain.

Yet, at the same time as announcing his endorsement of the Wrongful Incarceration Act, Schneiderman continued to oppose lawsuits for wrongful incarceration on behalf of defendants.

In 2015, Mr. Shakur's conviction was vacated based on new evidence, and Shabaka Shakur was released, after 27 years of incarceration, based on the scandal that the detective on whose testimony Mr. Shakur's conviction was obtained, Louis Scarcella, was involved in rigging convictions by false evidence and false testimony.

After Shabaka Shakur's conviction was overturned, and Mr. Shakur was released, he then used his right as a wrongfully convicted person and, claiming innocence, then filed another claim with the New York State Court of Claims, under Act §8-b (the one promoted by Schneiderman in 2014) which allows the wrongfully convicted to seek damages from the state.

That was what NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman claimed was the wrongfully convicted persons' right to do when promoting the "Wrongful Incarceration Act" in 2014.

And, the same NYS Attorney General who very demonstratively pushed for enactment of the "Wrongful Incarceration Act" in 2014, made a motion to dismiss that claim "on collateral estoppel grounds" - that the claim was already litigated.

But, it wasn't - since the conviction was overturned on new evidence, and the defendant was not retried.

And, the New York State Court of Claims allowed the wrongfully convicted person to proceed with the claim of damages.

Then, it was granted in November of 2016 by the New York State Court of Claims judge.

And, the New York State Attorney General's office continues to oppose the claim.

NYS Attorney General is actually drowning in conflicts of interest.

I first wrote about AG Schneiderman's conflicts of interest in 2014.

I wrote about fraud upon the court - a disbarring offense - committed by AG Schneiderman and his subordinates in federal courts, based on documentary evidence, while AG Schneiderman escaped discipline only because he represented the disciplinary committees in civil rights lawsuits against them, also in federal court, yet another conflict of interest.

This past 4th of July, I wrote about AG Schneiderman's statements where AG Schneiderman was attempting to mislead the public to believe that AG Schneiderman is defending civil rights,


instead of trying to stomp them by representing government defendants in such civil rights cases, and using the power of the state and taxpayer money to dismiss civil rights cases against the State of New York, its officers and employees for civil rights violations, see my blogs about that here and here, with statistics of civil rights lawsuits in which AG Schneiderman participated representing the defendants and opposing those lawsuits. I obtained those documents from pacer.gov and published them in the interlinked blogs. 

AG Schneiderman excelled in ducking his duties as an investigator and prosecutor by failing to prosecute corrupt public officials in New York - because, obviously, he represents them and cannot at the same time prosecute them - but fails to file a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in federal court, asking to strike Public Officers Law 17 directing NYS AG to represent those he may have to investigate and prosecute as unconstitutional.

Public Officers Law 17, by directing NYS AG to represent those in power, provides NYS AG with powerful protectors, and thus, he will never file such a lawsuit and is happy with his conflicts of interest.

That NYS AG does have a duty to investigate and prosecute crimes of state public officials, was recently demonstrated by the fact that NYS AG assumed investigation of Sullivan County Judge Frank LaBuda accused of a violent crime, see here and here.

At that point, I wrote that NYS AG is also the official attorney for Judge Frank LaBuda, but even then NYS AG did not file a federal lawsuit seeking to strike Public Officers Law 17 as creating an unconstitutional conflict of interest and preventing the NYS AG to properly discharge his duties as the state investigator and prosecutor against public officials in the State of New York committing crimes, thus shifting the duty, the expense and the risks of such investigations and prosecutions, to the feds.

Yet, while failing to investigate New York State public officials and while failing to file a federal lawsuit to eliminate the conflicts of interest involved in representing the same people that NYS AG may have to investigate and prosecute, NYS AG was busy this past presidential elections to aid his own party's candidate - by investigating her opponent, presidential nominee Donald Trump's foundation, for alleged illegal fundraising.

I would have accepted that investigation as neutral and proper if at the very same time NYS AG would investigate Hillary Clinton's Foundation for:

1. accepting money from foreign high-standing donors at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State;
2. using Foundation money for personal needs of the Clinton family, including the wedding of their daughter;  compare Schneiderman proudly going after a "pastor and his wife" for allegedly "pilfering" a charity for $100,000
   
    - while not going after the Clintons for pilfering the charity, reportedly, of millions of dollars for their daughters' wedding.  Of course, Schneiderman was not voting for the "pastor and his wife", so he was free to pursue them.
3. allowing the Foundation money to be used - reportedly - by Chelsea Clinton's husband for his hedge fund.

Since these allegations were revealed through released e-mails, and since CNN's Chris Cuomo, brother of New York State Governor, claimed the released e-mails to be "stolen property", thus confirming their authenticity, the investigation was quite in order - but I do not see NYS AG starting to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Instead, Schneiderman not only voted for Clinton, but publicly announced his vote on his official Twitter account - violating the law about a public official endorsing another public official during elections, on the day of elections.

That's the reason Schneiderman went after Trump's foundation, but not after Clinton's - and that's a really "neutral" prosecutor and enforcer of laws we have here.

In fact, for Schneiderman, the feeling of voting for Clinton, the person he was supposed to investigate, but never did because of personal hopes for gain, was very "describable" - he may have hoped for some kind of promotion, or a place in Clinton's Cabinet.  Money doesn't smell.

Also, while parading his alleged support for remedies for victims of wrongful convictions - and at the same time opposing such remedies for specific victims in courts , such as Shabaka Shakur, Schneiderman had the audacity of posting on Twitter the praise and support for yet another victim of wrongful conviction - who now restored his right to vote, no thanks to Schneiderman.

I bet, Shabaka Shakur may also have exercised his right to vote - but Schneiderman does not seem to be happily reporting it.

So, New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, "progressive & fighter for equal justice for all"

• continues to OPPOSE civil rights lawsuits on behalf of New York State defendants who violated people's constitutional rights and to OPPOSE the wrongfully convicted individual's claims for damages;
• violates the law by publicly endorsing a presidential candidate on the day of election on his official social media account, while
• failing to investigate that same candidate for violations in her charity that operates in New York, and while
• failing to investigate and prosecute corruption of public officials in New York - because he represents them all -

and, I do not see crowds of mourners burning their shoes over that.

Schneiderman is campaigning against racial discrimination

while opposing civil rights lawsuits for racial discrimination against the State of New York and its officers and employees, where he represents defendants who are accused of that same racial discrimination.

Schneiderman is campaigning against bail disproportionately affecting the poor,

but, if a lawsuit for unconstitutionality of that same bail disproportionately affecting the poor is or will be filed, he will be on the other side of the barricade, FIGHTING the civil rights lawsuit.

Schneiderman is now campaigning to "keep dark money out of politics" - while he is in no hurry pursuing Hillary Clinton's Foundation for accepting the "dark money" while she was Secretary of State.  And, had Hillary Clinton won, the Schneiderman would not have objected against the "dark money" electing her.

And, again, I do not see anybody burning their shoes in the streets protesting against this obvious corruption of a public official.

I am not naïve, and I do not believe in miracles.

I do not think that a billionaire elected on the wave of discontent of working America will not promote his own special interests, and will completely "Drain the Swamp" as the swamp needs to be drained.

It is for us the people to do the draining - and not through childish acts of burning shoes, but through:

1. declaratory judgment and injunctive relief lawsuits;
2. legislative proposals;
3. non-violent grass roots movements,
4. political action, creating new political parties;
5. reaching out to international communities to raise awareness of what is going on in the U.S. that does not match the image the U.S. tries to project outside of its borders, as the beacon of democracy and the protector of human rights, and, most of all -
6. through exposure of misconduct of government officials in the media.

Informing voters does make a difference nowadays, as the last elections demonstrated.

And, the next time the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman runs for re-election or for any other government office, he needs to be voted out.

For his dishonesty, for bowing to authority instead of doing his job, for his hypocrisy, and for promoting his party's interests instead of the interests of the People of the State of New York.

A law professor's revelation: deploring judges is bad for lawyers

A new revelation from a prominent law professor Eugene Volokh of "The Volokh Conspiracy": "good lawyers do not deplore judges", because "deploring a judge alienates the deplored".

"You can’t strike people because they’re prejudiced, or because you think they are. You’re stuck with them, and they’ll be passing judgment on your client — on your ideas and ideals that you are arguing for."

"Good lawyers don’t deplore their judges and jurors. Partly that’s because they don’t want to alienate the people who will be passing judgment on them. Deploring obviously turns off the deplored."

I wonder whether the professor has heard of litigants' right to an impartial court review.

And that that constitutional right must be secured with the right to be able to disqualify the judge for impropriety, bias or even an appearance of impropriety or bias.

And, to disqualify a judge, the judge must necessarily be criticized.

And, that it is the DUTY of the lawyer to secure his or her client's right to impartial judicial review.

And that the judge must recuse if he is not impartial, and the judge is not impartial if he feels he is "alienated" by the lawyer's criticism.

In other words, Professor Volokh recognizes that there is no such thing as presumption of integrity of judges and their presumptive ability to control themselves and not retaliate for personal reasons, specifically, because the lawyer criticized the judge.

And advises lawyers not to do their jobs and not to criticize judges under any circumstances - because that's not what "good lawyers" do.

So, "good lawyers" do not do their duty by their clients when their right to impartial judicial review is at stake.

Such a pronouncement says a lot - to consumers of legal services - about the state of the legal profession, and how law students are taught and prepared for the courtroom.

And such instruction does not inspire confidence in competence or integrity of lawyers, and in necessity of attorney regulation - the whole purpose of which is to protect consumers from incompetent and dishonest attorneys.

Delaware County (NY) criminal court Judges Richard Northrup and Gary Rosa support a court officer who resigned during a pending criminal felony investigation and throw for her a "retirement" party in a courtroom

Here is an interesting timeline for litigants and attorneys in Delaware County, New York.

On October 19, 2016 I've mailed, by certified mail, a criminal complaint against Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell and her personnel who enters court judgment (Debra and Haley).

I filed that sworn criminal complaint with the Delhi Village Police and the Delaware County Sheriff's Department - and with Delaware County Board of Supervisors, requesting immediate removal of Sharon O'Dell and whoever from her personnel participated in the fraud - and impeachment of Sharon O'Dell.

On October 24, 2016 the Delhi Village Police, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and the Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel received the criminal complaint by certified mail.

After that, things moved fast.

On October 25, 2016 Chairman of Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel sent me a letter:

1. acknowledging receipt of my "letter" (sworn criminal complaint) of October 19, 2016;
2. stating that he will share the "letter" with the "Legislative Committee which has oversight responsibility for the County Clerk's Office", but
3. warned me that "since [I] have filed [my] complaint with law enforcement, [Eisel] will await the results of an investigation before forming an opinion on how to proceed".

Here is the letter.

On October 26, 2016, the next day after Eisel's letter to me, Walton Reporter announced Sharon O'Dell's "retirement".

The article cited the same James Eisel claiming he will miss Sharon O'Dell greatly, and cited Sharon O'Dell lamenting that it was (suddenly, right before the elections, without allowing anybody to run as a replacement) it is "time for her" to go and that the courthouse personnel will greatly miss her cooking.

When I looked at the Walton Reporter article today, I did not see any more, on the right of the article, the paid advertisement of the Delaware-Otsego-Chenango (Del-Chen-O) Women's Bar Association, a new organization that has as members, two sitting judges, a former judge, three law clerks of sitting judges, and a variety of employees and relatives of judges, as well as attorneys who receive lucrative case assignments from those judges.

The same paid advertisement endorsing Sharon O'Dell and wishing her a happy "retirement" that Del-Chen-O also placed into the other local newspaper, the County Shopper - I published it here.

Yet, it was there several days ago, and I saved the article together with that advertisement, as evidence of Sharon O'Dell's endorsement by the organization where Nancy Deming, law clerk to Delaware County Family Court Judge Gary Rosa, is a member.

On October 27, 2016, the County Shopper ran the announcement of Sharon O'Dell's "retirement", complete with the endorsement of Sharon O'Dell by the Del-Chen-O.

On October 28, 2016, the Chief of Delhi Village Police Michael Mills sent me a letter:

1. acknowledging receipt of my "written criminal complaint against Jonathan Follender, Debra Green, M & C Brothers and Sharon O'Dell"; and
2. notifying me that the complaint "will be investigated by the Sheriff's Criminal Investigation Division", Senior Investigator Karl Vagts.

On the same October 28, 2016, Maria Almanza Kelso, the Chairman of the Republican Committee of Delaware County

posted several pictures on Facebook from Sharon O'Dell's retirement party that, according to pictures and my personal knowledge of the room portrayed in the pictures, was held on the 2nd floor of the Delaware County Courthouse, in the "Grand Jury Room" also used as a courtroom for hearings and trials.

I note amongst the 35 "likes" the "like" of Lillian Browne of the Walton Reporter.

Here are the pictures that Maria Kelso posted on Facebook from Sharon O'Dell's "retirement party":

The guy speaking to Sharon O'Dell is Walton attorney Michael DeGroat, frequently assigned by local judges as a foreclosure referee.

The guy in the background is Walton attorney Gary Greyson.

Note the last picture.

Sharon O'Dell is featured next to Delaware County Sheriff Thomas Mills (upon information and belief, Delhi Chief of Police Michael Mill's brother) - the one who is currently supposedly investigating her.

It is a big joke for both.

People normally do not mockingly portray themselves behind bars unless they are absolutely sure that they are so above the law that they will never get there.

Note this picture, too.

The man in glasses diligently loading up from the goodies on the table in a courtroom, to commemorate running from office ("retirement") of a court officer under criminal investigation of documented criminal behavior, is a criminal court judge and former Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup.

See him in one of my previous blogs receiving oath of office from a private attorney (former judge) Carl Becker.

There are only two local criminal court judges dealing with felonies - and my criminal complaint was of felonies, which is why the Sheriff's office is investigating:

1. Judge Gary Rosa - and his law clerk Nancy Deming is a member of Del-Chen-O, an organization that paid for two advertisements in two separate newspapers endorsing Sharon O'Dell during the pendency of the criminal investigation against her; and
2. Judge Richard Northrup - who allowed a "retirement party" to be held for a suspect under criminal investigation, in the courthouse, where he personally attended and ate, thus projecting to everybody involved the message that Sharon O'Dell did nothing wrong, and thus prejudging the criminal case.

Among the attendees of the "retirement party" are Sharon O'Dell's two subordinates, Debra Goodrich

and Haley Gransbury

who are also the subjects of my criminal complaint, because the complaint was not only against Sharon O'Dell, but against her personnel who may have entered the fraudulent judgment with Sharon O'Dell "Enter" stamp - and there are only two employees in Delaware County Clerk's office who enter such judgment:

Debra Goodrich (left on the picture below) and Haley Gransbury (on the far left).




Yet, apparently, a criminal complaint filed against them with irrefutable supporting documentary evidence is some kind of a joke.

It could have been a joke yesterday - when FBI was also turned into a joke by presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet, today, with Donald Trump elected president, even though on a Republican ticket (and Sharon O'Dell is a Republican), Donald Trump will have to show voters who elected him that he is worthy of the trust put into him - starting with cleaning up the DOJ and FBI that caused the American people to be so disgusted with corruption in the government that they elected an outsider of the political establishment, even a not-so-attractive outsider, in a landslide.

The FBI and DOJ will have to walk on eggshells in anticipation of President Trump's cleanup, and might actually do their job properly, at least for a short period of time.

Since the feds are now also available for investigation of Sharon O'Dell's (and the crew's) crimes, because the fraudulent judgment was sent through mail across the state borders, as Sharon O'Dell knew it would be, it will not be only brothers Mills who would be investigating, and it will not be only Judges Rosa and Northrup available to preside over the criminal case - when both judges already disqualified themselves by wishing the "happy retirement" of Sharon O'Dell, and, for Northrup, even allowing her to hold a "retirement party" in  courtroom which he attended.

It is disgusting when the County establishment acts like a criminal investigation against a county official for commission of felonies in a courthouse:

• by hiding the fact of the criminal investigation - starting with the "courageous journalist" Lillian Browne of Walton Reporter who reports only what she is allowed to report;
• by endorsing a suspect under criminal investigation as if nothing happened, and by
• allowing a suspect under criminal investigation for committing  crime in the courthouse to hold parties in that same courthouse and inviting there for entertainment, a judge who may be presiding over the criminal case.

Disgusting - but very typical for Delaware County, New York.

Hopefully, not for long.

And, be aware - while Sharon O'Dell "retired", the two other people who may have filed a multi-thousand dollar fraudulent judgement contrary to a court order, but at a request of an attorney/judge, obviously thinking that I am so below the law that anything against me goes - remain on the job, and can do to anyone else what they have done to me.

Beware.

Did the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pack her suitcase for New Zealand yet?

In July of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg openly stated that if Donald Trump wins, it's time to move to New Zealand, a completely unethical behavior for a judge, and especially a judge who knew an election related case can come in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The election-related case actually did come in front of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsuburg on November 7, 2016, and Justice Ginsburg, instead of recusing from the case because she has made her dislike of Donald Trump publicly known, allowed herself to admonish Donald Trump not to "intimidate voters" - just because Donald Trump and his supporters wanted to monitor elections to prevent voter fraud.

Of course, why would Donald Trump want to how elections are handled when his opponent was already cock-sure that she will win, to the point that a FBI Director was afraid of going against Hillary Clinton as a future president and refused to prosecute her, twice, under circumstances when anybody else would have been indicted and arrested long time ago.

But, one thing was apparent - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when "half-joking" that she will disappear to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected, was also cock-sure that he will not be elected.  In a kind of elitist disdain.

Now that Donald Trump is elected, and especially that he took on judicial bias in his election campaign

(see my blogs about it here, here, here, here and here),

I hope that President Trump will clean up the pigsties of corruption in the American court system - up to its upper echelon, the U.S. Supreme Court that long stopped operating as a court and operates only as a marble palace fixing cases for friends and for bribes (oops, trips, speech assignments, wining and dining, book deals).

Well, after the American people have actually elected Donald Trump,  is Ruth Bader Ginsburg packing her suitcases to New Zealand yet?

She promised, after all.