Anti-Semitism flourishes in American courts - and may pave way to fascism in the U.S., as German judges did in Hitler's Germany

Anti-Semitism has been at the root of extermination of millions of people and should be taken very seriously.

And, in the U.S., the issue of Anti-Semitism is often raised, both in publications and in the media, giving the impression that the Anti-Semitism is being vigorously fought.

Yet, the issues that are - and are not - fought in the social media - indicate that people's understanding of what is and what is not Anti-Semitism are extremely politicized, and are not helpful (in my personal view) in the fight with the actual Anti-Semitism.

Solidarity with Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard - convicting of an Israeli spy for spying is NOT Anti-Semitism

For example, there was a lot of support to free and allow to go live in Israel to the spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard.

Even the felon former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler  (who is Jewish) pitched in in his memoirs from prison, where he did hard time together with Jonathan Pollard.

In Sol Wachtler's enlightened view, as in view of many other supporters of Jonathan Pollard who sold the country of his citizenship (the U.S.) to the country of his ancestors (Israel) for money, Jonathan Pollard is not guilty of treason, or at least not "that" guilty, because Israel is the U.S. ally.

QUOTE:

"Jonathan is our most prominent inmate, having been arrested eight years ago for espionage. He pled guilty to the crime of passing government secrets to Israel, secrets that he accessed while a civilian employee of naval intelligence. Mind you, he is not a traitor— traitors deal with hostile nations. Jonathan gave our government’s secrets to Israel, a friendly nation. I say “gave” our secrets, although he admits to receiving fifty thousand dollars from Israel. His defenders, and there are many, will tell you that the money was to reimburse him for travel and other expenses during the period he was a spy. Those same supporters will tell you that he gave no information to Israel that it was not already entitled to as our ally.

Those who are antagonistic to Pollard will tell you that when he delivered those suitcases filled with secrets to Israel, he was selling out America— that Israel could well have traded those secrets off to Russia, or some other nation hostile to America, so that his espionage could have been traitorous. The interesting part of the Pollard case is the change in the attitude of American Jews. When he was sentenced to life imprisonment, most mainstream Jewish groups were reluctant to take up his cause. They were afraid that to do so could indicate a lack of patriotism. But with the end of the Cold War that attitude has changed. Even the Israeli government, which at first was indifferent to Pollard’s fate, has now come to his aid; a plea was made yesterday by Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for presidential clemency.

UNQUOTE
=========

Wachtler, Sol. After the Madness: A Judge's Own Prison Memoir (pp. 115-116). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.

Well, if Israel is an ally, and if it was "already entitled", as an ally, to the document it has bought from Pollard, wouldn't an ally ask the U.S., its ally, politely, acting in good faith, for whatever information it needed, instead of hiring a spy within the U.S. intelligence community and pay that spy to sell U.S. state secrets to Israel?

And wouldn't Israel at least own up to what it did - instead of booting Jonathan Pollard who initially ran for refuge into the Israeli embassy?

New York Governor Cuomo's publicity stunt in divestment of public funds to those who participate in boycotting Israel, as part of a human rights movement

Boycotting the State of Israel for crimes against human rights is NOT Anti-Semitism

New York Governor Cuomo recently make a publicity stunt, obviously trying to get the Jewish population of New York State out to vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, signing an executive order that denied public funds to human rights organizations boycotting Israel for human rights violations on Palestinian territories.

Apparently, to Governor Cuomo, any criticism of the State policies of the State of Israel equals Anti-Semitism.

Of course, Governor Cuomo is not the President of the United States, and, as such, had no right of issuing executive orders regarding the U.S. foreign policy.

Sovereign states in the United States have no right of issuing foreign policy decisions, so Cuomo apparently signed such an order either in a fit of self-aggrandizing, or in anticipation that that executive order will later turn into an executive order by President Hillary Clinton - which did not come to be.

A demand that the U.S. support Israel on the issue of settlements on Palestinian territories

Demanding that Israel stops occupying the lands that does not belong to it and stops committing atrocities on those lands is NOT Anti-Semitism

Recently, the U.S. abstention from voting at the United Nations on the issue of a resolution of the Security Council regarding condemning Israel's settlement on occupied Palestinian territories caused such a fierce outcry in the media, including accusations of the U.S. of "betraying" Israel that it could make a person think whether the U.S. has somehow become a part of the State of Israel, beholding to the State of Israel to vote for it no matter what atrocities it commits.

It came to the point of American citizen groups demanding that the U.S. government must de-fund the United Nations over this resolution, and two federal senators, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, actually made such a demand, on behalf of all of us voters and taxpayers.

So, at the same time, the State of Israel, on the one hand, receives billions of taxpayer money from the U.S. that it uses to build its gardens in the desert, develop its sciences, including medical and defense sciences, build armaments and those same settlements condemned by the U.N., and, on the other hand, hires U.S. employees to spy against the U.S. in favor of Israel and solicits those spies to sell to Israel (the alleged ally of the U.S.) classified intelligence manuals, as Israel did in Jonathan Pollard's case.

Yet, I have seen that many commentators who openly oppose what Israel is doing on human rights grounds condemned for Anti-Semitism, in comments on social media - and those condemnation were very far from being civilized.  Apparently, Israel can do nothing wrong and any criticism of the state policy of the State of Israel is Anti-Semitism.

There was a fierce outcry in the social media against conviction of an Israeli soldier who has shot execution style, a wounded Palestinian attacker who was already disabled and down on the ground

Supporting a criminal conviction of an Israeli soldier for a well-documented crime is NOT Anti-Semitism

Very recently, yet another fierce discussion unfolded in the mainstream media and social media regarding a conviction, by an Israeli judge, of an Israeli soldier, of "negligent manslaughter" - for a deliberate execution-style killing of a severely wounded Palestinian attacker who, at the time of execution, was on the ground, was on the ground for some time, diffusing the claims that he could presented a danger of activating a bomb, was disabled and did not present a danger to the soldier or anybody else.

Most likely, the only reason why the soldier was even charged was because the killing was videotaped, and the videotape shared on the Internet.

The soldier who executed a prisoner without due process of law, was paraded by many commentators as a hero, and any critics and supporters of the conviction were accused, naturally, of Anti-Semitism.

Yet, during all of this show of support to the State of Israel, to the point of accusing for Anti-Semitism anybody who dares to criticize whatever the State of Israel is doing, the REAL Anti-Semitism flourishes.

Picking a Nazi intermediate petition for a discretionary certiorari review on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court and granting the petition for the Nazis, allowing a Nazi march in the village of Holocaust survivors IS Anti-Semitism

I wrote on this blog about the arithmetic of appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court - that the court refuses to review the overwhelming majority of petitions, without the public even being aware what issues, possibly, very important issues of public concern, are being tossed by the court.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court considered it necessary to take the case of the Nazi intimidation march through the village of Holocaust survivors - and decide that case, on constitutional grounds no less, in favor of the Nazis.

Consider watching the recent documentary describing that legal battle of the Nazis against the village of Holocaust survivors where the Nazis insisted the had a constitutional right to march - and won that "right" from the nation's highest court.

Reportedly, 1 in 6 residents of the village of Skokie were Holocaust survivors.

The U.S. Supreme Court was, in fact, so concerned about constitutional rights of the Nazis that it reversed the denial of a stay of injunction on the Nazi march in the village of Holocaust survivors while the appeal was still pending in state courts - an unheard-of procedural jump.

In its decision the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that it "treats" the application to reverse the denial of stay of injunction (which requires some mental gymnastics to realize what was even asked from the U.S. Supreme Court:

1) the lower court enjoined (blocked) the Nazi march;

2) the Nazis appealed, and requested the intermediate state appellate court to stay (lift) the injunction, so that the Nazi march would be able to proceed; the intermediate appellate court refused, and left the injunction in place - so, the intermediate state appellate court also prohibited the Nazi march during the pendency of the appeal;

3) the Nazis asked the top state appellate court to lift the injunction and allow the Nazi march - which the top appellate court also refused to do.

4) THEN the Nazis begged the U.S. Supreme Court to help them out - and the U.S. Supreme Court not only considered the case worth its review on the merits, before it came before the court on appeal, but reversed the stays in the lower courts, because, in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, it will be too much of a hardship on the Nazi's constitutional rights to wait until the case made its way through state appellate courts while the Nazis wanted the march immediately.

I do not see the same court granting any such petitions for anybody else asserting violation of their constitutional rights during state appellate processes.

The Nazis were the ONLY party known so far, as far as I know, who were granted an INTERMEDIATE CERTIORARI by the U.S. Supreme Court - which shows the U.S. Supreme Court colors very well.

Refusing to charge the swastika-drawing son of a celebrity with hate crimes IS Anti-Semitism

The U.S. Supreme Court's pro-fascist decision in Skokie greatly deterred prosecution of fascists for hate crimes.

For example, most recently, a swastika-drawing Vadim Imperioli, the son of "The Soprano's" star Michael Imperioli, was charged only with criminal mischief.

Criminal mischief is a charge for doing damage to property.

So, Vadim Imperioli was not charged for intimidating Jewish students with swastikas, which may be clearly perceived by such students as a death threat, but was only charged with damaging the walls of the dorm of SUNY Purchase with graffiti, drawing in the walls - and was not charged with a hate crime.

Because, due to the U.S. Supreme Court's help to the Nazis in the Skokie case, charging a fascist for drawing a swastika in a dorm in a college where Jewish life is very active, and where such swastikas clearly target Jewish students, will be - according to the nation's top court - a violation of the fascist's 1st Amendment rights.

Of course, New York state prosecutors and courts usually do not give a damn what the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. Supreme Court says, even sanctioning attorneys left and right for raising constitutional issues in court, but, where the U.S. Supreme Court's respect to Nazis is concerned, the Westchester DA, raised at the knee of the present New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, who was herself a Westchester DA before coming to the bench in 2016, religiously adhere to this particular U.S. Supreme Court precedent - and refused to charge a celebrity's son with a hate crime for intimidating Jewish students with swastikas which, as I said above, could clearly be perceived by the Jewish students as death threats.

By the way, the same Vadim Imperioli, as the prosecution reportedly claimed to the court when asking to raise bail (from $3,000 only) was already convicted an put on probation for "vandalism" in California, and had another case pending against him, a petit larceny, "unauthorized use of a car".

So, Vadim Imperioli is obviously not only would not stop his attempts at "vandalism", but is also very mobile and will use transportation to escape a jurisdiction by "unauthorized use of a car" if necessary.

And he was still allowed out on bail.

Yet, in another case of swastika-drawing, in March of 2015, a non-celebrity defendant was reportedly charged by the Westchester DA's office (Janet DiFiore was the DA at that time) with a felony aggravated harassment and was jailed on a $15,000 bail, or $25,000 bond.

Apparently, the Westchester County DA go easy on celebrity fascists - and that IS Anti-Semitism.

Allowing intimidation of an Israeli citizen and his minor children by an armed Hitler sympathizer IS Anti-Semitism

Yesterday, there was a report that in Great Britain, the "Old Country", an employee of Amazon was fired, and a hate crime investigation started by the British police, when that employee put a "greetings from Adolf" card into a package going to a Jewish customer - a "greeting" that upset the customer so much that she had, reportedly, to take 2 days off from work.

On our side of the pond, in a similar (in fact, identical) situation, a court employee who, while registering a minor child of a citizen of the State of Israel Moshe Shtrauch, for "safety IDs" in Chenango County, reminded the father that it was Hitler's birthday that day (it wasn't, Hitler's birthday was in April, the statement was made in June), which was a clear intimidation of the father and the child - led to no consequences for the employee.

Here is the picture of that court employee who, reportedly, left the court system and went to work for the Norwich City police department:

Instead, when Moshe made a complaint to the then-Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District Robert C. Mulvey, Mulvey dumped the complaint to Chenango Supreme Court justice Kevin Dowd, and Dowd put Moshe through hell, putting that same Hitler sympathizer, armed, behind Moshe's back during an unnecessary "motion session" in Dowd's chambers - after Moshe made a motion to recuse Dowd on the papers, did not require a hearing, and neither did the opposing party.

Dowd then recused, called Moshe "a disgusting human being", and ordered the armed Hitler sympathizer to march Moshe out of "Dowd's" courthouse - which was a public courthouse, where Moshe had a perfect right to be after he left Dowd's chambers, same as all other members of the public.

Moshe's federal lawsuit (I represented him in the court below) was opposed by the fighter for civil rights New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (himself Jewish, I understand) who asked the court to dismiss the case on "judicial immunity" grounds (and the court obliged), even though Dowd ordered expulsion of Moshe from the courthouse by an armed Hitler sympathizer after he recused from the case and was no longer a judge in the case.

In my previous blog articles, I described

1. NYS AG Schneiderman's 4th of July claim that he is protector of civil rights of New Yorkers;
2. while statistics of court cases shows that he is the attorney for the government OPPOSING civil rights lawsuits; and
3. while there is evidence that, most recently, NYS AG Schneiderman fought against remedies for victims of wrongful convictions.

Yet, look who was the attorney opposing Moshe's federal lawsuit and who made it disappear.  Even though for milder behavior that got the British Amazon employee was fired and the police started a prosecution for a hate crime.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal obtained by Schneiderman in the lower court, in a non-precedential "summary order".

By the way, Schneiderman is a man-of-all-hats, who is both representing judges (like he did in opposing Moshe's lawsuit), and investigating judges, his own clients, as he is now doing with Sullivan County Court judge Frank LaBuda (who is reportedly "cooperating" with his own attorney Schneiderman).

It is a deliberately created mess of conflicts of interest where "little people" with their petty civil rights lose.

Lose custody of their children, their properties, their right to work, and their lives.

Dowd is still employed by New York court system, at taxpayers' expense.

The Hitler sympathizer is, according to a tip from a reader, now employed as a police officer in the Norwich City Police Department, also at taxpayer's expense.

They were never investigated by New York Attorney General Schneiderman, which is his duty to do - as he did with the investigation of the alleged crime of the Sullivan County Judge Frank LaBuda.

So, what is a hate crime and a gross Anti-Semitic conduct in Great Britain, is business as usual in New York State and federal courts.

Moreover, after Moshe's federal lawsuit, Dowd viciously retaliated against both Moshe and his attorney who dared to sue Dowd.

My husband also sued Dowd, in 2013, in a pro se action  (I did not represent my husband in that case), which was dismissed on "judicial immunity" grounds - yet, casting my husband, and me, as his wife, by extension, into the category of "disgusting human beings" (as he called Moshe for making a motion to recuse him and for allegedly "impugning his integrity") in Dowd's perception, with a plan to retaliate against us, which Dowd carried out to a "t".

As to Moshe's attorney (me) (and my husband), Dowd retaliated by:

1. refusing an adjournment of my husband's trial where I represented him, despite my medically documented spinal injury and medical leave presented to the court;
2. dismissing the jury I asked her (and paid for) twice when I did not come because I was on a documented medical leave;
3. threatening me with an arrest and forcible bringing me to court despite my documented medical injury and medical leave;
4. holding a bench trial in my husband's case behind closed doors;
5. misleading members of the public who wanted to observe the proceedings into believing that the case was adjourned while the trial was ongoing;
6. granting an over $300,000 judgment against my husband while the plaintiffs never came to the proceedings and never testified, and while the evidence was insufficient for such a judgment as a matter of law;
7. after the trial, denying me, as my husband's attorney at the time, access to the exhibits submitted to court that should have been, and
8. allowing the opponents to steal the exhibits, which were part of the appellate record, from the court file, in order to later allow dismissal of the appeal specifically because my husband did not provide as part of the appeal exhibits that Dowd prohibited my husband to see and then allowed to be stolen from the record by opponents; and
9. commenced a proceeding to sanction me for not appearing in court for trial while having on file a documented medical leave, and
10. sanctioning me over $1,000 for remaining home while on a documented medical leave with a spinal injury.

To read all my blogs about this situation (there are many) you can put the word "Mokay" in the word-search window and read blogs about the Mokay case from March 2015 to date, I put a lot of documentary evidence there, including my telephone recordings of my interactions with the court personnel who told me about Dowd's illegal orders in my case.

Moreover, I, Moshe's attorney in the lawsuit against Dowd for Anti-Semitism, was later stripped of her law license for undisclosed "frivolous conduct" (recently, in an unrelated proceeding, an attorney who I never saw or talked to, filed a pleading claiming that my law license was suspended because of my own and even my husband's professional activities as civil rights attorneys - a claim I am going to follow up in separate blogs and legal actions).

As to Moshe, upon my information, after Moshe filed his complaint about the Hitler sympathizer to Mulvey

(Mulvey was since promoted to become an appellate judge and helped Dowd block my husband's appeal at that point, after assigning Dowd in the court below and claiming that it was a judicial function, that disqualified him from being also an appellate judge in the same case),

after his motion to recuse #KevinDowd because of misconduct of his law clerk #ClaudetteNewman, and after his lawsuit for Anti-Semitism against Dowd, Moshe started to be treated by Chenango County courts as if the laws of the State of New York and the U.S. Constitution was written with an exception for him personally.

His access to court files to work on pro se appeals was denied.

Multiple applicable statutes and case law in his custody and divorce cases were violated.

Moshe was stripped, unlawfully, of property, and efforts were made to hold him in contempt of court and put in jail.

I wrote multiple blogs about Moshe's case, raising questions:

• whether Jewish litigants are safe in New York courts;
• retaliating against a pro se litigant, non-native speaker of English, for catching the Judge's longtime court clerk in a conduct for which judges are admonished by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct (this blog article contains excerpts from the transcript of what Judge Dowd said in his chambers to Moshe);
• whether New York State Commission lets Anti-Semitism in New York courts flourish by tossing without investigation the complaint about Dowd;

That, ladies and gentlemen, IS real, unadulterated, government-endorsed Anti-Semitism.

Denying a statutory right in a criminal proceeding to a Hebrew speaking citizen of the State of Israel because his attorney dared to record inadequate interpreting for his client IS Anti-Semitism

Very recently, I wrote a blog about yet another litigant, a non-native speaker of English and a citizen of the State of Israel, to whom a New York State judge denied his statutory right to testify in front of the grand jury - only because the judge (who, likely, did not know Hebrew, and whose education was in agriculture and law, not linguistics) decided that:

1) the defendant did not need a Hebrew interpreter; and

2) that defendant "waived" his right to testify because of his attorney's "gamesmanship" - an attempt to audiotape inadequate interpretation in Hebrew for his client, in order to preserve that record before his client's testimony in the grand jury (through the interpreter, as I understand), while New York does not provide stenographers to record BOTH the original foreign language testimony, recording only its English (and, possibly, inadequate, translation), while New York courts reporters are in-famous for cooking the transcripts, and while New York creates audio recordings of testimony in Family Court, but not in any other courts.

Denying an Israeli litigant a statutory right to testify in the grand jury:

1. in his own language;
2. with a qualified interpreter, and
3. with an adequate record of BOTH the testimony and its interpretation, and interpretation to the litigant of questions from the grand jurors -

because his attorney insisted on preserving the record of inadequate translation for his client of a vital document - IS Anti-Semitism.

And, I do not see any massive protests online about the real Anti-Semitism.  No public officials chest-pounding to eradicate it.

The country has reached a point where it is suitably intimidated in never criticizing a judge, or trying to roll into the ground those who dare to.

*  *  *

I am currently preparing a series of reviews for a very important book, translated into English from German: "Hitler's Justice":

In that book, on a meticulously collected and analyzed vast documentary evidence, the author comes to a disheartening conclusion - that the German judiciary and legal profession facilitated and enabled Hitler's extermination of political opponents, "non-Arian races" (Jews, Slavs and Gypsies) and people with disabilities.

The list of jurists who opposed Hitler's order of "euthanasia" of people counts the grant total of ONE judge in the entire German - one who was forced into retirement.

The others remained on the bench, and continued to be on the bench after Hitler's Germany was no more - because otherwise there was nobody to handle court cases, all the German judiciary was equally tainted.

The jurists did not kill people themselves.

They only did not oppose such killing.

They only did not stand up against turning the law on its head and advancing Anti-Semitism in the courtroom.

In my series of reviews I plan to show the LANGUAGE of how that was done - it was not done in frank terms, calling what Hitler courts were doing - sending people to their deaths simply for being Jewish, or physically or mentally disabled. 

No. 

Elaborate language was used showing "lawfulness" of such actions, and that such actions served the country's "well being", and being done "for the benefit of the people", including those killed.

When I read court decisions in this country, where judges engage in mental gymnastic to justify the unjustifiable, when the New York State Attorney General, who is Jewish himself, defends Anti-Semitic conduct of a judge and obtains a dismissal of a victim of Anti-Semitism in court because that is his alleged "duty" to do so, and when I see that nobody is protesting in the streets against THIS type of Anti-Semitism, and that the legal profession knows only self-advancement, advancement of their careers no matter what rights and how badly are violated by the courts - I see clearly:  this country is ready.

It is ready for fascism.

Because it is very clear that, if fascism happens in our country and extermination of people starts, we cannot hope to have even a "grand total of one" judge opposing it.

Judges and lawyers will help fascism progress.

As they already helped in the Skokie case.

As they are helping in quashing civil rights cases and punishing those who bring them.

As they are already doing by advancing the careers of the torture apologists.

They will further advance their careers on executions of the innocent, as they are already doing now.

Claiming that it is the rule of law.

Read that book.

It is an eye-opener.

2 FOIL requests are pending before the Village of Delhi - as to the public bidding regarding the fire-damaged building on Main Street, and as to enforceability of the Village taxes

It has been recently reported by the local Delaware County (NY) press that Tom Little, the Village of Delhi code enforcement officer, made a claim that (1) a decision to take down the building on Main Street that has recently suffered from fire was made by the Village Board, and (2) that the notice soliciting bids for a public-bidding contract to take down the building "went out a while ago".

In view of that, I filed a FOIL request today with the Village of Delhi seeking documents to verify how the notice went and how the bidding goes.

I will publish the Village of Delhi's responses to the FOIL.

I also demanded the Village of Delhi to comply with my FOIL request for documents indicating enforcement against people who do not pay village taxes that the Mayor of the Village of Delhi personally promised will start happening at a September 2014 public meeting that I have a sound recording of, including the mayor's pledge.

My interest in the Village of Delhi's enforcement actions against delinquent taxpayers that the mayor promised back in September of 2014 is not idle.  I am one of diligent taxpayers who is taken advantage of by taxpayers who adamantly do not pay taxes, and the Village of Delhi lamented that there is no legal mechanism of enforcement against non-payers of Village taxes.

At this "historic" public meeting, the mayor of the Village of Delhi said, again, back in September of 2014, that the Village of Delhi will try to file a "test" case against a non-payer of taxes and see how it goes in court.

All I asked for is to see whether the Village of Delhi DID file that test case, or whether it continues to not enforce its taxes.

If there is no legal mechanism to enforce non-payment of taxes for the Village of Delhi, there is no reason why the rest of us, diligent taxpayers, should pay Village of Delhi taxes at all, while the non-payers have the benefit of Village services given to them without any payment, at our expense.

I will publish responses of the Village of Delhi on this blog.

Stay tuned.

A FOIA request and a demand to turn a case into the federal grand jury was made to U.S. Attorney in SNDY Preet Bharara

In or about October of 2014, I made a complaint to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, requesting him to investigate and criminally prosecute New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and judge Leslie Stein (who is now a justice of New York State Court of Appeals), because Justice Stein decided a case in favor of Andrew Cuomo's subordinate the Department of Environmental Conservation after Andrew Cuomo, during the pendency of an appeal against DEC, after Leslie Stein, as a presiding justice, heard the appeal, but before she decided it, nominated her to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The story about Cuomo bribing Stein with a promotion was published on this blog in 2014.  Since then, I was stripped of my law license, and Stein's court refused to hear my constitutional appeal that it had to hear by statute.

I considered Cuomo's nomination of Stein between the time she heard and decided an appeal by Cuomo subordinate agency, as a bribe to Justice Stein and asked Preet Bharara to investigate the case and prosecute it.

I never heard from Preet Bharara's office after I filed my complaint in 2014.

Today, I filed a FOIA request for the results of the investigation, and for the entire investigative file (2.5 years is more than enough to conclude an investigation where the bribery and the resulting case-fixing was apparent on its face and well documented), and a demand for Preet Bharara, as U.S. Attorney General investigating crimes in the upper echelon of the New York State Government, to turn my complaint for further investigation of the federal grand jury.

Since the screen scans allow only a very small font, here is the same FOIA request/demand, in a bigger font:

QUOTE:
=======

Dear Mr Bharara:

Please, forward to me within reasonable time, as required by law, copies of the investigative file investigating my complaint that I have sent to you in or about October of 2014, by mail, complaining of fraudulent activities of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Specifically, the complaint was about the following situation:

1. Andrew Cuomo is the Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York;
2. Andrew Cuomo is vested with power to nominate judges to the New York State Court of Appeals;
3. Andrew Cuomo's subordinates, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, were litigating a case against my husband and myself, and our appeal from the lower court was heard, but not decided by the Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, with Judge Leslie Stein as a presiding judge of the panel.
4. The outcome of the case could lead to vacatur of multiple criminal convictions and civil fines against New York landowners;
5. After the appeal was heard by Judge Leslie Stein, but not yet decided by her, Governor Cuomo, Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York, nominated Judge Stein to the New York State Court of Appeals;  such a job had sufficiently higher prestige, power, salary and benefits, and post-retirement employment opportunities for Judge Stein than her job as the judge of the Appellate Division;
6. Less than a week after the nomination was announced, Judge Leslie Stein ruled for Andrew Cuomo's subordinates in our case, disregarding the law, as the complaint explains.

I have sent a complaint requesting criminal investigation in or about October of 2014, and never heard back from you.

I believe that Governor Cuomo's nomination operated as a bribe and theft of honest services of a judge in our proceedings, and that Judge Stein, who has failed to recuse from the case after she was offered a material benefit by the party's boss (Governor Cuomo) during the pendency of the case fixed the court case in favor of her benefactor.

I demand to turn my complaint over for the action of the federal grand jury as to Andrew Cuomo and as to Judge Leslie Stein.

In the event that my demand to turn the case into the action of the federal grand jury is not honored, I reserve a right to resort to legal remedies available to me in order to compel your office to submit the case to the federal grand jury.

Moreover, since your investigation of the case must be complete by now, after more than 2 years of investigation, I request a copy of the investigative file, of all documents reflecting how the investigation was occurring, and the documents showing how the investigation was concluded, pursuant to FOIA.

Sincerely yours,

Tatiana Neroni

P.O. Box 3937

Pawleys Island, SC 29585

UNQUOTE

=========

Whether Preet Bharara completed the investigation or not, whether he did any investigation of my complaint or not, and whether he does or does want to turn the case over for the action of a federal grand jury, existing legal mechanisms give me a standing to file a lawsuit in federal court to compel Preet Bharara to turn the case into the grand jury.

For that reason, I first filed a demand with Preet Bharara to turn the case into the federal grand jury.

If that is not done within a reasonable time, I have a right to sue Preet Bharara, to compel presenting the case to the federal grand jury.

I have filed the FOIA request/demand by e-mail, to have an electronic evidence that the FOIA request/ demand to turn the case into the grand jury was filed.

I will publish any responses to my FOIA request/demand.

Stay tuned.

A FOIA request was made with the Federal Trade Commission verifying results of its investigation of attorney regulation system in New York

In April of 2015 I have made an anti-trust complaint to the Federal Trade Commission requesting to investigate anti-competitive nature, structure and practices of attorney regulation in New York State and New York's non-compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v Federal Trade Commission decided in February of 2015 - indicating that regulating a market by market-players without statutory approval or neutral state supervision is in violation of federal anti-trust laws that strips such regulators of "state immunity".

In New York, attorneys are regulated by the statute, Judiciary Law 90.

Judiciary Law 90 does not provide for existence or operation of attorney grievance committees, and does not approve of populating such attorney grievance committees with super-majority of market players, licensed attorneys (18 out of 21).

After my complaint was filed, in December of 2015, New York changed its rules of attorney discipline and issued new rules, 22 NYCRR 1240.

While the new rules, instead of strictly requiring for super-majorities of attorney grievance committees to be lawyers, instead required that "no fewer than" 3 members out of 21 should be non-lawyers,

it nevertheless allowed for supermajorities of market players, licensed attorneys, to be appointed to attorney grievance committees - and all 4 attorney grievance committees in  New York, upon my information and belief, consist of supermajorities of licensed attorneys - without statutory approval (22 NYCRR 1240 is not a statute and was not enacted by the New York State Legislature), and without neutral state supervision by people who are not licensed attorneys.

Moreover, the 2/3 membership quorum requirement provides for decisions of attorney disciplinary cases by licensed attorneys, competitors of the disciplined lawyer, alone, without participation of non-lawyers.

The math is very simple.

2/3rds of 21 is 14.

The minimum required number of non-attorney members of the committee is 3.

No matter how ardently the non-lawyer members may be against (or for) discipline in certain cases, they can never outvote market players, licensed attorneys, who may be driven by interests that are very far from those of public interest and protection of consumers.

After 22 NYCRR 1240 was introduced, I filed an additional antitrust complaint with FTC, and it responded, as with the initial complaint, promising to turn my complaints to the "appropriate staff" for investigation.

The "appropriate staff" has been investigating my complaints for nearly 2 years now, with no response so far, while New York continues its anticompetitive practices, hurting consumers of legal services, since attorneys in New York are disciplined not in order to protect consumers, but in order to eliminate competition of the attorney grievance committee members (and their friends and relatives), and in order to eliminate critics of the judiciary and of the high-ranking attorneys who can effectively sue them for misconduct from the reach of legal consumers, widening the "justice gap".

In view of FTC's wheel of justice rotating with a lethargic speed, today I filed a FOIA request with FTC requesting to provide to me a copy of the investigative file in order to see how my complaints of anticompetitive practices of attorney regulation in New York have been investigated (if at all) by FTC.

I will publish FTC's responses to my FOIA request.

Stay tuned.

A FOIA request was made with PACER verifying its billing practices

I wrote several days ago about a class action pending against PACER (the federal court document archive) for overbilling and fraudulent billing practices, and that the class action does not completely cover the fraudulent billing practices that I am aware of.

Since then, I have been in correspondence with PACER asking them to provide me with documents indicating what exactly they charged me for.

Since PACER's responses to me were inadequate, in my view, I have filed a FOIA request asking for access to records.

Here is the entire request:

Since the text appears to be small, I will publish it separately, here:

QUOTE
=======

Dear Sirs:

Please, provide within a reasonable time, as required by law, to this e-mail address, copies of the following public records:

1) copies of all log-ins from my account, tn1165, since November of 2011 to the date of response to the FOIA request, showing:

    a) what documents the requestor agreed to retrieve and pay for;

    b) whether documents were attempted to be retrieved through:

          I) HTML, or

          II) PDF, and

if documents were retrieved through PDF, were they retrieved by

         downloading, or

         viewing,

whether each and every document was available to be retrieved in all three formats - by HTML, by PDF through viewing, of by PDF through downloading,

whether the requestor actually succeeded in retrieving the documents - with proof as to the size of the allegedly retrieved document in Kilobytes, and with a matching proof showing that that particular size of document was retrieved;

 

      2) All invoices for payment, with a breakdown as to all retrievals;

      3) All public notices to me as a customer, or to all customers of PACER, and proof of service of those notices, before retrievals by HTML, that retrieval of HTML may amount to a charge 5-time higher than a retrieval by PDF, if the length of the case heading exceeds a certain number of letters (see the currently pending class lawsuit against Pacer in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Fisher v Pacer/United States);

     4) all public notices, to me as a customer, or to all customers of PACER, and proof of service of those notices, that PDF documents from PACER are not viewable in certain browsers, and that charges may nevertheless occur while the customer will not be able to retrieve the documents in that browser, and what browsers are necessary for retrieval of all and any PDF documents available on PACER;

     5) copies of any and all written policies of PACER regarding price-formation and billing of PACER customers;  including but not limited to whether to allow for certain documents or types of documents on PACER (like, for example, docket report of cases) to be available only in HTML format, with pricing 5 times higher than in PDF format, or in HTML and viewing in PDF format only, without a notice that viewing in certain browsers will result in a "Can't open PDF" message and encourage the customer to agree to retrieval in the higher-priced HTML format, or in all three formats: HTML, view-in-PDF or download-in-PDF.

     6) Expenses for maintenance of PACER since January 1, 2009, with a breakdown by years;

     7) revenues from the PACER document retrieval system since January 1, 2009, with a breakdown by years.

I am unable to point out to PACER, as PACER asked me, in what way I think I overpaid PACER for years 2011 to 2017, without PACER first answering this inquiry through my FOIA request, as the relevant information is within possession and control of PACER.

Please, be further advised that I will continue to pay PACER bills in full, not because I agree with the amounts, but simply to ensure my unfettered access to PACER while my FOIA request is being processed, that I am fully intending to litigate the claim of overpayment, including in the event if PACER denies me access to the requested records.

UNQUOTE

==============

I will publish PACER's responses to my FOIA request when I receive it.

Stay tuned.

The double-dipping #JudgeBettyWilliams, of Brooklyn, acts as an unsworn expert linguist in Hebrew, and changes Criminal Procedure Law 190.50 in order to save a criminal case that the prosecution neglected to timely turn into the grand jury

I've just published a blog about the double-dipping history of #JudgeBettyWilliams of Brooklyn, a retired judge from Brooklyn, NY who ran for election after she turned 70.

Since Judge Betty Williams was not entitled to take office on January 1, 2014, because she turned 70 in August of 2013, Judge Williams had no right to even put her name on the ballot in the elections of 2013.

Since she did put her name on the re-election ballot, while knowing full well that she will have to retire until the end of that year, and is not allowed by law to take office on January 1 of 2014, Judge Betty Williams got her re-election by fraud - in my opinion.

I wonder whether the court administration and the New York State Board of Elections let these fraudulent elections come through because Judge Betty Williams is an African American female

- in 2015, for example, yet another African American female attorney, #ChristinaRyba, was elected to the Albany County Supreme Court, after defrauding voters (after she was fired for unethical conduct and misusing her position and the court system in her elections, from her position as counsel to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department),

and now "serves" on the Supreme Court - even though she was supposed to be disbarred by the Attorney Grievance Committee of her own prior employer the 3rd Department (yes, I know what the chances of that happening are, with that particular corrupt Attorney Grievance Committee) and barred from ever coming to the bench, where she won elections by fraud and misuse of her public employment position.

Christina Ryba's fraudulent election was celebrated because of her gender and race - and for that reason, I believe that Judge Betty Williams' fraudulent election was not struck down, and Betty Williams herself was not prosecuted for public fraud criminally.

Judge Betty Williams' "election" resulted in the following expenses for New York taxpayers:

1. Judge Betty Williams retired 8 weeks after election in 2013, thus vacating her office without ever being sworn into it, and thus allowing the State Governor to appoint a judge for a year into that position, without any elections;
2. Judge Betty Williams at the same time was "certificated" for a full-time salary, and drew a full-time pension,

so, instead of Judge Betty Williams retiring at the end of year 2013, as she did anyway, she had to run for re-election, have the State of New York waste money on her elections, secured for somebody - possibly, through an agreement - an opportunity to be appointed rather than elected to the Supreme Court bench, and made the court system expend a million dollars to keep Judge Williams on the bench, according to an administrative judge who participated in denying her re-certification in December of 2016.

Yet, retired judges can only be "certificated" under a New York statute (which is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as it defies New York State's constitutional requirement for mandatory retirement of judges at age 70) because, under the requirements of Judiciary Law 115(1), their services are "necessary to expedite the business of the supreme court":

How can a 70+-year-old judge "expedite" the "business of the supreme court", and how that "expediting" can be necessary - especially in criminal court (where Judge Betty Williams "served", where fairness rather than speed must be the key), is anybody's guess.

But, after judges were appointed on false certifications that their "service" was "necessary to expedite the business of the supreme court", nobody checked what they do on the bench - their "productivity was not a focus" of re-certification reviews, so those positions were, essentially, highly paid sinecures for retired judges after retirement, at a huge cost to taxpayers.

After Judge Betty Williams was actually denied her certification on December 2, 2016, the New York State Court Administration indicated that the new Chief Judge DiFiore has a "business attitude" and requires retired judges "to carry their weight", because it allegedly costs New York taxpayers 1 million dollars "to keep a Supreme Court justice on the bench".

How so, what comes into that calculation, I am going to verify through a FOIL request - which, I am sure, New York State Court administration will try to stall, as it does, upon my personal information, experience and belief, with all FOIL requests.

Even before the denial of re-certification, Judge Betty Williams could be and should have been, in my opinion, criminally prosecuted for fraud in 2013 elections, and should have been disbarred for that fraud.

Yet, after Judge Williams was denied re-certification on December 2, 2016, and, reportedly, ripped the decision denying her certification, in obvious rage, Judge Williams lashed out - not only against those who denied her re-certification, but also against innocent people, litigants and attorneys in her courtroom.

I wrote about a similar situation that happened in Michigan where judge Lisa Gorcyca unlawfully lashed out at a teenager and his siblings who sided with him, in a divorce and custody proceedings, because her husband, a district attorney, lost a federal civil rights case and was subjected to a multi-million dollar judgment because of testimony of another teenager.

Yet, while Judge Corcyca's lashing out against the children resulted in a public outcry, and in at least a pretense of discipline, a public reprimand (even though after the public reprimand Judge Gorcyca was given a public ovation in the courtroom, orchestrated by Judge Gorcyca's husband and "members of the bar", attorneys appearing in front of her and depending on her financially), Judge Betty Williams' lashing out was not described in the news at all.

And, what #JudgeBettyWilliams did, apparently in lieu of slamming the door while leaving the bench, is no better and, possibly, much worse that what Judge Gorcyca did: she created a very bad precedent, gutting state criminal defendants' statutory right to testify in the grand jury because of a perceived misconduct ("gamesmanship") of defense counsel.

Before Judge Betty Williams, another infamous judge - the convicted felon former Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals #SolWachtler, currently embraced by present NYS Court of Appeals judge Michael Garcia (see my blogs about Wachtler here, here and here) - tried to gut the grand jury system completely.

What people remember about Wachtler is his catch-phrase that a good prosecutor can have the grand jury indict a ham sandwich.

What people do not remember about Wachtler is that his catch-phrase was used in his efforts to eliminate the grand jury proceedings in New York state felony prosecutions completely, even though a grand jury indictment is the requirement of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that Wachtler was sworn to uphold as an attorney and as a judge.

In an interview to New York Daily News in January of 1985, then-Chief Judge Wachtler reportedly claimed that because it is so easy for district attorneys to have the grand juries issue an indictment, the grand jury system should be scrapped altogether.

And, it is reported that prosecutors, who also act as "legal advisors" of grand juries, while grand jury proceedings are secret and one-sided (only prosecutors get to present their side, and act as legal advisors of the decision-maker, which is a stark conflict of interest), use their positions for their benefit:

Yet, this is a chicken-and-egg situation where the primary requirement is that of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How the grand juries are regulated under state law is secondary - so if prosecutors abuse their positions to manipulate grand juries so that they can indict a ham sandwich, it is the state laws allowing such manipulation that should be changed, not the grand jury proceedings that should be scrapped.

Of course, given that Sol Wachtler was involved in an E-mail-gate scandal in connection with a prosecutor's election campaign in 2013, long after his resignation from the bench, felony conviction, disbarment and inexplicable reinstatement into the bar based on secret reasons and represented by a secret attorney, and given Sol Wachtler's long history of quid pro quos with high-ranking public officials - Sol Wachtler's reasons for pushing to scrap grand jury proceedings may be mired not quite, or not at all, in legal theory.

To a criminal defendant, grand jury proceeding, their imperfections notwithstanding, serve an important role of an additional barrier between initial criminal charges and their prosecution by the County Court.

It often happens - and I used that feature for the benefit of my clients as a criminal defense attorney in New York - that prosecutors simply forget that, under New York statutory law they MUST make a presentment to the grand jury within 6 months.

If they don't, the state speedy trial statute requires dismissal of the felony indictment made after expiration of the 6 months.  And prosecutors DO forget to present cases to the grand jury.  I had judges who wanted to cater for prosecution enraged by motions to dismiss that they HAD TO grant.

Moreover, I had cases where the indictment was either not returned at all, despite efforts of district attorneys and their alleged ability to have grand jury indict a ham sandwich, or not returned at the level requested - as an example, I had a client against whom an A felony indictment was sought, but only a C felony indictment was obtained, or against whom an E felony indictment was sought, but the grand jury refused to indict at all.

Grand jury proceedings must be done in accordance with statutory law, and, if they are not so conducted, the resulting indictment is subject to dismissal - and often, if the time required for bringing an indictment has expired based on the state speedy trial statute, an indictment, once dismissed, may not be repeated.

I wrote on this blog about such a situation - about my friend Barbara O'Sullivan, critic of judicial, prosecutorial and police misconduct who has suffered removal of custody of a grandchild from her daughter, foreclosure and loss of business, fabricated arrest and criminal charges, the death of 2 dogs, and the burning down of a house because of her criticism, including a lawsuit against the corrupt judge Carl F. Becker who has since speedily "retired", along with his corrupt cronies.

Instead of investigating criminal retaliation against Barbara, the local system, of course, was busy making the fabricated criminal charges stick. 

While they did not stick - because of additional misconduct of Delhi Judge Richard Gumo (who lied in Barbara's hearing under oath and thus triggered dismissal of her criminal case), Judge John F. Lambert who presided over Barbara's criminal case initially did for the prosecution what he is now doing for the former police officer who tried to kill Barbara with his vehicle in Barbara's civil lawsuit - Judge Lambert attempted to help prosecution fix the case against Barbara.

This is how Judge Lambert did it in the criminal case - which is similar to Judge Betty Williams misconduct in the case she decided after she was denied re-certification as a retired judge for years 2017-2018.

Felony charges were filed against Barbara in Delhi Town Court on or about September 18, 2016.

The prosecution had 6 months to present her case to the grand jury.

In the lower court, Delhi Town Court, Barbara was arraigned with counsel (me), and had a felony hearing with counsel (me).

Because of that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, the then-District Attorney prosecuting Barbara, now Judge Richard Northrup (he was elected as a judge in 2015, after prosecuting Barbara in 2014-2015, instead of prosecuting Barbara's assailant, who was, coincidentally, a nephew of DA Northrup's longtime investigator Jeff Bowie) had to send a written notice of presentment of the case to the grand jury to either Barbara or me as her attorney in the lower court.

That is the statutory requirement of Criminal Procedure Law 190.50(5), which provides:

"5. Although not called as a witness by the people or at the instance of the grand jury, a person has a right to be a witness in a grand jury proceeding under circumstances prescribed in this subdivision:

(a) When a criminal charge against a person is being or is about to be or has been submitted to a grand jury, such person has a right to appear before such grand jury as a witness in his own behalf if, prior to the filing of any indictment or any direction to file a prosecutor's information in the matter, he serves upon the district attorney of the county a written notice making such request and stating an address to which communications may be sent. The district attorney is not obliged to inform such a person that such a grand jury proceeding against him is pending, in progress or about to occur unless such person is a defendant who has been arraigned in a local criminal court upon a currently undisposed of felony complaint charging an offense which is a subject of the prospective or pending grand jury proceeding. In such case, the district attorney must notify the defendant or his attorney of the prospective or pending grand jury proceeding and accord the defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness therein;

(b) Upon service upon the district attorney of a notice requesting appearance before a grand jury pursuant to paragraph (a), the district attorney must notify the foreman of the grand jury of such request, and must subsequently serve upon the applicant, at the address specified by him, a notice that he will be heard by the grand jury at a given time and place. Upon appearing at such time and place, and upon signing and submitting to the grand jury a waiver of immunity pursuant to section 190.45, such person must be permitted to testify before the grand jury and to give any relevant and competent evidence concerning the case under consideration. Upon giving such evidence, he is subject to examination by the people.

(c) Any indictment or direction to file a prosecutor's information obtained or filed in violation of the provisions of paragraph (a) or (b) is invalid and, upon a motion made pursuant to section 170.50 or section 210.20, must be dismissed; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made not more than five days after the defendant has been arraigned upon the indictment or, as the case may be, upon the prosecutor's information resulting from the grand jury's direction to file the same. If the contention is not so asserted in timely fashion, it is waived and the indictment or prosecutor's information may not thereafter be challenged on such ground.

CPL 190.50(5) is convoluted, so let me re-iterate:

FIRST, the prosecutor must notify the defendant against whom an outstanding felony complaint is pending, of the DA's plans to present the case to the grand jury, and

THEN, after having received such a notice, the defendant files a notice with the DA that he wants to testify in the grand jury,

AND THEN the DA notifies the foreman of the grand jury of the defendant's request to testify.

The timing of defendant's request to testify is triggered by the written notice given to the defendant by the DA.

In Barbara's case, DA Richard Northrup chose to have her indicted without sending the statutory required notice to either Barbara or to me as her counsel in the lower court.

Since I was at that time subjected to vast harassment by the disciplinary authorities, to the point of having to leave the State of New York, Barbara first represented herself in the felony proceedings, and then was represented, consecutively, by two defense attorneys. 

Barbara timely filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to comply with the statutory requirement to notify her or her counsel of the pending grand jury proceedings.

Had Judge Lambert granted that motion - which he had to do by law, because DA Northrup admitted that he did not send a notice to either Barbara or me - DA Northrup would have been out of luck and would not have been able to re-indict Barbara, so her criminal case would have been dismissed in November of 2014.

Both DA Norhtrup (who is now Judge Northrup) and Judge Lambert knew that (1) Northrup had no grounds to oppose such a motion and (2) Lambert had no grounds to deny the motion, and that (3) the motion, once granted, would mean the end of criminal charges against Barbara.

Yet, because the law was on Barbara's side, Judge Lambert bent it, in order to cater for Northrup.

Lambert denied the motion, even though he had no right to do so under the circumstances when a timely motion to dismiss was filed for failure to serve a written notice of grand jury proceedings under CPL 190.50(5):

 and the felony case against Barbara proceeded for 1.5 years more, still resulting in a dismissal of charges, but only after Barbara was subjected to the stress of criminal prosecution, the perspective of conviction and a 7-year sentence in state prison, and after she and her family expended tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the two attorneys hired in the felony proceedings.

Judge Betty Williams also bent the very same statute, CPL 190.50(5), in order to have criminal charges proceed against a Jewish, Hebrew-speaking criminal defendant, a national of the State of Israel (the defendant's nationality is relevant to the charges, as it will be shown below).

While CPL 190.50 does not have a statutory provision for interpreters to be present, or to aid the defendant in the grand jury proceedings, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process requirement requires that individuals with disabilities be given a "reasonable accommodation" in any public proceeding, and not being a native speaker of English is a recognized language disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).

What CPL 190.50 does not have is the authority of a judge to deny the motion under CPL 190.50 if the defendant is not given an opportunity to testify in the grand jury.

A judge DOES NOT have such power.

If a judge is presented with evidence that a defendant wanted to testify in the grand jury, timely communicated his request, but was denied opportunity to testify in the grand jury, a judge has no choice but to dismiss the indictment, as it is not valid, by statute, under such circumstances.

Yet, Judge Betty Williams did exactly that.

On December 16, 2016, two weeks after she was denied re-certification as a judge for years 2017-2018, the decision that she reportedly "ripped" in anger, Judge Williams refused to dismiss a criminal indictment where a defendant, a foreign national speaking Hebrew, was not allowed by the prosecutor to testify in the grand jury.

Judge Williams justified her decision by the alleged "gamesmanship" of the defense counsel who, quite reasonably, insisted on recording inadequate translation of documents to his Hebrew-speaking defendant.

Judge Williams - who is not, upon my information, a linguist herself - claimed that because defendant did not ask for an interpreter in previous proceedings (before the indictment, in the court below, which had not so much significance), and even though the defendant had a right to ask for an interpreter at any time, the defendant, in Judge Williams' opinion, did not really need an interpreter.

So, if the defendant is able to say "yes" or "no" or "not guilty" at arraignment, that somehow indicates that the defendant, a foreign national for whom English is not a native language, understands enough of the English language to (1) understand a waiver of immunity in English language, and (2) testify in the grand jury, and subject himself to examination by the grand jurors, which can result in a felony indictment - through an inadequate interpreter and without an audio record of interpretation that would reflect the inadequacy of interpretation.

I was not there, and I do not know Hebrew, so I would not know whether the actual interpreter was or was not inadequate.

Yet, the defense attorney apparently knew Hebrew and started audio-recording of the interpretation specifically because he thought it was inadequate.

Judge Williams then invoked a court rule - which was not part of CPL 190.50, and could not thus be used as a part crafting out an exception from CPL 190.50 requirement - claiming that the defense counsel was prohibited, by court rule 22 NYCRR 29.1(a), from audiotaping any conversation in the courthouse, including offices and hallways - and, since the counsel violated that rule, his non-native speaking client somehow lost his right to testify in the grand jury.

Given that court reporters are prone to cooking court transcripts (happened in my disciplinary proceedings twice, and, when evidence of that was published online, the disciplinary prosecutor filed criminal charges against me asking the court to put me in jail for posting that evidence - charges were later dismissed), anybody who is testifying in any proceedings should insist on having an audio recording of his or her testimony, as court reporters, people dependent on court personnel for their livelihoods, are simply not to be believed.

Here, the additional risk of incorrect transcript was inadequate interpretation from Hebrew, while the Hebrew translation was not recorded by a court reporter knowing Hebrew, in Hebrew, nor by audio-recording.

And, the defendant here could be indicted based on his alleged testimony alone - as interpreted by the Hebrew interpreter that the defense counsel claimed was inadequate.

Here are judge Williams' "grounds" claiming that the defendant "waived" his right to testify in front of the grand jury:

The "grounds" show an extremely convoluted procedural history of the case.

Usually, a felony charges, if started in the lower court, is prosecuted in the following manner:

1) charges are filed in the lower court - 6 months speedy trial statute is triggered, so the prosecution must not only indict within 6 months, but announce readiness for trial and be actually ready for trial within 6 months of those charges;

2) the defendant is arraigned in the lower court, and the decision is made by the lower court as to detention, bail or release on defendant's own recognizance (ROR);

3) if defendant is detained in jail, defendant has 144 hours for a felony hearing, or to be released without bail;

4) prosecution MUST present the case to the grand jury and prosecute the case within 6 months from the time charges were first filed, and if that is not done, the case must be dismissed on speedy trial grounds.

Even though Judge Williams does not disclose in her decision when charges were initially brought against the defendant, the case was much publicized, and the felony charges of robbery, burglary and assault were initially filed, reportedly, no later than October 23, 2015, for defendant's alleged assault upon #RabbiChaimBoruchHalberstam on Kingston Avenue and/or on a student in the dormitory of the Yeshiva university.

So, prosecution had until April 23, 2016, under the speedy trial statute, to indict #YossefNacham and have him arraigned, with announcement of readiness for trial.

The prosecution, the District Attorney of the Kings County, blew the deadline.

Instead of indicting and having the defendant arraigned by April 23, 2016, the prosecution only notified the defendant of their intent to present the indictment on July 29, 2016.

I do not know whether defendant or his attorney AGREED to adjournments of the indictment - if he did, he cannot claim a speedy trial violation.

If the defendant did not agree to adjournments, presentation of the case to the grand jury on August 3, 2016, after initial charges were filed on October 23, 2015, did not result in a valid indictment.

And, judging by the nervous decision of Judge Betty Williams who was trying hard to preserve the indictment by denying the motion to dismiss that she had to grant by statute - it appears that there was no agreement for adjournments.

Once again, this is how the judge recites procedural history of the case:

Since the motion to dismiss must be filed within 5 days after the arraignment on the indictment, and the judge does not say that the motion was untimely, the arraignment that the judge mentions in her recitation of her grounds must be in the lower court - because next, the judge talks about "reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanor charges, about "hearings" and a jury trial, and the "adjournment for the Grand jury action".

The judge also does not indicate whether the defendant was represented in the court below and in the felony court by the same attorneys.

If attorneys in the lower court did not think of demanding an interpreter, and the attorney representing the defendant in the upper court did, that does not say anything about the defendant's level of English, or about any "gamesmanship" of defense counsel.

Actually, "gamesmanship" is not even a legal term.

So, the judge describes a long and convoluted history of the case:

1) that the defendant was charged with felonies in the lower court, and arraigned there - at the felony arraignment in the lower court, a court which cannot try felonies, a "ready for trial" notice cannot be filed by the prosecution;

2) that the prosecution then reduced felony to misdemeanor charges - with or without agreement of defendant (it is wholly within the discretion of the prosecution to do that);

3) that the case was scheduled for pretrial hearings - which is possible only if charges were reduced to a misdemeanor, otherwise the lower court would have no authority to handle pre-trial hearings, only the County or Supreme Court, after an indictment, can do that;

4) that the case was scheduled for a jury trial, twice; and

5) that the case was then adjourned for the action of the Grand Jury - which is a completely irregular occurrence for misdemeanor charges already scheduled for a jury trial, twice.

Here are the host of charges which were reportedly initially filed against Yossef Nacham in the Kings County Criminal Court:

Right now, New York Unified Court system has the following information about the case:

So, arrest and charges were dating actually from October 16, 2015, and the speedy trial cutoff date to indict, arraign and file ready for trial notice was April 23, 2016 - while the case was not even presented for indictment until August 3, 2016, nearly 4 months too late.

I do not know why attorney Paul (Levi) Heubner representing the defendant in this case did not file a straight-out speedy trial motion to dismiss - unless he or another attorney (unwisely) agreed to adjournments in the lower court.

Yet, what I do know is that attorney Heubner was absolutely right to audio-record the inadequate interpreting to and from Hebrew of the contents of the Waiver of Immunity for his non-native English-speaking client, he was protecting his clients' constitutional rights which was his main concern, and NO laws may be used against criminal defense counsel trying to secure his client's constitutional right by means allowed by criminal statutes of the State of New York.

22 NYCRR 29.1(a) prohibiting audio recording in hallways and offices of the courthouse runs contrary to Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 that allows such recording.

Moreover, recording in offices or hallways of a courthouse has nothing to do with "taking pictures", "televising" or "broadcasting" of "court proceedings" prohibited by Civil Rights Law 52.

The Grand Jury proceedings are not "court proceedings", and are not under court control.

Moreover, discussing a waiver of immunity before entering into the room where Grand Jury proceedings are taking place, is not part of "Grand Jury proceedings" and can be done in the street, if necessary.

Specifically prohibiting the recording of inadequate interpretation for a criminal defendant that affects the defendant's constitutional rights - because the recording was taking place outside of a courtroom, outside of a court proceedings, but in a courthouse - is simply silly.

Claiming that such a recording jeopardized the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings, is equally silly.

If the identity of grand jurors is a problem, then the testifying defendant could see those grand jurors while testifying, and could recite their questions from memory - so barring him from audio recording his own testimony does not expose the secrecy of grand jury proceedings any more than the defendant's presence and testimony in such proceedings, allowed by law.

Judge Williams' decision not only stinks of the judge's rage because of denial of re-certification, not only of incompetence, but also of a desire to cater for the prosecution, and bend the law in order to allow the prosecutor who neglected to timely file and prosecute felony charges, to save face and proceed with charges which are untimely and thus no longer valid.

As it often happens, unfortunately, in court proceedings in New York, judge Williams acted as an expert linguist - while having graduated, according to her own admission in the election campaign, a BA in agricultural sciences, and having worked as a social worker.

First, I wonder how did the judge get to be hired as a social worker with a degree in agriculture - which is a separate question.

Second, how can a judge who is an agricultural expert and a social worker get to rule, without any expert input, as to

• whether a 22-year-old Israeli national has a command of English sufficient to subject himself to the dangers of
• (1) signing a waiver of immunity and 
• (2) testifying in the grand jury (which bears a risk of being indicted for a D felony lying to the grand jury, carrying a sentence of up to 7 years in prison, even if the person is not indicted for the initially sought charges), and
• whether the interpreter provided for the defendant by the court system was adequate.

Of course, I have so far had judges who ruled as expert surgeons (Kevin Dowd), who re-diagnosed me as healthy after my doctor gave me a medical leave after a spinal trauma, held a trial in my absence, awarded an over-$300,000 judgment against my client in retaliation for my absence, and, after the trial, could not stop retaliating, and started a sua sponte proceedings for sanctions and sanctioned me with a fine for not appearing in court while on a medical leave and in pain because of a trauma.

And, we had an in-famous Judge Carl F. Becker (now "retired") who acted in various court proceedings that I am aware of (not only those where I represented people as an attorney) as an expert eye doctor, OB/GYN, dentist and surgeon.

And, we had judge Mary Rita Connerton, of Binghamton, who claimed that "hurried speech" in a non-native speaker of English is a sign of misconduct that requires a negative inference in a court proceeding.

So, Judge Betty Williams was in good company testifying as an unsworn witness in the proceedings of People v Nachum.

This type of conduct is just a raw abuse of power.

It is a claim that, no matter what the law says, no matter what the judge's own field of expertise is, no matter that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence that the defendant had adequate command of English, while the defendant provided enough evidence of the opposite - if a judge says it is "just so", it must be just so.

Yet, it is not the law.

Such judges have no business to be on the bench - and the public should be aware of such misconduct, and should seek to eliminate judicial candidates like Judge Betty Williams, and the other "testifying expert" judges from ever getting on the bench.

According to the docket, the case proceeds, no motions so far are pending, and the next appearance is in March of 2017.

Had Judge Betty Williams not been removed from the bench, and from this case, through denial of post-retirement re-certification, unfortunately, there would be no mechanism of removing her.

Because, criminal defense attorneys are punished by suspension of their law license (the case of John Aretakis) for making a motion to recuse in a criminal case - so, no such motion was filed in the People v Nachum case, even though it was richly warranted.

And because, as the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct told me, they have no jurisdiction to remove a retired judge.

So, let's thank the corrupt system of the State of New York for the small blessings of removal of Judge Williams without a right to appeal - which, the judge claims, is very unfair (but I do not see her joining the ranks of those protesting against the lack of the right to appeal in attorney disciplinary cases).

Without such removal, Judge Williams would still have been bending the law to cater for the prosecution, and testifying as an expert linguist.

By the way, I don't even know if Judge Williams know Hebrew.

Most likely, she doesn't.

But - if she says she is an expert in Hebrew, I guess, that must be it.

I will continue to cover this case.

Stay tuned.