Criminalized civil proceedings in Family Court should be abolished

Family Court of the state of New York is a court of limited jurisdiction, limited by statute, the Family Court Act and by the New York State Constitution.


Nothing in the Family Court Act gives the Family Court criminal jurisdiction.


You will search the Family Court Act in vain for any protections afforded criminal defendants, and, most importantly, a right to remain silent and a right to a jury trial.


Yet, several subsections of the Family Court Act sound and operate definitely like exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and, as far as enforcement of those statutes are concerned, the line between civil and criminal has disappeared.


The subsections I am talking about pertain to issuance of arrest warrants.


Now, once again, proceedings in Family Court are deemed "civil" proceedings - and for that reason, parents are denied their right to a jury trial, even though parental rights are fundamental constitutional rights, and even though in New York jury trials are allowed as of right, under the New York State Constitution in, say, civil actions for breach of contract.  Jury trials are also allowed as of right in federal civil rights actions asserting federal constitutional rights.


In other words, parental constitutional rights are separate and apart - they are afforded in New York less procedural protection than any other federal constitutional right and less protection than even property rights.


Observing how biased judges are in Family Court against parents who are poor or with low social status and how judges they ascend to Family Court, usually from prosecutorial positions, with prosecutorial, accusatory mentality ingrained in them over years of practice, introduction of jury trials as of right in Family Court appears to be a must.


I also assert that exercise by the Family Court, at the same time, of civil jurisdiction in imposing sanctions for frivolous conduct upon attorneys and parties in Family Court proceedings, as well as exercising of bench warrant powers are incompatible, and should be addressed by the Legislature.


If you are sued in civil court in any other proceeding, your failure to appear in that court will never result in issuance of a bench warrant for your arrest, instead, if you are a defendant in a civil action or proceeding, the civil court must ascertain whether the Plaintiff or Petitioner in the civil action or proceeding has served you properly with the court papers and whether the Plaintiff or Petitioner has provided to you proof of that service.


If all of those conditions are satisfied, and you did not appear, the most that the civil court is allowed to do is enter a default judgment against you, but never arrest you, unless you are in violation of a court order - and then you are subject to civil contempt proceedings.


There is one exception to that, which I recently addressed in federal court - which was dismissed before I served the action by a court that was itself a defendant in the action, when I asked to transferred the venue - and I am addressing that particular criminal contempt procedure on appeal.


There is a strict distinction between civil and criminal contempt that I have written about in this blog, and provided a comparative table, and the distinction equally applies whether the parent is accused of violation of court order of support or of any other court order, such as, of the court order of visitation.


Civil contempt presupposes that the court is compelling you to do what you are ordered to do by court order, and the court's authority to compel ends as soon as you comply.  That's why the civil contemnor "holds the keys from his own jail cell in his pocket".


If the court is trying to punish you for non-compliance with a court order - that is criminal contempt, a criminal contempt of court is at least a misdemeanor and you are entitled to full criminal procedure on that, including the right to be charged only by a District Attorney, and a right to a plea of not guilty, right to remain silent throughout the procedure, the burden of proof never shifts to you, you have a right to confront witnesses accusing you etc. - see the table.


Now, in the Family Court, especially in child neglect proceedings (which are considered civil proceedings, and attorneys and parties can be sanctioned for frivolous conduct in those proceedings, which chills attorneys from raising sensitive issues like judicial bias and misconduct), if general rules of civil proceedings are to be followed, failure to serve respondents with a petition may not lead to any consequences to the respondent.


In other words, the court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a respondent in any other civil proceedings if the respondent was not personally served by the Petitioner.


In child neglect proceedings, if the Petitioner (social services) failed to locate the respondent, the court simply issues a bench warrant to bring the respondent into the court against his or her will, as a criminal.  This is not a characteristic of a civil proceeding, but federal lawsuits to challenge constitutionality of this statute are practically impossible to get through courts because of the leverage that social services have over parents to "persuade" them, or, rather, to intimidate them to drop such lawsuits for fear of losing custody of their children. 


In fact, bench warrant power of the Family Court is considered one of its "general powers" and is allowed to be exercised in cases of an "emergency", such as where a child is in danger or where a party is in violation of a court order.


Yet, as you remember, the Family Court has no criminal jurisdiction, and the power to enforce its orders is civil, not criminal contempt power.


The main distinction between civil and criminal contempt powers is that in civil contempt proceedings the maximum the court can do is COERCE, MAKE you comply with the court order, by imposing on you a fine, or by putting you in jail, or both.


Once you've complied or, in some cases, where you  have no ability to comply out of jail, announce to the court that you will comply - the court must let you out of jail.


Yet, time and again, I see Orders to Show Cause from Family Court for civil contempt of court warning respondents that the purpose of the civil contempt proceeding is to punish them by fine or jail or both.


What are the sings that such Orders to Show Cause are for a civil contempt proceeding and not a criminal contempt proceeding?


(1) The caption saying it is a proceeding of a civil petitioner against a civil respondent, not People of the State of New York against a criminal defendant;


(2) The proceeding has been brought "upon the petition of" a civil Petitioner, not upon a criminal accusatory instrument, as it is in criminal courts;


(3) The potential contemnor is called Respondent and is ordered by the court "to show cause" (speak up) as to why a finding of a violation of the court order should not be made, while in criminal proceedings a criminal defendant has a right to remain silent throughout the proceedings;


(4) The very first appearance in the case is "a hearing" where the warning on the Order to Show Cause says "THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT - SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH" and at the same time the Order to Show Cause says that it is going to be only an "Initial Appearance" on the same "Order to Show Cause".  As compared, the initial appearance for a criminal defendant is an arraignment where he usually gets counsel, pleads not guilty, gets his or her 45 days for discovery and motions and only after that and after pre-trial hearings on the motion, if granted by the court, comes not a hearing, but a jury trial.


Since

• these orders are often used against poor parents who only have assigned counsel,
• assigned counsel are heavily dependent upon the hopes of being assigned again and would not raise any sensitive issues on behalf of their clients,
• rules of frivolous conduct are applicable to Family court proceedings, unlike criminal proceedings, chilling attorneys from raising important constitutional issues,
• and it is impossible to bring a civil rights case in federal court to declare a statute unconstitutional, because it will be dismissed on judicial immunity and abstention grounds, returning it to Family Court, while Family Court Act and CPLR 3001 do not allow a Family court to decide issues of constitutionality of statutes, and Family Court judges consider constitutional arguments as "lying",

the  only way to address this mess and human rights crisis is through the Legislature.


Apparently, the poor parents and parents of low social status do not have any procedural protections or effective representation in such cases in Family Court, such cases rarely make it to appellate courts, and assigned counsel on appeal are similarly  afraid to raise important issues for fear of being accused of frivolous conduct - and the result is that an untold number of parents are punished by Family Courts without authority, including by jail time, which is a gross violation of their 4th Amendment and due process rights - but who cares?


I think, it is time for the New York State Legislature to straighten out this mess and to provide parents proper procedural protections in Family Court.

The use of unquestionable fraud by prosecutors in order to discipline an attorney - the same fraudulent song by the Disciplinary Committee of 4th Department now

It is universally declared that attorney licensing (and discipline) are designed to protect the public from attorneys who are not fit to practice law.


You be the judge who is not fit to practice law here - I or those attorneys who are prosecuting me.


In January of 2013, with a very curious timing (I just recovered from a pneumonia and I  had several trials scheduled back-to-back) the Committee for Professional Conduct, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, filed a petition to discipline me.


The essence of charges was:

No.	Essense of charge	What the evidence was	What 3rd Department is	What 4th Department is
1.	That I did not attend a deposition for a client and that caused imposition of sanctions upon the client	Deposition happened in 2008; I was admitted to practice law in 2009, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, September of 2008   3rd Department made a motion for a summary judgment (judgment without a trial or hearing), and without providing to the court transcript of that deposition that was on file with the court and clearly showed 2008 as the date of the deposition, exonerating me beyond all doubt	Carries on with the fraudulent charge and opposed my motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct
2.	That I failed to respond to a motion in the same action as the deposition and my failure to respond resulted in a default judgment for my clients	The motion was filed in 2008, I was admitted to practice law only in 2009, after the review date of the motion, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, December of 2008, WHEN I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND COULD NOT ACT AS AN ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT   Result: same as in Charge No. 1	Same as above
3.	That I was sanctioned by Judge Becker for frivolous conduct three times	Yes, I was – right after I sued Judge Becker for misconduct.     Courts refused to address on the merits the issue whether Judge Becker’s sanctions were an unconstitutional pattern of retaliation   None of my clients were hurt because of my actions   None of my clients complained   In fact, all sanctions were imposed for my zealous representation of clients, and most of them were indigent, one case was a Pro Bono case	The 3rd Department pursued these unconstitutional sanctions as, somehow, violation of attorney disciplinary rules, even though I was sanctioned for actually standing up for my clients against misconduct of a judge in two cases, and fraud of the opposing counsel (coincidentally also an upstate NY judge in a local justice court) in another case	4th Department knows of the constitutional issues  with the charges, but continues with the charges
4.	That I failed to pay the sanctions	Even though the three imposed sanctions were clearly illegal, when I appealed them, I put in a bond back in 2011 for all three sanctions   When one appeal out of three was dismissed on a technicality and two affirmed while the appellate court ignored material parts of the record (I wrote about it elsewhere in the blog), the money went directly where Becker ordered it to go.   Thus, I ceded control over the money for all three sanctions claimed in the disciplinary petition 1.5 years before the petition was brought	The 3rd Department, after being alerted to the problem of their negligent review and prosecution of the case, still continued with the fraudulent charge	The 4th Department continues with the fraudulent charge and opposes my motion against them for frivolous conduct

I removed the case to the federal court, reasonably predicting that I will not get a fair review in the state court where multiple judges have a conflict of interest to review the case

It was remanded back because the 3^rd Department claimed, under the so-called Younger abstention, claiming that the state court is fully able to handle my federal constitutional claims

As soon as the case was remanded from the federal court back to state court, the 3^rd Department’s Committee for Professional Conduct claimed in a motion that I should not be allowed to use the state court to “air my generalized grievances”, or, in other words, to bring my federal constitutional claims, which was in direct contradiction to their own claims by use of which they got the remand.So, the bottom line is:

• 3 charges (deposition, motion and payment of sanctions) were fraudulent, as shown by documentary evidence that prosecutors did not care to read;
• all other charges were based on clear unconstitutional retaliation against me, based on personal vengeance, by a judge who I sued before sanctions were imposed

In other words, the whole disciplinary proceeding was a politically motivated fabrication.


And it still continues.


And I was denied even an oral argument that I requested, the very minimum of procedural due process.


I am asking you - how long do you think should it take to prove, with a transcript of a deposition in hand, that bears a court stamp and a date, that it was held in 2008 while I was admitted to practice law in 2009 and COULD NOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT CLIENTS AT THAT DEPOSITION?  So I COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CHARGED FOR NOT ATTENDING? BECAUSE I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME?


How about one second while you are holding your documents in front of the prosecutor?  Because, if the prosecutor has a shred of integrity left in him or her, he will immediately apologize and withdraw the such impossible charges (if they were brought by mistake).


I cannot prove it since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, one federal and two state courts - and all of them had a right to toss the disciplinary charges on the merits , with sanctions against prosecutors who are engaged in OBVOIUS FRAUD UPON THE COURT and OBVIOUS FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that in September and in December of 2008 I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY and had no obligation (or right) to appear at depositions representing clients or to answer any motions on behalf of any clients.  And, by the way, the disciplinary petition, on its very first page, states that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that sanctions were paid into escrow in the summer of 2011, long before the Petition was filed, in January of 2013, and it is well documented.


And, 3 courts so far, as well as prosecutors in those courts, pretend they do not know that 3 sanctions in a row (in fact, there were more) imposed by a judge whom I just sued look really suspicious, wouldn't they to any impartial reasonable person?


Remember, all of them were sworn to uphold the federal constitution - but they advance unconstitutional, fraudulent, politically motivated prosecutions without blinking an eye.


Recently, another attorney posed in his blog a question whether disciplinary attorneys are bound by the same rules of conduct that they are enforcing upon others.


Disciplinary proceedings in New York are deemed civil proceedings, so - yes, of course they are so bound.


Yet, they seem to allow themselves not to be bound by those rules - because, at least in my case, they try to prosecute me because I was sanctioned for "frivolous" conduct (where sanctions were imposed by a judge after I sued him), while attorneys freely engage in fraud upon the court and frivolous conduct themselves while prosecuting the action.





PS  The name of the "heroes", disciplinary attorneys who continue to carry the fraudulent torch can be found here, all attorneys and all attorney members of the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee.

Cowards

Just watched a video of a middle-aged disabled woman opening the door of her residence to a Delaware County Deputy Derek Bowie holding a TASER gun in her face.


After that, according to her report, she was overpowered by the Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie and has bruises to show for that, I personally saw the bruises.


When the woman came outside to videotape what Deputy Bowie was doing, he got into a vehicle, backed up at the woman with a door of his vehicle open and obviously intentionally slammed the door of his vehicle into the tablet with which the woman was videotaping him, nearly knocking her over with his vehicle.


Only, regrettably for Deputy Bowie, the video was not destroyed by his trick.  By the way, he says on that video that he is making his own video.  I wonder if he was lying or not, because in my experience as a criminal defense attorney, police officers in several local counties, including Delaware, never videotape their arrests - this way it is their word against the word of the suspect, and you can guess who wins if a judge determines credibility, which is what happens at the so-called pre-trial hearings in criminal court, and in Family Court there are no jury trials by statute.


But wait a minute?


Isn't it a vehicular assault on the woman? Isn't it an attempt to murder? In my legal opinion, yes, it is.  Backing up a car in order to smash into a tablet that a woman holds could have knocked her dead or left her severely injured.


Was it an assault with a taser?  In my legal opinion, yes, it was, the woman did not present any threat of violence and did not resist anything.  She actually opened the door to Deputy Bowie - and saw a taser gun looking her in the face, and a child behind her watched that.


Will Delaware County District Attorney charge its own Deputy Sheriff for his misconduct?  I highly doubt it.


Yet, it is this kind of police misconduct that breeds contempt in people about the law.


Is it called good training of personnel of Delaware County?


By the way, this is not the first case I know where taser guns were used inappropriately.  I know of at least one more such case, where taser guns were used on a woman in front of her three young children, in the middle of the night, for no reason whatsoever, by officer John Demeo. 


John Demeo at that point worked for the Walton Village police, and I've heard from more than one person that John Demeo had anger problems.  Was he fired?  No. 


He was promoted and now not only he is a Deputy Sheriff of Delaware County in its drug enforcement unit, but he is the only officer handling such a deadly "assault weapon" as a German Shepherd. 


People who know this breed will tell you that German Shepherds need handlers with extremely even temperament.  John Demeo is definitely not that person - and I can judge because I cross-examined him and saw his reactions.  If he was ready to burst at me during cross-examination, if he tasered an innocent young mother who gave him no resistance, in front of her kids, and tasered a kid together with the mother, I can only imagine what a deadly combination is John Demeo with a German Shepherd.


The Delaware County uses tasers since 2008 and claims all of its officers are fully trained to use them.


In 2010, Delaware County Sheriff's Department claimed that in 98.5% of arrests TASERS are not required and are used to reduce the risk of injuries to the officer and the suspect.


The woman in question was not the suspect.


The officer who held the TASER to her face when she opened the door did not have a reason to believe that he will be met with violence.  There were not and never have been guns in that house.  In my assessment, it was pure harassment.


Here, the TASER was used because the father (a former U.S. Marine) who was picking up the child from visitation, asked the officers to come and get the child.  The father came to the house, because the mother texted to him to come, that she is packing the child and getting her ready for the transfer.


And the father, who hates the mother with a passion, brought police with him for a peaceful transfer.


I doubt that this particular situation fell into the 1.5% of cases where a TASER needed to be used.  It appears by at least the cases I know that TASERS are used by police officers within Delaware County against helpless women where there is no expectation of risk of injury to the officer.


As an example, the TASER gun was reportedly used by Delaware County Deputies this year against a person who allegedly "refused to comply with the duties of the Walton Dog Control officer", whatever those duties were.


By the way, the middle-aged woman in question did not refuse to comply with anything, in fact, the officer asked her to open the door, and she did - and saw the TASER gun right in her face.


The woman in question is also disabled, her wrists were broken, and the officer who pointed a TASER into her face, as far as I know, knew or should have known about it, as she is a well-known local, retired and on disability from the State of New York, with no criminal record and no history of gun use.


And, by the way, there was no reason for the officer to come to the house with a TASER into the grandmother's face, other than that on September 1, 2014 the woman's daughter has filed a misconduct complaint against a Family Court judge, Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr. whose orders obviously in retaliation for the complaint, the Deputy Sheriff was carrying out.


What a coincidence.

New complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission submitted

I just submitted complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission about the following judges:


1)  Judge Christopher Cahill of Ulster County - I submitted additional information that court administration destroyed of evidence of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with attorney Delice Seligman by overwriting the security tape of what happened on his floor that day.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill who threatened to "turn me in" went across the hall to complain against me to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Karen Peters who at that time handled my disciplinary proceedings.  To complain to the chief judge of the licensing court would be illegal, but illegality did not deter Judge Cahill from ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill's potential visit to Judge Peters's chambers that day documented by the security tapes was the main reason why the security tapes were overwritten before expiration of 30 days, the time set by NYS Court administration's own policy for such security tapes to remain intact.


Fortunately for me, Attorney Delice Seligman, driven by feelings which had nothing to do with friendship, put her foot into her own mouth and admitted to the ex parte communication in sworn statement to another court - and I provided that admission to the Judicial Conduct Commission as proof of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with her.  I wonder what the Commission will do now, being confronted with irrefutable proof that misconduct happened.


A lot of work - but judicial misconduct should not remain unreported.


2) Judge Mary Work of Ulster County - for her misconduct in a divorce case and another related case involving the same attorney Delice Seligman whose atrociously uncivilized behavior Judge Work seemed to be unwilling to control to protect my client and myself, the "slayer of New York judicial system" (Attorney Seligman's authorship).


3) Appellate Division Third Department and its Chief Judge Karen Peters, of Ulster County for misconduct, including, but not limited to:

•      engaging in ex parte communications with my opponents, see here and here;
• refusing to provide access to documents submitted ex parte;
• failing to provide to the court with the transferred documents the ex parte documents as part of the record
• failing to recuse from other pending proceedings where my husband and I were parties after recusing from one of such proceedings

All complaints were filed by e-mail, so that nobody can claim they were not filed where an electronic evidence of a transaction exists, and a copy was of the Appellate Division 3rd Department complaint was sent to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, also by email.


I pointed out to the Commission that the Commission is responsible for the current state of affairs where judges feel absolutely above the law and commit egregious misconduct with impunity while attorneys are afraid to report it for fear of retribution and losing their livelihoods through that retribution (which is what is happening to me now).


I asked the Commission for Judicial Conduct to do their jobs, for a change, on these complaints.


We will see whether that will happen.

A short answer to a big question. For how long will judicial corruption continue? For as long as you allow it and fund it

As I said in my previous blogposts, I am contacted more and more frequently by readers of this blog asking me when will judicial corruption end?


Judicial corruption seems to be a widespread problem in New York State courts.


No legal remedies that I tried so far, help.


Attorneys are sitting in the bushes trembling and afraid to speak out for fear of losing their licenses.


The public is left on its own to fight an issue that, apparently, cannot be fought in courts - because judges rounded up defenses to protect judges, Commission for Judicial Conduct, as I wrote in this blog, is a glorified shredder of complaints against judges, and judges, very simply, have no accountability FOR WHATEVER they do wrong.


So -  I am asked by my readers who call or e-mail me - when will it end?


And the answer is actually on the surface.


Judges are PUBLIC SERVANTS.  The sovereign in this state and country is - guess? - THE PEOPLE, YOU ARE THE SOVEREIGN, judges are YOUR SERVANTS, they are in YOUR EMPLOY, YOU are paying their salaries and benefits.


What should be done with a bad servant?  Of course, such a servant should be fired.


So - get together, speak out publicly, in writing, in published videotapes, march, picket your other servants in the government, the Legislature and the Governor, to get their attention - and bring about laws that will not allow your black-robed SERVANTS to violate your rights. 


Stop paying your servants who abuse you and who violate the Constitution.


It is that simple.

With their hands in the cookie jar - and continuing to grab the cookies

If a judge recuses from a case, that means, to any objective reasonable disinterested observer that something is wrong and that the judge recused because the judge could not deem it possible to judge the case fairly.






Courts invented for themselves a "presumption of integrity" of judges.






Well, that presumption, which is a laughable matter to begin with because judges ALSO created FOR THEMSELVES the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity FOR MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT ACTS (which cancels any presumptions of integrity in any mind not affected by a lobotomy) - again, this alleged "presumption of integrity" goes out the door when the judge recuses from a party's case.


In my experience, when a judge recuses from a party's case, he must recuse from all cases of the same party.






Logical? Fair? 




There is case law indicating that a judge may not re-enter a case from which the judge recused, it is a due process violation making every decision of that judge void.


And, Judges John F. Lambert and Brian D. Burns, when recused from my cases (even though they did not have to - they recused because of federal lawsuits where I was not a party and where they were named in their official capacity only, on issues of constitutionality of statutes, not because they did anything wrong), they recused from ALL cases in ALL courts at the same time, and never came back on any cases.  That is what I call integrity.






Yet, judges I will enumerate below in a table in this blog decided differently.  I encourage you to word-search names of judges from the table in this blog, there is a "search" window on the left.  I wrote about each one of them at length here, detailing their misconduct, with documentary evidence.




And all decisions that are now under review of my disciplinary court were made by disqualified judges who re-entered my cases after recusals.  Federal courts rejected that argument without review based on the concept of judicial immunity.


Don't you think it looks a like a pattern and a policy of how New York State courts operate?  And that federal courts help them operate that way?
And by the way - one of the appellate cases to be reviewed by the disqualified Appellate Division 3rd Department, and argued in front of this court by the court's own attorney (a disciplinary violation on both sides) is going to happen tomorrow.  I made a motion to recuse - and got no answer so far.  And, of course, I will not go for the oral argument tomorrow - I am not participating in this farce.
Yet, I got an answer on another motion to recuse - motion denied without an explanation, I will run it in a separate blog.
The case to be heard on appeal tomorrow involves the issue how the New York Department of Environmental conservation defrauds New Yorkers into paying fines and doing costly environmental remediation on their property when DEC has absolutely no right to do that - and yet, it continues to do that with the blessing of state courts, federal courts and the New York State Attorney General, who, instead of prosecuting fraud in the government, defends fraudsters in court.
I will shortly publish a separate blog about DEC fraud upon New Yorkers, with documentary evidence.

No.	Name of judge	Name of court	When recused	Reentered?	Recused after reentry?
1.	Carl F. Becker	Delaware County Family Court,  Surrogate’s Court, Supreme Court	October 2009, Delaware County Family Court	Assigned himself to all my cases in February 2011, in Delaware County Supreme Court (after I complained about him to the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked to take him off the bench)	Yes, in August of 2012, after sanctioning me for suing him and referring his own sanctions to disciplinary authorities
2.	Kevin D. Dowd	Chenango County Supreme Court, Delaware County Supreme Court	In the fall of 2012 in Neroni v. Harlem (Delaware),  but failed to recuse in Mokay v. Mokay, with the same party, and claimed it was because of his policy of not presiding over cases of attorneys appearing in front of him, but failed at the same time to recuse from a Chenango case where I was a party	After I confronted him with inconsistent application of his policy, he recused from the Chenango case, but failed to vacate parts of his decisions that were against me
3.	James C. Tormey	Chenango County Supreme Court Delaware County Supreme Court	Recused in Chenango County in the fall of 2013 from the case where Dowd was the judge previously, but refused to recuse in Delaware County and sanctioned me for making a motion to recuse	I qualify non-recusal from a Delaware County case after recusal from a Chenango County case as a re-entry	No, sanctioned me for making a motion to recuse, for bringing a federal case AGAINST HIMSELF, and referred the case to disciplinary authorities
4.	Michael Coccoma	Delaware County Supreme Court, all upstate courts	2007, recused from Mokay v. Mokay	Michael Coccoma’s wife was part of the prosecuting team in the disciplinary action of my husband, based on the case from which Michael Coccoma recused – I consider that a re-entry by Michael Coccoma, Michael Coccoma as the chief administrative judge of upstate New York continues supervising assignment of judges to all cases involving me and my husband as parties, despite requests to transfer all of our cases to downstate, outside of the reach of Michael Coccoma and his direct subordinates; Michael Coccoma assigned Judge Dowd (who is close to retirement and will soon be eligible for financial post-retirement perks from Michael Coccoma) to the case where Michael Coccoma’s wife was a private attorney and where I requested sanctions against her – sanctions were, naturally, denied
5.	The entire court, Karen Peters as a presiding judge (Karen Peters was a member of the Commission for Judicial Conduct that rejected my documented complaints against Judge Becker and allowed him to ascend to the bench of the Supreme Court)	Appellate Division Third Judicial Department	June 11, 2014 Recused from my disciplinary case and from the “case” of my husband (he has no pending disciplinary case in that court, but was on the caption of the order of transfer anyway)	Refused, without an explanation, to recuse from four more actions (appeals) pending in the same court with me, my husband, or me and my husband as parties. All appellate cases involve decisions by similarly disqualified judges (Dowd, Tormey, Becker) regarding our property or reputation.  So, AppDiv3rd ceded one case, but rounded up a protective wall around the 3 above judges

I can only hold the torch (for so long), but it is for New Yorkers themselves, through their Legislature and constitutional intiatives, to clean the mess this state's courts are in

Because of this blog, I am experiencing a surge of requests to represent people in mostly civil proceedings where people ask me to make motions to recuse judges and relate to me stories of judicial misconduct which are really - REALLY - bad.


My heart goes out to these people.


People who otherwise do not have a voice because that voice is stifled by the oppressive court system in New York state have been of the main reasons why I started this blog to begin with - to give them that voice.


Yet, as much as I would wish to help everybody, I cannot do it - and not simply because my time is limited to 24 hours a day, but because I have tried all avenues to make motions to recuse as legitimate as they are presented to the public - and failed.


Civil proceedings (Family Court proceedings, divorce proceedings) are subject to the so-called "rules of frivolous conduct" which were created, obviating the Legislature, directly by the New York State Court Administration.  Under those rules, any party or attorney may be ordered by a judge, in the judge's sole discretion and without much procedure, to pay up to $10,000.00 per "act" that the judge may deem frivolous - and that is including a motion to recuse AGAINST THAT SAME JUDGE that the same judge will review and decide.  And, on top of that, the judge may award attorney's fees for that same frivolous conduct, if the opponent of the party or attorney who asked the judge to recuse, was represented by an attorney.


And attorneys often capitalize on that opportunity, because they often are stuck in cases with non-paying clients with no recourse, and sanctions for frivolous conduct against the opponent provide them a golden opportunity to get paid - usually at any rate they claim to the court.


So, when people ask me to step into the case TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE, I cannot subject the new client and myself to these sanctions.  I've tried and I've been sanctioned.  And I appealed and I lost, and I sued in federal court and I lost. 


And the same dishonest and unconstitutional rules, dishonestly and unconstitutionally applied by dishonest judges who have vested interest to protect themselves from motions to recuse remain in place, hurting people daily.


I already argued to state and federal courts that such rules are unconstitutional for many reasons, one of the main ones is that:


(1) rules of frivolous conduct amount to an important legislative policy and should be introduced only by elected legislative representatives, and not by court administrators;  and that by introduction of these rules, not only attorneys and parties are deterred from asserting their constitutional rights to a fair trial by a competent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, but New York voters are stripped of their voting rights (disenfranchised). 


Courts that reviewed my claims refused to render an opinion on these issues - you will not see opinions on these issues in any of court decisions made against me lately, and I've raised such an issue in nearly every appeal in state court and in every federal action. 


These issues are simply ignored.  When such issues are collectively ignored by all courts on all levels, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that there is an institutional position expressed by such failure to review this issue and that no matter how hard I am going to try to raise it again, it will fail, and that something needs to be done on a legislative, possibly, constitutional level (a referendum for amendment of a State or even Federal Constitution) in order to address this crisis.


It is a crisis because of people who are contacting me, and the majority of these people want to remain unknown for fear of retribution from the judicial system - which, of course, I am going to honor.


(2) rules of frivolous conduct are vague and encourage arbitrary application to parties or attorneys at the judge's "discretion";  imagine the "discretion" of an enraged judge who is mad at an attorney or party because they dared to make a motion to recuse.


I remember the reaction of attorneys to my first motion to recuse Judge Carl F. Becker in August of 2009, during my first year of practice of law.  They made "big eyes" to me in the corners of the courtroom and outside of it and whispered that "they support me", that "everybody knew" what I was raising in the motion, but "nobody would raise it", that I am the "fresh air" that is "much needed in our profession", but "take care not to burn your bridges".


I did not take care - and as a result I am in the middle of a disciplinary proceeding instituted exclusively based on sanctions of a judge imposed upon me after I sued that judge for misconduct, on behalf of myself and my two clients, one of them my husband.


(3) such rules do not provide a "catch-all" provision prohibiting judges to sanction for constitutionally protected conduct - and especially for making constitutional arguments.  I have been sanctioned for raising constitutional arguments on behalf of my clients several times and at this time there is a chance that I will be disbarred BECAUSE of it. 


All public organizations and all law professors who otherwise advance theories against attorney discipline for criticism of judges declined to help me claiming that they are too busy.


Those attorneys who sympathize with what is happening to me and with what I am doing, do that in deep secret, because they are afraid for their own fate if they express sympathy or support me publicly.


Some attorneys tried to get a political capital on my blog and to cement their favorable positions with judges by providing to courts copies of this blog as proof of my alleged psychiatric instability, lack of credibility and unfitness to be an attorney. 


So - it is fashionable to kick me and unfashionable to support me.  I am sure that in the unlikely situation if I actually win the disciplinary proceeding (one may always dream about a court with minimum integrity, as required by the court's oath of office), there will be a lot of people coming forward and telling me that "the supported me all along".


Yet, same as with my fight to restore the license of my husband - tons of people tried to get my free legal advice claiming that "Fred always advised them for free because I am a friend" and thus encouraging me to do the same and none of those alleged friends supported us.  My husband provided free consultations and mentoring to tons of local attorneys during his 37-year legal career, and during time when I was with him and witnessed it, and NONE of them helped me appeal Fred's case or bring it to federal court.


In fact, at this time, not one, but many local attorneys referred "problem clients" to me where issues of judicial misconduct were involved and attorneys did not want to handle those issues on their own, for fear of being "blackballed" and losing their business.  Obviously, for those attorneys, I am expendable. 


So, instead of presenting a united front against judicial misconduct, as an honorable legal profession and ASSOCIATION of attorneys should do, what we have is scattered individuals who, for fear of their own livelihood, would not support their colleague and will instead refer clients to that colleague who may add to that colleague's demise, to protect themselves.


The bottom line is - I've tried it all with motions to recuse and failed.


The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct so far did not discipline a single judge who was involved in very well documented misconduct I complained about.  Instead, judges I complained about have my livelihood and reputation in their hands, assigned themselves or through other disqualified judges to my cases (and such assignment is, as federal courts explained to me, immune from civil liability under the absolute judicial immunity doctrine) and sanctioned me for invented reasons - and, in reality, for complaining about them.


It is not usual for an attorney to start a blog and start speaking out against judges.


In fact, discussing what happens in court and in pending cases is frowned upon.


I only started to do that because NOTHING ELSE HELPS.  THE LAW APPEARS TO BE DEAD and not to work.  CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ARE IGNORED AND/OR SANCTIONED.  Uniformly.  Throughout state and federal courts, on trial and appellate levels.


And people who call me universally report that attorneys refuse to raise issues of judicial misconduct and bias, no matter how well established (and I agreed with a lot of them that misconduct was egregious - after review of transcripts and copies of pleadings and court decisions provided to me).


We have arrived at a situation where there is a human rights crisis CREATED by the state and federal court system - where there is NO WAY, ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for a poor litigant in a civil case (Family Court) to obtain:


(1) effective representation from an independent counsel not fearing to raise all necessary issues;


(2) effective access to a truly impartial and fair court.


And that must be the concern of the New York State Government that an impenetrable wall preventing access to court and fair adjudication of cases has been created in this state,


(1) through apathy and inaction of its Legislature


        (a) that allows the "rules of frivolous conduct" to continue to exist, even though by introduction of those rules the New York State court administration clearly usurped the authority for legislative actions and legislative policy from the New York State Legislature,


        (b) that failed to introduce STATUTES 
  
              (I) for peremptory challenges against judges, as exist in other states, and as exist in New York State if fact-finders are jurors;


             (II) that would PROHIBIT judges to decide motions to recuse that same judge;


             (III) that would demand that a judge must step off ALL CASES INVOLVING THE SAME PARTY if the judge is disqualified from one such case;


              (IV) that would establish mechanisms of disclosure of information disqualifying judges pursuant to Judiciary Law 14 AND due process of law;


               (V) that failed to put into the Judiciary Law 14 a catch-all phrase of constitutional requirements for disqualification;


               (VI) that would prohibit sanctioning attorneys or parties for raising constitutional arguments in court, and especially for making motions to recuse;


(2) through complicity of its Executive branch which represents and protects rogue judges in civil rights actions at taxpayers' expense instead of prosecuting them,


(3) through self-interested actions of judges who:


      (a) introduced all kinds of doctrines which are not part of statutes or state or federal Constitutions, which help them avoid liability, such as immunity doctrines and multiple doctrines blocking civil rights actions in state and federal courts;


      (b) intimidate and chill, if not destroy independent attorneys who raise issues of judicial misconduct - through sanctions at all levels, in state and federal, trial and appellate courts, for making motions to recuse or for otherwise criticizing judges, and through disciplinary proceedings against those same attorneys based on those same sanctions (as it is happening to me as we speak);


     (c) bribe other attorneys with "assigned counsel" privileges in a tight and ever shrinking market of legal services;


     (d ) wine and dine with politically connected and wealthy attorneys behind closed doors to secure support of the legal establishment.




I believe the New York State Legislature has no right to continue to avoid addressing this human rights crisis which affects, yes, myself too, but it affects thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers, every day.


New Yorkers, I am also addressing you directly.  I am not the New York government and I alone cannot resolve this crisis - I can only point out what other attorneys are afraid to point out.


Moreover, you can count on my words that as soon as my license is pulled,


                 (which is very possible, because courts so far unilaterally ignored
                 all constitutional arguments I raised without an explanation or by
                 simply claiming "and we reviewed all REMAINING issues and find them
                 without merit", even though constitutional arguments, under the federal
                pre-emption doctrine and Supreme law of the land constitutional rule,
                should be reviewed FIRST, not LAST)


I will be bad-mouthed in the press, called "disgruntled disbarred attorney" whose words should not be credited - and that is a large part of why judges try at this time to take my license, to discredit me as an outspoken critic of the system.  The trick to tar-and-feather a political opponent is centuries-old, but works every time, especially when used by the government that has power against an individual that doesn't have it - except for speaking out.


And I continue to speak out.


But I will not change the situation until and unless New Yorkers realize that without their own pressure upon the legislatures and without their own movement to introduce the right laws to change the outrage of judicial misconduct that is running amok in state courts, NOTHING WILL CHANGE, and NEW YORKERS WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER - WITHOUT A LEGAL RECOURSE.


What I suggest I can do at this time - and I already started to do that - is offer my services as an investigative journalist and help create videos and publish them on my blog for victims of judicial corruption. 


I am also working with a group of people about starting a non-profit addressing the issue of judicial corruption.   Victims of judicial corruption and New Yorkers who want to bring about a change on this issue are welcome to join.