Imagine that there is a report from an individual that a neighbor deliberately ran over that individual on an ATV.
What will happen to the alleged perpetrator?
The alleged perpetrator will be immediately arrested, charged with a felony assault, based on the statement of the alleged victim, and kept in jail without bail or with a high bail.
What if the alleged victim is a judge? In other words, a judge complains that a neighbor deliberately ran over him on an all terrain vehicle?
Most certainly the alleged perpetrator will be held in jail without bail as a very dangerous person.
Now, let's reverse the roles. An individual alleges that his neighbor who is a judge ran over him in an ATV.
What happens to the alleged perpetrator now?
If the law is blind and is applied equally across the board, there should be no difference - the judge should be held in jail without bail as a dangerous person.
Yet, in the exact same situation the Sullivan County (NY) Judge Frank LaBuda never saw the insides of a jail, he was never arrested or charged, even though statement of the alleged victim is enough to charge him with felony assault (a disbarring offense that would have the judge expelled not only off the bench, but also out of the legal profession), and remains free, pending New York State Attorney General's investigation - while New York State Attorney General, under Public Officers Law Section 17, is also Judge LaBuda's counsel - an irreconcilable conflict of interest that should subject the New York State Attorney General who undertook such an investigation to attorney disciplinary charges. There should have been a special investigator assigned - and not Judge Labuda's own counsel - to investigate him, an out-of-state investigator, if necessary, if everybody within the state is afraid and has a conflict of interest.
One can say that the investigation is still pending, and that Judge LaBuda is presumed innocent, and I agree.
Yet, anybody else in the same circumstances would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, too, and yet, there would have been immediate charges, jail detention - and the related loss of a job, foreclosure through inability to pay the mortgage, loss of a vehicle for inability to pay, child support contempt orders if that person is paying child support etc.
Presumption of innocence works differently with judges than with average Joes accused of crimes?
Judges are a little bit MORE EQUAL than everybody else?
That was Violent Judges Episode # 1. That was in September of 2016.
In October of 2016 there came a Violent Judges Episode # 2.
Imagine that a heavy and heavily drunk man "sucker-punches" a man in the street causing the man to fall, unconscious and dislocate his shoulder in the fall.
Imagine that the drunk left the unconscious man and left the scene.
Imagine that the whole episode was:
1) captured on nearby security cameras; and
2) there is a number of witnesses who
- took the plate numbers of the perpetrator's car;
- identified the perpetrator; and
- provided statements claiming that the perpetrator punched the victim deliberately, claiming: "I do justice. I f**king kill people";
- left the scene, while obviously very drunk, driving a car
Now imagine what would have happened in a case where both the victim and the perpetrator are "average Joes from the street"?
Most likely, the police would immediately
- arrest the perpetrator,
- charge him with a felony assault causing grievous bodily injuries and with
- driving while intoxicated,
- have his driver's license pulled and
- put him in jail without bail, waiting for his arraignment in criminal court in the morning.
In view of the perpetrator's dangerousness, and statement that he is "killing people", the perpetrator would most likely have been denied bail.
Now imagine that the victim is a judge.
The arrest, charge and jail would then happen with a lightning speed, possibly with an addition of some anti-terrorist charge.
Now imagine that the perpetrator was a judge.
What happened then, after Judge Beltrani was identified by witnesses and while the whole punching and leaving the scene episode was captured IN FULL on video?
Was he arrested?
Was he charged with a felony and DWI?
Was he held in jail without bail as a dangerous person that he is?
Nope.
He "surrendered himself", received a "desk appearance ticket" - and remains free and at large, a dangerous alcoholic who can punch (and kill) people at random, it is the victim's sheer luck that he is alive - and who can also driving drunk.
This man is roaming the streets and can kill you or your loved one - because he thinks he is above the law, and the law enforcement let's him continue to think that's true.
Why such a special treatment?
Obviously because the perpetrator is a judge.
And an attorney:
Think about it - he is not simply a judge, but a judge in the Department of CORRECTIONS and COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
He should be an example to the litigants - parolees - appearing in front of him.
He is not an example. He is not even a joke. He is a danger, a mortal danger to people - and that danger is not addressed because everybody is afraid to upset a judge.
What was reportedly captured on security cameras is a DISBARRING OFFENSE - a crime chargeable as a felony.
I wonder whether that footage will now conveniently disappear, or whether something will happen to it - so that Judge Robert Beltrani would be able to keep his law license.
Remember - this is the country, including New York State, where CRITICIZING a judge for misconduct is a suspension or disbarring offense.
That's why judges are immune not only for "malicious and corrupt acts on the bench", but, apparently, are allowed to commit violent crimes and continue to roam the streets. Because THEY ARE THE LAW in this country.
The drunk violent and corrupt people in black robes with the sense of absolute impunity no matter what crimes they commit are the law of this country.
Do not expect people to respect the law - or judges and judicial decisions - if even in situation where:
- a specific individual claims to be a victim of a violent crime committed by a judge (Judge Labuda's case); or
- a security camera footage and a number of witnesses claim that a judge sucker-punched an individual, said "I do justice. I f**king killing people", and left the victim unconscious - for dead, actually - on the sidewalk while fleeing the scene in a car (Judge Beltrani's case);
And, it is very obvious that the system where the state governments regulate attorneys, allegedly to protect consumers of legal services fails all of us, badly, when the government puts that regulation in the hands of judges, and for that reason, criminal prosecutors who are licensed attorneys and whose livelihoods are in the hands of those they may be called upon to investigate and prosecute, are afraid to prosecute judges for violent crimes - or for any other crimes, on or off the bench.
If this country is based on the rule of law - as it is claimed from high official pulpits all the time; if this country has equal protection of law for all, if this country does not have titles of nobility that are implied as soon as a person takes a high position in the government, especially a judicial position - the law then MUST be applied equally to Judges LaBuda and Beltrani.
And, until and unless these judges are charged with violent felonies - based on statements of their alleged victims, as provided by law - and are treated the exact same way as anybody else would be under the circumstances of their cases - there is no rule of law in the State of New York.
Instead, the two rules that litigants appearing in front of ALJ Robert Beltrani may discern from the sordid affair with Beltrani's assault on a lawyer that nobody has courage enough to deal with in accordance with the law, are:
1) Do as Judge Beltrani says, not as he does; and
2) If you want to be above the law, get up here where ALJ Beltrani is, otherwise shut up - the law is only for the cattle like the average Joes, not for the Sky Dwellers like judges.
And those rules can teach those in "corrections and community supervision" only one law - that there is no law, that power is law.
And teaching people already convicted of crimes THAT rule is quite dangerous.
Don't you think?
