New York disbars an attorney for misconduct as a judge? For something that ALL judges do routinely? What really happened in #AlanSimon's case? Whose path did he cross?

This is a long story of double standards in how judges are or are not taken off the bench in the glorious State of New York, and are or are not disciplined for misconduct as judges and as attorneys, so, please, bear with me.

A couple of days ago New York State disbarred an attorney, Alan Simon, for misconduct that he committed as a judge, and was taken off the bench for this misconduct.

The disbarment of Alan Simon is actually a spectacular thing that happened - because, as a sneak preview, he was taken off the bench and disbarred for what many, if not all other judges in New York State, at all levels, routinely do in court, and the punishment usually falls on the opposite side, on those who dare to criticize and expose them, in and out of court.

Let's look at those double-standards.

Under the canons of constitutional jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, regulation of the "practice of law" is unconstitutional.

For 2 reasons.

1. The law, to be constitutional, must have a clear prior (before the conduct happened) statutory definition - and what the hell "the practice of law" is, nobody knows.  In New York, "the practice of law" is also not clearly defined by statute - but is vigorously regulated and used as a sword against attorneys criticizing the courts anyway.
2. Remember the standard of proof in criminal proceedings - beyond the reasonable doubt?  Violations of the regulation of the "practice of law" are prosecuted in the U.S., the State of New York included, through criminal proceedings, for 
1. "unauthorized practice of law", and for
2. criminal contempt of court.

In both of these cases, the "practice of law" is the main element of the crimes - so, that element must have not just a clear prior statutory definition, but a clear prior statutory definition that would be cler beyond the reasonable doubt of a non-lawyer juror of average education and intelligence, from the cross-section of the community.

Do we have that definition anywhere in the United States, including the glorious and now "democratic" and "pro human rights" State of New York?

Of course, not.

So, has the regulation of the practice of law declared unconstitutional by court on these simple grounds, and based on the supposedly mandatory and binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court - I pointed out a lot of them in my recent 3.5 page article that suddenly attracted interest from law professors from across the world and jumped to the top 4% of articles read on Academia.edu?

Of course, not.

Because who regulates the "practice of law" - unconstitutionally?

Right, courts do.

And who is supposed to declare that regulation unconstitutional?

Well, the courts are supposed to.

And will courts declare what they themselves do, and what gives them power over access to court of all Americans, as well as over financially powerful attorneys (who finance judicial election campaigns), and over financially and politically non-powerful attorneys who may sue judges for civil rights violations, and over powerful prosecutors who may bring criminal charges against judges violating people's civil rights and committing, thus, federal crimes - through unconstitutional regulation of the "practice of law"?

Well, they may be corrupt crooks, but they are definitely not idiots and will not upset their own apple cart.

So, the unconstitutional regulation of the "practice of law" continues.

And is used as a sword against attorneys criticizing judges, representing the poor and bringing civil rights lawsuits against the government, including judges - the unforgivable "abuse of legal process", in judges' opinion.

In 2008, a New York suspended attorney John Aretakis, the first attorney who sued Catholic priests for sexual abuse of children, on behalf of those children.  For making a motion to recuse a judge - and criticizing the judge in that motion for corruption.  The judge sanctioned John Aretakis, in a criminal proceedings for "frivolous conduct", the court-created rule not applicable to criminal proceedings.  The Appellate Division 3rd Department, instead of reversing and dismissing proceedings against John Aretakis, reversed and REMANDED them to the same judge, with instructions to the judge how to sanction John Aretakis in a way that will stick on appeal.  The offended judge did as he was instructed, sanctioned John Aretakis, on remand, for "contempt of court" (remember - for making the same motion to recuse?).

Then, the 3rd Department, wearing 3 hats at once, of 

• a legislator of attorney "ethical"/disciplinary rules in (unconstitutional) regulation of "the practice of law", see above, 
• an investigator/prosecutor (and also an "arm of the court", imagine a prosecutors and investigators being PARTS and ARMS of the court - an immediate disqualification for both sides, but this kind of thing continues across the U.S. in attorney disciplinary proceedings for 100+ years); and
• of adjudicating court

suspended John Aretakis's license, for 1 year, that was 11 years ago, and John Aretakis is still without a license - because the court did not provide in its decision for an automatic reinstatement after 1 year, but John Aretakis has to humbly beg the court to return the license that was unconstitutionally revoked in the first place, in a regulation that is unconstitutional in the first place.

And John Aretakis did not beg.  So, he remains without a license.

While, this week, the revolutionary New York Legislature finally gave victims of sexual child abuse at the hands of Catholic priests the extension (not full repeal, mind) of the shameful statute of limitations that prevented John Aretakis to fully sue the bastards on behalf of the children.

But, among celebrations of the legislation, I do not see the name of John Aretakis mentioned. Because he is, you know, a suspended attorney, and recognizing that the suspension was as shameful as the statute of limitations upon his clients, is "not done" in New York.

By the way, John Aretakis was suspended without a hearing, just on the basis of the contempt of court sanction imposed upon him by the judge who was in that proceeding 

• the initiator/party;
• the alleged victim;
• the unsworn witness;
• the investigator;
• the prosecutor;
• the judge and the jury -

all in one.

In 2015, New York suspended the law license of another attorney, me, for 2 years, also without automatic reinstatement, also without a hearing, also based on sanctions imposed by the "offended" (corrupt) judge, also based on a motion to recuse the judge to which the judge reacted by instituting a "frivolous conduct" proceeding, based on a judge-made "rule of frivolous conduct", which is as vague (and as unconstitutional) as regulation of "the practice of law" is, and where the judge acted, like in John Aretakis' case, as

• the initiator/party;
• the alleged victim;
• the unsworn witness;
• the investigator;
• the prosecutor;
• the judge and the jury -

and then, the licensing court acted, behind closed doors, as

• a legislator of the substantive and procedural rules;
• the investigator and prosecutor; and
• the adjudicator.

Of course, the result in such "court proceedings" is obviously pre-judged, so many attorneys do not even bother litigating, they just surrender their law licenses once they see they are targeted and move on with their lives, what's left of them.

"Coincidentally", I was an attorney who, in a poor rural mountain area, was THE ONLY lawyer who combined litigation in state criminal, civil (consumer debt, foreclosure), Family and federal civil rights courts, and sued local government officials, including social services and judges - who other attorneys, including the revolutionary ACLU and NYCLU, refused to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Well, now there is nobody to do that for the indigent in that poor area, as far as people keep telling me - but, what can I do?

In 2018, New York suspended, for 2 months only (but before judicial elections), the law license of yet another attorney, Gino Giorgini, for criticism of a corrupt judge in a motion to recuse.

That the judge was corrupt was confirmed by:

• a series of newspaper articles about the judge's fixing cases through handing out lucrative assignments to friends and friends of friends (rich and politically powerful, of course);
• New York State court system having to change the rules of assignment because of the judge misconduct;
• New York Commission for Judicial Conduct NOT booting the judge in question off the bench only because "he did not know" that what he did was unlawful - because supposedly it was not discernable from the rules of assignment that it is bad for a judge to be partial and play into the hands of friends and financial sponsors; and by
• the New York State Court of Appeals that reversed the judge's most corrupt decision.

That did not save Gino Giorgini's law license, though.

He was still suspended, and was told in the order of suspension that he is not allowed by disciplinary rules to criticize the judge's political corruption, in those words.

That said, there was one sacred cow for judges that was untouchable in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

That sacred cow was - judges themselves.

And, even though the suspension was only for 2 months, and "stayed", Gino Giorgini remains suspended as of today:

For example, 

1. an East Greenbush village part-time justice (and an employee of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma), Diane L. Schilling, who was (and still is) and attorney was taken off the bench for trying to fix a traffic ticket for another judge's wife - but nobody touched her law license, and she continues to practice with "no record of public discipline".

Beautiful woman, isn't she?  Judge Coccoma has a good taste in female beauty in picking - and protecting - his employees.

And,

2.  A Family Court judge, who was also an attorney, Bryan Hedges, was taken off the bench for sexual molestation of his 5-year-old deaf-mute niece - but his law license remains intact, and he has "no record of public discipline", too.

And, 

3. A New York State Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba, just before her day of election as a judge, was booted from her job of "special counsel" of (gasp!) the attorney licensing court, the Chief Judge of this court, for dishonest and unethical behavior - for using her position and the court system to circulate e-mails just before the election day in order to impress voters that she had support of the court system.

In other words, she has gotten herself elected by fraud.

The 3rd Department fired her, the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma immediately hired her for a bridge job, the court system stonewalled the details of her re-hiring by Judge Coccoma (remember his taste for beautiful female employees?), being an ugly old midget that he is.

She was not disbarred - after being fired BY AN ATTORNEY LICENSING COURT, FOR A BIG ETHICAL VIOLATION.

Instead, she was sworn in, 

my request to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to take her off the bench as elected by fraud was denied - the Commission did not see any judicial misconduct in the situation.

And, she now "serves" as a Supreme Court Justice, with the truncated word "Honorable" as part of her job title, no less:

has "no record of public discipline", and - lo and behold - 

is on the Board of Trustees of the Albany Law School.

Imagine, you can only be trusted with funds of a non-profit forging (pun intended) the new lawyers of America if you have a record of fraudulent behavior, right?

And, after the former New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has publicly announced that the statute making it a crime to videotape OPEN court proceedings in New York is shameful and should be abolished, and despite the fact that now New York has a Democratic majority in the Legislature baking statutes left and right as pancakes, that statute - as well as the statute protecting records of police misconduct from public access - remains on the books and there is no indication that the "revolutionary" Legislature is going to repeal it any time soon.

Not to mention that, on top of that statute, the New York State court administration invented a rule,  court rule 22 NYCRR 29.1(a), prohibiting also AUDIO-recording (allowed by New York Penal Law without requesting consent of those recorded, as long as the person recording the conversation secretly is a party in it) - ANYWHERE in the courthouse, and here is how that rule is used in criminal proceedings.

Why?

Because:

1. Judges do not want to be booted off the bench after being caught on tape or on the audio recording in doing what they are habitually doing - fixing cases, making incompetent and rude statements and harassing litigants and attorneys; and

2. Judges do not want to be reversed on appeal if video-recordings are made part of the record.  Now they are not part of the record, and appellate courts routinely "defer" to the decisions of trial judges because they saw demeanor of witnesses, and the appellate court doesn't.  Why? Because it prohibits to create the full record through criminal law.

For example, Judge Carl F. Becker behaved quite as Alan Simon, and worse, but it was me who was suspended from "practicing law", and not him booted off the bench for pointing out to the Commission for Judicial Conduct what he was doing.

And, the same happened to attorney Gino Giorgini.

And, the same happened to attorney John Aretakis.

With this background, now I am asking a question - what was the REAL reason why judge Alan Simon was taken off the bench and then disbarred for his conduct on the bench - for which NO OTHER JUDGES get taken off the bench, or disbarred?

I will attempt to give some insights into this curious situation in one of my next blogs.

Stay tuned.

#TheCrimeToBeNamedMelania. The case of City of Oneonta v Melania and Nicolae Pervu, Part 4. How the City of Oneonta tried to stamp out "a Russian crime family" supporting Trump

I am continuing to publish articles about the case of Melania and Nicolae Pervu.

This is Part IV.

Part I, #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial, 

can be read here.

Part II, #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial. Part II. The politics of motions to withdraw in Judge John F. Lambert's court - can be read here.

Part III, #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial. Part III. The burden of proof is on the Respondents - when a judge's and a city attorney's wives are involved in the mess. But, of course! - can be read here.


Melania and Nicolae Pervu are a Romanian American couple whose hotel has been evicted - supposedly - by the government.

• By - supposedly - the Board of Public Works of the City of Oneonta,
• by - supposedly - the City of Oneonta attorney, 
• by - supposedly - the New York State Supreme Court, and 
• by - supposedly - the Otsego County Sheriff.

All public servants in taxpayers employment and pay.

All doing what is good for the people.

Right?

Not so fast.

Let's look at what neither the City of Oneonta Attorney David Merzig who has filed the petition where he swears under the penalty of perjury that the petition is truthful, did not tell anybody about.

Let's look at the story of how Melania and Nicolae Pervu purchased the Oneonta Hotel and what came out of it.

On May 22, 2015 a Romanian American couple - American citizens by naturalization who escaped communism and came to the U.S. for the better life in a supposedly more just society - bought a large historic building in the middle of the business district in downtown Oneonta, New York, 195 Main Street, the former "Oneonta Hotel".

The local rumors immediately branded them "Russians" and claimed that Russian criminals bought the place.

While a Romanian accent is close to a Russian accent, and while Melania Pervu looks close to how the American public would stereotype a Russian woman - light hair, round pretty face - the couple was definitely not Russian.

Yet, that did not really matter for the locals.

For many of the local people a person with an accent is presumptively a criminal.  

People are completely dense as to various accents and various alphabets and various cultures.

I remember how the clerk in the town where I came to live for 16 years refused to issue a marriage license for my then-would-be-husband and myself because my divorce certificate issued by the Russian Federation - surprise! - was in Russian, in Cyrillic alphabet.  She demanded to see an ORIGINAL divorce certificate in English.  

I also remember how my husband, a criminal defense attorney, won a criminal case because a local police officer stopped a Polish woman and considered her lisping Polish accent as proof of her being drunk.  On cross-examination, the cop revealed that he had no idea how Polish language sounds and that it has a lot of sounds that an English-speaking person can perceive as a lisp.

So, for the locals, the Romanian American couple was as Russian as Russian can be, and, if they were Russians, they had to be criminals, and, later on, if they were Russian criminals and supported Trump - they had to be ousted out of town.

I have written on this blog before, with a lot of documentary evidence showing how being Russian American, and especially being a Russian who does not even support Trump, but who would simply point out where Trump may be right and his opponents wrong - invites violent and vulgar personal attacks.

As it will be shown further in this article series, the rumors that Melania and Nicolae Pervu are Russian criminals that overtook a large hotel in the middle of the Oneonta business district will play a significant role in the fate of the couple's new business.

Having had a hard time rising to financial stability in the U.S., the couple decided to help those less fortunate with their business.

With that in mind, the couple turned the hotel into a place where they welcomed low income tenants subsidized by the government and called their place (unofficially) The St. Ekaterina Hotel, in the name of Melania's mother.

Yet, it is not that simple to help the poor in Oneonta, New York.

The moment the couple has bought the hotel, a reassessment happened, and the city has doubled the taxes on it.

In order to get some additional income, Melania Pervu decided to operate a hotdog stand - since there was no place to buy a hotdog on the Main Street, Oneonta, and there were a lot of students around, potential customers.  Oneonta is a student town, with two colleges - the private Hartwick College, and SUNY Oneonta, with nearly 6,000 students all in all, and students give a lot of business to the local community.

Reportedly, Melania Pervu duly applied for the health permit, tax number and city permit, and invested $7,200, on credit, for a hotdog cart.

The permits were given to her, but not for long.

Because Melania Pervu did not just sell hotdogs.

She sold hotdogs while proudly supporting Donald Trump for President in his elections, had a message like that in her hotdog cart window and flew a flag like that on the cart.

Moreover, Melania Pervu, a survivor of a communist state, talked to students who were buying hotdogs and discussing her support of Trump with her - and telling them what communism is like, and why does she support Donald Trump, in whom Melania Pervu saw protection from the onslaught of communism upon the country.

Within 5 days of her operating the hotdog cart, the City of Oneonta has sent its police to yank her hotdog permit and shut down her hotdog business, telling her that the permits were supposedly given to her "by mistake".

It took a complaint to the New York State Senator James Seward, who also has an office in Oneonta, New York, and a local influence, to have her hotdog license restored.

The City of Oneonta did not relent, though, in its efforts to oust the Pervus, for three reasons.

1. Not only the Pervus were "Russian criminals" supporting Trump and upsetting students (and their parents) with explanations as to why Trump is good for the country, between selling them hotdogs, but 
2. the Pervus upset their neighbors from 189 Main Street by housing the poor and thus dropping prestige of the business district, and
3. they owned a lucrative business downtown that many people "better than them", more influential, craved.

And the onslaught has begun.

As to the details of the onslaught, stay tuned for more articles in this series.

I will publish documents, as I always do, describing the case.

Terrence Truitt is being released from custody. After he was portrayed as presumed-guilty by the police, and after the public lynch-mobbed him in social media. All those "70 leads"

I wrote on this blog about the fire in Oneonta, NY at the end of December, 2018 where a former firefighter died.

See my 4 articles about the case:

Part I here - called "Racial profiling and framing people of color by the all-white police force and the all-white prosecution in Otsego County continues? People v Terrence Truitt, Otsego County";
Part II here - called "The quality of the jury pool and lynch-mobbing a presumed-innocent person of color as a legitimate way to grieve in Oneonta, New York"

Part III here - called "On the value of reputation", and

Part IV here - called "People v Terrence Truitt: an interesting timeline of deaths/murders and fires in the area, as well as visits of high officials. Is Terrence Truitt a fall guy for the cover up of some local official's involvement in a global child pornography ring? "

I wrote in these articles about a black guy, Terrence Truitt, who was charged, in a predominantly white town notorious for discrimination against immigrants and minorities, for the supposed arson and death - exactly at the time of the funeral of the firefighter where the local law enforcement came in droves.

I wrote about the improper publicity by the police and the local prosecutors where the police press-conference, indicating "70 leads" supposedly leading to Truitt, and allowed without sanctions by the judge, determined, out of court, that it was an arson and that Truitt was supposedly responsible, igniting the public.

I wrote how these "70 leads" riled up the local public who, as a matter of mourning, presumed guilt of Terrence Truitt and, when I pointed out just that he is presumed innocent - bashed me with vile personal attacks, pointing out that, with 70 leads that the police was talking about, there is no chance that Truitt is not guilty.

And, remember, Truitt's assigned counsel who allowed him to be held for the action of the grand jury on hearsay statements of the prosecution's witness, conveniently allowing the judge to illegally adjourn the felony hearing when the prosecution's witness could not produce competent evidence at the felony hearing.

And, remember that Truitt's brother was trying to get crowdfunding for a private criminal defense attorney, but the fundraising campaign was shot by complaining local residents demanding that Truitt, as already presumed guilty, should not be able to have an opportunity to have better legal defense than that assigned to him by the biased court.

Well.

Now the DA who have been an active participant in this whole orchestration, announced that, in view of "new evidence", he will ask the court to release Truitt from jail because he is now not a suspect in the fire during which the firefighter died.

DA Muehl also stated that there is evidence indicating that Truitt was not responsible for the fire - but Muehl modestly omits that the release of Truitt means that no criminal charges are pending against him any more, because Muehl is not going to turn his charges into the grand jury.

In other words, DA Muehl has evidence based on which, he knows, the grand jury that is totally under his control as a "legal adviser" and that can "indict a ham sandwich" (according to the former Chief Judge of the State of New York Sol Wachtler) - cannot indict Terrence Truitt, that bad.

And, DA Muehl now says that he is "ETHICALLY REQUIRED" to ask for release of Terrence Truitt.

Muehl and ethics.  Right.

Ethics did not prompt Muehl to direct the police to use the word ALLEGED and PRESUMED INNOCENT in their press-release.

Or, come to the Facebook page where the public was crucifying Truitt in comments and bashing me for mentioning his presumption of innocence and say - yes, people, he is, indeed, presumed innocent, our charge is only an allegation, slow down with your presumption of guilt.

He did not do that.

Even though THAT he was ethically required to do - not to engage and not to allow his witnesses, the police, to engage in pretrial publicity that may undermine the integrity of the case.

So, the police look like idiots.

The fire "experts" look like idiots.

The DA Muehl looks like an idiot.

The Chief Assistant DA Michael Getman who held Truitt in jail and prosecuted him at the felony hearing (held on the same day as the ormer firefighter's funeral) looks like an idiot.

Judge Lucy Dernier looks like an idiot.

The assigned defense attorney James Hartmann who sold his client out looks like an idiot.

And, certainly, members of the public who were demanding torturous death of Terrence Truitt, claiming that he is presumed guilty because of the 70 leads, and bashing anybody who would invoke his presumption of innocence, including 4-letter-language and vile personal attacks - also look like idiots.

Maybe, that will be a lesson to the public not to believe press-conferences of the local police?

Prosecutors?

Not to presume guilt?

Respect presumption of innocence of all accused?

And not interfere with fundraising for legal defense of indigent criminal defendants?

I wish Terrence Truitt luck.

I wish him to get as far away as possible from Oneonta NY, since they will pin something on him if he doesn't leave the area.

And, I wish Terrence Truitt to sue the hell out of the City of Oneonta, its glorious police, the Sheriff's Department, James Hartmann for malpractice and the DA for false imprisonment and defamation and violation of civil rights.

As well as commentators who presumed his guilt in comments - for defamation, too.

He can get rich, after all, without any fundraisers.

Simply because of people's stupidity.

Maybe, if people pay a couple hundred thousand dollars in a judgment for defamation, they will then learn what presumption of innocence is?

And, by the way, it remains to be investigated (which I doubt that that will be diligently done) whether we have a Hero's Death here



or whether John D. Heller was murdered, knocked out unconscious while he already saved everybody from the fire, and then left to die of smoke inhalation.

Could John D. Heller be a witness in the child porn ring investigation ongoing in the area by the FBI?

So, next time, ladies and gentlemen of Otsego County, NY, when the local police tells you about "70 leads" and their supposed "quick and efficient" work, think "Terrence Truitt".

On the constitutionality of regulation of the "practice of law" in the United States

A lot of things depend in the United States on the legitimacy of regulation of the "practice of law".

1. only licensed attorneys are allowed to give legal advice, represent people in court, draw up title documents and contracts, and thus through regulation of the practice of law, people's access to court is controlled: you do not have money for an attorney, and you cannot skillfully represent yourself in court - your rights are lost forever;

2. only licensed attorneys are allowed to be prosecutors, interact with grand juries, and to be judges and finally resolve people's disputes, including life and death, the death penalties case.

As an expert in both criminal and constitutional law, I looked at the regulation of the practice of law by applying the current laws, and constitutional precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of clarity of the law - in general, and in criminal cases, since regulation of the "practice of law" is regulated through criminal prosecutions of "unauthorized practice of law" (UPL), where the "practice of law" is the main element.

I posted my very short article on the subject, 3.5 pages, as an independent researcher, into Academia.edu - and as a result, I was propelled to the top 5% of researchers, out of millions of researchers there, and this particular article - into top 4%, by the traffic to that article, traffic by law students and law professors from around the world.

I have had law professors from

• Vietnam,
• Tanzania
• The Phillippines
• Papua and New Guinea
• the U.K.
• France,
• Azerbaijan
• Russia
• the United States - many
• India
• Bangladesh
• Ireland

etc. visit the page and read or download the article.

Here it is.

As you see, the reasoning is based exclusively on mandatory and binding decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, why are we still regulating the practice of law if such regulation, according to our own laws, is screamingly unconstitutional?

The Otsego County (NY) Judge John F. Lambert of his early judgeship years was a breath of fresh air - what has changed and why judges should not serve in the area where they live, and not serve for long anyway

My previous three articles were dedicated to the case of The City of Oneonta v Pervu, litigated in the Otsego County Supreme Court, New York, now before Judge John F. Lambert, and about misconduct of various actors, including the judge himself and his law clerk Mark Oursler who teachers the City of Oneonta how to seek punishment against immigrant respondents, with specific details what to file, when to file and what to attach to the filings.

I must say though that Judge Lambert was not like that when he was just elected - at least, not apparently so.

Judge Lambert was first elected as a County/Family/Surrogate's court judge 10 years ago, in 2009, when I was already practicing as an attorney.  

He was perceived by many, when he was elected, as a breath of fresh air in the local judiciary.

Young, lean, physically agile (he ran up the stairs of the courthouse instead of puffing up), and mentally alert and with a mind open to fairness and novel ideas.

When New York State first passed legislation allowing same sex marriage - long time before the U.S. Supreme Court legitimizing it in 2015, many local judges were in opposition to that law.

Judge Lambert, as far as I remember, volunteered, on the first weekend when the law went into effect, to officiate the first same sex marriages in the State of New York.

Without the fear of being frowned upon by his "older brothers" in black robes.

In his early judgeship years, Judge Lambert allowed, in bench trials, young attorneys to win against large, powerful and connected law firms.

In his early judgeship years, I remember an episode when Judge Lambert, after overruling 15 or more objections to hearsay in a trial in Family Court in child neglect proceedings, Judge Lambert lost his temper, put the attorney (it was me) up and chastised me for not knowing supposedly that hearsay is admissible in Family Court child neglect proceedings.

I calmly answered the judge that yes, it is admissible - but not in trials.

Judge Lambert told me, in front of all attorneys and clients and court personnel present, that I was wrong.

The trial continued the next day.

The very first thing that Judge Lambert did at the beginning of that next day was making a statement, in front of the same people, publicly, that he has reviewed the law regarding admissibility of hearsay at trials, and that I was right and that he was wrong - and that he is sustaining all my objections to hearsay and excluding all hearsay statements from the record.

We, attorneys, talked about it in the hallway during the break.  Not only my respect to Judge Lambert, but of all other attorneys present in the courtroom went up considerably.

It is human to make mistakes, and judges do that, too.

But, it shows a great character and promise when a judge diligently checks if he was right when an argument that he was not right was raised in court - instead of punishing the critic, as other judges routinely do.  And that is especially true when the judge corrects his mistake without forcing people to go through spending huge amounts of money, not to mention time, effort and mental anguish of the families, on the predominantly futile attempts to reverse his decision on appeals.

Then Judge Lambert rubbed elbows with his older brothers on the bench and started to show the same arrogance as others.

He started to routinely hold ex parte meetings in chambers during sessions of the County Court in criminal cases, where the police, probation and prosecution were invited to permanently sit with the judge in his chambers, while criminal defense attorneys were admitted there only when called by the judge, with breaks between admissions of attorneys that would allow vast ex parte communications between the judge and the prosecutors, police and probation.

Very important issues were discussed in those conferences, and, by constitutional law, clients should have been invited, too, but they were barred from being present in those conferences, as, I am sure, they are now.  Moreover, Judge Lambert has started to blast attorneys in open court (not me, but I know attorneys who suffered this way) for disclosing the essence of communications with the judge in those conferences - even though the clients were not invited.

Additionally, Judge Lambert started to copy the tricks of all local judges in staging endless mandatory "conferences", not asked by the parties, and especially in cases where private attorneys were hired by criminal defendants.

That way, the judge would make defendants pay for each trip of their attorney, including travel and waiting time, and private attorney who Judge Lambert disliked would have to sit in court for hours waiting to be allowed into the chambers (where prosecution, probation and police sat permanently) - and thus, the hourly bill to the client will be higher, and the client would run a chance to be drained of funds before the date of the trial comes.

Judge Lambert transferred this technique to Family Court cases (including child abuse and neglect) and to civil cases, too - having his law clerk Mark Oursler take time of attorneys (paid by clients) telling them, for hours, about Mark Oursler's interest in history, while attorneys would not dare to tell Oursler to shut up and attend to business, or to tell the judge that they do not need the conference scheduled - for fear of hurting their clients.

Lambert started to show favor and disfavor in assignments of cases to attorneys, assigning only people he likes and who would not do discovery, motions and go to trials on behalf of indigent clients.

Lambert started to rule in obviously unlawful manner in favor of powerful and connected attorneys, telling the stunned opponents that they can just as well "move up or move on", translation - appeal or suck it up and shut up.

And, Lambert started to get promotions from the administrative court system, obviously given for this change in character.

He is now the Supervising DWI judge and the Supervising "problem solving courts" judge in the 6th Judicial District.

Given Lambert's still-young age for a judge, only 20 years of the practice of law, and the considerably high administrative positions he is given now, he is being chosen for future promotion in administrative, and, possibly, appellate position - and he will continue to act the way he is acting, unlawful though it may be, to keep that career trend going.

The case of Melania and Nicolae Pervu is a yet another illustration of this character transformation of Judge Lambert - as was the case of O'Sullivan v Bowie I was writing about in my previous blog.

In the Pervu case, Lambert was assigned to the case in August-September of 2018, at the height of his re-election campaign for another 10 years.  

He stood a chance, given his role in O'Sullivan v Bowie's case in 2015 and the publicity of that case, to lose his judgeship on re-election.

And, he needed support from the system.

The system, obviously, required much in return.

Judge Coccoma, the initially presiding judge, a judge with a disqualifying conflict of interest - since his own wife's agency and, possibly, his wife, had to testify in the trial, being one of the agencies responsible for rent subsidies to tenants of the Pervus, and thus, responsible to check out BEFORE they sign contracts for rent subsidies whether the place where they are putting indigent residents at taxpayer expense are up to code - assigned Lambert to the case, a judge who stood to lose his judgeship in less than 2 months or to gain another 10 years of power.

The way Lambert ruled in the Pervu case, protecting Coccoma's wife and City of Oneonta Attorney's wife (the Chairwoman of the Board of Public Service whose order to vacate the building her husband David Merzig was enforcing in court) from the necessity of testifying and proving their case, under cross-examination, in open court - showed that he knew which side his bread was buttered and who butters it.

In October that year, after the initial rulings by Lambert in the Pervu case, Lambert, without any qualms, accepted an "award" from the hands of a member of the powerful and rich local Clark family, while a member of that same family is on the Otsego County Board

and while County cases are litigated in front of Judge Lambert - where the County is either a party or a witness, as it happens in the Pervu case, or both.

"Coincidentally", Judge Lambert's son and his former law partner Michael E. Trosset's daughter are "chosen" by the school as athletic winners.

I truly hope that these young people were, indeed, winners, and are not corrupted from their earliest days in life by having their "wins" determined by their pedigrees, parentage and the school's need to win cases in Judge Lambert's court in child neglect and abuse and in PINs (persons in need of supervision) proceedings, as well in possible cases brought against the school and its teachers, civil and criminal.

Because, as is shown by the example of other local sons-of-judges, 

• Michael Getman who buys off everybody in town through his late father's (a local judge) Dewar's Foundation giving large yearly donations to businesses and charities, including those that have stakes in court proceedings where Michael Getman appears as an attorney and as an Otsego County prosecutor, and to those where local judges and other local county officials sit on boards, and
• Richard Harlem, the son of a late Supreme Court justice and the Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District Robert Harlem, who is renting, for decades, an office to New York State Senator Seward, and for that gets favors from local judges who Seward favors, including assignment of judges and decisions on appeals from Sen. Seward's former legislative counsel, recently the Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th District, and presently the judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, handling appeals and attorney licenses, Robert C. Mulvey - 

these two sons of judges can win hands down, no matter what they do, what misconduct and crimes they are involved in, and whether facts or law are on their side or not.

Richard Harlem openly stated, for years, that, as a son of a judge, he has to have a larger share of the local market, so, catering for a judge's child is a given in the local neck of woods.

And, both couples of sons-of-judges and their fathers were caught in stealing big time, one (the Getmans) from a charity and another (the Harlems) from an estate (see the Blanding saga on this blog).

But, because of their fathers' influence, both couples remained unscathed, not charged with crimes, not disbarred and imprisoned, still practicing law, Getman is still handling and distributing millions of dollars from the same charity they were caught with his father stealing from, and is even prosecuting crimes in his area as a Chief Assistant District Attorney in Otsego County.

That's why I do not treat as a coincidence, and I do treat as suspect, the supposed athletic awards to the son of a judge, the daughter of a judge's close friend and former partner and to the judge himself - and to the award to the judge given by a powerful and rich local family that is omnipresent in all local governments, including the County that is a material witness in important litigation pending in front of judge right before the judge's elections for yet another 10-year term - which Lambert won.

Well, in a county where a sheriff can defend his police officer son for 2 years from a criminal investigation after that same son openly threatened to shoot up 2 elementary schools, at an age where any other person would have been charged with felonies, indicted, prosecuted and put in prison, and that sheriff is re-elected for another term past November - re-election of Judge Lambert after his disgraceful behavior in O'Sullivan v Bowie does not really surprise me.

The Sheriff's son, after his father's re-election, only "resigned" from the County police force, but was not charged with a crime.

What should be done to prevent the character transformation like we see in Judge Lambert's case.

1.  Judges should absolutely not serve consecutive terms.  One term only.  That will allow them not to build alliances and serve their own interests and teams rather than the law.

2.  Judges' terms should be very short, preferably a year max.  For the same reasons.

3.  Judges should be rotated out to serve not where they live, so that they do not rule in favor of their kids' school or their friends' business, or the local government giving them various awards.

4.  Judges should be prohibited to sit on boards of charities, which creates a conflict of interest where the judge is interested to get donations for its charity and rules in cases in the way providing business for his charities (Getman, for example, gives every year several thousand dollars to John Lambert alma mater, the Hartwick College).

5.  The judge's salaries must be provided by statute only, and no add-ons allowed from the court administration executives.  This would eliminate the appearance the judges like Lambert are ruling in cases in order to obtain and/or retain their add-ons like positions of Acting Supreme Court justices obtained only through approval of the court administration (Coccoma) and resulting in advancement of career and addition to salary.

6. Trial court judges and supervising positions in administration of courts should never coincide, preventing judges from losing their independence in cases in order to get approval and promotion from the court administration to administrative supervising positions.

AND

7.  Judges should not be attorneys - if they are elected by the people, they should be answerable only to the people, not to the shadowy attorney licensing committees potentially depriving judges of independence for political considerations.

And, this would have prevented Judge Lambert from running unopposed in this election - if ANY local resident, not necessarily an attorney, would be able to run against him.

If non-attorneys are allowed to be judges in town and village justice courts, why not at the County and Supreme Court level?  As Judge Lambert's rulings in O'Sullivan v Bowie's case and in the City of Oneonta v Pervu's case, his rulings do not have anything to do with the law anyway, and everything to do with the local politics.

He was assigned to the Pervus case right before his elections, by the judge who was the husband of a potential witness in that case - with an implied warning "to perform" and "to behave", or else - and didn't Lambert behave? 

He did - and got support in elections, and got re-elected for another 10 years, now until 2028, and kept his promotions as the Acting Supreme Court Justice, and the supervising DWI judge in the judicial district, and the "problem solving court" judge in the district.

So, he will continue to do what he is doing, screwing the Pervu's case - otherwise we know what happens in New York if judges start to act up and defy the judge who assigned them to the case, and follow some pesky rule of law, it already happened in New York to a judge who was quickly brought to heel by the Chief Administrative Judge Robert Mulvey, and since then Robert Mulvey was promoted and is now in charge of reversals of Judge Lambert's decisions, another incentive for Judge Lambert "to behave", "perform" and "deliver" - the needed "solutions" in the "difficult cases" for the local government.

Until that happens - enjoy the corrupt rulings of Judge John F. Lambert.

And remember - you have brought it upon yourself by failure to research candidates and vote against him these past elections.

But We the People should remember - nobody's independence of judgment is achieved by giving that person immunity for corruption.

And, nobody should be given power to give such immunity for corruption - and for punishing his own critics - to himself, as it is happening in New York and American courts, see Stump v Sparkman, a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case.

Independence of the judiciary IS, indeed, a great gift.

But, between 

• condoning the judiciary's self-given gift of immunity for misconduct and corruption, and 
• condoning the judiciary's death grip upon the control of public access to court through control of the legal profession, and
• condoning that judges demand that only "attorneys in good standing" for at least 5, and for some positions, for 10 years (meaning in plain English, attorneys who never criticized a judge for 5-10 years) can become judges; and
• condoning that people controlled by judges, "officers of the court", now constitute 100% of the judicial branch and the supermajorities of the other two branches, on the state and federal levels, changing the constitutional structure of the government in the United States; and
• condoning that judges may accept financial donations from businesses, litigants and attorneys for judicial elections - as Judge Lambert did for his re-election campaign in 2008, in 2018 he did not even file financial disclosures - he ran unopposed, meaning, his own one vote would have been enough to "win" re-elections for him, a real victory, and
• condoning that judges sit on boards of charities and give or receive money from other charities, where parties in litigation and their attorneys sit on boards, and
• condoning that judges are allowed to participate in various events and societies, with secret membership, where they meet with attorneys behind closed doors and are wined and dined and paid for their vacations, and participate in ex parte communications under the guise of "promoting civility"P;

that independence of the judiciary has been long lost.

The American judiciary - and Judge Lambert is no exception - is independent only from the law and from having conscience.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When will we learn?