BUSH APPOINTEE in Northern District of New York, Deals Right to Dissent a Death Blow! Options

[Livyjr]

"New ethics charges for Duke prosecutor"

By AARON BEARD, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:53 p.m., Wednesday, January 24, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The state bar lodged new and more serious ethics charges Wednesday against the district attorney in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of withholding evidence from the defense and lying to both to the court and bar investigators.

Mike Nifong -- who withdrew from the case earlier this month -- could be disbarred if convicted by a disciplinary board.

The bar previously charged Nifong with making misleading and prejudicial comments about the athletes under suspicion.

The new charges are tied to Nifong's decision to use a private lab for DNA testing as his office investigated allegations three men raped a 28-year-old stripper at a team party last March.

Those tests uncovered genetic material from several men on the woman's underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse player.

The bar complaint alleges that those results were not released to the defense and that Nifong repeatedly said in court he had turned over all evidence that could benefit the defense.

"If these allegations are true and if they don't justify disbarment, then I'm not sure what does," said Joseph Kennedy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

"It's hard for me to imagine a more serious set of allegations against a prosecutor."

The new charges "have significantly increased the chances for a serious sanction, possibly including suspension or disbarment," said Thomas Metzloff, a Duke law professor and member of the bar's ethics committee, which is not involved in prosecuting the case against Nifong.

Nifong's trial on the ethics charges is set for May, though bar officials said Wednesday they expect it to be delayed until June.

He declined to comment Wednesday.

"I'd say any time any charges are filed with the state bar, they're all serious, and we want to make sure we handle them all properly," said his attorney David Freedman.

Citing the conflict of interest created by the ethics charges, Nifong asked the North Carolina attorney general's office earlier this month to take over the lacrosse case.

Nifong dropped rape charges against the three athletes in December after the accuser changed a key detail in her account, but the players are still charged with sexual offense and kidnapping.

North Carolina's attorney has said he will conduct a thorough review of the remaining charges against Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

[Livyjr]

"Duke lacrosse prosecutor hires lawyers"

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - The prosecutor who removed himself from the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has hired a well-known law firm to defend him against ethics charges before the North Carolina State Bar.

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has retained Winston-Salem lawyers David Freedman and Dudley Witt, law partners known for defending lawyers facing professional misconduct charges.

"Years ago, I just started helping out lawyers who got in trouble for various things," said Freedman, a 1982 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's law school.

"I have a firm belief that you look out for your own."

The state bar filed ethics charges against Nifong in December, accusing him of violating rules of professional conduct.

SO!

A recap for anyone just joining in!

What precipitated this thread, of course, was a decision in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York (Albany) on March 31, 2005 that summarily dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking injunctive relief from a retaliatory practice in the State of New York known as the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", where the State removes witnesses against itself by the expedient of having one of its pet doctors sign what is in reality a BOGUS and FRAUDULENT arrest warrant for the witness on the grounds that the witness is in alleged reality a dangerous mental patient who needs immediate care and treatment in a secure state-sponsored psychiatric institution, WHICH THE PERSON INCARCERATED MUST PAY FOR, as an additional punishment, for speaking about against alleged corruption in the State of New York.

For an alleged payment of $80 GRAND in 1988 to the REPUBLICAN "CONTROL" of the County, a group of people in Rensselaer County were literally able to "buy" through the protection of law afforded to a health officer in the State of New York, and have that person literally turned into an outcast, outside the protection of law foreveraftermore, and the "law" in the State of New York, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York merely shook their collective heads, and said, "YES, this is what we can do to you, whenever we want!"

And so it was to be!

But of course, back in 1988, October 12, 1988 to be exact, when the REPUBLICAN County Executive of Rensselaer County went on TV Channel 13, broadcasting out of Albany, New York, at SIX O'Clock P.M. to announce that he had just ordered this engineer to be kept out of the Rensselaer County Office Building, on alleged "grounds" that the engineer was "mentally unstable", we had no idea where this was all going, nor did we know that it would take so many years for this to all happen, as we did not know then the power that what are alleged to be "our courts" have to bury evidence, and people along with that evidence, when those people and evidence "threaten" the alleged corruption that allegedly feeds the coffers of the political parties, especially the REPUBLICANS up here in the State of New York, or the County of Rensselaer, in this specific case.

On that October 12, 1988 TV broadcast, which was seen by who knows how many thousands or millions of people in the greater North-East area where TV Channel 13 out of Albany, New York allegedly has "viewing audience", the REPUBLICAN County Executive of Rensselaer County freely and openly talked about the $80 Grand, "eighty thousand BIG ONES", in his terminology, as a causative factor in his decision to bar this engineer from further access to the Rensselaer County Office Building as of October 12, 1988, and it was that, as much as the fact of the actual barring of this individual, that caught not only my attention, but the attention of countless others across the Capital District area of the State of New York as well, and not all of those individuals were on the same side of this equation as I was!

I would say, from further experience, that I was in the very distinct minority, and when the FBI unceremoniously "beat feet" out of town, after having its chain publicly jerked by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, that "minority" became very small indeed, to the point of being almost non-existent, OUT OF FEAR as to who would be next to go the "crazy man" route, now that the FBI was so very obviously gone, and with them, OUR hopes that rampant and endemic corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health would be gone, too!

$80 Grand!

The cost of the life of a health officer in Rensselaer County in the corrupt State of New York in 1988!

Pay $80 GRAND to the MAN and you are free thereafter to do whatever you will to this person, and with complete and total immunity from the law!

What a deal, eh?

And that is what this thread is about!

How the deal went down, and what it means to you in your home town, now that Federal Court for the Northern District of New York has apparently put its own IMPRIMATUR on this "local practice" as being "law of the land" in the United States as well, or that portion of it right now that is contained within the boundaries of the federal Northern District of New York!

Should you care?

Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you personally are corrupt, or make your living off of corruption!

If you do, then you will cheer this March 31, 2005 federal court decision that we are talking about in here, BECAUSE, you won, of course.

If you are not one of those people, then, maybe you have something that you need to think on, and so, we have this thread for that necessary information to be disseminated in.

SO!

There, folks, is where we are, right as of this minute in time!

And so ....

SO!

Another recap, to keep everybody up to date as to what we are talking about in here, since we are dealing with a chain of causality, or a chain of events, all inextricably linked to corruption in the Town of Poestenkill, the County of Rensselaer, and the State of New York, which extends over a period of time from at least 1986, and actually, years before that even, right on up to and through March 31, 2005, when this federal court decision in question in here was issued, and to right now.

The question before the audience in here is one of:

SHOULD EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE IN AMERICA BE DENIED PROTECTION OF LAW WHEN THEIR EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY IN A COURT OF LAW THREATENS CORRUPTION WHICH FEEDS THE COFFERS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES IN AMERICA?

SO!

We are talking about Constitutional "due process of law" ....

"Equal protection under the law?"

"You got to be kidding me!"

And so, there we actually are with this matter under discussion here, which is real, and very well-documented, although "unsung", and un-publicized, before the advent of this internet forum, which suddenly provides us common citizens in America with a "voice" that we have never had the equal of before, at least in my own lifetime here in America, which stretches almost sixty years now.

SO?

How then do we use that "voice"?

Well, this thread is an experiment in that direction, I would say!

How do you describe an "assault" on your Constitutional rights to others?

How do you adequately describe an "injustice"?

For example, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1971, in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971), that:

"Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the GOVERNMENT is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential."

"Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented!"

WAS THAT JUST A BUNCH OF MALARKY?

Does anyone really think lawyering involves ethical behavior?

Some people do!

There are courses in legal ethics required for admission to the bar.

A separate test in legal ethics is supposed to measure one's moral fitness for the practice of law.

We are required to have a few hours of ethical training as part of mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

WHOOP DE DOO!

Did you ever sit through one of these lectures?

For the most part, they are lessons on how not to get sued, i.e., "Don't steal your client's money"; "Don't take a case if you don't know what you're doing"; and my personal favorite, "Don't have sex with your client."

Does any of this have to do with ethics, i.e., the betterment of society, moral duty or the distinction between good and bad?

I don't think so!

I recently spoke to a class at Hartwick College on legal ethics.

They were struggling with a truly moral issue, i.e., the termination of life and the role of the health care professional.

As I spoke, I realized that the practice of law is essentially amoral.

Our advice to clients is not designed to guide anyone in ethical behavior.

We do not exist to tell anyone what is right or wrong.

We are all but prohibited from doing so!

Our duty is to advise of the legal consequences of actions, and to promote the interests of our client within the boundaries of the legal system.

For this reason, we do not necessarily advise the guilty to accept their punishment, nor do we chastise the adulterer, the negligent driver and the trespasser.

We advise.

So, we don't deal in fairness, we deal in legal results, without regard to ethics.

You think clients come to us for our opinions on good and evil?

Think again, Jack.

We are not the clergy.

After all, it is just "Ethical Considerations" in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as in "OK, I've considered it, now here's what we do ....."

It is this fine line between the practice of law and the absence of moral judgment that confounds the public in so many ways.

After all, we stand in defense of the most heinous members of our society, and I'm not just talking about defense negligence lawyers here, of course.

- Michael P. Friedman, President, Albany County Bar Association, March 2003

http://www.albanycountybar.com/MarNL-03.pdf

Appeals should be out in the open, is what I think, anyway, which is to say, there should be witnesses to what transpires there that day, as was the case here in Rensselaer County back on November, 30, 1992, when we MUTE WITNESSES were assembled in Rensselaer County Court to hear what we thought was going to be "argument" in another "appeal" involving this same PLAINTIFF!

And this appeal argument on November 30, 1992 was quite important, to all of us, because it involved the "PRECURSER" intimidation tactic employed against this same PLAINTIFF by Rensselaer County, only that time using false criminal charges, which ultimately backfired against Rensselaer County, as this appeal transcript clearly demonstrates, because of the strong "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" provisions that are built in to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution for political purposes by the "modern state"!

The COLLOQUY from that appeal on November 30, 1992 between the Rensselaer County Court Judge and Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally who had been hounding the PLAINTIFF through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence is as follows, and we were there to not only hear what transpired, which is important, in and of itself, since it is an official transcript, BUT MORE .....

BECAUSE OF WHAT WE SAW, with OUR OWN EYES, which was JUSTICE, true justice, finally be effected in that particular portion of this long night of terror for OUR PLAINTIFF:

JUDGE: There is a MOTION on, that I might as well dispose of first.

That is PEOPLE v. PLAINTIFF.

Apparently, it is pro se.

Mr. McNally, are you here for the PEOPLE?

This is a legal question.

I don't see that argument is necessary!

McNally: This is a Motion to Dismiss!

JUDGE: A Motion to Reargue a Motion to Dismiss!

McNally: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in my opinion!

JUDGE: That is your position?

McNally: That is my position!

JUDGE: THEN YOU CONSENT TO THE DISMISSAL?

McNally: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!

JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?

McNally: Very!

JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?

McNally: It was the Court's opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there IS NOT OTHER EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE A PROSECUTION AND THE COURT RULED THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT, AND I HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE!

JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?

McNally: No further evidence, Judge!

JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!

(Whereupon, matter concluded)

- Exhibit F, Original Complaint in Federal District Court for Northern District of New York

"New ethics charges for Duke prosecutor"

By AARON BEARD, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:53 p.m., Wednesday, January 24, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The state bar lodged new and more serious ethics charges Wednesday against the district attorney in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of withholding evidence from the defense and lying to both to the court and bar investigators.

Mike Nifong -- who withdrew from the case earlier this month -- could be disbarred if convicted by a disciplinary board.

The bar previously charged Nifong with making misleading and prejudicial comments about the athletes under suspicion.

The new charges are tied to Nifong's decision to use a private lab for DNA testing as his office investigated allegations three men raped a 28-year-old stripper at a team party last March.

"If these allegations are true and if they don't justify disbarment, then I'm not sure what does," said Joseph Kennedy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

"It's hard for me to imagine a more serious set of allegations against a prosecutor."

And to bring this up to date .....

These news articles about this district attorney from down in North Carolina who is being brought up on ethics charges in the case of these college lacrosse players are in here ....

In this thread ....

To demonstrate the great disparity that exists in justice between the State of New York Bar Association ....

WHICH ALLOWS ANYTHING SO LONG AS LAWYERS DO NOT OPENLY ADVERTISE IT ....

Versus the standards down in North Carolina ....

Which appear to be much higher and better enforced than what is allowed up here in the State of New York .....

Where withholding exculpatory evidence is allowed ....

Making malicious false statements is allowed ....

Malicious prosecution is allowed .....

IN FACT .....

EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED ....

Including "procuring" FRAUDULENT PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT ORDERS ....

For those with the economic wherewithall to procure those FRAUDLENT INSTRUMENTS ....

SO THAT THEY CAN THEN DESTROY THE LIVES OF THOSE WHOM THEY WISH ....

WITH IMPUNITY ...

BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BAR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

TO PROVIDE COVER FOR THEM ....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

"THE 'PORK' IN NEW YORK - Thoughts of an older American on constitutional governement here in the USA"

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry679215

[Livyjr]

The other day, on FOX NEWS FAIR AND BALANCED, I heard that the American Bar Association was launching a big advertising campaign ....

That had as its objective ....

An attempt to convince the American public ....

That lawyers are not sleazy ....

And I had to think to myself ....

That just buying some "good press" is not going to change any perceptions ....

That are formed in the minds of the American people ....

By their own contacts with lawyers ....

And by what they see the lawyers getting away with ....

Week after week after week ...

In their own town board meetings ....

And planning board meetings ...

And zoning board meetings ...

Not to mention all of what has been discussed in here, to date ....

This farce of a disciplinary hearing, for example, that was held in Rensselaer County in the State of New York in 1989 ....

There were no standards of evidence in place at that proceeding ...

As was made clear over and over again by the LAWYER in charge, the "EYES AND EARS" of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono, the Honorable Phil Lance himself ....

Witness on March 16, 1989, for example, when Lance was responding to an objection by the PLAINTIFF over REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kenneth Van Praag's right to step in and censure the content of PLAINTIFF's communications as a New York State licensed professional engineer when corresponding with other engineers practicing in the Rensselaer County Health District in alleged accordance with the New York State Public Health Law and Sanitary Code:

EYES-AND-EARS: I'll note your objection ....

And as with ....

As I stated previously ....

IN THIS PROCEEDING ....

THE EVIDENTIARY RULES ....

DO NOT APPLY!

SO .....

Professor Shanks ....

EXACTLY WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE MAKING REFERENCE TO ....

When you talk about being held to the same standards as a lawyer?

Especially in light of Albany County Bar Association President Michael P. Friedman's statement above in March of 2003 that:

After all, it is just "Ethical Considerations" in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as in "OK, I've considered it, now here's what we do ....."

There is the standard that a lawyer is held to ....

At least in New York State ...

AND IT IS NOTHING AT ALL ....

A SHAM ....

A RUSE ....

A SNOW-JOB ....

As this entire episode from 1988, at least, until this very day has demonstrated ....

And the genesis of this story in here starts with REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Attorney Robert Smith, ESQUIRE, and his DEPUTY, REPUBLICAN Gordon Mayo, ESQUIRE, trying to force the low ethical standards of the lawyer's profession over onto the practice of professional engineering in the State of New York as well ....

And the engineer refused ......

And that was unacceptable ...

And so .....

October 9, 1990

Hon. Raymond J. Elliott, III, ESQUIRE
North Greenbush Town Court
2 Douglas St.
Wynantskill, N.Y. 12198

Dear Judge Elliott,

Enclosed herewith, please find a copy of the People's Notice of Appeal from a dismissal in the North Greenbush Town Court on Tuesday, October 2, 1990.

Mr. Jones (one of the defendants in the Federal Civil Rights lawsuit) contacted this office and requested this course of action.

By way of judicial economy, I hereby move to reargue the Motion to Dismiss in order to afford the People an opportunity to be heard on this matter.

The complainant in this case feels that there has been an injustice, and has sought the assistance of this office.

We have agreed to accept the responsibility to represent the People in this case.

My understanding of the events which took place in your court on October 2, 1990 clearly demonstrate that Mr. Jones is not familiar with the criminal justice system!"

Mrs. Jones, while her actions were, without a doubt, inappropriate and arguably contemptuous, I do not believe such actions warrant or give rise to a dismissal.

Furthermore, as PLAINTIFF'S familiarity with the law has been demonstrated in another action pending in your court, I sincerely believe adequate representation of the People's position should be provided by this office!

By copy of this letter to PLAINTIFF, I am making this motion returnable on October 30, 1990, the same date that PLAINTIFF has another motion returnable.

Respectfully submitted, Richard J. McNally, Jr.
Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney

- O'CONNOR "BIBLE" SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON BEHALF OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY DEFENDANTS, pp. 118-119

"Furthermore, as PLAINTIFF'S familiarity with the law has been demonstrated in another action pending in your court, I sincerely believe adequate representation of the People's position should be provided by this office!"

Yes, indeed ....

The LAWYER thing .....

A citizen who knows the law is dangerous ...

To the lawyer ....

Who views the law as his or her exclusive possession ....

Especially when that citizen can beat a "full-grown lawyer" in a court of law ...

Where all the candid world can see ....

And with respect to that ....

Back in early-2004, the Albany, New York Times Union newspaper contacted the PLAINTIFF in this matter ...

And in that telephone call ....

The Times Union informed the PLAINTIFF that it was going to do a story on litigants who were going to court without lawyers ....

And would the PLAINTIFF consent to being a part of that story ....

Which he did ....

And that story by Michelle Morgan Bolton ran on the front page of the local section on Sunday, February 8, 2004 with a picture of the PLAINTIFF sitting behind a stack of law books, and the caption "PLAINTIFF of Poestenkill uses his own legal knowledge to successfully fight zoning and other issues in court" ...

And a second picture at page 4 with the caption "PLAINTIFF looks through his legal books at his home in Poestenkill. PLAINTIFF has not used an attorney in 15 years."

All of which caused the local BAR ASSOCIATION to get quite surly and snippy .....

"WE DON'T LIKE SEEING PICTURES OF YOU IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH YOUR LEGAL BOOKS ....

The story ran in relevant part as follows:

[i]"Someone with access to a lawyer can win by making it impossible for the other partner to be in the game,"' Albany Law School professor Laurie Shanks said.

"In most criminal cases, the individual is told he will held to the standard as an attorney."

"But that is like putting someone who has never seen a football game on the field and saying, 'O.K., now play by the rules'."

It's a process set up by lawyers for lawyers, she said.

"I WOULD NOT GO TO COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER," added state Deputy Administrative Judge Juanita Bing Newton, who heads up Justice Initiatives for the Unified Court System.

"AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE OF PEOPLE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES."

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

Cognizant of the old adage that says those who represent themselves have a fool for a client, PLAINTIFF confided:

"I'D RATHER HAVE A FOOL FOR A CLIENT THAN A FOOL FOR A LAWYER."

The RULES OF EVIDENCE, indeed, Judge Bing-Newton .....

The RULES OF EVIDENCE, indeed .....

Talk to us about the RULES OF EVIDENCE ....

And why you, a judge yourself, would be afraid to go to court without a lawyer ...

For we would all be very interested to know ....

And I believe the answer as to why you, a judge,. would be afraid to go to court without a lawyer ...

Is because you know better than anyone else what a crock this statement about the RULES OF EVIDENCE really is ....

The statement really should be, "When you tell a lawyer he or she will be held to the rules of evidence, you may as well be saying 'blah, blah, blah, blah'" .....

And that goes for this case ...

In spades .....

Let's see ....

There is the statement of New York State Police BCI Investigator Chris O'Brien as to what he observed transpiring in connection with this matter on August 22, 2001 .....

That LAWYER and New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer had suppressed from the record ....

Despite any alleged rules of evidence to the contrary ....

And then ....

There is the sworn statement of the Albany, New York Police Officer ....

"Big EL" the LAWYER had that suppressed ....

And then ...

There are the false statements made to and false reports filed with the VA Police at the Stratton VA Hospital by New York State Veterans' Service officer William "BUCK" SHEA and nurse Andrea Gallerie ....

Despite their falseness, lawyer Spitzer defended these as though they were true ...

Despite being in possession of absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support them ...

And while possessed of evidence of their falseness ...

Which evidence "Big EL" suppressed ...

And this is the top law-enforcement lawyer in the State of New York .....

If the big guy lawyer is willing to do the "hokey-pokey" here ....

And he is ...

Then all the small fry follow, and so .....

Judge Bing-Newton, a judge herself, is afraid to go to court without a lawyer ....

And it is not because the rules are complex ....

That is a crock ....

The course of the law in the State of New York has been to codify ...

And simplify ....

So that the New York State Civil Practice Rules ..

Or the New York State Criminal Procedure Law ....

Are really quite easy to understand ...

And to follow ....

As they would have to be ...

For the law to mean anything at all ....

BUT ....

In reality ...

What is printed in those books ....

Is just a bunch of twaddle ...

To the lawyers ....

And so ...

No wonder Judge Bing-Newton is afraid to go to court without a lawyer ...

And no wonder that we common law-abiding citizens up here in Rensselaer County in the State of New York are so disgusted by this whole BID-NESS .....

Ladies and gentlemen ....

I don't know what it is like where you are ...

In terms of what is called "law and order" ....

But up here where I am ...

When the New York State Attorney General gets involved in a case of where a citizen's rights have been violated by the state, itself ...

The law is the first thing to go out the window ..

And the RULES OF EVIDENCE follow ...

And so ...

This thread .....

And when this administrative judge Juanita Bing Newton ....

Is saying ....

Very publicly ...

In the pages of the Albany, New York Times Union ....

"AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE OF PEOPLE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES."

What she appears to be doing ....

IS REPUDIATING THE VERY LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS WRITTEN ....

WHICH SHE HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO BE UPHOLDING ....

WHICH IS A PROBLEM THAT WE ARE HAVING UP HERE WITH JUDGES WHO ARE LAWYERS ....

HAVING THEM MAKE A MOCKERY ....

OF OUR LAWS ....

And especially that sub-section of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law above here which places an affirmative duty ON THE JUDGE ....

TO SEE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL .....

REMAIN UNTRAMPLED ON .....

BY THE PREDATORY MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ...

Except as provided in subdivision five, the court must inform the defendant:

(a) Of his rights as prescribed in subdivision three; and the court must not only accord him opportunity to exercise such rights but must itself take such affirmative action as is necessary to effectuate them .....

THE COURT ....

WHICH IS TO SAY ...

JUDGE JUANITA BING NEWTON ....

MUST ITSELF ....

TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ...

AS IS NECESSARY ....

TO EFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN ....

And yet .....

As is quite obvious from these words of judge Juanita Bing Newton .....

"AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE OF PEOPLE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES."

THERE IS AN OBVIOUS BIAS HERE .....

ON HER PART ....

AND AMERICA ......

THERE IS WHERE THE PROBLEM REALLY STARTS ....

NOT WITH THE ALLEGED "COMPLEXITY" OF THE "SYSTEM" .....

BECAUSE THE LAW ITSELF IS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND ....

BY INTENT AND DESIGN .....

BUT WITH THOSE ...

LIKE THE LAWYER JUANITA BING NEWTON ....

WHO HAVE BEEN PLACED IN CHARGE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF OUR LAW SYSTEM UP HERE ....

And so ....

And so indeed, America .....

"Someone with access to a lawyer can win by making it impossible for the other partner to be in the game,"' Albany Law School professor Laurie Shanks said.

And so it was proven to be .....

In this case, anyway ....

And so ...

Once again ...

We have come around the circle in here .....

And where we keep arriving at ....

Is the truth of these words by this law professor at Albany Law School in Albany, New York ...

Where all of this drama took place in federal District Court for the Northern District of New York .....

And in the end ....

It just comes down to money .....

And the "right connections" .....

Or "HOOK UPS", as they say up here ......

Which is to say ...

"Hooking up" with the right lawyer ...

For the right judge ...

As this New York State Deputy Administrative Judge Juanita Bing Newton is making very clear in this newspaper article above here .....

So that with a lawyer as your "BAG MAN" ....

It is no longer a BRIBE ....

For the PROTECTION that you are going to get ....

But a DISBURSEMENT, instead ......

And so ......

At least up here in the federal Northern District of New York ....

That is the accepted practice .....

If you have the right "HOOK UPS" .....

As did Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York ....

And so ....

The last thing this young person was wondering ....

And we are too, to be quite truthful ....

Since it is OUR tax dollars being used against us .....

Is how the County of Rensselaer is providing legal services .....

To Carl Richard Aiken of East Greenbush .....

Who is a private practice licensed engineer ....

Who was working for defendant Jeffrey Pelletier .....

At the time Pelletier assaulted the plaintiff in August of 2001 ....

Just before the August 22, 2001 "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" happened

Originally, Aiken was represented by an attorney in East Greenbush, New York named Kevin Engel .....

Who was at the same time .....

The Town Justice in East Greenbush .....

The Rensselaer County town ....

Where Aiken has his practice located ....

IF you are a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York .....

Today ....

Right now as we speak ....

Licensed by the New York State Department of Education ....

And subject to the Rules of Practice in the State of New York ....

As promulgated by the New York State Board of Regents ...

And you have an opportunity to make some money .....

Money is important, after all ....

Signing off on plans that do not meet the requirements of the applicable codes, rules and regulations ....

And certifying projects that were not built in accordance with those applicable codes, rules and regulations .....

All you have to do ....

To get yourself some necessary "cover" .....

Is to secure the "SERVICES" of a lawyer who is a member of the bar in the State of New York ....

Preferably a lawyer who is also the local judge ....

And even though what you are doing is a violation of the law in the State of New York ...

YOU ARE TROUBLE-FREE ....

Because you have a lawyer who is a member of the bar in the State of New York to "cover your back" ....

To make sure that no witnesses will ever be able to come forward against you ....

To bring on a case in court ....

Or to "make trouble" for you ....

With the Office of Professional Disicipline of the New York State Department of Education .....

And so ....

For those of you who are just arriving at this thread now ...

And are wondering what the topic of discussion is in here .....

Well ...

That above gives you a capsule summary .....

THE "SERVICES" THAT MEMBERS OF THE BAR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK CAN'T REALLY ADVERTISE ....

AT LEAST TOO OPENLY OR BLATANTLY ....

BUT CAN PROVIDE ....

IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY WITH WHICH TO PROCURE THESE "SERVICES" .....

Money is always important, after all .....

And so ....

"Municipal court reforms sought - Bar association president advocates for requiring town, village justices to be lawyers"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007

ALBANY -- Legislation requiring the state's 2,300 town and village justices to be lawyers would preserve the court system's integrity, the president of the state bar association said Monday.

Currently, only 28 percent are lawyers, said Mark Alcott, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The public hearing followed a state comptroller's audit last fall that revealed missing money and other problems, and newspaper stories on the often poorly trained, but politically connected, judges.

It also came after state Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye unveiled a $10 million reform package to tighten financial control and court security while broadening education and training in the municipal courts.

"The behavior of a few questionable judges has raised some concerns," state Sen. John DeFrancisco, R-Syracuse, said last week.

"Some would like to see these courts abolished."

"I disagree."

"However, I believe we need to look at ways to improve them."

After Monday's testimony, he said: "Many of the witnesses agree that we need to look at ways to preserve and improve these courts in our communities."

Alcott said hair-waxing technicians undergo 75 hours of training to pass certification exams, but local justices needed just one week of training up to this year.

Kaye's plan calls for two weeks.

These judges hear more than 2 million cases a year and collect more than $210 million in fines.

It wasn't clear Monday what would happen to existing judges who aren't lawyers if the law passes, but a bar association spokesman said legislation would be worked out to ensure minimal disruption while shifting to lawyer judges.

Since 1978, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued 634 public decisions, of which 448 were against town and village justices, said commission chief counsel Robert Tembeckjian, who also spoke at the hearing.

While he said it t isn't fair to say lower-court judges are more likely to be disciplined than others, Tembeckjian said that of the 152 cases serious enough to warrant removal from judicial office, 115 were against justices in the lowest courts.

And of the 6,611 full-scale investigations from 1975 to 2005, 4,033 were against lower-court jurists, he said.

"This 30-year statistical profile indicates that complaints of misconduct against town and village justices are more likely to have merit, warrant investigation and result in punishments than complaints against judges of higher courts," he said.

Michele Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at mbolton@timesunion.com.

end quotes

AND THE VERY LAST THING WE NEED ....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

IS TO HAVE LAWYERS ....

PRACTICING AS ATTORNEYS ....

IN OUR TOWNS ....

ALSO SERVING AS JUDGES ....

IN OUR TOWN COURTS UP HERE ....

THAT IS WHERE THE PROTECTION RACKET IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK BEGINS ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE PROTECTED ....

AND THE LAWYER IN YOUR TOWN ....

IS ALSO THE TOWN JUDGE ....

WELL ...

YOU "HOOK" UP WITH HIM ....

AS YOUR LAWYER ...

PAY HIM A HEFTY RETAINER ....

AND THEN ....

WELL ...

AS THEY SAY UP HERE ....

IN THE CORRUPT STATE OF NEW YORK ....

WITH ITS 72,000 LAWYERS ....

WHO CAN MAKE "DISBURSEMENTS" ON YOUR BEHALF ....

"YOU ARE GOLDEN" ....

YOU HAVE YOUR "PROTECTION" ....

BECAUSE THE LAWYER WHO IS ALSO THE TOWN JUDGE ....

IS FOR SALE ...

AS A LAWYER ....

ACCORDING TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION ITSELF ....

THAT LAWYER'S ALLEGIANCE .....

IS NOT TO THE LAW ....

NOR IS IT TO OUR CONSTITUTION ....

IT IS TO THE CLIENT'S MONEY ....

AND THAT IS ALL ....

"RENTED PENCILS", AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES ....

"WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY?"

IF YOU HAVE THE BUCKS TO BUY HIS "SERVICES" ....

TO A LAWYER ....

MONEY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AFTER ALL ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.

But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush's way on the big issues of the day.

"When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."

Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears."

It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.

His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

"Feeding off taxpayers no crime, lawyer says - Cronyism, big spending called usual government practice at Strevell trial"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

ALBANY -- A defense lawyer for the Rensselaer County entrepreneur whose organization got more than $1 million in member item grants directed by Sen. Joseph L. Bruno is arguing in federal court that dishonesty isn't necessarily a federal offense.

William P. Fanciullo, lawyer for J. Felix Strevell, the former director of the now-defunct Institute for Entrepreneurship, also said that Strevell's actions, including putting relatives on the state payroll, were normal practices in government.

Strevell is charged with nine counts of mail fraud and six counts of wire fraud.

The case before U.S. District Court Justice Gary L. Sharpe centers on Strevell's lavish spending on himself and on parties that honored lawmakers who helped him get public money.

Among its funding sources, the institute received two $500,000 discretionary grants, known as member items, through Bruno in 1999 and 2001.

Strevell allegedly misused some of the $8 million in mostly taxpayer funds raised by the institute during his reign from 1998 to 2001, when he and his brother, Chauncey, the former chief operating officer, abruptly quit.

While at the institute, Strevell hired friends, relatives of powerful Republicans, his daughter and his daughter's boyfriend.

He also used institute funds to purchase clothing and trips for himself and family members.

The institute's activities, revealed by the Times Union, became an embarrassment for Republican leaders who had supported it, including Bruno, R-Brunswick, Gov. George Pataki and his administration, and former U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park.

Prosecutors say Strevell, a former state bureaucrat, manipulated the system to set up the nonprofit institute as an offshoot of state government.

He worked to improperly enrich himself and his family, the indictment says, receiving a base salary of $225,000 plus $24,000 for a housing stipend, trips for family members and merchandise for his personal use, including a $64,000 recreational vehicle.

Strevell also allegedly doctored the record of a board vote that resulted in his pay rising by $95,000.

Fanciullo said Strevell's management of the institute followed normal and accepted practices of government, including the hiring of kin, and that the salary vote was legitimate.

And just to check in here ....

To affirm .....

That this thread has not stopped running ....

It is just that there is a silence descended up here .....

That makes it difficult to discern .....

At least right now ....

Where matters associated with this thread are heading .....

Such as whether Bush-appointee Gary L. Sharpe ....

In the federal Northern District of New York ....

Understands the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted ....

And will go about fixing that in his decision .....

TO DE-CRIMINALIZE FEEDING OFF THE TAXPAYERS HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

AS IT IS A USUAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICE ....

A NORMAL AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE .....

HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

And so .....

In the meantime ....

Certain issues raised in this thread ....

Are being followed .....

In a new thread specific to the State of New York end of things in this thread ....

In a thread entitled "The 'PORK' in New York - Thoughts of an older American on constitutional government in the USA" .....

At http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry676867

And so ....

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 04-473. 

Argued October 12, 2005--Reargued March 21, 2006--Decided May 30, 2006

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...mp;invol=04-473

"The GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER AS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, Livyjr ..."

"IF IT IS THE 'POLICY' OF THE 'GOVERNMENT' TO HAVE IT BE ..."

"AS THIS SUPPRESSED F.B.I. RECORD IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE INDICATES WAS THE CASE WITH RENSSELAER COUNTY BETWEEN 1978 AND 1988 ..."

"WHEN YOUR PLAINTIFF 'BLEW THE WHISTLE' ON THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ..."

"AND HAD HIS LIFE DESTROYED, IN RETALIATION ..."

"And as this record clearly shows ...."

"God help the hapless American citizens who go to work for that criminal enterprise ...."

"Who like your PLAINTIFF ..."

"Are forced against their wills to have to take part in it ..."

"To be silent about it ..."

"TO DO AS THEY ARE TOLD ..."

"Or the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE will break them ..."

"STRIP THEM OF ALL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ..."

"AND CRUSH THEM ..."

"BECAUSE THEY ARE A 'GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE' ..."

"WHICH IS SOMETHING MUCH LESS THAN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..."

"ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, ANYWAY ....

"And because of that SECOND-CLASS STATUS ....."

"OR THIRD-CLASS, PERHAPS, IN THE CASE OF YOUR PLAINTIFF ..."

"The COURTS ..."

"Which are simply agents of that same government ..."

"Will protect this CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ..."

"Against those who would rebel against it, and expose it ..."

"As your PLAINTIFF clearly did ..."

"SEVERAL TIMES ..."

"Or based upon the evidence in here, that is how I read these words above here from this May 30, 2006 United States Supreme Court decision in GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS, anyway:"

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

("[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign").

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

"THE GOVERNMENT ...."

"AS EMPLOYER ..."

"INDEED ..."

"HAS FAR BROADER POWERS ...."

"THAN DOES THE GOVERNMENT AS SOVEREIGN ..."

"AND FROM THE FEDERAL SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECEMBER 2005 SUMMARY ORDER IN THIS CASE ..."

"THE PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN AND FORCED INCARCERATION OF THESE RETALIATION TARGETS IN SECURE MENTAL FACILITIES BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN FALSE DIAGNOSES BY WILLING AND COMPLICIT MEDICAL DOCTORS IS ONE OF THEM ..."

"And so, Livyjr, and so ...."

"First Amendment Sometimes Left at Workplace Door"

By Stephen Barr
Thursday, June 1, 2006; Page D04

The Supreme Court's ruling on freedom-of-speech rights of public employees has created a stir across the government, in part because of the way Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-to-4 majority, framed the issue:

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

Although the wording seemed stark, the court did not redefine federal whistle-blower protections.

The majority, in some respects, seemed interested in ensuring that governments can oversee workplaces and that disputes between employees and supervisors do not automatically fall into the realm of a constitutional right.

In Tuesday's ruling, the court found that a district attorney's office did not violate Ceballos's freedom of speech by allegedly demoting him after he wrote supervisors about his concerns that a sheriff's deputy had lied to get a search warrant.

Government agencies troubled by the notion that employees might make whistle-blowing claims as citizens outside the workplace can take steps to address the issue, Kennedy suggested.

"A public employer that wishes to encourage its employees to voice concerns privately retains the option of instituting internal policies and procedures that are receptive to employee criticism," he wrote.

"Giving employees an internal forum for their speech will discourage them from concluding that the safest avenue of expression is to state their views in public."

While that may be sound advice, numerous federal whistle-blowers have complained over the years that agencies fail to handle their complaints in a confidential manner and to protect them from reprisals by their superiors.

The four justices in dissent suggested that public employees should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection in the course of their duties.

In a newsletter last year, the Merit Systems Protection Board said employees need to be careful in how they blow the whistle on violations of law and rules, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority and specific dangers to public health and safety.

An employee can blow the whistle by calling an inspector general hotline, going outside the chain of command or by talking to the news media, the newsletter suggested.

Employees faced with reprisals can appeal to the board or ask for investigations by an independent agency, the Office of Special Counsel.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), with bipartisan support, is pushing for legislation that would permit a federal whistle-blower to be protected for disclosing information learned on the job or in the course of job duties.

The Justice Department has opposed taking that step, and at least one senator has placed a hold on Akaka's bill, according to congressional aides.

"Court ruling cited in whistle-blower's firing - A lawsuit tied to alleged abuse of ex-Willowbrook residents is affected"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, February 5, 2007

New York state is using a new but little known U.S. Supreme Court ruling to uphold the firing of a woman who contends that some developmentally disabled victims of the 1970s Willowbrook scandal are still being neglected.

Under the legal precedent handed down by the court in May of last year, Susan McLaughlin might have done better blowing the whistle publicly, rather than taking her concerns to her bosses at the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.

"Their response was to attack me," McLaughlin said of how state officials reacted when she began alleging poor treatment of adults who were living in special group homes that are overseen by OMRDD's Sunmount Developmental Center in Tupper Lake.

Her story also raises questions about what has happened to the hundreds of people who, decades ago, lived in the infamous Willowbrook State School on Staten Island.

Willowbrook was the site of a scandal in 1972, exposed by TV reporter Geraldo Rivera and local newspapers, in which mentally retarded children were found to be abused and neglected.

As part of the settlement from a lawsuit generated by the scandal, the state created the Willowbrook Consumer Advisory Board, funded by OMRDD, to ensure that former residents who had no family or guardians were properly cared for after Willowbrook was emptied out.

McLaughlin, 55, was already a veteran OMRDD worker when she was hired by the Advisory Board as a program associate in 1989.

She was asigned a roster of between 87 and 125 former Willowbrook residents living in northern New York.

After a few years, McLaughlin contends, she found problems in the way her clients were being cared for.

She began complaining to her bosses at the Consumer Advisory Board and OMRDD.

Among her allegations:

One client was given too much Serental, a psychoactive drug (she later died, although it's unclear whether the drug was involved.)

Another didn't get radiation treatment for bladder cancer, while still another wasn't properly checked for cancer when she developed an ovarian cyst.

A resident was sexually abused, while another had his fingernails trimmed to the quick, putting him in constant pain.

He died in 2005.

McLaughlin said these and other complaints fell on deaf ears, so she started writing directly to then-OMRDD Commissioner Thomas Maul and Ann Nehrbauer, chair of the Willowbrook Consumer Advisory Board.

In one letter, she said she had "minimal supervision ... vague direction, and no performance standards or evaluations," during her 15 years with the board.

By July 2005 McLaughlin said she was fired via a "one-line letter."

She sued in federal court, seeking reinstatement.

OMRDD spokeswoman Deborah Sturm-Rausch said she couldn't comment on the pending lawsuit.

As to McLaughlin's allegations of mistreatment, Sturm-Rausch said, "we take any complaint we receive very seriously and fully investigate all allegations."

McLaughlin's lawsuit has been winding its way through the system, and recently lawyers for OMRDD have adopted a new legal tactic, sparked by a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down last May in Garcetti v. Ceballos.

Richard Ceballos was a Los Angeles County, Calif., assistant district attorney who had alleged that a sheriff's officer may have lied on a search warrant affidavit.

Ceballos said he suffered retaliation when he raised that concern, and he sued former District Attorney Gil Garcetti.

The case made it to the Supreme Court where justices, in a 5-4 vote, ruled that Ceballos' right of free speech didn't apply when he was exercising that speech as part of his job.

The court decided that when "public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

That's a "radical departure" from past whistle-blower protections, according to Stephen M. Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center.

The decision, made with little fanfare, could create an impediment to government employees who use internal channels to expose problems or wrongdoing, said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

"The one thing that will potentially get you into trouble is if you go to your public employer," Dunn said, adding that whistle-blowers may now be better off by taking their concerns to the media or people outside of their jobs.

McLaughlin's case is still open, and the defense's request to dismiss the suit based on Garcetti v. Ceballos is before U.S. Northern District Judge Thomas McAvoy.

Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Judicial watchdog resigns from national law panel - Robert Tembeckjian cites secret changes to judicial code as dangerous"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 1:43 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2007

ALBANY -- The chief lawyer for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct resigned in protest today from his role on a national lawyers panel.

Robert Tembeckjian had said the American Bar Association subcommittee has secretly diluted the rules overseeing judges so it's harder to discipline them.

Public hearings on potential changes to the 83-year-old Model Code of Judicial Conduct have been ongoing for three years on the subcommittee, he said.

And a revised code is up for a vote next week.

But few, if any, members of the House of Delegates will know that language quietly inserted elsewhere in the text last week -- three months after the finished document was publicly posted -- would make it advisable for judges "to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," but not mandatory.

That means it will be harder to rein in those who defy the code, Tembeckjian said.

State Office of Court Administration Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman characterized the change as "surprising."

Mark I. Harrison, of Arizona, who is the chairman of the commission that revised the code of ethics did not immediately return a call for comment.

[Livyjr]

"THE LAW IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS A THING TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF LAWYERS," said PLAINTIFF, who has been called every name in the book.

"Judicial conduct standard revised - State official quits Bar Association panel, saying obscure change will make it harder to discipline judges"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

ALBANY -- A quiet move by a national lawyers panel will make it harder to discipline judges, a judicial watchdog said Monday.

For 83 years, "avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," has been gospel in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, said Robert Tembeckjian.

But an American Bar Association panel looking at code revision inserted language in a remote section of the text that makes such behavior advisable -- but not mandatory.

And, said Tembeckjian, chief counsel of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, nobody knows about it, least of all the 500-plus delegates who will vote on it next week in Miami.

"You'd need the equivalent of a literary GPS to figure out this road map," said Tembeckjian, who resigned the ABA advisory committee to protest what he considers to be a dilution of standards.

"Judges are public officials, performing a unique and vital role in our constitutional democracy."

"Their independence and integrity must be beyond reproach for the public to have faith in the administration of justice."

The ABA, after three years of public hearings, posted potential code revisions in October.

Late last month, the ABA code commission inserted the changes on propriety.

Nothing was done in secret, said Attorney Mark I. Harrison, of Phoenix, Ariz., chairman of the commission.

Tembeckjian is generally unfamiliar with House of Delegates procedures, Harrison said, and, as a non-voting member of the advisory commission, "doesn't have ultimate responsibility for recommendations to the House of Delegates."

"This has been a process that was incredibly transparent," Harrison said.

Tembeckjian is known for holding New York's judges to high standards and, when appropriate, pushing for their censure or removal.

He recently sparred with state Supreme Court Justice Thomas Spargo of Berne, who, after a 4-year legal battle, was unseated for his behavior on and off the bench.

E. Stewart Jones, who represented Spargo during much of his fight to retain his judgeship, said the rule change would allow judges to exercise discretion, without concern that everything they do subjects them to discipline.

"Currently, there is no allowance for areas of gray," Jones said.

"And Mr. Tembeckjian sees everything in black and white."

"For a long time it was sacrosanct judges could do as they please."

"Now the pendulum has swung too far to the other side."

Anything that dilutes absolutism is a plus, Jones said.

The ABA says the "impropriety" clause is constitutionally vague, and the group had removed similar language governing lawyers' behavior in 1969.

But Cynthia Gray, director of the American Judicature Society's Center for Ethics in Des Moines, Iowa, said efforts to water down the code for judges are "inexplicable, unnecessary and confusing."

"Judges should be held to a higher ethical standard than lawyers," said Gray.

"There is no basis in case law for the change."

"And while it is not a provision that gets used a lot, sometimes you need a principle to hang your hat on."

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman of the state Office of Court Administration said he also was surprised by the move.

"Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety has been the centerpiece of the judicial conduct system," said Lippman.

New York has 1,300 state judges and 2,300 town and village justices who collectively handle 4 million cases a year.

"The judges understand and, I believe, overwhelmingly support the code," Lippman said.

"We don't want to lower the bar."

The idea to soften the impropriety standard was first floated in May 2004, but after significant negative public reaction, the code commission backed off.

Next week, the ABA House of Delegates will meet in Miami to adopt the model code.

It will then be sent to the states, which can adopt all or part of it.

In New York, the code is promulgated by Lippman with the approval of the Court of Appeals.

That's when it becomes binding not only on state judges, but on the Judicial Conduct Commission, which enforces it.

Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at mbolton@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Judicial conduct standard revised - State official quits Bar Association panel, saying obscure change will make it harder to discipline judges"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

ALBANY -- A quiet move by a national lawyers panel will make it harder to discipline judges, a judicial watchdog said Monday.

For 83 years, "avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," has been gospel in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, said Robert Tembeckjian.

But an American Bar Association panel looking at code revision inserted language in a remote section of the text that makes such behavior advisable -- but not mandatory.

E. Stewart Jones, who represented Spargo during much of his fight to retain his judgeship, said the rule change would allow judges to exercise discretion, without concern that everything they do subjects them to discipline.

"Currently, there is no allowance for areas of gray," Jones said.

"And Mr. Tembeckjian sees everything in black and white."

"For a long time it was sacrosanct judges could do as they please."

"Now the pendulum has swung too far to the other side."

AND THE VERY LAST THING WE NEED ....

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

IS TO HAVE LAWYERS ....

PRACTICING AS ATTORNEYS ....

IN OUR TOWNS ....

ALSO SERVING AS JUDGES ....

IN OUR TOWN COURTS UP HERE ....

THAT IS WHERE THE PROTECTION RACKET IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK BEGINS ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE PROTECTED ....

AND THE LAWYER IN YOUR TOWN ....

IS ALSO THE TOWN JUDGE ....

WELL ...

YOU "HOOK" UP WITH HIM ....

AS YOUR LAWYER ...

PAY HIM A HEFTY RETAINER ....

AND THEN ....

WELL ...

AS THEY SAY UP HERE ....

IN THE CORRUPT STATE OF NEW YORK ....

WITH ITS 72,000 LAWYERS ....

WHO CAN MAKE "DISBURSEMENTS" ON YOUR BEHALF ....

"YOU ARE GOLDEN" ....

YOU HAVE YOUR "PROTECTION" ....

BECAUSE THE LAWYER WHO IS ALSO THE TOWN JUDGE ....

IS FOR SALE ...

AS A LAWYER ....

ACCORDING TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION ITSELF ....

THAT LAWYER'S ALLEGIANCE .....

IS NOT TO THE LAW ....

NOR IS IT TO OUR CONSTITUTION ....

IT IS TO THE CLIENT'S MONEY ....

AND THAT IS ALL ....

"RENTED PENCILS", AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES ....

"WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY?"

IF YOU HAVE THE BUCKS TO BUY HIS "SERVICES" ....

TO A LAWYER ....

MONEY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AFTER ALL ....

And so ....

I am finding that people up here in New York State are indeed in favor of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to OUR New York State CONSTITUTION .....

WE WOULD AMEND THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT MANDATORY .....

THAT LAWYERS ....

WHO PRESENT FALSE EVIDENCE IN COURT .....

OR FALSE TESTIMONY .....

AS DID DEPUTY RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RICHARD MCNALLY IN THIS MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE .....

WOULD DO MANDATORY JAIL TIME .....

THREE DAYS AT THE START WOULD DO ....

WITH AN ESCALATING PENALTY FROM THERE FOR REPEAT OFFENSES .....

WE WOULD FURTHER AMEND OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

TO KEEP PRACTICING ATTORNEYS OUT OF OUR TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS .....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A LAWYER .....

BE A LAWYER ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A CROOKED LAWYER ....

YOU GO TO JAIL ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A JUDGE ....

YOU CANNOT HAVE "CLIENTS" .....

AND IT IS NOT SACROSANCT .....

THAT A JUDGE CAN DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WANTS TO .....

THAT IS A BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN CRAP .....

THE OLD WAY OF DOING BUISNESS IN RENSSELAER COUNTY ...

AND NEW YORK STATE ....

WHERE JUDGES WERE NOTORIOUS FOR BEING FOR SALE ....

WHICH IS WHAT F. STEWART JONES OF RENSSELAER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

WANTS TO BRING THINGS BACK TO .....

A GOLDEN AGE FOR CROOKED LAWYERS .....

AND THE PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEM ON .....

AND CAN PAY THEM THOSE BIG BUCKS ....

THAT KEEP THE LAWYERS LIVING IN STYLE ....

LIKE RATS IN A FARMER'S CORN CRIB ....

OR WEEVILS IN THE FLOUR BIN ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

The word came to us this morning .....

A telephone call, short and sweet .....

From some person in the Clerk's Office down in New York City ......

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals .....

They buried the appeal with a summary order ....

It's now gone ...

Over ....

As if this person had never existed ....

Just like that .....

All the records, including the F.B.I records, simply go into a limbo ....

As if they never existed .....

By order of the court ....

Along with all of the achievements of a man's life ....

And his integrity ....

All gone ...

In the blink of an eye ....

By order of the court .....

With no recourse now available to do a thing about it ....

And based on nothing but lies .....

Lies are more powerful than the truth ....

"Hiding justice - The American Bar Association should reject a proposal to seal certain court records"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Unless they come to their senses, and soon, the delegates to the American Bar Association may vote to throw a huge cloak of secrecy over the nation's system of justice.

That would serve no one -- not the cause of justice, and not the democratic principle that the courtrooms are places where justice in dispensed in the open.

Nor would it serve the cause of the wrongly accused.

At issue is a recommendation from the association's Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions to seal court records -- to all but law enforcement agencies -- in cases that do not result in convictions.

Many critics, including groups representing the press, fear that this would be the first step toward keeping more and more pre-trial information from public view.

They have a right to be worried.

According to the ABA panel, the goal of sealing records would be to make it easier for the acquitted to assume their rightful place in society.

But that raises the question of why an acquittal isn't sufficient to allow a smooth return to society.

How can employers, landlords or others discriminate against someone who has never been convicted of a crime?

On the basis of an arrest record, perhaps?

If so, that's the flaw the ABA should be addressing.

It's difficult to fathom how such a misguided proposal for secrecy would gain traction in an association dedicated to justice.

True, grand jury proceedings are sealed, and on the premise that secrecy protects those who are not indicted.

But it does not follow that secrecy should be imposed on the other end of the system, when a judge or jury has found the case against a defendant to be without merit.

Indeed, it takes a long and public process before there is an acquittal.

Those records would be in the public domain for a while, from the charges leveled against the accused, to the testimony taken in open court.

And that's how it should be.

One underlying principle of this nation's judicial system is that the accused has a right to face his or her accusers in court.

Another is that courtrooms, and court records, are open to the public because that is the best way to prevent abuses by government.

Indeed, access to court documents has enabled law students, activists and journalists to discern patterns of behavior by judges and prosecutors, and to highlight discrimination.

In 1995, for example, The Philadelphia Inquirer sifted though stacks of court records and uncovered tactics used by police to frame African-Americans.

Imagine if only law enforcement agencies had been given access to these records.

What chance would justice have had then?

That's a question the ABA delegates should ask, and answer with a loud no to secrecy.

[Livyjr]

"Hiding justice - The American Bar Association should reject a proposal to seal certain court records"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Unless they come to their senses, and soon, the delegates to the American Bar Association may vote to throw a huge cloak of secrecy over the nation's system of justice.

That would serve no one -- not the cause of justice, and not the democratic principle that the courtrooms are places where justice in dispensed in the open.

Nor would it serve the cause of the wrongly accused.

At issue is a recommendation from the association's Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions to seal court records -- to all but law enforcement agencies -- in cases that do not result in convictions.

Many critics, including groups representing the press, fear that this would be the first step toward keeping more and more pre-trial information from public view.

They have a right to be worried.

It's difficult to fathom how such a misguided proposal for secrecy would gain traction in an association dedicated to justice.

True, grand jury proceedings are sealed, and on the premise that secrecy protects those who are not indicted.

But it does not follow that secrecy should be imposed on the other end of the system, when a judge or jury has found the case against a defendant to be without merit.

Indeed, it takes a long and public process before there is an acquittal.

Those records would be in the public domain for a while, from the charges leveled against the accused, to the testimony taken in open court.

And that's how it should be.

One underlying principle of this nation's judicial system is that the accused has a right to face his or her accusers in court.

Another is that courtrooms, and court records, are open to the public because that is the best way to prevent abuses by government.

Indeed, access to court documents has enabled law students, activists and journalists to discern patterns of behavior by judges and prosecutors, and to highlight discrimination.

In 1995, for example, The Philadelphia Inquirer sifted though stacks of court records and uncovered tactics used by police to frame African-Americans.

Imagine if only law enforcement agencies had been given access to these records.

What chance would justice have had then?

That's a question the ABA delegates should ask, and answer with a loud no to secrecy.

And so .....

Which brings us back around, then, to this October 9, 1990 letter from then-Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard J. McNally, Jr. to Town of North Greenbush Judge Raymond J. Elliott, III, which was put in evidence before the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City by the "silver-tongued" Tommy O'Connor on behalf of REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants in this matter ....

And here it must be noted that "Judge" Raymond J. Elliott's "day job", when not serving as a "judge" in Rensselaer County, was being a lawyer representing land developers in Rensselaer County .....

Which "occupation" put the lawyer Raymond J. Elliott, III at odds with the PLAINTIFF in this matter when the PLAINTIFF was serving as Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer between 1986 and October of 1988 ....

Appeals should be out in the open, is what I think, anyway, which is to say, there should be witnesses to what transpires there that day, as was the case here in Rensselaer County back on November, 30, 1992, when we MUTE WITNESSES were assembled in Rensselaer County Court to hear what we thought was going to be "argument" in another "appeal" involving this same PLAINTIFF!

And this appeal argument on November 30, 1992 was quite important, to all of us, because it involved the "PRECURSER" intimidation tactic employed against this same PLAINTIFF by Rensselaer County, only that time using false criminal charges, which ultimately backfired against Rensselaer County, as this appeal transcript clearly demonstrates, because of the strong "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" provisions that are built in to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution for political purposes by the "modern state"!

The dialogue from that appeal on November 30, 1992 between Rensselaer County Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer and Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally who had been hounding the PLAINTIFF through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence is as follows, and we were there to not only hear what transpired, which is important, in and of itself, since it is an official transcript, BUT MORE .....

BECAUSE OF WHAT WE SAW, with OUR OWN EYES, which was JUSTICE, true justice, finally be effected in that particular portion of this long night of terror for OUR PLAINTIFF:

JUDGE: There is a MOTION on, that I might as well dispose of first.

That is PEOPLE v. PLAINTIFF.

Apparently, it is pro se.

Mr. McNally, are you here for the PEOPLE?

This is a legal question.

I don't see that argument is necessary!

McNALLY: This is a Motion to Dismiss!

JUDGE: A Motion to Reargue a Motion to Dismiss!

McNALLY: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in my opinion!

JUDGE: That is your position?

McNALLY: That is my position!

JUDGE: THEN YOU CONSENT TO THE DISMISSAL?

McNALLY: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!

JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?

McNALLY: Very!

JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?

McNALLY: It was the Court's opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there IS NOT OTHER EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE A PROSECUTION AND THE COURT RULED THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT, AND I HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE!

JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?

McNALLY: No further evidence, Judge!

JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!

(Whereupon, matter concluded)

- EXCERPTED from pages 121-124 of the O'Connor BIBLE submitted to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in this matter on behalf of defendant REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino and her co-defendants, in or about November of 2005

IF the American Bar Association has its way in this matter of SEALING court records .....

Then a thread like this could never run .....

The records to support a thread like this would be UNAVAILABLE ....

THE MATTER WOULD BE TOTALLY HUSHED UP ......

AS IF IT HAD NEVER EVEN HAPPENED!

WHEN SOMEONE HAS BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED ....

AND IS THEN ACQUITED .....

OR THE CHARGES ARE DISMISSED ....

AS IN THIS CASE ....

AS BEING UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ....

THEN AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN COMMITTED ....

AND IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A LAWYER ....

SINCE ONLY LAWYERS CAN BE PROSECUTORS .....

And so .....

THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS INJUSTICE ....

AND HOW AND WHY IT WAS COMMITTED .....

BUT THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ....

IS REALLY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF LAWYERS .....

THE LAWYER'S GUILD ....

AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ....

WITH JUSTICE ....

FOR US ....

WHO ARE AND HAVE BEEN THE VICTIMS OF THESE LAWYERS ....

WHO CAN DRAG YOU THROUGH THE COURTS FOR YEARS ON A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ....

WITH IMMUNITY FOR THEM ....

SO THAT THIS SECRECY PACT ....

ONLY SERVES TO PROTECT THE LAWYERS INVOLVED IN A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ....

AND THAT ONLY FURTHER VICTIMIZES THE VICTIMS OF THESE LAWYERS ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Prosecute Colonie officials for abuse of power"

Letters to the Editor, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, February 8, 2007

Bravo for your Jan. 24 editorial regarding the abuse of power perpetrated by the town of Colonie officials and the Colonie Police Department.

Not only should the residents of Colonie be angry about these unlawful actions, the general public should be outraged and they should demand the prosecution of those involved.

If the Colonie officials would take such illegal actions against two town residents, what would they do to someone who was from out of town?

It is really appalling to see town officials breaking the law, but just as appalling is the lack of visible action by the Albany County District Attorney David Soares, who took office promising fairness and openness.

Why hasn't he said that he will present the case to the grand jury to consider indicting all those involved in depriving individuals of their civil rights?

This is an extremely serious violation.

I'm not sure the district attorney sees it that way, or maybe he has just decided to ignore it.

When public officials receive information of possible wrongdoing, whether anonymous or not, their responsibility is to investigate the complaint to determine its validity, not to investigate the citizen making the complaint.

To do otherwise would deter citizens from bringing government service problems to the attention of the appropriate authority.

Supervisor Mary Brizzell should give serious consideration to resigning for ordering such illegal activity; the town attorney should resign and be brought before the New York State Bar Association for possible sanction.

The police chief, who either directed or permitted his officers to be involved in an illegal investigation, should be held accountable.

All of these people were involved in a conspiracy to violate the civil rights and privacy of two citizens of Colonie.

This is a very serious crime and must be dealt with accordingly.

Brizzell has demonstrated that she is not willing to respect the rights of Colonie residents.

If she doesn't resign, I expect Colonie residents will terminate her public employment at the next election.

EDWARD E. H. SR.

Johnsonville

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...wsdate=2/8/2007

[Livyjr]

"New subpoenas suggest Bruno inquiry widening"

By MIKE McINTIRE, New York Times

First published: Friday, February 9, 2007

A federal grand jury investigating the business dealings of Joseph L. Bruno, the New York state Senate majority leader, has issued subpoenas to two more companies that had been affiliated with an Albany businessman who is his friend and business associate, according to documents filed with securities regulators.

The subpoenas were received on Monday by Motient Corp. in Illinois and its subsidiary, TerreStar Networks, a Virginia provider of mobile satellite communications services, Motient disclosed in papers submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

The Albany businessman, Jared E. Abbruzzese, resigned as chairman of TerreStar last month and had previously been a consultant to Motient.

The scope of the subpoenas, which sought documents related to Bruno, Abbruzzese and other unidentified people and companies, suggested that the federal investigation of Bruno's business activities is widening.

Although the nearly yearlong inquiry is believed to have focused on a consulting business the senator ran out of his home -- whose clients included Abbruzzese -- an array of Bruno's financial activities have also come under scrutiny in recent months.

The grand jury has issued subpoenas for information on Bruno's financial records and real estate investments; a consulting arrangement he had with an Albany-based investment firm; his dealings with a veterinarian with whom he owned racehorses; a $500,000 state grant he directed to an upstate company, Evident Technologies, in which Abbruzzese was an investor; and records of a state lobbying commission's inquiry into Bruno's use of airplanes provided by Abbruzzese.

Bruno has denied any wrongdoing.

His spokesman had no comment on the subpoenas Thursday.

A message left for Stephen R. Coffey, a lawyer for Abbruzzese, was not answered.

Attempts to reach Abbruzzese were unsuccessful.

[Livyjr]

"Judicial conduct standard revised - State official quits Bar Association panel, saying obscure change will make it harder to discipline judges"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

ALBANY -- A quiet move by a national lawyers panel will make it harder to discipline judges, a judicial watchdog said Monday.

For 83 years, "avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," has been gospel in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, said Robert Tembeckjian.

But an American Bar Association panel looking at code revision inserted language in a remote section of the text that makes such behavior advisable -- but not mandatory.

And, said Tembeckjian, chief counsel of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, nobody knows about it, least of all the 500-plus delegates who will vote on it next week in Miami.

"You'd need the equivalent of a literary GPS to figure out this road map," said Tembeckjian, who resigned the ABA advisory committee to protest what he considers to be a dilution of standards.

"Judges are public officials, performing a unique and vital role in our constitutional democracy."

"Their independence and integrity must be beyond reproach for the public to have faith in the administration of justice."

E. Stewart Jones, who represented Spargo during much of his fight to retain his judgeship, said the rule change would allow judges to exercise discretion, without concern that everything they do subjects them to discipline.

"Currently, there is no allowance for areas of gray," Jones said.

"And Mr. Tembeckjian sees everything in black and white."

"For a long time it was sacrosanct judges could do as they please."

"Now the pendulum has swung too far to the other side."

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20050704/202/1472

"Surrogate's Court And Why It Should Go"

by Gary Tilzer

04 Jul 2005

Last week, Brooklyn Surrogate's Court Judge Michael Feinberg was removed from the bench because he committed misconduct by improperly awarding nearly $9 million in fees to attorney Louis R. Rosenthal, his long-time friend.

The fees in question were taken from the estates of Brooklyn's dead, their widows and orphans.

In a unanimous decision, the state's highest court upheld Feinberg's ouster by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and ruled that his actions "debased his office and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."

Feinberg never denied he gave the money to his friend -- in fact he freely admits he did -- but said the payments were justified and in keeping with long-time practice in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court.

Surrogate Feinberg was among a small group of judges, lawyers and politicians who make their living from a court that for over 100 years has been at the center of judicial, legal and political corruption in New York City.

Yet it has survived many attempts to eliminate it.

If anything, today's politicians are more shameless than ever.

On June 24, the entire New York State government acted to ensure that the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court will continue to benefit politicians and politically connected lawyers.

In the middle of the night, both houses of the legislature passed a bill to create 21 new judgeships throughout the state -- including a second Surrogate's Court judge in Brooklyn.

The bill was submitted by Governor George Pataki and passed later the same day -- without any hearings or public discussion.

Since the law will take effect August 1, after the filing date for the September primary, Brooklyn's political leaders -- the very same people who selected Feinberg -- will get to choose another judge.

This latest episode and the disclosure of Feinberg's abuses should serve as an impetus finally to eliminate the court that Senator Robert Kennedy called "a political toll booth exacting tribute from widows and orphans."

Once informally known as "the widows and orphans court," the Surrogate's Court handles estates from people who die without a proper will.

In doing this, it funnels millions of dollars a year to lawyers who serve as guardians.

The prospect of appointing lucrative guardianships has motivated generation after generation of machine politicians and establishment lawyers to capture a Surrogate spot for one of their trusted judges, who then spreads the largesse among the party faithful.

Often the fees they charge eat up substantial assets.

For example, reclusive tobacco heiress Doris Duke, who died in 1993, wanted her estate of $1.2 billion to go toward the improvement of humanity.

But a dispute over the estate in Manhattan Surrogate's Court became what one lawyer called the "world series of litigation," with big name law firms vying for a piece of the pie.

The political establishment and media seem to have lost past generations' moral outrage at the corruption there.

Even the well-informed tend to see Surrogate Feinberg's misconduct and other similar incidents as isolated problems.

This year three candidates are vying for a rare open seat on Manhattan Surrogate's Court, but the campaign has not featured any debate over the way the court works.

A CULTURE OF PATRONAGE AND SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION

Earlier this year, political consultant Norman Adler told the New York Observer that politicians cherish the court for "the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks:

That's where the money is."

And the well-connected ones get it.

"The courts are so political that almost nothing is decided purely on the merits," wrote the late journalist Jack Newfield in 2001, one of the few consistently outraged critics of the court.

The examples establish a clear pattern.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct found that the attorney-friend appointed by Surrogate Feinberg was so entrenched that he prepared the Surrogate's decisions on fees awarded to attorneys in the form of Post-it notes.

Between 1997 and 2001, according to Newfield, the law firm of Queens Democratic Party leader Tom Manton received more than $400,000 in court patronage.

In 1987 a government investigation accused the Public Administrator for Manhattan Surrogate Renee Roth of using the court as a racketeering enterprise.

The administrator resigned after he was accused of stealing $1 million from three clients.

And a 1998 bar association report found that about two-thirds of Roth's guardianship appointments went to campaign contributors or to lawyers who worked for firms that contributed.

Some of the abuses have been even more blatant.

In 1987, Surrogate's Court investigators were captured on videotape stealing valuables from the apartments of the deceased; they had been hired to inventory the property.

The state regulates all aspects of Surrogate's Court -- except the public administrator that every Surrogate's Court judge appoints, who is under the city's purview.

This dual control has provided a convenient way out for auditors.

In 2002, the Daily News reported that, during his eight-year tenure, State Comptroller Carl McCall never audited the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court's Public Administrator.

McCall's office insisted he never took a look because then-city Comptroller Alan Hevesi was already auditing the Brooklyn court.

Hevesi did -- but never discovered that Judge Michael Feinberg was awarding excessive fees without proper documentation to his friend Louis Rosenthal.

The problems with Surrogate's Court go beyond individual instances of corruption; they are systemic.

UNNECESSARY AND INVULNERABLE

There is absolutely no reason to maintain a separate Surrogate's Court.

Under the New York State Constitution, the State Supreme Court already shares jurisdiction on anything the Surrogate's Court might handle -- estates, appointments of guardians and conservators, and adoptions.

And so, abolishing the Surrogate would not leave a sudden void in our judicial system.

In Supreme Court and Family Court, cases are randomly assigned to a stable of judges.

But there is only one Surrogate each for Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.

Manhattan has two, and now so will Brooklyn.

Putting the management of millions of dollars in assets under the purview of just one or two judges creates a recipe for patronage and corruption.

Abolishing the court, and dispersing its functions and cases among the many Supreme Court and Family Court judges in each county would go a long way toward breaking up the patronage mill.

But because of the big money involved and the powerful people who benefit from the court, every attempt to abolish or reform it in the past has ended in failure.

EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE COURT

In the 1930s, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia called Surrogate's Court "the most expensive undertaking establishment in the world."

He believed it was control of the Surrogate's Court of New York County, more than any other factor, that kept the Tammany Hall political machine alive through the lean years when he deprived it of city jobs and President Franklin Roosevelt denied it federal jobs.

In 1938, the New York Bar Association called for the merger of the Surrogate's Court and the Supreme Court to eliminate corruption.

In 1948, the Americans for Democratic Action called for a legislative campaign to reduce the patronage in the Surrogate Court.

In the 1950s a commission put together to end the abuses of Tammany Hall urged the elimination of the Surrogate's Court by merging its functions with the Supreme Court.

These recommendations came to naught.

The movement to abolish the court reached its peak in the 1960s.

Citizens Union urged the system of appointing special guardians be abolished and replaced by a staff of salaried public officials who could act for minors, widows and incompetents.

Robert Kennedy endorsed this idea, saying the salaried public guardians "would eliminate patronage from the Surrogate's Courts and dry up a major source of sustenance for the worst elements in our political parties."

But, almost as soon as Kennedy made the proposal, representatives of the bar association and many of the city's Surrogate judges attacked it.

And the senior Manhattan surrogate at the time, Samuel DiFalco, who had been elected with the help of the Manhattan Democratic machine, blocked reforms.

Ironically, calls for the elimination of the Surrogate's Court disappeared as reformers assumed power in the city.

In 1977, Edward Koch ran for mayor, attacking the Democratic machine.

Soon after his election, though, Koch did what most reform politicians do after defeating a machine: make a deal with it.

Though Koch set up panels to screen candidates for judgeships, presumably based on merit, as time went on, the erstwhile reformers became more and more dependent on contributions and support from the machine politicians and the law firms that benefit from Surrogate patronage.

Since then, Koch himself – along with other prominent politicians, including former Governor Mario Cuomo -- has been the beneficiary of the Surrogate's Court.

Koch, for example, received $77,000 for a guardianship in 2001 and 2002, according to the New York Observer.

"I'm on the list of people who are qualified," Koch told the Observer.

"They're very careful to prevent [the court] from being used as a trough."

Today, every candidate who runs for Surrogate pledges to make "reforms" and end the court's patronage.

Once elected, they do nothing.

This is so widespread that it hardly even counts as irony that a New York Times editorial in 1996 endorsed the now-fired Surrogate Feinberg with the words:

"Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place is run, down to keeping the office open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public."

THE BROOKLYN COURT

With Feinberg's removal, people interested in running for his seat will have two weeks to try to collect the 4,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

If two or more candidates qualify as Democratic candidates, there would be a primary contest for Feinberg's seat.

But this would not be the case for the second Surrogate's post the state government created last month.

Even veteran political observers were astounded by the addition of a second Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn in the middle of the removal process for the current Surrogate -- without giving citizens the right to vote in a primary.

That's right, there will be no primary for the new position.

Albany in effect gave Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman a big role in picking who will select the new Surrogate for that borough.

Norman awaits trial for extorting money from past judicial candidates and supported Feinberg for Surrogate's Court in 1998.

And whomever Norman and his cronies choose is virtually guaranteed to win the November general election, and serve 14 years before they have to run again.

The only chance of derailing this seems to lie in Washington.

Because Brooklyn comes under the federal voting rights act, the plan for a second Surrogate's judge might need Justice Department approval.

Ten years before Feinberg's removal, the same State Commission on Judicial Conduct that removed him censured his predecessor, Bernard Bloom.

Bloom's censure was one step short of removal.

Then the political machine that picked Bloom selected Feinberg.

Now that very same machine that chose the two discredited judges is likely to select at least one—and perhaps two - more Surrogates.

In setting the stage for this, Albany once again has provided evidence that, in a legislature where almost every incumbent gets re-elected, there are no consequences for taking the low road.

The government's action also sends the message that politics still trumps justice in New York.

Gary Tilzer is a political consultant whose articles have appeared in the New York Sun, the Village Voice and other local publications.

Editor's Note 8/9/05: Gary Tilzer began work June 30th, 2005 on the campaign of Margarita Lopez Torres, a candidate to replace Feinberg as Brooklyn Surrogate's Court Judge

http://www.gothamgazette.com/print/1472

[Livyjr]

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Memorandum

TO: Director Wayne Brewer, Environmental Conservation Police

FROM: Captain E.T. Washburn, Environmental Conservation Police

DATE: February 13, 1998

I have assigned Lt. Paul Bernstein and ECO Karen Staniewski to investigate PLAINTIFF!

Please be advised that the Attorney general's Office has been looking into this site and are reviewing DEC Solid Waste files.

"Speaking Up for the Whistle-Blowers"

By Stephen Barr

Washington Post

Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page D01

They have job duties taken away, so they are marginalized in the office.

They get stripped of their security clearances, so they can't work.

They are blacklisted, so they can't find employment.

They are reassigned to new locations, so they have to choose between moving or losing their jobs.

Those are typical forms of retaliation carried out against federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse at their agencies.

Yesterday, advocates for whistle-blowers urged Congress to strengthen protections for federal employees who suffer reprisal in the workplace.

The advocates were greeted with bipartisan support at a hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Federal employees are on the inside," Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, said.

"They see when taxpayer dollars are wasted."

"They are often the first to see the signals of corrupt or incompetent management."

"Yet without adequate protection, they cannot step forward to blow the whistle."

Waxman said the committee's bill would for the first time extend whistle-blower rights to those who work at the FBI and in intelligence agencies, and to people employed by federal contractors.

The bill would also extend protection to passenger and baggage screeners at the Transportation Security Administration and to federal scientists who report political interference with their work, he said.

Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the ranking minority member on the committee, said the bill would clarify congressional intent as to what type of whistle-blowing is protected.

He said "the most significant reform" in the bill would guarantee federal employees a right to a jury trial in federal district court if the Merit Systems Protection Board, a federal agency that hears complaints from whistle-blowers, did not take action on a whistle-blower's claim in 180 days.

Although Congress has passed laws to protect federal employees from reprisals when they speak up, whistle-blower advocates contend that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has sole jurisdiction over federal whistle-blower cases, has interpreted the laws in a way that makes it almost impossible for federal employees to defend themselves.

At yesterday's hearing, advocates for whistle-blowers -- William G. Weaver, an associate professor at the University of Texas at El Paso; Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator with the Project on Government Oversight; Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project; and Mark Zaid, a lawyer and executive director of the James Madison Project -- testified in support of the Waxman bill.

"Whistle-blowers risk their professional survival to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust," Devine said.

"This is freedom of speech when it counts."

He cited several whistle-blowers who spoke out on vital issues of public concern, including a law enforcement officer who sought improvements in the federal air-marshal program and was then was investigated and assigned to desk duty.

Although the committee members at the hearing, including Todd R. Platts (R-Pa.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), signaled support for the bill, its prospects are uncertain.

Previous legislative efforts have faltered, largely because the Justice Department has objected to expanding whistle-blower rights.

Department officials have contended that more protection for whistle-blowers could hinder agency operations and compromise classified information.

Platts sponsored a whistle-blower bill last year that was approved by the committee on a 34 to 1 vote but did not reach the floor.

Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) moved a whistle-blower measure through the Senate as part of a defense bill, only to see it dropped during House-Senate negotiations.

Akaka, joined by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), reintroduced whistle-blower legislation in January.

The bill, which has a more limited scope that Waxman's measure, is pending before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Waxman plans to put his bill before the House committee today, if weather permits, for amendments and debate.

end quotes

HHHhhmmmm ....

Previous legislative efforts have faltered, largely because the Justice Department has objected to expanding whistle-blower rights .....

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS WRONGLY NAMED ....

A MORE SUITABLE NAME WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES PROTECTORATE OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT .....

WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ....

AS IT IS TODAY ....

THE CONCEPT OF REAL JUSTICE ....

IS A REAL JOKE ....

A REAL SICK JOKE ....

WHERE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT .....

ARE THINGS TO HUNT DOWN ....

AND CRUSH ....

TO PROTECT FRAUD AND CORRUPTION ....

AND THE POLITICALLY-CONNECTED, OF COURSE ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Judicial conduct standard revised - State official quits Bar Association panel, saying obscure change will make it harder to discipline judges"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

ALBANY -- A quiet move by a national lawyers panel will make it harder to discipline judges, a judicial watchdog said Monday.

For 83 years, "avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," has been gospel in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, said Robert Tembeckjian.

But an American Bar Association panel looking at code revision inserted language in a remote section of the text that makes such behavior advisable -- but not mandatory.

And, said Tembeckjian, chief counsel of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, nobody knows about it, least of all the 500-plus delegates who will vote on it next week in Miami.

"You'd need the equivalent of a literary GPS to figure out this road map," said Tembeckjian, who resigned the ABA advisory committee to protest what he considers to be a dilution of standards.

"Judges are public officials, performing a unique and vital role in our constitutional democracy."

"Their independence and integrity must be beyond reproach for the public to have faith in the administration of justice."

E. Stewart Jones, who represented Spargo during much of his fight to retain his judgeship, said the rule change would allow judges to exercise discretion, without concern that everything they do subjects them to discipline.

"Currently, there is no allowance for areas of gray," Jones said.

"And Mr. Tembeckjian sees everything in black and white."

"For a long time it was sacrosanct judges could do as they please."

"Now the pendulum has swung too far to the other side."

"Judges' conduct code left in place - Bar group said to drop effort aimed at revising rules governing handling of judicial improprieties"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, February 16, 2007

ALBANY -- A week after the state's top judicial watchdog resigned from a national bar group that quietly planned to dilute the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, the American Bar Association's House of Delegates has voted to leave the 83-year-old protections in place.

"Sometimes it can be productive to resign over an important principle," Robert Tembeckjian said Wednesday.

"I'm pleased with the way this worked out."

"It was a total victory, and they did the right thing."

After three years of public hearings on the issue, the chief counsel for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct said he found secretly inserted language -- just days before the vote -- that no longer made it mandatory for judges to avoid "impropriety or the appearance of impropriety."

Instead, it would simply be advisable, he said, and make it harder to discipline judges.

ABA officials who worked on the code committee have vehemently denied any subterfuge.

Local defense lawyers who support the changes said judges must be allowed to use their discretion, without constant fear of reprisal.

But once the national Conference of Chief Judges weighed in loudly against the changes last week, "the game was over," Tembeckjian said.

"The Model Code Commission had no choice but to reverse course and put the teeth back in the standard."

A statement from ABA President Karen J. Mathis said revisions that were approved this week, "provide clear guidance to judges regarding their professional and personal conduct and assure the public that effective standards exist to regulate the conduct of judges."

In New York, the code is promulgated by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, with the approval of the Court of Appeals.

More than 1,300 state judges and 2,300 town and village justices collectively handle 4 million cases a year.

[Livyjr]

"Speaking Up for the Whistle-Blowers"

By Stephen Barr

Washington Post

Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page D01

They have job duties taken away, so they are marginalized in the office.

They get stripped of their security clearances, so they can't work.

They are blacklisted, so they can't find employment.

They are reassigned to new locations, so they have to choose between moving or losing their jobs.

Those are typical forms of retaliation carried out against federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse at their agencies.

"Former Top CIA Official Indicted - Foggo Accused of Steering Contracts to GOP Fundraiser"

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A01

The CIA's former executive director and a defense contractor were indicted yesterday by a San Diego grand jury for allegedly corrupting the intelligence agency's contracts, marking one of the first criminal cases to reach into the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a longtime logistics officer who was the CIA's top administrator from November 2004 until last May, was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser.

The 11-count indictment states that Wilkes subsidized meals and lavish vacations for Foggo and his family in Washington, Hawaii and Scotland and promised to employ Foggo after his retirement from the CIA.

It also accuses Foggo -- a former ethics official in two divisions at the CIA -- of improperly providing classified information to Wilkes about the CIA, his contracting competitors and "other matters."

The indictment is the latest development in a lengthy federal criminal probe into the dark side of a budget process known as "earmarking," in which lawmakers have directed federal contracts to favored designees who were either friends or campaign contributors.

Last year the probe led to a prison sentence for one lawmaker, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- who, the government said yesterday, used two prostitutes financed by Wilkes.

While the probe has threatened to sweep in other members of Congress, some uncertainty surrounds it.

A key U.S. attorney involved in it -- Carol C. Lam in San Diego -- has been fired by the administration for unspecified "performance-related" deficiencies along with a handful of other federal prosecutors.

Lam oversaw the Foggo investigation and is to leave Thursday.

The head of the local FBI field office praised Lam's performance and said her firing appeared to be "political," an accusation that the Justice Department has denied.

The case involving Foggo is unusual because all of the contracts at issue are classified.

But the indictment makes it clear that the agency was allegedly bilked when it wound up paying 60 percent more than it should have for water supplied by a company affiliated with Wilkes to CIA outposts in Afghanistan and northern Iraq.

The evidence against Foggo included e-mails in which he promised to introduce a Wilkes subordinate to his CIA colleagues and helped arrange advance payments on a $1.69 million contract.

Even after arriving at CIA headquarters as a top appointee of then-Director Porter J. Goss, he continued to press for more rapid payments to a Wilkes-affiliated firm identified in the indictment as "Shell Company No. 1," earning Wilkes's thanks, the document states.

It formally charges the two men -- who witnesses have said periodically played poker with lawmakers and others in a rented suite at the Watergate Hotel -- with conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and money laundering.

Foggo's attorney, Mark MacDougall, said through an aide yesterday that he had no comment on the indictment.

A lawyer previously retained by Foggo, William G. Hundley, had argued that Foggo had no idea the contracts were benefiting Wilkes, but the indictment says that Foggo deliberately "concealed material facts" from his colleagues at the CIA and used "shell companies and straw men" to hide their role in the contracts.

Wilkes's attorney, Mark J. Geragos, called the indictment "unfortunate" and said "we welcome the chance to refute these accusations."

He declined to elaborate.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who replaced Goss last May, told employees in a memo yesterday that they should not talk about the matter "out of respect for the legal proceedings that are underway, and to ensure the protection of classified information and agency equities."

Hayden noted that the allegations against Foggo first surfaced inside the CIA, which he said cooperated closely with the Justice Department on the probe.

Additional legal troubles yesterday enveloped Wilkes, a Republican Party "Pioneer" who raised more than $100,000 for President Bush's reelection in 2004 and donated -- in concert with his business colleagues -- $656,396 to 64 other Republican lawmakers and the national Republican Party committees in Washington from 1995 through the third quarter of 2005.

A second 25-count indictment disclosed yesterday in San Diego alleges that Wilkes separately obtained a stream of Defense Department contracts from 1996 to 2004 by providing then-Rep. Cunningham with cash and other bribes valued at more than $700,000.

Cunningham pleaded guilty in 2005 to taking bribes worth more than $1 million from Mitchell Wade, a business associate of Wilkes, and drew an eight-year prison sentence.

But the second Wilkes indictment contains new details of how Wade and Wilkes allegedly worked together to profit from contracts and how Cunningham -- sitting on the Appropriations defense subcommittee -- browbeat defense officials on their behalf.

It said that Wilkes paid a company called Shirlington Limousine to chauffeur Cunningham around Washington.

He also allegedly financed lavish meals and vacations for Cunningham, flew him around on the company jet, bought him tickets to the Super Bowl, and paid for two prostitutes for the lawmaker on Aug. 15 and 16, 2003, at the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel in Hawaii.

"Pursuant to Cunningham's request," the indictment states, "Wilkes arranged for the Congressman to get a different prostitute for the second evening."

Staff writer Dan Eggen and staff researchers Madonna Lebling and Rena Kirsch contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Former Top CIA Official Indicted - Foggo Accused of Steering Contracts to GOP Fundraiser"

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A01

The CIA's former executive director and a defense contractor were indicted yesterday by a San Diego grand jury for allegedly corrupting the intelligence agency's contracts, marking one of the first criminal cases to reach into the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a longtime logistics officer who was the CIA's top administrator from November 2004 until last May, was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser.

The 11-count indictment states that Wilkes subsidized meals and lavish vacations for Foggo and his family in Washington, Hawaii and Scotland and promised to employ Foggo after his retirement from the CIA.

It also accuses Foggo -- a former ethics official in two divisions at the CIA -- of improperly providing classified information to Wilkes about the CIA, his contracting competitors and "other matters."

The indictment is the latest development in a lengthy federal criminal probe into the dark side of a budget process known as "earmarking," in which lawmakers have directed federal contracts to favored designees who were either friends or campaign contributors.

Last year the probe led to a prison sentence for one lawmaker, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- who, the government said yesterday, used two prostitutes financed by Wilkes.

While the probe has threatened to sweep in other members of Congress, some uncertainty surrounds it.

A key U.S. attorney involved in it -- Carol C. Lam in San Diego -- has been fired by the administration for unspecified "performance-related" deficiencies along with a handful of other federal prosecutors.

Lam oversaw the Foggo investigation and is to leave Thursday.

The head of the local FBI field office praised Lam's performance and said her firing appeared to be "political," an accusation that the Justice Department has denied.

HHHhhmmmm ....

Previous legislative efforts have faltered, largely because the Justice Department has objected to expanding whistle-blower rights .....

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS WRONGLY NAMED ....

A MORE SUITABLE NAME WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES PROTECTORATE OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT .....

WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ....

AS IT IS TODAY ....

THE CONCEPT OF REAL JUSTICE ....

IS A REAL JOKE ....

A REAL SICK JOKE ....

WHERE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT .....

ARE THINGS TO HUNT DOWN ....

AND CRUSH ....

TO PROTECT FRAUD AND CORRUPTION ....

AND THE POLITICALLY-CONNECTED, OF COURSE ....

And so ....

"Prosecutor roulette - As more U.S. attorneys are fired, the specter of a political spoils system is unmistakable"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, February 11, 2007

By tradition, U.S. attorneys are confirmed by the Senate and serve throughout the term of the sitting president.

But under a change in the law, they can now be appointed by the attorney general -- indefinitely -- without Senate approval, and without showing serious cause for removing the incumbent.

This shocking change in the appointment process has come to light thanks to hearings called by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who suspects the Bush administration has been firing U.S. attorneys either for patronage reasons or because they have pursued politically sensitive investigations.

So far, seven federal prosecutors have been removed or told to step aside.

In the most recent firing, U.S. Attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., says he was asked to step aside to make room for an appointee who had once worked for presidential adviser Karl Rove.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty denied that politics played any role in Mr. Cummins' removal, claiming that his successor had more prosecutorial experience.

Sen. Schumer wisely warned Mr. McNulty that the Judiciary Committee will subpoena job evaluations of the fired prosecutors if the Justice Department refuses to turn them over voluntarily.

In another case, U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was removed from her post in San Diego in what some critics believe was White House retaliation for her aggressive pursuit, and conviction, of former Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham of California.

Mr. McNulty denied there was any payback involved, but without far more detail, including records of job performance appraisals, senators should remain skeptical.

Until now, the Justice Department had to prove real cause for removal, to ensure that the process was based on merit and not politics.

Federal prosecutors, after all, have broad powers to investigate, or not, and those decisions should be based on the facts, regardless of political affiliations.

But now it turns out that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can replace federal prosecutors at will, under powers given to his office in a little noticed section of the USA Patriot Act.

And from all appearances, Mr. Gonzales is taking full advantage of that provision.

Some Democrats in the Senate and the House are now proposing to change the law and replace it with a requirement that district courts, not the Justice Department, appoint interim prosecutors.

That's the least Congress should do.

Had it done its job in the first place, and carefully scrutinized the Patriot Act, there's a good chance this prosecutorial power grab would never have succeeded.

[Livyjr]

"Municipal court reforms sought - Bar association president advocates for requiring town, village justices to be lawyers"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007

ALBANY -- Legislation requiring the state's 2,300 town and village justices to be lawyers would preserve the court system's integrity, the president of the state bar association said Monday.

Currently, only 28 percent are lawyers, said Mark Alcott, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The public hearing followed a state comptroller's audit last fall that revealed missing money and other problems, and newspaper stories on the often poorly trained, but politically connected, judges.

I am finding that people up here in New York State are indeed in favor of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to OUR New York State CONSTITUTION .....

WE WOULD AMEND THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT MANDATORY .....

THAT LAWYERS ....

WHO PRESENT FALSE EVIDENCE IN COURT .....

OR FALSE TESTIMONY .....

AS DID DEPUTY RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RICHARD MCNALLY IN THIS MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE .....

WOULD DO MANDATORY JAIL TIME .....

THREE DAYS AT THE START WOULD DO ....

WITH AN ESCALATING PENALTY FROM THERE FOR REPEAT OFFENSES .....

WE WOULD FURTHER AMEND OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

TO KEEP PRACTICING ATTORNEYS OUT OF OUR TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS .....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A LAWYER .....

BE A LAWYER ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A CROOKED LAWYER ....

YOU GO TO JAIL ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A JUDGE ....

YOU CANNOT HAVE "CLIENTS" .....

AND IT IS NOT SACROSANCT .....

THAT A JUDGE CAN DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WANTS TO .....

THAT IS A BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN CRAP .....

THE OLD WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IN RENSSELAER COUNTY ...

AND NEW YORK STATE ....

WHERE JUDGES WERE NOTORIOUS FOR BEING FOR SALE ....

WHICH IS WHAT F. STEWART JONES OF RENSSELAER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

WANTS TO BRING THINGS BACK TO .....

A GOLDEN AGE FOR CROOKED LAWYERS .....

AND THE PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEM ON .....

AND CAN PAY THEM THOSE BIG BUCKS ....

THAT KEEP THE LAWYERS LIVING IN STYLE ....

LIKE RATS IN A FARMER'S CORN CRIB ....

OR WEEVILS IN THE FLOUR BIN ....

And so ....

"U.S. Supreme Court To Review NY Court Case"

February 20, 2007 at 11:31 am by Jay Jochnowitz, State Editor, Albany, New York Times Union

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review the case over whether New York’s process for nominating Supreme Court justices is legal.

The case centers on the use of judicial nominating conventions, where delegates, chosen by voters, select candidates who appear on the ballot.

In practice, the nominees are picked by leaders of the two major parties, who typically cross-endorse the candidates, leaving delegates, and voters, with no real choice.

The case, spearheaded by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School against the state Board of Elections, has already gone through two federal courts, which concluded that the system violates the state Constitution’s requirement that voters select nominees for the Supreme Court bench.

The review by the nation’s top court isn’t expected to come until this fall, which would most likely mean previous decisions would be on hold and any judgeships that are up this year will be done the old-fashioned, back room way.

Some — including Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the state bar association — have suggested the convention system and judicial election should be scrapped in favor of a merit-based selection process.

That, however, requires a constitutional change, which needs approval by two separately-elected state Legislatures and by voters, which would take at least until 2009, so the soonest the system could be “fixed” would be 2010.

Others favor a more open, truly democratic process that keeps the decision with voters while allowing candidates a fair shot at running.

The Brennan Center has a Web page with previous decisions, court papers and other background.

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=3806

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Feb 20 2007, 05:17 PM

[Livyjr]

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 04-473. 

Argued October 12, 2005--Reargued March 21, 2006--Decided May 30, 2006

[When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

("[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign").

Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees' words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.

Cf. Connick, supra, at 143

("[G]overnment offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter").

Public employees, moreover, often occupy trusted positions in society.

When they speak out, they can express views that contravene governmental policies or impair the proper performance of governmental functions.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...mp;invol=04-473

"Court: Public workers have no right to union aid when disciplined"

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:12 p.m., Tuesday, February 20, 2007

ALBANY -- Public employees don't have the same union rights as private sector workers when facing possible disciplinary action, the New York's highest court ruled Tuesday.

The Court of Appeals said a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision giving private sector employees the right to have union assistance during "investigatory interviews" does not apply to public employees in New York because of differences between the National Labor Relations Act and the state law governing public employees, the Taylor Law.

The differences in the laws are "not mere random variations," Judge Robert Smith wrote for the majority in the 4-2 decision.

He noted that subsequent bills in the Legislature show that lawmakers did not believe any such protections existed.

In April 2001, New York City Transit Authority car inspector Igor Komarnitskiy was accused of refusing to show his identification card to a guard at a security gate and of using a racial slur against the guard, identified in court papers as M. Kalyazhikina.

Both were members of the Transport Workers Union.

Komarnitskiy, who speaks English as a second language, met with a union representative to prepare a statement about the incident, but the Transit Authority required him to fill out a second form without any help from union representatives.

The union filed a case against the authority with the Public Employment Relations Board.

An administrative law judge, the PERB and a midlevel appeals court all sided with Komarnitskiy.

"For the court to say a public employee is not entitled to union representation is really shocking in this day and age," said William Herbert, a lawyer with the public employee union CSEA.

He said his organization may lobby legislators to change the law.

"Certainly in light of this decision, a legislative option is something that is on the table," he said.

"It's something that needs to be examined carefully."

Daniel DeFedericis, president of the union representing state troopers, said the ruling is a blow to all public employees.

"The concern is if an employee is accused of wrongdoing, he or she will not be afforded union representation when questioned by superiors," he said.

"It's a very American idea."

"If you're accused of something you can't be cornered in a dark room alone."

--------

On the Net:

Court of Appeals decision: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decis...eb07/5opn07.pdf