MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of January 12, 2014, we've received over 137,725 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Thursday, September 4, 2008

More Make-Believe from Commission on Judicial Conduct

One NY Judge Resigns, Another Disciplined Over Misconduct
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - September 4, 2008

A town court justice has resigned and another has been admonished following separate investigations by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission said Jewett Town Justice Rebecca McGowan resigned as of July 31 for misconduct that included dismissing two dog control charges against her brother-in-law. She was also accused of failing to disqualify herself in several other cases involving friends or family members and of failing to deposit court funds within the prescribed three-day period after receipt, the commission contended. A non-lawyer, Ms. McGowan had been a town justice since 2005.

The commission also announced yesterday that Cairo Town Justice Thomas W. Baldwin has been admonished for allowing "significant" delays in three small claims cases, including one matter in which he did not issue a decision, apparently because the file in the case had been lost. Mr. Baldwin, who is also not an attorney, has been a town justice since 1982.Both Jewett and Cairo are in Greene County.

10 comments:

nyc bar member said...

why doesn't the alleged Commission on Judicial Conduct go after the well known bad actors in the Supreme Courts & Surrogate's Court? Stop fooling around with these one horse Judges, stop conning the public. The Judges in the City and Metro area is where to start looking. You'll find plenty to keep everyone busy for a long time or is that what you creeps are afraid of - finding too much corruption it wouldn't look good.

Anonymous said...

This might be funny, if it weren't so sad. They discipline judges for dog offenses? If this were the most serious issues they had to address, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Anonymous said...

The CJC only invesigates the town and justice courts...because they are the easiest and shortest levels of exertion for them, and thus leaves them more time to play footsy with each...and I am not kidding!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Casella:

Referencing your letter of October 6, 2005 requesting specific factual information pertaining to the above referenced Complaint, Complainant states as follows:
BACKGROUND
That from September 1, 2001 Complainant and his family took up residence at Four Ward Street, Brewster, N.Y. 10580, a convertible three bedroom single family home and premises upon information and belief owned by Joseph A. Luciano (“Luciano”), as lessees under a one year lease expiring on August 31, 2002.
That on or about May 2003, Luciano offered Complainant a new one year lease from September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2003 (“Lease”), that at this time contained a paragraph nine (9) to a rider to the Lease, at the discretion of lessee, “Tenant has first option for a new lease on unit (‘Option Clause’)” and that at this time contained a holdover period of six months (i.e., Complainant’s authorized occupancy, when he exercised the unilateral option on September 1, 2003, extends to March 1, 2005).
That Complainant suffered the loss of his then 38 year old wife to breast cancer in December 2003 and was left with providing sole parental support for a then seventeen month old baby boy (“Baby Stephen”).
That, in or about May 2004, Complainant and Luciano entered into a dispute surrounding Complainant’s contracting for an Au Pair that would reside in the convertible third bedroom to care for Baby Stephen so that Complainant may resume his career and provide support for Baby Stephen.
1. That Respondent violated DR 1-103 [NYCRR §1200.4] Disclosure of Information to Authorities in that Respondent possessed knowledge, (1) not protected as a confidence or secret, or (2) not gained in the lawyer’s capacity as a member of a bona fide lawyer assistance or similar program or committee, of a violation of DR 1-102 [NYCRR 1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to another lawyer’s, Albert A. Capellini’s, honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer and failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
That Complainant, a recent widower providing the sole parental support for Baby Stephen, continued his occupancy pursuant to the Lease and was served with a Petition – Hold Over Dwelling by Respondent, who upon information and belief was briefed and counseled by Albert A. Capellini (“Capellini”) without Respondent or Capellini even considering prior case law and controlling authority (see case law and authority below) in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease.
2. That Respondent violated DR 7-102 [NYCRR §1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law in the representation of Joseph A. Luciano (”Luciano”) wherein Respondent:
a. Asserted a position on behalf of Luciano when Respondent knew or when it was obvious that such action would serve merely to constitute the abuse of process against Complainant;
That Respondent, in a Notice to Quit Premises letter (“2nd Notice”) dated June 21, 2004 feinting a month to month tenancy and advising of the termination of the feinted month to month tenancy while threatening a holdover proceeding for immediate eviction and upon information and belief drafted by Respondent and caused to be disseminated by Respondent, failed to even consider, inter alia, Rausch’s Landlord and Tenant, page 473, § 11:2 that states “[W]here a tenant is given a right to renew the lease in general terms…the terms and conditions of the original lease are definite, and those terms and conditions govern the renewal term by implication,” in determining its effect of the Option Clause on the Lease; at this time, Complainant’s, a recent widower and the sole means of sole parental support for Baby Stephen, authorized use of the premises had more than 8 months until expiration.
That Respondent, in a Petition – Holdover Dwelling (“Petition”) dated August 25, 2004 feinting expiration of the Lease and expiration of the holdover period, failed to even consider, inter alia, Clark v. Caldwell 521 N.Y.S. 2d 851, 132 A.D. 2nd 171, that held, “an option is an absolute and unconditional promise to sell [in this case lease] at a certain determinable price within a period of time and is a unilateral contract that optionee completes by accepting,” in determining its effect of the Option Clause on the Lease; at this time, Complainant’s, a recent widower and the sole means of sole parental support for Baby Stephen, authorized use of the premises had more than 6 months until expiration.
b. Knowingly committed the abuse of process by advancing a position unwarranted under existing law, and without a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
That Respondent, in a Petition – Holdover Dwelling (“Petition”) dated August 25, 2004 feinting expiration of the Lease and expiration of the holdover period, failed to even consider, inter alia, Clark v. Caldwell 521 N.Y.S. 2d 851, 132 A.D. 2nd 171, that held, “an option is an absolute and unconditional promise to sell [in this case lease] at a certain determinable price within a period of time and is a unilateral contract that optionee completes by accepting,” in determining its effect of the Option Clause on the Lease; at this time, Complainant’s, a recent widower and the sole means of sole parental support for Baby Stephen, authorized use of the premises had more than 6 months until expiration.
That Respondent in the Petition failed to even consider, inter alia, Rausch’s Landlord and Tenant, page 473, § 11:2 that states “[W]here a tenant is given a right to renew the lease in general terms…the terms and conditions of the original lease are definite, and those terms and conditions govern the renewal term by implication,” in determining its effect of the Option Clause on the Lease; at this time, Complainant’s, a recent widower and the sole means of sole parental support for Baby Stephen, authorized use of the premises had more than 6 months until expiration.
c. Concealed or knowingly fail to disclose that which Respondent is required by law to reveal;
That by failing to avail himself of prior case law and controlling authority in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease, Respondent concealed or knowingly failed to disclose that which Respondent is required by law to reveal, the citings adverse to the position of Luciano
d. Knowingly made a false statement of fact;
That by failing to avail himself of prior case law and controlling authority in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease, Respondent’s feints of expiration of the Lease and expiration of the holdover period in the Petition, Respondent knowingly made false statements of fact, when considering the citings adverse to the position of Luciano
That, moreover, throughout the proceedings of the Petition, Respondent traversed from tall tales of “hold over without authorization of Luciano” to, upon information and belief, “no, it’s not hold over, we just want to renovate and sell the property,” to finally admitting the fact that the now frivolous proceedings brought by Respondent concerned a question of law – the meaning of “Tenant has first option for a new lease on unit.”
e. Counseled and assisted Luciano in conduct that the Respondent knew to be illegal, the abuse of process against Complainant;
That by failing to avail himself of prior case law and controlling authority in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease, Respondent’s feints of expiration of the Lease and expiration of the holdover period in the Petition to, upon information and belief, “no, it’s not hold over, we just want to renovate and sell the property,” to finally admitting the fact that the now frivolous proceedings brought by Respondent concerned a question of law – the meaning of “Tenant has first option for a new lease on unit,” Respondent knowingly conducted himself in a fraudulent manner, when considering the citings adverse to the position of Luciano.
f. Knowingly engaged in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule;
See 3 and 4 below.
3. That Respondent violated DR 7-104 [NYCRR §1200.35] Communicating with Represented and Unrepresented Parties in that during the course of the representation of Luciano, Respondent:
g. Gave advice to Complainant, who was not represented by a lawyer.
That at the commencement of the proceedings of the Petition, Complainant filed a Motion for Continuance to Answer and Retain Counsel. That, moreover, when not represented by counsel, Respondent “button-holed” Complainant outside the courthouse before the Motion hearing and advised that “it is in your best interest to pay the month of August 2004 rent since returned to you, or else I will tell the Judge to proceed,” or words to that effect. That, furthermore, not represented by counsel, Complainant paid the August 2004 rent as a result of the threat of Respondent, an act which severely jeopardized the case of Complainant and forced him into an out of court settlement of the proceedings.
4. That Respondent violated DR 7-106 [NYCRR §1200.37] Trial Conduct in that Respondent:
a. Failed to disclose controlling legal authority known to Respondent to be directly adverse to the position of Luciano in Respondent’s abuse of process;
That by failing to avail himself of prior case law and controlling authority in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease, Respondent concealed or knowingly failed to disclose that which Respondent is required by law to reveal, the citings adverse to the position of Luciano.
b. Stated or alluded to any matter that Respondent had no reasonable basis to believe that such statement will not be supported by admissible evidence in Respondent’s abuse of process.
That by failing to avail himself of prior case law and controlling authority in determining the effect of the Option Clause on the Lease, Respondent’s feints of expiration of the Lease and expiration of the holdover period in the Petition to, upon information and belief, “no, it’s not hold over, we just want to renovate and sell the property,” to finally admitting the fact that the now frivolous proceedings brought by Respondent concerned a question of law – the meaning of “Tenant has first option for a new lease on unit,” Respondent knowingly conducted himself in a fraudulent manner, when considering the citings adverse to the position of Luciano.

In summary, Mr. Casella, the strong-armed tactics, in diametric opposition to current case law and controlling authority, of Respondent as well as his self-aggrandizement as a “big fish in a small pond” serve as a mockery to the profession. Wherefore, Complainant, who has no professional or personal experience in “small ponds,” demands discipline, whether by admonishment, reprimand, suspension, resignation, or disbarment, against Respondent.

Anonymous said...

The above complaint was filed against Justice Denis J. Timone of Somers, N.Y. and summarily "whitewashed" by the 2nd DDC.

victim said...

Complaints were filed at the CJC against Judge Doris Ling-Cohan, who previously sat at 80 Centre Street and now sits at 60 Centre Street in NYC, and Judge William O'Brien who sits at 99 Main Street in Hempstead, N.Y., both of my complaints were dismissed. The above listed Judges both need to be sitting in the next JAIL HOUSE, not Courthouse. In addition to the above listed Judges, I tried to file a complaint against a Judge who sits at the U.S.D.C.S.D.N.Y., Acting Chief Judge Loretta Preska with the NYC Regional Office of the Inspector General and was told to hold off my complaint against her.

Anonymous said...

It is more than evident that the United States of America's judicial watchdog, of sorts, is protecting the American judiciary from any type of accountability!
The correctable move now, is to have as many American citizens storm the offices of the CJC, ATTY GENERAL IN THEIR OWN STATE, THE DOJ AND THE PRESIDENT OF OUR CORRUPT UNITED STATES!
The only method of cleaning up our alleged democratic life, is to have citizens take over the way we conduct business!
Politicians will never help with judicial corruption, because the judiciary embedded it's illegal and don't touch behavior many years before it was manifested to us.... the poor taxpayers. It is not politically advisable to address this issue...as any politician, if you choose to remain potent in that career!
I was alerted to the judicial corruption in the 80's, but that was too late , as I see now!
Massive groups of Americans will get noticed and lots of action...I guarantee!

the sleuth said...

the peasants must learn that they must not file complaints against the ruling class - ATTORNEYS. The various permutations of the CJC in any form are in place to do nothing by covering up and are really just there to make the peasents fell good!

westchester co. resident said...

several years ago I filed a complaint with evidence against an individual who is a sitting Judge here in Westchester. After some time (almost 9 months) and not hearing anything I again wrote and called only to be told that all my documents were lost and I should send everything again. Which I did and them more time went by - over 18 months - I again contacted them and was told they were still working on it. That was over 2 years ago, I'm still waiting for an answer! I got theroyal jerk around. These criminals are all protected. If I saw this bum on the street or at a social function I would spit on him. He works for me, I don't work for him!

Anonymous said...

I would spit on them also. A good friend of mine who is a cop told me that all the Judges have carry permits because they're all afraid. When they sit up on the bench they're all big shots fixing everything. The reality is they're big pussies, they're nothing. Let everyone Spit on ALL OF THEM, they're nothing.

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2