The following is a New York Times Op-Ed by Robert H. Tembbeckjian, Chief Counsel of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, published on May 22, 2005:
How Judges Hide From Justice
By ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN
Published: May 22, 2005 New York Times
In the last three months, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has publicly disciplined four metropolitan-area judges: two from Brooklyn, one from Manhattan and one from Westchester. Apart from some intense public commentary over the merits of these decisions - three public censures and one removal from office - these cases had at least one thing in common. They were all conducted in secret. That should be changed. Judges are among the most powerful of public servants. They decide who goes to jail, who wins or loses millions of dollars and who gets custody of children. Public confidence in their integrity and impartiality is essential to the rule of law. While a vast majority of judges are honorable, there will always be some who engage in unethical behavior. Disciplining such judges is important business that should be transacted in public, just as any civil or criminal trial would be. In 38 states, judicial misconduct hearings are indeed open to the public. Not so in New York, where proceedings that stretch over months are held behind closed doors. Only when the results are announced does the public even learn such cases existed. By then, it is usually too late to convey in a meaningful way the strength of the case, the credibility of the witnesses and the merits of the defense. The four recent decisions in New York offer cases in point. The commission voted to remove a Surrogate's Court judge in Brooklyn for awarding a long-time friend millions of dollars in fees from estates where there was no executor, without confirming that he had done enough work to earn such fees. The judge is appealing the decision.
The commission censured a Westchester Family Court judge who attempted to influence other judges and court workers on behalf of friends in two divorce and custody cases, and who testified in a manner she conceded was inaccurate. It also censured a Brooklyn Criminal Court judge for coming off the bench in unprovoked anger and grabbing and screaming at a defense lawyer. Finally, it censured a Manhattan Civil Court judge for presiding over a personal injury case involving a litigant who was also a lawyer with whom she continued to socialize, and to whom she awarded a fiduciary appointment worth about $80,000 in fees, while the case was pending. Reasonable people may differ with these decisions. As the prosecutor of judicial misconduct cases in New York, I myself am sometimes at odds with the commission. Yet while some criticized the removal as severe, and others derided the censures as lenient, most tended to miss the context and nuance of the deliberations. The subtleties of an individual disciplinary decision tend to get short shrift in the news. Were the press and public able to follow along as these cases unfolded, the disciplinary process would not seem so sudden and mysterious, and citizens would be better informed along the way. For example, the case against the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court judge lasted 22 months, and the record was over 13,000 pages long. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the complexities of such a proceeding in a single article that reported the final result.
New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, proposed legislation in 2003, which the commission endorsed, to open up the disciplinary process at the point when a judge is formally charged with misconduct. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not act. Perhaps the commission's recent decisions might spur the Senate and Assembly to revisit the issue. The more citizens know about what goes on at the commission, the more likely they will appreciate that no case is as cut and dried as a critic may suggest. The press and public could follow the arguments as they develop, rather than try to digest them all at once when the decisions are rendered. Moreover, an open proceeding would shed important light on the rare instance in which a formal charge against a judge is dismissed without any disciplinary action. It would provide the public with the means to assess that a dismissal was deserved and the system was honest. In short, a public process would transform judicial discipline from a secretive game to one in which the commission's judgments were open to scrutiny and improvement as we went along, while there was time enough to make a difference. Public confidence in the judiciary, and in the disciplinary system that holds them accountable, requires nothing less. Robert H. Tembeckjian is administrator of and counsel to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The commission censured a Westchester Family Court judge who attempted to influence other judges and court workers on behalf of friends in two divorce and custody cases, and who testified in a manner she conceded was inaccurate. It also censured a Brooklyn Criminal Court judge for coming off the bench in unprovoked anger and grabbing and screaming at a defense lawyer. Finally, it censured a Manhattan Civil Court judge for presiding over a personal injury case involving a litigant who was also a lawyer with whom she continued to socialize, and to whom she awarded a fiduciary appointment worth about $80,000 in fees, while the case was pending. Reasonable people may differ with these decisions. As the prosecutor of judicial misconduct cases in New York, I myself am sometimes at odds with the commission. Yet while some criticized the removal as severe, and others derided the censures as lenient, most tended to miss the context and nuance of the deliberations. The subtleties of an individual disciplinary decision tend to get short shrift in the news. Were the press and public able to follow along as these cases unfolded, the disciplinary process would not seem so sudden and mysterious, and citizens would be better informed along the way. For example, the case against the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court judge lasted 22 months, and the record was over 13,000 pages long. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the complexities of such a proceeding in a single article that reported the final result.
New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, proposed legislation in 2003, which the commission endorsed, to open up the disciplinary process at the point when a judge is formally charged with misconduct. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not act. Perhaps the commission's recent decisions might spur the Senate and Assembly to revisit the issue. The more citizens know about what goes on at the commission, the more likely they will appreciate that no case is as cut and dried as a critic may suggest. The press and public could follow the arguments as they develop, rather than try to digest them all at once when the decisions are rendered. Moreover, an open proceeding would shed important light on the rare instance in which a formal charge against a judge is dismissed without any disciplinary action. It would provide the public with the means to assess that a dismissal was deserved and the system was honest. In short, a public process would transform judicial discipline from a secretive game to one in which the commission's judgments were open to scrutiny and improvement as we went along, while there was time enough to make a difference. Public confidence in the judiciary, and in the disciplinary system that holds them accountable, requires nothing less. Robert H. Tembeckjian is administrator of and counsel to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Posts
25 comments:
While I believe Robert Tembeckjian belongs in jail, he should be offered immunity for the full and complete testimony that brings down EVERYONE involved in the extensive cover-ups at the CJC over the years.
And yes, this includes a lot of very powerful people in New York. Powerful, but all most deserving of a cold jail cell.
Tembeckjian could now write: "How I hid from justice" or "How I violated the public trust, committed crimes and got away with it (so far), and how I belong in federal prison."
Bob Tembeckjian is a judicial terrorist and he belongs behind bars
Bob Tembeckjian and his girlfriend now wife Barbara Ross (legal writer of Dialy News) have engaged in obstruction and cover-ups for years. Barbara Ross has killed stories on corruption many times. Bob is a professional whore in many peoples opinion, he has a job to protect. He is now at odds with Jonathan Lippman which means his days are numbered.
You have to ask who is the person (or people) forcing Tembeckjian to overlook what he has----- follow the money------
Why hasn't the Governor asked Tembeckjian to resign?
Well Mr.TEMBECKJIAN,
Whatever became of my complaint..
Since a Judge has an obligation to deny insufficient recusal motions and should not recuse himself in the absence of a valid legal reason. People v. Diaz, 130 Misc. 2d 1024, 498 N.Y.S.2d 698 (County Ct. 1986).
One would think that Judge Kent had a legal reason to recuse.
The fact that he continued to act without lawful authority, wasn't a concern amongst the Commission members???
The fact that there was a cover-up, where other parties knowingly and intentionally, deprived me of my rights and property "under color of law", meant nothing to you Mr. TEMBECKJIAN??
I am in support of your open propositions. How about we use my complaint as an example... ???
especially since there are no grey areas in this one...
A letter to Tembeckjian:
May 23, 2009
Robert Tembeckjian
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Re: op-ed in NYT
Dear Mr. Tembeckjian;
Please explain why my complaint against Judge Kevin K. Ryan was dropped by your staff. Was it by an underlings? Does judicial misconduct include reversing the order of closing arguments, meeting privately with opposing counsel during court appearances, knowing allowing totally false testimony about Police involvement and then not allowing Police testimony.
Much more violations of the code of judicial conduct by Judge Ryan are in my complaint in your office. Is it acceptable to you that a Judge Ryan moved up a scheduled court appearance to the time that I am in cardiac intensive care by calling the hospital to tell me to check out and come to court that day? (Hospital does not put phone calls into cardiac intensive care) That this can be corrected on appeal is not an excuse for your office to condone this unethical conduct.
Sincerely yours,
Terence Finnan
CC: exposecorruptcourts.com, NYT
Because of the secretive nature of the CJC hearings and the evidence gathered for their determination...I was terminated from my long time OCA civil service job.
I was the chief witness and the person who brought the perverted judge's actions to the attention of the CJC, because of 19 months of constant abuse....sitting as his court clerk!
After 3 torturous yrs of evidence gathering, back and forth motions...along with Supreme Ct motions and several witnesses testifying in the presence of a tape recorder and my weekly presence discussing the information gathered....The judge was removed....3 months after he quit (knowing he was going to be terminated and erroneously thinking the CJC would not publicly report his termnation..but the CJC did it because they hated him)!
Thus the events surrounding the CJC operation being kept from the public and the CJC wanting to publicly humiliate him with extensive coverage..the mostly female employees and female Judges of Buffalo City Court.... felt compelled to judge me negatively for having stolen a professional man's employment.... over sexual touching with verbal and obscene remarks and kissing..all absent any details.
These "uneducated" women,then viciously developed a continuous campaign of hate and workplace upheaval, constantly peppered with unbearable hostility, that lasted over a long period of years....and was eventually impossible for me to overcome(all testified to in recent federal ct depositions by workers who were forced to watch at a "safe" distance).. and also included cowardly people, that called themselves my friends for many years.
If the evidence and truth had been made known those entire 3 yrs.. maybe the semi-intelligent and less envious females of this discriminatory court...most likely would have been able to stem the anger of those that garner the same present day emotional issues, relative to this old case!
To have an employee go through such trauma for ONE success for the CJC, who would then leave that person in the court where unspecific sexual allegations were festering and the CJC had knowledge that the system was evil and sufficiently corrupt ..was a brutal injustice to the employee...myself!
The CJC..in morality and good conscience.... has an obligation to interfere in my present federal court case.... to state my innocence and investigate the judges involved in the conspiracy!
To me the CJC is a hindrance to judicial honor and is only a legacy that has protected those that participate in judicial crime!
Never testify for the CJC..if you value your life, possessions,finances and YOUR reputation!
Evil judges may be repugnant...but your life in hell is worse...let the feds take care of the business that they have ignored to the detriment of this nation!
In the interest of working with Bob Tembeckjian, I'd like to offer my services in assisting him in packing up his personal items ..... as his long-awaited departure looms.
I can bring some empty boxes, too.
A friend of a friend told me Bob Tembeckjian was grumbling over the weekend that if he was forced out, he would NOT be doing it silently.
This could get interesting.....
Tell me Mr.TEMBECKJIAN,
Why did my Bank see the defect in the judicial proceeding, but your Commission did not??
Oh I know why, you failed to investigate....
You didn't hear it from me, but a good audit of Mr. Tembeckjian and Ms. Ross' bank accounts and real estate holdings will provide information as to when Bobby boy sold his tiny soul.
Mr.TEMBECKJIAN,
Let's do the what a reasonable person would "KNOW" test...
Would a reasonable person "KNOW" that when a Judge recuses himself .. his lawful authority to adjudicate the case ceases to exist?? ..
Would a reasonable person "KNOW" that any Judge who continued to act, would be acting without lawful authority, and would be commiting a serious violation under the Federal and State Constitutions??
Would a reasonable person "KNOW" that the Judge was in violation of the Rules for Judicial Conduct??
Would a reasonable person "KNOW" that the RULES of Judicial Conduct require action in the event of a serious violation?
Why Mr.TEMBECKJIAN, my Bank did "KNOW" but you as an "OFFICER OF THE COURT" did not??
Justify your position on this one...Mr.TEMBECKJIAN...
It is very important that even after Tembeckjian is removed from the CJC, his law license must be revoked for his criminal misdeeds. Follow-up is always important.
Tembeckjian's former lap dog, Alan Friedberg, should also be fired, prosecuted and jailed. Just a thought, since we're concentrating on following up on loose ends.
Mr.TEMBECKJIAN,
As you can see, I had every reason to believe that my remedy was in the RULES of JUDICIAL CONDUCT..
So how is it exactly that you enforce these RULES???
Mr.TEMBECKJIAN,
Doe you have an Administrative Policy Manual... or is all of NEW YORK STATE at your discretion???
Mr.TEMBECKJIAN, do you have any RULES you must follow???
Robt. T embeckjian what happen to my complaint on a Judge that refused to step down when I discovered that he had been employed at a company that was a defendant in my case? Hey, Dude you covered it up! How many points did you get on that one?
Tembeckjian needs to resign-- NOW! His illegal band of thugs have done enough damage.
Hey. Check out this week's Westchester Guardian. There's a full page announcement about Sen. Sampson's hearing in Albany. Great Job Westchester Guardian!!!!!!
ear Mr.Tembeckjian:
You want the public to rely on the integrity of the Judicial Commission, and the Commission does almost anything to hide what their investigation entailed. One doesn’t even get the courtesy of a reply other than a short letter informing the complainant that the charges were reviewed and the Commission found no improper conduct.
Last Year I lodged a complaint against Suffolk County Court Judge James C. Hudson. The charges were:
1- The judge had been involved in the case two years before the trial and before the trial was to begin. The judge allowed a longtime felon to go free on no bail so felon could go back to Boca Raton, Florida, where the felon continued in a widespread mortgage and bank fraud scheme. The felon allocuted to thirty eight violent felonies, and was a suspect in the murder of a police witness that was to testify against him. When the felon pled to two felonies to cover the other thirty-six felonies, the felon lied on one very significant piece of information. That lie was made known at the trial the felon testified at and the judge presided. The lie was told in a sealed courtroom on 7/2/04, and it was discovered by the prosecutor before the trial began in January, 2006. The judge would hear the lie again. He was in bed with the prosecution as events would prove with motions granted to the prosecution, including: two Molinuex cases allowed into evidence.
2- The judge caused the trial record to be altered in a most significant way to spare him from the embarrassment he was defied in open court by the prosecution.
3- I reported to the judge that an attorney involved in this case ( the felon’s attorney) had a most serious conflict of interest by representing two clients, one against the interests of the other in furtherance of a malicious and wrongful prosecution of an innocent man. The judge, it appears never notified the Grievance Committee of this alleged misconduct.
Not to worry, the other agency that will be under the review of the Judiciary Committee took care of that when they also discharged my complaint against the attorney.
I received nothing of substance from the CJC, other than a female that identified herself as Jamie. Not title, no phone number, and no requests for further information or evidence. All I received was a letter stating my charges were without merit.
The Grievance Committee never speaks to the complainant – one is forbidden to speak to the investigator.
Spin that tale of openness to the public to someone else. No one here believes you.
petef
Oh, Please. Give Mr. Tembeckjian a break. Do any of you understand how difficult it is to cover up as much as he has? Do you realize how hard it is to get other people to participate in your crimes of setting up other judges? It's not easy being corrupt, it takes a lot of work. Please have some understanding for Mr. Tembckjian. Consider sending him a candy bar once he's incarcerated.
§ 7000.9. Standards of conduct
(a) A judge may be admonished, censured or removed for cause, including but not limited to misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, and conduct on or off the bench, prejudicial to the administration of justice; or retired for mental or physical disability preventing the proper performance of his judicial duties.
(b) In evaluating the conduct of judges, the commission shall be guided by:
(1) the requirement that judges uphold and abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of New York; and
(2) the requirement that judges abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct, the rules of the Chief Administrator and the rules of the respective Appellate Divisions governing judicial conduct.
Requirement that judges abide ...
Some Lighthouse you people are... You cause my vessel to run aground and aided the pirates!!!!
Court Reporters can no longer be the record of the court...since many have compromised their ethics and the only oversight they seem to have is the sitting judge... who often regulates the conversations to benefit his/hers decisions and determinations.
Court Reporters must now be part of the judicial overhaul and their job eliminated...a mandatory process to correct judical corruption.
OCA wanted to UPGRADE their already outrageous salaries, back in 2000(meeting was conducted with high profile judges and Administrator hacks)...while they (OCA-NYC) were heavy on eliminating the lower grades- 4 and 8 in all courthouses..which they did successfully since then....but by firing many of them instead of upgrading them and hiring grades 12 in their place!
In the vein of saving state taxpayers money over the past 30 yrs...as CSEA says OCA states to them every contract time...you must question the unwarranted and questionable reasoning for upgrading the grade 23 court reporter title....when they also make thousands additionally in transcripts!?
I think the alterations of transcripts has been a long time issue and has created lots of beneficial circumstances for our NY STATE JUDGES!
This is a situation that must be investigated fully and quickly, because people may be unjustly receiving improper or lack of justice, because these titles are tampering with evidence of legal record keeping!
To the above..
Absolutely.. If a Court speaks through its Record
When the record is lying, the Court is lying...!!!
Post a Comment