The New York Times - EDITORIAL - February 14, 2011
New York’s chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, is taking on the problem of money in judicial elections. At his urging, a state judicial board is proposing to bar more than 700 elected judges from hearing cases involving any lawyer or party who contributed $2,500 or more to the judge’s campaign in the preceding two years. The beauty of the proposed rule, which is scheduled to be announced on Tuesday in Judge Lippman’s State of the Judiciary address, is that it will make the disqualification or recusal decision a routine, administrative matter. The rule, which is expected to go into effect after a 60-day comment period, still needs some fine-tuning. As currently written, it would be easy for special interests to game the system by making contributions to judges they want to avoid in order to force their disqualification from hearing their cases. That should be addressed with a provision allowing opposing counsel to waive a judge’s disqualification. Thought also must be given to how to handle independent campaign expenditures on behalf of a judge’s candidacy. These pose the same conflict issue as direct contributions to candidates. Members of New York’s highest court — the Court of Appeals, on which Judge Lippman presides — are chosen by a merit appointment system. Because of that, the state has been spared the multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns that have become all too common in states that elect their most powerful judges. The money levels may be lower in New York, but the problem is still there. In races for the State Supreme Court, New York’s highest trial court, about a third of the candidates spend more than $75,000 on their campaigns — with many contributors giving $2,500 or more. In a 2008 Democratic primary for Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan, the three candidates together raised nearly $900,000. The new rule is an important step toward ensuring the impartiality of New York’s courts. Judge Lippman cannot stop here. He should also push for a bar on judges doling out receiverships and other lucrative court assignments to favored donors.
New York’s chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, is taking on the problem of money in judicial elections. At his urging, a state judicial board is proposing to bar more than 700 elected judges from hearing cases involving any lawyer or party who contributed $2,500 or more to the judge’s campaign in the preceding two years. The beauty of the proposed rule, which is scheduled to be announced on Tuesday in Judge Lippman’s State of the Judiciary address, is that it will make the disqualification or recusal decision a routine, administrative matter. The rule, which is expected to go into effect after a 60-day comment period, still needs some fine-tuning. As currently written, it would be easy for special interests to game the system by making contributions to judges they want to avoid in order to force their disqualification from hearing their cases. That should be addressed with a provision allowing opposing counsel to waive a judge’s disqualification. Thought also must be given to how to handle independent campaign expenditures on behalf of a judge’s candidacy. These pose the same conflict issue as direct contributions to candidates. Members of New York’s highest court — the Court of Appeals, on which Judge Lippman presides — are chosen by a merit appointment system. Because of that, the state has been spared the multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns that have become all too common in states that elect their most powerful judges. The money levels may be lower in New York, but the problem is still there. In races for the State Supreme Court, New York’s highest trial court, about a third of the candidates spend more than $75,000 on their campaigns — with many contributors giving $2,500 or more. In a 2008 Democratic primary for Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan, the three candidates together raised nearly $900,000. The new rule is an important step toward ensuring the impartiality of New York’s courts. Judge Lippman cannot stop here. He should also push for a bar on judges doling out receiverships and other lucrative court assignments to favored donors.
Certain People have to go: Lippman, Pfau, Spatz to begin with. Are you listening, Andrew?
ReplyDeleteFirst, the order to show cause signed by this court on August 3, 2007, granted a temporary restraining order staying any further proceedings in the matrimonial action of W. v. W., pending in Supreme Court Suffolk County. Pursuant to said order to show cause, J.W.'s counsel, Steven B. Cottler, Esq., was directed to serve Judge William J. Kent III, with a copy of the order to show cause and the papers upon which it was based, by certified mail, return receipt requested, on or before August 30, 2007. Mr. Cottler submitted an affidavit of service indicating that Judge Kent was served with the order to show cause, temporary restraining order and verified petition on August 6, 2007. The order to show cause was returnable on September 13, 2007 and was adjourned by stipulation to September 20, 2007.
ReplyDeleteDespite receiving a copy of the order to show cause and temporary restraining order, Judge Kent signed the judgment of divorce on September 5, 2007 and said judgment was entered on September 11, 2007. That judgment of divorce is however, technically a nullity
So, Lippman admits the scum under his direction have been taking kick-backs for favorable treatment in his courts. How many decisions in your Court of Appeals removed a judge for receipt of excessive contributions and/or how many cases did the Court of appeals refuse to hear about this issue? Sorry, Lippman, no quarter effort will excuse your assignment in Hell you're going straight of the center of Hell.
ReplyDeleteThere is one avenue open for escape; expose the whole system; name every corrupt judge; expose your entire staff and testify against them all and then find a Judas tree.
More likely that Lippman is doing this to consolidate his power over Judges. This will probably give the power brokers more control on who gets to become a Judge, and then once appointed, they will have the keys to the candy store of taxpayer benefits.
ReplyDeleteSee the article in today's NY Post on how Lippman has continued to increase the budget of the Court's far beyond the cost of living, and in total disregard for the financial condition of the state and the taxpayers.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/goldplating_the_courts_MdLpo27wc1EgMbc0zVjYjJ
Goldplating the courts
"Cuomo laid a 10 percent cut on state-agency spending in the budget he proposed Feb. 1 -- while Lippman is demanding, and will get, a 5 percent increase in his.
He'll get it because, as is the American custom, the judiciary is an independent branch of government, and therefore pretty much immune to legislative and executive budget-cutting."
What Cuomo and the legislature need to do it to audit the Court's to hold them accountable to comply with the Constitutional requirements of the Judiciary and the Laws and Rules.
It's a scam and a sham, that Lippman, the OCA and the rest of the administration of the Court's hide behind their interpretation of the Laws and Rules, and ignore what does not fit them.
They should be held accountable to the taxpayers, and it is the duty of the Legislature and the Executive Branches of the State to make sure the citizens are being served.
To 10:04;
ReplyDeleteJudge Kent is one of those bogus "Certificated" judges.
Look at the requirements for a Judge to become "Certificated." The Constitution, Laws and Rules are specific as to what is required. The mandatory requirements to make these appointments are not complied with.
Lippman also didn't address the fact that attorneys run these campaigns and are on the election committees.
ReplyDeleteWhen James A. Montagnino attempted to get a nomination to Supreme Court Justice in Westchester several years ago, Joel Bender held a campaign meeting in his office with seveal other matrimonial attorneys Montagnino and his wife. All of these attorneys had cases currently before the former Referee.
Apparently there is no problem with this since the OCA took no action (and it was Lippman who was the Chief Administrative Judge at that time.)
To 10:23 A.M.
ReplyDeleteJudge Kent signed another Void Divorce before the date of that one.. Hence his habit...
He wasn't then Certificated, Inebriated maybe..
should be longer than 2 years.
ReplyDeletewhat about the lawyers wife or relative. What about thier law firm
Even better take the money out of the problem prevent judges from raising more than say 5,000 from unknown doners. Or if someone donates money it goes into a pool that every candidte gets the same money.
REMEMBER!
ReplyDeleteIt was Lippman who personally had Christine Anderson removed from the DDC.
It was Lippman who appointed Allan Freidberg to head the DDC, and who refused to answer any complaints against him by dozens of victims of DDC corruption.
It was Lippman who appointed Judge Golia, who had Sunny Sheu kidnapped and threatened with death, immediately before he was bludgeoned to death by hit men.
It is Lippman who is Sheldon Silver's boy toy.
It is Lippman who did favors for members of the Nominating committee.
It is Lippman who has been deaf to all of our efforts over the years.
The man is a reptile and CAN NEVER be trusted.
Tip to readers of this blog:
ReplyDeleteWhen you leave a message on this blog, take a screenshot of the posting after it goes up. It takes one second. On a Mac, just press control, shift, 3.
That way, if Frank Brady (Kevin Mckeowen) censors or removes your comment, you will have documentation that it was up.
In this way, we can see a pattern of what Frank Brady censors, and perhaps we can then determine who he is working for.
I have had at lease a dozen posts removed, mostly having to do with the murder of Sunny Sheu, a topic Frank Brady clearly does not want people to know about.
What a surprise. Another "certificated" judge.
ReplyDeleteIs there beginning to be a pattern here?
After you click to publish, you do need to be sure that the confirm message appears on top that says something like it will take a minute. If that message does not appear, the message does get lost.
ReplyDeleteThis is what you need to see.
ReplyDelete"Your comment has been saved.
It may take a moment for your comment to appear on the site."
This is a farce, Jonathan Lippman is the problem. BTW has anyone ever seen Jonathan Lippman's oath of office or have a copy of the bond that he is required to file? Without these two salient elements Judge Jonathan Lippman is a FRAUD and so are all actions!!! LOL Jonathan
ReplyDeleteJust try to get any required documents from the OCA through the FOIA. Not only are they not in compliance with any of the requiremetns of the law, but they refuse to give out any documents at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd the state committee that enforces FOIA is in a very cozy relationship with them and rubber stamps their denials.
It is true that some comments are lost inadvertently, so one must take a screenshot after the comment appears on the webpage itself.
ReplyDeleteOn Sept 4th, 2010, I tried to post messages regarding Sunny's death on this site. It appeared on the site and was removed by the webmaster (either manually or automatically). I tried reposting seven times over the course of that night. Each time the message was posted and disappeared after ten minutes or so.
I took a screenshot of every message, and sent it to many people in our community.
Simply put, Kevin Mckeowen does not want the subject of Sunny's murder discussed on this site. He even refused to publish an obituary for this hero who gave his life for our cause.
He even refused to post a link to the Blackstar news article about Sunny's plight before his murder.
However, Kevin did lie to me by text message by saying that FBI was investigating the murder, when they obviously were not:
To be specific, he wrote:
August 4, 2010 5:38 PM (FB to WG) "The FBI is, in fact, investigating Sunny's death....will post Sunday/ Monday."
Never posted anything.
Here's more proof regarding Sunny Sheu
ReplyDelete-----Original Message-----
From: sunny sheu
To: will galsion
Sent: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 11:31 am
Subject: RE: Sunny Shue request for Witness Protection
Re: thanks again..
From: Error! Filename not specified.Rojas, Rachel L. (Rachel.Rojas@ic.fbi.gov)
Sent: Fri 4/09/10 6:54 PM
To: 'sunnysheu@hotmail.com' (sunnysheu@hotmail.com)
Thanks Sunny. Be careful and well
SSA Rachel Rojas
FBI NYO Squad C3
Work # 212-384-2808
Cell # 917-295-9629
Rachel.Rojas@ic.fbi.gov
> To: Jim.P.Hoffer@abc.com; sunnysheu@hotmail.com
> Subject: Sunny Shue request for Witness Protection
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 18:51:58 -0400
> From: wgalison@aol.com
>
> Hi Rachel,
>
> I want to be sure that you understand the following:
>
> 1) On January 14, 2009, Judge Golia sent two NYPD detectives from the
> Queens DA bureau to kidnap me (under NYS law), intimidate me and
> threaten that if I filed a complaint against Golia, I would be in
> serious danger. The incident was confirned by the Queens DA and
> reported in the "Black Star News" in July, 2009. My published
> allegations of kidnapping and threats have never been denied by Golia
> or the Queens DA.
>
> 2) Despite these threats, I filed a complaint with the NYS Ethics
> Commission of the NY Unified Court System, alleging that Judge Golia
> had made substantial misrepresentations on his Financial Disclosure
> Forms over seven years of reporting.
>
> 3) As a result of my allegations, the Ethics Commission sent Judge
> Golia a “Notice of Cure” regarding his Financial Forms, which is a
> demand for correction.
> 4) On April 9, 2010, I was informed by the Director of the Ethics
> Commission, Janice Howard, that Judge Golia had amended (corrected)
> his Financial Disclosure Forms as a result of my complaint- FOUR MONTHS
> AFTER I reported his misrepresentations...
The comment above was NOT posted by me.
ReplyDeleteIt was posted by Kevin McKeowen (Frank Brady) in an effort to intimidate me into not mentioning the murder of Sunny Sheu.
The message contains a personal exchange between me and Jim Hoffer which was inadvertently sent to Elliot Bernstein. Elliot irresponsibly published it on this site, and I sent numerous letters to Mckeowen asking him to remove it, because it alerted Sunny's murderers to the fact that Hoffer was investigating the story and jeopardized the investigation, as well as our lives.
Mckeowen refused to remove it, and now, every time I mention Sunny's murder, McKeowen posts this exchange as a way of threatening me into silence.
This time he posted it under my name!
Fortunately, Sunny's murder is now being investigated by people that Kevin cannot intimidate, and his complicity in covering up the murder has been well noted by these authorities.
It is extremely important for the readers of this blog to be aware that McKeowen is working for the people we are fighting. His job is to collect names and data about people opposed to Judicial Corruption to see who knows what.
It is also his job to make people think that things are being done to relieve the problem, when in fact nothing is being done. See his posts on Sampson's efforts to clean up the judiciary.
Even if you post as "Anonymous" Mckeowen knows your identity and computer ID through a rudimentary tracking program. He can also track where you have navigated before and after visiting his site. (I recommend emptying your cache after visiting this site.)
That is why I don't bother using a pseudonym.
If there was any doubt as to Kevin Mckeowen's allegiance, I hope this latest trick puts them to rest.
Good luck to you all. And good luck Kevin, when you are called to account for your deeds.
Will
should be longer than 2 years.
ReplyDeletewhat about the lawyers wife or relative. What about thier law firm
Even better take the money out of the problem prevent judges from raising more than say 5,000 from unknown doners. Or if someone donates money it goes into a pool that every candidte gets the same money.
usagamezone.blogspot.com my blog
hi thanks for sharing admin.
ReplyDeletecrs-place.blogspot.com