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 June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email:

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Shoe-In Lawyer Not on "Qualified" for Judge List...CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY

Repeat the following words to yourself: "Robert R. Reed, Robert R. Reed." Then you'll know the latest reason why the United States Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on a New York federal judge's decision finding that the way the State of New York "elects" its judges is unconstitutional. The federal district court's finding had been upheld by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Everyone, except New York's then-Attorney General Spitzer, agreed that New York's way of "electing" judges was UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

Enter Robert R. Reed - Running - UNOPPOSED !?!

Once again, voters will not really decide who is elected. The party bosses have decided that Bob Reed will be the next civil court judge "elected" in New York County. End of discussion. The beginning, however, of another make believe "election."

And the word is out that if you dare an earnest attempt to squeeze your rump into this judicial seat-- against the wishes of the party bosses-- you'll be destroyed. But, of course, the decision is yours—it's a free country, you know. (Friendly Reminder: if you dare win, or make people really concerned: you, and everything and everyone dear to you, will be destroyed)

To add "voters-be-damned" insult to the "voters' rights" injury-- and for some yet-unexplained reason-- Wannabe Judge Reed's name did not appear on the "qualified" list of judicial candidates put together by a recently formed judicial screening panel. Chief Judge Kaye formed those committees around the state to "shore up public confidence" in the process to "elect" New York judges.

The New York Law Journal article also has a list of recent statewide candidates that made the "qualified" list for various elections including Manhattan's own $40 million dollar judge, State Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos, who is "running" for "re-election." (See related NYSE Langone Grasso Ramos stories on this forum regarding then-Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman's waiver of the rules for Judge Ramos to serve as the executor/trustee of certain Weissberg estate/trust matters. Another story on the $40 million dollar judge is coming soon.)

Noticeably absent from the NYLJ "qualified" lists are candidates from the 9th Judicial District, where most people agree that the art of cross-party endorsements and unopposed "elections" was perfected. (Just weeks ago, current Westchester District Attorney Janet DeFiore fled from the Republican party and joined the Democrats, this while everyone awaits former Republican D.A. Jeanine Pirro's federal indictment, which is to be announced soon.

Read The New York Law Journal September 7, 2007 article by Daniel Wise, Unopposed NY Lawyer Running for Judgeship Doesn't Make List of "Qualified" Candidates.

See the article to the right: "Robert R. Reed"

Here's the article but be sure to see the JPEG to the right!!

Unopposed NY Lawyer Running for Judgeship Doesn't Make List of "Qualified" Candidates

New York Lawyer
September 7, 2007

By Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal

The Democratic Party's candidate for a countywide Civil Court seat in Manhattan was not among the candidates rated as "qualified" on a list released Tuesday by a newly created court system screening panel.

Robert R. Reed, who is unopposed, is appealing his omission from the 15-member panel's list of qualified candidates, said Arthur Greig, counsel to the Manhattan Democratic Party.

The list of approved candidates released by the screening panel for the First Judicial District, which covers Manhattan, was one of seven that have been released to date.

A new court rule, Part 150 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, required that screening panels be appointed in each of the state's 12 judicial districts. Screening panels for the five remaining judicial districts - four in the Second Department and the Bronx in the First Department - will be released before the end of the month. This year's party primaries for Civil Court are Sept. 18.

Under the rule, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) is not releasing the names of candidates screened by the panels but found not qualified.

The screening process established by Part 150 is deeply flawed, said Mr. Greig, who called the failure to rate Mr. Reed qualified "a political hit on New York County's nominee."

In a statement released yesterday, Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, the chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Party, likened the committee's interview process to the way black voters were grilled "in the 1930s" by election officials in the deep South, scrutinizing whether they had met literacy and other voter-qualification requirements. Mr. Reed is black.

Mr. Reed, a solo practitioner since 2006, was counsel in the commercial litigation department of Bryan Cave for six years before that. A 1984 graduate of Harvard law School, Mr. Reed had also worked for five years at the Attorney General's Office, where he rose to become deputy chief of the Civil Rights Bureau.

He declined to comment on the screening panel's decision.

David Bookstaver, the OCA's spokesman, did not respond to the criticism directly, but said the new statewide screening panels were "born out of a good government initiative and designed to give the public more information about candidates" for elected judicial office.

The requirement for the statewide screening of candidates for elected judgeships grew out of a recommendation by a committee headed by former Fordham Law School Dean John D. Feerick. The committee had been appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye to shore up public confidence in the state's elected judiciary in the wake of remarks by Democratic Party officials in Brooklyn that they were entitled to lucrative court appointments and the bribery indictment - and later conviction - of a Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

The fact that Mr. Reed was not on the list released by the screening panel for the First Judicial Department was discovered by the Law Journal as it gathered information about those candidates who had been rated qualified.

Mr. Bookstaver said the rule forbidding the release of the names of those found not qualified was designed to protect them from embarrassment. He also said the prohibition was aimed at avoiding "an intrusion into the political process by suggesting that voters should choose one candidate over another."

Missed Deadline

At least one other active judicial candidate was not on the list of names released so far by the screening panels.

Incumbent Kingston City Court Judge James P. Gilpatric, in the Third Judicial District, said that while other incumbent City Court judges had received notification of the requirement to submit for the new review, he had not received any such notice. By the time he was alerted to the requirement, Judge Gilpatric said, he did not have time to prepare the extensive paperwork. The committee has since extended the deadline, and he will submit the required information by today and be given an interview in the next two weeks.

The Manhattan panel found eight candidates qualified for the sole opening this year on the Supreme Court in that borough. The only non-judge to make the cut was Mark R. Dwyer, chief of appeals in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Also found qualified were Civil Court Judges Paul G. Feinman, Ellen Gesmer, Judith J. Gische, Barbara Jaffe, Shirley W. Kornreich and Michael D. Stallman and Criminal Court Judge Laura E. Drager. All of the judges, except Judge Jaffe, are acting Supreme Court justices.

The Manhattan Democratic Party however, has its own screening panel, which was scheduled to meet last night to select three of the eight contenders for consideration by the party's judicial-nomination convention when it convenes on Sept. 24. By operation of a party rule, the convention delegates are bound to select the party's nominee from the three candidates recommended by its screening committee.

There are also three incumbent Supreme Court justices in Manhattan who have been found qualified by both the court system's and the party's screening panels. They are Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam; Justice Fern A. Fisher, the administrative judge of the Civil Court; and Justice Charles E. Ramos.

Each of the 12 screening panels created by Part 150 has 10 members appointed by either the chief judge or a presiding justices of one of the four departments of the Appellate Division. The remaining five members of each panel are chosen by bar association leaders.

© 2006 ALM Properties, Inc.


Anonymous said...

You can be assured if you go against anyone of the political parties or the OCA...court will be personally and professionally harassed and that includes at your home...I AM A VICTIM of OCA'S personal harassment at my home from 2005-2006, which included an attempt to cause an accident on the expressway, wire tapping, constant computer generated phone calls, calls to my mortagage co. as well as defamation, slander and libel with documentation of that by them, as well. ALL of this because i attempted to file a discrimination action against the two political appointees of the cheif administrative judge of the 8th dist and a handful of her harassing and hostile WHITE female employees, albeit threatened by OCA to make perjurous statements,while i was using OCA'S own paid OIG'S OFFICE' for my relief....per CSEA! Before the investigation could even be completed, i was dumped from OCA after 30 yrs of excellent evaluations and 15 letters from top law firms and judges touting my constant pleasantness and lawyer-like abilities. During this investigation, i received my first negative 30 yrs of service! That very same evaluation day, the one conservative party's daughter, and exclusively court career politico, deputy chief clerk, had sent 2 armed deputies who forcefully removed me from the court stating "they don't want you here anymore...REALLY! I also was an employee from a civil service list. No report was ever generated by the OIG to to me! This report was mandatory through a negotiated act with CSEA. 3 yrs later...we have seen nothing, even though i believe this report has been greatly sanitized since....all because it backed up my original allegations, by non-political employees! 'judgey" jan plumadore arrogantly told myself and my union to take him to COURT (i GUESS HE MEANT THE ONE HE CONTROLS) on 6 occasions to retreive it and CSEA blatantly WOULDN,T and today ,CSEA continues to use the OIG with perfect reporting and results...collusion? So,as you see the BIG BAD COURTHOUSE will tear you apart limb by limb, if they can! i luckily have embedded sources everywhere and i filed in federal court, where they continue to mess with my case there....ignoring fed ct deadlines, e-mails by my atty and deposition dates! AMAZING HOW BALLSY THESE CRIME FIGHTERS ARE WHEN THEY BECOME CRIMINALS, AND BELIEVE THEY CAN TROUNCE ANYONE. WATCH out judges who are running against the OCA non- panel prepared to be tapped, arrested and chased... i encourage you to run for these jobs anyway, and get yourself a good set of can't imagine how many people know lots OF GREAT DIRT about this 2 billion dollar entity!

Anonymous said...

A federal monitor is needed to take over the entire new york court system.

Anonymous said...

the complete system is a sham. Take it apart and start over. Sent all the lawyers and Judges to re-education camps.

Anonymous said...

i'm cannot educate people to become need intense behavior modification...that is if the horse is not completely out of the barn...which usually happens by the time you are 12!

Anonymous said...

being qualified is part of being a judge. paybacks and loyality is all the matters.

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
Add to Technorati Favorites