The New York Post - EDITORIAL - February 15, 2011
New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman will report on the state of the judiciary today, and here's a preview: He'll say everything would be hunky-dory, if he only had more money. Welcome to hard times, Your Honor. But your case would be more compelling if you'd handle the cash you already get with more care. Lippman essentially stuck his thumb in Gov. Cuomo's eye -- budgetarily speaking. The new governor asked for restraint, and the jurist said, "Maybe for thee but certainly not for me." 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. But that's all the more reason for a chief judge to practice self-restraint. Yet judicial spending since Lippman took office in 2009 is up 12.7 percent -- against 1.2 percent inflation. And it's up 28.8 percent over the last five years -- compared to an inflation rate of just 11.4 percent.
Meanwhile, here's a couple of nuggets not likely to be found in Lippman's remarks today:
* As The Post reported last week, Lippman & Co. are spending more than $23 million to convert an old Albany office building into, among other things, luxury suites for Court of Appeals justices. They're in town a scant 60-odd days a year, but they won't have to bother with hotel reservations.
* And speaking of out-of-town travel, The Post reported yesterday that Lippman himself is developing a taste for junkets -- having decamped to Vail and the Virgin Islands most recently.
New Yorkers expect shared sacrifice, which goes a long way to explaining Cuomo's popularity -- as outlined above. They certainly are not getting it from Jonathan Lippman -- nor, we suspect, will there be any meaningful commitment to it in today's speech. But it won't want for whining.
* As The Post reported last week, Lippman & Co. are spending more than $23 million to convert an old Albany office building into, among other things, luxury suites for Court of Appeals justices. They're in town a scant 60-odd days a year, but they won't have to bother with hotel reservations.
* And speaking of out-of-town travel, The Post reported yesterday that Lippman himself is developing a taste for junkets -- having decamped to Vail and the Virgin Islands most recently.
New Yorkers expect shared sacrifice, which goes a long way to explaining Cuomo's popularity -- as outlined above. They certainly are not getting it from Jonathan Lippman -- nor, we suspect, will there be any meaningful commitment to it in today's speech. But it won't want for whining.
Posts
20 comments:
Hey, Jonathan, DID THE UNDERPAID HONEST JUDGES AROUND NEW YORK STATE GET TO GO WITH YOU TO VAIL AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ???
You and Shelly Silver deserve a permanent vacation... to either Vail, the Virgin Island.... wherever you guys want....
The butt kissing media scum offer this excuse, "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."
Which Americans and whose custom support Judges have free rein with our money, you butt kissers? And where's little boy blue, Cuomo, up in Albany sounding his horn? The judicial old fat cow is in the corn.
let see a judge works about 60 days a year gets paid arounnd 140,000 plus benifits
what a joke
and we are supposed to pay for this place for them to stay in
you noticed no one says why this place is so expensive
Does it have a pool?
Does it have a gym?
Does it have a kitchem and staff?
Does it come with cable?
fire them all
124,100 tips
Grap the popcorn, Mr. Corrupt Chief Judge Lippman, your time is up.
Everyone should sent each of these so-called Judges a big piece of coal!
Does anyone have a complete site with all the decision that relate to suing the Commission on Judicial Conduct...
I think I may have a hook..
TIA..
Decisons, please, for the OCA as well...
Boy were they aware...
sex discrimination with OCA
discriminatory against women
To further his bias and discrimination Judge William J. Kent, denied me an award of counsel fees and violated the intent of the statute, designed to redress the economic disparity between the monied spouse and non-monied spouse ". O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 190, 689 NYS2d 8, 711 NE2d 193 (1999),
-- as the existence of gender-biased discrimination in our contested matrimonial system nonetheless exists and has been noted by the Task Force on Gender in the Courts, see Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration, Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts 103-106 (1986) Footnote *Iriarte v. Iriarte, 2008 NY Slip Op 28087 - NY: Supreme Court 2008.
Now do list the harm?
However, because many state activities have the potential to increase an individual's risk of harm, we require plaintiffs alleging a constitutional tort under § 1983 to show "special danger" in the absence of a special relationship between the state and either the victim or the private tortfeasor. The victim faces "special danger" where the state's actions place the victim specifically at risk, as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large. See Jones, 3 F.3d at 949; Janan v. Trammell, 785 F.2d 557, 560 (6th Cir.1986)
Body Execution, Violation of Due Process, Eviction, Theft of Property.. created for me a Domestic Violence Situation..
Thank you much CJC and OCA!!!
Who is in charge of Certificating a Judge??
so that other women can be harmed and suffer too???
There are supposed to be specific steps taken for a judge to become "certificated." The requirements are discussed in the state Constitution and also addressed in the State Laws and Rules.
It may be a committee that certifies (or supposed to be a committee) these judges, but it's probably done with a wink and a handshake.
Why doesn't Cuomo create an independent committee to audit the Courts?
Cuomo could also ask Lippman and Pfau for copies of all the audits they have done over the years, because as part of their required job descriptions, it includes of the Courts. Any audit of any organization should have covered (and uncovered) many of the incompetent and corrupt practices.
Cuomo, as governor, seems to have the money and means to audit financial institutions, for which the Federal Government already has numerous agencies. He should stick to fixing the state.
p.s. An audit does not have to be limited to money, it can also cover productivity, and that would include a job review of all those incompetent, lazy and corrupt judges.
Productivity..
Meaning two different decisions made by the CJC on the very same day??
We're dismissing
ummm no..
We're investigating..
I suppose I now get to choose "arbitrary and capricious" one? lol..
or,
do the two conflicting agency actions..
become the evidence of arbitrary and capricious..
or is it just evidence of NUTZ!!!
Section 13981 was part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, § 40302, 108 Stat. 1941-1942. It states that "[a]ll persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender." 42 U. S. C. § 13981(b). To enforce that right, subsection (c) declares:
"A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) of this section shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate."
Section 13981 defines a "crim[e] of violence motivated by gender" as "a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an 606*606 animus based on the victim's gender." § 13981(d)(1). It also provides that the term "crime of violence" includes any
"(A) . . . act or series of acts that would constitute a felony against the person or that would constitute a felony against property if the conduct presents a serious risk of physical injury to another, and that would come within the meaning of State or Federal offenses described in section 16 of Title 18, whether or not those acts have actually resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction and whether or not those acts were committed in the special maritime, territorial, or prison jurisdiction of the United States; and "(B) includes an act or series of acts that would constitute a felony described in subparagraph (A) but for the relationship between the person who takes such action and the individual against whom such action is taken." § 13981(d)(2).
How did the CJC and OCA miss
3 Complaints of Discrimination..
and 2 Void divorces made by Judge Kent..??
Pinheads..
To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.
@11:17 Wake up call. Cuomo check out judicial corruption? He's knows. He's part of it. Cuomo defended in federal and state courts all the corruption of judges, lawyers, grievance committees, and OCA while AG, as reported on this blog. Cuomo, Lippman, CLC, OCA et al. are just different faces on the same evil.
[13] Subsection (d)(3) does not limit a court's power to "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). The reason McKeown invoked Rule 60(d)(3) is a mystery because any fraud that was perpetrated was perpetrated on the Surrogate's Court, not this Court.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
("[A]ncillary jurisdiction is sufficiently broad so that the action may be maintained against a person who was not a party to the original proceeding"); Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 1884, 111 U.S. 505, 522, 4 S.Ct. 583, 592, 28 L.Ed. 498; Cf. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 1946, 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447. ("The power to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. Accordingly, a federal court may bring before it by appropriate means all those who may be affected by the outcome of its investigation.") Jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state claims of fraud and malpractice against the class attorneys, deriving "from a common nucleus of operative fact" with the federal claims, may then be supported by the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218
picky.. picky... they are...
Jonathan Lippman loves to spend everyone else's money except his own. He is a very generous wimp who reminds one of Sol Wacktler in many ways.
Post a Comment