Justice really is blind — at least when it comes to disciplining judges.Case in point: Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger, who presided over a slip-and-fall case against her own co-op board — a clear conflict of interest, yet it didn’t result in even a wrist slap from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Schlesinger also sparked outrage when she overturned the firing of a teacher caught having sex in a city classroom and when she granted a child molester a shot at parole — but the CJC doesn’t have the legal authority to review counterintuitive decisions or even reversals.
“The commission needs to be overhauled,” said lawyer Raoul Felder, a former CJC chairman. “It’s not an impressive body.”
Numbers show the toothless watchdog does less each year.
It launched 172 investigations in 2011, the lowest number in a decade and decrease from 225 in 2010. A vast majority of the 1,818 complaints it received were dismissed without follow-up. Only 12 judges were disciplined.
The only city judge among them, Shari Michels of Manhattan Civil Court, was “admonished” for handing out campaign cards that wrongly implied she was endorsed by a newspaper.
The CJC’s complaints and hearings are secret under law.
“The commission itself has been calling for more transparency,” said CJC administrator Robert Tembeckjian. “It just hasn’t gotten any traction in the Legislature.”
The 11-member panel is made up of current and former judges, lawyers and law professors — all political appointees. The administrator runs a staff of 50 and a $5.3 million budget.
State law and the rules governing judicial conduct severely limit what it can prosecute.
Wacky rulings and high reversal rates are off-limits. But the panel can follow up on formal complaints or investigate bad behavior documented by the press.
Full Article and Source:
It’s bad judgment
The problem is that the "justice" system is self-policing.
ReplyDeleteThey don't follow their own rules, which mandate an investigation of a "facially meritorious complaint."
ReplyDeleteThey summarily dismissed my complaint of a $20,000 kickback,
without any investigation.
If that ain't facially meritorious, I don't know what the hell is.
This commission and every member on it is a joke. I put in more than 20 complaints with proof, documentation, facts, recordings, etc., of the guardianship abuse against my Mom, Dorothy Wilson. Judge Joel Asarch of the Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola and Mary Giordano, Mom's court appointed "law" guardian attorney, kidnapped my Mom from her home of 60 years, locked her up in a nursing home against her will. Only two months later she was dead. They REFUSED to allow her to live with me even though my home was declared "safe" by the court, I made thousands of dollars of renovations at my own expense and was willing and able to care for her 24/7. The NYS Judicial Commission found NOTHING wrong with that!!!! Neither did the NYS Attorney General. And Senator Lee Zeldin REFUSED to help Mom, along with many others. FOLLOW THE MONEY. Stealing from the elderly is a big gravy train and none of the crooks want to get off.
ReplyDeleteFile your discipline complaint before you begin your litigation or they'll cop out on "in litigation"!
ReplyDeleteOutsiders don’t know how many complaints judicial disciplinary commissions receive but we do know how many make it through to the investigation stage. New York's CJC website shows only 32 disciplinary decisions by the NY courts since 1978, from among 522 requests from the CJC after investigations. Average among the States is 1 – 8% and I hear that’s a generous statistic.
ReplyDeleteAside from the lack of authority to interlope into the realm of judicial decisions we also hear that State judicial commissions don't have enough staff for investigations because of inadequate funding (by their State Bar Associations). Should we be grateful for the 1% returns, demand federal or state funding, a Constitutional Amendment, or what?
There was a case in Michigan concerning numerous uninvestigated complaints about a judge. Later, when a court clerk complained that the judge said her breasts weren't large enough to fill the university-logo T-shirt she was wearing, Michigan's SC came through with a heavy penalty for sexual discrimination in the workplace. Compared to a racketeering charge, it seems peanuts as nobody was really hurt – just mildly offended.
FYI: http://www.judicialaccountability.org/judicialaccountability3.htm
Is justice really blind, or is it simply corrupt?
ReplyDelete