This blog is about exposing judicial misconduct, through videotaped interviews with real victims, and appealing to authorities to discipline judges who are engaged in misconduct.
I want to put a face on each case of misconduct and show how exactly the public is hurt by lack of accountability or outright incompetence, or both, in the judiciary.
For that reason, I offer people a public service, which at this initial time will be free of charge: videotaping and publishing their story as to how incompetent or biased judges hurt their lives or lives of their loved ones.
I am currently looking into a possibility of forming a non-profit organization, supported by tax-free public donations, for purposes of documenting, through videotaped interviews, and creating a database of cases of judicial misconduct.
Those interested in initially donating their services for videotaping and referring people to this site, as well as victims of judicial misconduct, are encouraged to contact me by e-mail at Tatiana.neroni@gmail.com.
Otherwise, you will continue reading in law articles and books, that "overwhelming majority of judges are honorable" - and that is simple a "scrape and bow" toward judiciary without any basis for such a belief because statistics of judicial misconduct simply does not exist.
Why it does not exist? Because creating such statistics will, most likely require to urgently reform the court system in the United States - from how judges are selected to how they maintain their tenure to how they are held accountable for their mistakes and especially for their intentional misconduct.
At this time:
(1) disciplinary proceedings against judges are secret and most of complaints against judges are tossed by disciplinary authorities, leaving victims without recourse;
Courts routinely (and self-servingly) rule that victims lack "standing" (right to sue) to contest such dismissals on appeal. Why? Because the judge who rules this way may be the next subject of a disciplinary proceeding and has a vested interest to rule this way.
The bottom line is the same - it leaves victims without recourse.
(2) civil rights lawsuits against judges are tossed on judicial immunity grounds, leaving victims not only without recourse, but, often, punished for "frivolous conduct" and having to pay opposing party (the predator) counsel fees for "having" to oppose the civil rights lawsuit - in layman's terms, the court says to you: "I do not want to hear, whether you are right or wrong, whether the judge committed misconduct or not, whether you were hurt or not, but I will punish you anyway for trying to get to be heard by this court";
(3) To ask an attorney to make a motion to recuse a judge who is biased, incompetent or engaged in obvious misconduct is a lost cause.
Why? Attorneys are licensed by judges, translation: livelihood of attorneys are in the hands of who you them to criticize. Not many attorneys will deem their duty to their clients, higher than their duty to their families and themselves, even though attorney's duty to their client must come first pursuant to attorney's oath as an officer of the court to uphold state and federal laws and the Constitutions.
But - you know what - the judges who commit misconduct also took that oath, and the very fact that they took that oath, in the warped logic of the judiciary, entitles them to violate that same oath with immunity-impunity.
See here a "thought spider" I created to illustrate the thoughts of an attorney considering whether to make a motion to recuse in New York - and the list of thoughts is not exhaustive.
See also what kind of nightmare awaits an attorney who dares to brave the "black wall of camaraderie" of judges who protect themselves and other judges if an attorney dares to raise the issue of judicial misconduct in court.
Whatever the cause for an attorney to refuse to make a motion to recuse a judge (ask a judge to step down), the result is the same - victims of judicial misconduct remain without recourse.
(4) If you make that motion to recuse yourself - at the very best it will be tossed because pro se parties are regarded by courts as pesky nuisances not knowing what they are doing, and this is if you are lucky. The worse alternative is that you will be punished for frivolous conduct (up to $10,000.00 per "act" of frivolous conduct in New York) and made to pay attorney's fees to the opponent.
The rule of frivolous conduct in New York is a judge-created rule, not a legislative rule, so you as a voter is stripped of your rights to have such important decisions restricting people's access to court and fair and impartial tribunals be made ONLY by elected LEGISLATIVE representatives, not by judges who benefit by the rule.
The result is the same - victims of judicial misconduct remain without recourse.
For that reason, it is my firm belief that only when the public starts telling their stories of judicial misconduct, openly, on video, addressing authorities to FINALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, and posting it for the ENTIRE WORLD TO SEE on the Internet, anything at all will start changing.
Judiciary in this country has profoundly forgotten that each and every judge is a PUBLIC SERVANT. SERVANT TO THE PUBLIC. And that independence of judicial decisions is not the equivalent of the judges unlimited self-given right to break the law while enforcing it, and doing it with complete impunity.
But - you know why it might start changing if victims start to come forward?
Because judges who commit misconduct are also cowards. They fear publicity. They fear exposure. They are only bold to mow down the (mostly) poor litigants and attorneys who stand up for them on their turf.
Judges always want to go higher. No matter what judges say about their disinterested desire to "serve the public", a judgeship is a political office and, usually, a step up to a higher political office. Judges want to go up - from trial court to the appellate division. From appellate division to federal courts (a lifetime position, until they drop dead - there are federal judges who are 90 years old and still hearing cases).
Even after judges retire at the mandatory retirement age, they still get "perks" which are not publicized by the court system - the so-called "judicial hearing officer" perks. Otherwise, the New York Constitution (that judges tried, but failed to change) provides for a mandatory retirement age for judges at 70 years old, but judges easily obviated the New York State Constitution, by making an administrative rule allowing them to serve with the same rights and authorities as judges before retirement have.
Judges are also very competitive, and those jobs on the way up are rare. Competition among judges for those perks is fierce. Those who are not squeaky clean will get less chances to get promoted.
Maybe, the fear of exposure will keep them on good behavior.
Until we start documenting cases of judicial misconduct, nothing will change and such misconduct will continue ruining people's lives.
Victims of judicial misconduct - please, come forward.
Cases will be screened by legal experts to ensure that only genuine cases of judicial misconduct are publicized. That will be done for my own, as well as the victims' protection from claims of defamation.
