Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Must Be Investigated and Removed From the Bench, for deceiving the public and allowing absolute immunity to cove up and protect the Third Branch of our government.
Lippman Backs Reform of Grand Jury, Attorney Discipline
He has allowed the Courts of New York to plunder estates, remove children from their parents, and deny anyone who has no money to pass under the table any due process rights to be made whole.
He is a disgrace to the State. Put him on trial.
Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them
Trish Lynch Loses Custody of Her 5-Year Old Daughter To Vincent "Vinny" Velella, Her Former Boyfriend, In Westchester County Family Court
32 Broadway, suite 511
New York NY 10004
To: Preet Bharara
United States Attorney
Office Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, NY 10007
April 3, 2013
NEW YORK CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN BY
MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
If any of the statements herein are false, Title18 USC; Section 1001, obliges you to arrest me for making false statements to a Federal Officer. Your failure to arrest me will represent your acknowledgment that the statements herein are true, in which case a failure to investigate these allegations would represent a dereliction of your duty.
In their disposition of the confirmation of Judge Lippman, members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee failed to uphold every one of these duties. Specifically:
“All Standing Committees may hold public hearings. Assembly rules require that not less than two days notice of such hearings be given, and the Senate rules require five days notice.”
[NOTE: SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS BLOG, THE FAQ PAGE CONTAINING THIS RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED, AS HAS AN ALTERNATE LINK TO THE SAME URL. APPARENTLY ALL MENTION OF THE 5 DAY RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE NY SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. THE RULE HOWEVER STILL STANDS AND CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET ONLY AT THIS ADDRESS:
FORTUNATELY, A SCREENSHOT OF THE FAQ PAGE WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE PAGE WAS REMOVED AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE.
The February 11th, 2009 hearing was announced exclusively on the webpage of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 10th, 2009 , with no mention that the hearing was public. The hearing was not announced in any newspapers, or any radio or television broadcasts in New York State.
There are two kinds of hearings “Public” and “Not Public”. There is no provision in the Constitution for a hearing that is only “public” to selected individuals.
The “five-day rule” is no mere technicality; it exists to ensure that the public has enough prior notice to prepare statements and attend “public hearings”; a fundamental tenet of our democracy.
It is in violation of state senate rules to hold a public hearing with less than five days notice, and/or without public invitation. On these ground alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.
Despite the absence of notice, three New York citizens, including Elena Sassower, Director of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), and Will Galison, CJA member and Black Star News Journalist, learned of the hearing two days prior through an inadvertent leak by a Senate employee and attended the hearing as witnesses in opposition to Lippman’s confirmation.
The testimonies of Sassower and Galison were videotaped. and were posted on the NY Senate website, before being expunged from the official record. Fortunately, the videos were copied and are now posted on Youtube and elsewhere. The bias, bullying and intimidation against the opposing witnesses by the SJA are shockingly evident in these clips.
It is unconstitutional to secretly invite “friendly” witnesses and “friendly” reporters to a public hearing without notifying the general press - and the general public - that the hearing is public.
4) The Senate Judiciary was denied access to criminal allegations and judicial conduct complaints against Lippman, which were under investigation at the time of the hearings.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose sole duty is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by NY judges, withheld from the Senate Judiciary Committeepending complaints alleging crimes by Judge Lippman.
At least one and possibly more, judicial complaints against Lippman were pending before the CJC at the time of the hearings. It was the duty of the CJC to inform the SJC that these complaints were pending, and must be adjudicated before a confirmation decision could be reached.
[One month after Lippman’s confirmation, the CJC complaint was “dismissed without investigation” by Tembeckjian.]
Two weeks prior to the confirmation hearings, documents supporting allegations of criminal activity by Lippman were sent to all 21 members of the SJC by opposing witness Will Galison. At the hearing, Galison asked which of the Senators on the SJC had reviewed the documents and allegations. The Senators refused to answer; one Senator leapt from his chair and yelled “That question is inappropriate!”, to which Chairman Sampson added “We’re the ones asking the questions here!”
Moreover, in violation of Senate rules, the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to review or investigate documentation of allegations against Lippman presented by the opposing witnesses who testified at the hearings. In addition to their 5-minute testimonies, the opposing witnesses offered the SJC copious documentation of their allegations against Lippman. In violation of their mandate, the SJC failed to review or investigate any of these documents before voting on Lippman’s confirmation.
On each and all of the grounds cited above, the NY Senate confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid, hence, Lippman is not the lawful Chief Judge of New York, and is not eligible for nomination for the SJI by the President in that capacity.
30(a) has any complaint or charge ever been made against you in connection to your service in a judicial office? Include in your response any question raised or inquiry conducted of any kind by any agency or official of the judicial system?
If the answer to subpart (a) is “yes”, furnish full details, including the agency or officer making the inquiry, the nature of the question or inquiry, the outcome and relevant dates
If Lippman filled out this sworn questionnaire honestly, he would have had to report the complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct by Will Galison. Receipt of this complaint was acknowledged by the CJC in a letter of January 28th, 2009; two weeks before the Confirmation hearing.
The allegations in the complaint that was pending before the CJC at the time of the confirmation hearing are extremely serious. They regard Lippman’s abuse of authority as Presiding Judge of the First Department, and blatant conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in the process of Lippman’s nomination.
There is a very good reason that Lippman and his conspirators in the SJC had to illegally limit the attendance of his confirmation hearings to Lippman’s friends and colleagues. Had the confirmation hearing been announced to the public, the room would have been packed with citizens testifying of Lippman’s corruption and Lippman would have been rejected.
This was proven on 6/8/09 and 9/24/09, when hearings in Albany and Manhattan respectively were filled to capacity by victims of corruption by the attorney grievance committees and Committee on Judicial Conduct. Dozens of documented complaints were filed against Lippman personally, and hundreds more against the agencies he supervised as Administrative Judge and Presiding Judge of the First Department. These complaints have never been investigated.
I look forward to hearing your response to my allegations and evidence above.
Reporter, Truthout.org, Blackstar News