New Report Suggests Judicial Reform is a Stimulus America Needs
LINK

May 7, 2009 is the official release date for the much anticipated Report with Recommendations of the Citizens' Forum On Judicial Accountability (CFOJA) that took place May 15, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. While the CFOJA report makes clear that the forum's presiding panel heard compelling arguments for both maintaining and reforming America's judicial oversight methodology, those panelists who helped draft the report seem most persuaded by the contention that restoring the Rule of Law when breached is an obligation of and should directly involve all Americans. According to Zena Crenshaw, executive director of National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., a CFOJA co-sponsor, "anyone calling for more government regulation or chastising its past failures during this time of economic crisis should consider that some of America's best regulators are private litigants, cut out of oversight processes by the rulings of judges who themselves may be part of the problem."

Zena Crenshaw

PR WEB PRESS RELEASE

Washington, DC (PRWEB) May 7, 2009 -- Today is the official release date for the much anticipated Report with Recommendations of the Citizens' Forum On Judicial Accountability (CFOJA) that took place May 15, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The report recounts why the CFOJA was convened and many things tending to serve or hinder that goal as the forum's first anniversary approaches. Ultimately the report concludes that "(a)dequate judicial oversight is not generally available in America through well-established government processes, but contrary to a popular sentiment, the inadequacy is not due to corruption."

Various public policy thought leaders from America's public and private sector will be formally invited to critique the CFOJA report according to Zena Crenshaw, executive director of National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., a CFOJA co-sponsor. "An online blog has been created so the general public can critique and comment on the CFOJA report as well", she adds. The report is sixteen (16) pages long and includes an appendix of real stories about the court battles of six (6) U.S. citizens: Mrs. Evelyn Johnson, Mrs. Nancy Swan, Ms. Katherine Moore, Mrs. Betsy Combier, Mrs. H. Christina Pak, and attorney Michael R. McCray.

While the CFOJA report makes clear that the forum's presiding panel heard compelling arguments for both maintaining and reforming America's judicial oversight methodology, those panelists who helped draft the report seem most persuaded by the contention that restoring the Rule of Law when breached is an obligation of and should directly involve all Americans. Crenshaw, who made the related arguments, now links them to a finding by Transparency International (TI), a prestigious anti-corruption coalition.

TI defines corruption as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.' Its executive summary of the problem as it relates to judicial systems in general explains:

It is difficult to overstate the negative impact of a corrupt judiciary: it erodes the ability of the international community to tackle transnational crime and terrorism; it diminishes trade, economic growth and human development; and, most importantly, it denies citizens impartial settlement of disputes with (neighbors) or the authorities. When the latter occurs, corrupt judiciaries fracture and divide communities by keeping alive the sense of injury created by unjust treatment and mediation. Judicial systems debased by bribery undermine confidence in governance by facilitating corruption across all sectors of government, starting at the helm of power. In so doing they send a blunt message to the people: in this country corruption is tolerated.

Noting that judicial corruption accordingly undermines the tremendous policing that can be accomplished through private litigation, Crenshaw proposes that effective judicial oversight should be among America's highest priorities.

Crenshaw says "anyone calling for more government regulation or chastising its past failures during this time of economic crisis should consider that some of America's best regulators are private litigants, cut out of oversight processes by the rulings of judges who themselves may be part of the problem." Retired Chief Deputy Marshal Matthew Fogg committed two (2) decades of his life proving that law enforcers sometimes break the law. Through a landmark, four million dollar jury verdict in 1998, Fogg established "the entire U.S. Marshal's Service to be a racially hostile environment for African American deputy U.S. Marshals nationwide." Among many related endeavors, Fogg is founder and national president of CARCLE, Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement, a CFOJA co-sponsor.

Betsy Combier

As president of the E-Accountability Foundation, another CFOJA co-sponsor, Betsy Combier credits the CFOJA with looking "at one of the most important issues in America right now: whether or not judges with their accompanying power should continue to be given the immunity that is currently almost absolute." She contends this first inquiry leads to a second, namely "whether or not there are sufficient safeguards against the abuse of that power and supportive judicial accountability." Attorney Michael McCray adds as Chair of The 3.5.7. Commission which addresses the proliferation of summary judgments in employment discrimination cases and co-chaired the CFOJA:

President Obama's election campaign proved that grassroots community organizing combined with new technology has the potential to shake the very foundations on which once unassailable ivory towers stood. What was true for his presidency will be true for the courts. The justice system in America must take notice - May 7, 2009 could very well be the "Iowa Caucus" that begins an avalanche of judicial reform.

All participants seem to share Betsy Combier's sentiment that the CFOJA is "an important step towards the renewing of public trust in America's judiciary." The CFOJA report itself sets forth "Next Steps" as recommended by presiding panelists James Holzrichter, Co-Founder of the Taxpayers Against Fraud Mentoring Project; Marcel Reid, Chairperson of The ACORN 8 and; Matthew Fogg, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal (retired), International Human Rights Advocate, and EEO/Diversity Counselor.

To download and/or comment on the Citizens' Forum On Judicial Accountability Report and Recommendations, please click here.

Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian

By the way, I have heard from Zena Crenshaw that the floor is open for further discussion of the issue of absolute immunity and "corruption" of the judiciary, and I intend on using this opportunity to argue that absolute immunity fosters corruption.

I believe in the definition of corruption given by Black's Dictionary (6th Edition):

"An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others." (p. 345).

Thus, while ALL cases of judicial absolute immunity may not be placed under the umbrella of "corruption", certain circumstances provide absolute proof of this to be the case.

March 22, 2007
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR CORRUPTION?
No one is above the law ... except judges, apparently.

Moshe Rosenstein alleged that he was damaged when a Judge of the New York City Housing Court wrongfully entered a default judgment against him. (The Judge supposedly changed the date of trial without notifying the tenant.)

Rosenstein's lawsuit, which claimed wrongdoing on the part of the judge, the administrative judges, court officers and clerks (with whom Rosenstein had interacted and/or were purportedly involved in the surreptitious rescheduling of the case and/or who refused to investigate the matter), was dismissed by a Court of Claims judge.

In its affirmance of that outcome, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted as follows:

Since the Housing Court judge who allegedly changed the date of claimant's trial without notifying claimant in order to grant claimant's landlord a default judgment had subject matter jurisdiction over claimant's landlord/tenant matter, any action taken by that judge in connection with that matter, even if malicious or corrupt, is cloaked with absolute immunity .... So too is the alleged wrongdoing of administrative judges, court officers and clerks in transferring and rescheduling the matter .... For the same reason, defendant cannot prevail on his claim administrators committed wrongdoing in not investigating his complaints about the allegedly corrupt judge and in not disciplining him ....

We can accept that the appellate court found no merit to the allegations made in this particular case.

But here is the part we don't get:

Why afford immunity to someone who has willingly engaged in an illegality? Shouldn't a miscreant -- which would include a corrupt judge -- be subject to personal liability for his/her misconduct?

Once the public trust has been violated, and a judge or court employee has been found guilty of criminal behavior, we see no reason to afford that individual unbridled immunity protections. (That strikes us as nonsensical.)

People should suffer the consequences of their misdeeds, no?

For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link:
Rosenstein v. State of New York

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM

Rosenstein v State of New York
2007 NY Slip Op 01170 (37 AD3d 208)
February 8, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Moshe Rosenstein, Also Known as Marshall Ross, Appellant,
v
State of New York, Respondent.

(*1) Moshe Rosenstein, appellant pro se. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Michael S. Buskus of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered March 15, 2005, which, in a claim for money damages arising out of an erroneous default judgment against claimant in Housing Court, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the Housing Court judge who allegedly changed the date of claimant's trial without notifying claimant in order to grant claimant's landlord a default judgment had subject matter jurisdiction over claimant's landlord/tenant matter, any action taken by that judge in connection with that matter, even if malicious or corrupt, is cloaked with absolute immunity (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52, 55 (1943)). So too is the alleged wrongdoing of administrative judges, court officers and clerks in transferring and rescheduling the matter (see Weiner v State of New York, 273 AD2d 95, 97-98 (2000)). For the same reason, defendant cannot prevail on his claim administrators committed wrongdoing in not investigating his complaints about the allegedly corrupt judge and in not disciplining him (see Mantell v New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct, 181 Misc 2d 1027, 1030-1031 (1999), affd 277 AD2d 96 (2000), lv denied 96 NY2d 706 (2001)). We have considered claimant's other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.