JUDICIAL REFORM NOW CALLS ON NYS LEGISLATURE TO RESCIND UNLAWFUL “APPOINTMENT “OF JUSTICE GAIL PRUDENTI AS REPLACEMENT FOR JUDGE PFAU AS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Manhattan, New York, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) November 6, 2011 --

1

JUDICIAL REFORM NOW CALLS ON NYS LEGISLATURE TO RESCIND UNLAWFUL “APPOINTMENT “OF JUSTICE GAIL PRUDENTI AS REPLACEMENT FOR JUDGE PFAU AS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

Welcome visit Our WebSite:

http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

New York, NY, November 6th, 2011: Judicial Reform Now, the New York judicial advocacy group, publically called for the “rescission” of the appointment of Justice Gail Prudenti as the Chief Administrative Judge for all New York Courts based upon the role by Chief Justice Lippman and Kaye in her apppointment. Judge Lippman was asked to resign last month after it was revealed that he was part of a "case fixing" conspiracy of two discrimination cases on appeal, and that he abused his discretion to reverse jury verdicts and to dole out favors to violators of Discrimination Laws and fellow judges accused of judicial misconduct to avoid investigation & accountability. Chief Justice Lippman himself has been accused of several felonious acts including tampering with, and reweighting evidence, to justify to vacating the record and “converting” a large verdict against an employer into a “credit” in the form of millions of dollars.

Ironically, His Honor sat on another appellate panel for a major Age discrimination case, Stephenson v. Hotel Employees, where he sanctioned the 1st Dpts deployment of the same unlawful device for reversing verdicts, second guessing the Trial Court on “sufficiency” of evidence where the narrow provisions of Appellate review precluded the same. Consequently, the Lippmann panel cited one “fixed” case to document the legal standard of another. The Lippman panel was also accused of altering the factual record and intentionally miapplying the McDonnell Douglas standard when both cases involved “direct evidence” of discrimination.

Judge Kaye, who chairs the Judicial Nomination Commission, also sat on the panel that “fixed” the Stephenson discrimination case when it came before NYCOA in 2006. The Court ignored the fact that the Employer admitted to declaring its intent to replace older workers with younger ones, indisputable evidence of Direct Discrimination, and that it accepted completely unproven and false allegations from a “hired gun” retained by Local Union 100, a “former Kroll VP” who entertained “complaints” from an anonymous former FBI agent that the Plaintiffs were “bagmen for the Mafia”. Kroll’s own investigation vindicated the two Plaintiffs after they were terminated. Despite the Record being rife with testimony of age biased remarks and stereotypes, and despite the declaration of a discriminatory motive, the First Department panel Majority Judges Saxe, Andrias, Freidman, Williams REVERSED the Trial Court decision, in defiance of Appellate Review standards for “abuse of discretion”, relied upon “multiple hearsay” and improperly weighted the evidence in favor of the Employer (Non Prevailing party), while ignoring the Minority (Judge Mazzarrelli) warning about “discretionary balancing” of evidence on appellate review. The NYCOA, Judges Lippman, Kaye, Cirpatrick Rosenblatt, Graffeo, and Smith concurred with the First Department decision, even citing to the fabricated record.

In addition to charges of “Case Fixing’ , Chief Justice Lippman has been accused, along with Chief Justice Gonzales, of hijacking accepted appellate law to make it “legal” to render “new findings of fact” on appeal . At some point in the past, the Appellate Division secured the NYS Legislature’s approval of this completely illicit "right". “Appellate Courts do not have the right to make findings of fact on appeal”, JRN asserted, “It is universally recognized that this is the province of the Trial Court. What the Appellate Division did was attempt to use its charter as a “intermediary court” to blur the legal distinction. “No bona fide Appellate Court wouold render a ruling where it changed the facts of the case in the court below, exclusive of any “issue of law”, simply because it did not like the outcome of the jury’s findings. The only time where factual issues come into play on appeal is where there was NO admissible evidence to support the Jury’s findings, which is very, very rare”.

Chief Justice Lippman, who had no real trial experience and lacked any credentials to “legal scholarship” coming into the job, has routinely relied on "lynch mob justice" to justify disposing of evidence that he does not like. In the Bates case he participated in, after admitting he could not change the Prima Facie case, he simply libeled the Plaintiff as “a liar” to discredit her trial testimony and reverse the case. HIs motives were to “help” a colleague, who was under investigation (Judge Rolando Acosta) and part of His Honor’s Succession Plan, to avoid investigation of his actions. The latter judge acted in a clear absence of jurisdiction, entering “Final Judgment” when he knew he would be recusing. There are also issues around whether Chief Judge Lippman has actually been legally in office. Apparently, there was no quorum when his vetting nomination came up. The Public, however, were allowed to present arguments in favor or against his nomination by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It appears that Judge Prudenti was “appointed” without such vetting and without public hearings on her nomination.

“Our problem with this appointment is not that Her Honor is a Republican, but that her appointment was shrouded in secrecy, the process was not transparent, and the Chief Judge apparently handpicked her. We have called for Chief Judge Lippman’s resignation. He should have recused himself from the nomination process de minimus. Instead, he apparently believes he can “buy” his way back into office by doling out another favor, this time to the Republicans”. The Senate Judiciary Committee now headed by Senator John Bonancic had to have been involved in this appointment. “They are making the same mistakes that their predecessors made. This politicizing of the process to “get their person” in position without any regard for qualifications. There were several other candidates that were more qualified than Judge Prudenti. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job. It only provides her with equal opportunity to apply and a slight advantage if there are equally qualified candidates. She does not even begin to meet the scholarship criteria”.
Judicial Reform Now has been critical of the quality of Decisions coming out of the Judiciary in New York Courts, and the rampant “fixing” of cases. Founder Jordan said that in virtually every Decision that she encountered, a judge or appellate panel had made “serious errors of law” either due to incompetence or intentional judicial activism..
Without legal standards that are uniformly applied,the Rule of Law is at risk and cases are being "bucked up" instead of resolved in the Trial Courts. Under Chief Justice Lippman, “Case Fixing” has been rampant.

“Some people see this as a political problem and believe the conduct is acceptable as long as the judge is “on their side”. These individuals do not understand the purpose of the Judiciary or how judicial decisions are supposed to be made. A judge’s role is enforcement, not legislative. When judges start acting as legislators, the entire balance of power is subverted and judicial independence put at risk”, Jordan asserted. Judge Prudenti’s candidacy could be a causality of this misguided view of the Judiciary. Once Chief Justice Lippman was put on notice of the “case fixing’ and “abuse of discretion” claims, he had a duty to recuse and vacate his Decision. That decision wherein he indisputably acted in excess of his jurisdiction, and more seriously altered the evidentiary record after a Verdict was entered, was a Void Judgment the day it was entered. Aside from the legitimacy of his appointment in February 2009, Chief Justice Lippman does not have jurisdiction to appoint any judges while allegations of “case fixing” and abuse of discretion are pending, and while a demand for his resignation is outstanding.

“We did not feel Judge Lippman was qualified to be the Chief Judge of all New York Courts when he was nominated by (former Governor) Elliot Spitzer. We, and other groups, sent voluminous objections to the JNC regarding his lack of trial experience, judicial scholarship necessary to command the respect that the job requires, and a tough minded approach to Law Enforcement. He had virtually none of these qualifications. During His regime Public’s Confidence in the Judiciary has sunk to a new level.” His astonishing lack lack of legal knowledge, his naivete (Mental Health Court where mentally disturbed criminals would be "monitored"), his willingness to “do favors” for peers and politicos, and his notorious “leaks” and “Ex Parte” evidence, have protected him from the rigors of judicial conduct review.

Judicial Reform Now is calling for a “stay” to the appointment of Judge Prudenti, and an investigation into how her nomination was handled and the circumstances under which the appointment was made, especially given Chief Justice Lippmann’s role. A self-described “Long Island Republican”, Judge Prudenti went to law school at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. She was appointed by Chief Justice Lippman to be the Chief Judge for Suffolk County Courts. Her main qualifications appear to be that she is well liked, a consensus builder and is “loyal” to the philosophy of Chief Judge Lippman.
“This sounds like a dangerous cloning experiment”, Jordan said, “The last person we need to head up the NY Supreme Courts in a time of crisis is a judge who is more concerned with being popular than taking tough stands on critical issues and who thinks Chief Judge Lippman. as the biggest case fixer in judicial history, is the model playbook”. Either way, given Chief Judge Lippman's questionable legal status as NYCOA headi, it is likely that the Prudenti appointment will result in a legal challenge. Impeachment hearings are pla

More information can be found online at http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

case fixing     Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman     JUDGE JUDITH KAYE     JUDGE PRUDENTI     JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMMISION     Judicial Reform Now     New York Supreme Court     STEPHENSON V. HOTEL