MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of January 12, 2014, we've received over 137,725 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Beginning of the End of Corruption in NY Courts (CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)

Supreme Court Will Review the Way New York Selects Judicial Candidates
New York Times - February 21, 2007
By LINDA GREENHOUSE ......MORE.....

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The United States Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to review New York’s method of selecting candidates to its own Supreme Courts — the 324 judges who have general trial jurisdiction throughout the state and whose nomination to 14-year terms is tightly controlled by a political process that two lower federal courts declared unconstitutional last year.

The lower court rulings, which were stayed until after the 2006 election cycle, have created turmoil in the state’s judicial politics and spurred calls for fundamental change in a system that dates to 1921. The political parties control the nominating conventions, and candidates who are not favored by the parties’ leaders have no chance of getting on the ballot. The actual elections are for the most part uncontested.

From 1994 to 2002, these nominating conventions in the state’s 12 judicial departments chose 568 State Supreme Court candidates, none of whom were challengers to the party favorites. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a ruling last August affirming a decision issued five months earlier by Judge John Gleeson of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, ruled that the system was so exclusionary as to violate the First Amendment right of the state’s voters to freedom of political association.

“The First Amendment guarantees voters and candidates a realistic opportunity to participate in the nominating phase free from severe and unnecessary burdens,” Judge Chester J. Straub wrote for a three-judge panel of the appeals court. He added that the United States Supreme Court’s election-law precedents “establish that the First Amendment prohibits a state from maintaining an electoral scheme that in practice excludes candidates, and thus voters, from participating in the electoral process.”

The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by the New York State Board of Elections, joined by several political organizations; the incumbent State Supreme Court justices; and by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who was governor-elect by the time the appeal reached the court on Nov. 28.

Governor Spitzer’s view of the case will be a matter of some interest as it goes forward. Addressing the Rockefeller Institute of Government shortly after his election as governor, Mr. Spitzer indicated that he did not support the existing system, which he said was “in dire need of reform.” According to an account in The New York Law Journal, the governor-elect said that “there must be a way to primary onto the ballot,” and added that “I will not support anything that has a closed convention structure, where only those who came out of the convention could be on the ballot.”

Governor Spitzer’s office in Albany said on Tuesday that he would have no comment on the Supreme Court decision to hear the case, New York Board of Elections v. Torres, No. 06-766. The court will take up the case when its next term begins in October. It could be a year from now, or longer, before the justices issue a decision.

That long waiting period presents considerable uncertainty. Under Judge Gleeson’s original ruling, the state will have to begin to use a primary election system unless it comes up with another way to satisfy the court’s constitutional concerns. A bill to establish primary elections as the way to choose State Supreme Court nominees passed the State Senate last year and was reintroduced at the beginning of the new session in January.

But primaries present their own problems, including the need for candidates to raise considerable amounts of money. (Money is also an issue with the nominating conventions; a judge who was arrested in Brooklyn on corruption charges several years ago asserted that the going rate in the borough for the Democratic nomination for judge was $50,000.)

A task force convened by the New York City Bar Association in response to the court rulings recommended a system of merit selection, under which bar associations, civic groups and others would screen and present a list of candidates from which the governor or, in New York City, the mayor would choose.

Mark H. Alcott, president of the New York State Bar Association, said on Tuesday that the organization had long supported a merit selection system. The shift to such a system would require a state constitutional amendment. The Constitution was amended in 1846 to require election of State Supreme Court justices.

The challenge to the convention system was brought by a group of judicial candidates, Republican and Democratic voters, and the civic group Common Cause, represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. The lead plaintiff, Margarita L√≥pez Torres, who is now the Brooklyn surrogate court judge, tried and failed several times to obtain a Democratic nomination for State Supreme Court. As an elected Civil Court judge, she refused an order to make a patronage appointment of a law secretary, and complained that she was told by a party leader that she “did not understand the way it works.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's about Time !!!!!

Anonymous said...

The Winstons had a 5 month trial against Bankers Trust, they lost everything and the Judge was Anthony Scarpino who had work at Bankers Trust. You wonder in the pit of your stomach what's going on and why these things are allowed

Anonymous said...

Where there is smoke in this case there is a bonfire - Some of the Judges should go to jail and their pensions should be taken away. More people should sue the rat Judges. www.nyjail4judges.org

Anonymous said...

Pay to play - Justice is FOR SALE in the American Injustice System, just ask anyone who has been thru the meat grinder and they have it right Judges should go to Jail.

Anonymous said...

We all should live so long to see this!

Anonymous said...

The Federal Judge has it right, the system is kaput.

Anonymous said...

This blog needs more coverage. The lawyers will seize control of the process of picking their fellow lawyers for Judgeships. Stop that and the Country has a chance.

Anonymous said...

The bane of business are these attorneys

Anonymous said...

The best disinfectant is sun light!

Anonymous said...

Another example of the STENCH FROM THE BENCH!

Anonymous said...

hydrocodone online hydrocodone acetaminophen 3592 - generic hydrocodone vs lortab

Anonymous said...

valium online valium drug reviews - what is a 10mg valium equal to in xanax

Anonymous said...

order lorazepam ativan and alcohol experience - ativan klonopin conversion

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol with mastercard tramadol 50 mg tab amne - tramadol withdrawal hallucinations

Anonymous said...

best buy tramadol tramadol addiction in dogs - ultram better than generic tramadol

Anonymous said...

ativan online pharmacy ativan vs xanax sleep - ativan overdose pupils

Anonymous said...

order tramadol no prescription 250mg tramadol high - tramadol for dogs cost

Anonymous said...

buy ativan buy ativan line mastercard - ativan dosage vs xanax

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol cod fedex tramadol withdrawal duration symptoms - buy tramadol online cod only

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol online no prescription cheap - buy tramadol online cheap no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol online us - tramadol hcl tab 200mg

Anonymous said...

best buy tramadol tramadol dosage webmd - tramadol 50mg for dogs usa

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol free shipping tramadol for pain - buy tramadol dogs usa

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol next day tramadol buy online florida - tramadol y paracetamol

Anonymous said...

order clonazepam can you overdose klonopin die - klonopin 2mg blue

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online reviews tramadol hcl and vicodin - buy tramadol for dogs

Anonymous said...

generic ativan ativan 2 mg uses - ativan highly addictive

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol tramadol 319 high - ordertramadolonline

Anonymous said...

ambien drug buy ambien online no prescription - ambien may prompt sleep eating video

Anonymous said...

klonopin online use of klonopin for anxiety - klonopin xanax ativan

Anonymous said...

cheap ambien no prescription ambien generic price walgreens - purchase ambien online no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy soma online how to buy somatropin injection - soma vanishing back bra

Anonymous said...

ambien 5 order ambien cr - zolpidem tartrate vs ambien cr

Anonymous said...

generic tramadol tramadol 100 mg experience - tramadol 50mg street value

Anonymous said...

purchase klonopin klonopin wafers - klonopin side effects adults

Anonymous said...

buy generic tramadol no prescription tramadol y alcohol - purchase tramadol online

Anonymous said...

ambien online without rx order ambien from mexico - ambien for sale no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy soma 350mg soma san diego theater - tramadol soma online

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online 20 mg ambien high - buy cheap ambien online no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol can you order tramadol - tramadol for dogs cost

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol m t7 - can you buy tramadol in usa

Anonymous said...

cheap klonopin online klonopin can you snort - suboxone 8mg 2mg klonopin

Anonymous said...

tramadol online buy tramadol online us - tramadol drug interactions

Anonymous said...

generic ambien what is ambien cr used for - ambien side effects 2012

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2