Match from Hell, but Made in Heaven

I note, with interest, the case of Williams v. Williams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32119, N.Y.L.J., 4/7/2010, p. 36 (No. 07 Civ. 119, S.D.N.Y., 31 March 2010).

Notwithstanding that the primary plaintiff and the primary defendant share a common surname, they apparently are unrelated.

The plaintiffs are students and alumni of the City College of New York, and the defendants are officials or employees of said college and/or its parent institution, the City University of New York.

Seems that a one or more groups of CCNY students decided to honor two former CCNY students, to wit, terrorist Guillermo Morales and terrorist/cop-killer Assata Shakur (formerly known as JoAnne Chesimard), each of whom escaped the authorities and now lives in Cuba. One such group received permission from the College to use a room for their organization. The room was (dis)graced by a sign reading "Guillermo Morales/Assata Shakur Community and Student Center" some time in 1990. The room was (and continues to be) used by various far, far left organizations.

[N.B. Neither the two aforementioned oxygen-wasting lowlifes, nor their sycophants, admirers or acolytes, will be further glorified by any links in this posting. No need to boost their Google search counts any more than necessary.].

The 12 December 2006 issue of the New York Daily News featured an article, and a companion editorial, which criticized CCNY and CUNY for sanctioning "a shrine to killers." The sign was removed, and the students now sue for infringement of their Constitutional rights. In defense, CCNY and CUNY claim qualified immunity in removing the sign.

Judge Thomas Griesa denied CCNY/CUNY's motion to dismiss. As the Judge explained it, "There is surely a serious question as to whether the students had a Constitutional right to name the Community Center after two criminals and to place a sign announcing this name above the door, thereby in effect commemorating such criminals. However, the court does not believe the case should be decided on motion. There are issues that deserve a trial, both as to plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and defendants' qualified immunity defense."

The added stress upon the judicial resources not withstanding, Judge Griesa has, in my own humble opinion, called this one correctly. While the students and their organizations are lowly scums, and their efforts to commemorate killers, anarchists and terrorists are most reprehensible, the College is hardly any better for tolerating that plaque above the door to the room for over 16 years. And while I am all for student free expression, I question whether similar leeway would have been accorded by the College to, say, a group of extremist Jewish students who put up a plaque for the Rabbi Meir Kahane Community Center, or a group of extremist Italian students who name their den after John Gotti Sr. or some other mafia don.

Let the two sides duke it out in court! They deserve one another!

My only concern is that CCNY/CUNY might capitulate to pay the students a settlement to end the litigation. But if that happens, I am sure that the New York Daily News and other publications will not hesitate to further embarrass CCNY.

The Court's Gatekeepers

New York's has had an interesting and diverse history. Its first European discovery was by an Italian in the service of the French, and there was subsequent colonization under alternating Dutch and British flags before it joined in with American independence. The opening of the Erie Canal made New York City a robust commercial center where economic promise induced many people to immigrate. Among the new immigrants was a significant contingent of Irish, who provided rich fodder for the Tammany Hall political organization. Other groups likewise participated in the political landscape of New York City, and made their contributions. Artifacts from this history, foul and fair, are still very much a part of New York and its culture and government.

New York's legal system is a product of these historical events and trends. Specifically, New York has one of the most intricately developed set of procedural rules for legal practice in the courts. As one whose livelihood depends upon the ability to navigate within the Byzantine structure of the courts, I can attest that the courthouse clerks wield a tremendous amount of power. The corps of court clerks need regulation and oversight as much as any other bureaucracy, else they would quickly spin out of control and into tyranny.

An exemplar of how petty, picayune and penny-ass some court clerks can be is the case of Joseph E. Gehring, Jr., Esq., an attorney who attempted, just two days before the statute of limitations was to blow, to file an affidavit of judgment confession, a common means to secure and collect a debt.

The Clerk of the Court refused to accept the paper for filing because it was a copy and not an original.

It must be understood that Section 2101(e) of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") specifically provides that "Except where otherwise specifically prescribed, copies, rather than originals, of all papers, including orders, affidavits and exhibits may be served or filed." And, as recently updated, CPLR Section 2102(c) provides that "a clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose except where specifically directed to do so by statute or rules promulgated by the chief administrator of the courts, or order of the court."

Gehring sued Norman Goodman, the New York County Clerk and Clerk of the County Supreme Court (in New York, each county has its own Supreme Court, another anomaly of the New York legal system). And Judge Braun ordered Goodman and his subordinates to comply with the law and accept the copy of the affidavit for filing.

I have dealt with clerks in several courts, and can say from my own experiences that the clerks in the New York County Supreme Court are, with some exceptions to be sure, more arrogant than the clerks of the United States Supreme Court. Goodman has been there since 1969, and I have had to deal with his subalterns on numerous occasions. They run hot and cold, but stories of insolence by Goodman's boys and girls abound. Goodman has been implicitly or explicitly chastised by a judge on a number of occasions. This time he had it coming to him.

Where court clerks can make up the rules as they go along, they can also play favorites. And when the court clerks play favorites, the court system is no longer impartial.

Flushing out the crooked judges

The trial of Gerald P. Garson, former Brooklyn judge now accused of accepting bribes, is being watched by many in New York and elsewhere. The evidence against Garson is overwhelming, especially the secret audio-video recordings made in his chambers. The one weakness in the prosecution's case is that their star witness is Paul Siminovsky, the disbarred lawyer who, as part of his plea bargain, wore the wire and is now singing on the witness stand.

A brief blurb on the front page of the 3 April 2007 issue of the New York Law Journal:

=================
...

On the first day of cross-examination yesterday, Mr. Garson's attorney, Michael S. Washor, tried to fluster Mr. Siminovsky and damage his reputation, mostly by recounting Mr. Siminovsky's disbarment and his undercover work for prosecutors.

"You lied to this man, your mentor?" Mr. Washor asked.

At one point he earned a mild admonition from Justice Jeffrey G. Berry. Mr. Washor was questioning Mr. Siminovsky about his plea to a misdemeanor; when he asked Mr. Siminovsky what date he had pleaded guilty, Mr. Siminovsky asked, "In court?"
"No, in the toilet," Mr. Washor replied.

Mr. Washor also could be heard speaking softly to his co-counsel, "Let me handle it. This [expletive], I'm going to get him."

After dismissing the jury, Justice Berry called Mr. Washor a "talented attorney" but asked him to "tone it down."

Mr. Washor apologized to the jury, but proceeded to ask Mr. Siminovsky if he knew the difference between a court and a toilet.


...

====================

Many have expressed outrage and disgust at the corruption in the courts in Brooklyn.

My comment here is that, having litigated cases in the Brooklyn courts, I am unable to discern all that much difference between a Brooklyn court and a toilet.