LEGISLATIVE ALERT!

"Court Reorganization"

New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, has been pushing for a constitutional amendment on court reorganization which would bring surrogate's court and other courts into a homogenized two-tiered system consisting of supreme and district courts, and which purportedly would bring much-needed reform to the courts.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee issued a report on its 1997 activity entitled "Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice Act."(see excerpts below) This is just a pretty name: the current state of the pending legislation offers us no relief whatever from what we believe to be the unconstitutional practices of the Surrogates and/or other courts.. Notably, an original proposal which promised to "open disciplinary proceedings of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, once a formal charge was made, to ensure the continued high quality of New York judges and public confidence in the judicial system" has been amended out of Assembly and Senate versions of their concurrent resolutions for the 1999-2000 legislative session (S.4191 and A.6885--C)

Though so-called "public" hearings were held in October 1997 and January 1998, the general public was never informed about them, or invited, and were thus deprived of input. The speaker list of judges and lawyers was impressive, but there was no meaningful public participation because the hearing notice was not published in the public press: it was buried in the New York Law Journal, which is a trade paper for lawyers and judges.

A New York State Bar Association Task Force on Court Reorganization approved the projected bill, after rejecting a minority report by two elder law members which sought exclusion of the surrogate's courts from court reform. Although the legislators had initially introduced bills for court reorganization which included the surrogate's courts and promised to open Judicial Conduct hearings to the public, somewhere along the way, the public interest was sold out in favor of the judges and the banking and trusts & estates bars.

As a result of the unilateral testimony by lawyers, judges and the legal "profession" at these hearings, the affected players (surrogate judges and T&E bar) managed to exclude the surrogate's court from court reform. What behind-the-scenes 'horse trading' were our own representatives (mostly lawyers) engaged in, to protect their feeding trough at the surrogate's court from trespass.

The amended joint resolution left the surrogate's courts to "do their own thing."

Inclusion of the surrogate's court system into a single supreme court operation would have brought an end to the absolute fiefdom run by one or two judges in each county surrogate's court and eventually bring their operations under the control and management of administrative and supervising judges of the supreme court system.

Inclusion would have meant that the "pay-to-play" lawyers would have to share the wealth: surrogate's court would no longer be their sole and exclusive private preserve, and the beneficiaries and heirs could then, hopefully, receive the full share of their intended inheritance and trust funds, which are presently greatly dissipated by the frenzied feeding of the sharks. (See"Patronage")

So unless we take action, it will be "business as usual" in the surrogate's courts!

IF YOU'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF SURROGATE'S COURT OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A VICTIM OF SURROGATE'S COURT AND DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF PARTICIPATING DUE TO THE WORST OF ALL VIOLATIONS OF LAW - LACK OF NOTICE - YOUR INPUT NOW BECOMES CRITICAL!

If you don't know what your representatives are doing in your name, it's time you paid attention! You must speak up and let them know of your displeasure, and remind them that you vote!!

Call and write the people who shut us out of the public hearings and permitted the Surrogates to perpetuate their notoriously lawless operations (over which there is absolutely no oversight). We must demand our right to be heard before there is any tampering with the state constitution for the benefit of the unchallenged powerful.

We don't presently have the detail as to how the proposal to open Judicial Conduct proceedings to the public got killed or how surrogate's became excluded from restructuring. We need to know. And we need to be watchful in the future of what our representatives are doing "on our behalf."

THE PROBLEM WITH POLITIANS, AS WE SEE IT: UNKEPT PROMISES!

Notes on the 1997 Assembly Committee Report by Helene Weinstein (D), Chairwoman, including excerpts from "Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice Act":

As part of her Assembly Judiciary Committee report for 1997, Chairwoman Helene Weinstein (D), stated as follows:

"The Judiciary Committee had a busy and productive 1997 legislative session. The Committee improved estate and trust laws, and approved legislation that will establish clearer rules governing the transfer of investment securities.

"In March, the Committee conducted hearings on the current Office of Court Administration experiment using electronic recording rather than court reporters to record judicial proceedings. The Committee is also conducting joint hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee on court reform, access to justice, and judicial integrity. Please read through this report for further details. As we begin the 1998 session, I look forward to your comments and suggestions."

DID YOU RECEIVE THAT REPORT? WHY NOT?

Following are excerpts from the specific report on what is nicely described as the "Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice Act":

"In September, the Assembly Majority announced a comprehensive six-point program designed to streamline New York?s judicial system, reinforce public confidence and ensure that all citizens have access to justice."

"When introducing the proposal, Assemblywoman Weinstein, Chair of the Judiciary Committee said, "To meet the unprecedented challenges faced by our courts today, we must link needed changes in the structure of the court system with measures to provide our citizens with adequate legal assistance and to preserve confidence in the quality and diversity of the judges who administer justice."

"The Assembly's Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice Act includes court merger and constitutional authorization for a fifth judicial department, but recognizes that these measures alone are insufficient to create the type of judicial system our citizens need and deserve as we enter the 21st century," commented Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

"The Assembly Majority six-point plan builds on the accomplishments of the legislature and the judiciary over the past several years, dramatically improving the operations of the justice system."

(Following is our selected excerpt from the six-point plan):

The plan provides:

"Judicial Screening - Screening panels review the qualifications of judges appointed to the court of claims, appellate divisions, New York City family court and New York City criminal court."

THE BILL, IN ITS PRESENT FORM, PROVIDES ONLY FOR SCREENING OF APPELLATE JUDGES!

OUR PROBLEMS BEGIN IN THE MOTION/TRIAL COURT AND THAT IS WHERE MORE AND BETTER SCREENING IS NEEDED, SINCE THE WHOLE SELECTION/ELECTION PROCESS ISN?T WORKING PROPERLY.

"Open Disciplinary Proceedings ? Proceedings of the Commission on Judicial Conduct are opened to the public, once a formal charge is made."

OPENING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE WILL NEVER HAPPEN, WITHOUT YOUR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS!

"The Assembly plan includes the addition of more than 160 new judges as well as constitutionally mandated commissions to screen appointed judges and changes in the system of judicial discipline to ensure the continued high quality of New York judges and public confidence in the judicial system."

WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH CHANGES, AND THE PUBLIC IS RAPIDLY LOSING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AT EVERY LEVEL.

"The Assembly Majority announced its proposal to the public well in advance of the 1998 session, so interested organizations and individuals can review and comment on it. This period of review, including statewide hearings, will make it possible to refine the ideas in the Assembly plan."

DID YOU SEE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT ANYWHERE?

"The Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committee are co-sponsoring four hearings on court reform around the state. The hearings address both a proposal by Chief Judge Judith Kaye to restructure New York's court system and the Assembly Majority's plan."

"Hearings were held on October 7th in New York City, on December 2nd in Hauppauge, December 10th in Buffalo, and on January 21, 1998 in Albany."

DID YOU ATTEND THE HEARINGS AND TESTIFY? DID YOU GET NOTICE THAT THEY WERE TO BE HELD?

That report closes with the following text?

"It is our hope that through public review, comment and debate, the Assembly's Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice Act, can form the basis for a cooperative dialogue which engages every New Yorker who is concerned with improving the justice system in the common goal of preparing to meet the challenges of the next century. We appreciate your input on this proposal."

ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH IMPROVING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM? WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING PUT OUT FOR ?PUBLIC REVIEW?? WERE YOU AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT?

NO WAY! CAN WE FIX THAT? YES! BY WORKING TOGETHER TO PREVENT PASSAGE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WITHOUT FIRST REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS SO WE CAN HAVE OUR SAY!

Contact the chairmen of the Judiciary Committees in both houses of the legislature. Tell them you want NO constitutional amendments that do not include opening judicial conduct to the public; NO court reorganization which excludes the surrogate's court; that you want the hearings reopened, on proper notice, and new hearings held so that the taxpayers (nonlawyer/litigating public) can finally have their say.

If your own representative is on a Judiciary Committee, contact him/her. Tell them all of the above, and that you are interested in genuine court reform; that you will be watching future action vis-a-vis their re-election.

Patronage ("Pay-to-Play") Scandal

Patronage means you contribute to the judge's election campaign and you get legal work as a reward! Otherwise known as the "quid pro quo," the patronage (fiduciary) system is at its very worst in surrogate's proceedings, where obscene fees are frequently awarded (and sometimes for unnecessary work)! The elder law practitioners are in there making B-I-G sucking sounds! It is no secret that in many instances, they are "doubledipping" (billing for reimbursements on top of commissions or legal fees), which should not be allowed, but many judges particularly in mental hygiene guardian proceedings (in the supreme court as well) go along with this improper padding. No wonder the Trust & Estates bar fought to exclude surrogate's court from the reorganization plan. There are similar problems of unjust enrichment in mental hygiene guardian cases.

When two Brooklyn lawyers complained that they were being shut out of some lucrative patronage deals, the scandal became public. As a result, Chief Judge Kaye was forced to commission a Special Investigator General to look into compliance with the rules on patronage. Big deal! That's all they're going to do, and they're guaranteed to find much noncompliance. So how does that prevent continuing theft by so many of the court-appointed fiduciaries in surrogate's and other courts? It can't and won't. That's why we have to become very vocal about corruption in the courts. Chief Judge Kaye has basically ignored all complaints of corruption sent to her by forwarding them to Judge Lippman (OCA) whose unsatisfactory proforma response is: If you don't like the decision, file a judicial conduct complaint or take an appeal!

IF YOU DON'T TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES WHAT YOU WANT, THEY WILL DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT!

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION:
Original Assembly Bill
"Judicial Reform, Integrity &Access to Justice Act"
Introduced by:
Sheldon Silver (D), Speaker of the House
Helene Weinstein (D), Chairwoman, Assembly Judiciary Committee

As amended, also introduced by:
Bragman, Green, Connolly, John

Sponsored by:
Christensen, Clark, A. Cohen, Cook, Dinowitz, Espaillat, Galef, Glick, Gottfried, Grannis, Hochberg, Hoyt, Luster, McEneny, Millman, Norman, Ramirez, Seddio, Sidikman, Sweeney, Tonko, Weprin

Senate Bill (S.4191)
Introduced by James J. Lack (R),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

1997 Annual Report, Judiciary Committee http://assembly.state.ny.us/Reports/PandC/1997judiciary.html
This is the report which promises "Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice"!

1998 NYSBA Task Force on Court Reorganization Majority Report for action at 4/4/98 House of Delegates
http://www.nysba.org/house/ctreorg.html
(The House of Delegates aproved the proposed legislation, with surrogate's court to be merged into the new proposed supreme court, overriding the minority report.)
Linked to that report is also the 1998 Minority Report, NYSBA Task Force on Court Reorganization:
The minority report makes the apparently false claim:

"While only a small percentage of the overall proceedings in the Surrogate's Court are contested, when such contests do occur, a high percentage are resolved by settlement through the active participation of the Surrogates and their law assistants, clerks and staff. The use of Surrogate's Court staff for what amounts to in-house "alternative dispute resolution" is one of the Surrogate's Courts most important benefits to the public."

We know this to be false because our inheritances and trusts are whittled down by unnecessary litigation and obscene attorney fee awards.

The apparent bottom-line objection of the minority report (on behalf of the Trusts & Estates bar) is to sharing of the patronage plums: "We do not have confidence that OCA and local administrators will resist the many pressures they may have to transfer people, whether to punish or control, or to give others a chance at perceived patronage opportunities, or out of a failure to understand the unique nature of the service provided by the Surrogate's Court to the public."

Assembly bill A.6685--C
http://assembly.state.ny.us/cgi-bin/showbill?billnum=A06885
Titled: "Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly Proposing Amendments to Article 6 of the Constitution, in relation to the compositino of judicial departments and the restructuring of the unified court system, and the repeal of sections 10, 11, 13, 15, 34, 35, 36, 36-a, 36-c and 37 of article 6 of the constitution relating thereto."

There is no apparent relation to the bill as originally introduced, entitled "Judicial Reform, Integrity and Access to Justice," nor does it in any way "ensure the justice system is fair to all, as announced in the Assembly Judiciary report issued in 1997.
(1) The original title (popular name) has been dropped;
(2) The original proposal to open proceedings of the Commission on Judicial Conduct to the public once a formal written complaint has been filed by the C6ommission against a judge has been amended out of the present bill.
(3) The proposal to establish new screening panels to recommend and review nominees to the new supreme court, criminal and family courts has been amended out; there would be a commission on judicial designation for appellate division nominees, but the provision for making reports on all candidates has also been amended out.

Senate Bill S.4191 "Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly Proposing Amendments to Article 6 of the Constitution in relation to the composition of judicial departments and the restructuring of the unified court system, and the repeal of sections 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 34, 35, 36, 36-a, 36-c and 37 of article 6 of the constitution relating thereto." (Cannot be found online, but is similar to Assembly version, with fewer proposed amendments.)

MOST IMPORTANT CONTACTS:
(LOB = Legislative Office Building; CAP = Capital Office Building)

Sheldon Silver, Speaker
E-mail: speaker@assembly.state.ny.us
Albany Office:
LOB 932/CAP 349, Albany 12248
518-455-3791
District Office: Assembly District: 62
270 Broadway, Suite 1807, New York 10007
212-312-1420

Joseph L. Bruno, Senate Majority Leader
Email: bruno@senate.state.ny.us
Albany Office:
LOB909/CAP330, Albany, New York 12247
Tel: 518-455-3191
Fax: 518-455-2448
District Office: R-C; 43rd Senatorial District
Counties: Rensselaer, part of Saratoga
368 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-583-1001

Helene Weinstein, Chairwoman,
Assembly Judiciary Committee
E-mail: weinsth@assembly.state.ny.us
Albany Office:
LOB 831, Albany 12248
518-455-5462
District Office:
3520 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn 11229
718-648-4700

James J. Lack,
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
R-C; 02nd Senatorial District
Counties: Part of Suffolk
Albany Office:
413 State Capitol Building
518-455-2071
District Office:
3B42 NYS Office Bldg.,
Veterans Memorial Highway,
Hauppauge, NY 11788-5525
631-360-0490

Gov. George Pataki
Executive Chamber
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341
Tel: 518-474-8390
Fax: 518-474-1513
Email: gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.us

ADDITIONAL ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION: http://assembly.state.ny.us/Members

ADDITIONAL SENATE MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.senate.state.ny.us/

IF YOU DON'T TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES WHAT YOU WANT, THEY WILL DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT!