Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.

The photo accompanying this essay at "Critique" depicting New Jersey "judges" stuffing their faces -- at your expense, probably -- has been blocked several times. Suddenly, they seem a little shy. I wonder why? Is it significant that their hands are under the table? Are envelopes filled with cash being passed around? This essay has been subjected to an attack and numerous defacements. I wonder who would wish to do such a thing?

"Judge" Tolentino was described by a prominent Hudson County prosecutor as "pulling decisions out of her ass" (even her law clerks were stupid) and Schaeffer was "spoken to" several times concerning his "dislike for Latino lawyers," but no one is more arrogant than Moses. I will describe those two at length soon and also the "Honorable" Mark Baber. This is my best response to the destruction of a text I was working on yesterday by N.J. hackers.

Errors have been inserted into this essay overnight. I will correct them, making it a point to select more New Jersey judges, forensic psychiatrists, and their family members for public examination and interrogation concerning their activities. My family members have been harmed by my experiences of torture. I think it is only fair to question, publicly, the family members of others doing the harming. I am blocking

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3754sitemsn.com/B... June 11, 2007 at 10:00 A.M.

As of June 2, 2007 at 12:25 P.M. there were 11 intrusion attempts against my computer. Main attacker: 24.192.175.47. (NJ)

June 3, 2007 at 5:53 P.M. I am blocking and defending against the following sites and/or hacks:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3671.MSN/B23225;
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3285msn-dm/B171;

http://view.adtmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001728x90 ;
http://view.adtmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001160x600 .

Intrusion attempts and hacks will continue throughout the day, mostly originating from computers in New Jersey judges' chambers, others are probably located in government offices in Trenton or Jersey City, perhaps Hackensack.

June 5, 2007 at 9:38 A.M. I have experienced great difficulty in accessing my blogs and writing today. I will do my best to cope with these problems. These frustration tactics and threats, or other difficulties, are usually effective against persons who have committed no crimes, yet have been subjected, over decades, to similar and much worse methods of control by "social scientists." Curiously, a small number of bizarre persons seem to insist on their freedom. I will always resist such criminal oppressions described by the New York Times as "Doctor Assisted Torture."

Bob Ingle & Sandy McClure, "'See No Evil' Law Enforcement and Court Jesters," in "The Soprano State: New Jersey's Culture of Corruption" (New York: St. Martin's, 2008), pp. 127-163.
"Medically Assisted Torture," (Editorial) The New York Times, April 9, 2009, at p. A26.
Assata Shakur, "Prisoner in the United States," in "Still Black, Still Strong," (Paris, New York: Semiotexte, 1993), pp. 203-220 (Physicians in New Jersey participate in torture of African-American p.o.w.s, including psychological torture, long before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Terry Tuchin?)


My first job in the legal world was "law clerk." Whatever the job title, that's what the position amounted to, a clerkship. Young law school graduates who do well, academically, are given the opportunity to work with judges, assisting in drafting documents and opinions. A clerkship is a coveted opportunity to learn early in one's professional life about legal practice and the court system. Clerkships were traditionally denied to minority and "non-traditional" (meaning women, especially older women) law students and attorneys.

That year the state of New Jersey "urged" judges to make things look fair by hiring a few of "those" people who had previously been excluded. The terms used by the Supreme Court of New Jersey were the usual legal mumbo-jumbo and officialese, but this is what they were saying: "We'll have to put up with a few minorities until the press gets off our backs." And they did.

My clerkship was illuminating. I saw some people I still think of as great judges; others were terrible. Ironically, the greatest professional success went to judges who were terrible on the bench, but highly political. It was my first taste of the arrogance of power. It foreshadowed some of my later experiences.

New Jersey's legal system is a hideous farce, corrupt, tainted by organized crime, club house decisions, theft, incompetence (nowhere more so than in the bemerded -- that means "shit-covered" -- so-called "ethics-enforcement" system). Favoritism and bias are the orders of the day in legal ethics proceedings. Mafia influence is pervasive. I didn't know that then. I will spend the rest of my life struggling against the evil found in that state's legal system, while seeking a confrontation and chat with a few people who have harmed me and others that I care about. My primary emotions when contemplating the spectacle of N.J.'s legal system is disgust and anger.

Today I will focus on one judge I consider a very bad legal thinker, a person who is somewhat unintelligent, making up for stupidity with a domineering and gruff manner. She is a symbol, for me, of much that is wrong with that state's legal system. The fascinating aspect of discrimination or cultural assumptions made about "those" people -- members of the lower-orders (like me) -- is the opportunity they afford victims to anticipate what others will think of us and how we'll be treated.

If people assume that you are an idiot, then it is sometimes in your interest to let them think just that, in order to observe them and figure out what they're like. What makes that person tick? How does that judge decide cases? Moses was generally thought to be worthless as a judge, but she was said to be "related" to politically powerful persons in the state.

If you know something about jurisprudence, you can sit in several courtrooms on motion day and observe judges coping with legal arguments, quickly figuring out who is a positivist or realist, which judge is likely to respond to legal economics or natural law arguments, who is a moron ("oxy" or otherwise), and who is genuinely interested in being challenged. This is true even if most judges have no idea what any of these terms mean. Naturally, New Jersey's "connected" litigants will do well regardless of the lack of merits in their arguments.

If you can educate a judge in such a way that he or she will be convinced that they have taught you something, that judge will see you as a genius. Those judges who are willing to be educated on an issue and actually listen to what you say, are always the best judges. They are rare. Rare to the point of being unique in New Jersey. I say this whether they decide for or against you in the end. Lawyers want to believe that their arguments have been considered and weighed fairly. They often sense that this has not occurred. They cannot express such an opinion publicly. I think that their doubts are accurate on many occasions -- at least in New Jersey.

Law and argument have very little to do with the majority of decisions in the Garden State. Coopted minority lawyers will always be found -- among those seeking advancement -- to say that everything is "great" in the most corrupt and inept state legal system in the nation. (Compare "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court" with "New Jersey's Ethical and Legal System.")

Minority judges will also be trotted out by New Jersey's legal system to say that everything is hunky-dory -- despite the overwhelming evidence of bias -- and that I am "not a team player," only a "malcontent." Ad hominem attacks are routine for me. They were part of my life from day one, usually secretly and in violation of so-called "ethics." Any crimes committed against me, or cover-ups of such crimes will be deemed, legally speaking, no big deal. I am one of the sub-humans destroyed by the system. Who cares? No one.

I happen to recall a great deal concerning exactly how some of those minority judges were "elevated" to the bench, "allegedly," and what they said about the process. I will devote more time to judicial profiles in the new year. Still $25,000 cash for a Superior Court judgeship, allegedly? If so, it is overpriced.

There are countless others similarly destroyed by the crimes committed by powerful officials in the Garden State -- often as a result of sheer stupidity -- and these crimes will also be covered-up by the legal system. The same system's players who will judge the "faults" of others are adept at avoiding responsibility for their own catastrophic errors and crimes. Take another look at the portraits of New Jersey Supreme Court justices. They sure look happy, don't they? No worries. Business as usual. (See "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

We are now up to 179 persons (mostly minority) exonerated from death row or life terms, after murder convictions, as a result of DNA evidence indicating that errors made at trials were ignored on appeal. New Jersey appellate courts say, "errors made themselves." That's the kind of thing I think is unethical -- convicting the innocent and (theoretically) even executing them, then disclaiming responsibility for such failures and deliberate as well as on-going CRIMINALITY. My struggle against censorship and ass-covering New Jersey lawyers as well as judges is a daily experience.

The judge I will describe today is SYBIL R. MOSES. When last heard from, she was wreaking havoc as a Superior Court judge in Bergen County, New Jersey. She is depicted, I believe, in a photograph taken at a Passaic County bar event with DEBORAH T. PORITZ and good-old JAYNEE LAVECHIA (Genovese or Gambinos?), none of these women are likely to win the Nobel Prize. I was once asked, after expressing an interest in writing: "How many Nobel Prizes do you have?" To which my answer is: "Just as many as you."

I was asked to write a memo for Ms. Moses examining a legal issue in administrative law. I wrote a short memo, after finding a case right on point. I quoted language that was dispositive of the legal question presented, answering the issue raised pretty clearly. I quoted that key language from the judicial opinion in my memo. I moved on to my next project when Ms. Moses -- one of several judges making use of a reduced staff of law clerks -- barged into the library, accusing me at the top of her lungs of having fabricated a quote.

My paragraph from the decision contained an ellipsis because the quote was part of a very long passage. This paragon of judicial probity had failed to see the language in the paragraph in the printed text, assuming that I must have been mistaken in my reading of the case, since she could never err.

After accusing me, publicly, of "lying" and "inventing" this quote, I pointed out the place in the decision where the words I quoted were to be found. Judge Moses did indeed find the language quoted in the decision on the very page where I said it was to be found and stormed out of the room. Ms. Moses was offended because she had accused me of something that I had not done. It was thoughtless of me to prove her wrong. I said I was sorry.

Two days later, after being reminded by others that I had in fact -- only in a small way, of course -- actually been correct in what I said, this female Justice Brandeis invited me to her chambers and explained, privately, that she might have been a tad hasty in her remarks. Judge Moses said that I must try to be more accurate in the future. Politely and respectfully, I thanked her for her kind advice. It was for my own good. She was trying to help me. Of course, she was. By the way, she used the quote that I recommended.

I later read the full decision in the matter on which I had submitted the memo, discovering that my reasoning and the language in question had been "adopted." I never received an acknowledgment of assistance. Other law clerks did. I also never saw Ms. Moses or any other judge speak to one of my fellow clerks in the manner that I was addressed on that occasion, PUBLICLY. I wonder why? Judicial temperament? Racism? Bias? Plain old stupidity? A little of each of these explanations is probably accurate.

Years later, I observed Judge Moses' Superior Court session and noted her disdain, arrogance, high-handedness and causalness towards litigants, especially minority males. I forced myself to be polite and smile, once again, because I had to think of others' interests. I could not then express what I felt or thought. However, I can now.

Any minority defendant -- especially African-Americans -- appearing before Judge Moses should look at the possibility (or probability) of bias. Perhaps this is the belated revenge of Judge Moses against an African-American lawyer (the great Mr. Raymond Brown, Sr.), who prevailed in a celebrated case against Moses, whom she detested and probably still hates.

One of the few positive aspects of my current "post-mortem" condition is that I can -- and I will -- speak freely. The after-effects of trauma, especially tortures at the hands of Tuchin and Riccioli (the authorities in N.J. know that these things have happened and don't care), is a curious disconnection from my own life and from any sense of danger. Maybe it is true that you can only kill a person once. If so, then there is not too much more they can do to me. I am not referring to any legal actions taken against me which can always be manufactured in New Jersey. If there is such a thing as psychological murder, then I am pretty sure that I have experienced it.

The daily defacements of my writings is routine now. The authorities entrusted with protecting First Amendment rights will pretend to know nothing of these tactics, while applauding them privately. As with so many other matters in New Jersey's legal system, hypocrisy and fraud is the order of the day. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")

It is certainly possible, as I am often told, that I will be framed for something, hurt or "killed" for my opinions, which are expressed publicly. It is interesting how many people feel this way in New Jersey. Americans are frightened to speak publicly of political figures in a society that guarantees freedom of expression to all. Internet goon squads hired by legal authorities -- or (no doubt) acting with their consent -- commit crimes, with impunity, by destroying my work. I am referring to the people who hack into my computer to deface my texts nearly every day.

Mysteriously, I am unafraid. Something important is dead in me. And what is left is dying slowly. Fear is not an option. I have a novel to finish. You can't have any fear when writing a long novel. The daily bullshit just slides off me. The intolerance, air of self-assigned superiority of Moses is a defining characteristic of her judicial brethren, who are semi-illiterates in some instances, yet they are prepared to "explain" and "instruct" the rest of us concerning all matters of culture without the slightest hesitation. Not once when these great minds imparted their wisdom was I asked whether I had read anything dealing with the subject under discussion. These people -- like Moses -- assume a natural intellectual "superiority" to the likes of humble old me and you.

New Jersey criminalizes unconsented contacts by so-called physicians with any persons -- including hypnosis or drugging of victims of interrogation -- and also denials of discovery demanded under due process principles, including a subject's medical and legal records. N.J. actually "sanctions" slanders of a victim and secret contacts by attorneys with a colleague's clients, if they want to target a member of the bar who refuses to play ball with the powers that be.

All unconsesual physician- or lawyer-contacts with victims are illicit. Lying about such contacts (Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli) -- including lying through studied silence -- as well as cover-ups makes things worse. Hypocrites and frauds, like Moses, allow for such criminality and worse, when their "buddies" engage in it, even as they presume to judge my "ethics." I am now judging their ethics.

This Moses episode was a minor incident in my life as a legal professional in the American legal system. There were far worse things witnessed and experienced at the hands of New Jersey's so-called "judges." Ethics? In New Jersey? (Compare "America's Holocaust" with "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")