Richard Benham is Dead

Richard D. Benham, 52, vile Internet troll, slanderer, libeler, hypocrite, is dead.

Indeed, in his Inferno Dante provides a very special place in hell for the Richard Benhams of the world and he places them in Canto XI, the circle of complex fraud or malice:

[22] The end of every malice is injustice,/Achieved either by fraud or violence/Against others. And while heaven hates either vice,/ [25] Fraud is peculiar to humans, and hence/Displeases God more; thus the fraudulent/Are put lower and suffer a pain more intense…[58] Are nests of hypocrites, flatterers, lying creatures, Sorcerers, simonists, pimps, thieves,/Swindlers, seducers, and other filthy vultures. (Dante Allighieri, Inferno, Canto XI)

Richard Benham was, without a doubt a sick man, a suffering soul, full of malevolence and malice. He was angry person as are so many persons who are chronically ill. Richard Benham’s anger and apparent self-loathing turned out against many persons, many of whom never knew of Benham and whom Benham never made an attempt to know as persons; they were merely fuel for his anger. I happened to have been one of his victims.

Benham worked by ambush and had no concern for the immorality of his actions, had little regard for truth, and even less for the effects of his wanton irresponsibility. He had every marking of the sociopath.

Benham was scathingly self-righteous but not righteous. His way was the only way and he was not above attacking anyone who disagreed with his take on an issue.

Nor was he above lying, fraud, slander, libel, defamations, confabulation; his vulgarity was shocking.

Benham was oblivious to anything but the ad hominem and launched his venomous invectives not only upon the target victim but maliciously attacked the innocent, including family members and acquaintances of the victim. His arrogance was boundless and his gratitude primitively self-serving: he glorified a backwoods journalist, relegated by the editors of his small regional rag to cover backwoods towns and the “hill country” when said journalist devoured Benham’s scandal but vilified at least three others and their editors for opting to discard his rubbish and to ethically refuse to publish it.

Benham fraudulently obtained unreliable information from sources and then irresponsibly published it; when presented with evidence and information refuting his conclusions, not only refused to apologize or even retract his incorrect publications but became even more scandalous to cover his error.

Benham was so undignified that he attracted and at times recruited minions to join with him in his malicious attacks; his appeal is - was - to those of his ilk – the self-loathing, the malicious, the angry.

Benham is dead but his toxic blogs live on as his testament to an impoverished life and soul; the immaterial, pablum-puking testimonials and memorials to the hypocrite chameleon Richard Benham merely give testimonial to the superficial presentation of a deeply disturbed individual and to the overall superficiality and herd-instincts of a self-loathing community of misfits who devour scandal and are overly quick to condemn.

Benham was the epitome of the Internet troll and has become a symbol of a misguided intellect and life. But he is dead now and the Internet and the world may be a minutely better place without him.

Benham died a defendant in a defamation lawsuit; he escaped temporal justice but now faces a more exacting justice and an absolute judge. May he receive his just deserts.

But despite what Richard Benham was in life and as hopeless as his life turned out to be, we can only pray that a loving God will be a merciful God and give Benham a reprieve and shorten his infernal agonies. Despite the evil that Benham perpetrated during his short life it remains the duty of those he injured to forgive him and to pray that his purgative suffering of his abused soul be mercifully of short duration, and that he receive forgiveness. Whatever one believes one should try to forgive pitiful souls like Benham and lead a more charitable life, a life in observance of the two great laws that would make the world a more gentle place to spend our short lives.
At any rate, may his suffering in hell be less than the suffering he caused others on earth.

He now stands alone in a silent shadow world.

Amen.

Is Newsweek Reading this Blog?

Eye on Judges!<

As we've already reported below, elected judges in the New York State Unified Court System, especially one Joseph C. Teresi, have not been getting very good press--and rightly so.

We became unpleasantly aware that the problem is epidemic in the United States, in many of the highest courts in the states, and even in the Federal Court System. This came to light recently when we picked up a recent Newsweek magazine and found these articles in very prominent places in the magazine:

When Judges Behave Badly February was a spectacularly bad month for the judging business. Last week Samuel Kent, a federal district judge in Texas, pleaded guilty to obstruction-of-justice charges in exchange for the state's dropping sex-crime charges. Kent may go to prison for three years for groping female subordinates, and there is talk in the Senate of his impeachment. Then Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, was charged by her state's Commission on Judicial Conduct with five counts of violating her duty and discrediting the court. Published Feb 28, 2009. From the magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009 Dahlia Lithwick on Legal Issues By Dahlia Lithwick http://www.newsweek.com/id/187007

and

Imagining Life Without Lawyers So what are we to do about all these lawyers? Philip K. Howard, founder of Common Good and author of "The Death of CommonSense," is right—the very last thing we want to be doing right now is watching as not one but two attorneys fill up all the sock drawers at the White House. In his new book, "Life Without Lawyers," Howard argues that we are being choked to death by Law. We churn out more than 70,000 pages of new rules in the Federal Register each year, and the proportion of lawyers in the workforce has nearly doubled between 1970 and 2000. In Howard's view, our reliance on law, lawyers and lawsuits has turned Americans into neurotic cowards who "go through the day looking over their shoulder instead of where they want to go." January 31, 2009 Dahlia Lithwick on Legal Issues By Dahlia Lithwick http://www.newsweek.com/id/182569

Ms Lithwick's impressive credentials in journalism and law can be found at Dahlia Lithwick. Lithwick is a NEWSWEEK contributing editor and a senior writer for slate. a version of this column also appears on slate.com.

And another very relevant article on When should judges step aside? Justices weigh case . This article points out the concern over judges who sit on cases despite evidence of bias and argues that they should step aside. The Supreme Court is stepping up to the plate to make a decision on this serious problem, since our judges can't manage it themselves. According to the article, in part:

"'Our whole system is designed to ensure confidence in our judgments,' said Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the crucial vote on the divided court. Large campaign contributions in judicial elections are undermining faith in judges, several justices said.
During lively arguments in a closely watched case from West Virginia, the court's four liberal justices and Kennedy all expressed support for a ruling that the Constitution's guarantee of a fair trial could require judges not to participate in a case in which there was a likelihood of bias."

We'd like to know your impressions and opinions.
Please use the comments feature on this blog.

What are you looking for, Mr Luibrand?

Welcome, Mr Luibrand! But what are you looking for There?
Albany lawyer Keven A. Luibrand Logs in 10 Times on February 23, 2009, and on February 24, more than 6 times! And he keeps coming back for more ...the New York State Unified Court System apparently has gotten wind of this blog and has honored us with a number of visits.

We seem to have attracted the attention of some local sharks who have been spending some time at this blog site. Probably out of some perverse pride pathology. Or can it be some deep-seated insecurity? Whatever it may be, we have been gleefully watching as Mr Kevin Luibrand of Luibrand Law Firm in Latham, New York has left his tracks on the blog with multiple visits in a single day--on February 23, 2009, Luibrand visited our sites at least TEN (yes, 10) times in that single day and on February 24, 2009, at least SIX times and he keeps commin' back for more of the First Amendment in Action reality!

Hey, Kev'! Let somebody else on! Don't hog it all for yourself!

We certainly hope he found what he was apparently so desperately looking for. Or maybe there's a shortage of ambulances to chase? His law business must not be doing very well if Mr Super-Attorney can spend so much time re-reading our humble publications.

Yup, it's the same Albany attorney who in typical attorney humility once said "I'm living proof that a monkey can try a case if the facts are good." Well, a better rendering of the meaning of that Luibrand quote would be "Luibrand is proof that an ape can get a case decided if the facts are well cooked (or better still, if you have the right biased judge)." He can take a liar and doctor him up to sound like Mother Teresa's tesifying. Yes, Mr Luibrand is a lawyer and lives up to that group's fine reputation for doctoring facts and creating convenient versions of truth...for any insurance company's money or any delinquent who needs to get away, and he doesn't care how he does it.

And he's the same Albany lawyer who defended convicted terrorist sympathizer Mohammed Hossain in the Albany case, and lost, but now he is working on an appeal of Hossain’s conviction. Here's another Luibrand quotable: "I still can't believe that the government can do this." That's what Hossain's lawyer Kevin Luibrand had to say, adding that he felt the government was targeting innocent Muslims in sting operations; never mind those troublesome facts, Kev', it's those pesky government attorneys on reverse-jihad. And of course, Mr Luibrand, plots are hatched to asassinate foreign diplomats all the time in Albany, thriving international intrigue hub that it is. (Just to be sure you know: Luibrand is shown on the upper left; we don't know who the guy is in the lower right photo. Red-herring alert!)

And flamingoes sit in trees. Right Lucky?

Pseudo-Sophisticate landscaping ideas from the Green House in New Baltimore.

You'd think that some flavor of prostitution is legal in New York? No. Just corruption.

If we were naïve, we could expect that Mr Luibrand may be visiting the site to get current on the poop on New York's fine judiciary. But he's more likely trying to find a judge with whom he can curry favor. After all, why let Powers & Santola have all the judges; maybe Luibrand wants one of his very own, too!

Luibrand apparently recently fraudulently obtained a contempt decision from guess who? Yes, our friend Teresi (photo at left). It seems Luibrand issued a subpoena and couldn't wait to play Mr Tough Guy and filed a motion for contempt when he faced reasonable opposition from the party. Luibrand filed a motion and came away with egg on his face. Well, far be it from Luibrand to learn a lesson and to proceed honestly! He filed another motion--of course ignoring the fact that the party had satisfied the subpoena request--, and Luibrand never informed the court that he had received the party's answers and so there was no contempt. So what does the court do? Teresi signs up and grants the contempt motion but--to his credit--saying that if the party responds to the subpoena, the contempt is purged (null and void). Now Luibrand is going to have to answer why he never informed the court and caused the court to go through all the process of reading paperwork and writing a decision, etc., etc. But what does Luibrand care. It's taxpayer money that's being wasted. And he got his contempt decision--fraudulently.

Luibrand is representing one John Luckacovic* (photo at right, try not to notice the teeth) of New Baltimore, New York, the nightmare neighbor from Freddy's Elm Street. Luckacovic was a co-defendant in a defamation lawsuit brought by a pro se litigant and that went to trial before Joseph C. Teresi--the same Teresi who was censured for unjudicial conduct and anti-pro se bias (see the exposé below). Luckacovic was being sued for lying about a neighbor and publishing a paid advertisement under an assumed name (wadda hero this Luckacovic is!). During the trial, Teresi doesn't control the courtroom, picks on the pro se, allows the defendants to ramble on and on and avoid answering questions, when the plaintiff asks Teresi to please instruct the witness to answer the question, Teresi ignores him. (Immediately before the trial started, Teresi was informed that the witnesses would probably be difficult--they were previously defendants--and explicitly asked to consider them "hostile". Teresi flatly refused and allowed the previous defendants to vent and rant on the witness stand and in the presence of the jury!) Despite the pro se's explicit request to tell his story, Teresi did not allow him to testify. In fact, Teresi decided against the pro se and incredibly so! Was the man awake through the testimony? Sure he was. He's the anti-pro se judge, isn't he?

Now Luibrand is harassing innocent bystanders, third parties who had nothing to do with the lawsuit and know nothing about it, with subpoenas. Birds of a feather! A couple of years back, Luckacovic brought that same innocent party to court on a trumped up violation, signed a sworn statement he knew contained false information (Teresi overlooked that, too!), caused the innocent party stress, unnecessary preparation for court, lost time at work, and then the case was dismissed.

Well, if they can't get me they'll get someone else; what does Luibrand care if the person's an innocent bystander; his client, Luckacovic didn't. What malicious scoundrels they are!

But Luckacovic is again back in court with former defendant Joan Ross, also of New Baltimore, New York, a friend of Luckacovic's and her husband, Robert or "Wobbie*", works for Luckacovic.

News Flash: A local resident just related a hilarious, but oh! so characteristic, report on "Wobbie's" latest: Seems he's writing letters to the editor of a local newspaper--the Greenville Press, Greenville, New York--about how he "feels" the mercury from a local cement plant working in his body. This is the sort of thing he and his wife, Joan, spend their time doing. This guy's gotta be in his 70's, has had a neurological disorder for years, but now it's the "mercury" from the plant. They'll never miss an opportunity. It's pathetic that these people have nothing better to do than to slander and libel neighbors and write lunatic contributions to a backwoods rag. These people are not playing with a full deck!

Luibrand's practice is allegedly 40% criminal defense. The defamation case described above was a civil case but what happened was a crime.

We are filing papers against Luibrand and some of his cronies for their misconduct at deposition. Now that's a new twist! Let's sue the lawyers!

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of judges are [former] lawyers. See some of our sources in the posting below for some of the "cuteness" that goes on between them.

We'll keep you informed.

Time to wash your dirty hands, boys!

* Caution: Luckacovic likes to have is name pronounced "Lukavik" and gets pretty peeved if you can't figure out on your own that "Luckacovic" is pronounced "Lukavik". So change it, why doncha! And he uses the monicker "2Luck". Now that's inventing yourself!

First, A Word About Our Judges ...

New York State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi has been censured on two different occasions]by a state panel for having an improper conversation with a prospective witness and for bias against a pro se litigant.

In fact, the two Teresi censures are so significant that they are cited in a number of cases as the basis for censure of other judges' misconduct!

(A simple Google search will suffice to substantiate this fact or click on the underlined text!)

Teresi

Click the link to read more on this judge's bizarre behavior.

And here's another independent report of Teresi's interests and activities.

First a word about our "illustrious" judges in New York State:

The judges are partisan political and registered members of political parties and so receive the support of political parties. They also run campaign fundraisers and receive "campaign contributions". Guess who make the bulk of campaign contributions...law firms and attorneys! (see Worst Judges Money Can Buy and Justice Moneybags reports). Smell a rat yet?

Well, the first judge on the case, Cathryn M. Doyle, was involved in some unsavory business, brought before the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct who found:

"Weighing these factors against the standards set forth by the decisions of the Court of Appeals, we do not see a sufficient basis to remove an otherwise qualified, capable judge. See, Matter of Kiley, supra; Matter of Hart, 7 NY3d 1,10-11 (2006) (accepting the sanction of censure, the Court cited “several instances of conflicting testimony,” among other “troubling” factors); see also,Matter of Skinner, 91 NY2d 142, 144 (1997) (sanction reduced from removal to censure notwithstanding “discrepancies” in the judge’s testimony and a finding by the Commission that the testimony was “disingenuous and evasive”); Matter of Edwards, 67 NY2d 153 (1986) (reducing the sanction from removal to censure, the Court rejected the Commission’s conclusion that the judge’s testimony showed “lack of candor”)."

She was censured but because of the scandal Doyle was not re-elected. (see also: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169256644.html)

When we learned of her involvement and the findings of the Commission, we demanded that she be removed from our case and she was replaced by Joseph C. Teresi. Read the couple of snippets below and decide whether Teresi is any better (you'll learn more about Teresi in the next installments on the trial):Where'd all the money come from???

March 2007

Justice Moneybags

By Jason Boog 3-30-07 --The U.S. Supreme Court's grant of review in the New York judicial selection reform case gave Albany an excuse to stop working to change the state's antiquated system. This year was supposed to see the same empty exercises is ceremonial electioneering as years past. So why is Justice Joseph Teresi sitting on a cool one hundred thou? . . . Judicial candidates around the state rejoiced in early March when federal judge John Gleeson, reacting to a U.S. Supreme Court decision to review, stayed his judgment that overturned New York’s judicial convention system and mandated open primaries until the state legislature could find a better solution. . . . It appeared that 2007 would see another ceremonial election cycle with party bosses essentially picking members of the bench. . . . So why have two Supreme Court candidates from the Third Judicial district raised over $151,000 for the 2007 race? (Source: "Justice Moneybags" at http://www.victimsoflaw.net/NewYork1.htm)

And regarding campaign contributions:

THE POWERS & SANTOLA THAT BE

At the top of the list is Powers & Santola, a plaintiff’s firm that specializes in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. Its five partners and one associate frequently appear in the Supreme Court venues that surround Albany, including the Appellate Division’s Third Department, where Carpinello sits. And the firm is extraordinarily active on the campaign front, having given five-figure contributions to nine sitting Supreme Court justices, as well as Carpinello’s opponent.
Since 2004, Powers & Santola has doled out $157,725 in campaign cash to Supreme Court candidates in the firm’s primary area of practice, Judicial Reports found in an analysis of campaign filings. Those gifts included:
• $25,000 in 2004 to Presiding Appellate Justice Anthony V. Cardona of the Third Department;
• $20,125 last year to Albany County Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi;
• $15,000 in 2006 to Appellate Justice Karen K. Peters of the Third Department;
• $15,000 in 2005 to Appellate Justice Edward O. Spain of the Third Department;
• $10,000 last year to Saratoga County Supreme Court Justice Frank B. Williams (who is also Supervising Judge of the Third Judicial District); and
• $10,000 last year to Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice George B. Ceresia, Jr. (who is also Administrative Judge of the Third District.)
Justices Teresi, Peters, Spain, Williams, Ceresia and McGrath did not respond to calls from Judicial Reports.(Source: http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-judges-money-can-buy.html)

Where's the competition in judicial elections? So much for voters' choice!

"On Friday, three incumbent judges received cross-endorsements from Republicans as well as their own Democratic nomination.
State Supreme Court Judge Joseph C. Teresi of Albany County, George B. Ceresia of Rensselaer County and Christopher Cahill of Ulster County, seeking new 14-years terms to the bench, will appear on both the Republican and Democratic line, virtually assuring them of election and essentially prohibiting
voters from making the choice.
The trio was nominated at the judicial convention held Friday by Democratic and GOP delegates from Albany, Rensselaer, Ulster, Columbia, Greene, Schoharie and Sullivan Counties.
Teresi has been twice censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, most recently in December 2004 for engaging in ex parte communications. In February, 2001, Teresi was censured for failing to “respect and comply with the law” and “to be faithful to the law”. The commission found that Teresi’s actions constituted an abuse of his judicial power and suggested that he was biased against an unrepresented litigant.
In two other cases, it was found that Teresi was injudicious, impatient and discourteous during discussions in which he attempted to achieve a settlement. 9-29-07 (Source: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/09/29/supreme-court-to-review-ny-judicial-selection/)

Another was Ron Loeber, an Albany-area man whose complaint led to the censure of Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi for abusing his judicial power. Mr. Loeber maintains a Web site that [www.nyjail4judges.org] advocates enhanced judicial accountability. (Source: http://www.moderncourts.org/News/Forums/1202b.html)

Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi, who was censured in 2001 for jailing two people without a hearing and holding another litigant in contempt and incarcerating him for 45 days without a written order. (Source: "NY Judge's Lack of Remorse Supports Censure" scroll down to 'Isolated Incident' (read as 'It's not!')(http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/judgesreignintheircourtsone.htm)

Censure by the Commission on Judicial Conduct is a very serious disciplinary action. But some of these ethical violations are not what we want to see in anyone, much less a judge. It always worries me when I hear about a judge being "censured" for misconduct and for ethical violations, but Teresis has been censured twice by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: once in 2001 and again in 2004, in addition to the other miscellaneous suspect involvements!

Read on! In the 2001 decision to censure Teresi:

"Respondent’s [Teresi's] handling of the Robert Marini Builders, Inc. case repeatedly violated the rights of a third-party defendant, Mr. Loeber, and conveyed an appearance of bias. He granted a default judgment against Mr. Loeber, who was appearing pro se, although the litigant was not in fact in default; he ordered Mr. Loeber to sign a corrective deed before the issues had been sufficiently clarified and before any finding had been made as to the defendant’s liability; and he held Mr.
Loeber in contempt and sentenced him to six months in jail for refusing to sign the deed, without any provision for his release during that period if he purged himself of the contempt. Mr. Loeber remained in jail for 45 days pursuant to respondent’s order. Respondent’s actions constitute an abuse of his judicial
power and suggest that he was biased against the unrepresented litigant.

"In two other cases, respondent [Teresi] was injudicious, impatient and discourteous during discussions in which he attempted to achieve a settlement. In Anglin, after pointedly excluding a female attorney from a conference in chambers, respondent [Teresi] used “colorful” language and exerted pressure in an “injudicious and indiscriminate manner” in order to force a settlement. In Diorio, while exerting pressure to achieve a settlement, respondent stated that the parties were wasting the court’s time on matters that should have been settled, and he disparaged the attorneys, in the presence of their clients, by asserting that they were being overly litigious and that this was characteristic of Ulster County attorneys. Then, after stating that he would hold a trial within the next few days (notwithstanding that a later date had been scheduled) and being advised that one of the parties would be unavailable, respondent [Teresi] suggested that therefore the client should settle. While a judge may play an active role in attempting to settle cases, the judge’s conduct toward litigants and their attorneys at all times should be “patient, dignified and courteous” (Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, 22NYCRR 100.3[B][3]).

"By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate sanction is censure."

and in the 2004 decision to censure Teresi:

"In imposing sanction, we note that respondent [Teresi] had previously been warned of the impropriety of ex parte activity. In a determination dated February 8, 2001, respondent [Teresi] was censured, in part, for engaging in ex parte communications in a pending case and was specifically advised that such conduct is prohibited by Section 100.3(B)(6). Matter of Teresi, 2002 Annual Report 163 (Comm. on Judicial Conduct). In view of his prior discipline, respondent should have been especially sensitive to the high standards of conduct expected of judges and, in particular, the prohibition against improper ex parte discussions. By reason of the foregoing, the
Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure."

Judge Teresi received some unfavorable attention the the 2005 American Judicature Society's report "REACHING OUT OR OVERREACHING--Judicial Ethics and Self-Represented Litigants" (p. 47):

"The New York Commission found that [Teresi's] handling of a case repeatedly violated a third-party defendant’s rights, constituted an abuse of his judicial power, and suggested that he was biased against the unrepresented litigant." (citing the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct's findings in Fn 226)

The American Judicature Society works to maintain the independence and integrity of the courts and increase public understanding of the justice system. It is a nonpartisan organization with a national membership of judges, lawyers and other citizens interested in the administration of justice. (Please visit and support the AJS website at http://www.ajs.org/.)

Now, would you worry if this judge were assigned to your case???

How can you possibly trust this judge and expect he is administering unbiased justice???

Postscript: In February 2009, we will be filing a Formal Written Complaint with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct seeking discipline against Joseph C. Teresi for his alleged misconduct in New York State Supreme Court (Civil) Case Index No. 07-0233.

All The Justice You Can Pay For

Justice is for sale. Indirectly. It's true. It's not a cliché when you hear people say that the rich get turned lose and the poor are lynched. The courts are stacked against them right from the start. Either because an overworked or incompetent court appointed attorney or public defender takes on the case or because the litigant believes (but not for long) in justice and throws himself before the courts as a so-called pro se, fully believing in the merits of his case and in the fairness of the courts. Well, we've heard the stories of what happens then.

Well, some time ago I was observing the courts in action and became so disgusted, I decided to try to change things. So I ran for the office of town justice. I believe that judges should have no political party associations and should be 100% impartial. So I ran as an independent, write-in, and paid for my own campaign. The rats wasted no time coming out of their lairs. They had to do something to keep me from being elected. I was dangerous. So they started writing letters to the editor and anonymous ads. Just anything they could dream up. It's American politics so who cares if it's true. Right? Wrong!

I lost the election (of course). But I then took the liars and scandal mongers to court. I had a slam-dunk case--or so I thought.

The next several postings will be the entire story, from start to finish, and organized into the following sections:

• 2005: The Beginning
• The First Summons and Complaint - The Players, The Counts
• Pre-Trial: The Depositions, The Attorneys, The Judge
• Trial: The Courtroom, The Judge, The Defendant, The Witnesses
• Post-Trial: To Date

The continuation of the saga:

• 2007: The Re-run
• The Conspiracies
• The Second Summons and Complaint - The Players, The Counts
• Pre-Trial: To Date

We hope you'll follow these installments and that you'll be able to hold your lunch down. What happens in the courts is downright sickening but no one really has the guts to publish it all and to fight back. That's changing here and now.

Stay tuned.