Crisis In The Family Courts

Attorney Barry L. Goldstein sanctioned for defending Battered mothers and their children (this is open oppression)

Posted in Uncategorized by abatteredmother on January 26, 2009

Attorney Barry L. Goldstein of Stop Family Violence, The Sidran Institute, Sanctioned for web site post on behalf of Battered Women and Court Abused Children
Glenn Sacks and Men’s Daily News boasted links to this and now the fatherhood fanatics are attacking.

This is BS-  a man can rape beat even kill women and children and be given kudos and silver awards ($$profit$$ ya know) but god forbid  we expose the corruption.. and oppression- and is true of all societal change Gandhi says it best IMO..

1st they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they FIGHT you-(but always-in the end) you win. be outraged- there will be many more-who ‘dare’ to tilt the power.   Hang in there Barry you are not alone- ‘we are many and we are –ONE. -Claudine live from the www.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2009/01/the-new-york-ap.html Attorney Sanctioned For Web Site Post The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a five year suspension of an attorney found to have committed a laundry list of ethics violations in two matters.

One involved misuse of funds entrusted to the attorney in connection with his representation of a not-for-profit tenants housing resource center; the other involved representations to and about a court in a domestic relations case where custody had been transferred from his client to her ex-husband: The respondent represented Yevgenia Shockome, the mother in the child custody matter, and in a divorce action in the Supreme Court.

The respondent wrote an article entitled, "A Call for Genia’s Law by Barry L. Goldstein, Stop Family Violence," which was posted on a web site for the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference as part of a campaign to free the respondent’s client, who had been imprisoned after being held in contempt by Judge Amodeo.

One or more of the following excerpts from that article were dishonest, false, or misleading: i. "Without an evidentiary hearing or any written explanation, Judge Amodeo took the children from the mother who has raised them and sent them to the abuser." ii. "Judge Amodeo got around this in his decision by constructing a bizarre conclusion that he, the Judge, had caused the mother’s PTSD." iii. "At one point it was discovered that the court had erased two of the transcripts[,] further delaying the appeal." iv. "The decision demanded that the mother stop therapy with her present therapist and instead use someone selected by the court." v. "I had to make a motion to withdraw from the case in front of Judge Amodeo for medical reasons…

The law requires that when a party loses an attorney for medical reasons, that she is entitled to at least a 30-day stay to obtain another attorney. Instead, Amodeo continued to make her come to court unrepresented, to face more abuse. After the 30 days has passed (with no stay) he decided that she had enough time to find an attorney." vi. "The police were called and they found that the supervisor had attacked the mother and child." viii. "Judge Amodeo called numerous conferences to attack and berate the mother for interfering with the phone calls and the father’s relationship with the children."

The court rejected the following contentions: In determining the appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the Court to consider, with respect to the escrow violations, that they were "technical errors," that "he was just an honest attorney attempting to help others," and that he has since corrected his ways.

The respondent’s witnesses testified to his reputation for cooperation, honesty, and sincerity. While the respondent contends, with regard to the charges relating to the Shockome matter, that these disciplinary proceedings were brought by the Grievance Committee in retaliation and as a penalty for his criticism of Judge Amodeo and the courts, we find no basis for such a contention.

To the contrary, we find the respondent’s utter failure to appreciate the fact that his conduct exceeded the bounds of propriety as a courtroom advocate, his complete lack of remorse, and the pervasive nature of his deceptive conduct to be aggravating factors. Irrespective of the respondent’s sincerity in his beliefs, his overzealous behavior which took the form of disparaging remarks on the court, false accusations about Judge Amodeo disseminated in a public forum as part of a campaign to pressure the court into changing its rulings, and noncompliance with multiple court orders, truly constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The attorney had no record of prior discipline.(Mike Frisch)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: