Here is what Keith Raniere’s attorney, Joseph Tully, said of Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.
He is seeking to get the judge to agree to get out of Raniere’s case and not decide the Rule 33 motion.
Tully did not mince words.
He wrote in his motion to disqualify he accused Judge Garaufis of being disrespectful to Raniere’s attorneys and hating Raniere.
- ‘Displayed a lack of judicial temperament.’
- Had ‘personal hatred of Mr. Raniere.’
- ‘Unmistakable evidence of bias against Mr. Raniere’
- ‘Antagonism toward Mr. Raniere’
- ‘Animus toward Mr. Raniere’
- ‘Displayed an unacceptable bias toward Mr. Raniere’s Defense team’
- He let things ‘boil into a personal rant against the Defense’s attorneys’
- Made ‘an unwarranted, personal attack on their professionalism.’
- ‘Demeaning defense counsel in front of the jury’
- He ‘bullied’
- ‘attacked’ the defense counsel.
‘The Court’s conduct neither satisfies justice nor any appearance of justice,’ Tully wrote.
Tully alleged Judge Garaufis was biased against both Raniere and his counsel and that he
- ‘Expressed his personal distaste for Mr. Raniere and his counsel.’
- Displayed a ‘deep-seated, unequivocal hostility and personal bias’
- ‘Undeniable bias and prejudice.’
In short, Tully wrote Judge Garaufis was out of control. He wrote:
- His ‘animus and antagonism could not be contained’.
- He ‘sought conflict and resorted to personal attacks and low blows.’
- He had ‘personal bias’
- ‘An inability to be fair in this case.’
Tully wrote, “There were many exhibitions of this bias and prejudice expressed during rulings” and these “clearly show evidence of deep-seated judicial favoritism for the government and its witnesses and judicial antagonism towards Mr. Raniere and his defense team.”
- ‘Applied and believed in his personal views instead of the law.’
- ‘Failed to display the mandatory judicial temperament.’
- He had ‘sympathy for Ms. Salzman as a “broken” individual.’
- He had ‘anger at Mr. Raniere’s defense counsel.’
- He had ‘contempt for Ms. Bronfman due to her refusal to “renounce” Mr. Raniere — clear evidence of personal bias.’
Tully wrote, ‘The Court’s history of biased comments and rulings were colored by injustice.’
Nicholas George Garaufis (born September 28, 1948) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Born in Paterson, New Jersey, he is a second-generation American. His grandparents were Greek immigrants.
He graduated from Columbia College in 1969 and got his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1974. He began his legal career in 1974 as an associate of Chadbourne & Parke.
He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Litigation Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office under Attorney General Louis J. Lefkowitz. He practiced law privately in Queens County, New York.
Garaufis served for more than five years as the Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C., overseeing a staff of 200 attorneys. In addition, Garaufis served nine years as counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman in New York City.
Upon the recommendation of United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, President Clinton nominated Garaufis on February 28, 2000, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The United States Senate confirmed him on May 24, 2000.
Garaufis entered service on August 28, 2000. He took senior status on October 1, 2014.
Tully wrote of his conduct in the Raniere case: Judge Garaufis: “cannot engage neutrally and impartially.”
“Anyone who had entered the courtroom… witnessed Judge Garaufis’ outrageous comments.”
‘The Court admitted to letting extrajudicial emotions, biases, and prejudices come before the rules of evidence or the United States Constitution, the sacrosanct law of our land.’
‘Judge Garaufis’ expression of bias, prejudice, and partiality against Mr. Raniere has clear extrajudicial motivations.’
He relies on ‘extrajudicial sources and shows evidence of deep-seated favoritism for the government’s witness.’
Judge Garaufis would ‘prioritize his humanity, ignore the law, and abandon his judicial ethics, obligations.’
What Tully Wanted From a Judge
Tully quoted precedent and judicial canon:
‘A judge should practice civility, by being patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous, in dealings with court personnel, including chambers staff.’
‘The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.’
Consequently, his disqualification is necessary and appropriate. Thus, Mr. Raniere respectfully moves this Court to disqualify itself from any further proceedings in this case,’ Tully wrote.
Tully posts the #freeRKelly.
This is not his client.
It is another abusive pedophile that Tully wants free to hurt more humans
So he reused the word bias over and over and over again. This is not a legit motion. But, KR the child sex abuser has nothing but his cult money to spend on lawyers. Another idiotic lawyer writing blah blah bias blah without substantiating any legal basis is as worthless as his defenses.
What has Tully actually done for people who cannot afford high powered attorneys? Pro bono work? Innocence Project?
It’s easy to pontificate.
But what has Tully actually done? Worked to draft oversight? Brought forward new legislation? Engaged higher government in a meaningful way?
What has Tully done to improve the justice system?
At this point, I am more impressed with Kim Kardashian’s legal advocacy then Tully’s.
Yes she is better with her words then this guy
Tully believes Judge Garaufis has been unfair in handling the case against Raniere. While it is understandable that Tully would want a judge who is more favorable to his client
In this instance, it appears that Judge Garaufis is more favorable to the prosecution than to the defense. However, this does not mean he is incapable of impartially presiding over the case.
Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.
If he was capable of impartially presiding over the case, he would have.
The biggest asshole to ever hit the bigtime accused Judge Garaufis of being biased and unfair in his handling of the case?
Tully’s claims are unsubstantiated and lack evidence.
Judge Garaufis has a long history of service to the people.
I agree with Tully that Judge Garaufis should be disqualified from the case. His clear bias against Mr. Raniere and his defense team is unacceptable. If he cannot engage neutrally and impartially, then he cannot do his job properly. Additionally, his reliance on extrajudicial sources shows that he is not impartial.
I believe that Mr. Raniere’s motion to disqualify Judge Garaufis is appropriate and necessary.
Spoken like a true lawyer, Nicki.
Have a Happy Birthing Person Day!
Democrats wish women a Happy Birthing Person’s Day.
I can’t stand Raniere but Tully’s strong convictions are supported by testimony.
The Judge controls the court. His conduct with Raniere’s attorney was out of hand.
I’m inclined to agree .
Why do you dead-enders always use that same tell when trying to seem neutral?
I’m not a dead ender BUT
I’m Not a fact bender either.
Have a nice day!
You too, dead-ender!
Raniere’s loyalists are saying Raniere has been denied phone, email privileges, and visitation rights because of recent court filings
They are once again holding Social Media Court to bring two points together that do not belong together.
I called bullshit on this.
If the truth is always fair Frank
Why is Keith Rainier been doing these things once again?
Why is he one more time under investigation something that takes away these privileges?
Isn’t it true it has no relation to the recent court filings as his loyalists are stating on Social media? They refuse to answer these questions but will draw the two data points together as if they are reality. A true Raniere Wizard of Oz game.
His loyalists will use this claim to try to garner sympathy for their Master
There is a wise saying about sympathy
You can find it in the dictionary between shit and sympathy
Eduardo Asúnsolo Ramírez
BREAKING: After filing a historic motion showing tampering of evidence by the FBI, Keith Raniere is being cut off of communication with his power of attorney and his loved ones, including potentially the mother of his child. The prison offered him no explanation.
He is under investigation for something else and Raniere knows what it is
So do you, most likely
Twenty Republican State Attorneys General send President Joe Bidet (that is not a misspelling) telling the tyrant to terminate his Ministry of Truth or face legal action for violating citizens’ Constitutional rights.
20 Republican Attorneys General Just Signed Massive THREAT Against Joe Biden
His own words will compel him to recuse.
Not a chance dead-ender.
seSince when do judges believe that they are above criticism?
There is no such thing as Judicial Infallibility.
In the leaked draft opinion written by Justice Alito the decision in Roe v. Wade is criticized as an egregious overreach of the US Supreme Court’s authority.
Justice Alito would return law making authority to the states where it belongs.
Note the original Roe v. Wade decision was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a long-time lawyer for the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and represents doctors more than it does patients.
Justice Blackmun, who wrote Roe v. Wade decision, was deeply connected to Rochester and Mayo Clinic
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, a former Mayo Clinic attorney and Rochester resident, wrote the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. A year after he wrote it, Blackmun described it as “one of the worst mistakes in the court’s history or one of its great decisions.”
In the immediate wake of the 1973 decision, Blackmun said he received 60,000 pieces of hate mail, and he claimed to have read every letter.
Blackmun returned to Rochester while working on the Roe v. Wade decision.
In January, 1973, the Post Bulletin reported that Blackmun “spent almost every day for two weeks late last August and early September in Mayo’s medical library researching the opinion.”
As for US Judger Garaufis, who was nominated to the bench by the notorious reprobate Bill Clinton, the Brooklyn judge is notorious for blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to control the US border and restrict illegal aliens.
Garaufis deliberately ignored the powers granted to President Trump and all Presidents by the Congress to ban aliens who woul;d represent a threat to American national security.
This arrogant jurist decided to abrogate to himself all of the power to protect America’s borders away from the Congress and President Donald Trump.
EYE ON THE NEWS
A federal judge gets creative in applying the law to President Trump’s DACA order
Judge Garaufis’s opinion, and his related decision in November denying the government’s motion to dismiss the case, represent a classic of Alice-in-Wonderland progressive jurisprudence: 103 pages evading, denying, or explaining away the almost self-evident proposition that a policy instituted by presidential fiat, without either legislation or formal administrative rulemaking, can be rescinded in the same fashion. The crux of the judge’s rulings is that Obama’s unilateral implementation of DACA was not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs creation of such legislative-like rules by the executive branch—but that President Trump’s elimination of DACA violated the same Act.
The Garaufis decision is a prime example of the “judicial resistance” to the Trump presidency in which different standards of judicial review are applied to him than to any other president. This is a dangerous game which, progressives should realize, can be played by both sides. Liberal judicial overreach threatens to provoke a constitutional crisis and, ironically, ultimately undermines the legitimacy, not of the president, but of the judiciary itself.
Judge Garaufis is an arrogant judge who who is notorious for seizing power that the Constitution grants to Congress and the President.
Word too is that Garaufis won’t let his grandkids win at board games.
Allegedly, he wears his socks in bed.
Joseph (Tully) is both an author and lawyer. His book California: State of Collusion is an Amazon top seller.
—Tully & Weiss website
Best Seller rank: #241,240 in Books
California: State of Collusion
Power, Conspiracy, and Cover Ups in a Failed Criminal Justice System
An Inside Look at California s Corrupt Criminal Justice System and the Very Real Dangers Citizens Face
In California: State of Collusion, legal gladiator Joseph Tully exposes California s alarming culture of power, conspiracy, and cover-ups. Rich in first-hand accounts, Tully s book reveals unique insights and unimpeachable evidence for:
High court treason
Massive snitch-for-hire networks
Appellate courts disregard of Constitutional rights
FBI payments for Superhero-Cop media portrayals
Daunting legal shields protecting corrupt prosecutors
Nobody knows this story better than trial lawyer Joseph Tully. His account will surely ignite Californians and ultimately all Americans into action.
Thousands of American citizens have been wrongfully convicted over the last three decades. For the lucky ones in the lot, proof of their innocence came only too late, after a life of imprisonment, abuse, and shame. As one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the country, Joseph Tully knows full well that the right to an attorney is something TV criminals can always count on, but real life arrestees seldom encounter.
For Tully, justice is something you fight for every day. In this groundbreaking book based on decades spent exonerating innocent Californians Tully exposes fraudulent snitch programs, corrupt judges, prosecutors who destroy exculpatory evidence, and all manner of individuals who are out to secure convictions and advance their careers, rather than ensure that the innocent go free and the guilty remain behind bars.
In this, his second book, Tully provides a vivid and shocking picture of the national scourge of wrongful conviction, chronic prosecutor misconduct, and the elusiveness of justice in California´s courtrooms.
“Innocent people can be subjected to a power trip police encounter, arrested by a megalomaniacal cop, jailed by a sadist, prosecuted by a manipulative Machiavellian, and judged by an ego-tripping sociopath.
So sad , fraudulent snitch programs , ugh
Tully reveals himself as an exemplar of intemperance. He’s on a soapbox, more interested in trumpeting his conspiracy theories than proving his client’s case. His book is a joke.
The dead-enders are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in their search for legal representation. Chakravorty in his latest post inadvertently admitted that they had trouble finding a lawyer willing to argue their ridiculous unsubstantiated case of FBI tampering.
Raniere’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
I’m no fan of Keith Raniere but from attending many of the motions leading up to the trial, I’d describe Judge Garaufis as autocratic and chauvinistic in his attitudes. I wouldn’t be surprised if Garaufis was revolted by KAR because KAR reminded him of himself. The trial did not have the air of an open inquiry, it was more of an assassination.
If you’re “fan of Keith Raniere” why did you “attend many of the motions”?
You forgot NOT *
Why’d you attend the motions leading up to the trial?
Because he/she is a deadender and they give themselves away with such stupid comments. They show up to regularly post like this thinking if they do so enough people will become as deluded as them and then storm the “gates” of the judiciary demanding a new trial for their only ultimate victim in the world Keith Raniere. They are pretty easy to spot.
I’ve been accused at least 4 times and have zero involvement so your sniff skills must have co vid or your not very good at it!
Because you are a dead-ender.
Why were you there? Never answered
NY Daily News
Sex cult leader Keith Raniere wants judge who can overturn his conviction to recuse himself
Noah Goldberg, New York Daily News
Fri, May 6, 2022, 10:45 PM·2 min read
“When you point the finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at you.” – proverb
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a)
A lawyer shall not make a statement of fact that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or judicial officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial office.
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3(b)
A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through acts of another…