thomas e. ramich, stipulation

STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to

THOMAS E. RAMICH,

STIPULATION

a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Robert H. Tembeckjian, Esq., Adlninistrator and Counsel to the Comlnission on Judicial Conduct (hereinafter "Comlnission"), the Honorable Thomas E. Ramich ("respondent"), and his attorney, Tholnas E. Reilly, Esq., as follows: 1.

This stipulation is presented to the Commission in connection with

a formal proceeding pending against respondent. 2.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in New York in 1976. He

has been a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County, since 1982. Respondent's current term expires December 31, 2016. 3.

Respondent announced his retirelnent by letter dated March 12,

2013. His retirelnent will becolne effective May 1, 2013. A copy of respondent's retirement letter is annexed as Exhibit 1. 4.

Respondent was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated

April 30, 2012, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 2..

5.

Respondent filed an Answer, dated May 7, 2012, in which he

denied the allegations of misconduct. A copy of the Answer is annexed as Exhibit 1. 6.

A hearing was held before a COlnmission-appointed referee, the

I-Ionorable Gary Muldoon, at the Schuyler County Courthouse, in Watkins Glen, New York, froln October 16,2012, through October 18,2012. A copy of the hearing transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. 7.

Respondent affirms that, having vacated his judicial office, he will

neither seek nor accept judicial office or a position as a judicial hearing officer, at any time in the future. 8.

Respondent understands that, should he abrogate the terms of this

Stipulation and hold any judicial position at any time, the present proceeding before the Commission will be revived. 9.

Upon execution of this Stipulation by the three signatories below,

this Stipulation will be presented to the COlnlnission with the joint recomlnendation that the matter be concluded, by the terms of this Stipulation, without further proceedings. 10.

Respondent waives confidentiality as provided by Section 45 of

the Judiciary Law, to the extent that: (1) this Stipulation will become public upon being signed by the signatories below, and (2) the Commission's Decision and Order regarding this Stipulation will become public.

2

Dated:

Bo.orahle Thomas E. Ramieh Dated:

Thom Reilly, Esq. Attorney for Respondent

L"i. )-\.. Robert H. Tembeckjia Administrator and Counsel Commission

3

to

the

March 12,2013

Mr. Andrew Cuomo Governor, State of New York Mrs. Sue Skidmore Mayor, Elmira, New York

Dears Sirs:

For over 31 years, I have had the pleasure and responsibility of being the City Judge of Elmira, New York. During that time 1 have tried to help maintain a good quality of life in Elmira. I have helped some people and wish 1 could have helped more. It is now time tor a new person to perform those duties. I have, for personal reasons, decided to retire as City Court Judge effective, May 1, 2013.

Very truly yours,

Thomas E Ramich

EXHIBIT 1

STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to

THOMAS E. RAMICH,

NOTICE OF FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT

a Judge of the Elmira City COLII1, Chemung County.

NonCE is hereby given to respondent, Thomas E. Ramich, a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County, pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the JudicialY Law, that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that cause exists to serve upon respondent the annexed Formal Written Complaint; and that, in accordance with said statute, respondent is requested within twenty (20) days of the service of the annexed Formal Written Complaint upon him to serve the Commission at its Rochester office, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 700, Rochester, New York 14604, with her verified Answer to the specific paragraphs of the Complaint. Dated: April 30, 2012 New York, New York

ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN Administrator and Counsel State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, New York 10006 (646) 386-4800 To:

Thomas E. Reilly, Esq. Learned, Reilly, Learned & Hughes, LLP 449 East Water Street Elmira, New York 14901

EXHIBIT 2

STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to THOMAS E. RAMICH,

FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT

a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County.

1.

Article 6, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of New York

establishes a Commission on Judicial Conduct ("Commission"), and Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law empowers the Commission to direct that a Formal Written Complaint be drawn and served upon a judge. 2.

The Commission has directed that a Formal Written Complaint be

drawn and served upon Thomas E. Ramich ("respondent"), a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County. 3.

The factual allegations set forth in Charges I through IV state acts of

judicial misconduct by respondent in violation of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Governing Judicial Conduct ("Rules"). 4.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1976.

He has been a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County, since 1982. Respondent's current term expires December 31, 2016.

CHARGE I 5.

From in or about July 2003 through in or about August 2009,

respondent lent the prestige ofjudicial office to advance his own and others' private interests by directing Frederick Cerio, his part-time court attorney, to represent respondent and his relatives and friends in various legal matters, for which Mr. Cerio was not compensated, and to perform personal tasks on respondent's behalf. Specifications to Charge I Legal Representation

People v. Fred S. Seither. Jr. 6.

On or about July 5, 2003, respondent, while in his chambers, gave Mr.

Cerio a Uniform Traffic Ticket and told him to represent Fred S. Seither, Jr., respondent's brother-in-law, with regard to a charge of Speeding, 56 mph in a 30 mph zone, in the Town of Walworth. Mr. Cerio wrote to the Wayne County District Attorney's Office to request a reduction. When Mr. Cerio received the District Attorney's plea offer, he gave it to respondent to have Mr. Seither sign and mail to court. Mr. Cerio had no contact with Mr. Seither. Mr. Cerio was never compensated. People v. Amanda M Ramiclt 7.

In or about June 2006, respondent, while in his chambers, gave Mr.

Cerio a Uniform Traffic Ticket and told him to represent Amanda M. Ramich, respondent's daughter, with regard to a charge of Speeding, 74 mph in a 55 mph zone, in the Town of Erwin. Mr. Cerio wrote to the Steuben County District Attorney's Office to request a reduction. Mr. Cerio received a plea offer to Parking on Pavement and 2

delivered it to respondent to have Ms. Ramich sign. Mr. Cerio returned the signed plea offer to the Erwin Town Court. On or about August 4,2006, Mr. Cerio received from the Erwin Town Court a $150 fine notice which he gave to respondent. Mr. Cerio had no contact with Ms. Ramich. Mr. Cerio was never compensated. People v. Cynthia J. Greger

8.

In or about April 2009, respondent, while in his chambers, gave Mr.

Cerio a Uniform Traffic Ticket and told him to represent Cynthia J. Greger, respondent's girlfriend at that time, with regard to a charge of Speeding, 72 mph in a 55 mph zone, in the Town of Starkey. Respondent told Mr. Cerio to take care of the ticket immediately and if necessary, to take the case to trial. 9.

Mr. Cerio wrote to the Yates County District Attorney to request a

reduction. 10.

On or about May 12,2009, Mr. Cerio received a written plea offer

from the Yates County District Attorney's Office, offering a reduction to 62 mph in a 55 mph zone. Mr. Cerio met with respondent in his chambers and showed him the plea offer. Respondent told Mr. Cerio to reject the offer and demand a trial. Mr. Cerio showed respondent Ms. Greger's driving abstract and recommended that Ms. Greger accept the offer. 11.

On or about May 28, 2009, Mr. Cerio went to Ms. Greger's office,

where she signed the plea offer. Mr. Cerio forwarded the accepted plea offer to the Town Court of Starkey.

3

12.

Mr. Cerio subsequently received a fine notice for $135. Respondent

directed him to give it to Ms. Greger. Mr. Cerio was never compensated. Respondent's Real Estate Transactions

13.

Some time before May 1, 2008, respondent, while at court, told Mr.

Cerio that he wanted to make a purchase offer on a house. He told Mr. Cerio to call respondent's realtor, Mary Clark, at Coldwell Banker, and have her fax the required documentation to respondent. Mr. Cerio contacted Ms. Clark. Respondent thereafter gave the offer to Mr. Cerio and told Mr. Cerio to represent him in the matter and to fax the offer immediately to the seller's realtor. Mr. Cerio represented respondent in the real estate transaction for the purchase of the home and represented respondent at the closing on May 1, 2008. Respondent did not compensate Mr. Cerio for his legal services. 14.

On or about April 28, 2009, at a time when Park Outdoor

Advertising ("Park") was doing business with a corporation owned and operated by respondent's family, respondent, while at court, told Mr. Cerio to call Park's vice president, Kerry Leipold, in order to obtain a new lease agreement from Park regarding a building it was leasing from respondent's family corporation. Mr. Cerio represented the corporation in the transaction with Park, including preparing and negotiating the new lease. Respondent did not compensate Mr. Cerio for his legal services. Personal Tasks

15.

In or about August 2006, respondent told Mr. Cerio to contact Empire

Blue Cross/Blue Shield, his health care provider, to ensure that respondent's daughter, Amanda Ramich, would be covered while she was attending Mansfield College. Mr. 4

Cerio obtained Ms. Ramich's school transcript, made various calls and filled out the necessary paperwork to ensure continuing coverage for Ms. Ramich. 16.

On December 24, 2008, respondent told Mr. Cerio to retrieve a

Christmas present for respondent's daughter from FedEx. Mr. Cerio, with respondent's identification, went to the local FedEx office but found no package there. He reported this to respondent who yelled, "No, you idiot, it's at the holding dock," or words to that effect. Mr. Cerio drove to the FedEx distribution warehouse where he retrieved the package and delivered it to respondent at court. 17.

In or about April 2009, respondent told Mr. Cerio to go to the

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain the forms needed for respondent to register a dump trailer he had purchased and to complete the forms for respondent to sign. On or about April 27, 2009, respondent told Mr. Cerio to take the completed forms to the DMV office and to register the trailer on respondent's behalf. Mr. Cerio paid the $19.25 registration fee from his personal funds and left the receipt on respondent's desk. Respondent never reimbursed Mr. Cerio the registration fee. 18.

On or about August 17,2009, respondent told Mr. Cerio to handle, on

his behalf, a "Cash for Clunkers" automobile purchase and trade-in, at an automobile dealership in Pennsylvania. Mr. Cerio made the calls necessary to complete the deal and filed the paperwork required by DMV. 19.

By reason of the foregoing, respondent should be disciplined for

cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22, subdivision (a), of the Constitution and Section 44, subdivision 1, of the Judiciary Law, in that respondent failed to uphold the integrity 5

and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved, in violation of Section 100.1 of the Rules; failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in that he failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section IOO.2(A) of the Rules, allowed a family relationship to influence the judge's judicial conduct and judgment, in violation of Section 100.l(B) of the Rules, and lent the prestige ofjudicial office to advance his own private interest and the private interest of another, in violation of Section IOO.2(e) of the Rules; failed to perform the duties ofjudicial office impartially and diligently, in that he failed to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it, in violation of Section IOO.3(B)(l) of the Rules, and failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to a lawyer with whom he deals in his official capacity, in violation of Section 100.3(B)(3) of the Rules; and failed to so conduct his extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, in that he failed to conduct his extra-judicial activities so they do not detract from the dignity of judicial office, in violation of Section 100.4(A)(2) of the Rules, and so that they do not interfere with the proper performance ofjudicial duties, in violation of Section 100.4(A)(3) of the Rules. CHARGE II

20.

On or about April 26, 2009, respondent publicly told a sexually

graphic and demeaning joke about a co-judge when addressing the audience at a law enforcement officers' award dinner. 6

Specifications to Charge II

21.

On or about April 26, 2009, respondent attended the annual dinner for

the Elmira Police Benevolent Association (PBA) during which he told a sexually graphic joke about his co-judge, Elmira City Court Judge Steven Forrest, concerning a fictional sexual encounter between Judge Steven Forrest and an alien. The punch line of the joke was that Judge Forrest is referred to as the "small" claims judge because his genitalia are small. 22.

Respondent and Judge Forrest were not on speaking terms, except as

needed for official court business. Respondent had arrived at the PBA dinner annoyed at Judge Forrest and prefaced the off-color joke with an explanation that he was late for the PBA dinner because he had to conduct an arraignment in place of Judge Forrest. 23.

By reason of the foregoing, respondent should be disciplined for

cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22, subdivision (a), of the Constitution and Section 44, subdivision 1, of the Judiciary Law, in that respondent failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved, in violation of Section 100.1 ofthe Rules; failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in that he failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section 100.2(A) of the Rules; failed to perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently, in that he failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he deals in his official capacity, in violation of Section 100.3(B)(3) of 7

the Rules; and failed to so conduct his extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, in that he failed to conduct his extra-judicial activities so they do not detract from the dignity of judicial office, in violation of Section 100.4(A)(2) of the Rules. CHARGE III

24.

From in or about October 2008 through in or about November 2009,

respondent improperly required twenty-five defendants to make financial payments to local charities as a condition of receiving an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal or a Conditional Discharge. Specifications to Charge III

25.

From in or about August 2008 to in or about November 2009, in

twenty-five criminal cases as set forth in Exhibit 1, respondent required that the defendants make financial payments to local charitable organizations as a condition of disposing their cases by means of a Conditional Discharge or Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal. 26.

In connection with this practice, respondent made recommendations

to the defendants and their attorneys, while presiding over their cases, as to which charities their money should be paid. 27.

Respondent took no action to determine the legal status of any of the

organizations to which these payments were made, including whether they were registered as charitable organizations with the appropriate authorities.

8

28.

By reason of the foregoing, respondent should be disciplined for

cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22, subdivision (a), of the Constitution and Section 44, subdivision 1, of the Judiciary Law, in that respondent failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved, in violation of Section 100.1 of the Rules; failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in that he failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section 100.2(A) of the Rules, and lent the prestige ofjudicial office to advance private interests, in violation of Section 100.2(C) of the Rules; and failed to conduct his extra-judicial activities so as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, in the he used the prestige ofjudicial office for fund-raising for charitable organizations in violation of Section 100.4(C)(3)(b)(iv) of the Rules.

CHARGE IV 29.

On or about June 1 and 2, 2010, while presiding over a jury trial in

People v. Joseph Piper, in which the defendant was charged with Resisting Arrest,

respondent empanelled Jessica Ramich, his daughter, as a juror, and met privately with her during the pendency of the trial and discussed the trial with her during the period between the defendant's conviction and sentencing.

9

Specifications to Charge IV

30.

On or about June 1,2010, while respondent was presiding over a jury

trial in People v. Joseph Piper, in which the defendant was charged with Resisting Arrest, respondent's daughter, Jessica Ramich, appeared in the pool of prospective jurors. 31.

During jury selection, respondent disclosed to Assistant District

Attorney John Thweatt and defense attorney Clark Zimmerman, both in chambers and in open court, that Jessica Ramich was his daughter. Neither attorney objected to her being on the jury. Respondent did not disqualify his daughter from jury service and empanelled her as a juror in the Piper case. 32.

On or about June 1,2010, the first day of the trial in the Piper case,

respondent had lunch with Ms. Ramich. At the lunch recess, respondent asked Ms. Ramich to go into his chambers, excused the rest of the jurors and asked if either counsel objected to his taking his daughter to lunch. Respondent assured counsel that there would be no discussion of the trial during lunch. Neither counsel objected. 33.

On or about June 1,2010, after the first day of trial concluded and

while the trial was still pending, respondent spent the evening with Ms. Ramich at his home. 34.

On or about June 2, 2010, the trial in the Piper case concluded and

the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentencing was scheduled for July 19, 2010. 35.

Respondent continued to meet regularly with Ms. Ramich during the

six weeks from the defendant's conviction on or about June 2, 2010, to sentencing on or

10

about July 19,2010. During that period, they discussed the case, and Ms. Ramich expressed her personal views about the testimony and the defendant. 36.

By reason of the foregoing, respondent should be disciplined for

cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22, subdivision (a), of the Constitution and Section 44, subdivision 1, of the Judiciary Law, in that respondent failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved, in violation of Section 100.1 of the Rules; failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in that he failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section IOO.2(A) of the Rules, and allowed a family relationship to influence his judicial conduct and judgment, in violation of Section 100.2(B) of the Rules; failed to perform the duties ofjudicial office impartially and diligently, in that he failed to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it, in violation of Section 100.3(B)(1) of the Rules, and permitted or considered ex parte communications, or considered other communications made outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending proceeding, in violation of Section IOO.3(B)(6) of the Rules; and failed to so conduct his extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, in that he failed to conduct his extra-judicial activities so that they do not interfere with the proper performance ofjudicial duties, in violation of Section 100.4(A)(3) of the Rules.

11

WHEREFORE, by reason of the foregoing, the Commission should take

whatever further action it deems appropriate in accordance with its powers under the Constitution and the Judiciary Law of the State of New York. Dated: April 30, 2012 New York, New York ROBERT H. TEMBE JIAN Administrator and Counsel State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway Suite 1200 New York, New York 10006 (646) 386-4800

12

STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to

VERIFICATION

THOMAS E. RAMICH, a Judge of the Elmira City Court, Chemung County.

STATE OF NEW YORK

) : ss.: )

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1.

I am the Administrator of the State Commission on Judicial

2.

I have read the foregoing Formal Written Complaint and, upon

Conduct.

information and belief, all matters stated therein are true. 3.

The basis for said information and belief is the files and records of

the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Sworn to before me this 30 th day of April, 2012

V_

LATASHA Y. JOHNSON Not8ry Public. State of New No.01J06235579

Qualified In New YOrk Countr . Commission Expire. fc/c){tK\¥\1 j~! J

. ~~

({OIS

Thomas E. Ramich Elmira City Court Chemuug Couuty

Schedule A- Case Listing

Defendant David Oshann

Offense Petit Larceny -

Dilte of Sentence/Charitable Offense Contribution 08/01/08 $350 Contribution

Date of Recipient of Sentence Contribution 08/18/08 Shelter Helpers

1 year CD; $160 Surcharge; $100 05/13/07 Contribution

Chemung County 08/26/08 SPCA

Edward Bassler

Issuing Bad Check

David Ortiz

DWI; Unlawful Poss of Marihuana

William Krazinski

6 month ACD; Unlawful Dealing with Minor; Prohibited Sale of Contribution (amtnot Alcohol 08/30/08 indicated)

10/02/08 Not indicated

Scott Place

Criminal Poss of Controlled Substance; Unlawful Poss of Marihuana

Friends of the Animal 11/17/U8 Shelter

,

;

1 year CD; $895 Fine; 08/19/08 $150 Contribution

I year CD; Time Served; 01/11/08 $250 Contribution

1

09/19/08 Catholic Charities

--

EXHIBIT I

Ryan McGough

Aggravated DWI; DWI; Failed to keep Right

1 year CD; $1,395 Fine; 09117/08 $200 Contribution

Friends of the Animal 11121/08 Shelter

Matthew Cleary

Petit Larceny

6 month ACD; $300 11103/08 Contribution; Restitution

11125/08 City of Elmira

1 year CD; $150 Contribution (waived in 11/21108 Interest ofjustice)

Contribution to Friends ofthe Animal Shelter waived in the 03/31109 Interest of Justice

John Silver

Criminal Poss of Weapon

Dylan Danko

1 year CD; $895 Fine; DWI; AU03rd; Speeding 01124/09 $150 Contribution

Matthew Zimmer

DWI; Following too Closely

Mary Szustak

Unlawful Poss Marihuana

1 year CD; $895 Fine; 01/10109 $150 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 04/02/09 Contribution

Katrina Cramer Zachary McCarthy

Disorderly Conduct

01101109

Criminal Trespass 2nd

07/03/08

Cevin Crowley

Disorderly Conduct

01101109

Andres Guzman

Endangering Welfare of Child

04111109

6 month ACD; $100 Contribution 1 year CD; $120 SC; $250 Contribution 6 month ACD; $100 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 Contribution

2

03/31109 Shelter Helpers

Friends of the Animal Shelter City of Elmira Animal 04/24/09 Shelter 04110109

Friends of the Animal 04/30109 Shelter 05/29109

Shelter Helpers

06/19109 United Way City of Elmira Animal 06124/09 Shelter

Thomas Earley Sharyel Strobel Tiffany Pagano Nanu Shrestha Kenneth Stradley Terry Miller

Prohibited Sale of Alcohol Prohibited Sale of Alcohol Prohibited Sale of Alcohol Prohibited Sale of Alcohol Prohibited Sale of Alcohol Prohibited Sale of Alcohol

Jeffery Gush

Prohibited Sale of Alcohol

Irene Williams

Prohibited Sale of Alcohol

Edith Riley

Prohibited Sale of Alcohol

Jesa Scott

Harassment 2nd

06/05/09 06/05/09 06/05/09 06/05/09 06/05/09 06/05/09

6 month ACD; $150 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 Contribution 6 month ACD; $250 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 Contribution

6 month ACD; 100 hours community service; $150 06/05/09 Contribution 6 month ACD; $150 ·06/05/09 Contribution 6 month ACD; $75 06/05/09 Contribution 6 month ACD; $100 09114/09 Contribution

3.

06124109 Not indicated 06/24/09 City of Elmira

City of Elmira-Dog 06/24/09 Park 06/24/09 City of Elmira 06/24/09 City of Elmira

Chemung County 07/08/09 Humane Society

City of Elmira Animal 08/07/09 Shelter 09124109 American Red Cross A Voicefor all 11110109 Animals, Inc.

City of Elmira-Dog 11/19109 Park

LEARNED, REILLY, LEARNED

;.& HUGHES, LLP

ATTORNEYSATLAW PH1L1P C. L£ARJ.~ED THOMAS E. REILLY scan J. LEARNED' DIANA L. HUGHES" MAITHEW C. GAGLiARDO

149 EAST WATER STREET ELMrRA, NEW YORK 14901-3110

FAX 607-734-1880 F(U( llnd e-mailuot' for service

607-734·1519

•ALSO ADMITTED IN

www.LEARNEDREILLYLEARNEQ.COM

CONNECI1ClIT

MaY?,2012

Clerk of the Commission NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway (Suite 1200) New York, NY 10006 In RE: Thomas E. Ramich Dear Sir/Madam: On behalf of the Respondent, enclosed please find original Verified Answer to Formal Written Complaint, Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Very' truly yours,

~.ye~ THOMAS E. REILLY EMAIL: [email protected]

TE@ Enclosure Cc w/encl: Jolm J. Postel, Esq., Dep. Administrator Commission on Judicial Conduct 400 Andrews StTeetRochester, NY 14604

EXHIBIT 3 I

RECEIVED

!

MAY 08 2012

i

I,JUDICIAL CONDUCT - ROC Ii NYS COMMiSS:ON ON

STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCE In the Mqtter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, Subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law· In Relation to THOMAS E. RAMleH,

VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT

A Judge of the Elmira City Court. Chemung County

Respondent, ThomasE. Ramich, through his attorneys, Learned, Reilly, Learned & Hughes, LLP, as and for his verified Answer to Formal Written Complaint dated April 30, 2012 in the instant action, herein alleges as follows: 1. ADMITS the allegations set forth in paragraphs numbered" 1", "2", and "4" of the Formal Written Complaint dated April 30,2012. 2. DENIES the factual allegations set forth in Charges I - IV and denies that there have been any acts of judicial misconduct by the respondent in violation of the Rules of the Chief Administrator ofthe Courts Governing Judicial Misconduct WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully demands judgment dismissing the instant complaint, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: May

i

h ,

2012

Thomas E. Reilly, Esq. LEARNED, REILLY, LEARNED & HUGHES, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Office and Post Office Address 449 E. Water Street Elmira, New York 14901 Telephone: 607734-1519

-J

W

,

.j:>.

r-

oo

00

o

Pagel 013

TO: Clerk of the Commission NYS Commission on judicial Conduct 61 Broadway (Suite 1200) New York, NY 10006

Cc: John J. Postel, Esq., Dep. Administrator Commission on JudicialConduct 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

Page 2

Dis

INDIVIDUAL VERIFICAnON STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF CHEMUNG :S8.:

THOMAS E. RAMleR, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the Respondent in the within aCtion; that deponent has read the foregoing Answer To Formal Written Complaint .and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true&- ..

. isrnissal, the ACI>. That's where you (unintelligible)--

12

THE REFEREE: --okay--

13

MR. POSTEL: --right?

14

THE RESPONDENT: Yeah.

15

MR. POSTEL: Adjournment in Contemplation of

16

I>isrnissal?

17

THE RESPONDENT: Right.

18

MR. POSTEL: Thankyou. You know, you'd think

19

that he'd written a book on the matter.

20

Q. Can you tell us, looking at that section, where it says that you have the

21

authority specifically to direct defendants to make charitable

22

contributions?

23 24 25

MR. REILLY: I would stipulate that's not in the statute. MR. POSTEL: My question stands. 668. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross)

669. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

MR. POSTEL: I'm asking the man ifhe--

2

THE REFEREE: --I'm, I'm--

3

MR. POSTEL: --understands--

4

THE REFEREE: --going to overrule the objection.

5

The, the question as framed, is proper for the witness to

6

answer or--

7 8 9 10 11

MR. POSTEL: --Witness has answered it. A. I felt that if someone made, in order for someone to make a contribution, they had to agree to do it. Q. Aspart of the ACD dispositions that this was part of, the defendants avoided having to pay any fines, is that correct?

12

A. Yes.

13

Q. And any surcharges, is that correct?

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. And it was your representation to defendants in those circumstances that

16

not only did they avoid that, by avoiding fines and surcharges, the money

17

didn't get sent to Albany, isn't that true?

18

A. That's true.

19

Q. And so your goal was to keep the money out of Albany, and give it to the

20

local community, is that correct?

21

A. Yes, I was trying to help the local charity.

22

Q. In terms of the contributions to Soups On, excuse me, Shelter Helpers,

23

you can't say today whether or not they are a 50 IC3 corporation or not, is

24

that correct?

25

A. I, I never expected they were. 670. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross)

1

Q. You did not, so, they weren't a formal charity, were they?

2

A. No.

3

Q. You had defendants in your court go to some restaurant and pay some

4 5

lady to settle a matter before you, isn't that true? A. My understanding was that a group of citizens had met with the city and

6

that whatever money this group of people collected, would be turned over

7

by, not kept by them, not used by them, but turned over to the City of

8

Elmira that was a municipal corporation.

9

Q. But you know, don't you, that at no time did you ever take steps to

10

oversee or audit the use of the money for payments made to Ms. McClure

11

at Soups On?

12

A. I contacted Barb to ask if she had gotten a contribution and she indicated,

13

at least in one case, that she had, and that she had turned it over to the

14

city. Multiple, did I do it every time, no.

15 16

Q. Isn't it a fact that if we look at all the, many of the transcripts here, what you say to them is "Did you pay the money?"

17

A. Yes.

18

Q. And you were--

19

A. --And, and usually I was looking for them to bring in--

20

Q. --A receipt?

21

A. Yes.

22

Q. The overwhelming practice was for them to go there, get a receipt, and

23 24 25

give it to you, right? A. And the receipt was the, was the, the proof that they had made the contribution. 671.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross)

1 2

Q. And you agree as well that if, it was your position, and you told

. defendants, no payment, no ACD, right?

3

A. No.

4

Q. SO, if a defendant didn't make the payment, you never said that they

5 6

wouldn't get the ACD? A. My course of, of, as, as I recollect it, was here, that the DA was the first

7

one that was going to offer an ACD. So, the ACD was on the table, then

8

the question was, are you going to do volunteer work or are you going to

9

do a charitable contribution.

10

Q. I'm going to show you Commission Exhibit 21, which is the file in the

11

matter of People v Matthew E. Cleary, and direct your attention to the last

12

entry in the handwritten notes in the fIle.

13

A. I didn't hear the name.

14

Q. Matthew E. Cleary.

15

THE REFEREE: Exhibit 2l?

16

MR. POSTEL: 21, correct.

17

Q. Is it not true that the file in this case indicates that ACD was not paid,

18

excuse me, a charitable contribution was not paid, and an ACD was not

19

granted? Isn't that what the language says?

20

A. No.

21

Q. Could you read us the language on the front page?

.22

A. Well, I'm looking at five, the entry May 14th '09 that says, "Defendant

23

and father DAS," which would have been the DA and his first initial,

24

"defendant paid $300 donation today, case closed, dismissed."

25

Q. Sure. What does it say inunediately before that on the prior page on the 672.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross)

1 2

last entry? A. It, it says, "On April 22 nd '09, defendant plus public defender, DA,

3

defendant failed to pay any contribution, ACD not granted, original

4

charge continued."

5 6

Q. And as you look further into that file, isn't there a letter from Theresa Seeley indicating that the contribution was not made? 3/30/09?

7

A. Yes.

8

Q. And what does Ms. Seeley say to the defendant on behalf of the court?

9

A. Do you want the whole letter?

10

Q. No, just the portion about her not paying, him not paying.

11

A. "To date, we have not received that proof. Please be advised that you are

12

hereby directed to provide the court with proof of the completion of the

13

conditions of your ACD no later than April 1i

14

provide said proof to the court might result in a warrant being issued for

15

your arrest and presentment to the court."

16 17 18 19

h

'09. Your failure to

Q. SO, not only do you not get the ACD if you don't pay, but a warrant may be issued for your arrest, isn't that what it says? A. That's what is says. And then the defendant's letter in reply to that

letter--

20

Q. --There's no question on the floor. I'm showing you the file 56 in the

21

matter of Edith Riley. Directing your attention to line 15. Would you

22

read, that's a statement by the court, is that correct?

23

A. "An ACD means that the charge would be dismissed against you. To get

24

the ACD, you have to pay 150 to a charity or take the chances of going to

25

trial. Do you want to pay ISO?" 673. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1 2 3

Q. SO, you said to that defendant specifically, to get the ACD, you got to pay. Right? Those are the words you used? A. Yes. "Do you want to pay ISO?"

4

THE REFEREE: Is that Exhibit 46--

5

MR. POSTEL: --56.

6

THE REFEREE: 56. Thank you. Okay.

7

Q. I'm going to show you what's marked as Commission Exhibit 50, a

8

transcript in People v Terry Miller, and I'm going to direct your attention

9

to line 3, excuse me, page 3, line 12. Would you take a moment and look

10

at that yourself. Did you say to the defendant, "If a receipt is not in the

11

file, then we will send the police out to bring you back to court"?

12

A. Yes.

13

Q. And that was in reference to the charitable payment by the defendant to

14

the charity in that case, is that correct?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. As we've gone over ACDs, you also imposed the charitable payment in

17

cases involving a Conditional Discharge, is that correct?

18

A. Yes.

19

Q. I've shown you Commission Exhibit 64, is that correct?

20

A. Yes.

21

Q. That's the provisions of the Penal Law concerning Conditional

22

Discharges, is that correct?

23

A. Well, it, it, it starts at Subsection (t), but I believe it is.

24

Q. What sectionis that?

25

A. 65.10--

674. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street

Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

Q. --Of the--

2

A. --Penal Law--

3

Q. --Penal Law. And in your 30 years of practice, you've become familiar

4

with that section, isn't that true?

5

A. True.

6

Q. Alright, what section of the Penal Law concerning Conditional

7

Discharges provided you with authority to make defendants make

8

payments to charities as part of the disposition of their case?

9

A. H.

10

Q. What does that read?

11

A. "Perform services for a public or not for profit Corporation, association,

12

institution, or agency, including, but not limited to services for... ," and

13

then it goes on.

14

Q. SO, you interpreted the word "service" to mean payment?

15

A. In both ACD and CD.

16

Q. Judge, whenMs. Eraca testified, you were in the courtroom, were you

17

not?

18

A. Yes.

19

Q. And you heard her testify about what she believed the practice with

20

regard to the payment of, making of charitable payments in connection

21

with CDs and ACDs was termed in the legal community, is that correct?

22

A. I don't remember.

23

Q. Did she use the word "buyout?" Did you hear her use the word "buyout?"

24

A. I'm not saying she didn't. I just don't remember whether--

25

Q. --Alright-675.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross)

1

A. --whether she did or not.

2

Q. Alright. Haven't you yourself used the tenu "buyout" in connection with

3

the use of charitable payments as a means of avoiding fInes and getting an

4

ACD ora CD?

5

A. I don't think the tenu "buyout," but I, I, I certainly use tenus that, that

6

indicated that, that, that the payment would resolve, take care of, finish,

7

words to that effect.

8

Q. And in multiple cases, you would agree that it wasn'tjust a choice

9

between volunteer service and a charitable payment, the charitable

10 11 12 13 14

payment was made as a condition without the defendant's input? A. If you're asking me, did, did the defendant raise the issue of a payment on his own, no. Q. And in tenus of whether it was volunteer hours or payment to the charity, you didn't always give them that choice, isn't that true?

15

A. I, could you rephrase?

16

Q. Sure. In tenus ofeither the defendant, as part of the Conditional

17

Discharge or the ACD being granted, you didn't always give them the

18

choice specifically by saying, you get a choice of volunteer hours or a

19

payment?

20

A. That would be true.

21

Q. In fact, the matter morphed into a practice in which charitable payments

22

were part of what was required to get a Conditional Discharge or an ACD

23

over those two years?

24

A. No.

25

Q. But you did it, you did it, you did it 25 times, didn't you? 676. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1 2 3

A. I did it a number of times. I, I don't know whether it was 25. It may have been more. Q. With regard to Commission Exhibit 9, the matter involving Daniel,

4

excuse me, David Oshann, there was a contribution expected or required

5

in connection with that disposition, isn't it true?

6

A. Yes.

7

Q. And Mr. Oshann was convicted of petit larcenY,is that correct?

8

A. No. Oh--

9

Q. --He was charged with petit larceny?

10

A. He was charged with petit larceny.

11

Q. And what was he convicted of?

12

A. Disorderly conduct.

13

Q. And in connection with the information in this case, there were

14

allegations that he had stolen money, is that correct?

15

A. No.

16

Q. Excuse me, that he had stolen goods or there had, deprived the victim of

17

some value, some monetary value?

18

A. Gillette Mach 3 razors.

19

Q. And what's the total value claimed in the information?

20

A. $17.29.

21

Q. Look at the front page of the file cover, please.

22

A. Yes.

23

Q. And as you look at the totality of what you imposed here, is it fair to say

24 25

that you did not authorize restitution for this defendant?

A. True. 677. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1 2 3 4

Q. In fact, what was written on the file cover is "contribution or restitution," isn't that true? Last entry. A. Actually, it's, it's Paul Barton, shows defendant paid 350 to Shelter Helpers as restitution.

5

Q. As restitution.

6

A. As restitution.

7

Q. SO, the contribution to the Shelter Helpers was in place of restitution,

8

9

10 11

isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. SO, the, the victim doesn't get their money back, but a charity, to whom you have a particular affinity, gets how much money?

12

A. $350. That--

13

Q. --Is that the only case in which you made a defendant make a charitable

14 15 16

contribution in lieu of restitution? A. I would think so, however, I, I note that this is Tops Market, and my experience has been that when non-perishable goods, such as razors--

17

Q. --I'm good, judge, keep talking, I'm listening.

18

A. My experience has been that when non-perishable goods, such as razors,

19

are what's taken and, and when they recover that, that there's no, that they

20

don't ask for restitution. If it was"meats, if it was things like that, then

21

they would tend to ask for restitution.

22 23 24 25

THE REFEREE: But the property would be, the nonperishable property would be returned to the complainant? THE RESPONDENT: That's my understanding. Q. Is there any evidence in the file that that happened? 678. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1 2

A. The assistant district attorney that's present would nonnally ask for the restitution if it didn't happen.

3

Q. SO, you relied on them?

4

A. I relied on the assistant DA.

5

Q. But the file itself considers the concept of restitution, and says that the

6

contribution is in place of that, isn't that true?

7

A. That's true.

S

Q. Showing you Commission Exhibit 11, the Bassler case. Looking at the

9

information there, is this another case in which a criminal complainant

10

alleged the suffering of an economic crime?

11

A. Yes.

12

Q. And in connection with that, there was a disposition, is that correct?

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. It was, the charge itself was on a, was a bad check case, right?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Howmuch?

17

A. $39.

18

Q.Was restitution ordered in this case?

19

A. I can't tell from this.

20

Q. Is there any indication in the court record that restitution was ordered?

21

A. No.

22

Q. There was, however, a charitable contribution payment was made, is that

23

correct?

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. Pursuant to the disposition in the case, is that correct? 679. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

A Yes.

2

Q. At any time in connection with your reviewing your practices and

3

procedures, did you take it upon yourself to give tax advice to defendants

4

about the deductibility of these payments?

5

A. No.

6

Q. Turning to Exhibit 16 before you, matter of Bassler, page two.

7

A. Alright.

8

Q. Did you advise the defendant in Bassler, "It's a charitable deduction for

9

him on his taxes."

10

A. --I, I stand corrected--

II

Q. --a business expense." Did you say that?

12

A. Yes.

13

Q. What position are you to give tax advice to anyone in connection with a

14

disposition of this nature?

15

A. That would not be one of my responsibilities.

16

Q. Had you checked with the Internal Revenue Service to determine the

17

deductibility of that chartab1e payment?

18

A. No.

19

Q. And interrns of your decision to interpret the CPL and the Penal Law in

20

such a fashion to 'allow you authority to mandate charitable payments by

21

defendants, did you consider in connection with that in any way, the

22

Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and what they say you can and cannot

23

do?

24

A. No.

25

Q. As you sit here today, you know, in fact, that the Rules Governing 680. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

Judicial Conduct specifically preclude a judge from charitable

2

fundraising, isn't that correct?

3

A. Yes.

4

Q. Did it occur to you that what you couldn't, and that's in terms of your

5

personal position off the bench, right? The Rules say that as a judge,

6

personally, you can't solicit funds for a charity.

7

A. You can't use your title to do that, no.

8

Q. You can't solicit funds any, in any way for a charity.

9

A. I'm not familiar with the technical, all of the language in that, but, I, I do

10

generally understand that it is not proper for a judge to use his title to

11

favor a charity.

12

Q. And isn't that exactly what you did here, raise money for charities?

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. And you did more thanjust solicit money personally from individuals,

15

isn't that correct?

16

A. I don't understand.

17

Q. You did more than solicit money through a fundraising campaign for a

18

specific charity, you didn't sign a letter and send that out and say, I'm the

19

president of this organization, please contribute to, you didn't knock on

20

doors, you didn't sit at a table and ask for money, right?

21

A. Correct, I did not do that.

22

Q. Instead, what you did was you used the authority and power of your court

23

to raise money for various charities in Ehnira, isn't that correct?

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. And in terms of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, it's fair to say that 681. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

you have been fully familiar with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct

2

since you were a part-time judge in 1982, isn't that true?

3

A. Fully familiar, well, I'm familiar with some of them.

4

Q. I'm going to show you, well, fIrst of all, let me offer into evidence, in

5

terms of taking judicial notice, as well, Commission Exhibit 65, the

6

Determination in Matter ofRamich, 63 and 64 of the CPL and the Penal

7

Law provisions concerning Conditional, Adjournments in Contemplation

8

of Conditional Discharges.

9

(Commission Exhibits 63, 64, and 65 were marked for identifIcation) MR. POSTEL: Ms. Sampson, am I missing any?

10

The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.

11

MS. SAMPSON: That's 67.

12

(Commission Exhibit 67 was marked for identifIcation)

13

MR. POSTEL: 66, I have it. Alright, I'm not going

14

to offer the 67.

15 16 17

Q. That's right in front of you, right, judge, the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct?

18

A. Yes.

19

Q. Alright, I'm going to show you what's marked as Commission Exhibit 66.

20

It's a page of testimony from the proceeding in the matter, in the

21

proceeding pursuant to 44 (4) of the Judiciary Law In Relation to Thomas

22

E. Ramich, a Justice of the Elmira City Court, April 18, 2002, before the

23

Honorable Sherman Levy, Esq., the judge's testimony in this prior

24

proceeding, which is public record. I'm going to show you what's

25

marked as Commission Exhibit 25. 682. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) (Commission Exhibit 66 was marked for identification)

1 2

MS. ROBERTS: 66.

3

MK. POSTEL: 66, thank you.

4

A. I have that.

5

Q. Alright. You testified on your own behalf in connection with the prior

6 7

proceeding, is that correct? A. Yes.

8

MS. MARTIN: Mr. Postel, Mr. Reilly would like to

9

look at those last two exhibits.

10

MR. REILLY: I don't have copies of those.

11

MR. POSTEL: Well, they're just, I'm asking for

12

judicial notice, but it's the provisions in the Penal Law and

13

the Criminal Procedure Law.

14

MR. REILLY: Alright.

15

THE REFEREE: That's 63 and 64, correct--

16

MR. POSTEL: --Correct.

17

THE REFEREE: Okay.

18

(Commission Exhibits 63, 64, and 65 were marked for identification)

19

Q. You testified in the prior proceeding, right?

20

A. Yes--

21

Q. --On your own behalf, and you were represented by an attorney in that

22

proceeding, is that correct?

23

A. Yes.

24

Q. And in the course of that proceeding, you were asked by your own

25

attorney whether or not you were fully familiar with the provisions of the 683. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

Rules Governing Judicial Conduct since you were a part-time judge in

2

1982, is that correct?

3

A. It does say, "fully aware."

4

Q. And you answered, "yes," is that correct?

5

A. I did.

6

Q. SO, as you think and review your knowledge of the Rules, and their

7

application to the fundraising efforts that you made on behalf of these

8

charities, did it never occur to you over those, that period of time in 2008

9

and 2009, that you were violating your ethical obligation?

10

A. No.

11

Q. Did you ever call your Administrative Judge to say, hey, I got this great

12

idea?

13

A. No--

14

Q. --Can I do it?

15

A. I did not.

16

Q. Did you contact the Administrative Judge's executive assistant to share

17

that information?

18

A. No.

19

Q. Did you seek an opinion from the Advisory Committee on Judical Ethics

20

to see if what you were doing was kosher?

21

A. I did not.

22

Q. As you thought about the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, judge, and

23

as you were fully aware of them, did you consider them to be

24

requirements or simply advisory?

25

A. Requirements.

684. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1 2

Q. When I showed you Commission Exhibit 65, judge, your Detennination in the prior matter, you recognized it, right?

3

A. Yes.

4

Q. It was a particularly painful period in your life, is that correct?

5

A. True.

6

Q. And you, at that time, hadsome fear of being removed from judicial

7

office, is that correct?

8

A. True.

9

Q. But it turned out that the Commission decided not to remove you, but to

10

instead Censure you, is that correct?

11

A. True.

12

Q. And in Censuring you, is it fair to say that they expressed confidence in

13

what your actions would be from that date forward?

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. Directing your attention to the second to last paragraph, judge. The

16

Commission made an expressed statement of mitigation in terms of its

17

decision to Censure and not remove you, did it not? It said in mitigation.

18

A. Yes.

19

Q. Tell us, what is it that the Commission said in terms of its view of you at

20 21

that time. A. "In mitigation, he has acknowledged his misconduct, and as the referee

22

concluded, he now appears to recognize the necessity for scrupulously

23

following relevant judicial Rules in the future."

24 25

Q. When you read that, did you recognize that to be the Commission giving you a second chance? 685. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

A. I did.

2

Q. The Commission expressed their confidence that you would scrupulously

3 4

follow the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, right? A. True.

5 .Q. Since 2002, as you've looked at the proof that we've had in the last three 6 7 8 9

days, would you say that you have abided by that? A. At the time that I did each thing, I felt that I had. Looking back now, I made mistakes. Q. Is the answer yes or no? Did you scrupulously follow the Rules

10

Governing Judicial Conduct as the Commission had expressed their

11

confidence in you?

12

A. No.

13

MR. POSTEL: I have no further questions.

14

MS. MARTIN: Mr. Postel?

15

THE REFEREE: Mr. Postel, there's--

16

MR. POSTEL: --I'm not offering that. Oh, I'm

17

sorry. My litigation team has asked for the opportunity to

18

whisper something in my ear. THE REFEREE: Very good, and we will wait two

19

20

minutes and then I have a couple of questions myself. But

21

I'd like you to continue. MR. REILLY: Do you want me to do the redirect

22 23

now?

24

THE REFEREE: I think so, yes.

25

MR. REILLY: I don't know whether that, that he 686. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Cross) 1

said he shouldn't close on his cross-examination yet. I

2

think he, they may be telling you he may need to ask some

3

more questions.

4

THE REFEREE: 014 I'm sorry.

5

MR. POSTEL: Ijust, I want to correct the record on

6 7 8 9

this thing. THE REFEREE: Very good. You had a question for, one further question, Mr., or further questions, Mr. Postel? MR. POSTEL: No, just--

10

MR. REILLY: --No objections--

11

MR. POSTEL: --a correction to Commission Exhibit

12

16, I understand I misspoke, is Krazinski and not Bassler.

13

THE REFEREE: Before you fmis14 the exhibits that

14

you refer to, 63, 64,65, 66, those have been identified. Are

15

you, are you moving those into evidence?

16 17

18

MR. POSTEL: I am not. . THE REFEREE: You are not moving those into evidence?

19

MR. POSTEL: That's correct.

20

THE REFEREE: Okay.

21

MR. REILLY: Just, could I have a copy of the, the,

22

the original decision that I, I don't think, I don't think my

23

client ever found his copy. Redirect? John?

24

MR. POSTEL: I'm looking for them.

25

MR. REILLY: I think it was 65 and 66. 687.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Redirect) 1

THE REFEREE: Mr. Postel, are you~~

2

MR. POSTEL:

3

~~I'm

giving them to him right now.

THE REFEREE: No, I mean, are you finished

4

with your--

5

MR. POSTEL: --I'm, I'm completed.

6

THE REFEREE: Okay, fme--

7

MR. REILLY: --Oh, I just wondered if you could

8

provide me with copies--

9

MR. POSTEL: --Oh, yeah, yeah--

10

MR. REILLY: --ofthem--

11

MR. POSTEL: --yeah, yeah--

12

MR. REILLY: --I got the Rules.

13

MR. POSTEL: Okay.

14

MR. REILLY: I got the Rules.

15

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

16

BY MR. REILLY:

17

Q. I'm going to be incredibly brief, because I think there's, well, just a few

18

issues to bring up because of your testimony, but Fred Cerio gave you,

19

apparently he gave you the receipt for the cost of registering that, that

20

vehicle?

21

A. I eventually found it.

22

Q. Where did he put it, do you know?

23

A. It was not in my chair. It was somewhere on my desk under other things,

24 25

and-Q. --And you just, you found it eventually, how long after it was done? 688. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Redirect) 1 2

A. I, I don't remember. I, I did eventually [md it, but I don't know what period of time it was.

3

Q. And you didn't make any attempts to pay it?

4

A. No.

5

Q. Whynot?

6

A. I wasn't sure how that would be interpreted once the charges were filed,

7

as, as whether that was something good or bad. I, I, I never intended for

8

Fred to pay it. I, I clearly should have paid it, and in, in, in the past,

9

frankly, Fred had done other registrations for me, and the difference was

10

that normally Fred came to me and said, "Hey, Tom, here." And then

11

once he gave it to me, then I said, "Okay, here, thank you very much,"

12

here's--

13

14

Q. --Are you saying you found the receipt after you got invited to go up to Rochester to testify?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Alright, and then you said you would pay it when we were up in

17

Rochester, but you were concerned about sending anything in

18

correspondence, like a check, to Fred?

19

A. I had two people that were friends with Fred, I had sent in his direction

20

and asked them to see if he would talk to me. I, I sent friends because I

21

didn't want toput him in, I was afraid if! directly contacted him--

22

Q. --When, when you told, when you were up to Rochester, you said you

23

would pay, did you think of contacting me, giving me a check so I could

24

forward it to the Comnrission and have them forward it to Fred?

25

A. I did not. 689. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Ramich-Redirect) 1

Q. And with regard to the timing and conversations with your daughter about

2

her feelings about the defendant, she said they occurred after sentencing

3

and you testified here that itmay have occurred before sentencing?

4 5 6 7

A. No, I'm, I'm saying that at, at the time I testifie~ that was my

recollection, but it was a long time back. Q. At the time you testified, your recollection was that that conversation was

after sentencing or before sentencing?

8

A. When I testified, it was that it was before sentencing, and--

9

Q. --What changed your mind?

10

A. Talking with Jessica.

11

THE REFEREE: Further questions, oh--

12

MR. POSTEL: --Oh, you're done--

13

THE REFEREE: --I'm sorry, no, I'm sorry.

14

MR. REILLY: I have nothing further.

15

THE REFEREE: Okay.

16

MR. POSTEL: I have nothing.

17

THE REFEREE: I have a few more questions. As a

18

judge, you presided over a number ofjury trials?

19

THE RESPONDENT: Yes.

20

THE REFEREE: Have you ever had a trial, a jury

21

trial in which the issue ofjuror misconduct has arisen?

22

THE RESPONDENT: Not, not misconduct, no,

23 24 25

never. THE REFEREE: Okay. Have you, in, in the City of Elmira, a number of occasions you may have had jurors 690. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Colloquy) 1

who you knew in one way or another?

2

THE RESPONDENT: Often.

3

THE REFEREE: Okay. Have you ever gone to

4

lunch with any other juror when a case was pending?

5

THE RESPONDENT: No.

6

THE REFEREE: Okay. At the end of a trial, have

7

you ever spoken to jurors on the record or off the record,

8

once the proceedings are concluded, about their thoughts

9

about the case itself?

10

THE RESPONDENT: Always. And when I spoke to

11

them, I, I would start off the trial telling them that they may

12

not discuss the case with anyone during the course of the

13

trial. If anybody approaches them, they should break off the

14

communication and report to the court that someone tried to

15

talk to them. I would also say to them words to the effect

16

that, as jurors, during the course ofthe trial, they must not

17

discuss the case even with other jurors until such time as the

18

case was in, had beencompleted, closing statements, and in

19

the jury room. Then later on, after a verdict was reached

20

and I was excusing the jury, I would thank the jurors for

21

their service and then I would say to them, all throughout

22

the trial, I'ye told you that you can't talk to anybody about

23

the case, but nOw that a verdict has been reached,

24

sometimes the attorneys that have been represented would

25

like to know how you viewed the case and what affected 691.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Colloquy) 1

2 3 4 5

6

THE REFEREE: Okay. When it, with the PBA

7 8

dinner, you did not go back the next year, is that correct? THE RESPONDENT: I did not go back the next year

9 10

or any year since then. THE REFEREE: Okay. And there's someone named

11

12

Pat Minden--

13

THE RESPONDENT: --Minchin--

14

MR. POSTEL: --Minchin--

15

THE REFEREE: --Minchin. How do you spell that

16

name?

17

THE RESPONDENT: That would be Pat, P-A-T-R-

18

I-C-I-A, last name,M-I-N-C-H-I-N, and she would be my, .

19

my, my personal secretary.

20 21

THE REFEREE: Fine. And there's someone named Bryan Max or Miggs?

22

MR. REILLY: Maggs..

23

MR. POSTEL: Maggs.

24

MR. REILLY: M-A--

25

THE RESPONDENT: --M-A-692. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Colloquy) 1

MR. REILLY: --I-E-G-S.

2

MR. POSTEL: No, M-A--

3

THE REFEREE: --M--

4

MR. POSTEL: --M-A-G-G-S.

5

THE RESPONDENT: --M-A-G--

6

MR. REILLY: --No--

7

THE RESPONDENT: --G-S.

8

MR. POSTEL: It's right in the documents--

9

THE RESPONDENT: Maggs, it's, it's Bryan--

10

MR. REILLY: --M-E-G--

11

THE RESPONDENT: Maggs--

12

MR. REILLY: --G-S--

13

MR. POSTEL: --M-A-G-G-S.

14

THE RESPONDENT: He is a--

15

MR. POSTEL: --Maggs, Bryan Maggs--

16

THE RESPONDENT: --he is a partner in the

17

O'Mara Law Firm, and the County Attorney for Chemung.

18

MR. POSTEL: It's right up here.

19

MR. REILLY: I know that.

20

THE REFEREE: Do either attorney have any follow

21

up questions to what questions I asked?

22

MR. POSTEL: I have nothing else.

23

MR. REILLY: Nothing further.

24

THE REFEREE: Fine.

25

MR. REILLY: And defense would rest. 693.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Farrest-Re-redirect)

I

THE.REFEREE: Fine.

2

MR. POSTEL: I have a rebuttal witness.

3

THE REFEREE: You have a rebuttal witness?

4

MR. POSTEL: Quick.

5

THE REFEREE: Okay, very good. Thank you.

6

Thank you very much.

7

MR. POSTEL: I'm ready to go right now.

8

THE REFEREE: Okay.

9

MR. POSTEL: I call Steven Forrest. THE REFEREE: You're, you're being recalled as a

10 11

witness--

12

MR. POSTEL: --Recalled--

13

THE REFEREE: --as a witness, sir.

14

THE WITNESS: Yes, and--

IS

THE REFEREE: --And you are--

16

THE WITNESS: --I'm still under oath, and I am--

17

THE REFEREE: --you are still under oath, yeah,

18

)

thank you.

19

RE-REDIRECT EXAMINATION

20

BY MR. POSTEL:

21

Q. Judge Forrest, I'm going to show you what's marked as Respondent's

22

Exhibit I\ for this proceeding. It's an email forwarded through a series of

23

emails allegedly originating from an individual named Michael Robertson

24

on October 2, 2008. Would you take a brief moment and familiarize

25

yourself with that? 694. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Farrest-Re-redirect)

1

MS. ROBERTS: What exhibit is that?

2

MR. POSTEL: E.

3

A. E.

4

Q. Have you ever seen that email before?

5

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

6

Q. Do you understand or have any understanding of what that email relates

7

to in connection with you personally?

8

A. Well, yes, I mean, my reading of the email is the very reason why Judge

9

Ramich very rarely had to cover for me. I made sure the police have my

10

cell phone number, my wife's cell phone number, our home number is in

11

the book, and I even made sure they had our correct address, and let me

12

tell you why, because one time, Robbie Robertson asked me for a search

13

warrant late at night, and they actually went to myoId address. I used to

14

live around the comer from him, and he didn't even realize I had moved

15

yet.

16

Q. They went to the wrong house?

17

A. They went to the wrong house--

18

Q. --Okay--

19

A. --but they--

20

Q: --I understand--

21

A. --have, the--

22

Q. --that's good--

23

A. --always--

24 25

Q. --that's all we--

A. --have-695. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-redirect) 1

Q. --need--

2

A. --everything in terms of ways to get a hold of me, and I didn't set up those

3

protocols, but I know I made sure they had that information. I don't

4

recall, I see it's involving Mike, Michael Robertson, whose now the chief,

5

police chief. I believe he was deputy chief back in 2008. I don't recall

6

talking to him about it, and to my knowledge--

7

Q. --Did he ever confront you--

8

A. --I'd never Seen this, this memo.

9

Q. Did he ever show you, did he ever talk to you about the substance of

10

that--

II

A. --Not that I'm--

12

Q. --at that time in--

13

A. --aware of, no.

14

Q. Alright, in terms of weekend coverage for arraignments, did you and

15

Judge Ramich alternate?

16

A. Yes.

17

Q. Did there come a--

18

A. --We still do--

19

Q. --come a time when you had to cover because Judge Ramich was

20

unavailable?

21

A. Absolutely.

22

Q. And did there come times when Judge Ramich had to cover because you

23

were unavailable?

24

A. Absolutely.

25

Q. As you look back to that date of the banquet, did, were, did you learn that 696.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-redirect) 1

there was an event in which you were contacted to do an arraignment, but

2

did not do it for some reason or another? .

3

A. That's correct.

4

Q. And was your cell phone the point of contact for you on that date?

5

A. Yes.

6

Q. And do you, do you know why it was that you, you were not available that

7

date?

8

A. Yes, it's my--

9

Q. --Simply, simple, please--

10

A. --recollection, I was coaching one child in soccer. I took the other child to

11

a soccer game. We barely made it on time. I left my cell phone in the

12

. car. I sat through that as a parent, the second soccer game. We no sooner

13

got into the car, and I realized, oh my gosh, I forgot to take my cell phone

14

to the field. I immediately looked at it, and 10 and behold, I see that I had

15

gotten a call approximately, my recollection is 20 minutes or so before the

16

end of the soccer game.

17

Q. About what time was that?

18

A. I'm guesstimating that would be probably around maybe, quarter of four,

19

4:00.

20

Q. Alright, when you get to--

21

A. --In that--

22

Q. --the--

23

A. --area--

24

Q. --dinner--

25

A. --aftemoon-697. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-redirect) 1 2 3

Q. --when you get to the dinner later, and Judge Ramich made his statements concerning you, what time was it that he made those statements? A. Well, as I testified to two days ago, it's my recollection that particular

4

dinner ran fairly late, and I'm again guesstimating that his comments were

5

made somewhere in the area of 9:30 P. M. because the dinner broke up

6

around"20 of 10, quarter of 10 completely.

7

Q. Alright, in terms ofyour personal assumption of the duties and

8

obligations of the specialty courts, was that something that Judge Ramich

9

signed off on or had to approve in order for you to do it?

10

A. No.

11

Q. In order for, did you seek his approval or authority before doing so?

12

A. Yes, with regard to the drug, the adult drug treatment court, the

13

misdemeanor adult drug treatment court, we had a very good dialog. I

14

always kept him in the loop on everything I was doing, and again,

15

remember, the adult misdemeanor drug treatment court was set up

16

effective and operational January of 2006, but he was made aware all the

17

way through the setting up of that court of exactly what I was doing at

18

every step of the way, yes he was.

19 20

Q. In terms of moving your court from a part4ime court to a full-time court effective April 2007, is that correct?

21

A. Yes.

22

Q. Was Judge Ramich in charge of making the decision on whether that

23

should be done or not?

24

A. No, not at all.

25

Q. That was a legislative decision, is that correct? 698. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-redirect) 1

A. Well, ultimately, it was Governor Pataki and the Legislature with regard

2

to the players that were involved from the Office of Court Administration.

3

I first had to get the approval of Jan Plumadore. It was his committee.

4

Q. My question is was--

5

A. --And, and, and Judy O'Shea--

6

Q. --was that Judge Ramich's decision?

7

A. No.

8

Q. It was done by the Governor and the Legislature on recommendation from

9

the Office of Court Administration?

10

A. That's correct.

11

Q. In connection with that, did you send out any memorandum seeking

12

support?

13

A. Yes, I did.

14

Q. Did you receive a memorandum of support from Judge Ramich in

15

response to your request?

16

A. He was the only one that did not sign the memorandum of nnderstanding

17

and support. I sent 52 of them out, got 51 back, and he was the only one

18

that did not sign.

19 20

MR. POSTEL: No questions. A. To the best ofmy--

21 22 23

MR. POSTEL: --I'm done-A. --recollection.

MR. POSTEL: --Thank you.

24

25 699. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester,NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-recross) 1

RE-RECROSS EXAMINATION

2

BY MR. REILLY:

3

Q. To the best of your recollection?

4

A. Yes.

5

Q. Did, did, Steve, did the establishment of the specialty courts help their

6

becoming establishment of the, of the, a full-time, another full-time

7

judge?

8 9

A, Only the adult misdemeanor drug treatment court. Even the Memorandum of Understanding refers to the fact that the, I brought some

10

of the stuff with me, if you want to see the whole shebang on the

11

Plumadore committee, the fact that that bill affected 47 of the 61 city

12

courts--

13

Q. --Yeah, but that's--

14

A. --58 of the 153 judges in New York State. I've got--

15

Q. --I understand--

16

A. -"all--

17

Q. --no, I understand that.

18

A. Yeah--

19

Q. --But I'm just asking whether the establishment of the specialty courts

20

helped to become a, a, an establishment of a full, second tUll-time judge

21

in Ehnira?

22

A. Only the adult misdemeanor drug treatment court. The domestic violence

23

court was established two years after I was full-time. The veteran's court

24

was established three years after--

25

Q. --So, which-700. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Forrest-Re-recross)

1

A. --I was full"time--

2

Q. --which one, the the, the domestic violence court is the one that was

3

established fIrst?

4

A. No, no, no, the adult misdemeanor drug--

5

Q. --You told~-

6

A. --treatment court was established in January of '06. I became full-time

7

April I 51 of '07.

8

Q. Alright, who--

9

A."- The domestic violence court was set up and established in September of

10

2009, and the veteran's court was approximately a year later.

11

Q. Who, who ran the adult drug court?

12

A. I did, exclusively.

13

Q. As a part-time judge?

14

A. For approximately 14 months, 13 months, yes.

15

Q. Okay.

16

A. And then exclusively as the full-time judge, yes.

17

MR. REILLY: I have nothing further.

18

MR. POSTEL: I have no questions.

19

THE REFEREE: One final question, or one area,

20

maybe a couple questions. On the day of the PBA, you said

21

that you had missed a phone call?

22

THE WITNESS: Yes.

23

THE REFEREE: Okay, now was that a phone call

24 25

for an arraignment, Or for a search warrant, or what? THE WITNESS: My understanding is it was an 701. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Colloquy) 1

actual arraignment, and here's the best of my recollection, I

;1

thought it was Joe Marone that I called back and got. My

3

understanding is it was an arraignment in the late part of the

4

afternoon, and I do want to make one other thing clear, part

5

of the protocols are the we call in every Saturday and

6

Sunday morning. I did that on Sunday. There were no

7

arraignments in the morning, but we are expected to have

8

our cell phones with us, just in case something like this

9

came up, and it did happen to come up on April 25 1h of '09,

10

that Sunday, and my understanding is I thought it was a, a

11

simple arraignment late in the afternoon. I could be wrong

12

about that, but all I know is when I called in, they said

13

Judge Ramich was already on his way, and that's what I

14

recall of that particular day, and that was late afternoon. I

15

thought it was, like, 4, 4:30. I'm not aware if there was a

16

search warrant later. I know--

17

THE REFEREE: --Okay--

18

THE WITNESS: --nothing--

19

THE REFEREE: --know--

20

THE WITNESS: --al:Jout that. I--

21

THE REFEREE: --know--

22

THE WITNESS: --don't know, I, that's my

23

recollection.

24

THE REFEREE: Okay.

25

MR. POSTEL: Thank you, nothing further. 702. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

(Colloquy)

1

THE REFEREE: Both sides--

2

MR. REILLY: --(unintelligible)--

3

THE REFEREE: Okay, you're excused at this point.

4

THE WITNESS: Alright.

5

THE REFEREE: Thank you--

6

THE WITNESS: --Yep--

7

THE REFEREE: --very much--

8

THE WITNESS: --okay--

9

THE REFEREE: --thank you, very much"-

10

THE WITNESS: --yep--

11

THE REFEREE: --very much--

12

THE WITNESS: --okay.

13

MR. POSTEL: Can we approach?

14

THE REFEREE: Yes.

15

MR. POSTEL: And we're off?

16

THE REFEREE: We're off.

17

(WHEREUPON the hearing in the Matter ofThomas E. Ramich

18

Wl;lS

concluded at 4:15 P. M. on October 18,2012)

19

20 21

22 23

24 25 703. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

1

EXHIBITS

2 C01.lMISSION

~

J

4

Ident.

In Evid.

5 6

63

7 8

Westlaw McKinney's Criminal Procedure Law

681

170.55. 64

Westlaw McKinney's Penal Law 65.10.

681

65

Connnission Determination in Matter ofThomas

681

9 10

E. Ramich, December 22, 2002.

11

12

66

681

Thomas E. Ramich, April 18, 2002.

13

14

Excerpts of hearing transcript in Matter of

67

Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.

681

15 16 17

RESPONDENT

18 19 20

E

Email from Michael Robinson to Scott W.

490

Drake, police supervisors, October 2, 2008.

21 22 23 24 25

i. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604

1

CERTIFICATION

2 3

I, Terry Miller Scipioni, a Secretary of the State

4

Commission on Judicial Conduct, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a

5

true and accurate transcript of the audio recording of the proceedings

6

transcribed by me, to the best of my knowledge and belief, in the matter

7

held on October 18,2012.

8 9 10 11

Dated: December 3,2012 r

.

dfJ)~M11iM ~ Terry Mi er Scipioni

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25

~

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 Andrews Street Rochester, NY 14604