This site is not associated with Linda Christopher’s bid for NY Supreme Court. Quite the opposite is true: it is an on-going concern to show the People of New York her fraudulent activities, specifically as they relate to her duties as a judge.
TABLE of CONTENTS
As you watch the commercials that judge Christopher concocted about her “experience,” notice the wild fear in her eyes, the fear of discovery of her lies shenanigans. She has showed in many ways that she’s afraid of her ”constituents,” the People of New York, whom she robs and pillages as a “legal mafia” boss that she truly is. What we have here is a criminal, clad in a black robe, a pathological liar, who so far has been rewarded for her criminal acts with unlimited power, fat salary and numerous perks of a judge.
While a judge is expected to uphold the law, to be ethical and fair, this one is a thug who only strives to win the money donations and unwavering support of the special interests. She does not give a damn about the facts of any given case. She suppresses evidence, withholds it from the record, and crudely concocts “evidence” in favor of her politically motivated preconceived decisions, which she makes in ex parte meetings in her chambers with her allies and cronies, thus raping the very notion of justice. New Yorkers need Linda Christopher, a crook of a judge, like a hole in the head!
She began her career with lying to The People in 2005 to obtain judgeship of the Family Court. On the commercial website “Ten Leaders,” which for a hefty fee would create a false impression that “members of the profession” somehow elect the payer to be their leader, she lied about her qualifications and experience:
served as a Hearing Examiner for the
LEADERS: Matrimonial & Divorce Law.
“FOR YEARS” means “many years.” Did she really serve as a Hearing Examiner “for years?” – Not at all. She simply lied about it to get ahead.
Her official bio on the official website of the Unified Court System states that she was a hearing examiner just for several months, not “years.” It says:
Is it an “innocent” exaggeration, or an outright lie by a public servant? You’d be the judge of this “Judge.” But the author of this page, a nationally syndicated investigative reporter, have seen enough of Linda Christopher’s doings to conclude that lying in court, on the record, and in writing is judge Christopher’s modus operandi. For Linda Christopher it’s business as usual, whether she forgets to take her psychotropic medication or not.
What makes judge Linda Christopher a “Nazi?”
Here’s but one example: She encouraged the Mother to continue Anti-Semitic hate speeches, rife with expletives, in front of the Child (the audio is coming to the Web soon):
Judge Christopher’s Jewish supporters should be especially mindful of the following recorded dialogue, which Linda Christopher rejected into evidence of Mother’s denigration of Father in front of the Child.
According to her, it is Constitutionally-protected speech. Be it as it may, the point is however, that it is harassment, and parental alienation, both of which Judge Christopher willfully obfuscated:
G: “I’m goin’ to probation again. You are not gonna do “this!”
E: What’s “this”?
G: (screaming) You, mother-fucker, had to take him at 8!!!
E: You didn’t tell me.
G: Why the fuck do I have to tell you!!! You have the schedule! You mother-fuckers! All schools are closed today!!!
E: Why are they closed?
G: Because of your scum!!! Jew-pig holidays, that’s why. Whores! Because of your kikes! Whores! Hang up a calendar in the kitchen and watch it! You stinking Kikes, not-killed-yet Jews, you have those Kike holidays a dick many times! Whores!
E: All right, I’m picking him up in 40 minutes. (hangs up.)
Being a dim-witted moron as a lawyer, a “judge” not qualified to adjudicate traffic tickets, a sociopathic, shrewd, politically-minded career bureaucrat, Linda Christopher rejected this and many more audios and videos to be admitted into evidence. She did not take judicial notice of the fact that Mother was arrested and charged by The People with Assault in the 2nd degree for breaking heavy glass vases over the Father’s head. Linda Christopher wants her decisions kept secret.
More over, she calls the voices of opposition, “hate speech” and called upon the District Attorney’s office to prosecute them (as “hate crime” no less) -- Sorry, Linda. You can fool some of the people some of the time. You use the power of the state judge to promote hate speech instead of free speech. You represent the ideology of hate. You commit hate crimes and crimes against humanity.
Tagging the party line no longer works. It never did. You need to know who your "leader" really is. Linda Christopher runs on the Democratic platform not because she is true to the Democratic ideas, which she is not, but because in New York State it's a sure shortcut to power.
She loves to be photographed on the backdrop of the American flag – it is
an effective trick in the process of duping the People into believing that this
Nazi shares the People's values. The special interest groups exchange
self-congratulatory messages when she manages to squeese a photo-op with her
mugshot on the backdrop of the American flag. − And why not? The American
flag is a symbol that resonates well in the hearts of the hard-working,
law-abiding New Yorkers. Meanwhile, the substance behind the crafty image of
judge Christopher is a pure, unadulterated fascist, a sociopath in a position
of unmitigated judicial power. She does not care about the court rules by the
Chief Judge, the laws of the state, or the
Excerpted from the transcript, see the following examples. Here MS. SANDS is Jacqueline Sands, a notorious “law guardian,” who conspired with judge Christopher, her former boss:
MS. SANDS: I’m going to ask for a timeframe on this.
Dr. R: The timeframe was year 2005.
Some couple of minutes into a deliberate obfuscation, MS. SANDS boldly asserts:
MR. SEXTON: Dr. R, I turn your attention to 2005…
MS. SANDS: Yeah, I’m going to object. He didn’t say 2005.
DR. R: I said 2005.
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. You aren’t entitled to be part of this…
MS. SANDS: He said nothing about 2005.
THE COURT: That’s what my notes say as well… That is sustained.
The transcript above is not an
excerpt from “
“Then the child said to him that mommy was saying bad things,”
Immediately after hearing it. But after a couple of minutes’ of obfuscation, she gives an entirely different quotation of the same testimony: based her decision on such on-the-fly concocted lie:
“I think what he said was that my client, my child was saying that I said bad things about mommy.”
− She completely reversed the witness’ testimony. That done, she based her decision on such judge-concocted lie. The purpose of such obfuscation is to disrupt the witness’ testimony, turn it upside-down on its head, to fraudulently concoct a “virtual reality” on which to base her preconceived decision. While judges are human and can make mistakes, the sheer volume, one-sidedness, and egregious nature of such “mistakes,” which judge Christopher routinely commits, displays a gross bias that underscores her absolute inability to be a fair trier of fact, which is precisely why the special interests nominated her to be one. She deliberately creates fiction, misrepresents it as fact, and bases her decision on such crudely concocted fiction. And that’s a polite description. To call a spade a spade, judge Christopher is a lying, conniving bitch, whom the duped People unwittingly handed over almost unlimited power. Fraud is her MO. And she craves more power, using children as stepping stones on her career path.
She lashes out publicly against criticism of her Nazi tactics as a “hate crime.” – What hogwash! Especially from a judge who was sworn to uphold the US Constitution, ripped the document to shreds and demonstratively wipes her ass with it.
Such Gestapo tactics send a clear message to the attorneys, who have no choice, but to bow to Judge Christopher’s tyrannical “steering” of the case or face retaliation in their practice before the judge. No wonder then that the “generous contributors” to her election campaign are by and large the very attorneys who come before this judge.
Everybody knows that ex parte communication with the judge is a no-no that fatally taints any trial with fraud. So far Judge Christopher hasn’t been caught red-handed, so she conducts ex parte “hearings” with her cronies as a matter of their birthright. Judge Christopher – as evidenced by the Law Guardian’s (Jacqueline Sands, who else?) letter of 4-Sep-2009 to the court, held an off-the-record ex parte conference with her, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge. Judge Christopher concealed from the record the mere fact of holding many off-the-record ex parte and attorneys-only conferences.
Not surprisingly, the Law Guardian’s letter, which accidentally documented her ex-pate conference with Judge Christopher, “vanished” from the court file at least twice, and it took a rather firm persistence on behalf of a litigant to demand that it be found. (See “the disappearing evidence.”) He had to give the clerk exhaustive information about the letter’s origin, timing, and the date of receipt (which Father, formerly a computer forensic expert, and investigative reporter, had wisely recorded.) After most of court appearances, upon the adjournment (going off-the-record) the Law Guardian (the notorious Ms. Jacqueline Sands – the one not to be confused by the facts) and Mother remained in the courtroom for a powwow with judge Christopher, as their birthright, emerging from it some 10 minutes later.
parte communications have significantly affected the process,
the courts have voided the proceeding.” (See, e.g., Signet Constr. Corp. v. Goldin, 99 A.D.
2d 431, 470 N.Y.S. 2d 396(1st
But judge Christopher is never concerned with the
law. In fact, in
On Christmas Eve 2009 Mother instructs the Child to steal from Father all the new clothing Father bought for the Child, along with Father’s collection of jewelry. Father takes the Child to his priest, renowned for his ability to positively influence children and adults alike.
Judge Christopher trumped up Father’s testimony of taking the Child to the family Priest into “emotional abuse,” while ascribing to Father words, which he never uttered: Father testified that the meeting with the Priest was prearranged months in advance to discuss an on-going problem of stealing, a collective decision after extensive consultations with the Child’s Godfather (a 85-year-old scholar,) godfather’s wife, the Child’s Mother, a professor of educational psychology at St. John’s University, and Father’s girlfriend. After visiting the priest, the Child’s recanted the allegations Mother coached the Child to make. So the Mother, infuriated by the Child’s recantation, claimed the visit with the priest “denigrated” her, that it was kept a “secret” from her, but the record shows that Mother knew about an impending visit and the subject matter to be discussed far in advance. Dr. H (the court-appointed forensic psychologist) described this event from the Child’s own words:
“The most telling example of Mr. R's patience and sensitivity to the Child was illustrated when the Child was caught stealing jewelry, a gold ring and gold coins from the father on two separate occasions. The father did not lose his temper in an aggressive manner with the Child. The Child admitted to the evaluator that his father simply said, "I'm very disappointed in your behavior and we should go to a priest to discuss this."
Not to be overshadowed by a professional psychologist, Judge Christopher applied a do-it-yourself “psychoanalysis” of her own: “While with the priest, he [Father] explained that the child was a thief” (which Father certainly did not.) She continued:
“The father did this to a young child, thereby giving the child the impression that he was a bad child by calling him a thief and to a third party.”
―a gratuitously trumped
up version of the events. Notably, judge Christopher rejected (by a
silent omission) the Mother’s and the Ms. Sands’ (the
Here’s a situation: Mother and Father were divorced many moons ago. Ten years later The Child tells Mother that Father has a beautiful girlfriend, who’s also a terrific companion, a gourmet cook and entertains the Child like Mary Poppins. Jealous Mother runs to judge Christopher to accuse the 64-year-old Father of mortal sins of presumably having sex in presence of the child, on the kitchen table, no less, and watching pornographic movies in the Child presence, no less. Judge has a forensic report in front of her, from 2002, stating that Mother is a sociopath making false allegations with sexualized innuendo.
Judge appoints a new forensic investigator, who all allegations not credible.
What does judge Christopher do? – She ignored that both Mother and Law Guardian (Jacqueline Sands) made false allegations, trumping-up the “Atonement,” an Oscar-winning drama, into a “movie with sexual content,” “sexual contact,” “adult movies,” “movie about rape,” and “movie about sex.” Despite Father’s testimony that the Child did not and could not see it, judge Christopher made a trumped-up finding that “[the Child] witnessed an inappropriate film at the father’s girlfriend’s residence.” People of NY gave her discretion. She routinely and self-righteously abuses it.
Not to be confused by the facts unerthed by a professional forensic investigation (whom she personally appointed,) judge Christopher made her own “psychological analysis” (in which she got instantly and miserably lost, by her own admission,) in order to make her preconceived, off-the-wall Kafkaesque finding, inspired by her political aspirations, that the Child was exposed to sex in kitchen, and inappropriate movies. – That is despite the Child’s denial of seeing anything of the kind, which the “law guardian,” the Mother, and judge Christopher concealed from the record of the proceedings in judge Christopher’s court. But here’s what Mother said to a different judge, Hon. William Warren at a transcribed ex parte hearing on 02/26/09, where Mother alleged “denigration” of her by Father’s taking the Child to the Priest:
“… as soon as he [the Child] stepped in, he said, “Mom, they didn’t do it in the kitchen.”… He said, “They didn’t have sex in the kitchen.”
This was in presence of Ms. Sands, the “law guardian” from hell. Thus, Mother stated on the record that after a conversation with the Priest the Child denied spying on the alleged “sex in the kitchen,” the fact of such denial she and the Ms. Sands conspired to conceal. The Child denied it to the forensic psychologist and the Father, as well. How and why then, does judge Christopher come up with her fantastic “findings?” simply echoing the sordid allegations by a jealous Mother, found to be a lying, conniving sociopath by two forensic psych evaluators – One word. FRAUD. Just like the Mother in this case, judge Christopher is a sociopath.
How does a girl get to be such
a fraud? – Linda Christopher’s “education” (actually – indoctrination) is a
major stepping stone. The Antioch School of Law, which judge Christopher
graduated in 1980, studying law while the School was not accredited, proclaimed
its good intentions and lofty goals of catering to the legal needs of
minorities and women, but it taught nasty methods and attitudes. Entrance examinations were non-existent. A
student could have an IQ of 60 and be admitted, as long as she proclaimed to be
"a fighter for social justice." The school was not
Here's an interesting entry on Wiki: "The program's tacit goal was to produce attorneys whose abilities and reputation for aggressiveness were such that potential opposing counsel - generally viewed as corporate lackeys or defenders of the forces of reaction – would be cowed into beneficial compromise by the prospect of facing annihilation in the courtroom at the hands of Antioch alumni. "
True to this form, Judge Linda Christopher has an inexhaustible supply of legal tricks up her sleeve. The facts, evidence, persuasion are of no avail. The only thing that matters is her ideology.
Who are her contributors? – The mandatory disclosure shows that they are employees of the court, by and large – the very attorneys who try cases in front of Linda Christopher, and last but not least – the women’s bar association for whom Linda Christopher's fraudulent conduct of the trials has provided a steady stream of cash flows from the families' savings earned over the lifetimes of labor, blood, sweat and tears. Thanks to Linda, the folks entrapped in her court, now work for lawyers. Their family's fortunes go straight into the lawyers’ pockets, to the last penny. Her campaign is an odious bouquet of the worst corruption known to human civilazation, sold to the People of New York as a “fine” legal system, no less. See for yourself here.
See also www.RocklandFamilyCourt.org
 The Antioch School of Law “program's tacit goal was to produce attorneys whose abilities and reputation for aggressiveness were such that potential opposing counsel - generally viewed as “corporate lackeys” or “defenders of the forces of reaction” - would be cowed into beneficial compromise by the prospect of facing annihilation in the courtroom at the hands of Antioch alumni.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch_School_of_Law
 Transcript 09-08-09:22.4-5
 Transcript 09-08-09:23.19-21
 22 NYCRR Part 100 (B) Adjudicative Responsibilities. (6) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding…See also, CANON 3 [§100.3] (B) (6) of NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.
 Transcript of 09/08/09:48.11-12 (page 48, Lines 11 through 12)
 Atonement. Awards: Oscar. The Best Film of the Year at the 61st