Hon. Thomas P. Griesa See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
S.D.N.Y.  
Average Rating:4.4 - 58 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation
Add a comment only

Ratings

*Temperament:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Scholarship:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Industriousness:   (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:    (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Punctuality:    (1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Thomas P. Griesa


Comments


Prosecutor

Comment #: 21943
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I have never met such and ignorant and lazy judge before. It is so clear that he is on the side of the big enterprises. He never heard my pleadings, nor my motions.
Disgusting Judge

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21942
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Just another corrupt one. Bought by the big corporations in many cases

Other

Comment #: 21940
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Don't you get it??????????? Judge Griesa is suffering from age related dementia. I don't say this out of spite or mean it as an insult but the Second Circuit has to face the facts- Judge Thomas P. Griesa is showing definite signs of senility. Unfortunately the court system has no system of monitoring it's increasingly octogenarian staff of justices and no way to fire or retire them. They can sit on the bench after they have completely lost their mental faculties and make crazy decisions that threaten the world economy and nothing much anyone can do about it. I am not just saying this. I have evidence to back it up.

Other

Comment #: 21906
Rating:1.0
Comments:
1=0


1=0


ONE ( 1 ) is worse than Worst

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21905
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Are they necessary????
ARGENTINA wants to PAY!!!!
Stop Vulture Griesa!
What about President Obama´s opinion on this subject?
Many domestic a foreign issues....

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21901
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Delincuente Comprado por los Fondos Buitres, a la brevedad debe hacer lugar al pedido Argentino de Stay. 92 % de los tenedores re-estrucuturados corren riesgo de no cobrar sus deudas por culpa de sus caprichos y de sus Amos.

Dejate de joder viejo de mierda y hace lugar a los reclamos Argentinos!

Other

Comment #: 21900
Rating:1.0
Comments:
How can a judge ignore so many voices which are being heard in favor of Argentina?
If he considers countries to be a sort of company suitable to go bankrupt why does he not apply the default rule which forces every creditor to accept what the 66,6% accepted? This is what the law fixes for private companies´defaults. 92% of Argentina's creditors made a deal (which Argentina is fulfilling) and it is only the other 8% who would never negotiate and want to receive a profit of 1600% which would lead the country to default.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21894
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Parcial
No apto para casos que involucren la soberania de otros estados
Histerico
Proclive a beneficiar a las grandes corporaciones
pocas virtudes
infinidad de falencias

Litigant

Comment #: 21892
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Griesa should be dead.

Prosecutor

Comment #: 21890
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Lamentablemente este juez comprado por los Holdouts Norteamericanos quiere llevar a la Argentina a tener nuevamente una crisis de Deuda en el futuro cercano.

Deseo que próximamente muera y que el diablo lo reciba en su morada permanente.

Saludos desde Buenos Aires.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: 21889
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Viejo choto

Other

Comment #: 21872
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Griesa Answers:

1) He hasn't responded to Argentina's request for more time to negotiate.

2) Aware deposit made by the Argentine government in the Bank of New York to pay for maturity Griesa rejected the injunction (stay) which had been requested by Argentina twice.

http://especiales.lanacion.com.ar/multimedia/proyectos/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?doc=griesa.pdf

Other

Comment #: 21870
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Today, Argentina’s Economy Minister Axel Kicillof held a press conference to announce the government has made a payment of 1 billion dollars in New York, serving its debt commitments with creditors that accepted the 2005 and 2010 swaps. The move comes as no agreement has been yet reached with vulture funds suing the country over its defaulted bonds and rejecting Argentina's debt restructuring process.
With the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration still waiting for US courts to approve its 'stay' request that would grant Argentina time to negotiate a settlement with vulture funds and prevent a default as the country is due to to make more than $500 million in interest payments on June 30, the federal government decided to wait not longer to "honour" its bond restructured commitments, warning of "embargo" risks in the United States.

In a brief speech, Kicillof read a statement explaining the government’s decision to “honour its commitments” with 92.4 percent of bondholders that agreed to Argentina’s debt swaps, stressing today’s payment followed a “sovereign decision."
The minister condemned what he called a “technical default euphemism,” blaming United States rulings for forcing a “sovereign” nation to default, “banning it from serving its debts” and “affecting the interests of the majority of bondholders.”
In that sense, Kicillof ratified the government’s condemnation of US Court District Judge Thomas Griesa’s “bias” in favour of vulture funds, seeking to “knock down the 2005 and 2010 debt restructurings that reached 92.4 percent of creditors” and which holdouts “never agreed to take part in.”
Escorted by Cabinet Chief Jorge Capitanich and Legal and Technical Secretary to the Presidency Carlos Zannini, the minister praised the international support Argentina has rallied over the past weeks in its 1.3 billion dollar dispute that could plunge the South American country into default.
“It comes clear that this support means to acknowledge the logic and fairness of our demands and the systemic impacts these rulings will have,” the minister said and reaffirmed Argentina’s “commitments to serve its debts with 100 percent of creditors in fair and legal conditions.”

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/163097/govt-makes-debt-payment-on-restructured-bonds-blasts-washington-for-judicial-rulings

Other

Comment #: 21869
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
To Judge Thomas Griesa: In defending the property of a minority you are undergoing the most legal and financial insecurity. New York, as an international financial center is put at risk by the decision you made. The international community has responded favorably by supporting the application of Argentina and demanding fairness in decisions, you, as a judge, can not ignore it. Besides, you can not ignore that your decision undermines international finance and above all things diminishes the sovereignty of a nation

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21866
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Very very poor

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21865
Rating:8.6
Comments:
argentina should pay their debt

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21864
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The United Nations Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, Cephas Lumina, urged Argentina to audit its external debt in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Foreign Debt and Human Rights, which call for every State to conduct transparent and participatory periodic audits of their debt or lending portfolios.
Speaking at the end of his first visit to Argentina (November 18 to 29, 2013), Mr. Lumina noted that concerns had been raised about the legitimacy of some of the debts contracted prior to the crisis of 2001, including allegations of criminality in the manner in which this debt was assumed, particularly during the military dictatorship (1976-1983).
Mr. Lumina also commented on the implications of Griesa judge's decision ordering the Argentinian Government to pay US$ 1.3 billion to hold out hedge funds (termed ‘vulture funds’ because of their predatory behaviour) saying they extend beyond the particular case of Argentina.
"Vulture funds, such as NML Capital, should not be allowed to purchase debts of distressed companies or sovereign states on the secondary market, for a sum far less than the face value of the debt obligation, and then seek repayment of the nominal full face value of the debt together with interest, penalties and legal costs or impound assets of heavily indebted countries in an attempt to force repayment," said Lumina.

http://www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13991&LangID=E

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/IEDebt/Pages/CVCephasLumina.aspx

Other

Comment #: 21860
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Thomas Griesa not consider countries as sovereign entities, but as businesses, subject to banckruptcy and seizure. The disfunctionality of the international financial system, expressed with special clarity in recent argentinean crisis (caused by a ruling from a single federal judge), only confirms the imperious necesity of a deep reform and democratization of credit institutions at a world scale.

Other

Comment #: 21856
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Mr. Judge, does not respect the human rights of Argentina and the sovereign rights of a Democratic Republic and Federal

Other

Comment #: 21852
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Un Juez siempre tiene que juzgar conforme a derecho y la actitud patotera demostrada por su formación política lo hace completamente antijurídico rayano con lo amoral. Sinceramente le deseo la peor de las pesadillas. A su pesar, la américa latina, la verdadera AMÉRICA, sale a flote a pesar de las actitudes piratas.

Other

Comment #: 21838
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Thomas Griesa prohibits Argentina from paying debt in Buenos Aires.

Today (Saturday June 21, 2014) in The Wall Street Journal, the Argentine Government reiterated its position in favour of negotiating with holdouts:

ARGENTINA WANTS TO CONTINUE PAYING ITS DEBTS BUT THEY WON'T LET IT

Argentina wants to continue paying its debts, just as it has been doing since 2005, but this is now hindered by Judge Thomas Griesa's ruling and by the Supreme Court's refusal to take on the case.

The default of the Argentine Republic in 2001 was the biggest one in the world's financial history, largely exceeding 100 billion US dollars. Decades of overindebtedness and low growth left the country with a debt amounting to over 160% of its GDP, an unemployment rate close to 25% and over 50% of its population in poverty. Since 2003, several measures were implemented that were aimed at normalizing the country's international financial relations. The fundamental principle of all negotiations conducted with creditors was always the same: in order to be able to pay, Argentina must first grow, so as to generate the resources that will enable it to honour its commitments. Growth to enable payment has been the hallmark of all debt negotiations conducted by Argentina since 2003. Under this approach, for over a decade, Argentina's economy has been growing, bringing down unemployment and continuing to reduce its debt, to such an extent that foreign currency-denominated public debt owed to the private sector currently does not exceed 8% of the country's Gross Domestic Product.

The process to restructure the debt that was defaulted on in 2001 still continues. Along this difficult road, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund was repaid in full, an agreement was reached with creditors in connection with the final awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), obligations to international organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and the Andean Development Corporation were also honoured in full and, recently, payment over a period of up to 7 years was agreed with the Paris Club, in addition to the compensation given to the company REPSOL within the context of the retaking of control over 51% of the shares in oil company YPF.

Without doubt, the most complex problem was to reach a deal with the thousands of holders of debt in default since 2001, amounting to 81 billion US dollars. But Argentina was successful in this regard. Following lengthy negotiations, after consultations with its creditors and applying the principle of good faith, it reached an agreement for a voluntary exchange of defaulted instruments for new bonds involving a haircut, longer term and lower rate, which ensured that the commitment undertaken by the country would be sustainable. The exchange offer was made in 2005 and again in 2010, finding acceptance among 92.4% of creditors. One of the keys to success was, as is customary in such transactions, the fact that both Argentinian legislation as well as the prospectus of the instruments issued prevent the offering of better conditions to creditors who failed to accept the offer (holdouts). Since 2003, through the efforts of all of the Argentine people, debt service payments related to the whole restructured debt have been made punctually, in an amount of over 190 billion dollars and with no access to international financial markets.

7% of bondholders did not accept the restructuring. The vulture funds that secured a ruling in their favour are not original lenders to Argentina. They purchased bonds in default at obscenely low prices for the sole purpose of engaging in ligitation against Argentina and making an enourmous profit. Paul Singer's NML fund, for example, in 2008 paid only 48.7 million US dollars for bonds in default. Judge Griesa's ruling now orders that it be paid an amount of 832 million US dollars, i.e. a gain of 1608% in only six years.

Argentina has appealed against New York District Court Thomas Griesa's ruling, which orders payment of 1.5 billion dollars to be made on June 30, which is the due date of the next payment related to the restructured debt. However, it is estimated that the total bonds in default that did not enter the restructuring processes amount to 15 billion US dollars, i.e. over 50% of Argentina's foreign currency reserves. Judge Griesa's ruling would push the country to a new default. This is so because if Argentina does pay the 1.5 billion, it will have to pay 15 billion in the immediate future. To make matters worse, under the laws of Argentina and the clauses governing the restructured instruments (RUFO), if the vulture funds were to be paid, all other bondholders would demand equal treatment, involving an estimated cost over 120 billion US dollars. If, on the other hand, Argentina does not pay the vulture funds, Judge Griesa's ruling forbids Argentina to make payment to 92.4% of the bondholders who did accept the restructuring, as the judge has issued orders to the Bank of New York and to the settlement agencies for them not to pay.

In other words: paying the vulture funds is a path leading to default, and if they are not paid, Judge Griesa's order entails jeopardizing the right of the bondholders to collect their debt restructured in 2005 and 2010.

Meanwhile, the vulture funds have invested millions of dollars in lobbying and propaganda, trying to make the whole world believe that Argentina does not pay its debts and refuses to negotiate. However, precisely since 2003, the way out of default while reducing debt was by negotiating and paying. Even today, Argentina still keeps the possibility of an exchange open for all those who respect the principle of equality. A decision of the US Judiciary favourable to 1.6% of the bondholders, who are specialized in litigation, jeopardizes a debt restructuring voluntary accepted by 92.4% of the creditors. The legal interpretations relied upon in Judge Griesa's rulings have been called into question by the most varied parties: the governments of France, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay; settlement agency Euroclear and the Fintech fund. Joseph Stiglitz, Anne Kruger, Nouriel Roubini have also made statements along the same lines, as well as CELAC, the G24, G77 and 106 British parliamentarians. Even the US government and the IMF have shown concern at the global implications of the ruling.

This ruling seeks to put Argentina in a delicate position, but also any other country that may have to undertake a restructuring of its debts in the future. Under the domestic legislation of any country, when there is a suspension of payments and 66% of creditors agree to a deal, the rest are also obliged to accept. As there is no legal framework governing the default of a sovereign country, this precedent means that even if 99.9% voluntary acceptance were to be achieved, 0.1% of creditors could invalidate the whole restructuring.

The will of Argentina is clear: we expect a judicial decision that promotes fair and balanced negotiating conditions to resolve this protracted and difficult dispute that has affected, affects and will continue to affect the Argentine people due to the voracity of a minute group of speculators.

Presidency of Nation
Argentine Republic

Other

Comment #: 21836
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Por favor, que alguien le explique al Juez Griesa que los jueces deben ajustarse a derecho. Que tienen una jurisdicción y, principalmente, que no tiene jurisdicción para Prohibir a la República Argentina que haga algo que según las leyes Argentinas esta ajustado a derecho. La soberanía no se negocia ni se encuentra escrutada por jueces de terceros países. Sus fallos son absolutamente parciales, defendiendo a usureros en desmedro de las mayorías (93%) que aceptaron la reestructuración. Y solamente persigue un objetivo: Destruir a Argentina como un mensaje mafioso para el resto de los países que estos usureros están intentando saquear.
NY ya no ofrece seguridad jurídica para la reestructuración de deudas soberanas. La Argentina se encuentra obligada hoy a intentar un cambio de jurisdicción.

Other

Comment #: 21835
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Las deudas se pagan, aquel que parafraseo a Capitanich en Ingles, que aprenda que el populismo le habla a la tribuna, pero dichos conceptos son tenidos en cuenta por tribunales extranjeros. Le pediria a la argentina que si no quiere pagar los bonos de acuerdo a los valores que se comprometió a pagar, que no emita mas deuda. No hay autoridad moral para hablar de "deuda injusta", cuando reestructuras una deuda, haces una quita del 75% y decidis pagar mucho menos del valor nominal del bono.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21828
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
El Sr Griesa desconoce el esfuerzo del pueblo argentino en pagar y honrar sus deudas desde el año 2003 en adelante. Nuestro pais ha cumplido con todos sus pagos, y esta sentencia a favor de los buitres lo unico que genera es la posibilidad de quebrar a nuestro pueblo. DIOS BENDIGA A ARGENTINA

Other

Comment #: 21821
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This Judge ashames the whole US Justice system and also the country itself. I am not a US citizen. If some day you start having judges who understand there is a big difference between a corporation and a human being, then you will be closer to live in a real country and not just in a mere platform for corporative control. And from all the corporations, he biasly defends the most blatantly offensive, unethical and toxic: the Hedge Funds.
Please, start to realize why the entire world hates the US. And please, change it once and for all.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21811
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Much like the president that appointed him (Nixon) Griesa obviously believes he is above the law. He has dragged out a copyright/fair use case that should have been decided by summary judgment at the onset of the lawsuit and managed to drag it out to over three years now which included a five day JURY TRIAL- these kinds of copyright cases are almost always decided by a judge- rarely if ever by a jury. Griesa spent two years denying summary judgment motions in perfunctory "opinions" which cited cases to "back" his opinions- problem was the cases he cited had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinion he was espousing- not even remotely.

But here is the kicker: at the trial- after two years of handling this complex copyright case- he was completely disoriented and kept asking lawyers and even a witness what the law was. He had no idea. Then when he was told by the lawyers, he dismissed the laws as "meaningless." In his jury charge, he instructed the jury on completely erroneous law, introducing a brand new and utterly absurd legal concept that totally undermines the very foundation of copyright law- a principle that has not one case in the history of the U.S. court system to back it but has dozens - decided by the 2nd Circuit- which directly oppose the concept.
He then went on to describe the four factors the jury should consider when deciding 'fair use'- except he only described one- the factor about the amount and substantiality of the portion taken- basically saying there was no limit- and then he didn't bother to mention the other factors because according to him the other factors were "without content or meaning."

There are three possibilities that might explain the behavior of this judge: 1) he is maniacally insane and power crazed, 2) He is extremely corrupt or 3) he is succumbing to what many people his age (84) suffer from- dementia (senility as it is also called).

I don't say this out of spite- as someone who just witnessed an aging parent begin exhibiting signs of dementia, it is a serious issue for me and I don't speak of it lightly. Judge Griesa clearly is exhibiting signs of deteriorating mental abilities very often (not always) associated with aging.

Look at the mess he created with the Argentina case- wherein the U.S. Government, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, England, France and many other countries all submitted amicus briefs on the side of Argentina urging the 2nd Circuit to overturn Griesa's draconian ruling which threatens the whole world of international finance. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has to deal with it. UNBELIEVABLE.....and in 2008 the 2nd Circuit had to reverse a decision because Griesa did not instruct the jury properly, calling the well established precedent
a waste of time." Judging from the comments below Judge Griesa has been wreaking havoc with the law for some time now......and guess what- nobody can do anything about it because these federal judges can sit on the bench until they die and there is no recourse to monitoring them, never mind retiring them. They could sit there sentencing people to death for shoplifting and there isn't a goddamn thing anyone- including the courts can do about it. Federal judges cannot be fired and have no mandatory retirement age.

Because of this I have been trapped in a surreal and Kafkaesque legal abyss where statutory law is twisted into a grotesque inversion of itself and case law is simply disregarded. Early on when we tried to appeal to the higher courts for a summary decision Griesa wouldn't allow it. If we tried to change judges- he definitely would not allow it. You can't appeal pre-judgment decisions without the consent of the judge who make the decision! There is no recourse. You get stuck with a senile judge or a judge who's power has so gone to his head that he thinks he is above the law. And there is no way out.
THIS SYSTEM MUST CHANGE. The number of judges over the age of 80 has tripled in the last twenty years. Does the justice system really believe these people are some kind of deities who are immune to natural human frailties. No doubt many of these octogenarian judges are still sharp as tacks but there must be some acknowledgement that not all judges are resistant to the normal claims of aging.
There has got to be some accountability and some quality control installed in the court system.

There are several more examples of absolutely illogical rulings and bizarre behavior by Judge Griesa- for instance at the end of the trial he emphatically urged us for a new trial on the jury award that he thought was outrageously high and then denied our motion for the new trial when we submitted it. He can't even follow his own opinions consistently never mind the opinions of the higher courts. And yes there more but I will stop now.

It's just to disgusting and demoralizing to think about.....

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21390
Rating:2.0
Comments:
This judge should have retired a long time ago. I tried a criminal case before him, and it was unbelievable. He was a second prosecutor doing the government's bidding. He is the worst judge ever.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 21208
Rating:2.4
Comments:
Hon. Thomas P. Griesa

In 2009 there were public hearings held at the State Capitol concerning the level of public dissatisfaction at the Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee (the Committee that oversees attorneys in New York) and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (the Committee that oversees judges’ misconduct). I testified.

I testified concerning attorneys at the DDC. I had requested the DDC’s assistance because attorneys I had retained were not sending me copies of checks that they were required to send. One of the attorneys was formerly employed as an attorney at the DDC; the other was a former Chief Counsel at the DDC. The DDC attorneys were claiming they were obtaining the copies of the checks from the bank — the DDC attorneys were telling me this for three years. Everyone knows it does not take a bank three years to send checks. When I realized that the DDC attorneys were not being honest, I filed a complaint in the NY State Court in order to obtain the copies of the checks. The presiding judge was the Hon. Joan Kenny, and she dismissed the case, calling me frivolous by attributing cases to me that were not mine, and then publishing the decision on the front page of the NY Law Journal. The checks that the DDC eventually turned over to me were forged. The Chief Counsel of the DDC, Thomas Cahill, closed the case and stated that the attorneys had turned over the checks to the DDC when I filed the complaint with the DDC. This was inconsistent with what the DDC attorneys were telling me for three years.

At the hearing, I testified about the expert’s report I obtained concerning the forged checks. The expert also investigated the curriculum vitae of Judge Kenny, which she found on the judge’s campaign website; she found material misrepresentations such as: inaccurate and false information about participation in law school activities, her licensure date and legal employment, and her professional experience.

Many people who testified filed Federal Court cases. I filed a federal complaint, and the case was assigned to the Hon. Thomas P. Griesa.

Judge Griesa called me and the Attorney General in for a conference, prior to me serving the complaints. At the conference, a court reporter was present and Judge Griesa said the following:

“And what I wanted to tell you is that the complaint appears to be without merit; we’ve reviewed it and I am not going to authorize service upon all of these defendants.”

It is not clear to whom he is referring to when he says “we.” He goes on to say: “When there are many defendants, such as state court judges and so forth, there is nothing to be gained by having a lot of people served, not that it’s a huge burden, but, you know, if the marshals have to do it and so forth, why, I don’t want to engage in that.”

Judge Griesa further guides the Assistant Attorney General by saying: “I would think that there could be an appropriate motion, but what do you think?” She starts speaking, but Judge Griesa then interrupts her and advises her how to proceed, saying, “No, don’t do a letter motion,” adding, “I mean, it doesn’t- it is not a lot of trouble to have a formal notice of motion and a brief memorandum.” He then interjects his personal strategy on how to view the case: “But what I would do is, to anybody who communicates with you about the case, if they have received something by mail, “ then catches himself and says, “why, you use your judgment as to what you want to advise them.”

Judge Griesa is clearly guiding the Assistant Attorney General to take his advice and do what he believes is right. He has abandoned his role of being a neutral and detached judge, and instead has become an advocate, thereby violating Canon 2A of the Code of Conduct for United States judges.

In the complaint, I also questioned the constitutionality of a state statute. Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of New York established the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) to receive, initiate, investigate and hear complaints with respect to the conduct, qualifications, fitness to perform or performance of official duties of any judges and may determine that a judge be admonished, censured or removed from office. The powers of the SCJC are a constitutional obligation. The State Statute, Section 44 of the Judiciary Law, was unconstitutional, in that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses, since unbridled discretion had been given to the SCJC to determine which allegations of a complaint are without merit, and whether to dismiss them. It allowed for complaints filed against a judge with the SCJC not to be made public, and therefore the legislature abrogated its constitutional responsibility by giving a constitutional obligation to an organization that is not subject to review or oversight.

Judge Griesa is ignoring a truism central to American Constitutional jurisprudence: that state laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are absolutely null and void, and of the well-established principle of American Constitutional Law that Federal courts have jurisdiction to evaluate the constitutionality of challenged state laws. However, Judge Griesa was preventing me from serving my complaint.

I withdrew the case, and refiled it. The case was consolidated with many others and assigned to Judge Shira Scheindlin. Read my review concerning Judge Scheindlin to see what happened next.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 19403
Rating:9.0
Comments:
One of my favorite judges in the SDNY to appear before, a true gentleman. He works hard to get the right result. He doesn't get it right 100% of the time, but he sincerely tries to do the right thing.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 9860
Rating:10.0
Comments:
The most amazing, intelligent, and kind judge I've ever argued before.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 8724
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Totally unfair in ruling on the NYS Bottle Bill, no consideration for the small business oweners that would of been able to stay in business with the increase handling fee. Instead of dealing with what was "only water bottles", the case before him, put a hold on all. Shame Shame putting people out of work!!

Other

Comment #: 6146
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Griesa is extremely lazy and doesn't bother reading any briefs or letters. He must have the shortest trial days in the Southern District- stops at 4:30 on the dot even if in the middle of closing arguments. He should be ashamed to be on the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5377
Rating:2.2
Comments:
Should have retired long ago and should be ashamed to continue to collect a paycheck. A judge fully worthy of contempt.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5040
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Griesa sat on my case for two and a half years without reading any of my pleadings, motions or briefs. The defense wasn't required to comply with discovery or even local filing rules. He then swiftly granted the defense's summary judgment without giving any serious consideration to my opposition.

Other

Comment #: 4877
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Judge Griesa is shockingly lazy and irresponsible. He simply never reads briefs or letters to the court, so everything is decided at oral argument. He puts off making the simplest decisions for months and is constantly cancelling hearings, often at the last minute. Things that should take a few weeks instead take years with him.

On top of all that, he is clearly biased towards certain lawyers, particularly those from high-profile firms. He is impatient with the others and gives them little opportunity to change his mind.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 2281
Rating:6.2
Comments:
It took him just under a year to render a decision on a simple motion to preclude defendants for failure to appear at a deposition. Enough said.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 1431
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Unpleasant personality. Does the government's bidding.