Here is what Keith Raniere’s attorney, Joseph Tully, said of Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.
He is seeking to get the judge to agree to get out of Raniere’s case and not decide the Rule 33 motion.
Tully did not mince words.
He wrote in his motion to disqualify he accused Judge Garaufis of being disrespectful to Raniere’s attorneys and hating Raniere.
‘Displayed a lack of judicial temperament.’
Had ‘personal hatred of Mr. Raniere.’
‘Unmistakable evidence of bias against Mr. Raniere’
‘Antagonism toward Mr. Raniere’
‘Animus toward Mr. Raniere’
‘Displayed an unacceptable bias toward Mr. Raniere’s Defense team’
He let things ‘boil into a personal rant against the Defense’s attorneys’
Made ‘an unwarranted, personal attack on their professionalism.’
‘Demeaning defense counsel in front of the jury’
He ‘bullied’
‘demeaned’
‘goaded’
‘attacked’ the defense counsel.
Joseph Tully was not very kind to Judge Garaufis
‘The Court’s conduct neither satisfies justice nor any appearance of justice,’ Tully wrote.
Tully wrote a book about prosecutors and judges in California railroading innocent people into prison. While it may not apply to Raniere, every defense lawyer knows that the criminal justice system favors the prosecution, and innocent people are often convicted.
Tully alleged Judge Garaufis was biased against both Raniere and his counsel and that he
‘Expressed his personal distaste for Mr. Raniere and his counsel.’
Displayed a ‘deep-seated, unequivocal hostility and personal bias’
‘Undeniable bias and prejudice.’
In short, Tully wrote Judge Garaufis was out of control. He wrote:
His ‘animus and antagonism could not be contained’.
He ‘sought conflict and resorted to personal attacks and low blows.’
He had ‘personal bias’
‘An inability to be fair in this case.’
Tully wrote, “There were many exhibitions of this bias and prejudice expressed during rulings” and these “clearly show evidence of deep-seated judicial favoritism for the government and its witnesses and judicial antagonism towards Mr. Raniere and his defense team.”
He
‘Applied and believed in his personal views instead of the law.’
‘Failed to display the mandatory judicial temperament.’
He had ‘sympathy for Ms. Salzman as a “broken” individual.’
He had ‘anger at Mr. Raniere’s defense counsel.’
He had ‘contempt for Ms. Bronfman due to her refusal to “renounce” Mr. Raniere — clear evidence of personal bias.’
Tully wrote, ‘The Court’s history of biased comments and rulings were colored by injustice.’
Nicholas George Garaufis (born September 28, 1948) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Born in Paterson, New Jersey, he is a second-generation American. His grandparents were Greek immigrants.
He graduated from Columbia College in 1969 and got his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1974. He began his legal career in 1974 as an associate of Chadbourne & Parke.
He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Litigation Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office under Attorney General Louis J. Lefkowitz. He practiced law privately in Queens County, New York.
Garaufis served for more than five years as the Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C., overseeing a staff of 200 attorneys. In addition, Garaufis served nine years as counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman in New York City.
Upon the recommendation of United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, President Clinton nominated Garaufis on February 28, 2000, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The United States Senate confirmed him on May 24, 2000.
Garaufis entered service on August 28, 2000. He took senior status on October 1, 2014.
Tully wrote of his conduct in the Raniere case: Judge Garaufis: “cannot engage neutrally and impartially.”
“Anyone who had entered the courtroom… witnessed Judge Garaufis’ outrageous comments.”
Judge Garaufis
Extrajudicial
Tully wrote:
‘The Court admitted to letting extrajudicial emotions, biases, and prejudices come before the rules of evidence or the United States Constitution, the sacrosanct law of our land.’
‘Judge Garaufis’ expression of bias, prejudice, and partiality against Mr. Raniere has clear extrajudicial motivations.’
He relies on ‘extrajudicial sources and shows evidence of deep-seated favoritism for the government’s witness.’
Judge Garaufis would ‘prioritize his humanity, ignore the law, and abandon his judicial ethics, obligations.’
What Tully Wanted From a Judge
Tully quoted precedent and judicial canon:
‘A judge should practice civility, by being patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous, in dealings with court personnel, including chambers staff.’
‘The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.’
In Sum
Consequently, his disqualification is necessary and appropriate. Thus, Mr. Raniere respectfully moves this Court to disqualify itself from any further proceedings in this case,’ Tully wrote.
