I AM AT MY BEST IN THE Q&A, AND IT IS THAT PERIOD

WHICH PERMITS YOU TO ASK ME WHAT IT IS THAT'S ON YOUR

MIND RATHER THAN MY DISCUSSING ISSUES AT LENGTH THAT

MAY BE OF NO INTEREST TO YOU. SO, I WILL SPEAK BRIEFLY

ON ONE ISSUE THAT I BELIEVE IS KEY TO GOOD GOVERNMENT

AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS, AND THEN WE WILL GO

TO THE Q&A .

        I TALK NOW OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

THAT INDEPENDENCE, I MUST CONFESS WITH PRIDE, WAS

ENHANCED BY ME WHEN I BECAME MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY IN

1978.

        THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK BASICALLY

EXERCISES UNFETTERED JUDGMENT IN THE SELECTION OF

FAMILY AND CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES OF WHICH THERE ARE 140

IN NEW YORK CITY. UNLIKE THE PRESIDENT AND THE

GOVERNOR, THE MAYOR IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SUBMIT HIS

NOMINEES TO A LEGISLATIVE BODY LIKE THE U.S. SENATE OR

THE STATE SENATE FOR RATIFICATION.

        THE MAYOR'S NOMINEES BECOME JUDGES AS SOON AS THE

MAYOR SWEARS THEM IN. THERE ARE NO HEARINGS REQUIRED

BY LAW, AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO

THE PROCESS. THEIR CONSENT IS NOT NEEDED NOR ARE THEY

ENTITLED TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE NOMINATIONS.

        I CHANGED ALL OF THAT WHEN I WAS INAUGURATED ON

JANUARY 1, 1978. I ASKED MEMBERS OF MY ADMINISTRATION

TO PROPOSE A TOTAL MERIT-SELECTION SYSTEM FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES. THE SYSTEM THAT THEY PROPOSED

-- AND WHICH I ADOPTED AND CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER

-- WORKED AS FOLLOWS:

        THE MAYOR APPOINTED THE CHAIR OF THE MAYOR'S

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND 12 MEMBERS. THE TWO

PRESIDING JUSTICES OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 1ST AND

2ND DEPARTMENTS, EACH APPOINTED ANOTHER SIX, AND THE

DEANS OF VARIOUS LAW SCH4OLS IN THE CITY APPOINTED THE

OTHER TWO ON A ROTATING BASIS. THAT MADE A TOTAL OF 27

MEMBERS WITH FEWER THAN HALF APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR.

        I ALSO MADE A COMMITMENT CONCERNING ALL

REAPPOINTMENTS. I SAID THAT IF THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY AND THE CITY BAR ASSOCIATION

RECOMMENDED THAT ANY SITTING JUDGE BE REAPPOINTED AT

THE END OF HIS OR HER TERM, I WOULD REAPPOINT THAT

PERSON WITHOUT EXCEPTION. AND, IF EITHER OF THOSE TWO

COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED THAT A SITTING JUDGE NOT BE

REAPPOINTED, I WOULD, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, FOLLOW THEIR

ADVICE.

        THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE NEW

MERIT-SELECTION SYSTEM WAS THAT I, AS MAYOR,

VOLUNTARILY GAVE UP MY RIGHT TO SUBMIT NAMES TO THE

MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY FOR ITS

CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH APPOINTMENTS AND MY RIGHT TO

ARBITRARILY APPOINT FAMILY AND CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES.

        INSTEAD, I REQUESTED THAT THE COMMITTEE SEND ME

THREE NAMES FOR EACH VACANCY WITH THE COMMITTEE

INITIATING THE APPLICATIONS. I REFERRED NO CANDIDATE

TO THEM FOR CONSIDERATION. I RETAINED OVERALL

RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY PERSONALLY

INTERVIEWING THE THREE CANDIDATES, FROM WHICH I WOULD

SELECT ONE.

        IF, ON OCCASION, I FOUND NONE OF THE THREE TO BE

SATISFACTORY, I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE FOR THREE MORE

NAMES.

        I ALSO DIRECTED THAT ANYONE WHO WANTED TO BE A

JUDGE COULD APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE COM4lITTEE AND ASK FOR

A HEARING ON THEIR REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT. THE

COMMITTEE ITSELF WOULD ALSO SEEK OUT CANDIDATES.

        IN THE CASE OF REAPPOINTMENTS, I AGREED TO BE

BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEES TO APPROVE OR

DISAPPROVE THE INCUMBENT. IF REAPPOINTMENT WERE DENIED

AT THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THE VACANCY WOULD BE FILLED IN

THE USUAL WAY WITH THREE CANDIDATES' BEING SUBMITTED TO

ME FOR CONSIDERATION.

        MAYOR GIULIANI ON JULY 20, 1994, GUTTED THIS

MERIT-SELECTION SYSTEM BY PROVIDING THAT HE, HIMSELF,

COULD EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY NOT TO REAPPOINT A SITTING

JUDGE, EVEN IF THE COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED

REAPPOINTMENT OF THAT JUDGE. THE MAYOR HAS, IN FACT,

EXERCISED THAT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO TWO SITTING

JUDGES BOTH OF WHOM HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR

REAPPOINTMENT BY BOTH THE MAYOR'S JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

AND THE CITY BAR ASSOCIATION.

        JUDGES GENERALLY GENERATE CONTROVERSY WHICH IS

BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY ARE

HELD UP BY THE MEDIA FOR CRITICISM IN THREE AREAS:

RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, SETTING BAIL

AND IMPOSING SENTENCES. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION -

EITHER LEGAL OR MORAL -- TO CRITICIZING JUDGES, BUT 

THE CRITICISM SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. MORE ON THAT IN A

MOMENT.

        ONE REMEMBERS FROM CHILDHOOD AND FROM OUR

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS MAXIMS THAT CARRY THROUGH LIFE.

MOST LAWYERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE 1866 SAYING OF A

SURROGATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, TO WIT, "NO MAN'S

LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY ARE SAFE WHILE THE

LEGISLATURE IS IN SESSION."

        THAT MAY STILL BE TRUE. IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT

OUR RECOURSE AGAINST ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THE THE

EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS TO

THE COURTS. ONLY IF WE KNOW THOSE COURTS ARE NOT

POLITICALLY DOMINATED, AND ONLY IF WE KNOW THAT THE

SELECTIONS TO THOSE COURTS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL

PROCESS, CAN WE, BE REASONABLY SURE OF JUSTICE.

        FEDERAL JUDGE HAROLD BAER'S DECISION TO SUPPRESS

EVIDENCE IN A DRUG CASE WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED BY

PRESIDENT CLINTON, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BOB DOLE AND

HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT' GINGRICH -- NOT TO MENTION GOVERNOR

PATAKI, MAYOR GIULIANI, EVERY EDITORIAL BOARD IN TOWN

AND MYSELF.

        AS A FEDERAL JUDGE HAROLD BAER HAS THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT,

REMOVABLE ONLY FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. BUT

AFTER DOLE AND GINGRICH URGED HIS IMPEACHMENT, AND THE

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ANNOUNCED THAT PRESIDENT

CLINTON MIGHT ASK THE JUDGE TO RESIGN UNLESS HE CHANGED

HIS DECISION, BAER CAPITULATED AND REVERSED HIMSELF.

IN DOING S0, HE FURTHER DESTROYED HIS INDEPENDENCE. HE

SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF AND ALLOWED ANOTHER JUDGE

TO CONDUCT THE REHEARING.

        CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE LORIN DUCKMAN WAS CRITICIZED

FOR TWO EGREGIOUS RULINGS CONCERNING BAIL AND

SENTENCING IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. FOLLOWING THE

RULINGS, BOTH GOVERNOR PATAKI AND MAYOR GIULIANI

DEMANDED THAT DUCKMAN BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND IMPEACHED BY THE STATE SENATE

-- AND BOTH ASKED THAT THE JUDGE VOLUNTARILY RETIRE

FROM THE BENCH FORTHWITH. THOSE CRITICISMS CAN ONLY BE

DESCRIBED AS EFFORTS TO INTIMIDATE AND HARASS.

        THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT WHICH

INVESTIGATED DUCKMAN SAID "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT

JUDGE DUCKMAN ENGAGED IN JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE

EXERCISE OF [THIS] DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY" IN EITHER

CASE.

        THE GOVERNOR AND THE MAYOR THEN DENOUNCED THE

COMMISSION. BOTH MEN ALSO AGAIN URGED DUCKMAN TO

RESIGN. GIULIANI ALSO ENCOURAGED THE GOVERNOR TO

RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE STATE SENATE,

A MOVE PATAKI SAID HE WOULD CONSIDER IF THE COMMISSION

DID NOT RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE

JUDGE. APPARENTLY, THE GOVERNOR HAS HAD SECOND

THOUGHTS SINCE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO IMPEACHMENT

PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.

HIS OWN APPOINTEE, CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE DONNA RECANT,

WHO SET $1,000 BAIL FOR ONE DEFENDANT AND NO BAIL FOR

THE OTHER IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE WERE MORE KINDLY AND

TEMPERATE.

        WHILE SUGGESTING HE "MIGHT HAVE INCREASED THE BAIL

ASKED FOR BY THE PROSECUTOR" TO $15,000 OR $20,000,

GIULIANI ADDED THAT "THE JUDGE MADE A REASONABLE

DECISION...THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH REASONABLE MINDS

CAN DIFFER ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE

FACTS."

        ONE CAN CERTAINLY QUESTION WHETHER JUDGE RECANT

ACTED APPROPRIATELY -- BUT I QUESTION WHETHER MAYOR

GIULIANI WOULD HAVE BEEN SO KIND HAD HE NOT APPOINTED

HER. JUDGE DUCKMAN'S PROBLEM IS THAT HE WAS APPOINTED

BY DAVID DINKINS. CLEARLY, HERE, IT DEPENDED ON WHOSE

JUDGE WAS BEING GORED.

        NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE HELEN FREEDMAN WAS

RECENTLY THE SUBJECT OF GIULIANI'S DEMEANING LANGUAGE

IN HIS EFFORT TO TERRORIZE HER AFTER SHE RULED IN FAVOR

OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S HOMELESS FAMILY RIGHTS

PROJECT, LED BY COORDINATING ATTORNEY STEVEN BANKS, IN

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S ONGOING CASE AGAINST THE CITY.

        GIULIANI, ACCORDING TO THE POST, SAID FREEDMAN NAS

BEEN ISSUING "IRRATIONAL ORDERS" TO MAYORS FOR 13

YEARS. "IT'S ABOUT TIME SHE STEP ASIDE," HE SAID.

CONTINUING, "ANY JUDGE THAT HOLDS A CASE FOR A DECADE

OR MORE SHOULD GET OFF THE CASE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS

THEY BECOME THE PURVEYORS OF POLICY RATHER THAN

DECIDERS OF CASES THAT COME BEFORE THEM." HE VICIOUSLY

AND PERSONALLY ATTACKED FREEDMAN -- AND SAID, "SHE

ISN'T RULING ON THE LAW, SHE'S RULING ON HER OWN

PERSONAL IDEOLOGY." IF THAT WERE S0, SHE WILL BE

REVERSED ON APPEAL.

        LUCKILY, AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SHE IS

ELECTED FOR A 14-YEAR TERM, AND DOES NOT HAVE TO WORRY

ABOUT BEING REAPPOINTED BY THE MAYOR OR THE GOVERNOR.

        GIULIANI ALSO ASSERTED THAT BANKS "BY AND LARGE

CONTROLS HER IDEOLOGY BECAUSE SHE CONSTANTLY RULES HIS

WAY." IS THE MAYOR SUGGESTING COLLUSION BETWEEN BANKS

AND FREEDMAN WITH IMPEACHMENT AND DISBARMENT

PROCEEDINGS IN THE OFFING?

        AS I HAVE SAID REGARDING THE MAYOR'S VICIOUS

PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE JUDICIARY, WHICH GO FAR BEYOND

RESPONSIBLE CRITICISM WHICH IS ALWAYS LEGITIMATE, HE IS

SEEKING TO PLACE JUDGES IN A STATE OF FEAR OF HIM. IF

HE IS SUCCESSFUL HE WILL MAKE US A GOVERNMENT OF MEN,

NOT OF LAWS, AND THE PUBLIC IS PUT AT RISK.

        BUT IT IS NOT SIMPLY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES WHO ARE

AT FAULT FOR ATTACKING THE INDEPENDENCE OF OUR JUDGES.

THE MEDIA HAVE BEEN OUTRAGEOUS AS WELL.

        TO ILLUSTRATE: FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DENNY

CHIN RECENTLY RULED THAT THE SO-CALLED MEGAN'S LAW

WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY NEW YORK AND REQUIRES THAT

THE PUBLIC RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF THE RELEASE OF A

CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER AND HIS ADDRESS IN THE COMMUNITY

CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THOSE OFFENDERS

WHOSE CONVICTIONS OCCURRED BEFORE THE LAW WAS ENACTED.

JUDGE CHIN CONCLUDED THAT TO APPLY THE NEW LAW TO

OFFENDERS WHOSE CONVICTIONS OCCURRED BEFORE THE NEW LAW

TOOK EFFECT WOULD BE APPLYING A RETROACTIVE PENALTY. I

THINK THE JUDGE IS WRONG AND THAT THE INFORMATION BEING

PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC UNDER MEGAN'S LAW IS ALREADY

PUBLIC INFORMATION MERELY BEING ASSEMBLED IN A FORM

THAT IS USABLE AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, USING

A SPECIAL TELEPHONE NUMBER.

        ONE NEWSPAPER, NEW YORK NEWSDAY, IN AN EDITORIAL

SUPPORTING THE JUDGE STATED, "A MANHATTAN FEDERAL JUDGE

WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT IT DOES," REFERRING TO THE

RETROACTIVE PENALTY ALLEGEDLY BEING IMPOSED.

        THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH

THE HEADLINE "PERVERTS' PAL," PILLORIED THE JUDGE IN AN

EDITORIAL THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNWORTHY OF ANY DECENT

NEWSPAPER. IT READS: "THIS IS THE PICTURE OF

MANHATTAN FEDERAL JUDGE DENNY CHIN. (SHOWING HIS

PICTURE, SIMILAR TO THE WILLY HORTON COMMERCIAL.)

BECAUSE OF HIM, THE STATE CANNOT NOTIFY NEW YORKERS

WHEN MOST SEX OFFENDERS AND PEDOPHILES ARE LIVING IN

THEIR MIDST. HIS JUNK JUSTICE RULING MAKES PERMANENT

HIS EARLIER DECISION TO PREVENT THE POLICE FROM

ALERTING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE RELEASE OF ANY SEX FIEND

WHO WAS CONVICTED BEFORE NEW YORK'S MEGAN'S LAW TOOK

EFFECT JANUARY 21. THAT MEASURE STILL APPLIES TO

ANYONE CONVICTED AFTER THAT DATE. 'IF WE PERMIT THE

EROSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVEN FOR THOSE WHO ARE

NOT DESERVING OF PROTECTION -- THOSE WHO MAY BE VIEWED

AS THE CURRENT EPITOME OF EVIL -- ALL SOCIETY WILL

SUFFER IN THE LONG RUN,' CHIN WROTE IN HIS 75-PAGE

RULING. HEY, IN THE LONG RUN, WE'LL ALL BE DEAD, NO

DOUBT KILLED BY A CON WITH SPECIAL RIGHTS."

        THE EDITORIAL WENT ON, "IF CHIN WANTED TO TELL

PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN TO GO TO HELL, HE COULD HAVE

DONE IT ON PAGE ONE AND SAVED THE OTHER 74 SHEETS OF

PAPER. THEN HE COULD HAVE USED THE TIME TO STUDY THE

LAW HE MISREAD. IT'S NOT MEANT AS AN ADDITIONAL

PUNISHMENT BUT AS A PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. OR

DON'T THE INNOCENT HAVE RIGHTS?"

        WE ARE LOSING GOOD PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE IN

GOVERNMENT EITHER AS ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS

BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES AND

THEIR FAMILIES TO THIS KIND OF PUBLIC DEGRADATION.

LEGITIMATELY, THEY ARE PERHAPS CONCERNED ABOUT THE

DANGERS THAT MIGHT FLOW AS A RESULT OF THE UNFAIR

ATTACKS AND THE PUBLIC ATTENTION.

I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED AND STILL DO THAT PUBLIC

SERVICE IS THE NOBLEST OF PROFESSIONS IF DONE HONESTLY

AND DONE WELL. TODAY, THERE ARE REGRETTABLY MANY WHO

NO LONGER SEE PUBLIC SERVICE THAT WAY AND AVOID IT LIKE

THE PLAGUE. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL TO THE REPUBLIC.