EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).


“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.


This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of
not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for
admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has
many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney
candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of
the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with
the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cos
t.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law.
… The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is
not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become
a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is
to humiliate and degrade it.”


In Re Anastaplo,

18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366
U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.







Saturday, September 19, 2015

To Delaware County voters: ask the judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, the Delaware County Attorney, on what grounds he approved representation of a police officer sued for intentional violent acts at the expense of taxpayers/ County insurance?

New York State has a strict law regarding insurance - insurance DOES NOT cover intentional acts.

It makes sense because the policy behind insurance is to reimburse losses for "fortuitous events" - events that cannot be foreseen.

When a person commits an intentional bad act, that does not constitute a "fortuitous event".

Insurance carriers usually deny the right of representation when the carrier of the insurance policy requests it in a lawsuit alleging an intentional (criminal) act.

For example, Ellen Coccoma and her husband, Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York Michael Coccoma, were denied legal representation at the expense of their homeowners' insurance company when they were sued for, among other things, fraud and fraud upon the court, by my husband Frederick J. Neroni, the case was Neroni v Coccoma.

Of course, using their influence and the fact the the judge on that federal case had a son employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, they obtained a free representation for both from the New York State Attorney General - even for claims of intentional misconduct that had nothing to do with official duties, and even for acts of Ellen Coccoma as a PRIVATE attorney in a private case.

This way, an "assigned counsel for the rich - and privileged" class has been created, see my blogs here and here.

That glorious tradition was continued when Delaware County Attorney, and now judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, approved representation of a police officer Derek Bowie, nephew of District Attorney's Office investigator Jeff Bowie, at the expense of taxpayers.

Derek Bowie, a deputy Sheriff of Delaware County, was sued by Barbara O'Sullivan ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in his individual capacity. 

Barbara O'Sullivan DID NOT sue the Delaware County.

Thus, the lawsuit was not involving any liability to the County - or its supporting taxpayers.

The County is NOT responsible for the criminal acts of its employees - if, of course, it does not condone and/or encourage such acts.

Once again, Officer Bowie was sued for his CRIMINAL, DELIBERATE acts - vehicular assault and battery upon Barbara O'Sullivan.

He DEFAULTED, by failure to answer the complaint timely.

How many of you, Delaware County voters, were thrown out of your homes, or got judgements in credit card debt lawsuits because you did not answer the complaint timely and were in default?

Did the court spare any of you?

Did the government provide a free attorney for any of you to rescue your legal rights in such a foreclosure proceedings (by the way, some of you may be entitled to free legal representation in foreclosure proceedings - did you even know about that)?

Did the court allow you to get back in time and answer the complaint, undoing your default?

I bet that it never happened.

It happened to Officer Bowie, though - at your expense, and with Porter Kirkwood's approval as the County attorney.

Because all of a sudden, Officer Bowie got representation from Frank Miller's Law firm, that is the law firm usually hired by Delaware County through its insurance.

And Frank Miller's law firm appeared in court on behalf of Office Bowie - sued by Barbara O'Sullivan for his criminal acts, in his individual capacity, which does not allow for representation by an insurance carrier, because of New York policy prohibiting insurance of criminal acts.

And the court - judge John Lambert - bent over backwards by waiving Officer Bowie's filing fees, waiving Officer Bowie's duty to serve the motion papers in compliance with the Order to Show Cause that ordered personal service of the papers - which was never done by Officer Bowie's counsel Frank Miller.

After all, Frank Miller made good conversation and entertained the judge well during the motion hearing that the judge had no right to allow (because there was no proof of service upon Barbara O'Sullivan of the motion papers before the judge, and the basis of the motion itself was frivolous, and the judge should not have signed the Order to Show Cause to allow the motion to proceed in the first place).

I FOILed the Delaware County Treasurer, there are no records of fees paid by Frank Miller's firm for the motion that it made in front of Judge John Lambert, which Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell accepted without a filing fee paid, Judge John Lambert reviewed and granted without a filing fee paid - or proof of service upon Barbara O'Sullivan of the motion papers in compliance with Judge Lambert's own signed order to show cause.

And you know what reason for a "meritorious excuse" for default was given to the court - which the court accepted?

Delaware County allegedly did not know of the lawsuit in order to timely respond to it.

That was a clear and documented lie and fraud upon the court (a crime) committed by Frank Miller's law firm that should be prosecuted, because Barbara O'Sullivan paid the Delaware County Sheriff to serve the lawsuit upon its own Officer Bowie, that was done, and the Delaware County Sheriff's affidavit of service is on file with the court.

By the way, a single incident of fraud upon the court for an attorney is an offense warranting disbarment.  
 
Of course, that crime was not prosecuted against the law firm, Frank Miller as the chief partner of the law firm, or attorneys who signed and argued the fraudulent pleadings - Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup "chose", in his "discretion", not to prosecute that crime of fraud upon the court.  Possibly, because he "coincidentally" employs Officer Bowie's uncle Jeff Bowie and thus did not prosecute two crimes:

  • by Officer Bowie against Barbara O'Sullivan; and
  • by attorney Frank Miller and his law firm against the court - by making a fraudulent argument that Delaware County was not properly on notice of the lawsuit, even though Delaware County Sheriff was hired to serve the lawsuit on its own officer - and did it, and the record that he did it, the affidavit of service, is in the record.
Moreover, Frank Miller's claim of meritorious defense to the court (that the County did not know about the lawsuit in time to answer it) was fraudulent also because the County has nothing to do with the lawsuit and did not have to answer the lawsuit.

Had it been different, the first thing Frank Miller would have done (and he is a knowledgeable attorney in this respect, so he cannot claim ignorance of that particular law) would be to file a motion to DISMISS Barbara O'Sullivan's action for failure to file a Notice of Claim against the County.

Barbara O'Sullivan did not do that because the law does not require reimbursement by the County to its employees of any damages awarded against them as a result of their CRIMINAL ACTS committed during their time of employment with the County.

Frank Miller held numerous depositions on Notices of Claim against the County, he is an expert in that particular field of litigation.

So, when Frank Miller's Law Firm instead of filing a motion to dismiss for failure to file a Notice of Claim, filed a motion to vacate the default on behalf of a County employee sued for his CRIMINAL acts in his INDIVIDUAL capacity, in my legal opinion, it committed fraud upon the court.

Yet, Frank Miller's Law Firm is also a law firm that would represent the District Attorney himself, should he be sued for misconduct - and for that reason, too, the DA "chose" not to prosecute his own counsel for fraud upon the court, an offense warranting disbarment.

Hiring of Frank Miller's Law Firm by the County could not be done without approval by County Attorney Porter Kirkwood, because insurance policies normally do not cover representation through insurance company in lawsuits claiming intentional misconduct/criminal acts.

Frank Miller showed his appreciation of Porter Kirkwood's hiring him for the job by making a financial donation to Porter Kirkwood's election campaign as a judge.

I will follow up with Freedom of Information requests as to Delaware County insurance policy that allows representation by Frank Miller of Officer Bowie sued in his individual capacity for intentional misconduct, of how much money Delaware County spent on such representation - or on the raised insurance rates because it acknowledged and defended a lawsuit that was NOT against Delaware County.

Yet, the question that remains for voters is - after approving such a shameless waste of taxpayer money to provide unwarranted free legal representation to a County employee sued in his individual capacity for intentional misconduct, after he defaulted and thus WAIVED ALL DEFENSES and should pay money damages for his misconduct to his victim as a matter of law Barbara O'Sullivan, Porter Kirkwood should not be allowed to become a judge and rule your lives for 10 years - including taking your homes in foreclosure because you do not have money for counsel to timely answer foreclosure complaints.

The judicial seat that Porter Kirkwood is running for is for 10 years.

He will - for sure - be appointed an Acting Supreme Court Justice for the same length of time. That is a matter of convenience for the court system, to have a local County/Family Court judge in a remote rural county to also preside over Supreme Court cases.

Porter Kirkwood will not give you, homeowners suffering foreclosure proceedings, assigned counsel in time to rescue your homes, the way he gave approval for unwarranted free representation of Officer Bowie at the County's expense.

Porter Kirkwood - and Richard Northrup, the two judicial candidates from the County, should be, instead of elevating them to the judicial bench, impeached for shirking their duties in order to cover up a violent criminal act committed by a County employee closely related to the other, long-time, County employee who works for the District Attorney's Office (investigator Jeff Bowie).

Delaware County voters!

I appeal to you not to vote for Porter Kirkwood or Richard Northup at the upcoming judicial elections.

Instead, I appeal to you to impeach both of these public officials for their misconduct in office.










No comments:

Post a Comment