I already wrote on this blog, numerous times as to how easy it is to derail a federal civil rights lawsuit - for example, here and here.
The Younger abstention, a doctrine by which federal courts refuse to review civil rights lawsuits, instead imposing upon the litigant the choice of forum in the state court, the choice of forum that is not allowed by the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction governed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow federal courts to change the U.S. Constitution or statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress - including the U.S. Civil Rights Act or the U.S. Congress's determination of jurisdiction of federal courts to hear civil rights lawsuits - any "doctrines" presenting a bar to federal civil rights lawsuits are unconstitutional as outside the power of federal courts within Article III and usurping exclusive power of Congress to legislate under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
That said, in a paroxysm of sycophancy, the legal profession and scholars parade the doctrine as a doctrine based on "comity" and "equity".
There is no equity in blocking a victim of civil rights violation by the STATE government by dismissing a properly filed federal civil rights lawsuit (without compensation of court costs spent on filing and prosecuting it) and directing the victim of constitutional violation by STATE government to argue that issue before a STATE court.
That doctrine has nothing to do with equity, but everything to do with caseload control - because such cases, and the federal court dismissing the lawsuit knows it very well - will die a violent death in state courts, often with sanctions for "frivolous conduct" - which sanctions the federal court then will refuse to review, now under a Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Nor does Younger abstention have anything to do with "comity". Comity is DEFERENCE.
Deference to the state government that is a DEFENDANT in a civil rights action is called BIAS.
Bias is a constitutional problem tainting jurisdiction of the particular presiding judge.
When comity=deference is asserted on a doctrinal level, then bias against a particular class of plaintiffs in favor of a particular class of defendants is asserted on an institutional level in federal courts.
The pretense justification for the Younger abstention is that state courts are "capable" or "competent" (nobody is concerned whether they are willing or unbiased) to hear federal constitutional claims.
Yet, as of March 23, 2016 the Younger abstention simply died in the state of North Carolina.
Specifically, this "scholarly" doctrine has died in North Carolina bathrooms, or was flushed down the toilet - whichever you prefer.
Literally.
A very fitting end.
Why?
Because on March 23, 2016 the North Carolina Legislature has issued the "transgender bathroom bill" which also included, reportedly, a prohibition to sue in state courts for ANY kind of discrimination.
Is it bad?
No!
It is most glorious.
Now, no federal court in North Carolina may state, as a matter of law, that a state court in North Carolina is fully capable and competent to review federal constitutional issues of discrimination.
Nope.
Now, by statute, North Carolina state courts are precluded from doing so.
And thus, federal courts may not use the pretense of the state North Carolina courts being allegedly capable and competent to review federal constitutional claims.
They will have to actually do their jobs.
And, civil rights litigants will actually have a possibility to get their civil rights lawsuits into federal court (unless more restrictions on civil rights litigation are invented by federal courts located in North Carolina districts) - and prosecute it in their chosen forum.
As the old saying went - every cloud has its silver lining.
Here, the silver lining unexpectedly came out of an overzealous bigotry of state legislators.
I wonder - maybe other states would join North Carolina in prohibiting their courts to review federal constitutional questions (it will not alter the current status quo much anyway, since courts across the country review federal constitutional questions raised in front of them as sanctionable conduct)?
I am just hopeful.
Then, across the country, people will finally be able to sue for human and civil rights violations the way the U.S. Congress planned for them in an enacted Civil Rights Act all along.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Testimony of American attorneys, including my own, is planned (in writing or orally if permitted) before the U.S. Congress at the next month's hearing as to whether ABA has a policy of non-support of human rights attorneys criticizing the government for political or business reasons
Ok.
There is a policy, in the ABA and the local state bar associations of non-support of "human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers" who are suffering and have suffered political repressions from the state and U.S. government in retaliation for criticizing the state and U.S. government.
So when ABA and the local state bar associations tried to distance as far away as it is possible from supporting, siding with or even associating with attorneys within the United States who are suspended or disbarred, or targeted for discipline for criticizing misconduct in the government, that is NOT mainstream media news.
That is news for social media only, for blogs like mine and several others, mostly by attorneys who "Felt the Burn" themselves.
But, such cowardice DID just become international news - with the help of Chinese dissenter attorney, and a prominent attorney, Teng Biao.
Yesterday, on April 29, 2016 the very-mainstream Wall Street Journal published an article about attorney and prominent legal scholar Teng Biao accusing ABA of backing out of a book offer to him for corruption in the Chinese government.
The ABA reportedly claimed they "bowed to the market reality, not to the Chinese government" by pulling the plug on the book offer.
Market reality?
What market reality?
First of all, ABA is not a for-profit organization, it is a non-profit that was created to allegedly pursue worthy causes.
The cause of supporting a lawyer who criticizes corrupt government in order to help protect his people's civil rights, is a very worthy cause.
Moreover, the "market reality" in the U.S., if ABA is to be honest with the public, is that corruption in the government - Chinese and U.S. - is a very hotly discussed topic.
And, Dr. Teng Biao is a prominent scholar, and his name alone may sell the book, if marketing is the real consideration.
Here is Dr. Teng Biao's credentials published on the site of the Harvard Kennedy School/ Carr Center for Human Rights and Policy.
And, Dr. Teng Biao is a prominent scholar, and his name alone may sell the book, if marketing is the real consideration.
Here is Dr. Teng Biao's credentials published on the site of the Harvard Kennedy School/ Carr Center for Human Rights and Policy.
It is the ABA that pretends the topic does not exist and is not "marketable".
In fact, had the ABA endorsed the book and the topic of resistance to corruption in the government - any government - the book would have instantly become a best-seller.
So, it IS bowing to political considerations.
In fact, back in February of this year, a question was raised in the press that:
"Over the past year the American Bar Association has faced a dilemma over how to respond to China’s repression of human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers."
Not only ABA.
And not only how to "handle" of "human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers" in China.
And there is no dilemma.
I wrote this very month as to how the New York State Bar Association is treating attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticism of the government.
I tried to join NYSBA to attend a CLE (continued legal education) course, free for members.
NYSBA specifically advised me that it is their "policy" to consider ANY suspended or disbarred attorney - no matter for what reason - not an "attorney in good standing", and because of their "internal policy" (no government act prohibits them from accepting a suspended attorney, and I am still an attorney for purposes of CLE obligations) they would not admit/associate with a suspended attorney.
Including an attorney suspended for criticizing corruption and misconduct in the government, like I am.
For NYSBA, an attorney suspended by the government for any reason - including for criticizing that same government - is not an attorney in good standing "by definition".
So, there is no "dilemma".
There is a policy, in the ABA and the local state bar associations of non-support of "human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers" who are suffering and have suffered political repressions from the state and U.S. government in retaliation for criticizing the state and U.S. government.
Because, if ABA and local state bar associations start to side and support these rubble-rousers, they will lose their privileged status in the government of all branches and all levels, as well as in the private practice of the legal establishment - and that is bad for business.
So, it is also a business policy.
=
Of course, that business policy is being cloaked in lofty reasons - as to China, at least.
"The episode underscores the difficult decision facing the ABA between continuing to work to advance the rule of law in China and criticizing the repression of civil rights under Mr. Xi, said Nicholas Bequelin, East Asia director for Amnesty International.
'For a long time, ABA could argue that their presence in China was worth the cost of muting their criticism of issues in China’s legal system,” Mr. Bequelin said. “I wonder, and I think many legal analysts wonder, whether that point has passed.'"
So, the pretense dilemma (which was not expressed by the ABA, by the way - ABA only claimed that the book will not sell well, and not in the initial reasons for rescinding of the book offer, there were no reasons given when the offer was rescinded) is:
- should ABA abstain from criticizing the devil for hurting people
- in order to try to teach the devil adhere to the rule of law
As I said above, that "dilemma" is non-existent in the U.S., as to "their own" attorneys similarly deprived of human rights on the U.S. soil.
They simply do not see them and do not associate with them.
To the "proper" ABA and the "proper" NYSBA and the "proper" other state bar associations ANY suspended or disbarred attorney, even if the suspension or disbarment by the government was for criticizing governmental misconduct, is "by definition" not an attorney "in good standing".
They will NOT associate with such attorney.
They will NOT offer their support to him in the press, by book offers or otherwise.
They will stay squeaky-clean of any shadow of accusation that they even might support a critic of the government of the United States or of the states.
And that is not because they are deciding how to "work with the devil" better to persuade the devil to change his ways, reform and adhere to the rule of law.
It is, as I said before, a strictly business decision and policy.
What is the most interesting, though, in this story that the U.S. Congress suddenly stirred some interest - undoubtedly because of the international resonance of the story - and even called ABA and the belligerrent Chinese attorney to a hearing next month.
I am going to write to that particular Committee and ask permission to testify at that hearing, and will urge attorneys in the U.S. similarly sanctioned by our own government here, to seek permission to testify that ABA's behavior is part of its business policy of non-support of civil rights defenders - within or without the U.S. borders, if it is bad for business of its members connected with the government and deriving financial benefits from the connection.
There are a lot of us, attorneys sanctioned for criticizing governmental misconduct in the United States.
We are uniting.
And it is time to act.
Thank you, the MaryGSykes blog, for alerting me to the news about the controversy.
I will post my written testimony forwarded to the U.S. Congress for the next month's hearing, with a request to allow my oral testimony on the subject of political repressions against human rights attorneys in the U.S. and the cowardly position of the ABA and state bar associations on this subject.
Stay tuned.
Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow - or feel the Burn
As I promised earlier, I am publishing some documents from a civil rights case filed by 4 female corrections officers from Ulster County in 2009.
The officers alleged sexual harassment and whistle-blower retaliation called "the burn" when no matter what the "guilty" officer does, she cannot escape petty picking that inevitably results in discipline.
See the full text of the lawsuit here.
In 2013, Northern District of New York rejected some of the claims, but allowed several claims to proceed to trial.
Three officers prevailed at the jury trial as to hostile work environment claims and were given a verdict in their favor, and the pregnancy discrimination claim of the fourth officer (refusing to give her lighter duties and making her work, with a high-risk pregnancy, with inmates and having to break up inmate fights) was rejected by the lower district court, see the jury verdict sheet here.
Recently, the federal appellate court reversed the dismissal of the pregnancy discrimination claim and sent it back to the district court for trial.
I encourage my readers to read the text of the initial lawsuit.
The callousness.
The cruelty.
The vulgarity.
Putting a "urinal tablet" on the "heating coil" in order to make a woman with a long-awaited high-risk pregnancy feel sicker than she was.
Those are all public officials.
They have their own wives, daughters, mothers and sisters.
I am sure most of them are church-going men claiming they are God-fearing and pious.
How could they?
Obviously, they could.
And you know why?
Because they thought they are untouchable.
And they are.
Because, out of all claims that these women brought, only "hostile environment" survived.
Not the 1st Amendment retaliation.
Not the sexual harassment.
Only the amorphous "hostile employment environment".
Don't look that the jury rejected some claims. That happened because of how instructions as to the law were given, how the previous motions were decided.
We don't know the gender composition of that jury either.
As it is now, as a result of this lawsuit, sexual harassment in Ulster County jail and in other jails across the State of New York, against female CORRECTIONS OFFICERS may continue.
If female corrections officers are not safe from sexual harassment by their male colleagues and supervisors, inmates are simply doomed.
And the same can be said about the fate of whistle-blowers, especially female whistle-blowers.
A great message was sent by how courts decided this lawsuit as to the whistle-blower retaliation claims, to all whistle-blowers in New York, and especially to female whistle-blowers.
Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow.
Or feel the burn.
The officers alleged sexual harassment and whistle-blower retaliation called "the burn" when no matter what the "guilty" officer does, she cannot escape petty picking that inevitably results in discipline.
See the full text of the lawsuit here.
In 2013, Northern District of New York rejected some of the claims, but allowed several claims to proceed to trial.
Three officers prevailed at the jury trial as to hostile work environment claims and were given a verdict in their favor, and the pregnancy discrimination claim of the fourth officer (refusing to give her lighter duties and making her work, with a high-risk pregnancy, with inmates and having to break up inmate fights) was rejected by the lower district court, see the jury verdict sheet here.
Recently, the federal appellate court reversed the dismissal of the pregnancy discrimination claim and sent it back to the district court for trial.
I encourage my readers to read the text of the initial lawsuit.
The callousness.
The cruelty.
The vulgarity.
Putting a "urinal tablet" on the "heating coil" in order to make a woman with a long-awaited high-risk pregnancy feel sicker than she was.
Those are all public officials.
They have their own wives, daughters, mothers and sisters.
I am sure most of them are church-going men claiming they are God-fearing and pious.
How could they?
Obviously, they could.
And you know why?
Because they thought they are untouchable.
And they are.
Because, out of all claims that these women brought, only "hostile environment" survived.
Not the 1st Amendment retaliation.
Not the sexual harassment.
Only the amorphous "hostile employment environment".
Don't look that the jury rejected some claims. That happened because of how instructions as to the law were given, how the previous motions were decided.
We don't know the gender composition of that jury either.
As it is now, as a result of this lawsuit, sexual harassment in Ulster County jail and in other jails across the State of New York, against female CORRECTIONS OFFICERS may continue.
If female corrections officers are not safe from sexual harassment by their male colleagues and supervisors, inmates are simply doomed.
And the same can be said about the fate of whistle-blowers, especially female whistle-blowers.
A great message was sent by how courts decided this lawsuit as to the whistle-blower retaliation claims, to all whistle-blowers in New York, and especially to female whistle-blowers.
Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow.
Or feel the burn.
Delaware County: pet projects, pass-through grants, robbing children in foster care and compensation of foster parents
When a child is removed to foster care in the State of New York, there are several sources of support for the child:
1) compensation paid for the child's board and care directly to foster parent;
2) support obtained from parents, if they are alive, reachable by support petition and have ability to pay;
3) the child's SSI payments through Social Security, if available.
I had some individuals come to me in Delaware County, NY when I was practicing last year and tell me that Delaware County Social Services is misusing foster children's SSI payments that must be used only for the children's care.
The allegation was that the Delaware County puts such monies in the general fund and uses it for its own needs, not for the child's, while at the same time suing parents for support.
I was also told that the Social Security administration was notified and was conducting an investigation.
I am not aware how that alleged investigation turned out, but misuse of federal funds by the County is a concern, especially in view of the fact that the County funnels millions of dollars, including state and federal aid into its pet satellite business - Delaware Opportunities Inc. (and the two affiliate corporations, see audit report posted by Delaware Opportunities, Inc.), while prosecuting two women from Deposit for being down on their luck and applying for food stamps.
By the way, Delaware Opportunities Inc. had a grant "passed through" from the Town of Deposit for "community development" - for $14,657 in 2014.
A "pass through" grant, by the way, is a grant for which the non-profit corporation employing 279 people in 2014, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., must APPLY to the pass-through authority.
Here, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., had to apply to the Town of Deposit to give Delaware Opportunities, Inc. a grant of $14,657 for "community development" benefiting the Town of Deposit residents.
Therefore, the Town of Deposit residents, including Tammy Stanton and MacKenzie Stanton, are entitled to know (1) why the grant funds were given to this non-profit and not to needy residents directly; and (2) how Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is benefiting "community development" of the Town of Deposit - other than, possibly, receiving some kick-backs to the Town council people, of course.
By the way, I asked in the FOIL request with Delaware County for the list of employees of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. working on county-funded projects - we will see if those lists will be released, and if they are, how many relatives of the local county and town government officials are working in that non-profit.
And, I also filed another FOIL request today verifying whether the Delaware County District Attorney's office has a contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services, similar to what Otsego County DA's office has with Otsego County DSS, for additional compensation in exchange for prosecution of DSS-targeted criminal cases.
What kind of community development a non-profit corporation handled FOR the Town of Deposit that is located within 40 minutes' drive away over the mountains that could not be given directly to the Deposit residents, so that Tammy Stanton and McKenzie Stanton would not have to apply for food stamps, I am exploring through separate FOIL and FOIA requests.
As to Delaware County and foster parents, I sought information about county-set rates of compensation for foster parents.
Since the former DSS Commissioner Moon announced in the press a couple of years ago that at any given moment there are more than 100 children in foster care in Delaware County, county-set rates of compensation of foster parents are a financial concern for taxpayers.
I will report the response to the FOIL requests in this blog.
Stay tuned.
1) compensation paid for the child's board and care directly to foster parent;
2) support obtained from parents, if they are alive, reachable by support petition and have ability to pay;
3) the child's SSI payments through Social Security, if available.
I had some individuals come to me in Delaware County, NY when I was practicing last year and tell me that Delaware County Social Services is misusing foster children's SSI payments that must be used only for the children's care.
The allegation was that the Delaware County puts such monies in the general fund and uses it for its own needs, not for the child's, while at the same time suing parents for support.
I was also told that the Social Security administration was notified and was conducting an investigation.
I am not aware how that alleged investigation turned out, but misuse of federal funds by the County is a concern, especially in view of the fact that the County funnels millions of dollars, including state and federal aid into its pet satellite business - Delaware Opportunities Inc. (and the two affiliate corporations, see audit report posted by Delaware Opportunities, Inc.), while prosecuting two women from Deposit for being down on their luck and applying for food stamps.
By the way, Delaware Opportunities Inc. had a grant "passed through" from the Town of Deposit for "community development" - for $14,657 in 2014.
A "pass through" grant, by the way, is a grant for which the non-profit corporation employing 279 people in 2014, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., must APPLY to the pass-through authority.
Here, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., had to apply to the Town of Deposit to give Delaware Opportunities, Inc. a grant of $14,657 for "community development" benefiting the Town of Deposit residents.
Therefore, the Town of Deposit residents, including Tammy Stanton and MacKenzie Stanton, are entitled to know (1) why the grant funds were given to this non-profit and not to needy residents directly; and (2) how Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is benefiting "community development" of the Town of Deposit - other than, possibly, receiving some kick-backs to the Town council people, of course.
By the way, I asked in the FOIL request with Delaware County for the list of employees of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. working on county-funded projects - we will see if those lists will be released, and if they are, how many relatives of the local county and town government officials are working in that non-profit.
And, I also filed another FOIL request today verifying whether the Delaware County District Attorney's office has a contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services, similar to what Otsego County DA's office has with Otsego County DSS, for additional compensation in exchange for prosecution of DSS-targeted criminal cases.
What kind of community development a non-profit corporation handled FOR the Town of Deposit that is located within 40 minutes' drive away over the mountains that could not be given directly to the Deposit residents, so that Tammy Stanton and McKenzie Stanton would not have to apply for food stamps, I am exploring through separate FOIL and FOIA requests.
As to Delaware County and foster parents, I sought information about county-set rates of compensation for foster parents.
Since the former DSS Commissioner Moon announced in the press a couple of years ago that at any given moment there are more than 100 children in foster care in Delaware County, county-set rates of compensation of foster parents are a financial concern for taxpayers.
I will report the response to the FOIL requests in this blog.
Stay tuned.
A FOIL request was filed with Delaware County for cell phone numbers and bills, emails of county employees and for other important information
Yesterday, I filed two FOIL requests with Delaware County, New York.
This is the first one, I will post the second one in a separate blog.
In view of the revealed fact that the alleged Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie was never a legitimate police officer in Delaware County - because of how he hired and because he never lived in Delaware County during his employment, as was required by the conditions of employment, I made an inquiry as to the residency of the currently employed Deputy Sheriffs and of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, who also has a residency requirement.
I also asked for lists of employees with salaries, salary history, assigned e-mails, assigned cell phone numbers, and I asked for the latest cell phone bills for each of the County employee who enjoys having a cell phone issued by the County.
I also asked for statistics, if any, of relatives employed in the County, and for all written policies the county has.
In the deposition of Derek Bowie he referred to certain written policies and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, yet, each time I ask for written policies, I am given a response that there aren't any.
Here is another try.
I will report on this blog as to Delaware County responses to this FOIL request.
And, I remind the Delaware County officials who may be reading this blog, of what U.S. Congressmen stated in their letter 2 days ago to the U.S. Comptroller in asking for an investigation into non-enforcement of Freedom of Information Act (a similar statute to FOIL under which I made this request):
I couldn't have said it better.
This is the first one, I will post the second one in a separate blog.
In view of the revealed fact that the alleged Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie was never a legitimate police officer in Delaware County - because of how he hired and because he never lived in Delaware County during his employment, as was required by the conditions of employment, I made an inquiry as to the residency of the currently employed Deputy Sheriffs and of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, who also has a residency requirement.
I also asked for lists of employees with salaries, salary history, assigned e-mails, assigned cell phone numbers, and I asked for the latest cell phone bills for each of the County employee who enjoys having a cell phone issued by the County.
I also asked for statistics, if any, of relatives employed in the County, and for all written policies the county has.
In the deposition of Derek Bowie he referred to certain written policies and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, yet, each time I ask for written policies, I am given a response that there aren't any.
Here is another try.
I will report on this blog as to Delaware County responses to this FOIL request.
And, I remind the Delaware County officials who may be reading this blog, of what U.S. Congressmen stated in their letter 2 days ago to the U.S. Comptroller in asking for an investigation into non-enforcement of Freedom of Information Act (a similar statute to FOIL under which I made this request):
I couldn't have said it better.
Delaware County insurance policy for this year - exclusions, exclusions to exclusions, and the cost of Derek Bowie and other discharged officers in raised premium
I recently asked the Delaware County for its liability insurance policy.
First, I was given nothing in response to my FOIL request.
When I asked, why, I was explained that they are waiting for a new insurance policy, so I asked for both old and new.
Several of days ago, I received both - but they appear to be limited liability policies covering only law enforcement personnel, while I asked for an insurance policy covering all Delaware County employees.
While I will address the issue on an administrative appeal for denial of my FOIL request, here are the old and the new insurance policies:
Here is the the "old" policy for the previous year.
Here is the renewed policy, for this year, until January 1, 2017.
There are interesting exclusions in the policy.
As to the new insurance policy, you can see a $3,623.40 hike as compared to the previous one, and the significant event in the previous year (2015) was the deposition of Derek Bowie in the lawsuit by Kylie Smith. Derek Bowie resigned or was discharged from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that year.
Significantly, while the insurance company agrees to an obligation to defend against claims of personal injury and property damage by employees of the Delaware County law enforcement, the policy does not cover compensation of damages for personal injury and property damage, intentional acts, unjust enrichment by the County officials, defamation, violation of constitutional rights and any injury caused by vehicles, all in all for 20 types of exclusions.
Yet, the county taxpayers are currently paying, through insurance, for the legal defense of Derek Bowie's shenannigans in two lawsuits - one federal, and one in state court, and that is, possibly, the reason for the raised insurance premiums and extensive exclusions in the new policy.
In other words, the policy does not cover compensation for about anything that Derek Bowie did to his two suing victims - Barbara O'Sullivan and Kylie Smith.
As I mentioned above, there are 20 types of exclusions from the insurance coverage in the policy, and I encourage my readers to read the policy in full, here.
Some exclusions and "exclusions to exclusions" are interesting, some are good for the citizens and some are very clearly bad.
For example, there is an "exclusion to exclusion" that, even though there is no coverage for injuries caused by County vehicles, there is coverage for injuries caused by police vehicles during chase in order to apprehend a criminal suspect.
So, I understand that both the injured criminal suspect, the officers involved in the chase and the possible innocent victims of such a chase (motorists or pedestrians) can receive compensation from insurance within the policy limits.
On the other hand, there is an exclusion for failure to provide or negligent provision of medical help.
That means that the habitual failure of the Delaware County Sheriff's department to provide medical help to inmates and pretrial detainees in the Delaware County jail is not covered by insurance.
That means that the compensation for such failures in case a lawsuit happens, and it is waiting to happen, will come directly from the coffers of Delaware County, without any possibility of recovery from insurance, and will be turned against taxpayers through raised property taxes.
That's even more reason to demand accountability of the County and to demand that the County pays attention to detainees and inmates' medical needs - failure to provide for such needs can be costly for the County taxpayers.
There is an "exclusion to exclusion" for property seized by the County. While property in custody of the County other than property seized by the County, is not covered by insurance, the property seized by the County, is.
This means, if the County damages or loses property it seizes during arrests, at least insurance is available to compensate the damage.
All in all, it means that employees of Delaware County will be provided legal defense at the expense of insurance if they do something wrong, but as to damages - they are on their own, they will have to pay out of pocket as to intentional acts.
One other important issue.
It appears that despite being busted by New York State Comptroller for not submitting its contracts to public bidding, Delaware County continues to do the same.
I am currently researching documents of the Delaware County's tumor - the Delaware Opportunities, Inc., to show how the taxpayers' money are sucked out, at the threat of foreclosure on the taxpayers' homes, and are funneled, under claims of "serving lofty causes" no less, into a pet business of Delaware County officials.
Any contracts made by the County without bidding are suspect.
Contracts with the liability insurance company fall into the same category.
Since the premiums are so high, and insurance contract is a financial service based on which insurance company offers a better quote for the same coverage, rather than a "personal service", insurance contracts should be subject to public bidding.
This insurance policy wasn't.
I am verifying that in a FOIL request I filed with the County.
I will post my yesterday's FOIL requests in a separate blog.
Stay tuned.
First, I was given nothing in response to my FOIL request.
When I asked, why, I was explained that they are waiting for a new insurance policy, so I asked for both old and new.
Several of days ago, I received both - but they appear to be limited liability policies covering only law enforcement personnel, while I asked for an insurance policy covering all Delaware County employees.
While I will address the issue on an administrative appeal for denial of my FOIL request, here are the old and the new insurance policies:
Here is the the "old" policy for the previous year.
Here is the renewed policy, for this year, until January 1, 2017.
There are interesting exclusions in the policy.
As to the new insurance policy, you can see a $3,623.40 hike as compared to the previous one, and the significant event in the previous year (2015) was the deposition of Derek Bowie in the lawsuit by Kylie Smith. Derek Bowie resigned or was discharged from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that year.
Significantly, while the insurance company agrees to an obligation to defend against claims of personal injury and property damage by employees of the Delaware County law enforcement, the policy does not cover compensation of damages for personal injury and property damage, intentional acts, unjust enrichment by the County officials, defamation, violation of constitutional rights and any injury caused by vehicles, all in all for 20 types of exclusions.
Yet, the county taxpayers are currently paying, through insurance, for the legal defense of Derek Bowie's shenannigans in two lawsuits - one federal, and one in state court, and that is, possibly, the reason for the raised insurance premiums and extensive exclusions in the new policy.
In other words, the policy does not cover compensation for about anything that Derek Bowie did to his two suing victims - Barbara O'Sullivan and Kylie Smith.
As I mentioned above, there are 20 types of exclusions from the insurance coverage in the policy, and I encourage my readers to read the policy in full, here.
Some exclusions and "exclusions to exclusions" are interesting, some are good for the citizens and some are very clearly bad.
For example, there is an "exclusion to exclusion" that, even though there is no coverage for injuries caused by County vehicles, there is coverage for injuries caused by police vehicles during chase in order to apprehend a criminal suspect.
So, I understand that both the injured criminal suspect, the officers involved in the chase and the possible innocent victims of such a chase (motorists or pedestrians) can receive compensation from insurance within the policy limits.
On the other hand, there is an exclusion for failure to provide or negligent provision of medical help.
That means that the habitual failure of the Delaware County Sheriff's department to provide medical help to inmates and pretrial detainees in the Delaware County jail is not covered by insurance.
That means that the compensation for such failures in case a lawsuit happens, and it is waiting to happen, will come directly from the coffers of Delaware County, without any possibility of recovery from insurance, and will be turned against taxpayers through raised property taxes.
That's even more reason to demand accountability of the County and to demand that the County pays attention to detainees and inmates' medical needs - failure to provide for such needs can be costly for the County taxpayers.
There is an "exclusion to exclusion" for property seized by the County. While property in custody of the County other than property seized by the County, is not covered by insurance, the property seized by the County, is.
This means, if the County damages or loses property it seizes during arrests, at least insurance is available to compensate the damage.
All in all, it means that employees of Delaware County will be provided legal defense at the expense of insurance if they do something wrong, but as to damages - they are on their own, they will have to pay out of pocket as to intentional acts.
One other important issue.
It appears that despite being busted by New York State Comptroller for not submitting its contracts to public bidding, Delaware County continues to do the same.
I am currently researching documents of the Delaware County's tumor - the Delaware Opportunities, Inc., to show how the taxpayers' money are sucked out, at the threat of foreclosure on the taxpayers' homes, and are funneled, under claims of "serving lofty causes" no less, into a pet business of Delaware County officials.
Any contracts made by the County without bidding are suspect.
Contracts with the liability insurance company fall into the same category.
Since the premiums are so high, and insurance contract is a financial service based on which insurance company offers a better quote for the same coverage, rather than a "personal service", insurance contracts should be subject to public bidding.
This insurance policy wasn't.
I am verifying that in a FOIL request I filed with the County.
I will post my yesterday's FOIL requests in a separate blog.
Stay tuned.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Access to records law gets attention of the House and the Senate
Yesterday, several U.S. Senators and House Representatives reportedly requested the U.S. Comptroller General to start an investigation of how citizen's requests for access to records under Freedom of Information Act (that's federal statute, New York has a state counterpart - FOIL, or Public Officers Law 87).
Their letter reportedly says, among other things, the following:
"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a vital tool that protects one of the cornerstones of our Nation: the American public's right to know what its government is up to."
The Congressmen obviously did not ask the opinion of some Delaware County officials about the value of access-to-records laws (such as "don't get your nose into our business, etc.") before writing the letter.
This letter.
It will definitely help not only for federal, but also for state public officials to read that letter.
Because it applies to state records, and state access-to-records laws, too.
And, of course, there are not only FOIA and FOIL among access-to-records laws, the scope of these laws is much broader, and all of those laws help people figure out what the government is up to.
I am currently preparing a book specifically on access to records in a certain narrow area of law where knowledge about access to records laws can help a lot of people who are, let's say, far from being privileged members of society.
I cannot promise the date of publication, as it gets delayed by my appeals of the disciplinary case (which now has a likelihood to head towards the U.S. Supreme Court), and I write in two languages at the same time (Russian and English, the books will not be 100% identical), but I do promise that
And, of course, I promise thorough research and valuable information in the book as to how to access records in that narrow area of law (which will be applicable in wider settings, too, since these laws have a very wide area of application).
The value of access-to-records laws where litigation is pending, going on or threatened, is that such access-to-records efforts may be done as a leverage against the government, outside of court proceedings, and thus outside of control of courts that are often biased in government's favor.
The publication date approaches, but is still away.
I am vigorously working on the book and I promise I will make the publication date known on the blog.
I will post some interesting blogs tomorrow commenting on public documents obtained through access to records laws and otherwise freely obtained on the Internet.
Stay tuned.
Their letter reportedly says, among other things, the following:
"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a vital tool that protects one of the cornerstones of our Nation: the American public's right to know what its government is up to."
The Congressmen obviously did not ask the opinion of some Delaware County officials about the value of access-to-records laws (such as "don't get your nose into our business, etc.") before writing the letter.
This letter.
It will definitely help not only for federal, but also for state public officials to read that letter.
Because it applies to state records, and state access-to-records laws, too.
And, of course, there are not only FOIA and FOIL among access-to-records laws, the scope of these laws is much broader, and all of those laws help people figure out what the government is up to.
I am currently preparing a book specifically on access to records in a certain narrow area of law where knowledge about access to records laws can help a lot of people who are, let's say, far from being privileged members of society.
I cannot promise the date of publication, as it gets delayed by my appeals of the disciplinary case (which now has a likelihood to head towards the U.S. Supreme Court), and I write in two languages at the same time (Russian and English, the books will not be 100% identical), but I do promise that
- it will be this year, that
- it will be affordable, that
- it will cite to free and readily available information sources and
- that it will be both in e-version and in print;
- there is a possibility of a Spanish translation the year after the year of publication; and
- there is a possibility of an audio version in Russian and in English.
And, of course, I promise thorough research and valuable information in the book as to how to access records in that narrow area of law (which will be applicable in wider settings, too, since these laws have a very wide area of application).
The value of access-to-records laws where litigation is pending, going on or threatened, is that such access-to-records efforts may be done as a leverage against the government, outside of court proceedings, and thus outside of control of courts that are often biased in government's favor.
The publication date approaches, but is still away.
I am vigorously working on the book and I promise I will make the publication date known on the blog.
I will post some interesting blogs tomorrow commenting on public documents obtained through access to records laws and otherwise freely obtained on the Internet.
Stay tuned.
The Oklahoma legislation is going to fix what didn't need to be fixed, but was undermined by a judicial decision - the forcible sodomy statute
I wrote yesterday about five judges who made life unsafe and dangerous in Oklahoma by a unanimous 2-page decision interpreting the Oklahoma criminal forcible sodomy law as not including the situations when the victim is intoxicated or unconscious.
The statute, in fact, does have in it an element of lack of consent when the person's mind is unsound (that includes, for any reasonable mind, temporary unsoundness through intoxication or unconsciousness).
The 5 judges, as I wrote in my yesterday's blog, are all very "accomplished", they are all portrayed in their biographies as brilliant lawyers, scholars and jurists.
In other words, they are definitely not dumb and they certainly can read.
And if, after they read the statute that includes a provision for "unsoundness of mind", they still ruled - unanimously - that intoxication or unconsciousness of the victim is not included into that statute, one needs to look for answers for that decision deeper - and I hope that the FBI should look into the possible case of corruption, and not necessarily by relatives of the defendant.
There may be some high-ranking perv somewhere, caught for the same thing, who needed protection - and got it.
In any event, the Oklahoma Legislature reacted to this collective act of judicial unsoundness of minds (or corruption) by publicly announcing that they will fix the perceived gap in the criminal forcible sodomy laws.
The sad part about it is that - it didn't need fixing, and more taxpayer money will be poured into the hole, simply because some supposedly "brilliant" public servants would not do their jobs properly.
The statute, in fact, does have in it an element of lack of consent when the person's mind is unsound (that includes, for any reasonable mind, temporary unsoundness through intoxication or unconsciousness).
The 5 judges, as I wrote in my yesterday's blog, are all very "accomplished", they are all portrayed in their biographies as brilliant lawyers, scholars and jurists.
In other words, they are definitely not dumb and they certainly can read.
And if, after they read the statute that includes a provision for "unsoundness of mind", they still ruled - unanimously - that intoxication or unconsciousness of the victim is not included into that statute, one needs to look for answers for that decision deeper - and I hope that the FBI should look into the possible case of corruption, and not necessarily by relatives of the defendant.
There may be some high-ranking perv somewhere, caught for the same thing, who needed protection - and got it.
In any event, the Oklahoma Legislature reacted to this collective act of judicial unsoundness of minds (or corruption) by publicly announcing that they will fix the perceived gap in the criminal forcible sodomy laws.
The sad part about it is that - it didn't need fixing, and more taxpayer money will be poured into the hole, simply because some supposedly "brilliant" public servants would not do their jobs properly.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
By ruling that forcible sodomy laws do not apply to intoxicated or unconscious victims, Oklahoma was turned into a dangerous place for residents and visitors
In a disturbing ruling, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declined to "enlarge the statute" for forcible sodomy, and declined to apply the forcible sodomy statute to victims who are intoxicated or unconscious.
Judge Clancy Smith:
Judge Gary L. Lumpkin:
Here is the decision.
Here is the statute:
The court claimed that none of the 5 factors enumerated in the statute are applicable when the victim is intoxicated or unconscious.
It happens rarely, but my personal opinion here is that the ruling is incorrect, and not just on the emotional level.
Subsection (B)(2) clearly includes into the crime of forcible sodomy a "sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime".
Both or either intoxication and unconsciousness can be argued to be temporary unsoundness of mind.
What was created in Oklahoma is a dangerous precedent encouraging rapists to get their victims drunk in order to escape criminal liability.
And that's definitely not the legislative purpose of the statute.
Oklahoma has become a dangerous state. With just one 2-page decision by these five judges:
Here are the judges who made the decision.
Judge Gary L. Lumpkin:
Judge Arlene Johnson:
Judge David B. Lewis:
All of these 5 people unanimously concurred in ruling that intoxication or unconsciousness does not fall under temporary unsoundness of mind preventing consent to sodomy - that's oral or anal sex without consent.
Unanimously.
I understand the concept of judicial restraint and unwillingness to legislate from the bench.
Yet, here this concept was completely uncalled for.
These 5 people left residents and visitors of Oklahoma unsafe to sexual assaults if they are in a helpless condition.
These 5 people also gave an opportunity for really sick crimes to be committed - because such an approach does not take into consideration as to who rendered the person intoxicated or unconscious.
These 5 judges put together a defense for really sick individuals to first lace the drink or get a person drunk, or beat the person unconscious - and THEN rape him or her.
The sick birds on the street are no thinking - "we've got a free ride" out of prison.
Think about it - with those shining biographies.
Those careers.
A high school.
A college.
A law school.
Career as a lawyer.
Career as a judge.
FIVE PEOPLE, all educated as lawyers and judges - could not READ and understand that "unsound of mind" applies to unconsciousness or intoxication.
Unanimously they could not read that?
Or, another, more sinister explanation may be that they know there is some pervert in their ranks who is afraid for the statute to be - soon - applied to him and her, and they unanimously protect that pervert by their decision?
These 5 people also gave an opportunity for really sick crimes to be committed - because such an approach does not take into consideration as to who rendered the person intoxicated or unconscious.
These 5 judges put together a defense for really sick individuals to first lace the drink or get a person drunk, or beat the person unconscious - and THEN rape him or her.
The sick birds on the street are no thinking - "we've got a free ride" out of prison.
Think about it - with those shining biographies.
Those careers.
A high school.
A college.
A law school.
Career as a lawyer.
Career as a judge.
FIVE PEOPLE, all educated as lawyers and judges - could not READ and understand that "unsound of mind" applies to unconsciousness or intoxication.
Unanimously they could not read that?
Or, another, more sinister explanation may be that they know there is some pervert in their ranks who is afraid for the statute to be - soon - applied to him and her, and they unanimously protect that pervert by their decision?
It is not very often that I think prosecution in a criminal case is right.
Here - at least as a matter of law, without going into the case's facts - it is.
The prosecutor stated that the court's decision is "insane, dangerous and offensive". I couldn't agree more.
The prosecutor stated that the court's decision is "insane, dangerous and offensive". I couldn't agree more.
Tim Buckley's email: no documents regarding Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire and no known investigation
The e-mail of Tim Buckley regarding the report about the potential investigation of the house fire at Barbara O'Sullivan's house was forwarded to me today.
As I described in my previous blog here, Tim Buckley is the public official in charge of patrol in the Delaware County (NY) Sheriff's Department.
Here is his e-mail to Barbara O'Sullivan:
The e-mail looks apologetic.
And, there is no record anywhere that the matter was investigated by anyone.
At least, the victims' written statements were never taken by anyone, even though there appears to be abundance of witnesses, friends of friends, and relatives of firefighters offering opinions on the Internet as to what "really happened".
A fire like that, likely an arson by explosion with an intent to kill two people, and under circumstances some public officials may be involved in that plot to kill, MUST be investigated, and investigated thoroughly.
Just shows how safe residents of Delaware County really are - you step out of line by criticizing the government, and all hell will break lose over your head - complete with smear campaigns against you, your friends and reporters who dare to cover your stories, fabrication of criminal cases, tasering and deaths of dogs, and even burning your houses from under you.
As I described in my previous blog here, Tim Buckley is the public official in charge of patrol in the Delaware County (NY) Sheriff's Department.
Here is his e-mail to Barbara O'Sullivan:
The e-mail looks apologetic.
And, there is no record anywhere that the matter was investigated by anyone.
At least, the victims' written statements were never taken by anyone, even though there appears to be abundance of witnesses, friends of friends, and relatives of firefighters offering opinions on the Internet as to what "really happened".
A fire like that, likely an arson by explosion with an intent to kill two people, and under circumstances some public officials may be involved in that plot to kill, MUST be investigated, and investigated thoroughly.
Just shows how safe residents of Delaware County really are - you step out of line by criticizing the government, and all hell will break lose over your head - complete with smear campaigns against you, your friends and reporters who dare to cover your stories, fabrication of criminal cases, tasering and deaths of dogs, and even burning your houses from under you.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Reporting on Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire: Tim Buckley confirms there was no police investigation of the circumstances of the fire
The case of Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire gets more and more interesting.
Tim Buckley of Delaware County Sheriff's Department
finally wrote back to Barbara O'Sullivan (after she was told on Monday, April 25, 2016, by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that he is preparing the report about investigation of her house fire and will call her back that same day).
Tim Buckley reportedly claimed to Barbara that "he was unable to locate a police agency who was at the scene", so the report cannot be made.
So, nearly a week after the fire - not only no reports, but the Delaware County Sheriff's Department pretends it does not know who even was on the site and who even was investigating that fire - if at all.
That is the department that
Instead, according to deposition of Officer Bowie, the Department "backs him up 100%" in both cases of assault on women, one of them was a vehicular assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, and even gives him free legal defense against Barbara's lawsuit.
Now, that very same particular Sheriff's Department pretends it does not know what police agency and who - if at all - investigated a house fire that suddenly consumed the entire house of a person who is suing that police officer.
As if there is a myriad hard-to-find police agencies in the area.
A perfect "sergeant Schultz" defense - "I did not see anything, I do not know anything".
Not good enough.
There were eyewitnesses claiming that they saw various police officers from various police agencies hovering around the site of the fire - and now nobody claims they were there?
Was the lack of investigation due to the fact that the Sheriff's Department was afraid to look, fearing what or rather who they might find as a result of that investigation?
There are only two suspects that I know who had the motive, opportunity, training, skill, rage and lack of integrity to commit the arson-by-explosion at Barbara's house.
Delaware County Sheriff's Department knows those names, too.
And knows who and how would have benefited by the deaths of Barbara O'Sullivan and/or Alecia Bracci.
And doesn't investigate.
As I said before, the case stinks, and it stinks more and more by the minute.
I will continue reporting on this case.
Stay tuned.
Tim Buckley of Delaware County Sheriff's Department
finally wrote back to Barbara O'Sullivan (after she was told on Monday, April 25, 2016, by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that he is preparing the report about investigation of her house fire and will call her back that same day).
Tim Buckley reportedly claimed to Barbara that "he was unable to locate a police agency who was at the scene", so the report cannot be made.
So, nearly a week after the fire - not only no reports, but the Delaware County Sheriff's Department pretends it does not know who even was on the site and who even was investigating that fire - if at all.
That is the department that
- buys horses for "crowd control" in the County with disappearing population,
- buys untrained imported pups for $7,000 to allegedly control the allegedly increased drug traffic, and
- does nothing to control an unlawfully hired police officer with a history of violence against women and animals, because that particular police officer is related to the District Attorney's similarly unlawfully hired investigator.
Instead, according to deposition of Officer Bowie, the Department "backs him up 100%" in both cases of assault on women, one of them was a vehicular assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, and even gives him free legal defense against Barbara's lawsuit.
Now, that very same particular Sheriff's Department pretends it does not know what police agency and who - if at all - investigated a house fire that suddenly consumed the entire house of a person who is suing that police officer.
As if there is a myriad hard-to-find police agencies in the area.
A perfect "sergeant Schultz" defense - "I did not see anything, I do not know anything".
Not good enough.
There were eyewitnesses claiming that they saw various police officers from various police agencies hovering around the site of the fire - and now nobody claims they were there?
Was the lack of investigation due to the fact that the Sheriff's Department was afraid to look, fearing what or rather who they might find as a result of that investigation?
There are only two suspects that I know who had the motive, opportunity, training, skill, rage and lack of integrity to commit the arson-by-explosion at Barbara's house.
Delaware County Sheriff's Department knows those names, too.
And knows who and how would have benefited by the deaths of Barbara O'Sullivan and/or Alecia Bracci.
And doesn't investigate.
As I said before, the case stinks, and it stinks more and more by the minute.
I will continue reporting on this case.
Stay tuned.
Coverage of Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire continues: the Fire Department's reporting gaps, hysterics, disclaimers and intimidation by a firefighter's girlfriend, anonymous comments of alleged firefighters
I wrote on this blog extensively about Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire that happened during the night from Friday to Saturday last week and that nobody but me wants to report.
The fire was not mentioned in the blotters listing other fires.
The fire was not mentioned on Delhi FD's Facebook page - see that there is a gap in posting the last post before today's was April 17, 2016, Barbara's house fire occurred on the night of April 22 to April 23, 2016 - and could be posted simply as that there was a house fire, and that investigation as to causes is pending.
Yet, there is nothing. As if that fire did not even happen.
A brush fire is reported.
A house fire of a critic of misconduct of the local government whose fabricated criminal case was just dismissed, is not reported.
And there is no investigation.
And, official reports are not issued.
And, local press is mum about the fire.
Interesting choices in reporting DFD has.
So, the clear intention was to keep that particular fire not reported.
And that wish was thwarted - by a mere blogger, a citizen journalist.
The fire was reported, on this blog, as well as misconduct of local firefighters who refused to help extinguish the fire or save the dog trapped in the basement in the fire, and misconduct of law enforcement and the District Attorney's office that are unwilling to investigate this obvious arson, to the point of not taking written statements from witnesses.
I also wrote about the smear tactics used against me by a group of anonymous individuals claiming to be firefighters (see here), and three women, one semi-anonymous, her posted name is Brigitte (her last name is Berry), so it is #BrigitteBerry, who pretended to be Barbara O'Sullivan's friend while posting comments hurting Barbara, and two other women who provided their full real names - a firefighter's wife #SharonReichert-Morgan and an alleged former firefighter/firefighter's girlfriend #ColleenChurch.
Sharon Reichert-Morgan, an employee of the Delaware County Department of Social Services, first spewed hatred against me, the victims of the fire and even my husband who had nothing to do with reporting of this story or with the case of the house fire, see my blogs here and here.
Then, Sharon Reichert-Morgan, possibly reprimanded at work for contacting me and giving me information, recanted her initial claim that she was getting information about the fire from her firefighter husband - while there is no official report issued about that fire, and claimed she is an "independent thinker" who just happened to think up her theories, without ever being at the fire site, while at the same time accusing me of lies in reporting based on eyewitness accounts, see my blogs here and here.
Meanwhile, Delaware County insurance policy, coincidentally disclosed to me following my Freedom of Information request two days ago, indicated that law enforcement personnel of Delaware County is not allowed, without consent of the insurance carrier, to "accept liability" or "assume obligation" - or, in other words, to tell anybody the truth of what happened at that fire.
Yet, when I posted that intriguing piece of information, #ColleenChurch may have lost her last bearings and posted something completely bizarre, which told me, once again, that I am on the right track in reporting this story.
I must point out that #ColleenChurch first insisted in several posts that she is leaving, and leaving, and leaving, and leaving, and leaving my blog, but with maniacal persistence comes back with increasingly bizarre comments, the last one calling me a "stupid mail order bride bitch".
In that latest bizarre post, Colleen Church was also pretending at some humor claiming that it is impossible to have a "battle of whits" (her spelling) "with someone unarmed".
Of course, it is impossible, because there is no such word as "whits" in the language which is, I understand, native to Colleen Church, but which she apparently had no time to master past the swear words - she made no spelling mistakes in the words "shit", "bitch" and such like in her comments.
I guess, to each, her own vocabulary. Colleen Church is familiar with the spelling of words she uses the most. From that, it is easy to arrive at a conclusion that Colleen Church does not have many battles of wits at all.
And, Colleen Church appears to be "armed" only with that particular strata of vocabulary - which, to her, obviously equates with intellect.
Well, as I said, to each her own.
Now, as to some substantive lies, some threats and some directives to me from Colleen Church which indicate that my reporting is on the right track.
In her earlier post today - made at 5:38 AM plus 3 hours (the time stamp on this blog is California time) - Colleen Church claimed that:
1) she never said she knew what happened at the fire (she did claim that I was lying as to what happened at the fire, based on reports of eyewitnesses, which is the equivalent of stating that she knew what REALLY happened at that fire, otherwise how does she know I am lying?)
2) her boyfriend is (currently) a firefighter;
3) her boyfriend has a pager;
4) Colleen Church "owns a scanner" (a police scanner);
5) that "most people that have lived here for ant /sic/ length of time know the Braccis and how they operate"; "the Braccis" is a very large extended family
Colleen Church said in that post that it would be her last post.
Several posts later, she is still on my blog, her last, very irate, comment posted at 6:50 pm + 3 hours.
She now claims that she listened to the scanner "in her house" and that she allegedly stated before that her boyfriend "has not been a part of the [Delhi Fire Department] for some time". And that she has allegedly stated that "he is a member of the FD in the town that we now live in and that FD was not dispatched to help with the fire".
She did not state that in her comments before.
Apparently, somebody had a talk with her, and made her state such a disclaimer, trying to absolve her boyfriend of not having to come to Barbara's rescue.
That is already good - people are running like rats from a sinking ship, which means, my reports are actually being read by a lot of people.
What is also interesting is that Colleen Church did not disclose the town where she is living - and which allegedly did not dispatch her firefighter boyfriend to fight the fire at Barbara's house, and I wonder, why is that.
Nor did Colleen Church agree to come "face to face" with me in a live-streamed recorded video-chat, along with her firefighter boyfriend, Sharon Reichert-Morgan with whom she was apparently acting in concert, Sharon Reichert-Morgan's firefighter husband, and all other members of the investigative and fire-fighting team that were involved with the case of Barbara's house fire.
And that is also very illustrative of wrongdoing, along with the pressure put on Barbara's siblings, their businesses and even their employees who are getting an earful from the Delhi firefighters about my blogs, while their bosses continue to stall release of fire reports that should have been ready long time ago.
And, such reluctance to meet me on video-chat with the whole investigative crew and give me "their side of the story" is especially telling, as Colleen Church accuses me, as Sharon Reichert-Morgan and Brigitte Berry, and "Archer" and "LifeSaver" commentators did before - of knowing "nothing about" the firefighters' job, and reporting only wide side of the story, from what the victims told me.
When people refuse to give me "the other side of the story", despite several invitations to do that, but still accuse me, in increasingly personal slurs, of one-sided reporting, and no one else is reporting it - I am definitely not to blame that the "other side of the story" is not given to me.
It is also illustrative - and quite funny - how Colleen Church questions my "right" to investigate anything in Delaware County.
The woman who can spell "shit" and "bitch", but cannot spell words denoting her own pretense at "intellectual humor", apparently, does not realize that I can investigate what is happening in the local government where my husband and I pay property taxes, the same way as every other taxpayer, citizen or journalist can, no permission needed.
Colleen Church also gives me a directive to "keep my crap down there" in South Carolina and "keep my nose out of business here".
I understand that the local establishment in Delaware County really wanted to have my husband and I disappear from the area, with our inconvenient pro bono and low-rate services to the local poor and uneducated criminal defendants and parents pursued by social services, and it is a bitter disappointment that, with all the efforts to get my husband and I out of the area, all that Delaware County got is an unintimidated journalist with legal and linguistic training, time, and a determination to report specifically about what is going on in the government in that particular area.
By the way, the bitter disappointment, I predict, will get even more bitter when my first book comes out, it will happen soon.
Intimidation of journalists who are reporting on misconduct of governments is not such an unusual thing around the world.
Nor it is a legal thing, and Colleen Church, even with her shrunk gray matter, should have realized that when she was giving me her directives not to get "my nose" into Delaware County's "business".
When somebody is eagerly trying to hush reporting on a mere blog, and especially on a blog of a person who Colleen Church claims to be crazy (but who, at the same time, knows local people and local little dirty patterns in the local government well), it shows that something really rotten IS happening over there that Delaware County residents close to the local establishment would not want to be known to the wider world.
Colleen Church also backtracked as to her claims that all long-time residents of the Delhi, NY area know how "the Braccis operate" - now she claims she has not "bashed Mr. Pete Bracci or anyone else in the Bracci family except [my] alleged friends".
Well, let's see if that is the truth. Once again, this is the earlier comment of Colleen Church posted today:
It is clearly bashing "the Braccis", without any exception, so Colleen Church was, in fact, bashing all the extended Bracci family - without thinking. Again, one cannot expect complex intellectual endeavors from a woman with Colleen Church's limited vocabulary.
I wrote a story based on eyewitness accounts.
I was the only reporter who wrote about that story. The local press and the local public officials are hushing it up.
The only people who responded to the story are people who have no personal knowledge about what happened, but who are still trying to protect something they know nothing about, which leads to a conclusion that something must really be wrong.
These people, the commentators, repeatedly accuse me of one-sided reporting, but repeatedly refuse to give the "other side of the story" through a video conference.
They are obviously afraid to say something stupid to the allegedly stupid me. So, they are waiting until their attorney will coach their loved ones to put all ducks in a row to help the County, the DFD and all other entities and personnel involved in the monumental blunder of how Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire was handled, to escape liability.
When I was finishing this blog, another comment was posted - by an alleged anonymous firefighter "LifeSaver".
Here is the comment, with my reply.
I appreciate that the tone of the comment by "LifeSaver" was nothing close to the ravings of Colleen Church. It was respectful, and I understand that the person wanted to provide some valuable information to me. Once again, I appreciate the tone of LifeSaver's comment, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to firefighters or police officers in general.
Yet, when there is an eyewitness report of misconduct of police and firefighters, especially under the general circumstances of this particular case, and public officials refuse to investigate or provide official reports that must be provided in this case, it is not disrespectful to try investigate what really happened, by means available to me as a journalist.
Unfortunately, as I stated to "LifeSaver" in my response, his (I presume from the style of the comment that "LifeSaver" is a man, and apologize if I am incorrect) information would have been valuable only if I knew the identity of the source.
Without knowing the identity of the source, information provided to me is useless.
I understand that people may be afraid to come forward and discuss the case, and that is also what troubles me as a reporter of this case - because by now the fire report and the investigative report of what happened must be complete, and the names of investigators and of the members of firefighting team known.
There is nothing secret about those names.
And, if the "LifeSaver" and "Archer" prefer to remain anonymous, as well as Colleen Church and the "LifeSaver" prefer not to disclose the name of Colleen Church's boyfriend or the fire department where he works and which allegedly was not called to duty to Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire, there is a problem there.
I will continue my investigation, and will report my results on this blog.
Stay tuned.
The fire was not mentioned in the blotters listing other fires.
The fire was not mentioned on Delhi FD's Facebook page - see that there is a gap in posting the last post before today's was April 17, 2016, Barbara's house fire occurred on the night of April 22 to April 23, 2016 - and could be posted simply as that there was a house fire, and that investigation as to causes is pending.
Yet, there is nothing. As if that fire did not even happen.
A brush fire is reported.
A house fire of a critic of misconduct of the local government whose fabricated criminal case was just dismissed, is not reported.
And there is no investigation.
And, official reports are not issued.
And, local press is mum about the fire.
Interesting choices in reporting DFD has.
So, the clear intention was to keep that particular fire not reported.
And that wish was thwarted - by a mere blogger, a citizen journalist.
The fire was reported, on this blog, as well as misconduct of local firefighters who refused to help extinguish the fire or save the dog trapped in the basement in the fire, and misconduct of law enforcement and the District Attorney's office that are unwilling to investigate this obvious arson, to the point of not taking written statements from witnesses.
I also wrote about the smear tactics used against me by a group of anonymous individuals claiming to be firefighters (see here), and three women, one semi-anonymous, her posted name is Brigitte (her last name is Berry), so it is #BrigitteBerry, who pretended to be Barbara O'Sullivan's friend while posting comments hurting Barbara, and two other women who provided their full real names - a firefighter's wife #SharonReichert-Morgan and an alleged former firefighter/firefighter's girlfriend #ColleenChurch.
Sharon Reichert-Morgan, an employee of the Delaware County Department of Social Services, first spewed hatred against me, the victims of the fire and even my husband who had nothing to do with reporting of this story or with the case of the house fire, see my blogs here and here.
Then, Sharon Reichert-Morgan, possibly reprimanded at work for contacting me and giving me information, recanted her initial claim that she was getting information about the fire from her firefighter husband - while there is no official report issued about that fire, and claimed she is an "independent thinker" who just happened to think up her theories, without ever being at the fire site, while at the same time accusing me of lies in reporting based on eyewitness accounts, see my blogs here and here.
Meanwhile, Delaware County insurance policy, coincidentally disclosed to me following my Freedom of Information request two days ago, indicated that law enforcement personnel of Delaware County is not allowed, without consent of the insurance carrier, to "accept liability" or "assume obligation" - or, in other words, to tell anybody the truth of what happened at that fire.
Yet, when I posted that intriguing piece of information, #ColleenChurch may have lost her last bearings and posted something completely bizarre, which told me, once again, that I am on the right track in reporting this story.
I must point out that #ColleenChurch first insisted in several posts that she is leaving, and leaving, and leaving, and leaving, and leaving my blog, but with maniacal persistence comes back with increasingly bizarre comments, the last one calling me a "stupid mail order bride bitch".
In that latest bizarre post, Colleen Church was also pretending at some humor claiming that it is impossible to have a "battle of whits" (her spelling) "with someone unarmed".
Of course, it is impossible, because there is no such word as "whits" in the language which is, I understand, native to Colleen Church, but which she apparently had no time to master past the swear words - she made no spelling mistakes in the words "shit", "bitch" and such like in her comments.
I guess, to each, her own vocabulary. Colleen Church is familiar with the spelling of words she uses the most. From that, it is easy to arrive at a conclusion that Colleen Church does not have many battles of wits at all.
And, Colleen Church appears to be "armed" only with that particular strata of vocabulary - which, to her, obviously equates with intellect.
Well, as I said, to each her own.
Now, as to some substantive lies, some threats and some directives to me from Colleen Church which indicate that my reporting is on the right track.
In her earlier post today - made at 5:38 AM plus 3 hours (the time stamp on this blog is California time) - Colleen Church claimed that:
1) she never said she knew what happened at the fire (she did claim that I was lying as to what happened at the fire, based on reports of eyewitnesses, which is the equivalent of stating that she knew what REALLY happened at that fire, otherwise how does she know I am lying?)
2) her boyfriend is (currently) a firefighter;
3) her boyfriend has a pager;
4) Colleen Church "owns a scanner" (a police scanner);
5) that "most people that have lived here for ant /sic/ length of time know the Braccis and how they operate"; "the Braccis" is a very large extended family
Colleen Church said in that post that it would be her last post.
Several posts later, she is still on my blog, her last, very irate, comment posted at 6:50 pm + 3 hours.
She now claims that she listened to the scanner "in her house" and that she allegedly stated before that her boyfriend "has not been a part of the [Delhi Fire Department] for some time". And that she has allegedly stated that "he is a member of the FD in the town that we now live in and that FD was not dispatched to help with the fire".
She did not state that in her comments before.
Apparently, somebody had a talk with her, and made her state such a disclaimer, trying to absolve her boyfriend of not having to come to Barbara's rescue.
That is already good - people are running like rats from a sinking ship, which means, my reports are actually being read by a lot of people.
What is also interesting is that Colleen Church did not disclose the town where she is living - and which allegedly did not dispatch her firefighter boyfriend to fight the fire at Barbara's house, and I wonder, why is that.
Nor did Colleen Church agree to come "face to face" with me in a live-streamed recorded video-chat, along with her firefighter boyfriend, Sharon Reichert-Morgan with whom she was apparently acting in concert, Sharon Reichert-Morgan's firefighter husband, and all other members of the investigative and fire-fighting team that were involved with the case of Barbara's house fire.
And that is also very illustrative of wrongdoing, along with the pressure put on Barbara's siblings, their businesses and even their employees who are getting an earful from the Delhi firefighters about my blogs, while their bosses continue to stall release of fire reports that should have been ready long time ago.
And, such reluctance to meet me on video-chat with the whole investigative crew and give me "their side of the story" is especially telling, as Colleen Church accuses me, as Sharon Reichert-Morgan and Brigitte Berry, and "Archer" and "LifeSaver" commentators did before - of knowing "nothing about" the firefighters' job, and reporting only wide side of the story, from what the victims told me.
When people refuse to give me "the other side of the story", despite several invitations to do that, but still accuse me, in increasingly personal slurs, of one-sided reporting, and no one else is reporting it - I am definitely not to blame that the "other side of the story" is not given to me.
It is also illustrative - and quite funny - how Colleen Church questions my "right" to investigate anything in Delaware County.
The woman who can spell "shit" and "bitch", but cannot spell words denoting her own pretense at "intellectual humor", apparently, does not realize that I can investigate what is happening in the local government where my husband and I pay property taxes, the same way as every other taxpayer, citizen or journalist can, no permission needed.
Colleen Church also gives me a directive to "keep my crap down there" in South Carolina and "keep my nose out of business here".
I understand that the local establishment in Delaware County really wanted to have my husband and I disappear from the area, with our inconvenient pro bono and low-rate services to the local poor and uneducated criminal defendants and parents pursued by social services, and it is a bitter disappointment that, with all the efforts to get my husband and I out of the area, all that Delaware County got is an unintimidated journalist with legal and linguistic training, time, and a determination to report specifically about what is going on in the government in that particular area.
By the way, the bitter disappointment, I predict, will get even more bitter when my first book comes out, it will happen soon.
Intimidation of journalists who are reporting on misconduct of governments is not such an unusual thing around the world.
Nor it is a legal thing, and Colleen Church, even with her shrunk gray matter, should have realized that when she was giving me her directives not to get "my nose" into Delaware County's "business".
When somebody is eagerly trying to hush reporting on a mere blog, and especially on a blog of a person who Colleen Church claims to be crazy (but who, at the same time, knows local people and local little dirty patterns in the local government well), it shows that something really rotten IS happening over there that Delaware County residents close to the local establishment would not want to be known to the wider world.
Colleen Church also backtracked as to her claims that all long-time residents of the Delhi, NY area know how "the Braccis operate" - now she claims she has not "bashed Mr. Pete Bracci or anyone else in the Bracci family except [my] alleged friends".
Well, let's see if that is the truth. Once again, this is the earlier comment of Colleen Church posted today:
It is clearly bashing "the Braccis", without any exception, so Colleen Church was, in fact, bashing all the extended Bracci family - without thinking. Again, one cannot expect complex intellectual endeavors from a woman with Colleen Church's limited vocabulary.
I wrote a story based on eyewitness accounts.
I was the only reporter who wrote about that story. The local press and the local public officials are hushing it up.
The only people who responded to the story are people who have no personal knowledge about what happened, but who are still trying to protect something they know nothing about, which leads to a conclusion that something must really be wrong.
These people, the commentators, repeatedly accuse me of one-sided reporting, but repeatedly refuse to give the "other side of the story" through a video conference.
They are obviously afraid to say something stupid to the allegedly stupid me. So, they are waiting until their attorney will coach their loved ones to put all ducks in a row to help the County, the DFD and all other entities and personnel involved in the monumental blunder of how Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire was handled, to escape liability.
When I was finishing this blog, another comment was posted - by an alleged anonymous firefighter "LifeSaver".
Here is the comment, with my reply.
I appreciate that the tone of the comment by "LifeSaver" was nothing close to the ravings of Colleen Church. It was respectful, and I understand that the person wanted to provide some valuable information to me. Once again, I appreciate the tone of LifeSaver's comment, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to firefighters or police officers in general.
Yet, when there is an eyewitness report of misconduct of police and firefighters, especially under the general circumstances of this particular case, and public officials refuse to investigate or provide official reports that must be provided in this case, it is not disrespectful to try investigate what really happened, by means available to me as a journalist.
Unfortunately, as I stated to "LifeSaver" in my response, his (I presume from the style of the comment that "LifeSaver" is a man, and apologize if I am incorrect) information would have been valuable only if I knew the identity of the source.
Without knowing the identity of the source, information provided to me is useless.
I understand that people may be afraid to come forward and discuss the case, and that is also what troubles me as a reporter of this case - because by now the fire report and the investigative report of what happened must be complete, and the names of investigators and of the members of firefighting team known.
There is nothing secret about those names.
And, if the "LifeSaver" and "Archer" prefer to remain anonymous, as well as Colleen Church and the "LifeSaver" prefer not to disclose the name of Colleen Church's boyfriend or the fire department where he works and which allegedly was not called to duty to Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire, there is a problem there.
I will continue my investigation, and will report my results on this blog.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)