Recently, the top New York State Court
(headed by a career prosecutor Janet DiFiore who was saved from criminal prosecution by her position as a criminal prosecutor herself, and her connections to NYS Governor Cuomo whose ass she has saved from federal prison - and who paid her and her husband with positions of super-power in return)
confirmed in a court case that the public does not have a right of access to evidence of police misconduct on Freedom of Information Requests, citing a state law.
That the state law she has cited is blatantly unconstitutional, being invented specifically to impair cross-examination/impeachment of police officers by criminal defense attorneys, and thus state law was meant to undermine federal constitutional confrontation rights under the 6th Amendment - did not bother Janet DiFiore, a former prosecutor, one bit.
So, as it is now, in New York, evidence of police misconduct is secret.
Because it is important for the government to keep their dirty secrets away from people.
And, even when such dirty secrets spill over into lawsuits when those same police officers, let's say, beat some women or try to run them down with cars - those cases are quickly shooed away, by settlements, or by corrupt judges like Otsego County Judge John F. Lambert who first
- reopened default of the former Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, nephew to the then-DA's office investigator of many years in the lawsuit filed against him by Barbara O'Sullivan for trying to run her over with a police car to destroy evidence of his misconduct, the tablet she has held in her hand,
- reopened it on the idiotic claim that the same Sheriff's Department that served Derek Bowie, for money, with lawsuit papers, was not notified of the lawsuit against Derek Bowie in order to defend him in the lawsuit - which the Sheriff's Department did not need to do anyway because Bowie was sued for intentional misconduct only, and that conduct was within insurance exclusion of the County's liability policy; and
- dismissed it because Barbara O'Sullivan could not comply with discovery claimed by Derek Bowie's taxpayer-paid attorneys - why? - because her house was burned down (which she, her daughter, her unborn grandchild and 2 of 3 of their dogs narrowly escaped alive), and burned down likely by the same Derek Bowie, while the DA's office employing his uncle refused to investigate the vehicular assault of Bowie upon O'Sullivan, or the arson of O'Sullivan's house likely by Bowie, because it was busy prosecuting O'Sullivan on behalf of Bowie because Bowie was allegedly bitten by O'Sullivan's dog (who Bowie tasered) when Bowie came to O'Sullivan's house at night with a forged search warrant (to get that same tablet that he did not manage to smash and destroy the evidence of his misconduct during vehicular assault with police car on O'Sullivan).
- Judge Lambert dismissed the lawsuit of O'Sullivan against Bowie after Judge Lambert also dismissed the criminal case of DA's office employing Bowie's uncle against O'Sullivan, as based on a forged search warrant, after recognizing that testimony of Delhi Town Judge Gumo about issuing such a warrant was perjured because during the supposed issuance of the warrant Gumo was testifying about his misconduct before the Commission of Judicial Conduct and could not possibly sign the search warrant - his court clerk stamped his facsimile on it instead (that Judge Lambert did not admit in his order, but the clerk had to be ordered removed from the courtroom as a potential witness, while ardently trying to get there - knowing that she may be next). Neither Judge Gumo, nor his clerk were charged criminally for forging (the clerk) and aiding and abetting in forging (Gumo) the search warrant. My complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission about Gumo, based on a COURT ORDER dismissing a criminal case based on his perjury, was tossed without anybody every contacting me or Barbara O'Sullivan about it. Of course, how can a DA's office employing Bowie's uncle charge Gumo criminally for aiding and abetting in forging a search warrant giving Bowie power over his own victim - in arresting her and her daughter, tasing their dog, thus removing them from the house, and searching it for the tablet containing evidence of his misconduct? The DA then became a criminal court judge, the "Honorable" Richard (Dick, which is a more appropriate name for him) Northrup, and the prosecuting Chief Assistant District Attorney John Hubbard, who is also up to his ears in this case, is now the DA in his boss's former place.
and despite two lawsuits of two look-alike women who he assaulted, see also here,
is employed as a valuable police officer some place else now.
- pretend to create various "public bodies" (where the public is not allowed to directly participate), various "Commissions" on conduct of public officials:
- The useless Judicial Conduct Commission;
- The killed-by-its-father Moreland Commission - disbanded by New York Governor Cuomo when it started to investigate Cuomo and his buddies (the "fighter for human rights" Preet Bharara refused to prosecute him claiming everything is hunky-dory, and this presidential candidate did not commit any crimes in killing an ethics commission because it was reviewing his own ethics;
- The stillborn Prosecutorial Conduct Commission modeled on the useless Judicial Conduct Commission, see the series of my articles about it and the lawsuit interlinked in those articles, where prosecutors, among other things, are very worried about whether the Commission will upset their reputation with the public (a path to the ultimate goal, judgeships);
- The just-suggested Commission for Public Ethics, also to be modeled on the useless Judicial Conduct Commission.
At the same time, the government:
- made those proceedings, and the records of those proceedings, secret from the public;
- blocked the public from directly participating in these proceedings as a jury or grand jury, even when the issue is criminal behavior of public officials;
- populated those "public bodies" with public officials having irreconcilable conflicts of interest in investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating those cases, where, as in Judicial Conduct Commission, the overwhelming majority of the Commission is either judges or people whose livelihood depends on judges, attorneys;
- gave such Commissions insufficient budgets to investigate every complaint, so that they can explain away non-investigation of the absolute majority of complaints by lack of funds;
- blocked the public from having a right to appeal dismissals of meritorious complaints without investigation;
- invented immunities for government officials from civil lawsuits; and
- put criminal prosecution of such government officials into the hands of people whose livelihood and career depends on NOT filing those criminal charges, judicially licensed criminal prosecutors whose case often rests on suborning perjury from the police and on the judge (most often a former prosecutor) turning a blind eye to that misconduct.
- The person is first very publicly charged with a heinous crime;
- Information about it is immediately spread - by the government, by those same police officers who treasure their reputation and protect evidence of their misconduct by lobbied unconstitutional laws and clan connections - on the Internet, in a police press-conference then quoted by people as irrefutable evidence of the accused's guilt (over 70+ leads, imagine, the police excluded accidental causes for the fire, they found a can of fire accelerant - with Terrence Truitt's name on it?);
- The lynch mob is immediately in power demanding on the Internet that the accused must be slowly burnt, because the family of a person who died under suspicious circumstances wants somebody's, anybody's (preferably, a colored man's) blood as a part of their grieving process - and those who remind the public of his presumption of innocence should be tarred and feathered.
And the public's "right to know" will be satisfied all right during and after that trial, not before?
- police misconduct;
- prosecutorial misconduct;
- judicial misconduct
As to the interesting timeline of events not included into police press-release on the Terrence Truitt's case, but that may be relevant to the case, my next article.
When people are corrupt and drunk with power, they do not hide their ends very well.
So, as to the interesting ends in People v Terrence Truitt that the local media is afraid to cover -