Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: On the murder conviction ## 1, 2, and 3 of Peter Wlasiuk in Chenango County Court - the stepping stone of Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's judicial election - were the indictments valid due to familial connections of DA McBride and his employees?

THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

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

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

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

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

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

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

On the murder conviction ## 1, 2, and 3 of Peter Wlasiuk in Chenango County Court - the stepping stone of Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's judicial election - were the indictments valid due to familial connections of DA McBride and his employees?

In 2002, my husband Frederick J. Neroni, then a criminal defense attorney, represented a criminal defendant, Peter Wlasiuk, in a murder case prosecuted by District Attorney Joseph A. McBride who is now a Supreme Court Justice in the Chenango County Supreme Court.

Wlasiuk was convicted then, conviction # 1. His conviction was then overturned by the 3rd Department because of misconduct of DA McBride who, among other things, were chastised by the 3rd Department for maligning defense counsel - my husband - depriving Wlasiuk of a fair trial. That reversal was in 2006.

DA McBride reindicted Wlasiuk for the 2nd time, tried and had him convicted again, conviction # 2. That conviction was, again, overturned by the 3rd Department in 2011 - now based on ineffective assistance of counsel (not my husband).

DA McBride did not rest easy with that second reversal. He sought and obtained, according to filings in federal court by Wlasiuk, a special permission from the 6th Judicial District's Chief Adminsitrative Judge Robert C. Mulvey for a 3rd indictment, had Wlasiuk indicted - and this time the conviction stuck and was not overturned in 2016 - despite glaring improprieties of DA McBride and his office.

What I am going to write about here - with documents I recently obtained from Pacer.gov - for some reason unknown to me did not receive so far any public scrutiny. I am rectifying it here.

There is a set jurisdictional rule in New York State Penal Law - the presence of an unauthorized or disqualified person in the grand jury room in violation of CPL 190.25(3) renders the proceeding jurisdictionally defective under CPL 210.35(5); dismissal of the indictment is required where the violation impairs the integrity of the proceeding and creates the possibility of prejudice, with certain categories (such as presence during deliberations or participation) treated as inherently impairing.

The dismissal is not automatic, but it may be raised at any time - since it goes to subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Based on what I recently learnt, DA McBride was disqualified from being in the grand jury in the Wlasiuk case, from being the legal advisor of that grand jury, and from prosecuting the case - three consecutive times, relentlessly.

There are two reasons for that:

(1) the first defense counsel in the case, Peter McBride, was DA McBride's close blood relative, brother (based on obituary) or uncle (based on some witness reports); moreover, Peter McBride had a charging lien on Wlasiuk's home for his legal services. It is after Wlasiuk fired Peter McBride and hired my husband for the first trial, that DA Joseph A. McBride was so upset for his blood relative's loss of an opportunity for improper further financial gain that he jeopadized the conviction by openly maligning my husband in open court - the stated reason for reversal by the 3rd Department.

(2) Stephen Dunshee, the 1st ADA for DA McBride, who was then Family Court Magistrate in Chenango County, and is likely retired at this time, judging by his attorney registration information:

was, according to filings of Wlasiuk in federal court, a blood relative of the victim at the time of trials - AND was, according to Wlasiuk's filings, attorney representing the victim's mother in civil proceedings against Wlasiuk seeking to take away his property and his children.

Moreover, during the 3rd murder trial, Stephen Dunshee, according to Wlasiuk's filings in federal court, was actively influencing DA McBride by coming into the courtroom and whispering into his ear.

The full Wlasiuk's petition for habeas corpus can be read here.

The amended petition with a full description of the conflict with Dunshee is available here, and I additionally publish the snapshots about involvement of Dunshee in the murder trial as stated by Wlasiuk in federal court here:

Of course, the petition was denied by NDNY federal court - because its granting would upset reputations and careers of McBride's, and Dunshee's, and the 3rd Department's judges, and the Court of Appeals' judges who turned a blind eye on this travesty.

Notably, the exhibits supporting Wlasiuk's petition in federal court - transcripts of PUBLIC trials - have been sealed, secret and unavailable for me to download on Pacer.gov:

Somehow the toothless local press pretended not to see this glaring conflict.

I hope that Dunshee and Joseph McBride get finally investigated and disbarred for this. Peter McBride is obviously beyond human discipline - but is before a higher court now.

Wlasiuk is continuing to be in prison.

Meanwhile, McBride, after having used this case, where his blood relative was the first defense counsel and where his the alleged victim's blood relative was his 1st ADA and influenced the 3rd trial - is enjoying all the privileges of a Supreme Court Justice without any discipline on record.

Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

On the murder conviction ## 1, 2, and 3 of Peter Wlasiuk in Chenango County Court - the stepping stone of Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's judicial election - were the indictments valid due to familial connections of DA McBride and his employees?

No comments:

Post a Comment