On continued judicial retaliation for blogging and a new account of the old, pre-judgship, shenanigans of Judges Brian D. Burns and John F. Lambert of Otsego County, New York. Part I.

 I wrote a lot on this blog and in my book published in 2018, about intolerable behavior of Otsego County judges Brian Burns and John Lambert.

As to judge Burns, his stark retaliation against a mentally ill 16-year old because his father dared to ask the judge for leniency in a letter and then dared to demonstrate in front of the judge's home and created a website, "The Otsego County Hall of Shame", was and still is all over the Internet.

Not only I, but, as I have recently discovered, Detroit Legal News has written about the peculiar way in which Judge Burns was given an absolute JUDICIAL immunity when he was sued by the child's father for organizing a POLICE RAID upon the father's home in order to seize the father's computers to eliminate the father's blogging and website from the servers, and for being a false WITNESS, not judge, in the criminal proceedings against the father

I was more blunt, found out that judge Burns fired his statutory attorney in the lawsuit, the New York State Attorney General, and hired a law partner of the presiding judge, who had continued close ties with the judge, publicized socialized meetings with drinking, exchange of personnel etc.  - and then stated that the case was not "one of a kind", but simply fixed.

The federal court, made extremely friendly to judge Burns' plight as the raider of the critic's house and the false witness against the critic in a criminal proceeding, did the impossible, stretched the already unconstitutional concept of absolute judicial immunity to its breaking point, giving it where judge burns did not exercises any judicial function whatsoever, being simply a witness in a criminal case.

The case with my criticism of judge Burns created a problem though.  

All of my blogs about judge Burns were posted out of South Carolina where I went to live in June of 2015 - now an adjudicated fact, through a court case my husband and I recently won in Delaware County Supreme Court (a dispute with an alleged neighbor over an old fence).

So, judge Burns could not simply abuse his power - once again - and order Oneonta City Police to go and raid my house in Georgetown, South Carolina, seizing my computers, as he did to Anthony Pacherille, Sr. back in 2011.

Another course of action remained possible though - to retaliate against me through people I love, through family and close friends remaining in the area.

Judge Burns - and judge Lambert, about whom I blogged, too, but who did not, yet, organize police raids on critics' homes - teamed up and ruled, in legally impossible ways, in two of my close friend's cases, using the fact that she was pro se.

Moreover, the two judges also teamed up and ruled against my family member, including the use of their discretion.

Had the family member in question even known about my ongoing criticism of the judges through this blog, and about judge Burns history of abuse of his position for purposes of retaliation against his critics, it was still impossible to claim bias or appearance of bias against these judges at the time they ruled against the family member.

All Burns and Lambert would have done at that time is deny any motion to recuse by saying that they "analyzed their conscience", the ridiculous standard New York court allow judges to use to reject motions to recuse them, and found themselves to be impartial, because blogs do not mean anything to them, and I am a nobody without a law license who does not live in New York or practice law there for 10 years.

Yet, in August of 2023 and February of 2024 Burns and Lambert, I really don't want to call them judges, they do not deserve that position, took a chance to savor their little dirty trick of retaliation against me through my friend and family member, to rub it in that I must understand why they ruled the way they did against them - my blog. 

In a lawsuit against my husband and I as absentee landowners, over an old fence (claimed "obstruction of an easement") on our property in Delhi, NY, both lawsuits since dismissed by an out of the area judge, twice, first on constitutional grounds, second time, when refiled - forever, on the merits, both Burns and Lambert were assigned, one after another, and both of them recused.

Now, my husband was practicing law in the State of New York for 37 years, and I was practicing law for 6 years, before the local clique took our law licenses because of our expanding law business - one daughter got a law degree in 2001, wife got a law degree in 2008, another daughter was in law school at the time of his disbarment, and two more bright and capable younger children could be put through college and law school and added to the business.  The local clique could not tolerate the possibility that a familial law firm of four ready or nearly ready very capable lawyers, and especially of six lawyers in the future would start to dominate the local landscape, so both my husband and I were eliminated under false pretenses.

Nevertheless, neither my husband, I consulted with him on this issue, nor I have ever seen from any judge recusing from any of our cases, whether it was about us as parties or attorneys for clients - and there were many recusals - we never, never saw that any judge would provide any written explanation for the recusal.

Judiciary Law 9 requiring such an explanation exists for a long time, but it contains an exception allowing judges not to disclose when recusing information that may be deemed "embarrassing" for judges or third parties.

Now, you need to realize that an "easement dispute", in our case, as it turned out, a claim that we put a fence on our property allegedly blocking an alleged right of way - where all of the claims were ultimately determined by the court to be untrue and the case dismissed - is not only not a political case on a sensitive subject.  It is also a case in an area of real property, which is heavily regulated by statute, heavily litigated, and a zillion of cases exist for judicial guidance.

It is practically impossible for a judge to exercise any "discretion" in such a case, he is bound to decide based on a statute or court precedent or both.

So, especially that we were out of the system and the state for over 10 years, there was nothing Burns and Lambert could plausibly lack impartiality over.  They simply had to apply clear statutory and precedential law to the clear facts about what was located on real property in full view of the entire local community within 2-minutes walk from the courthouse.

Yet, Burns and Lambert did recuse, and, for the first time in our lives my husband and I saw a written explanation of judges, four of them, as to why they recused.

Here are those explanations, I will post them through direct links to NYSCEF documents, actual recusals e-filed by both Burns and Lambert in our court cases.

Recusal by Burns in August of 2023, click the link and the document will pop up from the court e-filing system NYSCEF;

By Burns in February of 2024;

By Lambert in August of 2023;

By Lambert in February of 2024.

First, note that a Judiciary Law 9 form for recusal of judges EXISTS in the State of New York.  Never in my lifetime as a lawyer of party in litigation did I see anything like that - nor did my husband, on his confirmation to me.

Second, look at the number of items to be checked.

The interesting point is that some of the items to be checked are taken directly from Judiciary Law 14, a MANDATORY judicial DISQUALIFICATION statute (not recusal), but nevertheless it is stated in bold font below that the form is only a "suggestion", and that the judge may make a disclosure in any other form, or not to make it at all.

Note also that the form COMPLETELY LACKS any items concerning APPEARANCES of bias - even though a constitutionally intolerable appearance of bias requires disqualification based on both State and Federal court precedent.

Note that neither of the judges checked boxes about recusal for actual bias.  They both simply lied, twice, by not checking that box, that they do not have actual bias against me and my husband.

Now let's go to the actual declared reason why both Burns and Lambert recused, twice.  Their 2023 and 2024 recusals are identical, so I will post just one scan per each judge.

Burns:

Lambert:

Burns claimed, twice, that one of the defendants, my husband or myself, allegedly sued the judge.

That did not prevent Carl F. Becker, after I sued him twice, from sanctioning me 3 times, after which my law license was taken based on those sanctions, and the federal court refused to review the merits of my retaliation claim, even on declaratory relief grounds, and even mocked me, my husband, and my client for asking.

Now, my husband has disclosed to me that he has never sued Burns in his life, as an attorney, party, judge or anything else.

I, on the opposite, did sue Burns on behalf of two clients, but only once in 2013, 10 and 11 years, respectively, before his recusals on the ground of the lawsuit.

It is interesting to mention that the name of Burns was scrubbed off Pacemonitor's listing of the case, Gray v Stoop, so I am publishing the complete text of the initial lawsuit, with an e-filing stamp of the court on top of every page, listing Burns' name as a a defendant, in his official capacity only.

By the way, Burns lied on the form that he believed that the lawsuit creates a conflict of interest for him in 2023 or 2024.

That same lawsuit did not prevent Burns from  presiding over my motion to vacate Becker's sanction on constitutional grounds, new law, and deny me the motion, specifically because, as he explained, he did not want to upend appellate divisions' rulings based upon the unconstitutional sanctions - a perverted logic for a judge, but at least an open explanation.

Consider - it was important for Burns in 2017 to block me from restoring my law license on constitutional grounds, and then defend in court, as an attorney, my family and friends.

It is no longer important for Burns to preside over a puny fence dispute in 2023, 2024, but it is important for Burns to rub it in to me, personally, and to the public who can verify through court records who did and who did not sue the judge, and when, that I was the reason of Judge Burns' recusal, based on a 2013 lawsuit.

Burns did this trick clearly understanding that his 2017 decision posted here is from Family Court, was not appealed and thus is not available for review of the general public, so he can continue to grandstand in 2023 and 2024 that his lofty and honorable self could not bear presiding over a fence dispute in 2023 and 2024 because I, in my then-capacity as a civil rights attorney, on behalf of two clients, has sued him in 2013 in federal court, in his official capacity, challenging constitutionality of certain portions of child neglect statute because Burns was presiding over a child neglect case and was the required defendant in the case as a matter of law.

The disclosure of Lambert is even more interesting.

Lambert complained VAGUELY that ONE OF the defendants in the fence dispute, my husband or me, "expressed animosity toward [Lambert's] law clerk".

Here, the vagueness again, just like in Burns' disclosure - and I do not need to be a fly on the wall to figure that Burns and Lambert co-ordinated their disclosures.  They are buddies since at least 1999 when Lambert joined the Otsego County DA's office where Burns was toiling at the time, and have been working in the same building ever since, seeing one another every day.  

My husband and I were away from the area for 10 years, and the fence dispute was the first time when Burns and Lambert could rub in their revenge to us directly.  Burns and Lambert were clearly united by a common purpose of revenge, and their fake disclosures was clearly deliberately calculated and followed the pattern of "tell me about Tatiana Neroni without telling me about Tatiana Neroni" vagueness.

Why?

Because, upon disclosure of my husband, and upon reviewing official public records, Judge Lambert became a judge in January 2011, thus gaining a law clerk.

My husband was politically and falsely disbarred on July 7, 2011, see Affidavit of one of the fake "plaintiffs" in his case David Mokay, provided to us after 

the son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem orchestrated a crippling monetary judgment consisting entirely of fake attorney fees for a fake client 

(an attorney involved in SUCH misconduct, claiming a fake client, may not charge any attorney fees, so the entire judgment is fake and void), 

and a fake disbarment against my husband on the basis of a fake lawsuit on behalf of a fake client,

ousting my not-son-of-a-judge "blue collar" Cherokee Italian American attorney husband out of the law practice as Harlem's "too" successful competitor and preventing him from building a familial mammoth law firm that would have taken all clients from Harlem.

Lambert was a judge for just six months when my husband was still an attorney.  Over these six months, my husband, upon disclosure to me, did not criticize Lambert's permanent law clerk Mark Oursler in any way, not then, not since then, ever.

Moreover, criticism of a law clerk, even if it happened in 2011 by my husband, even theoretically, was too attenuated reason to recuse in 2013 and 2014 over a fence dispute.

What actually happened that it is, again, a way of Lambert getting at me and saying to me that he is recusing because of my criticism of LAMBERT HIMSELF, not only his law clerk Mark Oursler, in my blog, because I only ever criticized them, there, apart of my 2013 lawsuit against Lambert, same as in Burn's case, in my capacity as an attorney agaisnt Lambert in his official capacity, on behalf of two clients, Weaver v Lambert in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Now, there is a lot to say about the details of Burns' and Lambert's carefully crafted retaliation for my criticism about them in this blog, that Burns and Lambert achieved by unlawfully abusing their judicial power and punishing my close friend and her family, and my family member.

I also found more about the Pacherille story, including the hilarious law review article out of Detroit, of all places, about Burn's corrupt prank of getting a "one of a kind" (translation: fixed) ruling of the federal court that he was somehow entitled to an absolute JUDICIAL immunity for being a fake witness in a criminal case dismissed against Burns' critic, another blogger, on 1st Amendment grounds.

That article, combined with the Court of Appeals dissent in the Pacherille case and with a couple of other pieces that I have overlooked at the time of my initial blogging about the Pacherille story and Burns' involvement in it, shed a completely new and additional gruesome light upon the corrupt and dishonest predator on the bench that Burns is, and the monster that the New York State judicial system has allowed him to become - same as Lambert - by imposing no discipline upon him whatsoever, while being in full knowledge of his chenanigans and condoning them.

Stay tuned for more, believe me, it will be hilariously interesting.

AND - my home and computer is safe from raids by police sent by Brian Burns, me being in another state nearly 900 miles away from the little fat angry dishonest corrupt god.

So - I can and will write whatever I consider necessary to expose corruption and misconduct of judges around the country, including those idiots who my husband and I know personally - and my husband knows all of their little stories since they started practicing law.

After all, Burns was admitted to the bar in 1992 when my husband was already practicing 18 years.

And, Lambert was admitted to the bar in 1999, when my husband was already practicing 25 years.

And, my husband was silent about those little stories that he knows about both judges, those stories that I never knew existed, from times when my husband of 26 years and I did not even meet yet.

My husband was kind to these two younger idiots, never exposing their misconduct publicly.

That is going to change.

When Burns and Lambert crossed the line by hurting our close family member with their retaliation for my blogging, they crossed the line and all bets are off.  My husband told me many, many, many little stories of Burns and Lambert, and they will be made public here.

Possibly, in videotaped accounts of my husband, so there is no mistake as to personal knowledge of the person reporting it.

So, stay tuned for a hilarious ride.

Topics of upcoming blog article series on issues of public concern, stay tuned

The topic of this blog is court (and, generally, government) corruption and accountability and attorney independence, especially in representation of the poor.

Recently there was a flood of issues that have come to my attention on these topics that, in my view, are not adequately covered by the media or the watchdogs of the judiciary, so I will have to resume my blogging a little more actively.

I am about to start several series of blog articles on issues of very important public concern, based on brand new evidence, and my readers know that I do diligent research of documents in public access before I make an accusation of corruption or other misconduct of a public official.

So far, even though my blogs have caused several recusals of judges, none of the judges subjected to criticism on this blog ( or anybody else) dared to sue me for defamation, for obvious reasons - truth is an absolute defense, and discovery in such a case is a b*tch that may expose a judge to very, very interesting revelations for the public that may end the judge's career both as a judge and as a lawyer and put the judge behind bars.

The issues I am going to discuss are as listed below.

1.  Did New York criminally collude with the predatory credit card industry in introduction of its Consumer Credit (Un)Fairness Act and how the predatory features of this law are playing out AGAINST the indigent (poor) consumers in court.

2. Is New York's informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to the listed licensed attorneys' presumption of competence?

3. Is the New York State informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to whether the listed licensed attorneys' and the law firms where they practice law have actual legal authority to practice law in the state of New York?  Believe me, documents you will see illustrating this series of articles are hilarious.

I have bumped into this problem by accident, and I do not have resources or time to assess the scope of the problem in New York State court system, but, since courts are apparently not checking whether attorneys and law firms practicing in front of them are actually authorized by New York State law or not to practice, the problem may be very, very widespread.

I will describe in my article series how did I find out the problem, giving people an opportunity to at least look in certain places for certain signs of such, possibly massive, fraud being committed in the New York judicial system on multiple clients and opponents with impunity and without anybody looking into the problem.

I will also describe how judges in the State of New York, while having a death grip on the monopoly to control lawyers (for the judges' own benefit), are in complete dereliction of duties to control whether lawyers appearing in front of them are competent, diligent, honest or even HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW in the State of New York, yes, yes, yes, that, too, I have recent documentary evidence.

4.  The interesting conclusions one may draw from NYS AG Letitia James' bold assertion in a federal appellate court that the main purpose of attorney regulation in New York (repeated 10 times, I counted, in her appellant's brief) is MIND CONTROL by the government of those same attorneys (and of the public through those attorneys as representatives of members of the public in court.

That Letitia James was RE-ELECTED AFTER making that bold assertion shows that in New York State you may elect a mindless blurb of fat with a Democratic Party card to be Attorney General (or to any other public office).  So much attention people pay to the background of the candidates for public office they vote for.

On May 29, 2024, in two weeks, Letitia James (or her subordinates) will be making an oral argument in the 2nd Circuit in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, defending this bold policy, don't miss it if livestream is going to be available.

Btw, I have been licensed in New York, my husband has been licensed, too, I have polled several other attorneys licensed in the State of New York - and none of us people who have ever been licensed in New York knew what Letitia James  argued to the federal appellate court: that for over 100 years the main purpose of the government in the State of New York was MIND CONTROL of the lawyers by the government.

Believe me, documentary evidence I am going to put into this article series will be equally hilarious.

5.  As hilarious will be the coverage of the topic as to how the 2nd Circuit was trying to jam my pro se amicus curiae listing my research on the very topic of Letitia James' appeal made for a number of years - while this particular topic, constitutionality of attorney regulation in New York, is taboo in the mainstream academia for fear of losing their law licenses.

I have already lost mine, for criticism of a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker of Delaware County, NY (who was quietly taken off the bench, but I was still suspended, likely, because of articles in this blog criticizing other judges, such as the currently sitting corrupt judges John F. Lambert and Brian D. Burns), so I am free-free-free to discuss any topic in my legal scholarship or on this blog.

Moreover, since Letitia James has announced that the main purpose of New York State government (actually, I have raised this constitutional issue in my disciplinary proceedings) is mind control of lawyers, and I was suspended because I refused to submit to that mind control, I can just as well wear that suspension as a badge of honor.

The reason the 2nd Circuit has taken my amicus curiae brief off the publicly accessibly docket (while keeping me on the list of notified parties - since I have made a motion to vacate the deliriously stupid decision requiring me to undo my suspension and get admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar before I can file PRO SE amicus curiae briefs) is because it shows, in very simply legal terms, and based on mandatory US Supreme Court precedent that what New York is doing with attorney regulation is even less criminal that what the 2nd Circuit itself is doing with attorney regulation, and how disastrous that regulation is for the public.

6. Last, but certainly not least, will be my series of blog articles on Letitia James/Democrats' "Marie Antoinette" solution for the poor ("let them eat cake") in terms of lack of access to legal services when opposing the predatory actions of the fraudulent out of control credit card industry empowered by fraudulent out of control LICENSED attorneys - that generously donate to this fat rich woman's election campaigns, so she can only care to spend taxpayer money on her political agenda, while Rome is burning.

The whole point in the upcoming oral argument by Letitia James - who has spent so far, I am sure, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on litigating this issue - is whether New York has a public interest in FORBIDDING THE POOR AND THE ILLITERATE (INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS) TO HAVE HELP IN CHECKING BOXES IN A ONE-PAGE COURT FORM, choosing potential affirmative defenses against credit card lawsuits in order to avoid default.

That's it!

That's what Letitia James, a fat rich entitled "Democratic" government official, is fighting over - that the poor are, in her view "BETTER OFF" WITHOUT ANY HELP than allowing Upsolve, Inc. volunteers, for free, help poor people voluntarily engaging such help to check those boxes.

In other words, and that is a yet another issue I have repeatedly raised both in my legal scholarship articles on Academia.edu, and in this blog - what RIGHT does the government have to control the right of COMPETENT ADULTS, CONSUMERS, to choose who represent them in court or who consults them on issues of PUBLIC LAW, for free or for a fee?

7. I will have a coverage of the so-called e-filing system in New York courts (NYSCEF) and my experience in using it recently (and currently) as a pro se party in a civil court case (easement dispute, but that does not matter, NYSCEF features apply equally to all civil cases).

I will cover the advantages and disadvantages of using the system as a pro se (representing yourself) litigant, based on real-life examples and documentary evidence, covering various aspects of civil litigation in New York courts through e-filing and virtual court hearings, and New York State Court Administration's failure to make available to litigants easily available technical means of presenting best evidence to the court and to effectively conduct litigation during hearings.

If you are interested in these topics, stay tuned, I will start rolling out these articles within several days.

Andrew Van Buren, the cowardly, dishonest, alcohol-loving and DESPERATELY GREEDY "breath of fresh air" in Delaware County (NY) judicial elections

In April 2022 a new judicial candidate has announced of his run for the seat of Delaware County (NY) County/Family/Surrogate's court judge, a position that pays $210,000 a year.

Andrew Van Buren.

I have explained in my earlier articles on this blog why you won't hear from currently practicing attorneys anything negative about this judicial candidate.

So, I will oblige - because, after seeing this ridiculously dishonest piece of self-advertising by Andrew Van Buren in The Walton Reporter,

I cannot and will not remain silent.  Voters have a right to know who and what this candidate is.

I know this candidate since 1999, I know him through social settings (he used my husband as his mentor until he switched to become Judge Carl F. Becker's messenger boy), I worked with him on the same cases as an attorney, and I know him as a dishonest and mean drunk who has no place on the bench.

Delaware County has known enough dishonest judges and enough dishonest mean drunks on the bench without Van Buren be added to this cohort.

It is true that Van Buren - same as the other candidate, John Hubbard - has an extensive litigation experience, and has his share of cases that he won, like any lawyer does.

But, a County Court judge in Delaware County is a multibench judge, and his main caseload will be in Family Court where he will rule as a sole fact-finder, without a jury, determining the fate of people's custody to children and in cases where people's custody of children, employment and a vast range of other rights are implicated, child abuse and neglect proceedings.

A Family Court judge has a tremendous power, and must be even-tempered, and not prone to petty vengeance.  That is not who Andrew Van Buren is.

1.  The coward who sells friends for money

"A breath of fresh air" is a phrase Andrew Van Buren likes to use.

He used it characterizing me once, in an interesting setting.

He lived in my husband's home while going to law school.

My husband helped his family member a lot.

My husband was mentoring Van Buren and teaching him trial skills.  Van Buren was calling my husband frequently for - free - consultations, which were always given, just to set a background of relationships with our family.

Van Buren recommended me to the licensing authorities to be admitted for the practice of law.

Then my practice of law started.

I was in the courtroom of Judge Carl F. Becker, it was sometime in 2009.

I was representing a client in a child neglect case.  I have made a motion to recuse Becker from presiding over the case as an attorney who represented the Petitioner for 27 years and will rely on his personal out-of-court knowledge and not the evidence presented, in assessing credibility of his personal friends.

Becker denied the motion, I continued to make objections in court.

Becker told me "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni". 

I stood up and objected against Becker treating me in such a manner and moved to recuse for actual bias against me that will reflect on my client.

Andrew Van Buren was one of attorneys present in these proceedings.

He remained silent, looking into his desk, head down.

After court, he caught up with me outside of the courthouse and told me that 

• I am "a breath of fresh air", supposedly much needed for the County, and that, 
• as to my motion to recuse Becker as having represented the local DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench, "everybody knows it, but nobody says it".

To that, Van Buren added - but, "don't burn your bridges, Tanya".

I did not realize at that time that it was a threat, and a threat communicated from Becker.  I still considered Van Buren at that time not just a colleague, but a family friend.

Little did I know that Andrew Van Buren, to survive financially and get assignments in Family Court, has become a messenger boy for that same Judge Carl F. Becker.

In 2011, Andrew Van Buren came to the house of his mentor of many years, my husband, bringing to him a personal threat of criminal prosecution from Judge Becker, a completely bogus threat.  I was present when he voiced that threat to my husband - "if you don't do this and that, I will have you criminally prosecuted."

Note that Becker was not a county DA at that time.  Northrup (Becker's friend) was.  So Becker could not possibly "have" anybody criminally prosecuted, unless his friend Northrup would go along with his request for fabrication.

Note that in 2009, after I have made that motion to recuse Becker, Becker used his other corrupt friend, DSS Commissioner Moon, to fabricate a child neglect case against my husband and myself, trying to hurt our young child and us, prosecuted by a yet another Becker's friend, Porter Kirkwood, who also ran for the judicial position with Becker's endorsement.

So, Becker by that time has ALREADY fabricated a case with the help of another friend, a child neglect case, against us (which may have resulted also in criminal charges had it played out as Becker wanted it to).

We won it - after over a year in litigation.

Even the child's assigned counsel (out of Binghamton) told us that it was "small town politics", and supported us in fighting it.

DSS/Moon has fired a young attorney who rebelled against this fabrication as a political case, later settled and had that attorney move away across the state.

Note that BEFORE that threat, I have asked the current judicial candidate and then Chief ADA John Hubbard to criminally prosecute Becker for being an impostor and not a judge and for forging documents relating to his election in March of 2011.

Hubbard did not tell me that he was Becker's prior law partner who bought Becker's law practice and law office and was put into the ADA position by Becker, but refused to prosecute him.

Note that in May of 2011, Hubbard, instead, threatened my husband "not to burn bridges" (exactly as Van Buren threatened me in 2009, before Becker fabricated a child neglect case against us with his friend Moon).

That was when my husband filed an assigned appeal in People v Carbone, raising the issue of corruption of Becker and Northrup (having a blind man sign, without knowing, a waiver of civil rights litigation against Becker and Northrup for extrajudicial confiscation of his money and car).  My husband did not take that appeal back and was disbarred, based on bogus claims.

Note that at the end of June, 2011, I have SUED Becker in state court on behalf of a 3rd party, my husband and myself.

Andrew Van Buren knew all of that.  Because we told him this information, as a longtime family friend.

I wonder how much of it Van Buren communicated directly to Becker, in exchange for assignments in family and criminal court.

And, knowing all of that, he came into his mentor's home in July of 2011 bearing a threat from Becker that Becker will fabricate a criminal charge against my husband.  Van Buren told us directly that it was Becker's request he was carrying out.

He did not tell the judge that he will not be serving as his messenger boy.

He did not tell the judge that it is illegal to threaten a person who just sued you and whose wife just asked to criminally prosecute you as an impostor, with a yet another fabrication - after Moon's fabrication failed.

He did not tell the judge to bring his threats that had nothing to do with his judicial duties - on his own.

He caved in and worked as a messenger boy for the corrupt judge.

As a contemptible coward that he is.

Because this was his Judas price to get assignments from Becker, at $75 an hour, in criminal and Family Court cases.

But that was not all.

2. Deliberate deception of voters

The next year, in 2012, when Becker ran for re-election, Van Buren, knowing full well, who and what Becker is, wrote THIS:

Knowing that Becker - VICIOUSLY - avenges criticism of his misconduct, Van Buren preferred to DECEIVE Delaware County voters by falsely praising a judge he knew was a criminal.

"In my experience, Judge Becker gives attorneys and litigants, alike, an opportunity to be heard (even when the time for doing so is limited).  His decisions are fair, well-reasoned, and thoroughly researched.  His sentencing decisions reflect the interests of the community and also a measure of compassion for criminal defendants".

Van Buren said that, knowing that Becker was a mean petty drunk who was the most reversed judge, probably, in the Delaware County's history, here is the list of just some of his reversals.

Van Buren knew that Becker shut down attorneys' objections and did not let them make their arguments in court.

He knew that Becker DID NOT research his cases - that's why he was the most-reversed judge.

He knew that Becker's sentencing decisions served the career and financial interests of his own and of his friends Northrup, Moon and (then-County Attorney) Spinney, and nobody else's.

Yet, Van Buren knew that he will not be disciplined for FALSE PRAISE - only for criticism of a judge, no matter how fair.

And - HE LIED TO VOTERS, lied with authority, based on his years of experience appearing in front of Becker.

So, Van Buren IS the one who arranged, through his DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF VOTERS, for saddling the County residents with another term of 10 years of Becker's tyranny (good that the "fair and reasonable" Becker ran from the office in 2015 chased by the FBI, the New York State Commission for judicial conduct and the State Comptroller's office).

3. Disorderly conduct arrest

Van Buren's unruly behavior was reported back in 2002 when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and littering in front of his client's house.

4.  Dishonesty with clients, attorneys and courts and GREED, GREED, GREED again

Greed Case # 1.  Extorting attorney fees from a cancer patient and victim of his client's stone theft

Sometime in the early 2000s, when I have just got married to a Delaware County resident, attorney Frederick J. Neroni, and came to live there, my husband had an interesting case against Andrew Van Buren's client.

The case was well publicized at that time, and I am sure many people who lived in the area at the time would remember it.

A woman (my husband's client) was diagnosed with cancer and came to live in our area, charmed by its peace and tranquility.

Well, Andrew Van Buren's client interfered with that piece and tranquility by starting to steal stones from a historical stone wall on her property.

What was even more atrocious was that Andrew Van Buren moved for a summary judgment against my husband's client, asking the court to award his client's (thief's) attorney fees owed to Van Buren - against the victim of the theft, the property owner and a cancer patient who his client robbed.

I do remember that the presiding judge, I believe, it was Michael V. Coccoma, was so upset about what Van Buren did that he

1/ granted to my husband's client a REVERSE summary judgment ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, when my husband was not even asking for it; and

2/ banned Andrew Van Buren from his courtroom.

I remember how Andrew Van Buren called my husband and left a drunk insulting message on our answering machine about it.

The only reason he did what he did was GREED, he wanted his fee no matter what and no matter who he was going to squeeze that fee from.

Greed Case # 2.   Desperately trying to get paid for representing opponent of Van Buren's own former client in the same case

Children custody trials are emotional, drawn-out, involve a lot of detailed evidence and a lot of witnesses, and courts usually give plenty of time to prepare for such trials - because of all the above.

Imagine the situation.

I have a custody trial for a client scheduled for the next day.

Suddenly I receive a call from Andrew Van Buren telling me that he represents the opponent in that case now.

That was NOT how the law requires attorneys to get substituted.

There was an attorney of record in that case (attorney Zilbert, as far as I remember), substitution of attorneys must be done - by law - through a NOTARIZED consent to change attorneys, which Andrew Van Buren DID NOT obtain from the opposing party and DID NOT file with the court.

Quite recently before that Judge Burns (presiding judge in the custody case) chastised in court attorney Renee Albaugh for claiming to be attorney of record in a divorce case and making motions in that case, while failing to file a proper substitution of attorneys and, thus, not being attorney of record.

So, Andrew Van Buren was NOT an attorney of record in the case at the time he claimed he was representing my client's opponent.

Anyway, I call my client and I notify him that a claim is made that Andrew Van Buren will be representing his opponent at the tomorrow's trial - and he calls me back immediately, quite upset, telling me that Andrew Van Buren was HIS attorney in the SAME case (custody cases take a long time, sometimes years).

I do believe it was greed - Andrew Van Buren charges an arm and a leg for representation at trials, and he needed money, so he pretended that he "forgot" that he is opposing his own former client in the same case where he represented him on the same issue.

Van Buren dishonestly took the case out of greed, hoping that it will slide through, and nobody will remember.

Well, his client did remember, and objected, and I wrote to Andrew Van Buren on my client's behalf.

Here is our e-mail exchange (I've blacked out the names of clients).  

The year was 2013 - after Andrew Van Buren has shown us his true colors as the corrupt Judge Becker's racketeer messenger boy.

What was wrong with Andrew Van Buren asking for an adjournment?

Everything was wrong about it.

First of all, he was not yet an attorney of record in the case - never was, and can't ask the court for anything.

Second, he cannot be an attorney of record for the opponent since he represented my client in the same case before, and can't ask the court for anything that is against my client's best interests.

As I said above, there was plenty of time given by the court for trial preparation, there was PLENTY of work done by me preparing for the trial, work that was already billed, per hour, to my client, and my client very reasonably objected to any adjournment at the 11th hour, especially for the bogus reason that his opponent fired previous attorney and hired HIS OWN INITIAL ATTORNEY, and then, after his attorney's conflict of interest was revealed, claimed an adjournment that she was not otherwise entitled to.

A good trick, wasn't it?

Here is what I wrote to Van Buren on the subject:

And that is when Andrew Van Buren EXPLODED - consider THAT piece for an assessment of this judicial candidate's "judicial temperament":

He was obviously afraid that I will sue him on behalf of his client - which his client had an obvious right to do, and it would not have been a "malicious way to practice law", but his former client's right.

Note that all I asked was for Van Buren to just step aside COMPLETELY and not ask the judge for ANYTHING on behalf of his new client (opponent of his former client in the same litigation), because THAT REQUEST WAS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL - twice, coming from an attorney who was not an official attorney of record, and coming from an attorney who was opposing his own former client.  

Note that I did not threaten Van Buren with any referrals, complaints or lawsuits.

I simply asked him to not ask the judge for any adjournments, since he had no right to represent his own client's opponent in the first place, for any reason.

Note that Van Buren tries to pretend that he cares a lot about Judge Burns "coming from Cooperstown" to preside over the case, only to "have to adjourn it".  

Know what?  He didn't have to adjourn anything, since Van Buren was instantly replaced by another attorney, and the trial did happen.

But, Van Buren just tried to have the case adjourned on false pretenses - possibly, trying to keep a part of the (likely giant) fee that he unlawfully charged his client.

How is that about honesty and temperament of a judicial candidates, dear voters?

And here is what Andrew Van Buren told me when I called him out on his tantrum.

See?

He "always" apologizes "when it is warranted". 

Once again, the summary of the story.

A certain client FIRED Andrew Van Buren and, after other previous attorneys, hired me.

I prepared for trial for my client.

Andrew Van, angry at his client for firing him, designed a costly revenge for his client.

Van Buren allowed his client's opponent to hire him, charged her a trial fee (not less than $10,000, and that is a conservative estimate, as far as I know Van Buren's fees), and tried to derail his former client's trial.

When caught red-handed, he started to accuse the attorney who simply asked him not to act against his own former client, of all kinds of - non-existing - mortal sins and refused to apologize, because I am not worth the apology.

GREED CASE #3 (and that's only what I know of, over a short period of time).  Cika v Kellner

A contractor did a remodeling job in a house.  The homeowner refused to pay.

I sued on behalf of the contractor.  Van Buren represented the homeowner.

Van Buren moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it is subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement.

I opposed the motion and won, so the case was retained by the court.

I filed discovery demands with Van Buren, he did not comply.

The judge (Lambert) called a discovery-pretrial-settlement conference.  My client did not want to settle, and especially when Van Buren's client did not comply with discovery demands.

Before the pre-trial conference, Van Buren told me that his client is not paying him (like he did not pay my client for his work).  At the conference Van Buren started to pressure me into settling the case on terms favorable to his client - and demanded that my client's must pay Van Buren's attorney fees for OPPOSING my client's lawsuit.

I refused.

Van Buren became verbally abusive.

I requested the court attorney (Oursler) handling the conference to put audio recording on (it was in the Grand Jury room where audio recording equipment was installed at that time).  Oursler refused.

Van Buren continued to berate me at the top of his lungs for not settling the case and accusing me and my client of non-existing misconduct.

At the end of the conference I was crying, shaking, my hands were trembling, and I went to a colleague to at least have a witness of my condition after the conference.

I DID turn Andrew Van Buren into attorney discipline for his behavior in this Greed #3 case. 

Being a diligent Becker's student and knowing that by that time Becker has fabricated a child neglect against us (we won a dismissal), a disciplinary case against my husband (he was disbarred) and a disciplinary case against me (still pending at the time), Van Buren decided to fabricate more - with Becker's help.

He complained against me that I FALSELY accused Van Buren of misconduct at the conference, that it was I, and not him, who derailed discovery in the case, and that I was "improperly" refused to settle (and, obviously, to agree that my client must pay Van Buren's attorney fees).

Van Buren claimed that Oursler (who refused to audiotape Van Buren's misconduct) will testify against me as to what was happening in the conference, and that Becker will also come to testify against me on Van Buren's behalf.

That was a year after Van Buren praised Becker during his election campaign to voters and 2 years after he parlayed Becker's threat of (fabricated) criminal prosecution to my husband.

Apparently, Van Buren revealed that he was in a very close friendly relationship with Judge Becker if Becker would agree to come testify on behalf of Van Buren against me.  So much for "I am not beholden to anyone".

In response to Van Buren's fabrication, I pointed out his misbehavior in the conflict of interest Greed #2 case, and THEN Andrew Van Buren LIED EVEN MORE, now to the court - the court never disbarred him for that though (I wonder, why, probably, Becker asked for him).

While Van Buren claimed to me - see e-mail exchange above - that, oops, my mistake, missed conflict of interest, to the Attorney Grievance Committee/Appellate Court Van Buren said something completely different.

He said that he has 

1/ an advance archiving system, PLUS a "court-approved" conflict-checking software!!!

Which only aggravated his misbehavior in the custody case.  The only thing he needed to do was, without stepping into representation of his client, to CHECK his "advanced and court-approved" conflict-checking software and archive to see whether there is a conflict of interest - and say "no" to the prospective client.

---

By the way, when Van Buren told me that "I am the breath of fresh air" (back in 2009) and berated Becker to me, possibly to get into my confidences ON BECKER's BEHALF, as his messenger boy, to get on the assignment list, at that point Van Buren told me that he actually has 11 disciplinary violations (not shown on his public record though, but that he acknowledged himself).

I wonder what those violations are for.

Here is some of my responses to Van Buren's fabrication after he nearly caused me a heart attack or a stroke trying to get money from my client instead of his own non-paying client (as he usually does - since the stone wall case).

I would like to point out one very important point.  Van Buren did not only try to (knowing that I was under severe stress, when my husband lost his law license due to Becker's and 2 other local sons-of-judges' fabrication, when Becker was after me with sanctions after I sued him for misconduct, when I carried a huge caseload, my husband's and my own, and supported a minor son, who we had to transfer to an out-of-state private school to save him from harassment of Becker's pocket social services department) rattle me to the point of a heart attack - simply to shake money out of my client because his own client did not pay his fees and, thus Van Buren did not want to do discovery or proceed to trial, not being paid.

Van Buren also falsely claimed to the disciplinary authorities that it was I, his victim, who falsely accused him, and he is ready to provide testimony for that of Judge Lambert's court attorney Oursler (never provided), the one who refused to audiotape Van Buren's tantrum, and ready to provide testimony in Van Buren's support of Judge Becker - who was not in that courtroom, but was obviously ready to testify against me no matter in what case.

Moreover, Van Buren tried to claim that it is I who was in need of a "psychological evaluation" - because I did not want to have my client pay for Van Buren's greed, obviously.

It would be a suicide act for Delaware County voters to give this vengeful, greedy and mean drunk who already tried to create fabrications and "diagnose" his opponents as psychos - authority to COURT-ORDER, under the threat of "contempt of court", jail time and fines, psychological evaluations.

He will do it to people out of pure personal revenge.

===

So, dear Delaware County voters.

I wrote a lot of things criticizing John Hubbard.  I think he is a very bad candidate for a judge, and I stand by my word.

I will post separate articles about John Hubbard's qualifications to become a judge.

Yet, one BIG negative factor John Hubbard definitely lacks, as compared to Van Buren.

GREED to instantly start getting the judicial salary of $210,000 per year.

Andrew Van Buren overcharges the private clients he happens to catch, so private clients are rare - so he resorts to trying to claim attorney fees against his client's opponents, like he did in the stone wall theft case, like he did in Cika v Kellner's case.

Or, he desperately tries to get hired even by his former client's opponents in the same case and hide it hoping that he won't be caught red-handed.

Van Buren otherwise subsists on assigned cases, which pay not much, and only at the end of the case, so he has no cash flow in between, which is bad, especially when you are raising growing children close to college age.

Van Buren's opponent in judicial elections, DA John Hubbard's salary at this time is $201,000.

So, at least one can say about Hubbard that a puny salary increase of 4% cannot be considered as motivated by greed - which is, quite obviously, Van Buren's case.

So.

Do you want a judge who is drunk, mean, vengeful and desperately greedy, with a history of outrageously unethical behavior dictated by greed?

Do you want a judge who would drive a woman to a blood pressure hike behind closed doors, arrange with his buddies not to preserve evidence and then claim that what happened behind those closed doors was exactly the opposite to what his victim claimed?

Just for greed?

Just for personal vengeance? 

Will you feel SAFE with such a judge behind closed doors?

• Respect for justice;
• committed to the concept of impartial justice;
• exudes respect and empathy for his fellow human beings;
• will hold all in his courtroom to the highest standards of ethics and the law;
• will make sure that our county court system works first and foremost for us, the people
• represents people, and represents a breath of fresh air.

These are all arrogant LIES.

 

Did I also mention that Van Buren is not only mean, and is not only dishonest, and greedy, and vengeful, but is a dishonest, greedy, mean and vengeful DRUNK? 

I have personally smelt alcohol on his breath, at a distance, in court, on many occasions, and I know Andrew Van Buren since 1999, and came to court regularly since that time accompanying my husband first, and then on my own, as an attorney.

Reportedly, he did not stop drinking since we left Delaware County in 2015.  If anything, his drinking has reportedly become worse.

My contacts in the County tell me they see Van Buren, increasingly unkempt, and with increasingly greater number of beer 12-packs.

He looks like a cow chewed him and then spat him out.

A big contrast with the unfailingly clean-cut John Hubbard.

Will you vote for an unethical, dishonest, petty, vengeful, mean drunk with a history disorderly fraudulent conduct who is a danger to women behind the closed doors of unrecorded court conferences - which he will be able to hold aplenty if he becomes a judge?

Would you want to find yourself on the receiving end of a forcible psychological evaluation each time you point out his - inevitable - misconduct?

And note - audio and video recordings are not allowed by court rules in the courthouse.

Van Buren knows it.

And he has a history of using it in his fabrications, and had, as an aid in his fabrications, Judge Becker, the notoriously corrupt judge.  While claiming now to voters that he is "independent", "for the people" and "not beholden to anybody".

As a judge, his fabrications will only become worse and have greater impact upon people.

Do you want such a judge?

Your call.