Judge Tormey is at it again - now he has put two of his direct subordinates on my disciplinary case. Will this judge and these attorneys be punished for fraud upon the court and disbarred?

I've written in this blog about the disciplinary prosecutors of the 3rd and now the 4th Department who are perpetrating fraud upon the court while attempting to "discipline" me.
 
I did not realize the depth of fraud, and incestous relationships with the judiciary of my so-called prosecutors who are supposed to be neutral and impartial to me.  Right.
 
The 4th Department Grievance Committee notified me just which of their subdivisions is prosecuting me only last Friday, while the case was transferred to them on June 11, 2014 (by an ex parte court order, and access to the application for such an order is denied to me until this day - I have filed a complaint  to the Judicial Conduct Commission against Appellate Division Third Department because of that and some other things).
 
I definitely did not have time to conduct a full investigation of all of their disqualifications, especially that I was sick this weekend and these two days, to the point that I had to move two court appearances.
 
Yet, tonight I started looking "who is who" in that particular grievance sub-committee - and was horrified to learn that two out of 16 attorney members of the prosecuting team are court employees of the Onondaga County court system and direct subordinates of Judge Tormey, while the 3rd Department Committee have snuck in the court order by Judge Tormey punishing me, among other things, for suing HIM and making a motion to recuse HIM and because I mentioned in my motion to recuse the lawsuit in which the Onondaga County Family Court clerk was embroiled.
 
If the 3rd Department felt it was disqualified for this case because I sued all of the judges and all of the attorneys and attorney members in that Department for potential misconduct and conflicts of interest, how come the 4th Department's Grievance Committee has selected for prosecuting me specifically the 5th Judicial District Grievance Committee, where most attorneys appear routinely in front of Judge Tormey and thus are interested in ruling against me in a way Judge Tormey would be pleased with, and two of these prosecutors are Judge Tormey's employees and subordinates who have a direct financial interest in the outcome of my prosecution - because if they do NOT prosecute me, no matter how fraudulent are the charges, the fate of Bobette Morin, demotion or termination from their jobs can await them, and they might not be as lucky or persistent as Attorney Morin in suing Judge Tormey.

By the way, Judge Tormey punished me for his own inability to read - because, without reading the record, he claimed there was only one case by a certain name, and I mentioned two, with two different index numbers, not that Judge Tormey cared - and he punished me as if there was just one court case, only the case where I was attorney of record, and my case was specifically about the fraud upon the court in the case where I was not attorney of record.
 
Here is the list of attorneys for the grievance committee, 5th Judicial District.

Here is the table I put together today based on attorney registration records as to where these attorneys are employed.

No.	Name of Attorney	Name of law Firm	County	Ties with the state and federal judiciary
1.	Lawrence W. Golden	The Golden Law Firm	Utica, NY, Oneida County	To be investigated
2.	Alan S. Burstein	Scolaro, Cohen, Shulman, Fetter and Burstein	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	To be investigated
3.	Julie Ann Grow Denton	McMahon and Grow	Rome, NY, Oneida County	Several years of clerkships in federal courts, including being a confidential clerk to the Hon. Richard Cardamone of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
4.	Matthew R. Dunn	Goettel, Poplaski & Dunn, PPLC	Watertown, NY, Jefferson County	Mr. Dunn's partner had the questionable honor of having being a Judicial Law Clerk to the dishonorable judge Mark Ciavarella of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, who is now doing time in federal prison for his involvement in Kids-for-Cash scandal, which did not deter Mr. Dunn from allowing his partner to call Mark Ciavarella "Honorable" as of today on his website (scan of website on file with me in case Mr. Dunn chooses to erase that evidence)
5.	Donald R. Gerace	Law Offices of Donald R. Gerace	Utica, NY, Oneida County	To be investigated
6.	Peter L. Hubbard	Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	Glen T. Suddaby (presiding judge on Neroni v. Peebles, the case that was made part of the record when the 3rd Department Committee recused) worked in the Menter law firm, Judge Suddaby's law clerk Jason C. Halpin who is now with Hiscock & Barclay (H & B partner John Casey is a defendant in the Neroni v. Peebles lawsuit) worked for Menter law firm; Glen T. Suddaby worked in the Onondaga County District Attorney's office where; Judge Glenn Suddaby worked under Onondaga County DA William Fitzpatrick, law school roommate of Judge Tormey, who tried to get money from Judge Tormey's co-defendant in the Morin v. Tormey lawsuit Judge Hedges and, when the blackmail failed, turned Judge Hedges into the Judicial Conduct Commission and made sure he was taken off the bench, even though he already resigned
7.	Loretta R. Kipatrick	New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Commercial Division	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	Employee of the court, subordinate of Judge Tormey
8.	Joseph E. Lamendola	Joseph E. Lamendola, Attorney-at-Law	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	To be investigated
9.	Karl Manne	Karl Manne, Esq.	Herkimer, NY, Herkimer County	To be investigated
10.	James H. Messenger Jr.	James H. Messenger, Attorney-at-Law	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	To be investigated
11.	C. Andrew Pappas	Pappas, Cox, Kimpel, Dodd & Levine	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	To be investigated
12.	David M. Primo	Chief Clerk IV, Onondaga County Family Court	Syracuse, NY, Onondaga County	Employee of the very same court where Judge Tormey harassed attorney Bobette Morin until she sued in Morin v. Tormey; David M. Primo is a  subordinate of Judge Tormey who must remember well the treatment by Judge Tormey of Bobette Morin and would not want to repeat her fate - he might not be as successful as she is in suing Judge Tormey...
13.	Mark R. Rose	Mark R. Rose Law Offices	Little Falls, NY, Herkimer County	To be investigated
14.	Vincent J. Rossi	Rossi and Murnane	New York Mills, NY, Oneida County	To be investigated
15.	Susan A. Sovie	Sovie Law Firm	Watertown, NY, Jefferson County	To be investigated
16.	Michael F. Young	Company & Young, PLLC	Lowville, NY, Lewis County	To be investigated

I will continue to investigate backgrounds of these attorneys and their law firms, but as of now, what can be readily visible from the table is that:

(1) 7 of 16 of attorney-members/disciplinary prosecutors are out of Onondaga County, where Judge Tormey's seat is;
(2) 6 of 16 of attorney-members/disciplinary prosecutors are likely solo private attorneys, totally dependent in their business on the good attitude of the local judges, and especially on Judge Tormey, the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District.

(3) 6 of 16 of attorney-members/disciplinary prosecutors are law partners in established law firms, with "Martindale" ratings, "Super lawyer" ratings etc., and they will not try to be fair to me and risk losing their business in Judge Tormey's courts, and that can be arranged pretty easily - it is called "judicial discretion", and they will not be able to prove that they lost cases or were sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" because they disobediently were fair to an attorney who stepped on Judge Tormey's toes and was marked for destruction;

(4) 2 of 16 of attorney-members/disciplinary prosecutorsare employees and subordinates of Judge Tormey, and he can do with them as he pleases if they disobey and do not prosecute me on fraudulent charges  - as he did before with Bobette Morin.  Since it was the State of New York (us the taxpayers) who have paid the $600,000.00 settlement to Ms. Morin for Judge Tormey's misconduct, Judge Tormey is not deterred to fire another employee who would not do his bidding.

Will that be Loretta B. Kilpatrick, law clerk to the Onondaga County Supreme Court Commercial Division, part of the disciplinary prosecuting team against me?  Will she be fired if she does not commit fraud upon the disciplinary court?

Will that be David M. Primo, the Chief Clerk IV of the Onondaga County Family Court, the same court where Bobette Morin worked and where Judge Tormey demoted and harassed her for her refusal to yield to his illegal demands that she should spy on a Democratic judicial candidate? He is also part of my prosecuting team.

Why didn't these attorneys notify me of their direct and obvious disqualification and conflict of interest?

Fear for the job was greater than honor? Than duty? Than oath as attorneys?
 
But - with two of Judge Tormey's subordinates in the prosecuting team, the hope of any shreds of integrity disappeared and it became obvious why the case was assigned to this particular grievance subcommittee, and why the grievance subcommittee proceded with frivolous and fraudulent charges no matter what - because the alternative for at least two members of the prosecuting team was to be demoted or to lose their jobs, the way Bobette Morin did.
 
And where do I complain about these attorneys who are obviously defrauding the court for financial and financial reasons and who have FAILED TO NOTIFY ME OF THEIR DISQUALIFICATION? I guess, to themselves, there is nowhere else to complain but to the same attorneys of the same grievance committee - to, please, investigate and prosecute themselves.
 
What a joke.

"TASC assigned". Fast-paced courts and flighty rights of criminal defendants going up in a puff

I often hear this phrase - "a fast-paced court".

This or that judge "runs a tight/fast-paced court", and usually it is said as an approval of the judge's skills.

I've been to fast-paced courts.  It is always instructive to see how a "fast-paced court" operates especially when you do not know the judge and you are in that court for the first time.

I've been to such a court recently.  It is a criminal court close to New York city.

Boy is it a fast-paced court.

The prosecutor rattles off, the attorneys rattle off, criminal defendants obviously do not even have time to realize what is happening before their rights are taken away.

What "fast-paced courts" do not afford to a criminal defendant and sometimes even to his attorneys is time to THINK or make objections.

As an example, in the "fast-paced court" in question, there is a key word exchange regularly pronounced by the prosecutor and the court as a mantra, and I've been in that court several times by now:

PROSECUTOR:  People ask to assign "TASK"
JUDGE:               "TASK" assigned

This is how I heard it the first time when I appeared in that court - because in the local courts where I practice there is no such thing as "TASK assigned".


When I've heard this "TASK" thingy and did not react, because it was a "fast-paced court", it moved like a fast conveyor, and every attorney before me did not stir when hearing it, I immediately learnt what exactly this "TASK" thingy is.

It is not "TASK", it is "TASC" - a mental health program requiring your client, often at his own expense, to talk to a mental health professional ABOUT THE CASE and about his alleged drug or alcohol problems, whether there are such problems are not, as long as the client is charged with a crime associated with drugs or alcohol.

I've learnt about it when I was directed to approach the clerk of the court who gave me a "TASC" form to be filled out where the judge's approving signature was PREPRINTED!!!! 

Well, I had an issue with this whole TASC thingy and asked for the case to be recalled, because I never agreed to that and it definitely violated my client's right to remain silent, especially that it was a local court, my client was charged with a felony, the local court had no authority to handle any plea bargaining in a felony or conduct any investigations in lieu of a pre-sentencing or pre-plea investigation, and that is by statute.

The judge initially simply bent over from the bench (the clerk handing out the TASC forms was sitting close to the judge) and asked me what's the problem.  I explained to the judge that I never realized that what I perceived as a "task" was a "TASC" and that assigning the "TASC", at the request of the People, is violating my client's right to remain silent.

I also asked the judge whether the "TASC" disclosures of my client will be made available to the People.  The judge said "of course", and I felt that it was a routine procedure in that particular court.  I said that it violates my client's right to remain silent.  The judge became visibly perturbed and initially said that "your request is denied".

I asked to recall the case, because I said there is no way I will have my client comply with a court order, in a criminal proceeding, to make statements available to the People, over defense counsel's objection.  As you understand, I ran the risk of being found in contempt of court and thrown into jail for simply saying to the court that I will not have my client comply with a court order - and that is, possibly, the reason why other attorneys ambushed into the "TASC assigned" situation may let it slide, at their client's expense.

The situation was becoming hotter because it was, once again, a "fast-paced court", the courtroom was packed both with the public and with attorneys, regularly appearing in the court (as I later realized after several appearances) and I was creating a precedent disrupting the "fast-paced court" because all attorneys before me agreed to "TASC assigned" without a peep.

The judge then said reluctantly that he will allow me to make my arguments on recall.

I sat and waited for the recall, "TASC" form in hand. 

After hearing some cases, the judge called a break.  It was a long, 15-minute break.

After the break, the judge called my case and the following exchange occurred.

The first thing the judge did is to ask me to give him back the "TASC" form (with his pre-printed approval on it).  I had to comply - so I did give it back.

The second thing the judge did is grant my request to cancel "TASC assigned" for my client without a necessity of an argument in front of the public and other attorneys.  Apparently, the judge consulted somebody during that break and did not want me to elaborate on the unconstitutionality of the situation and to make the public aware that what is a routine procedure in that "fast-paced court" is in reality a major constitutional violation.

My client's right to remain silent was protected.

As to other criminal defendants in that court, I appeared in that court several other times, and each time I appeared, in all cases where the use of alcohol or drugs was charged, even, as I  understand, in felony cases, the prosecutor continued to rattle off "People ask to assign TASC", no objection from attorneys followed, the judge would immediately say "TASC assigned", and the attorney would proceed to the clerk of the court for the TASC form.

Each time I wondered if criminal defendants in the "TASC assigned" cases realized they were waiving their right to remain silent and, forgive my French, were potentially screwing their cases.

And, by the way, the felony charges against my client in that particular court were dropped by the People voluntarily and substituted by misdemeanor charges.  After all attempts of the court ("TASC" was not the only one) to tell me that because how serious the charges are, I'd better "cooperate" with the prosecution.

As a bottom line - when you see a "fast-paced court", there must be something amiss, because people are not given enough time to think what kind of rights they may be losing when the court is quickly steering them through the "regular routine" of the court.

In a fast-paced court, before you agree to anything you are being steered into, take a time-out.

Actually, instead of challenging the court-ORDERED TASC as an unconstitutional violation of their clients' 5th Amendment rights, local Westchester County attorneys advertise knowledge of the TASC program as their local "know how":

In that advertisement, please, note that the attorney says that TASC will (not "may") be "assigned" (ordered" by the court in certain cases at the stage when the defendant is still "accused" - or, in other words, covered by the presumption of innocence.

Such "assignments" are, of course, possible - ON CONSENT of the defendant, because such an assignment, as any pre-sentencing evaluation, involves a waiver of the defendant's right to remain silent THROUHGOUT the criminal proceeding.

In Harrison Town Court where I was the witness of how TASC is "assigned", nobody asks consent of the criminal defendant - TASC is simply ordered, and the judge tells the attorney point-blank that the defendant MUST undergo the evaluation, MUST provide to the evaluator, therefore, potentially self-incriminating information, and the results WILL be turned over to the court and to the prosecutor.

==
Update as of 2016:  The District Attorney in the case where TASC was assigned in a FELONY case in the JUSTICE court (justice courts in New York do not have authority in felony cases beyond holding a preliminary hearing, or, if the hearing is not held, holding the case over to the grand jury) and whose office I asked to disqualify and punish - became the New York State Chief Judge and retaliated against me by tossing the appeal of my disciplinary suspension "as of right" as if it was her discretion to do that - and the suspension was for, guess what, criticizing judges, activity fully protected by the 1st Amendment, where punishment for such activity is regarded as presumptively unconstitutional content-based regulation Reed v Town of Guilbert (2015).

And, please, note that this program unconstitutionally used by the local courts, is "sponsored" by the Westchester County, home of Governor Cuomo and presidential candidate Clinton, former president Clinton and the now-Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore.  In fact, Janet DiFiore participated in stripping criminal defendants of their 5th Amendment rights - for years.

And Janet DiFiore punished me for:

• making a motion to disqualify her DA's office in the Harrison Town Court because of misconduct in 2014;
• opposing her confirmation as New York Chief Judge by written testimony in January of 2016 (oral was not allowed to me) submitted to the New York State Senate where I asked to investigate DiFiore for possible criminal conduct; and
• making a motion to recuse her in New York State Court of Appeals in 2016;
• filing a complaint against her with the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct where I asked to get her off the bench for misconduct and to investigate her for possible criminal conduct

How appropriate.

Criminalized civil proceedings in Family Court should be abolished

Family Court of the state of New York is a court of limited jurisdiction, limited by statute, the Family Court Act and by the New York State Constitution.


Nothing in the Family Court Act gives the Family Court criminal jurisdiction.


You will search the Family Court Act in vain for any protections afforded criminal defendants, and, most importantly, a right to remain silent and a right to a jury trial.


Yet, several subsections of the Family Court Act sound and operate definitely like exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and, as far as enforcement of those statutes are concerned, the line between civil and criminal has disappeared.


The subsections I am talking about pertain to issuance of arrest warrants.


Now, once again, proceedings in Family Court are deemed "civil" proceedings - and for that reason, parents are denied their right to a jury trial, even though parental rights are fundamental constitutional rights, and even though in New York jury trials are allowed as of right, under the New York State Constitution in, say, civil actions for breach of contract.  Jury trials are also allowed as of right in federal civil rights actions asserting federal constitutional rights.


In other words, parental constitutional rights are separate and apart - they are afforded in New York less procedural protection than any other federal constitutional right and less protection than even property rights.


Observing how biased judges are in Family Court against parents who are poor or with low social status and how judges they ascend to Family Court, usually from prosecutorial positions, with prosecutorial, accusatory mentality ingrained in them over years of practice, introduction of jury trials as of right in Family Court appears to be a must.


I also assert that exercise by the Family Court, at the same time, of civil jurisdiction in imposing sanctions for frivolous conduct upon attorneys and parties in Family Court proceedings, as well as exercising of bench warrant powers are incompatible, and should be addressed by the Legislature.


If you are sued in civil court in any other proceeding, your failure to appear in that court will never result in issuance of a bench warrant for your arrest, instead, if you are a defendant in a civil action or proceeding, the civil court must ascertain whether the Plaintiff or Petitioner in the civil action or proceeding has served you properly with the court papers and whether the Plaintiff or Petitioner has provided to you proof of that service.


If all of those conditions are satisfied, and you did not appear, the most that the civil court is allowed to do is enter a default judgment against you, but never arrest you, unless you are in violation of a court order - and then you are subject to civil contempt proceedings.


There is one exception to that, which I recently addressed in federal court - which was dismissed before I served the action by a court that was itself a defendant in the action, when I asked to transferred the venue - and I am addressing that particular criminal contempt procedure on appeal.


There is a strict distinction between civil and criminal contempt that I have written about in this blog, and provided a comparative table, and the distinction equally applies whether the parent is accused of violation of court order of support or of any other court order, such as, of the court order of visitation.


Civil contempt presupposes that the court is compelling you to do what you are ordered to do by court order, and the court's authority to compel ends as soon as you comply.  That's why the civil contemnor "holds the keys from his own jail cell in his pocket".


If the court is trying to punish you for non-compliance with a court order - that is criminal contempt, a criminal contempt of court is at least a misdemeanor and you are entitled to full criminal procedure on that, including the right to be charged only by a District Attorney, and a right to a plea of not guilty, right to remain silent throughout the procedure, the burden of proof never shifts to you, you have a right to confront witnesses accusing you etc. - see the table.


Now, in the Family Court, especially in child neglect proceedings (which are considered civil proceedings, and attorneys and parties can be sanctioned for frivolous conduct in those proceedings, which chills attorneys from raising sensitive issues like judicial bias and misconduct), if general rules of civil proceedings are to be followed, failure to serve respondents with a petition may not lead to any consequences to the respondent.


In other words, the court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a respondent in any other civil proceedings if the respondent was not personally served by the Petitioner.


In child neglect proceedings, if the Petitioner (social services) failed to locate the respondent, the court simply issues a bench warrant to bring the respondent into the court against his or her will, as a criminal.  This is not a characteristic of a civil proceeding, but federal lawsuits to challenge constitutionality of this statute are practically impossible to get through courts because of the leverage that social services have over parents to "persuade" them, or, rather, to intimidate them to drop such lawsuits for fear of losing custody of their children. 


In fact, bench warrant power of the Family Court is considered one of its "general powers" and is allowed to be exercised in cases of an "emergency", such as where a child is in danger or where a party is in violation of a court order.


Yet, as you remember, the Family Court has no criminal jurisdiction, and the power to enforce its orders is civil, not criminal contempt power.


The main distinction between civil and criminal contempt powers is that in civil contempt proceedings the maximum the court can do is COERCE, MAKE you comply with the court order, by imposing on you a fine, or by putting you in jail, or both.


Once you've complied or, in some cases, where you  have no ability to comply out of jail, announce to the court that you will comply - the court must let you out of jail.


Yet, time and again, I see Orders to Show Cause from Family Court for civil contempt of court warning respondents that the purpose of the civil contempt proceeding is to punish them by fine or jail or both.


What are the sings that such Orders to Show Cause are for a civil contempt proceeding and not a criminal contempt proceeding?


(1) The caption saying it is a proceeding of a civil petitioner against a civil respondent, not People of the State of New York against a criminal defendant;


(2) The proceeding has been brought "upon the petition of" a civil Petitioner, not upon a criminal accusatory instrument, as it is in criminal courts;


(3) The potential contemnor is called Respondent and is ordered by the court "to show cause" (speak up) as to why a finding of a violation of the court order should not be made, while in criminal proceedings a criminal defendant has a right to remain silent throughout the proceedings;


(4) The very first appearance in the case is "a hearing" where the warning on the Order to Show Cause says "THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT - SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH" and at the same time the Order to Show Cause says that it is going to be only an "Initial Appearance" on the same "Order to Show Cause".  As compared, the initial appearance for a criminal defendant is an arraignment where he usually gets counsel, pleads not guilty, gets his or her 45 days for discovery and motions and only after that and after pre-trial hearings on the motion, if granted by the court, comes not a hearing, but a jury trial.


Since

• these orders are often used against poor parents who only have assigned counsel,
• assigned counsel are heavily dependent upon the hopes of being assigned again and would not raise any sensitive issues on behalf of their clients,
• rules of frivolous conduct are applicable to Family court proceedings, unlike criminal proceedings, chilling attorneys from raising important constitutional issues,
• and it is impossible to bring a civil rights case in federal court to declare a statute unconstitutional, because it will be dismissed on judicial immunity and abstention grounds, returning it to Family Court, while Family Court Act and CPLR 3001 do not allow a Family court to decide issues of constitutionality of statutes, and Family Court judges consider constitutional arguments as "lying",

the  only way to address this mess and human rights crisis is through the Legislature.


Apparently, the poor parents and parents of low social status do not have any procedural protections or effective representation in such cases in Family Court, such cases rarely make it to appellate courts, and assigned counsel on appeal are similarly  afraid to raise important issues for fear of being accused of frivolous conduct - and the result is that an untold number of parents are punished by Family Courts without authority, including by jail time, which is a gross violation of their 4th Amendment and due process rights - but who cares?


I think, it is time for the New York State Legislature to straighten out this mess and to provide parents proper procedural protections in Family Court.

The use of unquestionable fraud by prosecutors in order to discipline an attorney - the same fraudulent song by the Disciplinary Committee of 4th Department now

It is universally declared that attorney licensing (and discipline) are designed to protect the public from attorneys who are not fit to practice law.


You be the judge who is not fit to practice law here - I or those attorneys who are prosecuting me.


In January of 2013, with a very curious timing (I just recovered from a pneumonia and I  had several trials scheduled back-to-back) the Committee for Professional Conduct, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, filed a petition to discipline me.


The essence of charges was:

No.	Essense of charge	What the evidence was	What 3rd Department is	What 4th Department is
1.	That I did not attend a deposition for a client and that caused imposition of sanctions upon the client	Deposition happened in 2008; I was admitted to practice law in 2009, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, September of 2008   3rd Department made a motion for a summary judgment (judgment without a trial or hearing), and without providing to the court transcript of that deposition that was on file with the court and clearly showed 2008 as the date of the deposition, exonerating me beyond all doubt	Carries on with the fraudulent charge and opposed my motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct
2.	That I failed to respond to a motion in the same action as the deposition and my failure to respond resulted in a default judgment for my clients	The motion was filed in 2008, I was admitted to practice law only in 2009, after the review date of the motion, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, December of 2008, WHEN I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND COULD NOT ACT AS AN ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT   Result: same as in Charge No. 1	Same as above
3.	That I was sanctioned by Judge Becker for frivolous conduct three times	Yes, I was – right after I sued Judge Becker for misconduct.     Courts refused to address on the merits the issue whether Judge Becker’s sanctions were an unconstitutional pattern of retaliation   None of my clients were hurt because of my actions   None of my clients complained   In fact, all sanctions were imposed for my zealous representation of clients, and most of them were indigent, one case was a Pro Bono case	The 3rd Department pursued these unconstitutional sanctions as, somehow, violation of attorney disciplinary rules, even though I was sanctioned for actually standing up for my clients against misconduct of a judge in two cases, and fraud of the opposing counsel (coincidentally also an upstate NY judge in a local justice court) in another case	4th Department knows of the constitutional issues  with the charges, but continues with the charges
4.	That I failed to pay the sanctions	Even though the three imposed sanctions were clearly illegal, when I appealed them, I put in a bond back in 2011 for all three sanctions   When one appeal out of three was dismissed on a technicality and two affirmed while the appellate court ignored material parts of the record (I wrote about it elsewhere in the blog), the money went directly where Becker ordered it to go.   Thus, I ceded control over the money for all three sanctions claimed in the disciplinary petition 1.5 years before the petition was brought	The 3rd Department, after being alerted to the problem of their negligent review and prosecution of the case, still continued with the fraudulent charge	The 4th Department continues with the fraudulent charge and opposes my motion against them for frivolous conduct

I removed the case to the federal court, reasonably predicting that I will not get a fair review in the state court where multiple judges have a conflict of interest to review the case

It was remanded back because the 3^rd Department claimed, under the so-called Younger abstention, claiming that the state court is fully able to handle my federal constitutional claims

As soon as the case was remanded from the federal court back to state court, the 3^rd Department’s Committee for Professional Conduct claimed in a motion that I should not be allowed to use the state court to “air my generalized grievances”, or, in other words, to bring my federal constitutional claims, which was in direct contradiction to their own claims by use of which they got the remand.So, the bottom line is:

• 3 charges (deposition, motion and payment of sanctions) were fraudulent, as shown by documentary evidence that prosecutors did not care to read;
• all other charges were based on clear unconstitutional retaliation against me, based on personal vengeance, by a judge who I sued before sanctions were imposed

In other words, the whole disciplinary proceeding was a politically motivated fabrication.


And it still continues.


And I was denied even an oral argument that I requested, the very minimum of procedural due process.


I am asking you - how long do you think should it take to prove, with a transcript of a deposition in hand, that bears a court stamp and a date, that it was held in 2008 while I was admitted to practice law in 2009 and COULD NOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT CLIENTS AT THAT DEPOSITION?  So I COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CHARGED FOR NOT ATTENDING? BECAUSE I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME?


How about one second while you are holding your documents in front of the prosecutor?  Because, if the prosecutor has a shred of integrity left in him or her, he will immediately apologize and withdraw the such impossible charges (if they were brought by mistake).


I cannot prove it since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, one federal and two state courts - and all of them had a right to toss the disciplinary charges on the merits , with sanctions against prosecutors who are engaged in OBVOIUS FRAUD UPON THE COURT and OBVIOUS FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that in September and in December of 2008 I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY and had no obligation (or right) to appear at depositions representing clients or to answer any motions on behalf of any clients.  And, by the way, the disciplinary petition, on its very first page, states that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that sanctions were paid into escrow in the summer of 2011, long before the Petition was filed, in January of 2013, and it is well documented.


And, 3 courts so far, as well as prosecutors in those courts, pretend they do not know that 3 sanctions in a row (in fact, there were more) imposed by a judge whom I just sued look really suspicious, wouldn't they to any impartial reasonable person?


Remember, all of them were sworn to uphold the federal constitution - but they advance unconstitutional, fraudulent, politically motivated prosecutions without blinking an eye.


Recently, another attorney posed in his blog a question whether disciplinary attorneys are bound by the same rules of conduct that they are enforcing upon others.


Disciplinary proceedings in New York are deemed civil proceedings, so - yes, of course they are so bound.


Yet, they seem to allow themselves not to be bound by those rules - because, at least in my case, they try to prosecute me because I was sanctioned for "frivolous" conduct (where sanctions were imposed by a judge after I sued him), while attorneys freely engage in fraud upon the court and frivolous conduct themselves while prosecuting the action.





PS  The name of the "heroes", disciplinary attorneys who continue to carry the fraudulent torch can be found here, all attorneys and all attorney members of the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee.

Cowards

Just watched a video of a middle-aged disabled woman opening the door of her residence to a Delaware County Deputy Derek Bowie holding a TASER gun in her face.


After that, according to her report, she was overpowered by the Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie and has bruises to show for that, I personally saw the bruises.


When the woman came outside to videotape what Deputy Bowie was doing, he got into a vehicle, backed up at the woman with a door of his vehicle open and obviously intentionally slammed the door of his vehicle into the tablet with which the woman was videotaping him, nearly knocking her over with his vehicle.


Only, regrettably for Deputy Bowie, the video was not destroyed by his trick.  By the way, he says on that video that he is making his own video.  I wonder if he was lying or not, because in my experience as a criminal defense attorney, police officers in several local counties, including Delaware, never videotape their arrests - this way it is their word against the word of the suspect, and you can guess who wins if a judge determines credibility, which is what happens at the so-called pre-trial hearings in criminal court, and in Family Court there are no jury trials by statute.


But wait a minute?


Isn't it a vehicular assault on the woman? Isn't it an attempt to murder? In my legal opinion, yes, it is.  Backing up a car in order to smash into a tablet that a woman holds could have knocked her dead or left her severely injured.


Was it an assault with a taser?  In my legal opinion, yes, it was, the woman did not present any threat of violence and did not resist anything.  She actually opened the door to Deputy Bowie - and saw a taser gun looking her in the face, and a child behind her watched that.


Will Delaware County District Attorney charge its own Deputy Sheriff for his misconduct?  I highly doubt it.


Yet, it is this kind of police misconduct that breeds contempt in people about the law.


Is it called good training of personnel of Delaware County?


By the way, this is not the first case I know where taser guns were used inappropriately.  I know of at least one more such case, where taser guns were used on a woman in front of her three young children, in the middle of the night, for no reason whatsoever, by officer John Demeo. 


John Demeo at that point worked for the Walton Village police, and I've heard from more than one person that John Demeo had anger problems.  Was he fired?  No. 


He was promoted and now not only he is a Deputy Sheriff of Delaware County in its drug enforcement unit, but he is the only officer handling such a deadly "assault weapon" as a German Shepherd. 


People who know this breed will tell you that German Shepherds need handlers with extremely even temperament.  John Demeo is definitely not that person - and I can judge because I cross-examined him and saw his reactions.  If he was ready to burst at me during cross-examination, if he tasered an innocent young mother who gave him no resistance, in front of her kids, and tasered a kid together with the mother, I can only imagine what a deadly combination is John Demeo with a German Shepherd.


The Delaware County uses tasers since 2008 and claims all of its officers are fully trained to use them.


In 2010, Delaware County Sheriff's Department claimed that in 98.5% of arrests TASERS are not required and are used to reduce the risk of injuries to the officer and the suspect.


The woman in question was not the suspect.


The officer who held the TASER to her face when she opened the door did not have a reason to believe that he will be met with violence.  There were not and never have been guns in that house.  In my assessment, it was pure harassment.


Here, the TASER was used because the father (a former U.S. Marine) who was picking up the child from visitation, asked the officers to come and get the child.  The father came to the house, because the mother texted to him to come, that she is packing the child and getting her ready for the transfer.


And the father, who hates the mother with a passion, brought police with him for a peaceful transfer.


I doubt that this particular situation fell into the 1.5% of cases where a TASER needed to be used.  It appears by at least the cases I know that TASERS are used by police officers within Delaware County against helpless women where there is no expectation of risk of injury to the officer.


As an example, the TASER gun was reportedly used by Delaware County Deputies this year against a person who allegedly "refused to comply with the duties of the Walton Dog Control officer", whatever those duties were.


By the way, the middle-aged woman in question did not refuse to comply with anything, in fact, the officer asked her to open the door, and she did - and saw the TASER gun right in her face.


The woman in question is also disabled, her wrists were broken, and the officer who pointed a TASER into her face, as far as I know, knew or should have known about it, as she is a well-known local, retired and on disability from the State of New York, with no criminal record and no history of gun use.


And, by the way, there was no reason for the officer to come to the house with a TASER into the grandmother's face, other than that on September 1, 2014 the woman's daughter has filed a misconduct complaint against a Family Court judge, Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr. whose orders obviously in retaliation for the complaint, the Deputy Sheriff was carrying out.


What a coincidence.

New complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission submitted

I just submitted complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission about the following judges:


1)  Judge Christopher Cahill of Ulster County - I submitted additional information that court administration destroyed of evidence of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with attorney Delice Seligman by overwriting the security tape of what happened on his floor that day.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill who threatened to "turn me in" went across the hall to complain against me to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Karen Peters who at that time handled my disciplinary proceedings.  To complain to the chief judge of the licensing court would be illegal, but illegality did not deter Judge Cahill from ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill's potential visit to Judge Peters's chambers that day documented by the security tapes was the main reason why the security tapes were overwritten before expiration of 30 days, the time set by NYS Court administration's own policy for such security tapes to remain intact.


Fortunately for me, Attorney Delice Seligman, driven by feelings which had nothing to do with friendship, put her foot into her own mouth and admitted to the ex parte communication in sworn statement to another court - and I provided that admission to the Judicial Conduct Commission as proof of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with her.  I wonder what the Commission will do now, being confronted with irrefutable proof that misconduct happened.


A lot of work - but judicial misconduct should not remain unreported.


2) Judge Mary Work of Ulster County - for her misconduct in a divorce case and another related case involving the same attorney Delice Seligman whose atrociously uncivilized behavior Judge Work seemed to be unwilling to control to protect my client and myself, the "slayer of New York judicial system" (Attorney Seligman's authorship).


3) Appellate Division Third Department and its Chief Judge Karen Peters, of Ulster County for misconduct, including, but not limited to:

•      engaging in ex parte communications with my opponents, see here and here;
• refusing to provide access to documents submitted ex parte;
• failing to provide to the court with the transferred documents the ex parte documents as part of the record
• failing to recuse from other pending proceedings where my husband and I were parties after recusing from one of such proceedings

All complaints were filed by e-mail, so that nobody can claim they were not filed where an electronic evidence of a transaction exists, and a copy was of the Appellate Division 3rd Department complaint was sent to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, also by email.


I pointed out to the Commission that the Commission is responsible for the current state of affairs where judges feel absolutely above the law and commit egregious misconduct with impunity while attorneys are afraid to report it for fear of retribution and losing their livelihoods through that retribution (which is what is happening to me now).


I asked the Commission for Judicial Conduct to do their jobs, for a change, on these complaints.


We will see whether that will happen.