Judges indebted to others - the saga continues

As an attorney and a party, I have appeared in many cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Attorneys are expected (pretty much required is a better word) to presume integrity of presiding judges.

I would rather call it giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Usually, a federal district judge and a magistrate are assigned to any given case filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York.

In several of the civil rights cases, Bracci v. Becker, Neroni v. Becker, Neroni v. Zayas, Neroni v. Peebles, a partner from a certain law firm, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, appeared.

In the first case I was a counsel and a party, in the second and third cases I was only an attorney, in the fourth case I was a pro se party.

Neroni v. Becker was dismissed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe, appealed, partially reversed and remanded to the same judge and dismissed again.  The first dismissal was with sanctions for frivolous conduct against both my husband (the only party in the case) and against myself as my husband's counsel.  In Neroni v. Becker misconduct of Hiscock & Barclays and its partners was part of the record, thus making them witnesses in the case.

Neroni v. Zayas as partially dismissed by Judge Lawrence Kahn, even though without a finding of frivolous conduct.  In Neroni v. Zayas misconduct of Hiscock & Barclays and its partners was part of the record, thus making them witnesses in the case.

Neroni v. Peebles was dismissed before it was served by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, with a ruling that the lawsuit was frivolous.   In Neroni v. Peebles misconduct of a partner from Hiscock & Barclays was a defendant in the case.

Additionally, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP appeared as attorneys of record for a defendant in a pro se civil rights case filed by my husband, Neroni v. Coccoma, also dismissed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe with sanctions and attorney fees against my husband for frivolous conduct.

Moreover, on October 20, 2014 Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe brought a sua sponte "civil rights action" against my husband, citing to Bracci v. Becker, Neroni v. Becker, Neroni v. Zayas (still pending) and Neroni v. Grannis (see my recent posts about misconduct of Judge Leslie Stein and the Governor) and Neroni v. Coccoma (see my post 'Assigned counsel for the rich').

In all of these actions, dismissals were without reaching the merits, and when a court dismisses a case without reaching the merits, pleadings are presumed to be true, so there is nothing to punish the civil rights plaintiff for.

Judge Sharpe brought his action against my husband pretty close to the time when I criticized Judge Sharpe on Forbes.com, a well-read and respectable blog, indicating that Judge Sharpe punished me for correct reading of the 11th Amendment that Judge Sharpe was sworn to uphold.  Seems pretty much like retaliation to me.

Judge Sharpe also failed to disclose to Mr. Neroni, while bringing this action, that:

(1) Several Hiscock & Barclays attorneys either were prior employees of the court, mostly confidential law clerks of judges (one of them, Jason C. Halpin, a recent law clerk to Judge Suddaby, the presiding judge in Neroni v. Peebles before it was even served, while a partner from Hiscock & Barclay was one of the defendant in the action) and two partners are part of the court's judge-selection and local rules committees;

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Hon. Frederick J. Scullin	Law Clerk	1.  Aungier, Brittany E.	Associate
	Confidential Law Clerk	2. Hennessey, Yvonne, E.	Partner
	Clerk	3. Melvin II, Edward G.	Partner
Frederick J. Scullin, as judge-by-designation of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	Assistant
Hon. Howard G. Munson, former Chief Judge	Law Clerk	4. Barrer, Robert A.	Partner
Magistrate David R. Homer	Office employee	5. Burch, David G.	Associate
Hon. Howard G. Munson, Senior Judge	Law Clerk	6. Cook, John D.	Partner
Hon. Norman A. Mordue, then Chief Judge	Law Clerk	7. Cornish, Kathryn D.	Associate
	Confidential Law Clerk	Hennessey, Yvonne, E.	Partner
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby	Law Clerk	8.  Halpin, Jason C.	Associate
Magistrate George H. Lowe	Law Clerk	9.  Southwick, Karen	Associate
Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe	Law Clerk	Jason Hughes	Associate
Local Rules Committee	Member	John P. Langan	Managing Partner
Judicially appointed founding member of Federal Bar Association Merit panel for appointment and re-appointment of magistrates	Member	John D. Cook	Partner

(2) the managing partner of Hiscock & Barclay John P. Langan has been judicially appointed to panels to pick magistrates for the court (see the same table);

(3) yet another partner of Hiscock & Barclay John D. Cook is a member of the "Local Rules Committee", which means that HB participates in making rules of the court by which other litigants must live (see the same table);

(4) that Judges Kahn (Neroni v. Zayas) is the president of a social networking organization American Inn of Court for Intellectual Property and Innovation where a HB's partner is a "Program Chair" and where Judge Kahn regularly meets with that HB partner, a witness in a case in front of Judge Kahn, behind closed doors, not to mention that Judge Kahn is in business together with an HB partner and may receive free perks like wining and dining from the Inn of Court;

(5) that Judge Peebles (assigned magistrate on Neroni v. Zayas, Neroni v. Becker, Neroni v. Coccoma, defendant in Neroni v. Peebles) is a counselor/vice-president and trustee of the same American Inn of Court where Judge Kahn is the president;

(6) that Judge Mae D'Agostino (Bracci v. Becker) and Judge Frederick Scullin of the same court are members of the same American Inn of Court;

(7) that not only Hiscock & Barclay's partner is the Program Chair in the Inn of Court where Judge Kahn is President and Trustee, Judge Peebles is Vice-President, Counselor and Trustee, and Judges Mae D'Agostino and Scullin are members, but 7 more attorneys from Hiscock & Barclays, both partners and associates, are members of the Inn of Court.  

No.	Name	Associate, partner, of counsel or counsel
1.	Elizabeth A. Cominolli	Associate
2.	M. Eric Galvez	Associate
3.	John T. Gutkoski	Partner
4.	Jason C. Halpin	Associate, former law clerk of Judge Glenn T. Suddaby (dismissed Neroni v. Peebles, where HB’s partner John Casey was a defendant, before the action was served)
5.	Douglas J. Nash	Partner, Program Chair in the Inn of Court
6.	Michael A. Oropallo	Partner
7.	Bella S. Satra	Associate
8.	Denis J. Sullivan	Partner

It is also interesting to see how judges of NDNY were trying to hide there involvement with this particular Inn of Court.  Talking of the guilty mind...

Here is the snippet of my printout from the "Officers" webpage of the Albany Inn of Court for Intellectual Property and Innovation dated May 13, 2014, which I provided to the NDNY in Neroni v. Peebles (dismissed by Judge Suddaby before it was served while Judge Suddaby's law clerk J.Halpin came to work for HP, and HP's partner was a defendant in the action):

Judge Lawrence E. Kahn is listed there as a president.

After the lawsuit was filed, and even after it was dismissed, on August 19, 2014, I checked the same website again, and here is what I found:

No judges were listed as officers.

I posted a blog asking a simple question - if you think you are right, why hide your involvement?

After that, NDNY judges posted their involvement not only as officers, but also as members, and here is what is on the Inn's "Officers'" website now:

Between the time when the first and the last snippets of the "Officers" page were taken, NDNY court ruled against both Mr. Neroni and myself that we are doing something frivolous, dismissed a case where HB's partner was a defendant, dismissed a case where HB represented several high-standing defendants, and awarded to HB thousands of dollars in legal fees against my husband.

Endearing and indebting judges pays off.

Such a situation creates possibilities for NDNY judges to (1) regularly engage in ex parte communications with Hiscock & Barclays attorneys, witnesses, parties or attorneys in my cases or cases of my husband, and (2) to receive financial perks such as regular free dining and wining, if only that, through the Inn of Court sponsored and run by Hiscock & Barclays.

Moreover, Hiscock & Barclays endears itself to the courts not only by participating in selection of judges or creation of court rules, and not only by wining and dining judges behind closed doors through the American Inns of Court, but also through employment of high-standing public officials that the courts simply cannot resist to rule for:

NEW YORK STATE SENATE
NYS Senator Charles E. Schumer	Office Employee	Vellano III, F. Paul	Associate
NYS Senator Douglas H. Barclay	Senator (1965-1984) Chair: Codes Committee; Chair: Select Task Force on Court Reorganization; Chair: Joint Committee on Housing & Urban Development; Chair: Select Committee on Moral Obligation Financing; Chair: Corporation Committee; Chair: Senate Republican (Majority) Conference	Dougals H. Barclay	Of Counsel
NYS Senator Neil D. Breslin	Senator, present	Neil D. Breslin	Partner
NYS Senate, State Select Committee on Moral Obligation Financing	Counsel	Farr, Jan R.	Of Counsel
NYS Senate, Energy Committee	Counsel	Maureen O. Helmer	Partner
NYS Senator William Smith	Special Counsel	Reynolds Jr., Ransom P.	Of Counsel
NYS ASSEMBLY
NYS Assemblyman for the 124th District William A. Barclay	Assemblyman	William A. Barclay	Partner
NYS Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, 144th District	Summer Intern	Bard, Jonathan H.	Associate
NYS Assembly Office of Minority Counsel	Deputy Director	Maureen O. Helmer	Partner
NYS Assemblyman Lawrence Rulison	Legislative Assistant	Donald M. Mawhinney Jr.	Of Counsel
NYS Assembly Majority, Office of Counsel	Legal Intern	Merriman, Courtney M.	Associate
NYS Assembly, Speaker Perry Duryea	Administrative Assistant	Nahal, Henry J.	Of Counsel
NYS Assembly Minority Leader	Special Counsel	Reynolds Jr, Ransom P.	Of Counsel
U.S. SENATE
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs for the Special Investigation of Hurricane Katrina	Special Counsel	Adelberg, Arthur W.	Partner

GRIEVANCE/CHARACTER AND FITNESS COMMITTEES
Attorney Grievance Committee, 7th Judicial District, NYS	Member	Gaddis, Sheila A.	Partner
Attorney Grievance Committee, 8th Judicial District, NYS	Former member	Wettlaufer, Catherine T.	Partner
Chief Judge’s Task Force on Attorney Professionalism and Conduct	Former member
Attorney Grievance Committee, Appellate Division 4th Department, 5th Judicial District	Former member (2007-2013)	Barrer, Robert A.	Partner
Professional Conduct Committee, Appellate Division 3rd Department	Former member (2007-2013)	John R. Casey	Partner
New York State Committee on Professional Conduct	Prosecutor	Katzoff, Susan R.	Partner

	FORMER PROSECUTORS
	STATE PROSECUTORS
Name of agency, position in agency	Name of Hiscock & Barclay’s attorney	Position in Hiscock & Barclays
Schenectady County, ADA 1.  Chief ADA Legal Intern	Casey, Brian D. O’Connor, Thomas J. Salkin, Justin L.	Partner Partner Associate
Westchester County ADA	Devendorf, Jon P.	Partner
Middlesex County 2.  Special ADA 3. Special ADA 4.  Special ADA 5.  Special ADA	Gutkoski, John T. Scibelli, Anthony A. Stanganelli, Joseph L. Whiteley, Brian E.	Partner Partner Partner Partner
6.  Nassau County ADA	Larkin, Matthew J.	Partner
Suffolk County DA’s Office, Certified Student Prosecutor	Marcotte, Carolyn A.	Associate
Chemung County DA’s Office, 7. Chief Trial Attorney	Reynolds, Jr., Ransom P.	Of Counsel
Kings County DA’s Office, Legal Intern		Associate
Erie County DA’s Office 8. Bureau Chief	Solomon, Jerry M.	Of Counsel
Monroe County DA’s Office	Van Strydonck, Thomas M.	Of Counsel
	FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
Northern District of New York	Aungier, Brittany E.	Associate
	Forward, Zachary D., Summer intern	Associate
	French, Dan, U.S. Attorney	Of Counsel
	Southwick, Karen S., Extern	Associate
Western District of New York	Bard, Jonathan H. Law Clerk	Associate
	Walker, Kristin L. Extern	Associate

Civil rights plaintiffs are people whose constitutional rights are violated by the government.

For judges of the NDNY Hiscock & Barclays IS the government because it employs a lot of people from the government and, most importantly, it also provides steady employment for NDNY outgoing personnel and serves as benefactors and support system for judges of NDNY court.

Judges NDNY appear to be so endeared - and indebted - to HB, in different ways, that there is no way that NDNY judges would acknowledge that Hiscock & Barclays attorneys are doing anything wrong, there is no way NDNY judges can resist whatever requests HB attorneys put in front of them, whether supported by law and fact of the case or not, and there is no way NDNY judges can abstain from the pleasure of using their power to return the favor and award legal fees to HB attorneys, whether they are warranted or not.

Of course, if the rule of law was followed by the NDNY court, its ties to the HB firm had to be disclosed, and the court should disqualify itself from all cases where Hiscock & Barclays and its attorneys appear in any capacity - as attorneys, parties or witnesses.

Yet, since those ties are long-standing and were not disclosed to date, nor does the court have the decency to recuse from cases where Hiscock & Barclays' attorneys appear, on the opposite, the court acts as a gatekeeper protecting HB from harm and as a benefactor showering HB with legal fees even where they are clearly not entitled to it, there is no point holding one's breath to await such disclosures any time soon.

It is obvious that it is completely futile to make any motions to vacate any decisions made by these judges who did that despite glaring conflicts of interest, since the only result will be additional sanctions and attorney's fees awarded against us.

So much about presumptions of integrity of judges.

When a referee and a prosecutor cannot read...

On October 23, 2014, as I wrote on this blog before, I appeared in front of a referee in my disciplinary case, a very old man who appeared to have problem with either concentration, or retention of information, or memory, or all of the above.

We talked for some time off record, then the referee recalled that he has to say what he was saying on record, and he put on record, not exactly what he said off record, but here is the transcript: 

That was the sum and substance of why I was dragged to Syracuse on a 6-hour roundtrip, so that Referee Sirkin would say this to me, obviously he could not say that in an adjournment letter.

I draw your specific attention to what he said he will do next time we meet.

Referee Sirkin clearly said, on record that he will "have [his] decision on the grievance committee's motion and respondent's cross-motion and depending on how [he] rule[s] will depend on future proceedings, whether there be no future proceedings, or a hearing, or a mitigation hearing, if requested".

In fact, a referee in a disciplinary proceeding does not have any authority to decide motions and cross-motions, to rule on liability and to decide whether further hearings are or are not going to be held.

Here are two statements of Mary Gasparini, which are diametrically opposite to one another, and made within the SAME sworn affirmation:

That's a correct statement of the law.  That statement was in the order appointing Referee Sirkin.  Obviously, Referee Sirkin has a problem with reading and perceiving the law and orders of courts, due to his age, arrogance, or desire to retaliate against me for making a motion to disqualify him on statutory grounds and for cause.

The only authority of a referee in a disciplinary proceeding is, if issues of fact are raised on the record, to hear and report to the court about those issues of fact only.

The referee has only an authority "to report", not do "decide" or "rule" on any legal issue.  

Liability of an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding is a legal issue, and Referee Sirkin clearly says in the transcript that based on his ruling, he may deny me a hearing and move to a mitigation hearing, which means he is planning to make a decision on liability, the decision he has no authority to make.


Naturally, after hearing that the referee plans to completely usurp the authority of the court he does not have and, possibly, deny me the trial, the only thing that the referee was ORDERED BY THE COURT to do, I moved to disqualify the referee.

Look what Mary Gasparini says about that:

To Mary Gasparini, it is clear from the same transcript where the referee says he is going to decide motions and cross-motions and, possibly, deny me the right to a trial which was ordered by the court, that the referee did nothing wrong.

Mary Gasparini does not see the referee exceed his authority, even after she correctly states under oath what that restricted authority is - to hear and report on factual issues only.

Mary Gasparini is paid enormous amounts of taxpayer money to protect the public from attorney misconduct.

Yet, instead of doing any due diligence on cases she is working on, cases where she holds livelihood and reputation of attorneys and their families, and attorneys' ability to work at all, since disbarred attorneys are pretty much unemployable, Mary Gasparini, on state time, prefers to go speak at private CLE seminars to teach other attorneys about attorney ethics.

Yet, Ms. Gasparini advances mutually exclusive arguments to the court and considers that ethical.

Ms. Gasparini, obviously, would have benefited from a couple of those CLE seminars on ethics, at her own expense, of course.

Yet, that might not help, as all the "ethics" that are governing Ms. Gasparini's conduct is impunity.  Once again, who is going to discipline her for apparently unethical behavior - herself or the court that she is the "auxiliary" of?  

The TASER-happy Delaware County does not have proper safety procedures or records regarding TASER certification and use

On September 24, 2014 I filed with Delaware County Sheriff's Department this FOIL request:

This is the response that I received from the Delaware County to this FOIL request.

Please, note that Delaware County claimed that no records exist in answer to my questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 5 and 7.

I already wrote in the previous post about search of attorney files, and that is a clear violation of attorney-client privilege and interference with criminal defendants' right to counsel which is only confirmed by the lack of written policy.

The lack of records in answer to my question No. 2 is a risk to public safety.

In other words, Delaware County does not have a written policy that would require the County to order an officer to desk duty and to turn in his pistol and TASER if, let's say, as Derek Bowie claimed under oath on the stand, his disability from a dog bite was so bad that his fingers were getting numb.

Yet, Deputy Derek Bowie was not ordered to desk duty despite his "seriously numbed fingers" and, as a consequence, the public in Delaware County was at his mercy.

Imagine if Derek Bowie's fingers get completely numb when he is driving, or he grabs his pistol or TASER and then his fingers get numb on him or on you.  He then will either not be able to protect a person when he needs to protect him or her (and that includes his partner, another police officer), or he can accidentally misfire - at any of you, with sad consequences.

What I absolutely loved is that Delaware County, while claiming it is certified by the Criminal Justice Department and while it has to show compliance in accordance with such certification on over 130 parameters, claims to have no record whatsoever of such compliance.

Of course, I will verify that with the Criminal Justice Department and will ask it to revoke Delaware County Sheriff's certification if no such records are kept.

If I learn that it is simply a stonewalling tactic, I will sue under Article 78, as required by New York Freedom of Information Law, with a request for attorney fees.

Both ways, it is a losing tactic for Delaware County to make claims as, let's say, disingenuous as this one.

Furthermore, Delaware County has no records showing certification of the "non-lethal" weapons, TASERS which can be, as various reports in this country and abroad show, can be very lethal.

This is clear liability of the county not to certify TASERS at all, or on each day when they are released or used, and that liability, if it results in a fatality, injury or a lawsuit, will be backed up with your own money, county taxpayers, so, please, pay attention.

The same refers to lack of records in response to questions No. 6 and 7.

It is elementary to have such certification and sign-out procedures of the TASER equipment, for the safety of both the officers themselves and the public.

Apparently, Delaware County doesn't give a damn about that safety.

And as to training as to how to use TASERS, see question No. 9 and Delaware County's response to it, "by policy, all employees who carry TASER guns, are certified accordingly".

Yet, no records of such policies or certifications are provided, so, as with policies to search attorney files, this is just an ad hoc invention to keep at bay the information-hungry civil rights attorney.

How safe are you, residents and visitors of Delaware County?  Apparently, not safe at all.

Delaware County Sheriff does not have written policies to search attorney files

I have posted on this blog some time in September two recordings of my telephone conversations with Delaware County officials (State of New York).

One conversation was with the chief of correctional facility in the Delaware County Sheriff's Department claiming that the Sheriff's Department has a policy to search attorney's files when attorneys come to visit their clients who are held in jail.

The other conversation was with the Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood who claimed he did not know of any policies.

On September 24, 2014, two days after I was not allowed to see my client in Delaware County jail because I refused to allow my attorney file to be searched, I made a FOIL request with the Delaware County Sheriff asking to provide me all written policies referring to search of attorney files.

I received recently an answer to that request indicating that there are no such written policies in existence.

Thus, when I was ordered by the jail guard to be searched, it was simply an oral directive from the jail authorities to do that, and not a follow-up on any written policy, as policies as important as that one have to exist in writing.

I am also waiting for Delaware County's response to my other FOIL request, where I am asking to provide copies of jail sign-in sheets showing names of attorneys who visited their clients since early September, 2014, and, if the attorneys were allowed to visit their clients, videotapes showing that attorney files of those particular attorneys were searched. 

I have a funny feeling Delaware County will devise a way of denying me that request... 

What a mess...

Does a taxpayer-paid prosecutor have a right to appear at CLE seminars during business hours or is it a waste of public funds and attorney misconduct?

You know chameleons - those lizards who change color to blend with the environment for purposes of self-protection.

This is what prosecutors do in attorney disciplinary proceedings - they claim they are part of an executive branch to defeat constitutional challenges to the propriety of the proceeding and they claim they are part of judicial branch to protect themselves from disclosure of public records that may get them fired.

Normally, a prosecutor is a representative of an executive branch of the government.

In a valid court proceeding, a neutral prosecutor, an executive officer elected by the people, who is independent of the court, makes decisions whether to investigate or prosecute a case, investigates and prosecutes cases.

In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary committee constitutes, as I already wrote on this blog, of unpaid "volunteers", attorneys in private practice, private competitors of the disciplined attorney.

The attorneys representing these unpaid volunteers are paid by the state.

Seethroughny.net shows that the prosecutor that is  currently prosecuting my disciplinary case, Mary Gasparini, is paid as part of the judiciary, had a rate of pay in 2013 of $98,692.00 and was actually paid in 2013 $101,114.

This hefty payment came out of your pockets, New York taxpayers, so I, as a taxpayer, I became very interested when Ms. Gasparini asked a referee to adjourn a conference date because Ms. Gasparini was scheduled on the proposed date of the conference to speak at a CLE (continued legal education) seminar.

As far as I know, public speeches at privately held seminars for which attorneys pay through their noses, are not part of "duties" of prosecutors, so I filed a Freedom of Information Request with the disciplinary Committee seeking timesheets of Ms. Gasparini on the day of a prior CLE seminar where she "spoke".  I was interested how can a public prosecutor appear at such seminars on her state-paid time.

Actually, I was very interested in those time-sheets of Mary Gasparini because two of the prior prosecutors of the case, Steven D. Zayas and Peter Torncello, "resigned amid investigation" into allegedly filing false time-sheets.

So, I filed a FOIL request:

I received two answers as to Mary Gasparini's participation in the CLE's on taxpayer-paid time.

My first answer was an irate "Second Reply Affirmation" claiming that I am trying to "thwart" the disciplinary proceeding any way I can.

I guess, raising constitutional issues, including obvious issues of disqualification of a referee, in a timely filed motion to vacate, renew and reargue and based on documentary evidence and proper legal authorities is considered "thwarting" disciplinary proceedings.  So much for a neutral and impartial prosecutor.

In her "Second Reply Affirmation", under oath, Mary Gasparini:

(1) acknowledged that she did ask the referee (whom she called a "judge") for an adjournment because of her appearance to speak at a CLE seminar; 

(2) claimed (without supporting documents) that she is not compensated for speaking at the CLE seminars; and 

(3) claimed that speaking at CLE seminars (during business hours as a prosecutor and while obviously delaying proceedings that she is prosecuting) is somehow part of Ms. Gasparini's "duty".

I cannot verify truthfulness of Mary Gasparini's first statement that she is not compensated for speaking at the CLE seminars, but she is, in fact, compensated, by the taxpayers, for speaking at CLE seminars while doing nothing as to her direct duty of prosecuting cases.

Also, while Ms. Gasparini's statement is unverifiable, or, at least, she has failed to provide documents from the CLE provider confirming that she is not being compensated for her "speaking" at CLE seminars, copies of recordings from that seminar, including Ms. Gasparini's speech, are being sold as online access and as CDs.  I wonder if Ms. Gasparini is not compensated for sales of those either.

My second answer was a response from Ms. Gasparini's boss, attorney Gregory J. Huether.

Mr. Heuther claimed that the Committee is an "auxiliary of the court", therefore, it is part of the judiciary and cannot be reached by FOIL.

In fact, when denying my FOIL request about policies, time-sheets and paychecks, Mr. Huether, a seasoned attorney, had to know he is violating the FOIL law and the policy New York State Court Administration, distinguishing between "administrative" records (reachable by FOIL) and court records (not reachable by FOIL, but reachable under Judiciary Law 255).

I guess, even when trying to prosecute an attorney for allegedly frivolous conduct, the disciplinary prosecutors do not feel beneath them to engage in frivolous conduct themselves - when it suits to protect their own personal interests and careers.

Time-sheets of a public employee, whether that is an employee of a court or of an executive agency, are administrative records reachable by FOIL.

When prosecutors try to pretend that they are not part of the court when I challenge constitutionality of disciplinary proceedings under the "judge-advocate rule" and that they are part of the court when they want to protect themselves by stonewalling my access to public records, their own time-sheets that can potentially lead to their "resignation", as it did with Mr. Zayas and Mr. Torncello, that is called prosecutorial misconduct.

Yet, there is no hope that disciplinary prosecutors will at any time be disciplined for that misconduct, because who is going to discipline them - themselves or the court that they are "the auxiliary" of?

Complaints were filed against Judges Peters, Stein and NYS Governor

Complaints were filed with the U.S. Attorneys' office dealing with corruption in New York State government, with a request to investigate and prosecute judges of the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Department Leslie Stein, Karen Peters and NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo for theft of honest services of a judge - for nomination of Judge Leslie Stein to the Court of Appeals on October 17, 2014 while she was a presiding appellate judge on a DEC case, while she was not removed from the panel by Chief Judge Karen Peters and did not step down voluntarily, but instead ruled for the DEC 6 days after the nomination.


Complaints were also filed with the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission.


I am wondering whether any discipline or prosecution will follow.