The fired-up firemen and the fireman's wife in trouble

According to reports from Delhi, NY, today, here is the status of police/fire incident report as to the fire at Barbara O'Sullivan's house:

• no report still;
• no promised call from Tim Buckley still, as was promised to Barbara O'Sullivan, along with the report, yesterday (probably, the lawyers are talking to the insurance company and the insurance company does not allow the law enforcement to tell the truth in the report, see my previous blog here);
• members of the Delhi Fire Department are expressing displeasure to employees of Barbara's brother (of all people) about them not being paid for their firefighting "jobs", and being upset at being "put down like that";
• the firefighter's wife Sharon Reichert-Morgan is in some kind of trouble because of my blogs posting her messages to me.

The rank-and-file members of the Delhi Fire Department can discuss the fire to their heart's desire - but the report is not there from their bosses, and that is very damaging.

Yet, they blame not their bosses, and certainly not themselves, for not doing their jobs properly (because that admission may be prohibited by insurance).

They blame my blogs, the mirror of their conduct.

By the way, the report was supposed to be made immediately, according to my prior conversation - couple of years ago - with a firefighter who was my client.

And - an interesting development.

The firefighter's wife Sharon Reichert-Morgan who claims she does not use her work time for personal business, sent me a message on Messenger (I wonder if it was on her county-issued cell phone or County computer) begging me for a telephone conversation.

This was my first reply.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan insisted that:

I asked what I asked for yesterday when Sharon Reichert-Morgan was promising a smear campaign, to hide her firefighter husband's key if my own husband is burning (hint, hint), calling me, my husband, the victims and their families various bad names.

Just a video hangout, livestreamed, videotaped, with Sharon Reichert-Morgan and her husband participating

I did not hear back from Sharon Reichert-Morgan yet as to that counter-offer.

Saying that she was only trying to "persuade me" - I will let my readers be judges of the sincerity of those particulars methods of "persuasion", see messages of Sharon Reichert-Morgan published here and here.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan was very cavalier yesterday on Facebook claiming that I am crazy.

Now she is begging for a phone conversation with a crazy person?

Interesting - what could have happened to sober her up so quickly?

Very likely, Sharon Reichert-Morgan had a good conversation with attorneys Amy Merklen, or Porter Kirkwood, and/or her boss or bosses, who, probably, explained to her that, even though my license is temporarily suspended, my brains and training as a trial lawyer are not, only I am using these skills for journalism now.

I am still skilled to exact information from people, especially from social services and law enforcement, and I did extract information that I needed from Sharon Reichert-Morgan's statements and statements of her friends and commentators which was exposing untruths and potential misconduct of Sharon Reichert-Morgan, her husband, her husband's employer the Delhi Fire Department and her own employer the Delaware County Department of Social Services.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan also must have forgotten that she gets her money funded by my taxes and subject to my scrutiny through FOIL requests, and for that reason, insulting me, at the very least, was not advisable.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan also must have forgotten that nobody prevents me, license or no license, from making FOIL requests, obtaining documents and reporting on documents and stories reported to me from Delaware County.

In fact, now I have more free time to do that.

That's called journalism, for which this country did not invent licenses yet.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan implied in her today's messages to me that I incorrectly got "her" children (two children and one stepchild) "involved in this", and that she would never involve mine.

Yet, it is not me who got "her" children involved in this discussion, it was Sharon Riechert-Morgan herself, in her messages to me, which I simply verified against certain sources from the area, and commented on her truthfulness and her potential abuse of power in regards of the child or children, as a social services department employee.

Knowing that 

• other social services employees use their influence to affect custody proceedings and even adoption proceedings (I have names of particular social workers in mind, and the Department of Social Services knows who and in what cases), and knowing 
• behavior of local judges in relation to all social workers, and especially female young social workers, and 
• taking into consideration the semi-nude picture Sharon Reichert-Morgan has sent me with a request to publish it, 

I could reasonably conclude that it was not beyond Sharon Reichert-Morgan to abuse the power of her government employment, as well as her feminine charms (you do not need much charms for an ageing judge) to get custody of her husband's child with a little help.

Now apparently Sharon Reichert-Morgan is in trouble, and is begging me for an opportunity to entrap me with a phone conversation into a charge of unauthorized practice of law.

As I showed above, I counter-offered what I offered from the very beginning - a videotaped and livestreamed chat on Google Hangouts, with Reichert, her husband firefighter, and with other members of the firefighting team and law enforcement who participated in 

1. the alleged extinguishing of the fire and 
2. who hovered around Barbara O'Sullivan's property in police uniform pretending they are on government business.

No answer so far.

Well, I am patient and I can wait.

I will report any developments of this story.

Stay tuned.
 

Honesty of the local law enforcement personnel in Delaware County, New York, is governed by insurance policy

Now that all the foaming accusations against me subsided for alleging the unthinkable - that local law enforcement personnel and firefighters may be committing misconduct in non-extinguishing and non-investigation of the house of a local critic of governmental misconduct Barbara O'Sullivan, I will publish a portion of a document that I actually received on April 26, 2016 from Delaware County in response to my FOIL request.

That's a portion of Delaware County liability insurance policy for actions of its law enforcement personnel.

The policy is pretty standard and, I am sure, a similar policy covers actions of firefighters.

Here is the interesting portion that I would like to share (I will analyze the policy in a separate blog, probably, tomorrow):

There were a lot of people who, based on their emotional attachments to individuals working in the local law enforcement and the Delhi Fire Department, defended their loved ones to the point of casting ugly allegations against the victims in Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire, as well as against her daughter, her extended family, me who reported the case, misconduct of the law enforcement and firefighters included, and even against my husband who has nothing to do with reporting of Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire story.  

Those relatives , driven by their emotional attachment to their loved ones, were telling me that "they know", even though they were never at the scene of the fire, because "they know" their husbands, or boyfriends, or former comrades-in-arms, and "they know" that those loved ones or comrades "can never" and "they are not liars", and because of that, I am the liar, and I need to have my head checked out, and to relearn the law (why I need to relearn the law in journalism, I don't know), and all other nice things that I need to do, including apologize to the Fire Department.

I won't apologize.

Read the liability policy of Delaware County regarding its law enforcement personnel.

It is pretty standard policy, I am sure.

Just read it.

The insurance policy says, in black and white, that "the insured" "shall not" (that is a prohibition) "admit any liability" or "assume any obligation".

Do you know what that means?

It means that Delaware County law enforcement personnel is PROHIBITED to tell the truth and "admit a liability" or "assume an obligation" - in other words, they are PROHIBITED to say - YES, I caused a bodily injury of this person, or "I neglected my duties and caused injury to a person or property".

They are prohibited to say that.

You can read the full text of the insurance policy here.

And, even though I will be requesting a separate policy as to firefighters, I am pretty sure that it will say the same.

So much for the claimed honesty.

Just saying...

The demographics of the rural Otsego and Delaware County, New York - people are leaving, while the government is growing

Yes, yes, yes, I know, there is small lies, big lies and statistics.

Statistics may be manipulated, may be forged and fabricated, that's true.

But, when many business decisions are independently made by various businesses and local governments based on demographic statistics, such statistics must be true.

People who want to make money will not turn money down based on fake statistics - they will research.

And Fox Hospital from Oneonta, NY did its research of demographics in the area.

And is closing its maternity services that were serving Otsego and Delaware Counties.

Not enough babies being born is cited as the reason.

To cut costs, the hospital now "consolidated" its "labor and delivery" services with Basset Hospital in Cooperstown, NY.

Oneonta, NY, by the way, is located right on Interstate-88, while Cooperstown, NY is reachable only by one-lane county roads that can be tough to navigate in winter.

This is the second maternity hospital that closed in the area within the last 10 years - after the maternity wing in Delaware Valley Hospital in Walton, New York.

Delaware Valley maternity hospital (where my teenage son was born) served rural community in Delaware County for years - and served it well.  

Delaware Valley had only two labor rooms in the entire hospital.  When I was giving birth there, it was the only birth for 2 days.

Finally, Delaware Valley considered it not cost-efficient to continue to run its "labor and delivery" services in an area with dwindling population - where an entire elementary school building, the Abraham Kellogg Elementary School, had to be closed in 2008 and sold by the Delaware County School District because there were no children left to fill that building.

The Abraham Kellogg Elementary School that closed in 2008 reportedly served 46 children in grades 1 through 4.

Fox is not the business or entity taking notice of dwindling population in the area.

This year, Delhi, NY, the seat of Delaware County, announced it is now "reconsidering" the much promoted project to build a swimming pool in the Legion Field.

Which is quite an extraordinary event, considering that just this past November the so-called "Pool Committee" has decided to "go forward" with construction, and was soliciting bids - and donations for such a construction, and that donations are being solicited to this day.

By the way, even though the pool is not going to be built, at least in the original scale, at least at this time (looks like ever), and even though the decision that bids are not approved has already been announced on January 16, 2016, that announcement did not appear on the "Pool Committee"'s website, and the website still has the "Donate" button as of today.

So, I wonder where all of those donations already collected are going.

Once again - on November 4, 2015 (the day of elections, by the way), there was a "go ahead" press release soliciting written bids and donations from the public.  It was like a plea - RE-ELECT ME NOW!  We brought this great project about.

On November 15, 2015 the Town of Delhi, NY published the invitation for bidding for construction of the pool (issued, curiously, 6 days prior, but for some reason not immediately published - why? "the near and dear" to the Town officials' hearts were first notified in a private setting?).

On December 11, 2015 there was an announcement on the Facebook page of the Pool Committee - but not on its main webpage - that "a legal snafu has caused a delay in the bidding process".

The latest "news" on the Delhi Pool Committee's main webpage remain this - those who know the location will see the playground in the back dwarfed by the "project" that was to be built in the area usually flooded by the West Branch of the Delaware River (I lived in Delhi, NY for 17 years, experienced such floods and saw this particular spot as a lake with ducks instead of people swimming all over it):

If you click the "read more" little red words, this opens:

In early January of 2016, bids for construction of the pool (two) came "too high", and the Pool Committee together with the Town of Delhi and the State of New York (that participated with a grant) is now considering a "scale-down" of the project - without notifying its readers on either their main webpage or on the Facebook page, and while continuing to invite donations, even though there is no assurance that the pool-building project will ever go ahead.

The interesting part is that there are no suggestions to collect more donations - only to "scale down" the project.  No people to "serve", it's starting to dawn, right?

And boy do they have to "consider" a scale-down - with the schools having to close and maternity hospitals in the area having to close - because people are leaving the area, with children in tow - who would come to use this "project"?

It will be an "attractive nuisance" and a liability for the remaining Delhi Town taxpayers, it will require a lot of funds for upkeep and garbage removal, it can be overrun by recurrent floods in the area, but it is doubtful that it will be "serving" a lot of people.

It is very obvious that, based on the facts of 

• schools that are closing for lack of children,
• maternity hospitals, even in a relatively large college towns, are closing;
• "scalings-down" of major "community projects"

population in Otesgo and Delaware County is flying out.

In droves.

Which brings me to the question:

what will happen to the budgets of:

• The school districts - when there are less children to teach;
• Social Services - where there are less families to supervise;
• Police and District Attorney's offices - where there are less people to commit crimes;
• the Court system - where there are less cases to be brought voluntarily by local residents, and by social services and the District Attorney?

So far, the process was in reverse to the population dynamics.

There is a huge inflated budget of Delaware County Department of Social services - that, of course, has to feed: 

• all the clans illegally employed by the County, the "hiring process" is described here, and 
• the tumor on the budget of Delaware County, the Delaware Opportunities Inc.  (and the like organizations fed out of the County's budget) where the local governmental officials that command the budget sit on the Board and where, reportedly, a ton of relatives and friends of county officials are employed.

In July of 2015, a new, fourth prosecutor, was authorized for the Delaware County District Attorney's Office, see here and here.

In other words - while people are leaving the State of New York, and the rural counties, which is shown by business decisions to close schools, maternity hospitals and ditch the much-promoted swimming pool project, the "demographics" of the local government goes in reverse - it grows, salaries of officials grow, numbers of officials (judges, prosecutors) grow.

Why? 

Because these people will not survive outside of the government, in an honest self-made business?

They need taxpayers as captive cash cows to subsidize them?

Watch out, Delaware County taxpayers, as well as Delhi Village and Town taxpayers, for any increases of levies or taxes.

The parasites in the local government need the money of the remaining captive cash cows, the taxpayers, to survive, thrive and feed their clans.

Say "no" to the growing local budgets.

They have no basis to ask for growth.

And - I will run a separate blog on the unfunded increase of the salaries of local County District Attorneys, as well as a separate blog about the alleged "budget savings" recently reported by the Delaware County Department of Social Services.

Stay tuned.

Attorney misconduct of the Florida Bar in prosecuting attorney misconduct - what else is new

I've just submitted (two days ago) a motion for rehearing of my constitutional appeal as of right in my disciplinary case, the last step before going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I will publish the entire motion and comment on it in a separate blog, today or tomorrow.

One of the prominent issues in my case was misconduct of New York State disciplinary authority in prosecuting me for alleged attorney misconduct - where New York State disciplinary authorities actually refused to prosecute themselves for multiple disciplinary violations and dismissed complaints against themselves.

A similar situation of misconduct is currently unfolding in Florida.

There, an attorney who was consulted about a disciplinary case by the subjects of the disciplinary investigation and prosecution, then switched sides and ghost-wrote an affidavit for the prosecutors, while reportedly making false claims in that affidavit into the bargain.

The lawyers - same as I did in my case - requested dismissal of the disciplinary proceedings based on prosecutorial misconduct, because it goes without saying that an attorney misconduct proceeding cannot be prosecuted with the help of attorney misconduct.

Here, attorney misconduct was apparent.

1) There was a conflict of interest in the attorney initially contacted about representing the defense side to switch to the prosecution side;

2) There was misconduct of the prosecution side to accept such help and allow the former defense attorney in the same case to ghost-write a pleading for the prosecution;

3) There is misconduct on the side of the former defense attorney and the disciplinary prosecutors to submit such a pleading to the court, and to submit a false affidavit to the court.

Definitely, means by which the government acts, matter.

And definitely, the attorneys who were and still are subjects of investigation and prosecution in Florida, irrespective of whether they actually did or did not do anything wrong, were deprived of their due process right of an impartial prosecutor, and to have elementary honesty in proceedings.

A disciplinary prosecutor should be squeaky clean and practice what he preaches, first and foremost.

Shouldn't he?

A new U.S. Supreme Court 1st Amendment case - factual mistake in sanctioning an employee for protected conduct is not a defense in a civil rights lawsuit

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an interesting opinion where it protected, in a majority opinion, the right of governmental employees not to be punished for conduct protected by the 1st Amendment. 

Here is the opinion in full.

The case is decidedly weird, on many levels.

The gist of it is that a police officer was demoted because somebody saw him (and reported him to his supervisor) standing with a sign supporting a certain official in his election campaign and talking to that person's campaign workers.

The supervisor perceived that reported conduct of the police officer as participating in a political activity - which is not allowed to police officers and other government employees.

It was actually a misunderstanding.  The police officer held a sign he was bringing home to his bed-ridden disabled mother at her request, he did not support the campaign of that individual personally.

The big fight was that the officer was demoted and sued for discrimination on 1st Amendment grounds, among other grounds.

The dissent said that, since it was a misunderstanding and the officer did not ACTUALLY engage in political conduct, 1st Amendment cannot be invoked in his lawsuit.  In the opinion of the dissent, what was done to the police officer (demoting from investigator to patrol) was "callous, but not unconstitutional".

Whether the 1st Amendment could or could not be invoked by the officer in a discrimination lawsuit made a difference between whether the officer's civil rights case would be dismissed or allowed to proceed.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and allowed the officer's case to proceed, stating that factual mistake is no defense.  If the officer's employer believed that the officer is demoted because of his participation in a political campaign, that was activity protected by the 1st Amendment, and the lawsuit could proceed.

The issue though is not that simple.

In fact, if the officer's employer believed that the officer did participate in a political campaign, and did that openly, so that his holding of the sign while talking to the campaign workers of a certain political candidate could send a message to the public that the local police endorses that political candidate, and where such political activity was prohibited as a condition of employment, the government was justified to demote or fire the officer, 1st Amendment or no 1st Amendment.

Such firing would definitely have met the required strict scrutiny test, because on the other side of the balancing test as to whether the 1st Amendment rights were violated and whether such a demotion or even firing would be permissible under the 1st Amendment, is the requirement of government neutrality and non-endorsement by the government of political candidates, to preserve integrity of democratic elections.

So, I am afraid, we did not see the last of that case, it can return to the U.S. Supreme Court after its round through the lower courts on remand, and, of course, I will report it if it does return.

Stay tuned.

Comments to Barbara O'Sullivan's burnt house story - the smear tactics by a firefighter's wife and a firefighter's girlfriend tell me this story is on the right track

Overnight I've learnt that the firefighter's wife who initially reported to me that her husband made statements to her about what allegedly happened at the fire site - while the case is still under investigation - recanted and is now claiming that she was making statements to me in comments and on Messenger only based on her "independent thinking", not on her husband's reports to her, as she initially said.

That's why I accepted her message on Messenger (a procedure for messages from people who are not the addressee's Facebook friends).  It was a goldmine of information.

Appears that her husband or his superior worked with Mrs.  Sharon Reichert-Morgan overnight and showed her the error of her ways.

Not quite though, since she has sent me a half-naked picture of herself, looking suggestively, with a request to publish it.

Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan also disclosed to me that she has 3 additional jobs to the County job for the total of 5 (Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan's math, not mine) - which is a good material for a FOIL request to the County for time sheets.

I've also learnt that Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan has a problem with either grammar or truth or her husband.

She claimed that she has to work (present tense) those multiple jobs, because she was (past tense) raising her two children alone, and now she is raising also her stepson.

Mrs. Reichert-Morgan is suggesting, I understand, that despite her marriage, she is the main breadwinner in the family providing for her children.

Which does not mesh very well with Mrs. Reichert-Morgan's statements that she is waiting at home with children for the return of her husband VOLUNTEER firefighter.

Either Mrs. Reichert-Morgan's "additional 3 jobs for a total of 5" are all from home, or her "independent thinking" is fuzzy not only on math.

And, if Mrs. Reichert-Morgan has to work 5 jobs to keep the family afloat, what is her husband doing volunteering instead of working to earn a living so that his wife does not have to work 5 jobs?

Doesn't he have a construction company to run (that's what my sources say)?  

So, doesn't he have an incentive to let a certain house burn - so, maybe, he would get a contract to re-build it?

A volunteer firefighter owning a construction company with financial problems in the family.  Nice.

And, according to at least one source, Josh Morgan the firefighter has been seen driving around without the tech inspection sticker required in New York to drive a vehicle.

I guess, Josh Morgan is allowed to do that because of his status as a "volunteer firefighter", and his wife's status as the employee of the local department of social services.  

That's why he volunteers - to get the special status that allows him to break the law?

There were some other comments, attempting to defame the victims of the house fire, diagnose me as crazy, silly, nuts, etc., and suggesting that I need to go re-learn the law.

A lot of comments were made by a Colleen Church who admitted she was not at the site of the house fire, but allegedly listened to the scanner left at home because her boyfriend is a firefighter.

Here is that last comment with a disclosure about a firefighter boyfriend, scanner and more rumors about the victims' entire large family now ("how the Bracci's operate" - the victim has 7 brothers and sisters, with a lot of nephews, many living in the area, as far as I know, now they are all being bad and smeared by Colleen Church).

My two answers to that comment:

The today's latest statement of Colleen Church posted above (see all comments to that blog here) was interesting from several points:

1) Colleen Church admitted she was not an eyewitness to the house fire or the efforts (or lack thereof) of the Delhi Fire Department to extinguish that fire, and her reports are pure hearsay;

2) Colleen Church most likely lies about listening to the scanner, because, if the scanner is her nameless firefighter boyfriend's scanner, and it was at home, that means her boyfriend was at home, too, and that means that he did not participate in extinguishing that fire - which also says a lot?  Why not?  Why didn't he go there?  And, if he didn't go there, he, most likely didn't listen to the scanner, and neither did Colleen Church, because she had no interest listening to the scanner in the middle of the night while her firefighter boyfriend was not going to the scene;

3) Colleen Church goes out on a limb now smearing not just Barbara and not just her daughter, and not just me and my husband who has nothing to do with the house fire or my reporting of the house fire, but she now attempts to smear the entire Bracci family - a very large clan of siblings and their offspring, many of them residing in the area, many of them occupying prominent positions in the local government (for example, Barbara's brother Peter Bracci was a recent Town Supervisor of the Town of Delhi and a supervisor of the Social Services in the entire Delaware County) and/or businesses.

4) Colleen Church loses her argument because she says she is not going to post any more - but pretends to be brave at losing her argument and throws a challenge at me "to confront her in public, face to face".  I do not know what Colleen Church is expecting from confronting her "face to face", and she knows I am far away and will not come 800+ miles to "confront her in public" - how - by fistfights?  

As to public DEBATES, if that is what Colleen Church meant, I invited people to such public, videotaped and live-streamed debates yesterday, before her "brave" parting challenge of today.  

Which brings me to another question - can Colleen Church read?

Colleen Church is also an author of this message on Google+ made yesterday:

Of course, as the author of this blog, I reserve the right to comment on messages voluntarily sent to me the way I see fit.

As to the claims I am crazy, that's not the first time such claims are made.

I am proud to disclose that at my very first appearance in court (that was a criminal court, and I was arguing an Omnibus motion) when I raised the issue of obvious police and prosecutorial misconduct revealed in the record, the local DA (it was close to the Canadian border) popped up, all red, and claimed that "she (I) is as crazy as her husband".  

That was my very first court appearance, and I perceived that spit-out as a badge of honor, where my performance was equated with that of a pre-eminent and skillful trial criminal defense lawyer whose trials gathered local attorneys as master classes.

My husband later won an acquittal in that case on the main count of the indictment, leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

And the crazy person, me, then won freedom for her client in the same case by my argument at sentencing on the remaining count of lying to the grand jury, where that particular DA argued for jail time in front of a crowd of TV and mainstream journalists in a highly publicized case.

I guess, all individuals who have ever done criminal defense, civil rights litigation - and especially divorces (Sharon Riechert-Morgan was especially bitter as to my husband doing some divorce cases in the future suggesting some personal animosity against my husband driving her, too) - are crazy and must check their heads out.

I also got comments - you can see them all on Google+ and blog articles relating to the house fire story - that I am "dumb", "silly", "crazy", "nuts".  Just to amplify the suggestion that I need to be diagnosed.

Having been born and raised in the Soviet Union, I am not at all surprised by this tactic - if you are criticizing actions of the government, you must absolutely be crazy.

Apparently, the tactic is alive and well on the American soil.

Now Colleen Church, as a mental health expert and a law expert advises me to (1) go get my "head checked" and (2) go relearn the law.

My diligent research of appropriate databases failed to reveal any public information indicating that Colleen Church is either a licensed mental health provider, or a lawyer.  

It is just a gratuitous spit-out of a firefighter's girlfriend. 

Moreover, what does my reporting of a house fire have to do with the law, and why I need to re-learn it because I reported a story about a house fire, I do not know, but I assure both my kind and unkind readers that I am re-learning the law every day - as any legal scholar should.

To sum up my overnight crop of comments, I am satisfied with the results.

The posted comments show that the blog is being read by the Delhi Fire Department employees (as well as their family members), and that DFD is now backtracking and trying to keep the runaway mouths of Sharon Reichert-Morgan and Colleen Church (which hurts their chances to backdate and fabricate incident reports) in check, at least in regards to facts about the fire that neither one of these women witnessed.  

It is already too late, since both women let out valuable information that cannot be taken back.  

The comments also show the caliber of individuals working for the local government at the town and County level in Delhi, New York, and Delaware County, New York.  

What is quite illustrative is that:

• comments about a suspicious house fire and misconduct of public officials involved in extinguishing, investigating and reporting that house fire are not from eyewitnesses;  

• if comments are from alleged eyewitnesses, those eyewitnesses do not dare to post under their own names and instead assume nicknames, like "Archer", or "LifeSaver", with profiles created that same day for the purpose of posting the comments, 

• a commentator claiming she's got her information from her firefighter husband and then, in the middle of the night, recants and claims she is now an "independent thinker" (that would be news to many attorneys in the area - an employee of the Delaware County Social Services Department, an independent thinker), and that's how she learnt (by clairvoyance, I guess) about what has allegedly happened at the fire site she's never been to, and sends me her half-naked picture to support her idea of "independent thinking", and 

• the comments are nothing more than a smear campaign as to the eyewitnesses, victims, victims' entire extended families, the reporter of the events and even the reporter's husband (a material difference here, because my husband did not extinguish the house fire in question and has nothing to do with this story, while the commentator's husband was on that site, according to her own admission) - that says a lot about the caliber of commentators.

It also says that I am on the right track in reporting this story.

Intimidation and smear campaigns are a sure sign that the story is true, and that there is more people are hiding and are trying hard to prevent from being discovered.

So, stay tuned for more coverage of the house fire and its non-investigation and non-reporting.

On the other hand - why keep people waiting. Here it is: a firefighter's wife spits fire - and that fire is pure hearsay

Just received a threat from a firefighter's wife.

She is very transparently hinting to me that if my home in Delhi, NY is on fire, she will hide her firefighter husband's keys so that he wouldn't be available to extinguish it.

I have no doubt about that.

The attempted arson in our home was already ignored by the local police and the DA's office.

The firefighter's wife was not an eyewitness, but who nevertheless believes her husband's statements and calls me and the victim, Barbara, a liar, and accuses her of the death of a dog, and accuses her of starting the fire.

Obviously that is the theory of Delhi FD.

One criminal indictment against Barbara dismissed, they are immediately putting together another, with the help of the noble brave dog-pitying firefighter husband.

Which does not explain why the firefighter husband came home to his wife crying about the dead dog, instead of calling the warden (as he was supposed to) to come and collect the dog's body.

Which does not explain why Barbara was blocked from going back into the house to save that dog, and she did tell them that the dog is in.

She could only do so much.  There were three dogs in the house at the time the fire started.

The first one came out with her.

She went back into the burning building for other dogs.

She took her time - while the fire was raging in the house - to get the second dog out.  He was scared and confused and would not go.

She saved him.

She could not save the third one, she told the firefighters about the 3rd dog, and she was not allowed back into the house, nor did the firefighters do anything to extinguish the fire.

Since the firefighter's wife falsely claimed to me that I allegedly locked my blog for comments (I never did, and comments posted today by the firefighter "Archer" are the proof), I am publishing her fiery messages to me in full.

Apparently, she did that under her real name, and she can be called as a witness in any court proceedings that may ensue.

And, apparently, she or somebody in her family have a problem with my husband, and specifically about divorces my husband has handled, so I wonder whether my husband was on the other side of a divorce of the fire-spitting firefighter's wife or her friend or family member.

And the spitfire person, Sharon Reichert-Morgan, who toils in the Social Services Department of Delaware County, forgot to mention that my "slumlording" husband rented, until 2 months ago, an apartment approved for several years, for different tenants, by Sharon Riechert-Morgan's own employer, Delaware County, as the cleanest living quarters available in Delhi, NY.

And that the contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services ended only because the tenant is not longer there and the new tenants do not need public assistance.

Anyway, here is the spitfire comments that I was claimed to block from posting on my blog - in full:

I asked Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan these two questions, given her fiery speech:

Here is what she answered:

So - a worker supported by my taxes is threatening me to "correct the untruths" of my blog because Sharon Rienhart-Morgan, a social services department employee, believes her firefighter husband more than she does my friend - and victim in the case - Barbara O'Sullivan.

And, if I do not "correct the untruths", she is threatening me to withhold his husband's protection as a firefighter, and with a smear campaign.

Well, the smear campaign I will endure.  Not the first time.

The threat I will forward to Ms. Sharon Rienhart-Morgan's supervisors, with a request to fire her.

And, I will forward her threat to the Delhi Fire Department, Village Police, DA's office and the County Attorney with an indication that if ANYTHING AT ALL happens to my residence in Delhi, New York, I will know where to look for a culprit.

By the way, I did a little research on the Internet about the name of Sharon Riechert-Morgan's husband - since Barbara was denied any names of who was on site.

Here is the baby registry of Sharon Riecher and Josh Morgan, so Josh Morgan was allegedly on Barbara's property at the time of the fire.

Sharon Riechert-Morgan is also, "coincidentally", an employee of Delaware County (an entity much criticized by me on the blog) and specifically an employee of Delaware County Department of Social Services (an entity much criticized and sued by me and opposed in child neglect and abuse lawsuits by me and my husband).

Here is the fire-spitting firefighter's wife's picture:

Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) is also an employee of Delaware County since 2005, and a full-time employee, too:

Which does not prevent Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) to have a business on the side:

That little double-dipping makes me thinking - as a taxpayer in Delaware County - does Sharon Riechert-Morgan do her independent consulting on taxpayer-paid time?

By the way, as we speak, Sharon Reichert-Morgan keeps going on Messenger.

Here are her new spit-outs:

Since the smear campaign against Barbara already started, here are some answers.

No, Barbara did not have money problems.

She is retired and disabled from the NYS Department of Corrections and well cared for by the State of New York.  She had no motive to burn her own house.

I don't know whether Barbara was making any mortgage payments.  In fact, if she would be making any mortgage payments, I would be extremely surprised.

Why?  

Those curious why might check out Barbara O'Sullivan's name in Delaware County Courthouse.

I represented Barbara on a motion to vacate foreclosure on her house - and was successful, because the foreclosing bank did not have standing to sue.  The foreclosure was vacated and the house returned back to Barbara.  In 2010.

Whoever is pretending that they still have a claim on that house (now former house) had no such claim, as of 2010 when the foreclosure was vacated, by Judge Eugene Peckham.  

Check it out, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan, because what you are spewing about Barbara is ... well... not a little lie, but a big lie.  Like a bad lie.  Like a very bad lie.

And - why a firefighter's wife and an employee of the Department of Social Services interested in Barbara's mortgage payments, unless she is part of the team preparing to frame Barbara for something more?

And, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan being an employee of the County who persecuted Barbara on false criminal charges (just dismissed) and that lied to Barbara about legitimacy of its alleged Deputy Sheriff, and that is funding the legal defense of Derek Bowie at this time....  Well, makes her an interested witness, doesn't it?

And, as I said above,  Barbara saved two dogs out of three, plus herself, out of a raging fire, a fire that melted her cars - not bad considering that whoever wanted to ignite the house did that in the middle of the night, when the residents were supposed to be asleep.

Taking one dog out - and herself - required opening the door.

Getting back into the house for the 2nd dog - required opening the door.

If Barbara would let the 2nd dog burn to death, she would have been accused now of killing two dogs.

She saved two, now she is accused of killing the third.  By a person who was not on site, but who believes her husband "smelling of sweat and fire". 

Barbara got lucky.  She wasn't asleep.  And that's why she and two dogs (out of three) survived.

And, had Barbara planned to put fire to her house, she would have saved the family heirlooms that perished in the fire.

I understand that those who planned this were upset that Barbara got out unscathed.  Bad for them.  Good for Barbara.

And - there is no statute of limitations for attempted murder, the second one against Barbara since Derek Bowie's in September of 2014.

So, before piling it all up on Barbara - instead of providing an incident report - Delaware County should get to think how to train their employees.  

Or how to hire people of better caliber.  In terms of intellect and integrity.

Oh, and by the way - it was just reported to me that Sharon Riechert-Morgan is the former girlfriend of Judge Yvonne Pagillo's policeman son Richard Pagillo.  Where Yvonne Pagillo and Richard Pagillo spread rumors starting in 2013 that I was disbarred - I never was.

And that Sharon Riechert-Morgan, the paragon of morality, has three children by three different men and only the youngest kid is with her husband, who - my source indicated to me - was divorced and got his kid living with his ex-wife, so it is very likely that a man gets together with a woman who is a social services worker to help the man get his kid back.

So much for three kids "waiting for THEIR" father, Sharon.

Just a little bit of untruth ruins it all, right?