What is similar between now-partner in Hancock Eastabrook, "officer of the court" Frank W. Miller and Judge John F. Lambert? Complete refusal to read what one files with the court and what is filed...

 Was reading some court cases recently to prepare for a certain litigation.

And, lo and behold, what did I find?

The litigation attorney Frank W. Miller, now partner in Hancock Eastabrook, the law firm I wrote about in my previous blog post today, has done what NO attorney is allowed to do - and so far escaped unscathed, hopefully not for long, as I have turned him in for appropriate investigation and discipline.

When a party or attorney is e-filing documents on NYSCEF in New York State court cases, the party or attorney MUST check boxes that he or she has verified that there is no personal information that he or she is putting into the public domain - because, among other things, e-filed documents in open court cases are instantly downloadable by the public for free.

There is a court rule directly prohibiting such exposure, too, even though New York State does not have a common law cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Well, well, well.

Attorney Miller, admitted to practice law in New York since 1979 (I checked), appears to think this rule does not apply to him.  He obviously had to check that box claiming to the court that no personal data of a minor child is being filed by him unredacted.

And - put out into the open miles and miles of information from Family Court about a very young child: the child's full name, the child's full date of birth, the name of the child's adoptive parent in a pending adoption, the child's entire medical history - diagnosed mental illnesses, medications, hospitalizations and the like.

Made the child fully identifiable to the public, pre- and post-adoption, and disclosed all of the child's medical problems.

The documents, of course, are buried in a large file that Miller e-filed with the court WITHOUT READING IT - obviously, because how would he otherwise check that box that there is no personal information in the document he is e-filing?

I am not publishing here the name of the case and the name of the document attorney Miller has e-filed with the court, to prevent further exposure of the child, but it is there... it is there...  And the only reason I know about it is because, unbeknownst as to what the document may contain, I downloaded it from the NYSCEF system, so I have it on file, too - in case Miller attempts to claim I am not telling the truth.

This is not the only problem.

The problem is that the presiding judge over the case was Judge John F. Lambert.

And, Judge Lambert also allowed this information to remain in public access - for many, many years.

Which means that Judge Lambert DID NOT READ what was filed for his attention.  Because otherwise he would have picked it up - as I did, on my very first reading of that document.  Because, as I said, it is miles and miles of records there, can't miss it if you read it.

So that you know about the attention span, diligence and truthfulness of attorney Frank W. Miller and Judge John F. Lambert.

An appropriate complaint with the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission seeking investigation and discipline against Judge John F. Lambert, with attached court documents, and an appropriate complaint against Attorney Frank W. Miller to the appropriate Attorney Grievance Committee, also with attached court documents, has been filed.

In the complaint, I ask these authorities to prevail upon the court in question to have the documents revealing private information about the child sealed or redacted.

Last, but not least, the continued existence of this unredacted private information about the 5-year-old child in open access to the public on NYSCEF shows also that the County Clerk where the document was filed and the Court Clerk where the document was filed are also not doing their respective jobs and are not making sure that private information is not put out to the public.

For 5 years this information is exposed, ladies and gentleman.

For 5 years!

On demented Delaware County supervisors

 I am reading materials of a certain federal lawsuit against a certain County's elected leaders.  For 1st Amendment retaliation.  The lawsuit survived the initial motion to dismiss and went into discovery stage.  The County stalls discovery.   4 (!) Court hearings, transcribed, held on the subject of stalling.  In one of them, appearance of all defendants is court ordered.

And then, the County uses this trick:

The attorney for the County claims, through an affidavit of one of the county's legislators/executives ' daughter that the person in question will be unable and no good testifying as a witness, because he, though never diagnosed, has 

(a) hearing loss, 

(b) Parkinson's disease and 

(c) profound memory loss, 

and for that reason even "decided " not to be re-elected, even though it is unclear how a demented person can decide anything, especially anything so serious as to whether to run for re-election or not.  We have the Biden syndrome revisited here, obviously.

In other words, the attorney for the County admits, on record, that at least one of the voting County legislators is incompetent to do his job.

The court allows him not to testify,  because of the stated grounds (hearing loss, Parkinson, dementia).

While allowing the demented defendant not to testify, the court did not question whether it has jurisdiction over the mentally and physically incompetent defendant,  and about the lack of authority of the "defendant 's" law firm and lawyer to represent him directly.  

The judge did not STOP the proceedings, did not declare the demented defendant's purported attorneys to be without authority representing the demented defendant, and did not order a stay in proceedings until and unless the demented defendant is properly adjudicated as incompetent in state court and his legal representative is substituted in the federal action.

Of course, that incompetency proceeding would have opened a whole different can of worms for Delaware County, so that avenue was not pursued and the court proceeded without jurisdiction. 

Within 2 days of the hearing, the demented supervisor participated in the vote to pledge unlimited taxpayer funds to his own legal defense, which he must fund from his own pocket -  it is not covered by insurance,  and the County has no duty to fund that expense. His hearing loss, Parkinson and dementia do not prevent him from voting.

Within a month from that, the same attorney provides to the same court a certificate from the same demented supervisor who could not testify, a "certificate" where "the supervisor ", or someone on his behalf,  claims that he was advised by his counsel about what electronic discovery is, complete with Bolean searches and such, and perfectly understood what it is all about.

Eh?

Why didn't the fellow testify about it one month prior? 

Or, did the demented elderly County leader who cannot even sign an affidavit on his own behalf to the court miraculously get cured of dementia? 

It is the public record, ladies and gentlemen. 

No newspaper, including the one that is litigating the action, dares to write about it.

The name of the demented supervisor is Thomas Axtell.

The name of the County is Delaware County, NY.

The name of the newspaper who did not cover the story is The Reporter from Walton, NY.

The name of the attorney who bamboozled the court was Giancarlo Facciponte.

The name of attorney Facciaponte' s law firm is Hancock Eastabrook, the law firm of the Senior Magistrate of the same court David Peebles, the same law firm that fixed the court case for Judge Brian Burns when he was sued for his role as a false witness in a retaliation case against an Oneonta, NY blogger.

The same law firm whose managing partner Timothy Murphy, the fixer in Judge Burns' case, is the son of a retired NYS Supreme Court Justice Thomas Murphy , and the brother of the ever-sitting NYS Supreme Court Justice James Murphy who took the seat of his father on his retirement in 2004. 

Coincidentally, Judge James Murphy is now also Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York, conveniently overseeing assignment of judges to his brother's law firm's cases in state courts and, naturally, having a pull on federal courts, too.

The name of federal court that swallowed this bullshit from the inbred law firm and attorney Facciaponte whole is the US Disctrict Court for the Northern District of New York.

The name of the judge who accepted this obvious bamboozling without batting an eye is the former US attorney/prosecutor and now Magistrate Miroslav Lovric.

Now, Delaware County voters, please, consider - how many votes on how many Delaware County's local laws and financial resolutions are now suspect because of Thomas Axtell's undisclosed dementia?

How many more demented supervisors are on the Delaware County's Board of supervisors?

 If you thought the Biden autopen scandal is bad and hidden away in Washington, DC, think again.  It is right in your face. 

Voters, pay attention already in the election year!!!!

The panic of Porter Kirkwood, Delaware County and Porter Kirkwood's friend, the child rape victim-blamer attorney Frank Miller

On April 10 this year, just a little over a month ago, I wrote on this blog about a peculiar lawsuit prosecuted by NYCLU in the NYS Court of Appeals, showing that the New York State Office of Court Administration (NYS OCA), by secret memos, tell judges it assigns to cases, how to decide those cases, and refuses to provide those memos for public review.

That means that no litigant in a New York State court is currently free from doubt that such a memo was not issued by NYS OCA to the judge in his case telling that judge how exactly to fix that case.

In that same article, as well as in my other blog, from 2015, referenced in the article, I wrote about what happens to judges who do not do bend to the pressure from the administrative judges.

They are taken off cases that voters elected them to preside upon, they are exiled into remote courthouses, and they are disciplined by the NYS Conduct Commission that was put into place to actually protect the public from judicial misconduct, and not be used as a tool of pressure by administrative judges stripping judges of their independence.

The April, 10, 2025, article described how Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Eugene Faughnan using the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct to help him and his favorite, District Executive Porter Kirkwood, to strongarm judges to do Kirkwood's bidding.

Faughnan complained against a Binghamton judge to NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, and the Commission that usually - personal knowledge, and knowledge of many, many, many of my former clients and of my present readers who contacted me over the years - shreds complaints about judges, even supported with irrefutable documentary evidence, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, that Commission nearly insantly "investigated" Judge Daniel Sieden and PUBLICLY CENSURED him.

You can see all documents related to that determination on the official website of the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, here.

That was done simply because Judge Sieden asserted that he, and not Kirkwood, and not Faughnan, is the boss over personnel in the courthouse, and that he is the one setting the policies of how cases files should be maintained and handled by the personnel, because the way Kirkwood required him to do that interfered with his substantive duties as a judge.

Well, he was not only exiled to another court on Kirkwood/Faughnan's orders and taken by law enforcement out of the very courthouse to which Binghmaton taxpayers elected him.  He was censured for attempting to protect his judicial independence from interference from a non-judge Kirkwood and from administrative judge Faughnan, whose obvious favorite Kirkwood is.

I wrote on this blog about Kirkwood many, many times, this blog is word-searchable, and you can see those articles by putting in the words "Porter Kirkwood" in the word search window on the right.

Porter Kirkwood is a former Delaware County Attorney involved in many, many episodes of grievous official misconduct, some described in my blog articles going back to 2014.  He was never prosecuted because of his high position in the local government and because he was a friend and a favorite of a yet another judge, who was a friend and a favorite of a certain State Senator.  I wrote about all of it on this blog.

At this time though Porter Kirkwood is worried, and Porter Kirkwood is making mistakes.

Why?

Because a case is pending in Delaware County Supreme Court, Neroni v Mole, EF2024-880, where I openly, directly, accuse Delaware County of retaliating against me, my husband and my child, through direct involvement and orchestration of the destruction of buildings belonging to us, in retaliation for my blogging about County officials - including Porter Kirkwood.

I did not get Porter Kirkwood to testify at my disciplinary proceeding where my law license was unlawfully taken - so that I would not bother the local officials with my pesky civil rights lawsuits on behalf of my clients, and so that I would not EFFICIENTLY and HONESTLY represent people, including pro se, against the local, frequently corrupt, police, prosecutors, CPS and judges.

Why? 

Because something of "extrajudicial nature" happened.

The disciplinary court has first scheduled a hearing in my disciplinary case, and then cancelled it without an explanation and stripped me of my law license in 2015 without any hearings.

Why?

Because I presented to the court a list of witnesses I wanted to call at that hearing, Porter Kirkwood, John Hubbard (then ADA, now County Judge), John Lambert (judge), Brian Burns (judge), Carl Becker (then-judge, now "retired").

Of course, it could come out at that time that Porter Kirkwood and John Hubbard, among other people, were messenger boys for Carl Becker trying to coerce me to sleep with Carl Becker as a condition of keeping my law license - or else he will "call in some favors, as he did with Fred's law license".

I was under a "gag order" of sorts to talk about it before.  My children's lives depended on it.

We are suing now and openly claiming retaliation based on my blogging, and I am not going to keep back this, very big portion, of it.

Now guess just WHO the Delaware County hired to represent them in this action?

Hard to guess, but here:  attorney FRANK MILLER, coincidentally, a longtime attorney and friend of Porter Kirkwood, the guy who is now ASSIGNING JUDGES to the same case!

You can word-search this blog in the word-search window on the right, to learn that I have also blogged about this unsavory character's misconduct in court many, many, many times.

He is very obviously MY OWN hostile material witness in the case of retaliation by the county by blogging.

Of course, I cannot interfere with the County's choice of counsel, the County can shoot itself in the foot - at my expense, as a taxpayer - all it wants by hiring a hostile witness AGAINST THEM as their own fiduciary and counsel.

Frank Miller, with whom I have a long, long history, that I partially described in my affirmation to the court submitted this week, appeared on behalf of the County and, predictably for this character, immediately started what he does best - attempt to harass people.

Of course, he was acting not so much as counsel for the County, but as an avenger in his own personal behalf - because of my blogging against him.  Now, I must state that Frank Miller is VERY sensitive to criticism.  When I first criticized him about his actions as a "hearing officer" (a public official for that matter) for the County in one sensitive situation about police misconduct, he threatened to turn me into disciplinary authorities.   That was already a threat of 1st Amendment retaliation - that I would be happy to testify about when my time comes.  I understand that my blogs my literally put him through the roof, not that I care.  I did not do it to ire him.  I did it to show people the truth of what the government is doing - and not doing - with their taxpayer dime, my own included.

Why I think he is not acting as a counsel for the County, but instead as a personal avenger agaisnt me for my blogs?

Consider this - and consider also that you, Delaware County taxpayers, are on the hook for every minute of his "billable time" doing it.

1) My husband and I, co-owners of certain properties in Delhi, NY, are suing three entities and their officers and employees:  The Town of Delhi, The Village of Delhi, and Delaware County, the complaint can be downloaded and read for free here.

The Town and the Village appeared in the action with motions to dismiss, claiming that we did not serve them timely or properly.

2) Frank Miller was so hell-bent to claim that he wants sanctions against me for something, anything, that he 

(a) did not appear with the motion to dismiss - he appeared iwth an Answer, and 

(b) he failed to raise in that Answer the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, WAIVING it for the County, see CPLR 3211( e):

"An objection based upon a ground specified in paragraph eight or nine of subdivision (a) of this rule is waived if a party moves on any of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) of this rule without raising such objection or if, having made no objection under subdivision (a) of this rule, he or she does not raise such objection in the responsive pleading which, in any action to collect a debt arising out of a consumer credit transaction where a consumer is a defendant, includes any amended responsive pleading."

What he did not fail to raise in his Answer on behalf of the Delaware County though is a NON-EXISTENT affirmative defense of frivolous conduct against me and my husband, claiming that somehow my entire civil rights complaint against the County, including the part of the claim where Frank Miller is, again, MY OWN hostile material witness - is frivolous.  Figure...

Now, when I directly raised the issue of the above statutory waiver in a subsequent notice of motion, Frank Miller attempted to unring the bell and to raise the defense he already waived for the County in an "Amended Answer".

After all, a malpractice action by the County would be a bitch for his new law firm where he is a partner, especially based on such childish, unprofessional and unforgiveable behavior and dereliction of duty from an over-70-year-old man, an attorney with 46 years of experience:

Now, about this Amended Answer, consider this little something at the end of CPLR 3211(e), quoted above, with a link to the full text of CPLR 3211, that the waiver of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3211(a)(8)) happens when a party does not raise it in a responsive "pleading" (like an Answer), and only for a strictly enumerated class of defendants, consumers, such a defense may be also raised in an Amended Answer.

The Delaware County and its Chairperson Tina Mole who I sue in her official and individual capacity, are certainly not sued as consumers of my services.

Frank Miller, an attorney with 46 years of experience, certainly knows better than engaging in such desperate - and frivolous, actually - tricks to save face, after in his rage he filed an Answer for the County and for Tina Mole, waiving their defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction simply because it was more important for him to put in a non-existent and meritless affirmative defense against me asking for sanctions against me - as a blogger, obviously trying to exact revenge upon me as a blogger.

By the way, both the Answer and the Amended Answer filed by Frank Miller contains an absolutely beautiful victim-blaming affirmative defense: that my husband and I, two old disabled people who lived for the last 10 years in South Carolina while religiously, without delay or grievance, paying the inflated taxes on our properties to the County, are somehow to blame for the County's actions in the destruction of our properties, as shown in our affirmations.

Frank Miller invoked TWO beautiful victim-blaming affirmative defenses in our case:

(1) that we are to blame for the County's actions vindictively destroying our properties - but at the same time fraudulently continuing to tax those same properties as if they were not destroyed with approval and participation of the County; and

(2) That the County "does not have to manage our properties or tenants".

The essence of the complaint is that the County first contributed to the destruction of a property where a holdover moratorium tenant that we could not evict held tens of dogs for a dog-breeding operation, did not walk the dogs, and the entire house, including the furnace and furnace vents was covered and shut by dried-up dog feces.

The County still did not remove the holdover tenant at that time, after the dogs were removed, instead insisting that we buy her a new furnace instead of the one she broke by dog feces.  When we refused and asked to remove her from a house that she rendered unsanitary, so that we could remediate the house - and that was in 2021, mind, the County instead told us that they are going to keep her in there, because she is not of age yet to put her into any other "placement", so the County de facto usurped our house to relieve a homelessness crisis without paying anything to us, and continued to have an individual live in an admittedly unsanitary conditions.

The County also forewarned us that since we are so stubborn and do not want to buy another furnace for the person who is not paying us anything for two years, but who has just destroyed the previous one - along with the house - the County will put space heaters on the walls of our house in the middle of bitter freezing wheather in December.

We pointed out that (1) heaters will be a fire hazard where all the house inside is covered by dog feces, a flammable material; and that (2) if heaters are to be put in at all, they have to be put into the cellar, first of all, where the water pipes are, otherwise all that will be accomplished will be the further destruction of the house because the water pipes will freeze and burst, causing damage to the house.

We actually wrote an e-mail to the County Attorney Amy Merklen about it on December 23, 2021, the e-mail that we provided to the court.

But, of course, where the County saw an opportunity to hurt us more than it did before, it could not resist.

The heaters were installed, but not in the cellar, the water pipes - duh! - froze and broke, and the dog breeder was removed from the house anyway - because now she was there without heat OR water.

The Village or Town code enforcement officers who always hound village and town residents with imaginary violations, turned a blind eye to unsanitary condition of the house that was UNLIVEABLE at that point, did not put a stop-occupancy order on the house and, obviously in co-ordination with the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and District Attorney's office, installed into that house an undercover confidential informant, a drug-dealer who was supposed to go to prison for 44 years, but was let out and was installed into our house with a dual purpose: to hurt us, and to do whatever the local authorities wanted him to do there. 

That enterprise lasted for 3 more years - until the CI (allegedly) died in our house, and now the County, Village and Town DID stop occupancy of the property, but require us to clean it - to the order of close to $200,000, because NOW it is contaminated by drugs and what not else, having been used by the County as an improvised homeless shelter, while the house, remember? had no heat, water or electricity.

Now, Frank Miller boldly claims to the court (the judge was not assigned yet at that time) that ALL OF THE ABOVE gives us absolutely no right to sue, and our lawsuit to recover the losses and to have those who caused the damage to our house clean it up and rebuild it is somehow "frivolous" and we should be sanctioned for it - because OUR CONDUCT is somehow to blame for what occurred.

Delaware County could not find a better attorney to raise those particular victim-blaming defenses, in view of how Frank Miller has raised that particular victim-blaming defense (that the victim brought the damage she is suing for upon herself) in a yet another NYS Supreme Court case this year, in Oswego County.

In that case, a now-50-year-old woman sued the School District, based on the new Child Victim Act, to hold it accountable for experiencing rape, for the period of several years, when she was in elementary school.

Her complaint can be read here.

A complaint of the school's insurance company against her and the school may be read here, it shows the name of the abuser, an elementary school teacher Mr. Fitzgerald.

This is what the child victim Tammy Rinn stated in her lawsuit against the school:

Attorney Frank Miller filed an Answer on behalf of the School, it can be read for free here.

Among other affirmative defenses in that Answer, Frank Miller has raised the following affirmative defense - remember, we are talking about rape of a child that continued on the school grounds for several years from the time the child was 5.

Here is what Frank Miller asserting against that child victim on behalf of the School as an affirmative defense:

Frank Miller said - his signature is on the document - that the 5 to 10 year old child FAILED TO MITIGATE damages from from being ANALLY RAPED by an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER ON SCHOOL GROUNDS!!!

AND, ADDITIONALLY,

that her injuries from those continued rapes for many years, both physical and mental, are HER OWN CULPABLE CONDUCT, her own FAULT and happened because of her LACK OF CARE.

Attorney Frank Miller did not stop there.

He went further and NOTARIZED the verification by the other attorney who co-signed the Answer, as TRUE!!!

One of the signing attorneys from Frank Miller's law firm verified it under the penalty of perjury that he freaking believes it to be true that a 5-year old child is to blame for her own anal rape on the grounds of elementary school and the other attorney, the owner of the law firm, Frank Miller, and also a signatory of the same abomination, notarized this garbage!!!!

And out of all available counsel, it is this sick bird - and also the close personal friend of the District Executive assigning cases to judges, and also the material hostile witness of the Plaintiffs, my husband and myself, in the litigation - who the Delaware County, on taxpayer dime, including our own dime, chose to represent itself to fight against the 1st Amendment retaliation lawsuit brought by my husband and myself!

A beautiful choice!

But - if you think that was enough, you would be sorely mistaken.

Porter Kirkwood has never been known for smarts.

After all, he has lost his own fabricated child neglect case against us when we did not come to the last day of trial.  He lost it AGAINST TWO EMPTY SEATS!!!

When panicked, he thought even less than he usually can.

And did he panic here, being a material witness in the case he is assigning judges.

First, he hand-picked two judges, Lambert and Burns, who were 

(1) also our material witnesses on the issue of retaliation, being superstars on my blog for years, and having retaliated against me, my family member and my close friend in revenge; and 

(2) who have recently recused, each of them twice, in 2023 and 2024, from two Supreme Court cases where we were defendants (alleged easement dispute, we won both).

When Lambert and Burns recused, he simply stopped assigning judges, knowing that the Village Defendants (I believe it was intentional) have made their motion to dismiss on an extremely short notice, with inadequate time for us to adequately answer, especially because of my own and my husband's disabilities, known to Kirkwood from the prior two cases - Kirkwood is also a freaking disability coordinator for the district, and denied any disability accommodation to us in the previous lawsuits without fail.

In fact, my husband was forced to file a third-party complaint against him, which was mooted when the case was dismissed.  The complaint can be read for free here.

We, of course, answered the motion, as well as we could, stating that we were not given enough time and that we will raise that issue on appeal.

At the time we were filing the opposition and the motion to extend time and to recuse the entire 6th judicial district because a material hostile witness is assigning judges to cases, no judge was assigned.

By the way, since no judge was assigned, it was the direct responsibility of the same Porter Kirkwood and his administrative judge-boss Eugene Faughnan DISABILITY COORDINATORS to GRANT my husband's request for disability accommodation (adjournment of court date) directly.

Of course, that was not done.

After Lambert and Burns recused, on May 8, 2025, no judge was assigned on our deadlines to file our oppositions and motions, forcing us to prepare those oppositions and motions on a rush - my husband could not prepare them at all due to his medical problems, and simply told the court that he is relying on my work simply because the court did not give him time to do his own work.

Now, yesterday I receive from the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Nicole Olvera an e-filing notification that Judge Brian Burns - the one that recused a week prior, see his order of recusal here, is assigned to all motions.

I called Nicole Olvera to verify WTH is going on, to put it politely.

Nicole Olvera told me that it is a "procedure", that she has to assign A judge to the motions, and that's what she is doing, and that the Judicial District is in daily communications with her trying to assign a judge - and, please, pay attention to her careful choice of words - "who will not recuse".

Not who would be impartial, but "who will not recuse".

That statement was made when our motion to recuse the entire judicial district from doing what they were doing was already filed and pending.

Now, the next day, today, Porter Kirkwood outdid himself in stupidity.

He did assign a judge, finally!

You know who he assigned - judging by that judge's actual RECUSAL?

It is really difficult to even make up such BS that comes from Porter Kirkwood...

He assigned a judge who is the FATHER of an ASSOCIATE in FRANK MILLER'S LAW FIRM!!!!

Figure!

Of all judges, Porter Kirkwood, a material hostile witness in the case, can only assign either Lambert and Burns, themselves material hostile witnesses in the case, or a father of an attorney who works in the law firm of a material hostile witness in the case, and, coincidentally, an attorney for two parties in the case - who, also coincidentally, asked for sanctions against us.

And that is after Nicole Olvera told me that they are "working hard", on a daily basis, to find a judge who "WOULD NOT RECUSE".

Meet the judge who was expected NOT to recuse - possibly because his daughter's job security at Frank Miller's law firm was held hostage by Porter Kirkwood, but did the honorable thing and DID recuse:

I do mean that Judge Masler did the truly honorable thing by recusing - because my husband and I do not know him and, very possibly, would not be able to find out about the conflict of interest until long after our rights would be taken away (theoretically) by the judge.

What Judge Masler did is even more commendable as he is from Cortland County, the County that was prominently present in the recent disciplinary witch-hunt by Porter Kirkwood and Judge Eugene Faughnan against Binghamton Judge Daniel Sieden.  As part of Cortland County judicial community, Judge Masler, no doubt, knows what may be the consequences of disobeying Porter Kirkwood - and still did it.  Thank you, Judge Masler.  

I will nevertheless publish the face, name and information about Judge Masler's daughter in the event Judge Masler will be less forthcoming to disclose this particular conflict of interest.

Here is the webpage of Frank Miller's law firm showing Judge Masler's daughter Erica L. Masler:

She is a brand-spanking-new attorney, admitted only in 2022.

I publish her information here specifically so that people would be able to check out potential conflicts of interest with her father-judge when he would choose not to reveal it - after all, nothing in New York State law forces judges to do that, and the very form on which the judge recused, contains such language, that he did not have to reveal the reasons for his recusal.

The Delaware County, defendant in our lawsuit, does not realize that by trying to arrange for a super-friendly, pocket judge, to be assigned to the case by a super-friendly former Delaware County Attorney, friend of Frank Miller and a hostile material witness in the case, they shoot themselves in the foot.

What Porter Kirkwood is doing is only showing that:

1/ Delaware County, Tina Mole, their attorney, child-rape-victim-blamer Frank Miller and Porter Kirkwood, the person assigning judges to the case and the disabilities coordinator in the case - are in a panic;

2/ that they are working hard to choose a judge "who would not recuse", not who would be impartial;

and 

3/ so far, out of far and wide of the thousands of the available Supreme Court Justices they happened to hand-pick either two hostile witnesses and serial recusers in the recent past, or the father of an attorney working for a hostile witness and an attorney for a party in the case.

Very interesting coincidences, won't you think?

Moreover, what Porter Kirkwood did in the assigning of THREE judges so far - is called A PATTERN, with the assignment, as a "judge who would not recuse", a father of an attorney whose continued employment in Frank Miller's law firm may be used as a point of pressure against the judge - considering the recent fate of judge Daniel Sieden, described above.

I commend - once again - the courage of Judge Masler not to succumb to that pressure.

What nobody can guarantee to us is that the next judge will be as honest and will disclose his or her conflicts of interest as Judge Masler did - because Porter Kirkwood has already shown that his purpose is to FIX the case by assigning of a judge who "WOULD NOT RECUSE" - and who can be held as a hostage based on his parental love to his daughter, and not who would be impartial.

By the way, OUR parental love to OUR daughter, is a point of our 1st Amendment retaliation claim in the case, because the local authorities have deliberately made life hell for our daughter for three years in order to hurt us.

So - don't you think this one is an extremely interesting case?

And, remember, our motion to recuse the entire 6th Judicial District and bar it from assigning judges to our case because the District Executive is

(1) the former Delaware County Attorney who resigned and left the area in 2015 after I derailed his bid for judgeship by my blog articles - and I, "coincidentally", was immediately stripped of my law license a week after that, and a hostile material witness on our claim of a pattern of 1st Amendment retaliation in the case;

(2) Porter Kirkwood is one of the messenger boys who tried to pressure me to sleep with Judge Carl Becker as the price for both my husband and myself to keep our law licenses, and for our elementary school-age child to keep his life;

(3) Frank Miller is Porter Kirkwood's former counsel and longtime friend;

(4) Porter Kirkwood has a history of fabrication of court cases in order to exact personal revenge - he did it to us, the case was dismissed;

(5) Porter Kirkwood went so far as to FIRE a colleague, an attorney for Delaware County, who was pregnant at the time, when she stood up against his fabrication against us, both attorneys at the time, Porter Kirkwood's colleagues;  Upon information and belief, the County had to settle that woman's employment discrimination claim out of taxpayer moneys; 

and

(6) Porter Kirkwood acts in assignments and non-assignments of judges and in non-provision of disability accommodations REQUIRED to be provided by federal law that his grudge is alive and well and that he is acting out as we speak to help the County and his friend Frank Miller to make this case disappear rather than to do his job and find a neutral and impartial judge to be assigned to the case.

That is all - EVIDENCE.

Porter Kirkwood, being stupid, as the County must know, is not a good friend of the County in what he is doing.

And, I will keep you informed who he will pick next - unless the District does the honorable thing and recuses from assignment of judges in this case entirely, as we ask in our pending motion.

Stay tuned.

P.S.  I have turned Judge Faughnan and attorneys Porter Kirkwood, Frank Miller and Delaware County Attorney Amy Merklen into appropriate disciplinary authorities.

I will report here on the progress of these grievances.

Out of state NYS real property owners, unite against the woke ideology in NYS schools!

 I am sure that there are a lot of people like my husband and myself who own real estate and pay taxes in New York State, but are not allowed to vote there, in State and local elections.

That is a classic "taxation without representation" problem upon the American Revolution and this country's statehood was based - and we believe it should stop.

I am seeking other out of state property owners within New York State to unite and challenge, in court, this little "taxation without representation" problem - and especially on 1st Amendment grounds, because New York has on the books and mandates local schools, who tax us through our noses, to cram into children as young as 5 the "LGBTQwhatever" agenda.

Check out the so-called NYS Education Law Section 801-a.

I do not want to challenge constitutionality of NYS EdL 801-a itself - it is for parents with children at school to do that.

What I do want to challenge though is the ability of New York State, and of schools, to exact taxes from me to support this ideology if it contradicts my deeply held beliefs.

And since January 1, 2025, my beliefs are protected by the brand spanking new section of the New York State Constitution - Article 1 Section 11.

So, let's unite, and let's act.  Many states have already given out of state property owners voting rights.  New York should join the quoir!

The New York State judiciary continues to publicly shred its independence and integrity. The public censure of Binghamton City Judge Daniel Sieden for criticism of misconduct of Chief Administrative Court Judge of the 6th Judicial District Eugene Faughnan

I have been filing complaints against judges since I started to practice law in the State of New York in 2009.

Upon my own experience, and upon the reported experience of many other people I know, it is an exercise in futiliy - the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, an underfunded entity populated exclusively with judges or atttorneys whose livelihood is controlled by judges, usually shreds all complaint against judges, no matter how meritorious and well-documented, without any investigation, sending to complainants insulting false form letters claiming that the investigation actually occurred and found nothing wrong in actions of judges.

Based on the documents I have read today, about a formal complaint that was actually brought by that same entity against an elected judge of the Binghamton City Court Daniel Sieden, a judge who was on the bench since 2008, I now have a notion as to what are the policies and the actual purpose of that commission - to keep judges under control of administrative judges, "judicial independence" can go to hell.

Actually, judicial independence in the State of New York was publicly going to hell in a basket since NYCLU has sued the NYS Office of Court Administration in 2022 for refusing to reveal secret memos with which NYS OCA was pressuing state judges in how to resolve certain types of cases.  The lower court - we must give that judge credit - found for NYCLU, the political 1st Department reversed, and now the case is in front of the New York State Court of Appeals.

Administrative judges actually assign judges across the state court system to cases and apparently in control of judicial personnel, minute procedures invading what the judge may or may not do on the bench, and are in control of where these judges will work, literally, geographically, regardless of where they were elected by their voters to serve, see the story below how Judge Sieden was sent into exile and censured for criticism of "his betters".

Administrative judges decide which judges will be or will not be promoted.

Administrative judges, as NYCLU v NYS OCA lawsuit shows, brazenly issue "memos" directing actual judges on the bench how to decide cases.

We cannot talk about judicial independence at all under such circumstances.

And, as a consequence, judges may not claim absolute judicial immunity (illegally) granted to them by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect their independence - that now admittedly does not exist.

I wrote on this blog about how one of the predecesssors of the present Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th judicial district, Robert C. Mulvey, has taken an elected Madison County Judge Blaggio DiStefano off criminal cases, and then forced him into retirement in 2015 because Judge DiStefano stood his ground and refused to obey Mulvey on the issue of how many cases he turned over to "diversity" - or, in other words, to the so-called "drug courts".

I will post separate articles on the drug courts, but I can tell you know that, according to my research, drug courts are illegal entities that are supported only by federal grants - and that's why Mulvey imposed pressure upon Judge DiStefano, to be able to get that grant money.

With Judge DiStefano gone, Mulvey obtained an obedient boy on that same bench, Judge Patrick J. O'Sullivan, who was, apparently doing, what he was told, transferring the necessary number of cases to "diversity" - to get that federal grant money.  

But, apparently, Judge DiStefano was not the only rebellious judge who still had a concept of judicial independence and was ready to defend it.

In 2023-2024, NYS administrative judges, the DEI hire Joseph A.Zayas (the "first Latino Chief Administrative Judge") and Eugene Faughnan of the 6th Judicial District, were unable to overpower the stance of independence of the Binghamton City Court judge Daniel Sieden, actively criticizing Eugene Faughnan for turning Judge Sieden into a slave of Judge Faughnan's directives and policies.

To overpower Judge Sieden, the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Eugene Faughnan filed a complaint with the automatic complaint shredder the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct.  Complainting about conduct of Judge Sieden protected by the 1st Amendment and by the concept of judicial independence.

And - surprie, surprise! - the Commission switcched off its otherwise automatic complaint shredder, filed formal charges against Judge Sieden for "isubordination" and "creation of hostile work environment", no less - and publicly censured the judge.

You can read the formal charges with attachments, on 48 glorious pages, here.

I really, really, really advise you to actually read these pages.   Faughan is obviously a political hack and has more ambition and zeal for power than brains, otherwise he would not have put the inside power fight into a public.

In the formal complaint that you can read following the link above, you will learn, I am sure, with surprise - the same surprise and astonishment that Judge Sieden felt, I am sure - that apparently court personnel and court clerks and even confidential court secretaries of an elected public official, a city judge, may not be administered by that city judge, but must obey directives from the chief administrative judge of the distirct and from non-judicial personnel, the lapdog of Judge Faughnan, Porter L. Kirkwood, a no less brainless individual and a DEI hire in his own right (the "first African-American District Executive").  

I wrote a lot of articles about Kirkwood in this blog, I know him personally, and my articles on this blog, as far as I know, cost him a judgeship in 2015, which I consider a reward for my public service for the people of Delaware County, NY..

Judge Sieden, obviously, did not want to accept such an imposition of the administrative judge mildly, and actively protested that he cannot administer his own staff in his own way, and that his staff, on directions from the administrative judge, interferes with Judge Sieden's actual work on the bench.

The "formal complaint", with its glorious attachments, actually accuses Judge Sieden for his 1st Amendment-protected criticism of the judiciary.  And he was actually censured for that criticism.  And, the formal complaint actually, shamelessly, endorses Faughnan's retaliative demotion of an elected Binghamton City Court official to Cortland City Court, and his removal from the courthouse where he was elected by the people to serve, by court security personnel.

And, as it always happens, the local "professional" press that is salivating over Judge Sieden's censure, shamelessly ducked the issue of the 1st Amendment retaliation and only robotically reports what the Commission said, without any attempts to give an honest assessment of what is going on, from the position of public interest.

That's what we have in the State of New York.

A judge is "independent" only while he obeys the biddings of the political hack administrative appointees and does not criticize anything that these often brainless political hacks are doing.

Same as an attorney is "independent" only until he or she starts criticizing a judge.

Remember, every judge and every attorney - including members of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct - took an oath to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

But, when it comes to protecting their own power struggles, all bets are off, and the 1st Amendment and "judicial independence" can go hang.

I will add some more articles specifically focusing on the content of Judge Sieden's disagreement with Judge Faughan's "drill sergeant " interference into judicial duties of judges Faughan "administrates".

Perhaps, voters may prevail upon the NYS Legislature to address this interference with a specific statute specifically forbidding it and introducing and effective mechanism of enforcement of that ban.

The peacocking administrative unelected judges should be shown their place.  THEY are the clerks serving elected judges on the bench, and not the other way around.

Discrimination against disabled pro se litigants in court: New York Courts' "public policy". The DEI spoiled entitled hire "Justice" Sallie Mandanez-Daniels and her despicable outburst against a disabled individual in a public appellate court proceeding

 I have seen a story going viral all across the so-called "legal press" and blogosphere, that of a pro se appellate presenting to an appellate court in New York a videotaped appellate argument delivered by a AI avatar.

The ever-cowardish legal media is, of course, cheering to the appellate justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels who "did not have it", shut down the video appellate argument, put the disabled pro se person on the spot, yelled at him for "misleading the court" because, according to ther own testimony based on hearsay knowledge from her clerks, the same pro se person talked to her clerks for 30 minutes - and based on that, our friend Sallie played doctor and diagnosed the man as having no speech or other impediment.

My husband and I were just on the receiving end of discrimination against us as pro se litigants with disabilities, and I very much identified with what that man felt.

Especially that, accoridng to a case decided by the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that my husband and I found in our research of the issue, this man is entitled to - SUE the State of New York (and cost NYS taxpayer money, unfortunately, for the stupid bizarre actions of this entitled DIE bitch, a k a "Justice") for ADA violation and depriving him of his right of access to the appellate court.

The New York State Court system made me very, very motivated to write about discrimination it condones and promotes against pro se litigants in the courtroom.

This is just the first article of the series.

In the next series I will publish the biographies of those who are in charge of accommodations for disabilities all across New York State Court Administration system, so that you will see how well these entitled people are prepared to deal with the problems of the disabled and the poor in the courtrooms.

I will specifically zero in on the biography of the extremely privileged DEI hire "Justice" Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, who believes, same as another DEI hire, from the US House, believes, that people's disability is something to publicly mock.

I will publish actual documents, as I usually do in my blog, showing that New York State Court Administration is, excuse my French, spits on the fate of the disabled in New York State courtrooms.

Finally, I will publish and analyze federal statutes and regulations, and will publish my husband's lawsuit, showing exactly how such lawsuits can be drafted by pro se individuals in federal court.

We will not overcome this entitled elitist heartless lawless mafia until we learn how to fight it by available legal means - and DO it.

The reality of the land of kissing cousins in upstate New York: scratch a judge - or his law clerk - find a still raging bias against those villainous Neronis

Recently, I had a hilarious (now, looking back) experience with an idiotic attorney out of Queens who, having no evidence whatsoever to support his claim of "obstruction of an easement" against my husband and myself, brought two lawsuit against us where the only "evidence" he was using was that both of us were "cancelled" as criminal defense and civil rights attorneys by the local judicial/prosecutorial mafia as a thorn in their side.

He lost.

At the last motion hearing - where he lost - he was asking the court to impose sanctions upon me for suing that same judge for blocking access of the public to that same motion hearing.

The judge denied the sanctions and wrapped up the case as quickly as possible.

I do not believe that mooted the lawsuit though - as a case where (1) issues of serious pubic concern are raised which are (2) prone to repetition, but (3) escape review.

 I had a reason to believe that there was more to the judge's personal attitude and unexplained rulings against us before the judge finally forced to grant us a summary judgment, and I have started looking.

Here is what I found.

First of all, in 2016, Justice O'Sullivan replaced Judge Blaggio DiStefano in the position of Madison County judge.

At the time of our appearances before Justice O'Sullivan, I did not even remember about my old blog article covering how a well-known corrupt and politically connected then-Chief Administrative judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Mulvey squeezed Judge DiStefano first out of criminal cases and then into an early retirement.  Judge DiStefano himself went public with the reason for that discrimination, and I simply echoed what he said - that Mulvey required from DiStefano that DiStefano decides certain types of cases in certain ways, and DiStefano felt that to be an imposition on his independence and declined to obey.

It is apparent that O'Sullivan, who was the good boy who came to replace DiStefano as Madison County Judge, and then was quickly promoted to a Supreme Court seat mid-term as the County judge, coincidentally on retirement of Mulvey and replacing Mulvey, could be upset that I clearly implicated anybody who would come to replace DiStefano as "a good obedient boy" who is doing Mulvey's bidding and has not a shred of the required judicial independence.

The fact that was confirmed - at least, in my opinion - in the "old fence" case against us.  

But, ladies and gentlemen, apparently there was a lot more to that than Justice O'Sullivan's old grudge about my 2016 blog article.

When Justice O'Sullivan ascended to the Supreme Court bench in 2022, he hired as a law clerk one Gregory Ivan Monashevsky.

Now, I am a Russia-born native Russian, and to me this is a weirdly americanized Russian name.  In Russian, that name would sound as Grigoriy Ivanovich Monashevsky.  I do not know whether the Gregory Ivan Monashevsky is a first-generation Russian immigrant, or whether his name is his parents' paying dues to their heritage, but that the name is Russian is undeniable.  Monashevsky means "related to a monk" in Russian.

Since biases of law clerks, as a matter of law, are taken into account when considering potential biases of judges, and I have had problems with biased law clerks for myself and my former clients, before, I continued to dig for information about Gregory Ivan Monashefsky's background and connections in the area, primarily to court personnel, other judges that my husband and I knew and prosecutors or attorneys who had grudges against us.

I started to look up on Google, what information is there in public access about this Gregory Ivan Monashefsky - and found the very interesting information I am posting below.

First, Gregory Ivan Monashefsky's now late mother in law Dolores Cahalan was a long-time Chief Clerk of the Norwich City Court in Chenango County, neighboring with Madison and Otsego County, where my husband practiced for decades, and I practicced for several years, too.  That we were disliked by the court personnel in that court is an understatement of the century.

This particular Chief Court Clerk was Monashefsky's mother in law, so court gossip about us were, presumably, regularly aired with the daughter, Monashefsky's wife, and then fed to Monashefsky.

That was not all, unfortunately.

Having obtained from the obituary of Dolores Cahalan the name of her daughter who is married to Gregory Ivan Monashefsky, I looked up the daughter, Mary Monashefsky, and here is what I found.

We are now in 2025.

17 years ago, in 2008, when my husband was a prominent criminal defense attorney practicing for 34 years, and when I have just finished law school and was not practicing yet, a new DA was elected in Madison County.

His name was Bill (William) Gabor.  He is still the Madison County DA, 17 years down the road - meaning, he was re-elected in 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2024, DAs in New York have 4-year terms.

My husband practiced against him from 2008 to 2011, and I practiced against him in court from 2009 to 2015.

We won cases against him (and his ADAs), and he was not happy.

According to available publications on the Internet, in 2008, when Bill Gabor was first elected, the first thing he did was he promoted the former DA's administrative assistant to a "confidential secretary", thus freeing a vacancy of an administrative assistant - and hired for the vacancy of the administrative assistant the wife of his former law partner Gregory Ivan Monashefsky, Mary Monashefsky.

I do not know - and do not care to know - whether Mary Monashefsky is still toiling for Bill Gabor.

What I care for is the ridiculous hypocritical pretense of the local bullshitters in black robes that they are all honorable and "presumed impartial" when both them and their close staff writing their god-damned decisions harbor biases against parties in front of them, based on their old, deep and personal affiliations and grudges, their own and those of their family members and associates.