The Cornell scandall: the judicial system got weaponized to retaliate against my child for my investigation into the quid pro quo court cases

 I had to sue a judge today whom I am also investigating as a journalist in the Cornell quid pro quo scandal.

The "hero"'s name is Judge Mark G. Masler, judge Aherne's friend,  read my two previous articles about her by clicking the articles in the right top corner.

You can read my lawsuit against Judge Masler here.

I am now fighting for the right of the public to be present at motion hearing in court where such motions involve issues of public concern.

This is the 2nd judge I have to sue this year doing the same trick - he schedules a "motion hearing" that nobody asked for, to intimidate a particular person behind closed doors or to concoct a forged transcript with the help of a slave court reporter, then, if members of the public apply to attend the virtual court hearing, he switches a public motion hearing to a closed-door "conference" that parties still have to attend on fear of sanctions.

So, the bulk of "sensitive issues" in the motion, including any misconduct of the judge, is not recorded by the stenographer, and the public is barred from observing the de facto motion hearing because it is now supposedly a "conference ".

I sued to block New York State judges, all of them, including Judge Masler, from ever doing this trick to the public and the press - yes, I am the press - again.

I will cover developments in this lawsuit.

Stay tuned.

#TheCrookedJudgeElizabethAherne to her voters: I ran for office because I was bought by a great elite "institution of learning" to bar the little girl from getting compensation for her crushed hand

Meet the smiling face of this happy mother, an accomplished professional, a newly minted Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Aherne, of Ithaca, New York, coincidentally an Adjunct Professor of Cornell Law School (there will be more about her "professorship" in one of my articles of this series):

Behind her are her colleagues, "justices" of the New York Supreme Court.

Elizabeth Aherne is obviously happy and is splurging to reporters her biography and her lofty goals as to why she chose to try to get elected as a judge.

Here is what she said:

"Aherne said that running for this position was not something she had initially aspired to do, until local attorneys asked her to run for the position and she saw the public service elements of the job."

Oh, so humble.

No, she didn't want money and power, she just wanted to serve the public, and she went to the bench because some local attorneys asked her.

I wonder what they said to her when asking her - you will easily be fixing court cases for us, for handsome bribes?

We will never know.

She ran on and on about her love of public service:

"“I have always had an element of public service in my career and in my life,” she said. “And that started when I was at Cornell. And so that was really what drew me to [the New York State Supreme Court] was the public service component.”

Once again, I will run separate articles as to what "element" of public service she played with exactly, this "first woman on the Tompkins County Supreme Court bench".  Identity politics are so great, aren't they?  We are supposed to love her because she is a woman.

And, she rubs it in:

"Aherne said that being a woman in this role is important, made even more significant since she is the first to do so. She said she thinks it is important for her three sons to see a woman hold this position. Additionally, she said it is meaningful for young girls and women to see her hold such a high-ranking position.

“I think that little girls are raised to doubt their voices and I think that [women] experience life differently from men,” Aherne said. “The first thing I would say is not to doubt yourself, that you have worth and what you can achieve.”

Ahh... The women... and how she, as a woman, feels for those little girls...

A perfect tear-jerker, isn't it.

Because telling the public point blank - ha-ha-ha, your dummies, you have just elected me to the bench, while I got there to steal from little girls their future, because I was bought to do just that - would not have given her such soapy accolades in local press, would it?

The new judge Elizabeth Aherne blabbered more in that interview about her supposed immigrant background, and about hard work, and about public service.

All of that was a lie.

17 cases:

(1)   Lazifa S. Gurbanova, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Z.M., an infant v. The City of Ithaca, Ithaca Youth Bureau, Cornell University,  EF2020-0241;

(2)   Wayde T. Strauf v. Edward D. Nabinger, Cornell University, Cornell University Board of Trustees, EF2020-0212;

(3)   Gloria Abrams, Brian Abrams v. Cornell University, Peter Milliman, EF2019-0706;

(4)   Michael Ahedor, Adjoa Ahedor, John Ahedor v. Cornell University,

EF2020-0395;

(5)   John Augustine v. Welliver McGuire Inc., Cornell University,  EF2022-0137;

(6)   New York Alpha of Phi Kappa Psi Association, Inc. f/k/a/ Phi Kappa Psi Association v. Cornell University,  EF2022-0638;

(7)   Melanie Acosta v. Cornell University, EF2023-0380;

(8)   Theron D Barrett v. Cornell University, EF2023-0098;

(9)   In the Application of Jessica Francis, Petitioner, v. Cornell University, EF2023-0834;

(10)                       Gizem Osturk, Quatajah Rennalls v. Cornell University, Board of Trustees of Cornell University, Esat Braveboy, EF2023-0733;

(11)                       Alexander Hyland v Cornell University, EF2024-0055;

(12)                       Tristan Lee v. Cornell University, Tracey Thompson, EF2024-0293;

(13)                       Eliza VanCort v. Cornell University, Airbnb, Inc., EF2024-0738;

(14)                       William Bryant v. Cornell University EF2024-0596;

(15)                       Andrea Beukema v. Cornell University, Jodi Korich, Lorin D. Warnick       EF2024-0471;

(16)                       Yuuki Nakayachi v. Cornell University c/o Ashley Management Corporation       EF2024-0950;

(17)                       Raymon H. Buchanan, Lauren M. Buchanan v Streeter Associates, Incorporated, Cornell University, EF2025-0065

in which Justice Aherne got herself assigned without disclosure that Cornell University, a defendant in all 17 of them, is her own and her law clerk's freaking paying employer say otherwise.

These cases have an Azerbaijani/Russian name, and a Japanese name, and a Dutch name, and an Irish name, and a Scott name, names from different cultures, possibly belonging to immigrants, many belonging to women, one belonging to a minor child.

All of them she shamelessly hurt by stealing from them their chance for their fair day in court - because the judge presiding over their cases, without their knowledge, worked, for money, for the defendant Cornell University that they were all suing:  for negligently causing their injuries, for racial or age discrimination in the workplace, for disability discrimination against a student.

The types of liability alleged against Judge Aherne and her law clerk Kathleen Sullivan's second employer the Cornell University were vary varied:

1. Personal injury by a minor child
2. Motor Vehicle
3. Other Negligence (Premise)
4. Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice
5. Labor law
6. Declaratory relief re rights to real estate on campus
7. Personal injury
8. Labor law
9.  Special Proceedings - Other (Pre-action discovery)
10. Adult Survivors Act, sexual abuse of students by another student on the grounds of Cornell University
11. Violation of NY Labor law, retaliation against a whistleblower employee for complaining about unsafe working conditions
12. Discrimination against a disabled student on the basis of his disability, retaliation against student, Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act
13. Contract, Cornell placed students into Plaintiff's rental property who thrashed Plaintiff's property
14. Age and Race discrimination against an employee of Cornell University
15. Other (Employment Discrimination)
16. Hazardous conditions at premises owned by Cornell University
17. Workplace injury, loss of consortium

Let's look at all of these cases, one by one.

Let's see what the public service "Justice" Elizabeth Aherne who is paid by the hurting New York State taxpayers over $230,000 a year, with benefits, did in cases to which she could never be legally assigned - because she was part of the party defendant in the action, an employee of Cornell University.

Here is Case # 1, a story of a little girl, Z.M., whose mother has an Azerbaijani/Russian name Lafiza Gurbanova.

You can read the full complaint of the little girl by clicking here. 

From the complaint, and from other documents in the case, the following story comes out.

Cornell University, supposedly, advised the City of Ithaca to install 3' by 3' connected metal frames around trees that grew next to a parking lot in City of Ithaca park where children were expected to come and play - instead of regular curbsones.

The purpose was, of course, to protect the environment, to protect the trees.  Nobody gave a thought of protecting children, obviously.

The little girl - so little that she could try to hang on her hands inside such a 3' by 3' metal frame, did that, while her mother turned away loading her car in the parking lot.  That was enough for the metal frame to disconnect from where it was supposed to be fastened, fall and crush the little girl's hand.

Now, read the very dry and supposedly neutral language of Judge Aherne's decision where Judge Aherne corruptly granted her own employer, Cornell University, a way out of the case, here.

The case was appealed, but for some reasons unknown to me, the little girl's attorneys did not appeal the dismissal of Cornell University from the case.  I bet if they knew that the judge granted the motion for a summary judgment to her own employer, they would have appealed it.

But, the judge kept mum about it, and so did the attorney for Cornell University, Conrad Wolan.

Attorney Wolan preferred to toss his supposed ethics to the wind and not to tell his opponent, represented an INJURED CHILD - hey, but the judge is my own client, my own employee!!!  And so is her law clerk!  She can't hear and decide this case!

So, the Appellate court that reviewed - and affirmed - the crooked judge's decision dismissing the case against the City of Ithaca, too and leaving the little Azerbaijani girl with a crushed hand without any remedy, stated the following about Cornell University - in a footnote only:

"[1] Plaintiff later added Cornell University as a defendant, given the university's involvement in the design of the parking lot, but plaintiff's claims against the university were dismissed and plaintiff does not appeal from that ruling."

So that you know: an appeal is a giant, and very expensive, undertaking.  The appealing party must put together the "record on appeal", all documents in the court case, and the decision of the crooked witch was Document # 167, so the little girl's mother had to pay for attorneys to do that, and to do the argument.

The appeal could easily run into $50,000 or more.

One miracle did happen for the little girl though, on that appeal: two judges dissented, securing for the girl a right to appeal further, to the New York State Court of Appeals.

These hero judges - without sarcasm - are:

1. Judge L. Michael Mackey who I do not know personally

and

2. a woman who I do know personally, as a crooked judge herself, and who I would never, in my wildest dreams, thought to call a hero - but I do here, sincerely, for the sake of the little girl:

Judge Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald

By the way, compare this photograph with the one at the beginning of this article.  Judge Fitzgerald is the one on the left, above the smiling face of the crooked witch Aherne, happy that she got her prize and can start selling her judicial office immediately.

The dissenters blasted Aherne - politely, of course - and said something that no competent self-respecting judge would want to hear:

that, essentially, Judge Aherne is incompetent, does not know how to decide motions for a summary judgment, because every 1-year law student knows (and Judge Aherne teaches 3rd year law students in an Ivy League Law School, Cornell, where tuition costs and arm and a leg) that a judge reviewing a motion for a summary judgment has no authority to review triable issues of fact.

Only the fact-finder (the jury) has such authority.

If a judge reviewing a motion for a summary judgment spots a triable issue of fact, he/she MUST deny the motion.

But no, no, no, how could the crooked witch deny a motion for a summary judgment to her own employer Cornell?  After all, that's not why she got HERSELF assigned to that case, without any order of assignment, simply by her own letter - hey, guys, here I am, I was (supposedly) assigned to this case.  Audacity helps with crookery, doesn't it?

Not only she assigned herself to the case of her own employer as a defendant, in order to fix that case - in which she succeeded, but she bumped off the case the previously assigned Judge Joseph R. Cassidi with whom the little girl, obviously, had a fair chance, otherwise the witch wouldn't have bumped him.

So she did what the pair of dissenting appellate judges Mackey/Fitzgerald characterized this way (and I skip the portion about shifting the burden of proof - which is also a 1st year of law school deliberate mistake by "Judge" Aherne, an Ivy League Law Professor):

"Even if defendants had shifted the burden to plaintiff, however, in our opinion plaintiff submitted sufficient proof to 

1156*1156 present a question of fact for the jury. Among plaintiff's proof was the affidavit of Edward J. Zemeck, a civil engineer specializing in technical investigation and analysis involving street, sidewalk and parking lot construction and maintenance. Zemeck detailed that he had 50 years of professional experience in construction, including as a project manager for bridge, highway and various infrastructure projects, together with "concrete placement" associated with such projects. He stated that he was familiar with literature and studies in the field of civil engineering but was not aware of any published data "addressing the strength of bolted connections into asphalt for the purposes of properly securing bollards to resist foreseeable loading conditions."^[5] However, based on his education and experience, Zemeck opined that defendants' installation of the bollards "was a breach of the engineering standard of care" because "[a]sphalt ... is not a dense enough material to keep the bolts in place and is not designed for that purpose." Rather, in his opinion, "bollards such as these should always be installed into or bolted onto proper concrete bases." As a result, Zemeck opined that "the bollards were in an unsafe condition from the moment they were installed ... [and constituted] a highly unstable, heavy fixture in an area where human interaction with the fixtures was foreseeable."

We disagree with the majority's conclusion that Zemeck's opinions were conclusory. The majority faults Zemeck for not citing to "any specific binding industry standard, code, rule or regulation" that defendants violated, but makes no mention of his statement that he was not aware of any published data on the subject. Rather, he based his opinions on his extensive experience in civil engineering and managing construction projects. "The absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance is not dispositive of the plaintiff's allegations based on common-law negligence principles. Accordingly, a defendant may be held negligent for departing from generally accepted customs and practices even when the allegedly defective condition is in compliance with the relevant codes and ordinances" (Martell v Dorchester Apt. Corp., 208 AD3d 1183, 1185 [2d Dept 2022] [citations omitted]). An expert's opinion is admissible where they possess the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable and "any purported shortcomings in the proposed testimony [goes] to the weight to be given [the expert's] testimony, not its admissibility and [can] appropriately 1157*1157 be explored on cross-examination" (Ghazala v Shore Haven Apt. Del, LLC, 229 AD3d 447, 449 [2d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Scott v Santiago, 230 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2024] [expert's opinion that the defendant "deviated from the standard of care" was sufficient to defeat summary judgment motion]; Philwold LLC v Inergy LP, 140 AD3d 1272, 1274-1275 [3d Dept 2016]).

Finally, we disagree with the majority's conclusion that there is no question of fact presented as to whether defendants' installation of the bollards resulted in an "immediate dangerous condition." In reaching that conclusion, we believe the majority has strayed into issue determination, rather than issue finding. "As has been frequently observed, a court's function on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be granted where there is any doubt of the existence of a triable issue or where the issue is even arguable" (Hierro v Bliss Co., 145 AD2d 731, 732 [3d Dept 1988] [citations omitted]). Here, Zemeck clearly stated his opinion that the bollards were unsafe from the moment they were installed, because asphalt is not a dense enough material to keep the bolts attaching them in place. The fact that the bollards did not fail immediately does not mean, as a matter of law, that they were not dangerous immediately (compare Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [finding summary judgment appropriate where no evidence was presented that the pothole on which the plaintiff tripped was dangerous immediately after it was repaired by the defendant]).

In our opinion, the majority has misapplied the rule in Yarborough. As the Court of Appeals explained in San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco (16 NY3d 111 [2010]), Yarborough "recogniz[es] the difficulty in determining, after the passage of time, whether the initial [pothole] repair was negligent. At the same time, the affirmative negligence exception addressed situations where a hazard was foreseeable, insofar as the municipality created it by, for example, digging an unmarked ditch in a road or neglecting to cover a street drain" (id. at 117 [emphasis added]). Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the passage of time has made it difficult to determine whether defendants' installation of the bollard was negligent. Unlike the situation presented in Yarborough, the question of whether it was negligent to install bollards by bolting them onto asphalt is not dependent on evidence that once existed but has been lost by the passage of time. Because a question of fact has been presented as to whether defendants affirmatively 1158*1158 created the dangerous condition that resulted in the child's injury, we believe it was error for Supreme Court to grant defendants' summary judgment motion.

The majority also errs, in our view, in holding that plaintiff was required to show that the dangerous condition of the bollard was "immediately apparent" when it was installed. Adding that requirement effectively immunizes municipalities from liability under the affirmative negligence exception, so long as the dangerous condition created by the municipality has been hidden from view. In other words, latent defects could never give rise to liability, even if affirmatively created by the municipality and dangerous immediately. Neither Yarborough nor any other case from the Court of Appeals has, to our knowledge, required such a showing but, even if they had, plaintiff has presented a question of fact as to whether the dangerous condition at issue here was apparent when the bollard was installed. Unlike Yarborough, where any evidence of the allegedly defective repair work lay within the repair itself, here the defect—bolting the bollard onto asphalt—was readily apparent when it was installed, for the reasons explained by Zemeck.

We believe it is for a jury, not this Court, to determine whether to credit Zemeck's opinion. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see DeCaro v Somerset Indus., Inc., 228 AD3d 1107, 1110 [3d Dept 2024]), in our opinion defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied."

Once again - the two dissenters said that judge Aherne acted outside of her authority (even without mentioning that she was a corrupt witch who should never have been on the case of her own employer in the first place, fixing it). 

It was for the jury to decide the case, not for the judge.

Yet, Aherne, an experienced lawyer and law professor who advertises that the most important role for her in the past was representing children "in different counties"

and who is teaching an Ivy League law school clinical course in Childhood Advocacy, for God's sake,

greedily and corruptly robbed the little girl with a crushed hand of a fair chance in court, leaving her injured and without compensation to deal with that injury, which may require expensive enhanced medical care for life.

So much for women as role models for Aherne's three boys, don't you think?

Let me guess - it was, likely, for those three boys that Aherne sold her judicial office to Cornell.  Tuition waiver or tuition discounts for three Ivy League college and law school students?

Well, I don't know how much the crooked New York State judicial system can stomach, but maybe, just maybe, openly fixing 17 court cases may be on the outside of enough even for that system - see, the crooked Judge Fitzgerald could not stomach the crappy decision from "Judge" Aherne and gave the girl, at the very least, a break to go to the Court of Appeals.

An appeal to the Court of Appeals is allowed as of right based on double dissent because such double dissent never happens.  It happened here, as I said, a miracle of sorts.

We will see whether the girl's attorneys will use that break.

We will see whether the girl's attorney will have the courage to confront Judge Aherne's decision with a motion to vacate because of Judge Aherne's stark legal disqualification under Judiciary Law Section 14, as a goddamned party in the case.

Maybe, New York State police will take my complaint about the 17 fixed court cases seriously.

Who knows?

Things happen.

The mayor of the city of New Orleans who was openly mired in corruption, was charged by the feds.

The state judge in Milwaukee who committed a federal crime, was charged by the feds.

Maybe, just maybe, the FBI will take notice of this case, too.  At least, I asked the New York State police to make a referral to the FBI.

We will see, won't we.

One thing that the complaint and these publications are seeking to achieve though - dissemination of information, making the public aware of this apparent bribery scheme between the Cornell Unversity, Judge Aherne and the judge's law clerk Kathleen Sullivan, who is also the Cornell University employee and an adjunct law professor teaching a class at Cornell Law School this school year with Judge Aherne together, as she did since 2020.

If you sue Cornell University, be prepared to point your finger at the judge, if Aherne is (self)-assigned to the case and say: NO, this judge and her law clerk can't be on my case, they both work for the defendant, for money!

I will continue to tell the story of Judge Aherne  and her law clerk's apparent corruption, case by sordid case from the list of 17 - or more, as I continue to verify other cases with Judge Aherne's conflicts of interest, the greedy dishonest witch.

Did I tell you that the Aherne self-assigned herself to the little girl's case on January 13, 2022, in her 2nd week of her "public service" on the bench?

Did you consider that the moneys paid to Aherne by taxpayers while she was fixing cases for her second employer, could be gainfully spent by her presiding over cases where she did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest?

Don't you, the hurting New York taxpayers, feel robbed and cheated?

Wouldn't you want to say something about it?

Well, while you are thinking what to do with it, more stories about the crooked Judge Aherne's 17 corrupt court cases are coming.

Stay tuned.  

A State Supreme Court Justice and her law clerk caught in a criminal scheme, fixing a massive string of 17 court cases for their side employer, the Cornell University

Here is the criminal tip that I have filed today with the New York State police, you can read the complaint here.

17 cases where the New York State Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Aherne and her law clerk Kathleen Sullivan presided over cases of their second employer since 2020, Cornell University, and already allowed Cornell to escape liability in 10 out of 17 of these cases.  The other 7 are still in front of this pair of crooks, and I doubt that attorneys representing plaintiffs will dare voice a challenge against this apparently criminal and corrupt arrangement.

I have collected a lot of data about this crooked scheme on NYSCEF, and will be publishing it in a series about this pair of crooks, if time and health permits.

Stay tuned!

On costly ghost litigation attorneys for Delaware County, NY and the election picks by the current crooks - oh, oops, public officials

Delaware County, New York, is one of the poorest rural counties in the State of New York, if not the poorest.

It is also one of just 7 or less state counties ruled by the local tribes ("weighted voting plans") and not by the straight one man - one vote plan.

As a result of the tribal rule, the County is notorious in various fiscal scandals - which are usually squirrelled under the rug.

I don't know though how will the County be able to explain to the taxpayers this kind of information:

The County Attorney's office bluntly tells me, a County property taxpayer, that the County has paid tens if not hundreds of thousand of dollars to outside private attorneys representing the County in various lawsuits, mostly caused by misconduct and/or incompetence of County officers and employees, and paid it WITHOUT A SINGLE WRITTEN CONTRACT.

This is an election year.

The County's Republican Party that illegally put at its helm a convicted DRUNK KILLER Kathetine Taggart is pushing upon voters and taxpayers the County Treasurer, Beverly Shields "choice" of the new Treasurer. 

THIS is Beverly Shields ' lousy inheritance.

As is information I am seeking in my FOIL request filed today.  

Answers to this FOIL request will clarify the funneling of 💰 to outside law firms without written contracts, as well as many more shenannigans of which the County Treasurer, and County Attorney Amy Merklen, and the County Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors Tina Mole, must be well aware.

One thing is certain: insurance may not cover legal representation of County officers and employees sued - as they were and are recently - for intentional misconduct, in their individual capacities. That is, very simply, the law.

Such individuals must have to hire their own counsel and pay their own money out of their own pocket for such representation, a concept, obviously, completely foreign to the local so-called public officials.

When you vote these coming elections, especially for the Treasurer, do your research and do not vote in those who the present crooks endorse.  They are endorsed for a reason - to keep the olden-time bad fiscal practices, let's politely call them this way, ongoing forever.

Let us just put a stop to the drain to taxpayers' much-suffering pocketbooks.

Vote in somebody not of the present "system".

You will do yourselves a big, big favor.

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.