Carl Becker's friend, the Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields, strikes at Barbara O'Sullivan's family for bailing her out

Right after I ran a blog post that the Delaware County is withholding bail money posted by the family of my friend Barbara O'Sullivan,  the Delaware County Treasurer reportedly released SOME, but not all bail money to the family of my friend Barbara O'Sullivan - $300 were reportedly withheld as the Treasurer's fee ("poundage"), despite the fact that criminal charges against her were dismissed because:

1) the underlying arrest warrant was falsified by Judge Richard L. Gumo of Delhi Town Court, who was most recently admonished for misconduct by the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission (discipline didn't help him change his ways, I guess); there is a separate court decision by Judge John F. Lambert calling Gumo's testimony in Barbara's proceedings "was totally confused or disingenuous in his sworn testimony" - a not-so-subtle doublespeak for "perjury";

2) criminal charges against Barbara (that she allegedly had a dog bite a police officer who came to arrest her, with two other officers, to her lonely house in the woods at night after dark) had to be dismissed, because legality of officers' presence on the property and legality of the arrest warrant they allegedly had to "serve" upon Barbara and to arrest her - went out the door with Gumo's testimony and Judge Lambert's decision.

The County was already sued for withholding bail money once, and had to release bail to my client in Shields v Carbone, after two appeals, and sanctions imposed by Judge Becker, naturally, upon me, for asking him to recuse - not the County.

I guess, the County is asking for more lawsuits - that the homeowners of Delaware County, the captive cash cows (myself included), will have to fund.

Given that the whole criminal charges were precipitated against Barbara O'Sullivan: 

• because of personal animosity of the now-quickly-retired Judge Carl Becker against her since Barbara exposed Becker's misconduct in People v Glenford Hull's murder trial in 2006; 
• criminal charges were brought against Barbara by Becker's close friend Northrup (close friendship got revealed only in January of 2016);
•  and by Becker's former law partner or associate John Hubbard (employment at Becker's law firm by Hubbard was revealed in January 2016 and April 2016); 
• Becker's name was somehow on the bail receipt when Barbara was released from jail, even though Becker pledged recusal from Barbara's cases long time ago, which precipitated dismissal of Barbara's federal civil rights case against him,
• since Becker's close friend/girlfriend Beverly Shields managed to kick Barbara's family again, even after the dismissal, by withholding $300 in "poundage" when releasing bail, 2 months after dismissal of charges on jurisdictional grounds - Becker's footsteps are all over Barbara's case.

See the bail receipt in Barbara's case - appearance listed is in front of Judge Becker, who was nowhere near the case, but who, apparently, handled bail issues and monitored the case anyway.

And, Becker's conflicts of interest in handling a previous botched up bail exoneration case, where he manipulated exoneration of bail in a criminal proceeding to please a high-ranking public official who handled complaints against Becker, comes to mind.

Here is a non-final list of conflicts that started to come out slowly during People v Carbone and Shields v Carbone proceedings, and which continue to come out until this day.

• Becker's personal hatred against me and my husband;
• Becker's personal  hatred against my close friend Barbara O'Sullivan based on animosity that arose long time before Barbara and I even met, the animosity that Becker fully applied to me and my family;
• Becker's animosity against my legally blind now-former (because of the suspension only) client whom Becker criticized in open court in criminal proceedings for being "not as blind as he pretended to be" /the client was legally blind, as ruled by a team of physicians/, after I exposed Becker's misconduct (and stupidity) in accepting a plea of guilty from a legally blind man who said, at the urging of his prior counsel, twice, on record, that he "drove the truck" - which he not only could not physically do, but could not do also because another person was convicted for speeding for driving that same truck on that same occasion - apart from those interesting details, Becker had FIVE more undisclosed conflicts of interest (that I know now, there may be more):
• Becker's fear to hurt the feelings of the dismissed prior defense counsel, who at that point was the Vice-Chair of the NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct Stephen Coffey - I bet, Becker could have claimed a Guinness Book record of complaints filed against him and had to have the Vice-Chair of the Commission on his side, law or no law;  I did not know of Stephen Coffey's position at the time I argued against him and, obviously, earned myself a powerful enemy (Coffey quietly resigned from the Commission after I started to raise issues of corruption involving him - for which my license was suspended - and then, after I raised the issue of Coffey advertising his participation in the Commission to drum up business, quietly removed any mentioning of him ever being on the Commission from his website, as the Commission removed such mentions from its website - while Coffey's law firm and its partners continues to be the focus of scandals involving unethical behavior of its partners);
• Becker's friend and former boss of 23+ years, then-County Attorney Richard Spinney, represented the Plaintiff, Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields, and admitted on record to a prior ex parte communication with Becker, that Spinney (came to Becker's office or called) to discuss - guess what - exoneration of bail.  That discussion produced a, what Judge Fitzgerald of Delaware County Supreme Court called "unusual" bail exoneration order (which the 3rd Department reversed on the law, twice) - and embroiled the County, at taxpayers' expense, into litigation that lasted from 2009 to this day, with, so far, two trips to the Appellate Division on the issue of bail, where I won on both trips; see here and here;  when Spinney admitted to an ex parte with Becker, according to Mr. Neroni who was present at that hearing (I wasn't), Becker went pale and nearly fainted - but did not recuse;
• Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields "came out" as Becker's close personal friend or girlfriend in Becker's election campaign of 2012, after Becker recused from the Shields v Carbone case in August of 2012, without vacating his decisions tainted with his multiple conflicts of interest

Becker's invisible hand continues to rule issues pertaining to Barbara, I guess - by pulling the strings of influence through his friends, he still hurts Barbara or her family.

Well, obviously Delaware County officials want to play their game and show, to the bitter end - or no end - how pissed county officials are with what happened, that they could not nail Barbara O'Sullivan and pack her off to prison, with a D felony conviction, for up to 7 years, as Becker obviously wanted.

We will see who will have the last laugh though.

I will post further whether the County returned the unlawfully withheld $300 to Barbara's family.

Stay tuned.

Andrew Van Buren, the cowardly, dishonest, alcohol-loving and DESPERATELY GREEDY "breath of fresh air" in Delaware County (NY) judicial elections

In April 2022 a new judicial candidate has announced of his run for the seat of Delaware County (NY) County/Family/Surrogate's court judge, a position that pays $210,000 a year.

Andrew Van Buren.

I have explained in my earlier articles on this blog why you won't hear from currently practicing attorneys anything negative about this judicial candidate.

So, I will oblige - because, after seeing this ridiculously dishonest piece of self-advertising by Andrew Van Buren in The Walton Reporter,

I cannot and will not remain silent.  Voters have a right to know who and what this candidate is.

I know this candidate since 1999, I know him through social settings (he used my husband as his mentor until he switched to become Judge Carl F. Becker's messenger boy), I worked with him on the same cases as an attorney, and I know him as a dishonest and mean drunk who has no place on the bench.

Delaware County has known enough dishonest judges and enough dishonest mean drunks on the bench without Van Buren be added to this cohort.

It is true that Van Buren - same as the other candidate, John Hubbard - has an extensive litigation experience, and has his share of cases that he won, like any lawyer does.

But, a County Court judge in Delaware County is a multibench judge, and his main caseload will be in Family Court where he will rule as a sole fact-finder, without a jury, determining the fate of people's custody to children and in cases where people's custody of children, employment and a vast range of other rights are implicated, child abuse and neglect proceedings.

A Family Court judge has a tremendous power, and must be even-tempered, and not prone to petty vengeance.  That is not who Andrew Van Buren is.

1.  The coward who sells friends for money

"A breath of fresh air" is a phrase Andrew Van Buren likes to use.

He used it characterizing me once, in an interesting setting.

He lived in my husband's home while going to law school.

My husband helped his family member a lot.

My husband was mentoring Van Buren and teaching him trial skills.  Van Buren was calling my husband frequently for - free - consultations, which were always given, just to set a background of relationships with our family.

Van Buren recommended me to the licensing authorities to be admitted for the practice of law.

Then my practice of law started.

I was in the courtroom of Judge Carl F. Becker, it was sometime in 2009.

I was representing a client in a child neglect case.  I have made a motion to recuse Becker from presiding over the case as an attorney who represented the Petitioner for 27 years and will rely on his personal out-of-court knowledge and not the evidence presented, in assessing credibility of his personal friends.

Becker denied the motion, I continued to make objections in court.

Becker told me "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni". 

I stood up and objected against Becker treating me in such a manner and moved to recuse for actual bias against me that will reflect on my client.

Andrew Van Buren was one of attorneys present in these proceedings.

He remained silent, looking into his desk, head down.

After court, he caught up with me outside of the courthouse and told me that 

• I am "a breath of fresh air", supposedly much needed for the County, and that, 
• as to my motion to recuse Becker as having represented the local DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench, "everybody knows it, but nobody says it".

To that, Van Buren added - but, "don't burn your bridges, Tanya".

I did not realize at that time that it was a threat, and a threat communicated from Becker.  I still considered Van Buren at that time not just a colleague, but a family friend.

Little did I know that Andrew Van Buren, to survive financially and get assignments in Family Court, has become a messenger boy for that same Judge Carl F. Becker.

In 2011, Andrew Van Buren came to the house of his mentor of many years, my husband, bringing to him a personal threat of criminal prosecution from Judge Becker, a completely bogus threat.  I was present when he voiced that threat to my husband - "if you don't do this and that, I will have you criminally prosecuted."

Note that Becker was not a county DA at that time.  Northrup (Becker's friend) was.  So Becker could not possibly "have" anybody criminally prosecuted, unless his friend Northrup would go along with his request for fabrication.

Note that in 2009, after I have made that motion to recuse Becker, Becker used his other corrupt friend, DSS Commissioner Moon, to fabricate a child neglect case against my husband and myself, trying to hurt our young child and us, prosecuted by a yet another Becker's friend, Porter Kirkwood, who also ran for the judicial position with Becker's endorsement.

So, Becker by that time has ALREADY fabricated a case with the help of another friend, a child neglect case, against us (which may have resulted also in criminal charges had it played out as Becker wanted it to).

We won it - after over a year in litigation.

Even the child's assigned counsel (out of Binghamton) told us that it was "small town politics", and supported us in fighting it.

DSS/Moon has fired a young attorney who rebelled against this fabrication as a political case, later settled and had that attorney move away across the state.

Note that BEFORE that threat, I have asked the current judicial candidate and then Chief ADA John Hubbard to criminally prosecute Becker for being an impostor and not a judge and for forging documents relating to his election in March of 2011.

Hubbard did not tell me that he was Becker's prior law partner who bought Becker's law practice and law office and was put into the ADA position by Becker, but refused to prosecute him.

Note that in May of 2011, Hubbard, instead, threatened my husband "not to burn bridges" (exactly as Van Buren threatened me in 2009, before Becker fabricated a child neglect case against us with his friend Moon).

That was when my husband filed an assigned appeal in People v Carbone, raising the issue of corruption of Becker and Northrup (having a blind man sign, without knowing, a waiver of civil rights litigation against Becker and Northrup for extrajudicial confiscation of his money and car).  My husband did not take that appeal back and was disbarred, based on bogus claims.

Note that at the end of June, 2011, I have SUED Becker in state court on behalf of a 3rd party, my husband and myself.

Andrew Van Buren knew all of that.  Because we told him this information, as a longtime family friend.

I wonder how much of it Van Buren communicated directly to Becker, in exchange for assignments in family and criminal court.

And, knowing all of that, he came into his mentor's home in July of 2011 bearing a threat from Becker that Becker will fabricate a criminal charge against my husband.  Van Buren told us directly that it was Becker's request he was carrying out.

He did not tell the judge that he will not be serving as his messenger boy.

He did not tell the judge that it is illegal to threaten a person who just sued you and whose wife just asked to criminally prosecute you as an impostor, with a yet another fabrication - after Moon's fabrication failed.

He did not tell the judge to bring his threats that had nothing to do with his judicial duties - on his own.

He caved in and worked as a messenger boy for the corrupt judge.

As a contemptible coward that he is.

Because this was his Judas price to get assignments from Becker, at $75 an hour, in criminal and Family Court cases.

But that was not all.

2. Deliberate deception of voters

The next year, in 2012, when Becker ran for re-election, Van Buren, knowing full well, who and what Becker is, wrote THIS:

Knowing that Becker - VICIOUSLY - avenges criticism of his misconduct, Van Buren preferred to DECEIVE Delaware County voters by falsely praising a judge he knew was a criminal.

"In my experience, Judge Becker gives attorneys and litigants, alike, an opportunity to be heard (even when the time for doing so is limited).  His decisions are fair, well-reasoned, and thoroughly researched.  His sentencing decisions reflect the interests of the community and also a measure of compassion for criminal defendants".

Van Buren said that, knowing that Becker was a mean petty drunk who was the most reversed judge, probably, in the Delaware County's history, here is the list of just some of his reversals.

Van Buren knew that Becker shut down attorneys' objections and did not let them make their arguments in court.

He knew that Becker DID NOT research his cases - that's why he was the most-reversed judge.

He knew that Becker's sentencing decisions served the career and financial interests of his own and of his friends Northrup, Moon and (then-County Attorney) Spinney, and nobody else's.

Yet, Van Buren knew that he will not be disciplined for FALSE PRAISE - only for criticism of a judge, no matter how fair.

And - HE LIED TO VOTERS, lied with authority, based on his years of experience appearing in front of Becker.

So, Van Buren IS the one who arranged, through his DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF VOTERS, for saddling the County residents with another term of 10 years of Becker's tyranny (good that the "fair and reasonable" Becker ran from the office in 2015 chased by the FBI, the New York State Commission for judicial conduct and the State Comptroller's office).

3. Disorderly conduct arrest

Van Buren's unruly behavior was reported back in 2002 when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and littering in front of his client's house.

4.  Dishonesty with clients, attorneys and courts and GREED, GREED, GREED again

Greed Case # 1.  Extorting attorney fees from a cancer patient and victim of his client's stone theft

Sometime in the early 2000s, when I have just got married to a Delaware County resident, attorney Frederick J. Neroni, and came to live there, my husband had an interesting case against Andrew Van Buren's client.

The case was well publicized at that time, and I am sure many people who lived in the area at the time would remember it.

A woman (my husband's client) was diagnosed with cancer and came to live in our area, charmed by its peace and tranquility.

Well, Andrew Van Buren's client interfered with that piece and tranquility by starting to steal stones from a historical stone wall on her property.

What was even more atrocious was that Andrew Van Buren moved for a summary judgment against my husband's client, asking the court to award his client's (thief's) attorney fees owed to Van Buren - against the victim of the theft, the property owner and a cancer patient who his client robbed.

I do remember that the presiding judge, I believe, it was Michael V. Coccoma, was so upset about what Van Buren did that he

1/ granted to my husband's client a REVERSE summary judgment ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, when my husband was not even asking for it; and

2/ banned Andrew Van Buren from his courtroom.

I remember how Andrew Van Buren called my husband and left a drunk insulting message on our answering machine about it.

The only reason he did what he did was GREED, he wanted his fee no matter what and no matter who he was going to squeeze that fee from.

Greed Case # 2.   Desperately trying to get paid for representing opponent of Van Buren's own former client in the same case

Children custody trials are emotional, drawn-out, involve a lot of detailed evidence and a lot of witnesses, and courts usually give plenty of time to prepare for such trials - because of all the above.

Imagine the situation.

I have a custody trial for a client scheduled for the next day.

Suddenly I receive a call from Andrew Van Buren telling me that he represents the opponent in that case now.

That was NOT how the law requires attorneys to get substituted.

There was an attorney of record in that case (attorney Zilbert, as far as I remember), substitution of attorneys must be done - by law - through a NOTARIZED consent to change attorneys, which Andrew Van Buren DID NOT obtain from the opposing party and DID NOT file with the court.

Quite recently before that Judge Burns (presiding judge in the custody case) chastised in court attorney Renee Albaugh for claiming to be attorney of record in a divorce case and making motions in that case, while failing to file a proper substitution of attorneys and, thus, not being attorney of record.

So, Andrew Van Buren was NOT an attorney of record in the case at the time he claimed he was representing my client's opponent.

Anyway, I call my client and I notify him that a claim is made that Andrew Van Buren will be representing his opponent at the tomorrow's trial - and he calls me back immediately, quite upset, telling me that Andrew Van Buren was HIS attorney in the SAME case (custody cases take a long time, sometimes years).

I do believe it was greed - Andrew Van Buren charges an arm and a leg for representation at trials, and he needed money, so he pretended that he "forgot" that he is opposing his own former client in the same case where he represented him on the same issue.

Van Buren dishonestly took the case out of greed, hoping that it will slide through, and nobody will remember.

Well, his client did remember, and objected, and I wrote to Andrew Van Buren on my client's behalf.

Here is our e-mail exchange (I've blacked out the names of clients).  

The year was 2013 - after Andrew Van Buren has shown us his true colors as the corrupt Judge Becker's racketeer messenger boy.

What was wrong with Andrew Van Buren asking for an adjournment?

Everything was wrong about it.

First of all, he was not yet an attorney of record in the case - never was, and can't ask the court for anything.

Second, he cannot be an attorney of record for the opponent since he represented my client in the same case before, and can't ask the court for anything that is against my client's best interests.

As I said above, there was plenty of time given by the court for trial preparation, there was PLENTY of work done by me preparing for the trial, work that was already billed, per hour, to my client, and my client very reasonably objected to any adjournment at the 11th hour, especially for the bogus reason that his opponent fired previous attorney and hired HIS OWN INITIAL ATTORNEY, and then, after his attorney's conflict of interest was revealed, claimed an adjournment that she was not otherwise entitled to.

A good trick, wasn't it?

Here is what I wrote to Van Buren on the subject:

And that is when Andrew Van Buren EXPLODED - consider THAT piece for an assessment of this judicial candidate's "judicial temperament":

He was obviously afraid that I will sue him on behalf of his client - which his client had an obvious right to do, and it would not have been a "malicious way to practice law", but his former client's right.

Note that all I asked was for Van Buren to just step aside COMPLETELY and not ask the judge for ANYTHING on behalf of his new client (opponent of his former client in the same litigation), because THAT REQUEST WAS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL - twice, coming from an attorney who was not an official attorney of record, and coming from an attorney who was opposing his own former client.  

Note that I did not threaten Van Buren with any referrals, complaints or lawsuits.

I simply asked him to not ask the judge for any adjournments, since he had no right to represent his own client's opponent in the first place, for any reason.

Note that Van Buren tries to pretend that he cares a lot about Judge Burns "coming from Cooperstown" to preside over the case, only to "have to adjourn it".  

Know what?  He didn't have to adjourn anything, since Van Buren was instantly replaced by another attorney, and the trial did happen.

But, Van Buren just tried to have the case adjourned on false pretenses - possibly, trying to keep a part of the (likely giant) fee that he unlawfully charged his client.

How is that about honesty and temperament of a judicial candidates, dear voters?

And here is what Andrew Van Buren told me when I called him out on his tantrum.

See?

He "always" apologizes "when it is warranted". 

Once again, the summary of the story.

A certain client FIRED Andrew Van Buren and, after other previous attorneys, hired me.

I prepared for trial for my client.

Andrew Van, angry at his client for firing him, designed a costly revenge for his client.

Van Buren allowed his client's opponent to hire him, charged her a trial fee (not less than $10,000, and that is a conservative estimate, as far as I know Van Buren's fees), and tried to derail his former client's trial.

When caught red-handed, he started to accuse the attorney who simply asked him not to act against his own former client, of all kinds of - non-existing - mortal sins and refused to apologize, because I am not worth the apology.

GREED CASE #3 (and that's only what I know of, over a short period of time).  Cika v Kellner

A contractor did a remodeling job in a house.  The homeowner refused to pay.

I sued on behalf of the contractor.  Van Buren represented the homeowner.

Van Buren moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it is subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement.

I opposed the motion and won, so the case was retained by the court.

I filed discovery demands with Van Buren, he did not comply.

The judge (Lambert) called a discovery-pretrial-settlement conference.  My client did not want to settle, and especially when Van Buren's client did not comply with discovery demands.

Before the pre-trial conference, Van Buren told me that his client is not paying him (like he did not pay my client for his work).  At the conference Van Buren started to pressure me into settling the case on terms favorable to his client - and demanded that my client's must pay Van Buren's attorney fees for OPPOSING my client's lawsuit.

I refused.

Van Buren became verbally abusive.

I requested the court attorney (Oursler) handling the conference to put audio recording on (it was in the Grand Jury room where audio recording equipment was installed at that time).  Oursler refused.

Van Buren continued to berate me at the top of his lungs for not settling the case and accusing me and my client of non-existing misconduct.

At the end of the conference I was crying, shaking, my hands were trembling, and I went to a colleague to at least have a witness of my condition after the conference.

I DID turn Andrew Van Buren into attorney discipline for his behavior in this Greed #3 case. 

Being a diligent Becker's student and knowing that by that time Becker has fabricated a child neglect against us (we won a dismissal), a disciplinary case against my husband (he was disbarred) and a disciplinary case against me (still pending at the time), Van Buren decided to fabricate more - with Becker's help.

He complained against me that I FALSELY accused Van Buren of misconduct at the conference, that it was I, and not him, who derailed discovery in the case, and that I was "improperly" refused to settle (and, obviously, to agree that my client must pay Van Buren's attorney fees).

Van Buren claimed that Oursler (who refused to audiotape Van Buren's misconduct) will testify against me as to what was happening in the conference, and that Becker will also come to testify against me on Van Buren's behalf.

That was a year after Van Buren praised Becker during his election campaign to voters and 2 years after he parlayed Becker's threat of (fabricated) criminal prosecution to my husband.

Apparently, Van Buren revealed that he was in a very close friendly relationship with Judge Becker if Becker would agree to come testify on behalf of Van Buren against me.  So much for "I am not beholden to anyone".

In response to Van Buren's fabrication, I pointed out his misbehavior in the conflict of interest Greed #2 case, and THEN Andrew Van Buren LIED EVEN MORE, now to the court - the court never disbarred him for that though (I wonder, why, probably, Becker asked for him).

While Van Buren claimed to me - see e-mail exchange above - that, oops, my mistake, missed conflict of interest, to the Attorney Grievance Committee/Appellate Court Van Buren said something completely different.

He said that he has 

1/ an advance archiving system, PLUS a "court-approved" conflict-checking software!!!

Which only aggravated his misbehavior in the custody case.  The only thing he needed to do was, without stepping into representation of his client, to CHECK his "advanced and court-approved" conflict-checking software and archive to see whether there is a conflict of interest - and say "no" to the prospective client.

---

By the way, when Van Buren told me that "I am the breath of fresh air" (back in 2009) and berated Becker to me, possibly to get into my confidences ON BECKER's BEHALF, as his messenger boy, to get on the assignment list, at that point Van Buren told me that he actually has 11 disciplinary violations (not shown on his public record though, but that he acknowledged himself).

I wonder what those violations are for.

Here is some of my responses to Van Buren's fabrication after he nearly caused me a heart attack or a stroke trying to get money from my client instead of his own non-paying client (as he usually does - since the stone wall case).

I would like to point out one very important point.  Van Buren did not only try to (knowing that I was under severe stress, when my husband lost his law license due to Becker's and 2 other local sons-of-judges' fabrication, when Becker was after me with sanctions after I sued him for misconduct, when I carried a huge caseload, my husband's and my own, and supported a minor son, who we had to transfer to an out-of-state private school to save him from harassment of Becker's pocket social services department) rattle me to the point of a heart attack - simply to shake money out of my client because his own client did not pay his fees and, thus Van Buren did not want to do discovery or proceed to trial, not being paid.

Van Buren also falsely claimed to the disciplinary authorities that it was I, his victim, who falsely accused him, and he is ready to provide testimony for that of Judge Lambert's court attorney Oursler (never provided), the one who refused to audiotape Van Buren's tantrum, and ready to provide testimony in Van Buren's support of Judge Becker - who was not in that courtroom, but was obviously ready to testify against me no matter in what case.

Moreover, Van Buren tried to claim that it is I who was in need of a "psychological evaluation" - because I did not want to have my client pay for Van Buren's greed, obviously.

It would be a suicide act for Delaware County voters to give this vengeful, greedy and mean drunk who already tried to create fabrications and "diagnose" his opponents as psychos - authority to COURT-ORDER, under the threat of "contempt of court", jail time and fines, psychological evaluations.

He will do it to people out of pure personal revenge.

===

So, dear Delaware County voters.

I wrote a lot of things criticizing John Hubbard.  I think he is a very bad candidate for a judge, and I stand by my word.

I will post separate articles about John Hubbard's qualifications to become a judge.

Yet, one BIG negative factor John Hubbard definitely lacks, as compared to Van Buren.

GREED to instantly start getting the judicial salary of $210,000 per year.

Andrew Van Buren overcharges the private clients he happens to catch, so private clients are rare - so he resorts to trying to claim attorney fees against his client's opponents, like he did in the stone wall theft case, like he did in Cika v Kellner's case.

Or, he desperately tries to get hired even by his former client's opponents in the same case and hide it hoping that he won't be caught red-handed.

Van Buren otherwise subsists on assigned cases, which pay not much, and only at the end of the case, so he has no cash flow in between, which is bad, especially when you are raising growing children close to college age.

Van Buren's opponent in judicial elections, DA John Hubbard's salary at this time is $201,000.

So, at least one can say about Hubbard that a puny salary increase of 4% cannot be considered as motivated by greed - which is, quite obviously, Van Buren's case.

So.

Do you want a judge who is drunk, mean, vengeful and desperately greedy, with a history of outrageously unethical behavior dictated by greed?

Do you want a judge who would drive a woman to a blood pressure hike behind closed doors, arrange with his buddies not to preserve evidence and then claim that what happened behind those closed doors was exactly the opposite to what his victim claimed?

Just for greed?

Just for personal vengeance? 

Will you feel SAFE with such a judge behind closed doors?

• Respect for justice;
• committed to the concept of impartial justice;
• exudes respect and empathy for his fellow human beings;
• will hold all in his courtroom to the highest standards of ethics and the law;
• will make sure that our county court system works first and foremost for us, the people
• represents people, and represents a breath of fresh air.

These are all arrogant LIES.

 

Did I also mention that Van Buren is not only mean, and is not only dishonest, and greedy, and vengeful, but is a dishonest, greedy, mean and vengeful DRUNK? 

I have personally smelt alcohol on his breath, at a distance, in court, on many occasions, and I know Andrew Van Buren since 1999, and came to court regularly since that time accompanying my husband first, and then on my own, as an attorney.

Reportedly, he did not stop drinking since we left Delaware County in 2015.  If anything, his drinking has reportedly become worse.

My contacts in the County tell me they see Van Buren, increasingly unkempt, and with increasingly greater number of beer 12-packs.

He looks like a cow chewed him and then spat him out.

A big contrast with the unfailingly clean-cut John Hubbard.

Will you vote for an unethical, dishonest, petty, vengeful, mean drunk with a history disorderly fraudulent conduct who is a danger to women behind the closed doors of unrecorded court conferences - which he will be able to hold aplenty if he becomes a judge?

Would you want to find yourself on the receiving end of a forcible psychological evaluation each time you point out his - inevitable - misconduct?

And note - audio and video recordings are not allowed by court rules in the courthouse.

Van Buren knows it.

And he has a history of using it in his fabrications, and had, as an aid in his fabrications, Judge Becker, the notoriously corrupt judge.  While claiming now to voters that he is "independent", "for the people" and "not beholden to anybody".

As a judge, his fabrications will only become worse and have greater impact upon people.

Do you want such a judge?

Your call.

The circus of 3R's - recusal, re-entry, retaliation - continues, now with #JudgeBrianBurns the #PacherilleCaseHero in the ring

I wrote on this blog some time ago about the rule of 3R's - recusal, reentry, retaliation - much practiced by New York State judges.

There is a new development in the history of the "3R rule", but before I go into that, some history of the 3R rule in the same case.

3Rs 3JudgeCarlFBecker style

In 2009, the then-Delaware County and Family Court judge Carl Becker recused from a case involving myself and my husband.

In 2011 Carl Becker re-entered cases where my husband and myself were parties and ruled against us.

In August of 2012, Carl Becker recused from my cases again.

In September of 2012, Carl Becker re-entered two of the cases in order to:

• filibuster an appeal where his illegal sanctions were discussed; and
• hurt my other client with a decision that was materially different from the one that he has read after the trial in court several months before the recusal.

2 state appellate courts:

• the Appellate Division 3rd Department, and
• the New York State Court of Appeals, and

and two federal courts:

• the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York;
• the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and

did not consider this behavior as improper, unconstitutional, retaliatory or violating my rights and rights of my clients (and that is just that issue, without considering the actual evidence of bias, personal involvement in the case and ex parte communications with parties and counsel).

In 2014, when I filed a motion to vacate Becker's sanctions based on new evidence, Judge Frank Revoir out of Chenango County was assigned to one of the cases Becker mishandled (and where he sanctioned me for criticizing him, and without disclosing conflicts of interest), yelled at me that advancing constitutional arguments in Family Court is the equivalent of lying.  New York Commission for Judicial Conduct did not find anything wrong with that behavior.  Revoir then recused, and Judge Connerton was assigned.

Judge Connerton is a bigot who found it appropriate, even when she was forced to dismiss the case brought against me and my husband by Becker's buddy William Moon in retaliation for me making a motion to recuse on behalf of a client (not my friend, just a client), because Becker did not disclose his representation of Moon and personal knowledge of Moon (petitioner in child neglect cases) for 27 years before coming to the bench.

Of course, as it was recently reported, judges in New York are not disciplined even when they directly discriminate against people based on their language disability, as it happened when four (!) judges out of Queens County, New York (New York City) scolded jurors for not knowing English enough to sit on criminal juries

(which involves perception by ear of oral testimony in the English language and perception and memorization of jury instructions, the law read by the judge sometimes for up to an hour),

one of the judges went so far as to telling jurors that if they are disqualified for not knowing the English language (a "language disability" protected by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act), the judge will order them not to be paid for that day off from work, even though they had to come and would have been prosecuted had they not come.

So, when judges are not disciplined even for that, Connerton's "furrowed brow and hurried speech" in an order of dismissal (which I could not appeal since it was in my favor) was child's play.

While dismissing the case, Connerton,

• taught social services how to bring the case better the next time; and
• made a negative inference against me for my allegedly "furrowed brow and hurried speech" at the trial -

knowing well from hearing me speak, with an accent, that English is not my native language, and that the manner how non-native speakers speak under stress should not be held against them as some kind of misconduct.

Judge Connerton denied my motion to vacate Judge Becker's sanctions without reading the evidence, because, as she confessed in an ex parte communication with other parties and counsel, in a conference where I was not allowed to attend and was not allowed by the court to see the transcript (until a party provided it to me later), she developed a headache just thinking about reading my "600-page motion".

So, I was sanctioned, and my license was suspended eventually, for allegedly NOT presenting enough evidence of judicial misconduct while making motions to recuse (as judged by the object of the motion to recuse, Judge Becker), and, Judge Connerton refused to read newly emerged evidence of Becker's misconduct that Becker did not disclose because there was too much to read of that evidence.

Moreover, Connerton lied to me, in writing, that she has never said anything about her headache when thinking about reading my motion.  I published Connerton's lies and what she really said in the transcript in a blog, here.

Then, in an interesting succession of events:

1. In June of 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court issues a case Reed v Town of Gilbert where it rules that regulation of speech based on its content without strict scrutiny violates the 1st Amendment and must be struck;
2. in November of 2015, without deciding my argument that sanctions against me for contents of my motion to recuse violate the 1st Amendment, I was suspended by state court for 2 years without a hearing, for mysterious additional "abuse of judicial process" which nobody explained to me in the disciplinary proceedings what that was, and for failure to express remorse for what I did wrong - since I did nothing wrong, there was nothing to express remorse for, and especially when my expression of remorse was required before the court's finding of liability;
3. in November of 2015 I was ALLEGEDLY - and secretly  - suspended by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in a secret proceedings where the whole docket is still hidden - while many courts recently ruled is unconstitutional, and while the New York State Court Administration is now investigating Nassau County Courts for the same behavior, hiding court dockets; so, if there is no written public evidence of suspension (no public order of suspension), there is no suspension, but I am listed as suspended in federal court - even though I am not treated as suspended for purposes of serving on me some, but not all, pleadings in cases where I was also a party in interest, by electronic means - I am going to reflect this conceptual mess in when you are an attorney and when you are not an attorney in my upcoming book "Conceptual inconsistencies in attorney regulation in the U.S.";
4. in June of 2016, 3 events happened:
1.  the U.S. Supreme Court issues a new opinion in Williams v Pennsylvania, ruling that when the same judge acts as an accuser and an adjudicator in the same case, that is a violation of due process, and the judge's decision is void - while Carl Becker commenced all proceedings on sanctions against me sua sponte (on his own motion) and acted in those proceedings as unsworn witness, accuser, prosecutor and adjudicator, a clear match with Williams v Pennsylvania;
2. an attorney I did not personally know, Woodruff Carroll, who is known for "lacking a filter", after an ex parte communication with one of the federal judges I sued for out-of-court misconduct, came up with a new explanation as to why I was suspended - because I and my husband (who practiced law for 35 years before I was admitted to the bar in 2009) sued "everybody who is anybody" in New York State, and
3. the New York State Court of Appeals, including the Chief Judge whose appointment I opposed by written testimony before New York Senate, asking for criminal investigation of Janet DiFiore instead of elevation of her to the position of the Chief Judge of the State of New York, denied me review of my constitutional appeal that she was mandated by law to review as of right, claiming that "no substantial constitutional questions were involved" - so, the NYS Court of Appeals picks and chooses which of constitutional provisions are "substantial" enough for them to enforce.

So, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued the two opinions (2015 and 2016) directly on point of Becker's 2011 sanctions against me, the law allowed me to move to vacate sanctions based on new law, so I did.

I made a motion to vacate in Delaware County Family Court.

I wrote what happened there - unbeknownst to me, Judge Connerton recused, and the bravest judge in the world #JudgeGaryRosaTheCoward assigned himself to the case who actually discussed that case before he ran for elections and made pledges to voters based on that case claiming that Judge Becker committed misconduct in that case, and promised that he would be different - that Judge Rosa - ruled against me, refusing to vacate Judge Becker's sanctions.

Judge Rosa's "constitutional" analysis was astounding since it skipped the mandatory procedure and concentrated on facts, not issues of the case.

When I made a motion to vacate, renew, reargue and recuse, pointing out that I was not notified that Rosa was assigned before he issued his decision (without a hearing), and was not given an opportunity to timely move to recuse, Rosa responded to my motion to recuse with a diatribe acknowledging that he saw red because of my motion, and claiming what I said was a lie - even though I relied on statements of a party in that same litigation that did not oppose my motion.

Rosa recused, and then - and then, the curtain rises, and a "new" judge steps in:  Judge Brian Burn of Otsego County, THE Judge Brian Burns whose misconduct and abuse of power in order to retaliate against the father of a boy whose rights Burns violated at trial I criticized in my blog many times.

3Rs by Brian Burns and Mary Rita Connerton

Here is Judge Brian Burns order of assignment to the case - by the recused Judge Mary Rita Connerton who infused herself back into the case from which she recused.

Note three more interesting personages on that order of assignment:

• Michael Coccoma,
• Molly Fitzgerald, and
• Richard Northrup - all of them without exception "honorables".

• Michael Coccoma recused from my husband's cases in 2007 and from my cases in 2013, who my husband sued for fraud, along with his wife and who I criticized on this blog for picking and saving from discipline for egregious misconduct pretty females attorneys (Christina Ryba, fired for egregious ethical misconduct, immediately hired by Coccoma, not disciplined and then elevated to be a judge of Albany County Supreme Court, and Diane Schilling, special counsel on ethics in Coccoma's administration taken off the bench, but not disbarred, for attempt to fix a traffic ticket for a judge's wife)  - which did not prevent Coccoma from assigning judges to my husband's and my own cases ever since;
• Molly Fitzgerald has a recent addition to her staff - the former Delaware County attorney Porter Kirkwood whom I not only criticized in my blogs, but to whom my blogs very likely cost his judicial election in 2015;
• Richard Northrup has never been assigned to this case (yet), but was boss to John Hubbard, former law partner of Carl Becker (the initial 3R guy) and never disclosed that connection when, as a DA, Northrup was litigating numerous proceedings against my clients, and in 2015 Northrup recused, as a DA, and then re-entered as a judge in 2016 (in exactly same manner as in Williams v Pennsylvania, prosecutor on the case becoming a judge on the same case) , and then recused in 2016, from a traffic ticket case of my relative.

Of course, when yet another previously recused judge whom I criticized for his misconduct in the blog after his recusal, and whom I criticized about a case that he was sued for in federal court (and hired the former law firm of one of the presiding judges to defend him) same as in the case of assignment of Gary Rosa, I was not notified that Judge Burns was assigned until I received his decision, so I had no opportunity to make a timely motion to recuse, because Judge Burns recused from my cases before and his re-entry into my case was completely improper.

And here is Judge Burns' decision confirming legality of the previous illegal decision of Judge Rosa (who was clearly disqualified and whose decision was clearly void as that of a judge who discussed the case ex parte, pronounced his contrary opinion ex parte, and solicited and received votes based on his contrary assessment of the case, which now constitutes voter fraud).

The interesting part about Judge Burns' assignment is that Judge Burns also recused from all of my cases in October of 2013, after I sued him on behalf of a client and challenged constitutionality of the Family Court Act in child neglect proceedings:

In that case, I challenged constitutionality of New York Family Court Act, and judge Burns in his official capacity, enforcing that act, because:

1. while claiming it is a "civil proceeding", and affecting parental constitutional rights, the Family Court Act did not allow a jury trial in child neglect or abuse proceedings;
2. while claiming it is a "civil proceeding", the Family Court act allowed issuance of criminal arrest warrants for not appearing in a supposedly civil case where parents were not even served, or even if they would be - in a civil case non-appearance may only result in a default judgment, not a criminal arrest warrant;
3. because the Family Court Act allows change of custody of children without parents' presence in court and without service of process on them.

Burns instantly got off all of my cases.

Now, after I criticized him in my blog regarding his misconduct in the Pacherille case in the Otsego County Court -

Part I, published on November 9, 2015 (a week before suspension, so I wonder whether this blog contributed to my suspension, too, and whether Judge Burns asked for my suspension - in view of the interesting version of why I was suspended delivered to me by attorney Woodruff Carroll in court pleadings in July of 2016, that it is because of my own and my husband's civil rights lawsuits agaist "everybody who is anybody" in New York) - The Anthony Pacherille story, Part 1 - for judge Brian Burns of Otsego County Court, NY, justice is for sale;
Part 2, published November 11, 2015 (4 days before suspension) - The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 2. Judge Burns strikes back against the child because the child's father asked him for compassion;
Part 3, published November 18, 2015 - The Anthony Pacherille's story, Part 3 - after the sentencing: thin skin, long arms, the sense of entitlement and the complete lack of integrity of Judge Brian Burns of Otsego County;
Part 4 , published November 18, 2015 - The Anthony Pacherille story: Part 4 - freedom to protest in front of a public official's home; and
Part 5 , November 21, 2015 - The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 5: Judge Burns hires a law firm with ties to the presiding magistrate judge in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit -

after all that, Burns, a judge who recused in 2013 from all of my cases, a judge known for his thin skin and retaliative conduct against those who publicly criticize him online for his behavior in court, was now assigned by Connerton, another recused judge, to preside over my motion to vacate sanctions imposed upon me by Becker, another recused-and-reentered judge that judge Rosa, a judge who disqualified himself by soliciting and receiving votes based on his characterization of Becker's sanctions as improper, refused to vacate in retaliation against my criticism of Judge Rosa's and his law clerk's misconduct.

And what did Burns say in that decision of his?

Well, Burns was never known for being a big constitutional scholar.

In this case he painstakingly try to appear impartial and to pretend to do some "constitutional" analysis.

But, of course, the predominant feeling emanating from the decision of Judge Burns is fear - the fear of making a misstep that can ruin his own career.

And, since application of the law in my favor (when the law is in my favor) would be such a political misstep, Burns, of course, refused to apply the law the way it supposed to apply - and suggested to me instead to raise that question in front of the Appellate Division (that itself 3R'd with me and my husband several times).

First of all, I must note that Judge Burns entirely ignored the argument that Judge Rosa could not preside over proceedings that he:

1. discussed ex parte with my then client and her mother in 2012;
2. pronounced his opinion that sanctions imposed by Becker were wrong;
3. pronounced his opinion that sanctions imposed by Becker was specifically the type of misconduct that he will try to avoid if he is elected a judge, and the reason why he is running for a judge;
4. solicited and received votes based on such opinion about impropriety of Becker's sanctions.

Burns simply ignored that argument, ignored arguments of bias or appearance of bias and retaliation - of course, Burns will not know bias and retaliation if these creatures are screaming in his face, judging on his conduct in the Pacherille case, see Parts 1 through 5 above - and jumped right into analysis whether Gary Rosa's determination did or did not clearly apply the law.

Here is what Burns said about applicability of Reed v Town of Gilbert to my case. 

In my motion I specifically described procedure required by the U.S. Supreme Court for review whenever content-based regulation of speech is ALLEGED (that's what I did in my motion):

That is part of Reed v Town of Gilbert, a case which says nothing about discussing and matching FACTS of analyzed cases to the U.S. Supreme Court precedents, but LEGAL ISSUES:

So, the question in front of Judge Burns was not whether a judicial decision was to be treated the same way as a town ordinance (which is what he did):

Do you get it? "...the Reed decision establishing that strict scrutiny must be applied to a Town Ordinance was simply not applicable to judicial finding of frivolous conduct".

First, Reed did not establish that "strict scrutiny must be applied to a Town Ordinance".  It established, in the broadest and most general terms, that content-based regulation of speech by the government - any government, any branch, under any circumstances - is subject to strict scrutiny, and mandated a procedure for review of any regulation of speech that is content-based, on its face.

Yet, Burns played "merry-go-round" with the U.S. Supreme Court case, reducing it to just a case strictly about a town ordinance.

Second, Burns, after Rosa, continued to introduce the rule of review that is very popular in American courts - it is called "because I said so".

Instead of a reasoned analysis (of course, I understand that I am not in Finland where a REASONED court decision is considered a basic human right), Rosa, and Burns after him claim that content-based review of a judicial sanction for "frivolous conduct" (frivolous conduct being a motion to recuse seeking to establish for a pro bono indigent client her constitutional right for impartial judicial review) is "simply not applicable" - no explanation given.

Burns applied the same "simply not applicable because I said so" rule to Williams v Pennsylvania, too. 

Same as in Reed, Burns narrowed the holding in Williams to specific case, while the holding was very broad, and included ANY case where a judge also acted as an accuser:

This phrase about "a constitutionally intolerable probability of bias" is not restricted to a criminal case, otherwise the court would have said so.

Moreover, a habeas corpus petition - as Judge Clarence Thomas pointed out in dissent - is a civil case.

So, both Williams v Pennsylvania and my case are civil cases where the extremely broad holding of Williams, a prohibition for judges to also act as accusers in the same cases, clearly applies.

Yet, admitting that would

1. have required to rule in my favor - and potentially restore my law license, which would be a political faux pas for Judges Rosa and Burns;
2. undermine the whole idea of sua sponte sanctions by courts, acting as accusers and adjudicators - and courts in the U.S. are known only to usurp power easily, but would never cede it, even if courts are wrong.

Here is how both Rosa and Burns applied Williams in my case:

Issue	Williams v Pennsylvania	What happened in my case	How Burns and Rosa review this issue?
Characteristic of the case: civil or criminal?	Civil case (habeas corpus petition)	Civil case	Claimed that Williams v Pennsylvania is a criminal case and a death penalty case, and what the court said there, is not applicable to sanctions for frivolous conduct
Was punishment by the government involved? Y/N	Yes, death penalty	Yes, sanctions for frivolous conduct	Did not review the issue that in both cases punishment by the government occurred
Who commenced the proceeding that led to punishment?	The presiding judge (when he was a prosecutor)	The presiding judge (through a sua sponte motion – order to show cause “why counsel should not be sanctioned”)	Did not review this similarity
Was judge asked to recuse? Y/N	Yes, refused to recuse and filed a concurring opinion complaining about federal defenders who asked him to recuse	Yes, refused to recuse and punished counsel for making motion to recuse	Did not review this similarity
Did the accuser/adjudicator judge act as a witness in the case? Y/N	No	Yes	Refused to address the issue that Williams applies even more when the presiding judge was not only an accuser/adjudicator, but also an unsworn witness in the case
Did the accuser/adjudicator judge act as an alleged victim in the case? Y/N	No	Yes (the sanctions were imposed for alleged frivolous conduct, harassing the judge himself with a motion to recuse)	Refused to address the issue that Williams applies even more when the presiding judge was not only an accuser/adjudicator, but also an alleged victim in the case

In my case, as compared to Williams v Pennsylvania, the accuser-adjudicator judge (there is no doubt about that, Becker started sanctions proceedings on his own motion) also acted as an unsworn witness making statements about his own elections and about customs of following or not following the law in Delaware County, and as an alleged victim, claiming in the proceedings that he started, prosecuted and adjudicated that I was harassing him personally with the contents of my motions to recuse.

Apparently, not only the accuser/adjudicator prohibition of Williams v Pennsylvania applied, but it applied with a vengeance, in the legal language, a fortiori (even more so), because there were more disqualifying factors in how Becker brought, prosecuted and adjudicated the sanctions proceedings: Becker was

• accuser
• adjudicator,
• unsworn witness, and
• alleged victim

in the same proceedings.


Yet, the two corrupt judges, both known for their corruption and for their retaliation against critics, could not possibly apply the law to the facts as the law required it to be done - because they did not like the result.

Therefore, they fixed they geared their "constitutional" argument towards the result desirable for them.

After Burns narrowed the holdings of both U.S. Supreme Court cases to specific facts of the case, he skipped the issue of bias entirely:

Moreover, Burns then openly lied when he refused to "overrule" the 3rd Department, because, as Burns falsely claimed in his decision, the 3rd Department allegedly affirmed the sanctions against me in

Matter of Adams v Bracci

2012 NY Slip Op 07922 [100 AD3d 1214]

November 21, 2012

(which did not happen, because the 3rd Department never reviewed my appeal on sanctions, only my client', having dismissed mine without review on a technicality).

Moreover, Judge Burns must know that if a higher precedent (U.S. Supreme Court is the highest) applies, it applies and is mandatory for ALL courts, including Judge Burns, and Judge Burns does not have a right to require me to jump through another hoop and go up to an appellate court for review, simply because Burns wants to play safe and is afraid to "overrule" the 3rd Department.

The diligence of this judge is clear in that he did not even care to read the precedent he was referring to - Matter of Adams v Bracci, 100 AD3d 1214 (3rd Dept., 2012), which was NOT my appeal at all, and cannot be "deemed" as my appeal.

What can I say.

To expect honesty from an "honorable" (by job description only), but actually corrupt judge would be naïve.

Yet, the public needs to know about tricks that this judge continues to play with the law to come out on top in retaliation against critics and in pleasing his real bosses - not the People of the State of New York who elected him, but higher-ranking judges who continue to elevate him despite his obvious misconduct - because, in his misconduct, he is "one of them", part of the brotherhood, equally smeared (no, not by blood, like mafia does it, but by misconduct anyway).

So, this is the story of recusal-reentry-retaliation of Judge Burns and Judge Connerton who assigned him (and who, in her turn, answers to a 3R judge Michael Coccoma and to the employer of Porter Kirkwood judge Molly Fitzgerald).

The 3Rs of other New York judges in my cases:

• 3Rs of Judge Kevin Dowd;
• 3Rs of Judge James Tormey;
• 3Rs of Judge Michael Coccoma;
• 3Rs of the entire New York State Appellate Division 3rd Department

I described in my blog earlier.

What is significant in the 3R practice is that you may never be assured that a judge who recused from your case because he admits he cannot be impartial will not re-enter that case or other cases where you are a party, and rule against you (predictably), while refusing to recuse and even sanctioning you for asking him to recuse, and appellate courts consider that as nothing inappropriate - making litigants' constitutional right to impartial judicial review an illusion.