What did Dick Northrup do on top of the "usual" shenannigans allowed to New York judges to be booted off the bench mid-term - just like his friend Carl Becker was?

This past Friday County "Judge" Richard Northrup

has officially retired from his unlawfully held position, only 6 years into the 10-year term.

Coincidentally, the same - running from the bench midterm - was done by the person who has illegally sworn him in office, being at the time a private citizen - see in the picture below the former County Judge Carl F. Becker, donning a judicial robe as if he is still a judge, swearing Northrup in into his own former judicial seat (they can't both be judges at the same time regarding the same judicial vacancy, right?).

Becker, friend of Northrup who "swore in" Northrup to become a judge as illegal as Becker in his 1st term - Becker did not file certificate of election as required by law in 2002 and forged it in 2011 when I pointed the lack of it in a motion to vacate his decision as not being decisions of a lawful judge.

Becker, friend to Northrup so close that Northrup allowed him to annul legitimacy of his judgeship by having a private person to impersonate a judge and to publicly and illegally administer Northrup's judicial oath of office, was a very frequently-reversed judge, 

famous for helping his friend Northrup to win criminal cases by eliminating good criminal defense attorneys by pulling their licenses - Becker eliminated 3 criminal defense attorneys who bothered him and his friend Northrup with motions, appeals and civil rights lawsuits.

Becker thus helped Northrup eliminate David Roosa who in his lawsuit in federal court (a public record) disclosed that Becker complained against Roosa and had his law license pulled for providing effective representation to indigent criminal defendants in assigned cases - Roosa treated cases of indigent defenses with no difference to cases of retained clients, doing the full amount of work, including discovery and motions, which enraged Becker (the lawsuit was, of course, dismissed on "absolute judicial immunity" grounds without review of Becker's conduct on the merits - as all other lawsuits against him were hushed down). 

Becker was also the judge who eliminated from the reach of Delaware County (and beyond) people a team of husband and wife criminal defense, Family Court (defense-against-CPS) and civil rights attorneys Frederick and Tatiana Neroni who Becker was especially upset about because 

1. they were "double-teaming" (Becker's word) at criminal trials - one looking through documents provided by the prosecution right before testimony of the witness spotting necessary issues to ask questions and adding to the questions of the other while the other was cross-examining the witness, because
2. they were in court every day, even though Becker never assigned cases to them - because people hired them based on their skills, and because
3. they did not hold back and were not afraid to make motions to recuse Becker.

Becker first tried to eliminate both by orchestrating a bogus child neglect proceedings against both of them accompanied by a police/DA's criminal investigation and prosecution by his friend Northrup.

When that failed, Becker assigned himself - after an initial recusal - to all civil cases where the couple appeared, refused to recuse himself, imposed sanctions on the wife for making motions to recuse him, fixed the case against the husband, and orchestrated disbarment of the husband and suspension of the wife - which helped Northrup as a prosecutor a lot, since first the husband, and then the husband-and-wife team ran, for years, a 24/7 legal clinic where anybody could call or come at any time of day or night and receive legal advice, the first consultation - always for free.

As it has become a "time-honored tradition" in Delaware County and the greater upstate area, local journalists are only brave to bash Trump (since it is allowed by the state establishment), but are extremely timid to point out corruption and misconduct of local public officials, especially those with tremendous power, like prosecutors and judges.

In view of timidity of local journalists, I will do their job for them in this article, covering - as a first-hand witness or expert who have reviewed the records - the true "accomplishments" of the supposed "jurist" Richard Northrup.

As shown in the public database of New York licensed attorneys, "judge" Northrup has gotten his law license in 1984:

According to the local accolade to Northrup on his retirement, Northrup is a native of Walton, New York, and - in my free interpretation of what that accolade said - broke out on his own after law school and for the first 2 years of his practice practiced criminal defense in Greene County where he even worked, fresh out of law school, as an "assistant public defender for Greene County".

Apparently, Northrup did not survive on his own in his private practice and in 2 years' time returned to his parents in Walton.

For 6 years he was trying to practice on his own under his parents' wing in Walton - which also was not very successful.

I personally reviewed one of the documents created by Northrup in his private practice, the will of Arthur Kilmer Sr, so convoluted that courts of two levels, Delaware County Supreme Court and Appellate Division 3rd Department - as well as several attorney teams - could not figure out who out of the testator's numerous children and grandchildren gets what according to that will.

Being no good in criminal defense and no good in civil private practice, in other words, failing in his private law practice even under the wing of his parents, Northrup resorted to the refuge of all incompetent and corrupt individuals - he decided to "serve" people as a taxpayer-salaried public official.

So, in 1992, at the age of 33, Northrup switched sides in criminal cases and started to work for prosecution, being no good in criminal defense.

The difference between the required competence of a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney in New York is that the criminal defense attorney should actually work, and a prosecutor should have a pulse and a law license:

1. the prosecutor is the legal advisor of the grand jury that - by words of the former Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Sol Watchler - can indict a ham sandwich;
2. the majority of criminal court judges are themselves former prosecutors, often from the same or parallel (County Attorney, CPS prosecutor) offices who heavily help prosecutors in criminal cases; AND
3. criminal prosecutors have been (illegally) immunized by the U.S. Supreme Court for committing crimes in office, fabricating wrongful conviction, engaging in corrupt schemes and violating constitutional rights of criminal defendants and other people related to the criminal prosecution.

Let me recall once again - I believe, I did it in one of my previous articles about Northrup - my first recollection of Northrup's competence as a prosecutor that prompted me to say that all he needed to be a DA was a law license and a pulse, no competence or brains needed.

At that time, I was still a law student who my husband took with him to attend him as an assistant at a trial for felony rape.

Northrup was the prosecutor on the case.

He presented the jury with a piece of evidence in a ziploc - underwear with reddish-brown spots on it.

Here comes cross-examination by my husband to the police officer witness on the stand (by recollection):

Question: do you know what kind of spots are those?

Answer:    I assume it is the victim's blood.

Question:    How do you know?

Answer:    I don't know.

Question:    Did you have this piece of evidence checked by an expert to verify if these brown spots are blood at all?

Answer:    No.

Question:    So, you do not know whether these spots are blood or wine or paint?

Answer:    No, I don't know.

THIS was the "piece of evidence" that Northrup was proudly parading in a ziplock in front of a jury!

Without putting in any effort whatsoever to properly prepare for trial and to at least attempt to verify that the assertion he is making in court - that the evidence he is offering is blood of the victim on the victim's underware - is not wine or paint, is blood, and is specifically the victim's blood.

This is the quality of "public service" that Northrup was providing - at a high salary, for years - to the public.  

Let's go on with his proud biography of public servant, as presented by the accolade of the now-radical leftist rag "The Daily Star" from Oneonta, NY.

Having qualified as an assistant prosecutor, with his pulse and his license intact, Northrup made a quick career and already in 1996, at the age of 37, after just 4 years of being an assistant district attorney, became Delaware County District Attorney.

He remained in that position for 19 years, 4 3/4 terms, getting re-elected 5 times, before he ran for the judicial seat vacated by his friend Carl Becker (who ran from the bench mid-term chased by a triple investigation by upon information from my personal sources - by the FBI, the State Comptroller, and the State Judicial Conduct Commission.)

On becoming District Attorney in 1996 and having discretion as an employer to hire part-time assistant district attorneys - who are allowed to continue to practice law privately - Northrup made a wise (for his career) decision, hiring as an Assistant District attorney and then making Chief Assistant District attorney John Hubbard, law partner to Carl Becker, the then assistant County Attorney and CPS prosecutor.

When Becker became judge in 2002, District Attorney Northrup failed to disclose to criminal defense attorneys (including my husband Frederick J. Neroni since 2002 and myself since 2009) that he employed as his 2nd-in-command the criminal court judge's law partner.

I truly believe that all criminal convictions attained in the period between 2002 and 2015 before judge Becker must be vacated because of this non-disclosure - by Northrup and by Becker.

John Hubbard disclosed that he was a law partner of Carl Becker only when he himself ran for the position of the District Attorney in 2016, after Northrup became a judge in Becker's place and Hubbard - Acting District Attorney in Northrup's place.

Even when I reported Judge Becker to the DA's office for having committing a crime, filing the required certificate of election in 2002, that was never filed and then forged and filed in 2011, when all documentary proof of that election was long gone - John Hubbard talked to me, never disclosing that he was Becker's law partner and only asked - "why do you need this?"

And, of course, Becker returned the favor Hubbard gave his old law partner for not criminally prosecuting Becker - Becker got himself assigned to a case reviewing Hubbard's own former botched representation of clients 

("In October 2004, plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase and harvest timber upon property owned by defendants Bradley W. Torum and Samme Chittum-Torum (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). Defendants thereafter conveyed the property, without reserving plaintiff's rights, to individuals who refused to permit the collection of the timber. This action against defendants and the purchasers of the property ensued" - 

attorneys for the parties on that supposedly improper conveyance of the property was Becker's law partner John Hubbard (conveniently hired by DA Northrup to please Becker and win criminal cases) and Becker's friend and then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney, more about Spinney below). 

Naturally, Becker should not have touched that case with a 10-foot pole because of his multiple grounds for disqualifications - but he did, and his sanction against me for making a motion to recuse him was one of the sanctions which he used to have my law license pulled, without a hearing, automatically.

Becker's rage against me was apparent to anybody who frequented court hearings where Becker reacted to my appearances for my clients as to a red rag, exploding to anything I say and telling me publicly to "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni".

Federal courts refused to intervene and protect me and my clients - by dismissing, as it always does, my lawsuit against Becker on "judicial immunity grounds" and where the judge practically laughed at me and my clients for even trying to break the brick wall of judicial immunity no matter what the judge did to parties or counsel appearing in front of him.

Of course, Hubbard and Northrup, Becker's buddies, never prosecuted Becker and those who helped him file a forged certificate of election - for their crimes.

DA Northrup had a yet another accomplishment: he was 

forcing criminal defendants, including blind ones, to accept as part of their plea bargains, waivers of their right to sue Northrup, the local police, the County and his friend Becker in federal court for civil rights violations.

When I saw that agreement in black and white as a public record - it is still a public record in Delaware County courthouse at 3 Court Street, Delhi, NY 13753 in the criminal case People v Richard Carbone - I was shocked.  I simply could not believe my eyes.

For public officials to misuse their positions so that to SELL supposed leniency in criminal cases in exchange for personal favors to them - waivers of the defendants' rights to sue them in federal court for money, in their individual capacity - is, very plainly, selling decisions in criminal cases for bribes, which is a crime, state and federal.

Northrup and Becker had a good cover to protect them on all sides from any accountability for that crime - the defense attorney prior to me on the case who stepped into the case illegally, without filing with the court a formal substitution of attorney, and for the only purpose to get a quick buck on that "plea-for-waiver/bribe" scheme from his blind client who didn't know what he was signing - and the defense counsel did not tell him - was no other than the then-Vice Chair of the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct Stephen Coffey.

And on that Commission (I wonder if she was also on the take for a portion of that money) was the Presiding justice of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters) - who, being also the chief of attorney-licensing court, orchestrated pulling licenses of both my husband and my own after I have upset the plea-for-waiver/bribe scheme, publicly humiliated Coffey and Peters and had the money returned to my legally blind client.

As I said above, I addressed this illegal "practice" in criminal and then - successfully, despite threats -  in a related civil case.

After my success on appeal - summary judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings, Becker 

• got the judge in the civil case replaced, 
• got himself assigned to that case, 
• where the Plaintiff was Becker's girlfriend and 
• her attorney, Becker's longtime friend and boss, then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney admitted in open court on record to ex parte communication with Becker about the case.

Then, answering my motion to have him recused from the case for obvious conflicts of interest, Becker sanctioned me for "frivolous conduct" and "threat to the court" (I warned him that when I sue him and Northrup on his illegal policy, I will call them as witnesses), quickly complained against me to licensing authorities and had my license pulled without a hearing.

So, I am a witness to this policy of forcing criminal defendants to sign waivers of their right to sue Judge Becker, DA Northrup and the police participating in bringing the criminal case about (so, the County Attorney had to be in on it, too) through just one case - People v Carbone, and, as a witness, I was eliminated by the Northrup-Becker team.

By the way, before my husband Frederick Neroni got disbarred, in the spring of 2011, Northrup's career ticket to Becker's favors, Becker's law partner Hubbard, then Chief Assistant District Attorney to Northrup, approached my husband and, addressing his arguments regarding that illegal "pleas-for-waivers/bribes" on appeal of the criminal case People v Carbone, threatened my husband, telling him point blank that he is "burning bridges", and requested to withdraw these arguments from the appeal.

When my husband refused, in 2 months he was disbarred by Karen Peters' court.

Hubbard, not being extremely bright, also told me privately that the "pleas-for-waivers/bribes" policy of Northrup's DA's office was a "usual policy" into many plea bargain agreements.

I do not know whether Hubbard, now the County DA, still continued this illegal "policy", with Northrup, his former employer and benefactor, as a judge, and will continue it now when Northrup retired.

Did I also mention that Northrup, being a DA, refused to prosecute Ellen Coccoma, County Attorney for Delaware County, wife of then-Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, for her crimes committed during her illegal (in view of being a full-time employee and officer of Otsego County) representation of private clients trying to enforce - tada! - Northrup's botched will of Arthur Kilmer Sr?  During which Ellen Coccoma herself committed several fraudulent acts - but was, of course, never sanctioned given her pedigree?

I must say that before the Northrup-Becker-Hubbard-Coffey-Peters team accomplished their task to pull my license, though, I did have the money stolen from my client with the help of Becker, Northrup, Becker's girlfriend Shields, and County Attorney Spinney return to my legally blind client.

When Northrup became a judge, I know of at least one case where he acted as a judge in the case where he previously acted as a prosecutor - which the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed in 2016 was unconstitutional.

Northrup could not escape conflicts in his judicial position where he became a judge in 2015 handling CPS and criminal cases while for 23 prior years Northrup learnt everything there was to learn about everybody in Delaware County through criminal and CPS investigations shared with the DA's office, as New York law requires.

He obviously could not escape making his judicial determinations in such cases (as his friend Becker did) upon what is called "extra-judicial evidence", information from reports he obtained during his 23 years as a criminal prosecutor - and this type of RISK of judicial bias is simply unacceptable in a court in a supposed democratic society.

Now, as a parting gift to Delaware County taxpayers, 

• this "distinguished jurist" retired mid-term - which means taxpayers will have to pay for an extra election for his replacement - and 
• used the government facility, at taxpayers' expense and during taxpayer-paid business hours, for his retirement party - he has hosted a reception, in court.

I have complained to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct about judges Northrup and Rosa's permission to use court grounds for retirement reception of a court employee previously (former County Clerk Sharon O'Dell) who quickly resigned - also "to spend time with family" - after I have filed a felony complaint against her with the Delaware County Sheriff's office for filing forged judicial documents.

By the way, the filing of the forged documents by Sharon O'Dell was in the case based on Hubbard's and Spinney's botched representation of clients - Hubbard and Spinney, of course, were never sanctioned, but I was for trying to get Becker off that case with the help of a motion to recuse.

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to even investigate that complaint - which Northrup perceived as a permission to do the same and throw more parties in the courthouse at taxpayer expense and during court time, now in his own "honor".

What an accomplished individual!

Last, but not least "accomplishment" that came out from the official eulogy on Richard Northrup's retirement is his lament about the lack of criminal defense attorneys for the indigent/poor criminal defendants.

I already wrote on this blog 7 years ago how much it costs Delaware County to hire assigned attorneys for criminal defendants out of the County, and even outside of Delhi, NY where many attorneys live who judges refuse to use as assigned counsel.

Now that there is a full-time Public Defender's office in place in Delaware County, 

a need for additional assigned counsel should be reduced to those cases where the Public Defender's office has a conflict or is overloaded.

Yet, the practice, according to Northrup himself, of getting attorneys, at the cost of $60 (for misdemeanors) and $75 (for felonies and family court cases) an hour for travel time out of Delhi NY and out of Delaware County, continues.

Northrup says that he "solicits attorneys from other cities and counties" to represent the indigent, up to Binghamton (an hour and a half away, more so in winter time and in case of traffic jams).

To hire an attorney out of Binghamton at $75 an hour means that every personal appearance of that attorney in court costs Delaware County taxpayers $225 more than an appearance of an attorney from Delhi, NY.

I know of one "disqualification" of an attorney living in Delhi, NY within a walking distance to the courthouse (1/2 mile, 1-minute's drive, as Google shows).  She is the daughter of two attorneys, Frederick Neroni and Tatiana Neroni who Northrup with his friend Becker successfully removed from criminal cases - so that they would not interfere with their career paths by their effective representation of every client, privately retained, assigned or pro bono (which we did a lot).  Northrup never assigned one case to that attorney in his 6 years of judgeship, neither did other judges.  They preferred to have Delaware County taxpayers pay the extra $225 for appearances of attorneys out of Binghamton instead.

So, let's summarize the accomplishments of jurist Dick Northrup listed above:

1. a failed public defender and criminal defense attorney;
2. a failed private practitioner who botched wills so that courts could not figure out who gets what how after the death of the testator;
3. a prosecutor who has hired judge's law partner to (without disclosure to defense counsel) drum up more convictions from the judge;
4. a prosecutor who refused to prosecute that same judge for committing crimes in office;
5. a prosecutor who colluded with that same judge in an illegal policy blackmailing criminal defendants (including blind ones) into waiving their rights to sue the judge, the prosecutor, the police and the county for constitutional violations in federal courts as a price of getting leniency in plea bargains in criminal cases - in other words, the prosecutor was selling leniency in criminal conviction in exchange of waivers of personal liability for money in potential federal future court cases;
6. A person who illegally took the bench for 6 years after an illegal oath of office administered by a private individual, a friend and benefactor, former judge;
7. A person who presided as a judge over cases he handled as a prosecutor;
8. A person who wasted Delaware County taxpayer's money for personal benefit or out of personal grudges - by 

• not assigning local counsel to cases because they are presumably trained by skilled attorneys Northrup with his friend Becker already eliminated, instead assigning counsel from out of the county and having Delaware County taxpayers paying extra $225 for each appearance of such counsel in court,
• by "retiring" mid-term and having Delaware County taxpayers finance an extra election - same as his friend Becker did in 2015 to have Northrup take his place;
• by throwing parties at taxpayers' expense and during taxpayer-paid court business time in the courthouse in honor of his own retirement.

Northrup has accomplished over his lifetime of "public service" a lot - and a lot for which people without his prosecutorial and judicial immunity/permission to commit crimes in office would be doing hard time behind bars for the rest of their lives.

I repeatedly turned Northrup and some other local judges in for his shenannigans to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and they rejected without even an attempt to investigate them, even though they were supported with documentary evidence of misconduct, including criminal misconduct in office.

Given that NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is a costly (for taxpayers) shredding machine for complaints against state judges, and judges in the state of New York are allowed to commit about ANY crime in office without any accountability, I have a serious question:

WHAT EXACTLY DID NORTHRUP DO that he was booted mid-term - because that's exactly what it is.

When a judge resigns (without citing health reasons) "to spend more time with his family, travel and sleep more and focus on his well-being" 

while earning $210,900 a year,

reducing his income to a nearly twice smaller pension - like his friend Carl Becker is now getting:

there must be a hefty reason for this - sudden, too! - "retirement".

It simply does not happen in New York without the judge being BOOTED FOR MISCONDUCT SO BAD that even the all-tolerating New York system of "judicial (un)accountability" can't take it.

Which, again, begs the question - what exactly could Northrup manage to do so that the all-permissive New York system would not allow him to "serve" out the remaining 3.5 years of his term?

I welcome input from local sources in answer to this question (confidentiality guaranteed).

Yet another attorney is in the cross-hairs of corrupt CPS, judiciary, police and prosecution - the case of attorney Conney Reguli, of Tennessee, Part I. The mortal sin

It has been noted by many researchers that the U.S. attorney regulation and justice system is structured as a religious order.

Judges are gods or, at the very least, "ministers of justice", attorneys are their missionaries, expected to do PR for judges before the voters, in exchange for the judge's good attitude, favorable decisions - well, in exchange for business and livelihood.

Consequently, criticism by an attorney of a judge, in this religious framework, is the equivalent of heresy, and a sanction for heresy - well, in the modern liberal times it is not burning the culprit at the stake, but it is an ex-communication of sorts, stripping the attorney of his or her profession.

The scenario to do it has been polished to perfection by the judiciary - usually it starts with small sanctions, then the amount of sanctions rise, if the attorney does not "take heed" and start behaving as the judiciary is expecting him/her to behave, more serious sanctions follow - and then the judiciary simply takes the attorney's right to work as an attorney.

Of course, attorney regulation is portrayed to the public as introduced to protect the public from bad attorneys, but usually bad attorneys remain in the profession because they have good relations with the right judges, and good attorneys who have usually bad relations with dishonest judges, are removed from the public's reach as providers of legal assistance.

The public does not realize that it is being robbed of the rare gems, attorneys who engage practically in self-sacrifice, daring to criticize judges, in full knowledge that such criticism may lead them to loss of profession, reputation and to starvation.

Of course, attorneys are not usually stripped of their license bluntly for catching a judge in misconduct, the wording is usually much more elaborate and opaque, and represents a PR-action for the public.  Usually, some reasons are found to discredit the target attorney in the eyes of the public, to make sure that the public does not support that attorney, and to discredit the attorney's account to the public as to what is going on in the judiciary.

As to media coverage - the media that has no compunction in discussing the size of the President's genitals or his marital relations with his wife - comes to a standstill in so much as mentioning a judge's name, if a judge is involved in a certain "juicy" case of disciplinary or, even more juicy, criminal sanctions pending against an attorney.

A judge has to commit an act of violence on camera in order to have the media to mention the judge's name, and even then, looking at the video, the media will say - an "alleged" act of violence.

And even then - here is what a mainstream media source will say:

See, no actual footage of this pre-eminent, polished, beautiful lady trying to - literally, physically - strangle a court employee, a man, for not preparing her court docket documents on time.

And, it took the State of Florida a month to suspend a violent judge.  For a month court employees and the public were exposed to the risk of being assaulted and possibly murdered by her.  

You realize that if the court employee, on the other hand, that if the court employee, the victim, tried to strangle the judge on camera, he would have been immediately arrested, handcuffed, put in jail and immediately indicted.

So, with that in mind, let's consider what happened two days ago in yet another Southern State, the State of Tennessee, where a female attorney, Connie Reguli, and her client Wendy Hancock were criminally charged, the attorney - for "custodial interference" and "accessory after the fact", for her professional activities in representing a client, an EXTREMELY rare case.

Of course, mainstream media jumped upon the juicy news - and in its coverage provided, among other things, the following account:

this

and this

So, instead of saying, as responsible media should in reporting on a just-initiated criminal case, that both defendants are presumed innocent under the federal and state constitutional law, the media conveniently pre-smeared attorney Reguli and her client, Wendy Hancock - and paid more attention to pre-smearing the attorney rather than the mother, her client.

The media MUST know that criminal defendants must have a right to a fair trial - and, therefore, the media should be careful in its reporting not to create a bias that interferes with such a right and not to taint the jury pool in the are.

Yet, the taint has been already created.  Information about Connie Reguli's arrest warrant, surrender and indictment went like a wildfire through many media sources and the social media.

At the same time, note that the mainstream media coverage, while practically putting a bull's eye on attorney Reguli by the insinuations of "history ... over complaints of misconduct" and especially over the judge's derogation of her in front of her client - it carefully avoids to mention two things:

1. the name of the judge who said it; and

2. the circumstances under which the judge has said what she has allegedly said about the attorney in front of the client.

Let me eliminate that little mystery.

The judge in question is judge Amy V. Hollars, 

a Democrat, daughter of longtime judge John Turnbull, 

and a treasurer of the Tennessee Bar Foundation, holding the purse string to the enormous amounts of interest accruing of mandatory trust accounts of attorneys registered in the state - a VERY powerful person in the State of Tennessee even before she has ascended to her judicial throne.

Imagine the connections, the power of her father, to have the State Governor to openly engage in nepotism by "selecting" out of applicants to Judge Turnbull's judicial position - his own daughter.  Moreover, Judge Turnbull did not even retire - he RESIGNED, voluntarily surrendered his judicial position as a judge - to promote his daughter's career, which the then Governor of the State of Tennessee Phil Bredesen wholly approved, allowed and endorsed by his appointment of Amy Hollars to take her father's throne, quite like heirs of monarchy are inheriting their parents' thrones.

Imagine now the combined power of these two judges - if they want attorney Reguli's head on a silver platter - which they appear to want all right, judging by the coverage.

Hence, the newspaper and the DA's office appear to be doing the judge's bidding in (1) hinting that the attorney and her client are being criminally prosecuted because a judge is displeased with them, with the attorney especially, but (2) spare the judge embarrassment of mentioning her - and preventing further digging of the public as to what may be possible retaliatory motives of the judge against Attorney Reguli in this situation.

The circumstances as to when Judge Hollars supposedly told attorney Reguli's client's this:


are also very … well, peculiar.

Judge Hollars said that during a hearing on attorney Reguli's motion to recuse Judge Hollars after attorney Reguli has caught Judge Hollars in misconduct:

1) in engaging in a political activity - prohibited to sitting Tennessee judges by the state Constitution; and

2) fraternizing, and possibly engaging in an ex parte (without presence of other attorneys, a type of bad judicial misconduct) communication, with the guardian ad litem (attorney for the children) in the very case where attorney Reguli represented Wendy Hancock and was fighting for her parental rights to her children and against the children's removal from the mother's custody by social services.

I have reviewed the motion to recuse, with names of the children redacted out.

The political activity mentioned was the speech of Judge Hollars at Democrats' "Reorganization Convention" where attorney Sarah Cripps, guardian ad litem in the case - appointed into the case by Judge Hollars - personally introduced Judge Hollars at that Democratic party as a speaker.

Now, an attorney has to have a lot of nerve and a very close social connection to a judge to be able to personally approach a judge with a suggestion that she will introduce a judge at a political rally.  A regular attorney without a personal relationship with that particular judge (friendship or otherwise) simply cannot pick up a phone and call a judge presiding over a case where the attorney is appearing, with a suggestion to come with that attorney to a party of any kind, much less a political party, and to be introduced there by that attorney.

In the U.S., any person who goes to court as a party is entitled to a fair and impartial judicial review, for a judge who is neutral, is not biased against that party and is not favoring any other party in that same case.

The right to a fair and impartial judicial review is guaranteed to every party in American courts by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, litigants have a right not only to an actually fair and impartial judge, but also to an APPEARANCE that the judge is fair and impartial.

Let's look what we have here.

Judge Hollars was in some kind of a close social relationship with attorney Sarah Cripps whom she appointed as guardian ad litem in a case (with compensation by from Tennessee taxpayers), in exchange for which Sarah Cripps invited Judge Hollars to be a speaker at a "Reorganization Convention" of a Democratic party with live music and free food and drinks 


Believe me, judges, no matter how well paid, are suckers for free food and booze, I observed it personally when I was studying in Albany Law School in New York.  Judges of trial and appellate courts, state and federal, were invited regularly by the law school administration to lavish catered parties with food and alcohol in the law school's foyer, that was called "networking".  Whole judicial panels - New York State Court of Appeals, Appellate Division 3rd Deparment, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - appeared without fail for these freebies.

So, the judge had an exchange of favors with a guardian ad litem in the case (a bribe "in kind", in plain English) - and should have recused the moment she agreed to that exchange, but she, of course, didn't.  Judges never see appearances of improprieties.

So - attorney Reguli pointed those appearances out to Judge Hollars, actually not even in so many words as I am doing above.

Attorney Reguli, in her motion to recuse, just pointed out that there is an appearance of impropriety that the judge is participating in political activities prohibited by the State Constitution, and is doing it at the bidding and with assistance with the guardian ad litem in the case.

That was actually enough for Judge Hollars to grant the motion to recuse - but not before she has dumped a bucket of her bile upon attorney Reguli, the culprit who has made that motion to recuse, and upon her client.

Now, you need to understand, my dear readers, that in the U.S. making a motion to recuse may be already enough to for the judiciary to get so pissed off that the attorney's law license will be yanked.  It happened like that, let's say, to attorney Christina Mires from Lousiana - even though she has proven the judge's conflict of interest and criminal conduct (inserting, with the help of a specially hired digital editing firm, a piece into an audio file of a court hearing) with sworn testimony of the technician who was doing the insertion.

But, note once again what Judge Hollars told attorney Reguli's client at the motion-to-recuse hearing:




Judge Hollars was so upset that somebody dared to tell her, judge and daughter of a judge, treated as blue blood who is always above the law her entire life, that she committed misconduct - that she has crossed all possible ethical boundaries and, despite granting the motion to recuse and stepping off the case (an acknowledgement that she cannot remain impartial in the case), she berated an attorney to a client, publicly, in court, in front of judicial personnel and on record - and saying that attorney Reguli is allegedly "simply launching ANOTHER attack upon the judiciary and they /sic/ system".

"Another attack upon the judiciary", huh?

Here is what she means.

In 2010, attorney Reguli testified to the Tennessee State Senate about egregious misconduct of a judge, after which three more judges complained against attorney Reguli to the Board of Professional Discipline:

After that, in 2015, she was disciplined by the Board of Professional Discipline - which is PART of the same judiciary that she was publicly criticizing and exposing in the Tennessee State Senate.

Attorney Reguli did not take the hint and continued to expose judicial misconduct in family courts in the State of Tennessee - those same courts that "separate families", take children away from their biological parents and adopt them out to strangers in exchange for federal incentive money, I've written about the federal statute that provides an incentive for doing it 5 years ago, here, nothing has changed since then, the statute is still on the books, other than that I myself was stripped of my law license, "coincidentally", right when the federal civil rights case where I established a precedent against warrantless searches by CPS for parents in 32 New York State counties was scheduled for a jury trial in federal court.

In 2016, attorney Reguli sued Judge Sharon Guffee and her court clerk for denying her access to records that she was entitled to by state law.

In 2017, a complaint was filed against attorney Reguli by Judge Sharon Guffe because HER CLIENT went to the General Assembly to speak about judicial misconduct and to try to promote legislation that would put regular people on the boards dealing with judicial misconduct and judicial discipline:

You can look up on YouTube how many public appearances Connie Reguli has made from 2010 to 2019, always speaking about the ongoing crisis in the CPS system fabricating cases against parents, ripping children out of families, and about complicity and outright misconduct of the state judiciary helping CPS in those "efforts".

 And, note the most relevant date to Judge Hollars' outburst regarding "another attack on the judiciary" and to the criminal charges filed against Connie Regule - her testimony to the Tennessee legislature on February 26, 2019, two months before the hearing on the motion to recuse against Judge Amy Hollars in Wendy Hancock's case.   

Consider, WHAT EXACTLY Judge Hollars tells the mother - that, since her attorney "attacks the judiciary AND 'the system'" - meaning, social services - the mother should better get rid of her, OR ELSE, or her children will be taken - this threat is very thinly veiled, that continued representation of Wendy Hancock by Connie Reguli may affect "the interests of your children about reunification":


The judge is practically admitting that social services is a member, and a favored member, of the judge's own advocacy team - and, remember, the judge is saying this WHILE LEAVING the case, as a farewell kick.

Well, Connie Reguli disclosed that that was not all - apparently, the judge was so fumed up that she could not contain herself from 

1. going back to her chambers,
2. taking off her robe after that hearing,
3. coming back into the courtroom in her regular clothes (which she usually does not do, exiting from her chambers by another exit), 
4. sneaking behind Connie Reguli, and
5. hissing nasty words about Connie Reguli behind her back.

The judge acted like a fishwife - but, remember, she did not kill anybody, YET, and so, her name or misconduct is not even mentioned by mainstream media in connection with her case.

Consider, on top of everything, that the object of proceeding pending in front of Judge Hollars before she recused was misconduct of yet another couple of judges - 

1. the judge whose SECRETARY directed social services to file for an illegal ex parte order of removal of Wendy Hancock's children in another county, knowing full well that it was illegal; and
2. the judge in that other county who signed an illegal ex parte order after it landed on his desk at the end of the working day not only without territorial jurisdiction, but also not passing through the court clerk's office, the regular procedure.

No, of course, the local media cannot possibly do what honest journalists do - and actually report facts, with all the gory details, no matter how high are the people who are involved in misconduct.

And, consider, that Connie Reguli is a rare gem of an attorney.

She started practicing law late in life, entering the legal profession as a mature adult, not a star-crossed girl who would take any disrespect, any garbage from a man or woman sitting up high on the judicial bench.

She enters an emotional realm of CPS cases that where not many attorneys dare to venture - and not only because they are targeted, as I was, as Connie Reguli is now, by disciplinary and criminal authorities (in my case, CPS and judges "friendly" to CPS tried to fabricate a child neglect case and take my child, then to concoct criminal charges several times against me, and finally succeeded suspending my law license for making a motion to recuse a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker - who has since run from the bench in 2015, before my suspension, amid a triple investigation of the New York State Comproller, the New York State Judicial Commission and the FBI).

Many attorneys simply do not want the emotional turmoil of dealing with parents whose children are ripped out of their arms, sometimes literally, by social services and the police, often on fabricated charges.

It is very challenging emotionally to live on top of a power keg every minute, being not only an attorney, but also a grief counselor all the time - and being constantly up against people who have much more power than you do.

Connie Reguli has the guts and determination to do that for people - FOR YEARS.

Consider also that, in the United States, as an unwritten government policy, defense of parents against CPS is not taught in law schools.

There are no such courses, no such textbooks, this subject is not tested on bar exams - and, as a result, the public is deceived into believing that any attorney with a law license who they hire or who is assigned to them by court has been properly trained and tested in this subject and knows what he or she is doing, while the law license has no guarantee whatsoever that the attorney knows anything at all on the subject of defense of parents against CPS.

Laws in this area, on the opposite, are multi-layer, complex, technical, convoluted and require not just a knowledgeable attorney, but a super-knowledgeable, and super-assertive (aggressive) attorney, to break through the usual barricades of misconduct and corruption and money interests present in such cases and win for their clients their own constitutional right to have their children with them, not sold out to strangers by CPS as an adoption mill.

It is, thus, government policy to - not teach, and intimidate, and eliminate those attorneys who teach themselves and excel in representing parents in such cases.

This is not "crisis at the border" where everybody who is anybody flocks in mock outrage to "represent children, separated from their families".

Here, parents separated from their children get no good representation.  Assigned attorneys are usually those who feed off such cases and will not be assigned again if they do anything good for the parents and against CPS.

And, when the state is trying to convict and then disbar Connie Reguli, and discredit her in the eyes of the public - make not mistake, it is not Connie Reguli who is the main target here.

It is you, the public, you, parents and your children, from whom the government is trying to shamelessly and unlawfully steal a knowledgeable and courageous attorney who has been, for years, EFFECTIVELY fighting CPS and corrupt system of judges, prosecutors and police that have teamed up with CPS to get millions of dollars in federal grant money.

Fighting for you and on your behalf.

Not to mention that she has at least two lawsuits pending against the County that is prosecuting her now, an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

For further account of conflicts of interest and details of Attorney Reguli's lawsuits against the local (and now aggravated) judges, police and CPS, and about misconduct of public officials in this case - stay tuned for the next article in this series.

New York disbars an attorney for misconduct as a judge? For something that ALL judges do routinely? What really happened in #AlanSimon's case? Whose path did he cross?

This is a long story of double standards in how judges are or are not taken off the bench in the glorious State of New York, and are or are not disciplined for misconduct as judges and as attorneys, so, please, bear with me.

A couple of days ago New York State disbarred an attorney, Alan Simon, for misconduct that he committed as a judge, and was taken off the bench for this misconduct.

The disbarment of Alan Simon is actually a spectacular thing that happened - because, as a sneak preview, he was taken off the bench and disbarred for what many, if not all other judges in New York State, at all levels, routinely do in court, and the punishment usually falls on the opposite side, on those who dare to criticize and expose them, in and out of court.

Let's look at those double-standards.

Under the canons of constitutional jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, regulation of the "practice of law" is unconstitutional.

For 2 reasons.

1. The law, to be constitutional, must have a clear prior (before the conduct happened) statutory definition - and what the hell "the practice of law" is, nobody knows.  In New York, "the practice of law" is also not clearly defined by statute - but is vigorously regulated and used as a sword against attorneys criticizing the courts anyway.
2. Remember the standard of proof in criminal proceedings - beyond the reasonable doubt?  Violations of the regulation of the "practice of law" are prosecuted in the U.S., the State of New York included, through criminal proceedings, for 
1. "unauthorized practice of law", and for
2. criminal contempt of court.

In both of these cases, the "practice of law" is the main element of the crimes - so, that element must have not just a clear prior statutory definition, but a clear prior statutory definition that would be cler beyond the reasonable doubt of a non-lawyer juror of average education and intelligence, from the cross-section of the community.

Do we have that definition anywhere in the United States, including the glorious and now "democratic" and "pro human rights" State of New York?

Of course, not.

So, has the regulation of the practice of law declared unconstitutional by court on these simple grounds, and based on the supposedly mandatory and binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court - I pointed out a lot of them in my recent 3.5 page article that suddenly attracted interest from law professors from across the world and jumped to the top 4% of articles read on Academia.edu?

Of course, not.

Because who regulates the "practice of law" - unconstitutionally?

Right, courts do.

And who is supposed to declare that regulation unconstitutional?

Well, the courts are supposed to.

And will courts declare what they themselves do, and what gives them power over access to court of all Americans, as well as over financially powerful attorneys (who finance judicial election campaigns), and over financially and politically non-powerful attorneys who may sue judges for civil rights violations, and over powerful prosecutors who may bring criminal charges against judges violating people's civil rights and committing, thus, federal crimes - through unconstitutional regulation of the "practice of law"?

Well, they may be corrupt crooks, but they are definitely not idiots and will not upset their own apple cart.

So, the unconstitutional regulation of the "practice of law" continues.

And is used as a sword against attorneys criticizing judges, representing the poor and bringing civil rights lawsuits against the government, including judges - the unforgivable "abuse of legal process", in judges' opinion.

In 2008, a New York suspended attorney John Aretakis, the first attorney who sued Catholic priests for sexual abuse of children, on behalf of those children.  For making a motion to recuse a judge - and criticizing the judge in that motion for corruption.  The judge sanctioned John Aretakis, in a criminal proceedings for "frivolous conduct", the court-created rule not applicable to criminal proceedings.  The Appellate Division 3rd Department, instead of reversing and dismissing proceedings against John Aretakis, reversed and REMANDED them to the same judge, with instructions to the judge how to sanction John Aretakis in a way that will stick on appeal.  The offended judge did as he was instructed, sanctioned John Aretakis, on remand, for "contempt of court" (remember - for making the same motion to recuse?).

Then, the 3rd Department, wearing 3 hats at once, of 

• a legislator of attorney "ethical"/disciplinary rules in (unconstitutional) regulation of "the practice of law", see above, 
• an investigator/prosecutor (and also an "arm of the court", imagine a prosecutors and investigators being PARTS and ARMS of the court - an immediate disqualification for both sides, but this kind of thing continues across the U.S. in attorney disciplinary proceedings for 100+ years); and
• of adjudicating court

suspended John Aretakis's license, for 1 year, that was 11 years ago, and John Aretakis is still without a license - because the court did not provide in its decision for an automatic reinstatement after 1 year, but John Aretakis has to humbly beg the court to return the license that was unconstitutionally revoked in the first place, in a regulation that is unconstitutional in the first place.

And John Aretakis did not beg.  So, he remains without a license.

While, this week, the revolutionary New York Legislature finally gave victims of sexual child abuse at the hands of Catholic priests the extension (not full repeal, mind) of the shameful statute of limitations that prevented John Aretakis to fully sue the bastards on behalf of the children.

But, among celebrations of the legislation, I do not see the name of John Aretakis mentioned. Because he is, you know, a suspended attorney, and recognizing that the suspension was as shameful as the statute of limitations upon his clients, is "not done" in New York.

By the way, John Aretakis was suspended without a hearing, just on the basis of the contempt of court sanction imposed upon him by the judge who was in that proceeding 

• the initiator/party;
• the alleged victim;
• the unsworn witness;
• the investigator;
• the prosecutor;
• the judge and the jury -

all in one.

In 2015, New York suspended the law license of another attorney, me, for 2 years, also without automatic reinstatement, also without a hearing, also based on sanctions imposed by the "offended" (corrupt) judge, also based on a motion to recuse the judge to which the judge reacted by instituting a "frivolous conduct" proceeding, based on a judge-made "rule of frivolous conduct", which is as vague (and as unconstitutional) as regulation of "the practice of law" is, and where the judge acted, like in John Aretakis' case, as

• the initiator/party;
• the alleged victim;
• the unsworn witness;
• the investigator;
• the prosecutor;
• the judge and the jury -

and then, the licensing court acted, behind closed doors, as

• a legislator of the substantive and procedural rules;
• the investigator and prosecutor; and
• the adjudicator.

Of course, the result in such "court proceedings" is obviously pre-judged, so many attorneys do not even bother litigating, they just surrender their law licenses once they see they are targeted and move on with their lives, what's left of them.

"Coincidentally", I was an attorney who, in a poor rural mountain area, was THE ONLY lawyer who combined litigation in state criminal, civil (consumer debt, foreclosure), Family and federal civil rights courts, and sued local government officials, including social services and judges - who other attorneys, including the revolutionary ACLU and NYCLU, refused to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Well, now there is nobody to do that for the indigent in that poor area, as far as people keep telling me - but, what can I do?

In 2018, New York suspended, for 2 months only (but before judicial elections), the law license of yet another attorney, Gino Giorgini, for criticism of a corrupt judge in a motion to recuse.

That the judge was corrupt was confirmed by:

• a series of newspaper articles about the judge's fixing cases through handing out lucrative assignments to friends and friends of friends (rich and politically powerful, of course);
• New York State court system having to change the rules of assignment because of the judge misconduct;
• New York Commission for Judicial Conduct NOT booting the judge in question off the bench only because "he did not know" that what he did was unlawful - because supposedly it was not discernable from the rules of assignment that it is bad for a judge to be partial and play into the hands of friends and financial sponsors; and by
• the New York State Court of Appeals that reversed the judge's most corrupt decision.

That did not save Gino Giorgini's law license, though.

He was still suspended, and was told in the order of suspension that he is not allowed by disciplinary rules to criticize the judge's political corruption, in those words.

That said, there was one sacred cow for judges that was untouchable in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

That sacred cow was - judges themselves.

And, even though the suspension was only for 2 months, and "stayed", Gino Giorgini remains suspended as of today:

For example, 

1. an East Greenbush village part-time justice (and an employee of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma), Diane L. Schilling, who was (and still is) and attorney was taken off the bench for trying to fix a traffic ticket for another judge's wife - but nobody touched her law license, and she continues to practice with "no record of public discipline".

Beautiful woman, isn't she?  Judge Coccoma has a good taste in female beauty in picking - and protecting - his employees.

And,

2.  A Family Court judge, who was also an attorney, Bryan Hedges, was taken off the bench for sexual molestation of his 5-year-old deaf-mute niece - but his law license remains intact, and he has "no record of public discipline", too.

And, 

3. A New York State Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba, just before her day of election as a judge, was booted from her job of "special counsel" of (gasp!) the attorney licensing court, the Chief Judge of this court, for dishonest and unethical behavior - for using her position and the court system to circulate e-mails just before the election day in order to impress voters that she had support of the court system.

In other words, she has gotten herself elected by fraud.

The 3rd Department fired her, the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma immediately hired her for a bridge job, the court system stonewalled the details of her re-hiring by Judge Coccoma (remember his taste for beautiful female employees?), being an ugly old midget that he is.

She was not disbarred - after being fired BY AN ATTORNEY LICENSING COURT, FOR A BIG ETHICAL VIOLATION.

Instead, she was sworn in, 

my request to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to take her off the bench as elected by fraud was denied - the Commission did not see any judicial misconduct in the situation.

And, she now "serves" as a Supreme Court Justice, with the truncated word "Honorable" as part of her job title, no less:

has "no record of public discipline", and - lo and behold - 

is on the Board of Trustees of the Albany Law School.

Imagine, you can only be trusted with funds of a non-profit forging (pun intended) the new lawyers of America if you have a record of fraudulent behavior, right?

And, after the former New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has publicly announced that the statute making it a crime to videotape OPEN court proceedings in New York is shameful and should be abolished, and despite the fact that now New York has a Democratic majority in the Legislature baking statutes left and right as pancakes, that statute - as well as the statute protecting records of police misconduct from public access - remains on the books and there is no indication that the "revolutionary" Legislature is going to repeal it any time soon.

Not to mention that, on top of that statute, the New York State court administration invented a rule,  court rule 22 NYCRR 29.1(a), prohibiting also AUDIO-recording (allowed by New York Penal Law without requesting consent of those recorded, as long as the person recording the conversation secretly is a party in it) - ANYWHERE in the courthouse, and here is how that rule is used in criminal proceedings.

Why?

Because:

1. Judges do not want to be booted off the bench after being caught on tape or on the audio recording in doing what they are habitually doing - fixing cases, making incompetent and rude statements and harassing litigants and attorneys; and

2. Judges do not want to be reversed on appeal if video-recordings are made part of the record.  Now they are not part of the record, and appellate courts routinely "defer" to the decisions of trial judges because they saw demeanor of witnesses, and the appellate court doesn't.  Why? Because it prohibits to create the full record through criminal law.

For example, Judge Carl F. Becker behaved quite as Alan Simon, and worse, but it was me who was suspended from "practicing law", and not him booted off the bench for pointing out to the Commission for Judicial Conduct what he was doing.

And, the same happened to attorney Gino Giorgini.

And, the same happened to attorney John Aretakis.

With this background, now I am asking a question - what was the REAL reason why judge Alan Simon was taken off the bench and then disbarred for his conduct on the bench - for which NO OTHER JUDGES get taken off the bench, or disbarred?

I will attempt to give some insights into this curious situation in one of my next blogs.

Stay tuned.