One more crooked decision from one more crooked judge - Judge Mary R. Connerton of Binghamton, NY shines in making a decision in reliance on an oral argument in front of a recused judge

After I've heard from Referee Sirkin who "granted" prosecution's motion for a summary judgment on liability in my attorney disciplinary proceedings (which he did not have a right to do, but did anyway), I received a spectacular decision on my motion to vacate Judge Becker's sanction imposed upon me in Delaware County Family Court despite Judge Becker's undisclosed disqualification and after I sued him.

The decision is made by Judge Connerton of Binghamton against whom I complained for misconduct and bigotry, see here.

Judge Connerton earlier sent me a letter indicating that she was going to rely in her review of the motion on the transcript of the oral argument before a recused previous judge.

That was a due process violation, and I immediately (1) turned Judge Connerton into the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and (2) made a motion to recuse.

It did not ring the bell with the judge.

I asked her for a new oral argument, since the previous oral argument, held before a recused judge, was void, yet she stubbornly relied upon that oral argument before the recused judge:

And, Judge Connerton said she can be "impartial", therefore she refused not recuse, refused to provide me a new oral argument, and refused my motion that was contained in a 4-inch folder, contained multiple documentary exhibits and raised multiple fundamental constitutional issues, in one short paragraph:

No review of issues, no legal analysis, no explanation why she rejects my reliance on multiple legal authorities, including precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, judging by the statement to me of a witness that Judge Connerton told attorneys and parties in my absence on October 2, 2014 that she gets a headache even thinking about reviewing my humungous motion, combined with the lack of any explanation as towhy the motion was denied other than "it had no basis in law or in fact", I have a funny feeling Judge Connerton did not subject herself to the headache of reading the motion at all.

Of course, I will not let it slide.

Of course, I will appeal.

Of course, I will turn Connerton into the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission yet again.

It is interesting that Judge Connerton indicated that I had an opportunity to be heard after reading the transcript where the now recused Judge Revoir insulted me, cut me off, did not allow me to put the legal argument on the record, and claimed that any "alternative" legal arguments in the Family Court are "lies".

And this is what Connerton used as a basis to state that I had an "opportunity to be heard".

A real unbiased judge, this one.

Hope the Judicial Conduct Commission finally gets its collective head out of the sand and starts disciplining judges who get headache from doing their work.

To the public in Delaware County and State of New York - what Referee Sirkin and attorney Mary Gasparini did not want you to know

I have written about outrageous misbehavior of disciplinary referee Sirkin in the previous blog, who, instead of holding a hearing as order of him by two court orders - of September 30, 2014 and of December 8, 2014 and report to the court findings of fact, so that the court would make a decision whether I did or did not commit attorney misconduct, referee Sirkin flaunted that court order and made that decision himself - without conducting ANY hearings whatsoever.

Now I decided to publish my tentative list of witnesses, records that I was planning to subpoena and issues that I was planning to discuss at the today's conference - issues pertaining to the hearing that I was not allowed to have by the referee, even though I was granted that right by the court.

Moreover, a retired judge cannot make decisions in attorney disciplinary cases, only elected judges can.

Here is my tentative list of witnesses (that I was not allowed to present to Sirkin because he "granted the motion" instead of holding a scheduling conference for a hearing ordered by the court), where many prominent attorneys, county and state officials, social workers, judges, judge's friends and attorneys for judge's friends, as well as every one of the members of the attorney disciplinary committees prosecuting me were going to be called as hostile witnesses (New York allows to impeach your own witness if there is a written statement by that witness contrary to what the witness is testifying to, and I had such statements).

Here is the list of public records I was going to subpoena on my rebuttal case (records of social services and NYS Office of Children and Family services would have provided clear evidence that Judge Becker was disqualified from presiding over Alecia Bracci and Barbara O'Sullivan's proceedings by his extrajudicial knowledge - and misconduct - at the time he was an attorney, before he became a judge).

I also wanted to subpoena relevant court records that my prosecution never read and put into the court outrageously false statements because they never read the records properly, and relevant records of the court escrow funds that prosecution never sought before fraudulently claiming that I did not pay the sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker after I sued him.

Here are the list of issues that I was going to raise today and that I was never allowed to raise - because Sirkin "granted the motion" to the prosecution instead of doing his job.

Don't get me wrong, when I raise issues of how to subpoena witnesses and records, I do not seek legal advice from the referee.

The reason I am asking is - I wrote about it in my previous blog - there is no procedural device in attorney disciplinary proceedings allowing subpoenas of witnesses and records, and there are no rules addressing applicability of normal evidentiary rules to such proceedings, while a recent survey by the New York State bar association singles out NYS Appellate Division 4th Department as having no subpoena rules in attorney disciplinary proceedings, no discovery rights and no evidentiary rules during such proceedings.

As an experienced trial attorney, I am entitled to know before the hearing commenced - what rules are applicable if no rules are announced?

I will post the audio recording of my conversation today with Referee Sirkin (in the presence of the prosecutor Mary Gasparini, I was appearing by phone) where Referee Sirkin deflects my questions as to how subpoenas of witnesses will be handled by claiming I am asking him for a legal advice, I am an attorney and I should know how to do legal work.  I am an attorney and I know my business, only there are no rules applicable to how to do my business in attorney disciplinary proceedings, and that's why I asked the referee - what rules will he apply when there are no rules?

Here are the issues I wanted to raise at the pre-trial scheduling conference:

As you understand, it would have been a very interesting hearing if I was given a true due process opportunity to show to the Delaware County public (where I reside and have my law office), why exactly I am prosecuted by the disciplinary commission, and how exactly crooked the local and state judiciary system and certain individual judges and attorneys are.

But - referee Sirkin got scared to allow the public to see how he is protecting the public from me.

I hope the the NYS Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court would accept this outrageous and unlawful case for review.

Even if they do not and even if my law license is taken - I reflected enough in my blog for the public to see that it was taken in the most crooked fashion, which suggest the most crooked motives of those who have taken it.

Retired Judge Sirkin was sued for holding a hearing in the absence of a criminal defendant and not preserving proper record of the criminal proceedings

I wrote today in the blog about a retired judge acting as referee in my attorney disciplinary case who has flaunted the court order ordering him to conduct a fact-finding hearing and report of findings of fact to the court, Appellate Division 4th Department.

Referee Sirkin also hired a stenographer who misrepresented in the previous transcript that the transcript was of a "hearing" instead of a pre-hearing scheduling conference where Referee Sirkin stayed the hearing until resolution of my motion with the Appellate Division.  The stenographer also misrepresented that the prosecution and I allegedly made stipulations as to evidence submitted during the hearing, which never occurred.  I pointed that out to the court on a motion, the court denied my motion to disqualify Sirkin without an explanation, allowing Sirkin to continue to serve as a referee.

On December 8, 2014 the court issued a new scheduling order specifically telling Sirkin what his duties were - to hear and report the factual findings back to the court.

Instead, Referee Sirkin usurped the court's authority to decide motions and, without holding any hearings whatsoever, granted the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment, which the prosecution, knowing that what referee Sirkin is doing is completely unlawful, gleefully accepted the bounty.

I looked up on the Internet whether Referee Sirkin was involved in misconduct as a judge.

I did not have to go very far.

Of course, everything was affirmed on appeal and dismissed "without prejudice" by the federal court, but Steven R. Sirkin was sued by a criminal defendant in federal court in 2010 for misconduct pertaining to not affording a litigant a hearing and not preserving the record of proceedings properly.

In People v. Walker (a criminal proceedings) the criminal defendant claimed that Judge Sirkin held a Sandoval hearing without the presence of the defendant, a reversable error and an error that should take the judge off the bench, and that the court reporter did not reflect presence or absence of the defendant at such a hearing - which was Sirkin's duty as a judge to make sure that the record reflected.

The conviction was affirmed on appeal, after a de novo review by the 4th Department - but with a very strong dissent.

Here is what the indigent defendant says about his absence from the Sandoval hearing in his federal civil rights lawsuit against Sirkin in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York filed in 2010 (a public record that I obtained from www.pacer.gov):

The federal court protected Sirkin from embarrassment by dismissing the lawsuit "for failure to exhaust state remedies", after granting the petitioner a poor person status:

Sirkin was never disciplined for his shenanigans in People v. Walker and was assigned to my attorney disciplinary proceedings, apparently as a "referee of choice".

I wonder (a rhethorical question, of course), why I am so "blessed" with crooked judges presiding over my cases?

Judge James Tormey, the only judge in the history of New York State sued by an employee for retaliation for refusal to engage, at the judge's request, in a political espionage against a fellow judge, presides over all proceedings where judges are involved.

Now Sirkin, another crooked (retired) judge who stubbornly would not follow the court order of appointment while presiding over a disciplinary proceedings over an attorney where Charge IV (fraudulently) claims that the attorney did not obey a court order.

Carl Becker who engages in ex parte communications left and right, conceals his disqualifying and non-discoverable conflicts of interest, sanctions an attorney for making FOIL requests of public records the judge files with the NYS Court Administration, assigns himself to all actions by the attorney who complained about him and sued him, sanctions that attorney after she sued him and turns her into the appellate division for "discipline", or rather, to be the tool of his private vengeance, under the guise of "protecting the public".

Appellate Division 3rd Department which ignores portions of the record in order to affirm Becker's sanctions against me, engages in ex parte communications with the disciplinary prosecution, refuses to give me access to the prosecution's "application" to the court for an ex parte order of transfer, refuses to recuse from any other cases and invents extra rules for me to filibuster my pending appeals.

Appellate Division 4th Department which refuses to give me reasoned decisions on my motions raising constitutional challenges, imposes anti-filing injunctions upon me for making such motions, without a notice or opportunity to be heard, appoints a crooked, disqualified and incompetent referee Sirkin to preside over my proceedings, while knowing his propensity to not allow people to have proper hearings - or proper record of hearings.

Moreover, Appellate Division 4th outdid all other courts by refusing to provide me a public hearing (which was my due process right) in a highly politically-sensitive case involving claims on my behalf of misconduct of multiple judges, as soon as I mentioned that I want public access and access by the media to my records and to my proceedings.

I think by refusing to provide me with a public hearing, New York State judicial system announced loud and clear why I am prosecuted - because I criticized the judiciary, and exposing judicial misconduct in New York is an ultimate taboo and blasphemy, punishable by loss of livelihood.

I am now convinced I need to turn the crew that engaged in prosecuting me, including Sirkin, into the federal investigation of corruption in New York.

As I said to the Appellate Court earlier (and they did not listen), the appointed referee cannot read, and that is a big problem

This is the court order of December 8, 2014 ordering the disciplinary referee in my case to:

(1) conduct hearings (hear testimony) within 60 days of the December 8, 2014 order, and
(2) to report findings of fact to the court, Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department.

To anybody who can read, especially to a referee who is supposedly a retired judge (and a licensed attorney still) what the order says and the RESTRICTED authority that it gives to the referee is abundantly clear - (1) to hear the testimony, and (2) after "final submissions by the parties, including proposed findings of fact, if any" are submitted to the referee by the parties "within 15 days following completion of the stenographic transcript of the minutes of the hearing:, "the Referee's report shall be submitted within 30 days" after parties submit their proposed findings of fact and final arguments, AFTER the hearings to be held on consecutive days within 60 days of December 8, 2014.

After December 8, 2014, the referee held NO hearings whatsoever.

Today was supposed to be a scheduling conference for such hearings.

I could not appear today due to the road conditions in Delaware County (out interaction about it with the referee is going to be published in a separate blog, not to confuse the issues).

Yet, today's appearance, once again was only announced to me as a "scheduling conference".

The only point of scheduling was - what the court ordered the referee to do on December 8, 2014 - conduct a hearing and report the findings of fact to the court.

Instead, the referee did the following:

(1) granted the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment on the issue of liability INSTEAD of holding a hearing that the court ordered him to hold, and

(2) attempted to schedule "proceedings in mitigation", while

     (a) denying me, without an explanation, a public hearing "on mitigation" in the area where I am practicing, in Delaware County, and

     (b) ordering me to announce to the prosecution in advance who my mitigation witnesses are (which would make it easy for the prosecution to intimidate my witnesses ahead of time).

Since I was not going to have any mitigation heard in front of THIS particular  referee, Steven Sirkin, who was obviously incompetent and biased, based on his disregard of the court order and usurping the court's authority to decide motions, I told Sirkin that if he does not recuse, and if he orders me to disclose my mitigation witnesses to the prosecution before the hearing, I would rather submit my affirmation for mitigation, so I will have no other hearings until the court makes its final determination.

Of course, I will be making motions.

To vacate the unlawful decision of Sirkin.

To recuse the court who:

(1) despite Sirkin's announcement in October of 2014 that he is going to rule on the motion instead of hearing the case, still kept Sirkin on as a referee;

(2) refused to give me reasoned decisions on my cross-motion and motion to vacate, renew and reargue the denial of my cross-motion with constitutional issues;

(3) imposed, without a notice or opportunity to be heard, an anti-filing injunction on me;

(4) refused to open proceedings to the public and the media at my request.

So, the fight goes on.

Mary Gasparini changed the court rules - when she was affected personally

I wrote on this blog at length about misconduct of attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee, 4th Department, 5th District, Mary Gasparini, specifically, promoting the fraudulent Charge I Specification I (that I neglected clients by not appearing at a deposition and answering a motion at the time when I was not admitted to the bar) and no less fraudulent Charge IV (that I did not pay the court sanctions imposed by Judge Becker after I sued the judge - when I paid them into the court escrow immediately as they were imposed, 1.5 years before the Charge IV was brought against me in January of 2013).

I made a motion to the court to sanction Gasparini for submitting fraudulent charges to the court.

Mary Gasparini opposed my claim of frivolous conduct by saying that she inherited the claim (whatever it is) from her predecessor, the prosecutor from the Appellate Division 3rd Department, and that the court rules of the Appellate Division 4th Department where the case is in now prevent her from changing anything in the original petition.

Based on Mary Gasparini's submissions, the court denied my request to dismiss the fraudulent Charge I Specification I, without an explanation, so I can presume the court relied on Mary Gasparini's claim that she "could not change anything because of the court's rules".

Today, at a conference before the referee, the referee, instead of doing what the court ordered him to do, and that is - scheduling a fact-finding hearing to hear testimony on outstanding issues of fact - did something that the court did not authorize him to do, and that is, granted to the prosecution the motion for a summary judgment without hearing any testimony at all, and without even scheduling the evidentiary hearing, which was the ONLY thing that the referee was appointed to do.

"Coincidentally" the referee swept the proceedings under the rug and denied me a hearing that was ordered by the court after I put on social networks, including Facebook and in my blog, an invitation to the public and the media to come to my hearing after I waived privacy in my proceedings.

I bet it was very scary for the Petitioner to have to go forward and present evidence that was, in fact, fraudulent, and do it under oath - that would put the prosecution even closer to federal criminal investigation and prosecution.  And the referee obliged by helping the prosecution out and saving them from having to go forward with fraudulent claims - the referee simply granted the claims, having no authority to do that.

AFTER the Referee told me that he "granted" the prosecution's motion, Mary Gasparini stated on record that the prosecution is withdrawing Charge I Specification I - even though it cannot be procedurally done after a motion is granted, and even though, by Mary Gasparini's own claims to the court under oath, she could not change the original petition in any way.

I guess, after Mary Gasparini read in my blog that she is being sued for bringing Charge I Specification I, for fraud upon the court, she no longer cared whether court rules applied or not - she needed to do something to, basically, save her own hide.

Yet, what she did was the opposite.  Now that she withdrew Charge I Specification I there are clear issues that she knew that the charge was fraudulent, but never withdrew it before it was granted by the incompetent referee.

Stay tuned for the documents I am going to publish in my next blog, including the entertaining recording of the referee "granting a motion" and denying me a public hearing.

I will also publish my proposed list of witnesses, subpenaed records and issues for discussion at today's scheduling conference  - that the referee did not care to review, since the only purpose of proceedings, I understand was to SHUT ME UP and to PREVENT ME FROM HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING that would EXPOSE CORRUPTION IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

Well, I certainly will not shut up, as this case stinks of corruption to high heaven.

As I said, please, stay tuned for my next blog-post, with the recording of the telephone conference with Referee Steven Sirkin where the referee states that he "granted the motion" without hearing the testimony, or even scheduling such a hearing, which is the only function that he was supposed to do by court order.

 And one thing I must say to Mary Gasparini - withdrawing a fraudulent charge AFTER you won several motions based on it, does not preclude me from proceeding against you with my lawsuit for fraud upon the court, especially that you did not withdraw the other fraudulent charge, Charge IV.

There is no penalty for blasphemy and heresy in the U.S. Unless you criticize a judge

Mike Appleton quoted a 143-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Jonathan Turley's blog:

“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.”
-Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 728 (1872)

Then why are attorneys consistently deprived of their livelihood for the heresy of criticizing judges? Despite all U.S. Supreme Court precedents?

The former NYS Court of Appeals judge Victoria Graffeo and her new law firm - (nearly) no diversity in the ranks?

I wrote on this blog how Governor Cuomo made a strategic move to nominate Judge Leslie Stein to the New York State Court of Appeals, likely in order to garner Judge Stein's favor in ruling on the DEC case that, if ruled against DEC, could have resulted in massive voiding of environmental convictions and adjudications against New York landowners and necessity to return possibly millions of dollars of improperly collected fines.

The nomination of Leslie Stein put an end to the hopes of Judge Victoria Graffeo whose term on the NYS Court of Appeals ended in 2014, to continue in her judgeship.

Recently, information was released to the press that the retired Judge Graffeo has joined a law firm Harris Beach PLLC.

I took a quick look at what the firm is.

Of course, I found in the law firm Judge Graffeo's former "confidential law clerk", John T. McManus (male, white).  Nothing like giving a former boss a part of your law firm - and gaining the prestige of having the former NYS Court of Appeals judge, with her connections and influence, as part of the team.

Of course, I found in the law firm a New York State Senator, Michael F. Nozzolio (male, white).

Of course I found in the law firm a number of former district attorneys.

Of course, I found in the law firm a person who is dealing with selection of judges specifically for appellate courts, which will raise interesting questions if Judge Graffeo decides to run for an appellate judgeship once again in the future.

Of course, I found in the law firm a hearing referee doing hearings for the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

All in all, it appears to be a standard composition for a large and powerful law firm, same as I recently described in my analysis of the composition and its potential of another powerful law firm, Hiscock & Barclays, LLP of Albany, New York.

To me, employment of public officials in a law firm such as this raises red flags as to their impartiality and motivation in discharging their official duties, and whether the law firm hires these people in order to secure certain results from them in their official capacity, to promote their business and business of their - no doubt - prominent and wealthy clients.

Here is a summary table of attorneys in Harris Beach PLLS (I counted myself, maybe I made mistakes, but if I did, it was unintentional):

Senior Counsel	24
Of Counsel	7
Counsel	2
Members	115
Associate	62
Appellate Counsel	1
TOTAL:	211

In Harris Beach LLC attorneys who are co-owners of the law firm (including now former Judge Victoria Graffeo) are called "members", as I understand, and attorneys who are employees are called "associates, of counsel, counsel, appellate counsel".  I do not know the status of the "senior counsel".


ASSOCIATES

Gender composition of associates:

Associates 62 Males 36 58.1% Females 26 41.9%
Racial composition of associates (judging by the picture provided on the website of Harris Beach PLLC):

 

Total Associates	62
Caucasian (White)	54	87.1%
African American	4	6.5%
Middle Eastern	3	4.8%
Asian	1	1.6%

 There are 3 female minority associates, as far as I could count, in Harris Beach PLLC - one Asian and 2 African American.


 MEMBERS

Total members	115
Female	24	20.9%
Male	91	79.1%

Racial composition of members:

Total Members	115
Caucasian (White)	110	95.7%
Middle Eastern	2	1.7%
Hispanic	1	0.9%
African American	2	1.7%

There is only one minority (Hispanic) female member in Harris Beach PLLC.

One thing struck me though when I analyzed racial composition of attorneys in Harris Beach PLLC.


SENIOR COUNSEL

Senior Counsel 24 Females 10 41.7% Males 14 58.3% Whites  23 95.8% Asian Pacific 1 4.2% female
OF COUNSEL
There are 7 attorneys "of counsel", including NYS Senator Michael F. Nozzolio
(compare with Hiscock & Barclays' "of counsel" NYS Senator Neil Breslin).

Total of counsel	7
Male	7	100%
Female	0	0%
White	7	100%

APPELLATE COUNSEL

1 appellate counsel - Buzard, Vincent A., Male, White, with the following credentials posted on the website:

"Supreme Court and the Appellate Division; a referee for the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission hearing cases involving alleged judicial misconduct, chair of the New York State Bar Association committee to review candidates for the New York State Court of Appeals.  In 2006, Mr. Buzard was appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye to serve on the Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts and in 2007, he was appointed by her to chair the Seventh District Judicial Screening Commission which screens candidates for all courts in the district, served with Chief Judge Kaye on her Special Committee on the Establishment of Commercial Courts in the State of New York and was instrumental in the establishment of the Commercial Court in Rochester.

Tell me, who can EVER, for example, punish this law firm or any of its attorneys for frivolous conduct?  No matter what they do - and I am not saying they are doing anything wrong - but theoretically?

Such an armor of protection, isn't it?

Such a potential to influence judges by participation in "screening" of candidates for judges and being a referee to potentially punish errant judges - while at the very same time practicing in front of judges who know that this firm employs an attorney who can make or break the judge's career as a referee for the Commission of Judicial Conduct.

Please, don't tell me that judges do not take that into consideration when they rule, that they are so ethical, fearless and impartial that it is unlikely that an idea to give this firm what they want does not cross a judge's mind simply out of a sense of self-preservation.  We are all human, judges included.

Having as part of the staff a person who can make or break judges is a huge potential for influencing the court.

Advertising that potential to the public practically points out to the public this potential.

Now, this law firm practices in New York.

According to the U.S. Census information, only half of, let's say, Buffalo's population, is white.  Moreover, Buffalo Law School, year after year, is called the best law school for black students.

Yet, look at the "numbing numbers" of racial, as well as gender, composition among associates, members and other attorneys.

What kind of customer base does Harris Beach PLLC serve that its members are nearly 100% white (and with a male supermajority - 80%)? Their "of counsel" attorneys are 100% male and white?

While the firm deems it acceptable to hire more females (percentage-wise) to do the firm's legwork, for the lowly-associates' positions, the firm only has 95.7% of the firm's members, nearly all of them, are white, and only 1/5 are female.

What kind of prospect of advancement does this composition promises a newly graduated minority law student?

Possibly - none, other than to go into a District Attorney's office, then become a judge - and then, when the judicial term expires and in the event she is not re-elected - to be embraced by a law firm such as Harris Beach PLLC?

I know it is a private business.

I know they can make their own decisions who to hire and promote.

Those decisions are exactly the point.

And the point is that Judge Victoria Graffeo joined this mix, and thus  put a seal of her personal approval on this policy.