King Baker and his disgusting graces

 

A letter the NYS 6th Judicial District's "supervising judge" Christopher Baker sent to two disabled parents of an honorably serving U.S. soldier - in retaliation for my three recent blogs about him:

here, 

here, and 

here, 

for anti-discrimination lawsuit against him

here, and

here

 - in one of them, Judge Baker not-so-smartly-or-competently defaulted (and obviously blames it on me), and for a lawful a request for a disability accommodation:

Note that the judge represents that providing disability accommodations REQUIRED by mandatory federal law - Americans With Disabilities Act: specifically, allowing two invalids to appear in court remotely rather than be made to travel 1,700 miles roundtrip from South Carolina to New York for mundane motion hearings - as a big favor that he gave us as an exception (notably, he gave it to us only after I filed with the court the photograph of pools of blood from my husband's ruptured veins).

Notably, the judge pretended not to know of any other disability that we had - even though such disabilities were documented and filed with the court since 2023: he simply did not want to read.

And, obviously, the judge does not know that if he does not have enough information - regulations require him to SEEK it, not to deny accommodation outright - and in such a snotty way he did.

OK - we filed an administrative appeal for denial of disability accommodations.

Here it is - maybe, it will help somebody else, too.

I will publish any responses to this appeal.  I am sure, Judge Baker - and other NYS judges - discriminated not only against us as disabled litigants, since NYS Court Administration disclosed to me in response to a FOIL request that NONE of NYS judges are trained in handling disability accommodation requests.

That shows, big time, in today's snappy disrespectful letter of "supervising judge" Baker - the one who got elected by telling electorate how he "served" the disabled 

The hypocrites.

Polished.  Sleazy.  Incompetent.  Uppity.  Disgusting.

Some of Justice Joseph A. McBride's reversals

 

Below is a table of some of Justice Joseph A. McBride's (Chenango County Supreme Court, New York) reversals when he was a District Attorney and in his current capacity as Supreme Court Justice.

This is "competency" of a judge who is allowed by law to take away your property, your liberty and the custody of your children.

By the way, New York State law does not provide for any safeguards for competence of judges when they are elected to the bench - no exam for the position of a judge, as they have in other countries.

You simply need (1) a heartbeat;  (2) a law license (which will never be revoked for a prosecutor, no matter what he does - a separate Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, a fairly toothless entity, was created in New York specifically because appellate divisions refused to discipline prosecutors;  and (3) your own vote when you run unopposed.

The catastrophic results below is the consequence of such laws.

Where McBride was a prosecutor, the decisions reversed were of the presiding judge, not of McBride himself - but the judge is siding with McBride's prosecutorial misconduct, which is what led to reversals.

Where reversals are of McBride as a judge - McBride's own mistakes are self-evident.

The summaries of the cases below are short - you can read the entire cases for yourself by clicking on the links.

Year	Role	Case	Specific Appellate Finding (What Was Done Incorrectly)	Result / Gravity
2006	Prosecutor	People v. Wlasiuk, 32 A.D.3d 674	Introduced extensive prior bad act (Molineux) evidence without proper analysis; admitted hearsay (victim’s writings) without foundation; allowed expert to act as conduit for third-party report; engaged in summation conduct including expressing personal views, calling testimony “lies,” and maligning defense counsel	Severe – conviction reversed; new trial
2006	Prosecutor	People v. Van Deusen, 7 N.Y.3d 744	Failed to ensure defendant was advised of mandatory postrelease supervision before plea; plea deemed not knowing and voluntary	Severe – conviction reversed (Court of Appeals)
2006	Prosecutor	People v. Dalton, 2006 NY Slip Op 01410	Charged criminal solicitation where it was legally incidental to the underlying offense; drafted counts covering multiple acts over long periods, making them duplicitous	Severe – multiple counts dismissed
2007	Prosecutor	People v. Bruning, 2007 NY Slip Op 09444	Allowed sentencing beyond agreed plea range after defendant expressed intent to appeal; plea terms not honored or properly conditioned	Severe – sentence reversed; remitted
2008	Prosecutor	People v. Littebrant, 2008 NY Slip Op 08208	Secured conviction under statutory theory (physical helplessness) not supported by evidence (victim not unable to communicate unwillingness)	Severe- count dismissed
2011	Prosecutor	People v. Elwood, 2011 NY Slip Op 00289	Obtained conviction on a charge fully subsumed within another offense (same weapon element used for both counts)	Severe– count dismissed
2017	Prosecutor	People v. Rose, 2017 NY Slip Op 08217	Argued legality of police escalation based on proximity and behavior alone; court found facts insufficient to meet De Bour thresholds for inquiry and pursuit	Severe – suppression affirmed
2022	Judge	107 S. Albany St. v. Scott, 211 A.D.3d 1380	Dismissed claim based on absence of guaranty despite claim being for breach of fiduciary duty; accepted unpreserved standing argument	Severe – reversed; remitted
2024	Judge	Cancilla v. O’Rourke, 232 A.D.3d 1175	Failed to apply proper summary judgment standards; permitted reliance on improper procedural mechanisms to resolve disputed issues	Severe – reversed in part
2024	Judge	Katleski v. Cazenovia Golf Club, 225 A.D.3d 1030	Denied summary judgment despite dispositive legal doctrine (assumption of risk) resolving claim as a matter of law	Severe – reversed; complaint dismissed
2024	Judge	Mormile v. Marshall, 233 A.D.3d 1270	Failed to follow mandatory jury selection rules (peremptory challenge sequence); structured verdict sheet so jury did not reach required legal questions	Severe – reversal; new trial
2024	Judge	Szypula v. Szypula, 42 N.Y.3d 620	Classified property based on origin rather than statutory rule; failed to apply commingling doctrine under Domestic Relations Law	Severe – reversed (Court of Appeals)

---

Had to file a complaint against Justice Joseph A. McBride, of Chenango County Supreme Court (NY), and am starting a series of articles about this judge - and his misconduct, as a DA and now as a Judge

I have just published an article about Chenango Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's shenanigans as a DA in a murder case - securing three murder convictions when he likely had no right to obtain even a single indictment in the case because he was disqualified to be present in the grand jury room due to his and his office's familial connections.

The first murder conviction was overturned because DA McBride "maligned" (appellate's court's words, not mine) my husband who was defense counsel.

By the way, the claim in this article that Wlasiuk "lost ANOTHER bid to have his conviction overturned" is glaringly false - Wlasiuk did have the appellate court overturn the conviction TWICE.

At this time, "Justice" McBride cannot stop pursuing my husband and now me because my husband complained about McBride when he attempted to get assigned to our case in 2023 and retaliated against us, and because I blogged about it, too.

So - I complained about him to the Judicial Conduct Commission, and am publishing the complaint here, with attachments I sent with the Complaint, which are self-explanatory:

(1) E-mail complaint to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct against Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride:

(2) My Affirmation under the penalty of perjury interlinking documents showing the tricks Justice McBride was doing in 2023 - and now in 2026: ex parte communications, filing false court orders, advocacy on behalf of politically connected non-parties;

(3) my letter filed with the court requesting recusal of McBride and requesting to stop the advocacy for Attorney Frank Miller (not an attorney of record as of April 3, 2026) and his purported client Wayne Marshfield (who Frank Miller represents at the same time as he is hired to investigate and prosecute that same Marshfield, as showin in depositions in Decker advertisement case, 3:23-cv-1531 (NDNY).

(4) Exhibit 1 to the letter - scheduling of the conference where Justice McBride tries to force me to interact with the serial harasser Miller who I am suing - and he retaliates by any unlawful means;

(5) Exhibit 2 - letter from Justice McBride's chambers copying attorney Miller, who is not an attorney of record as of April 3, 2026, amendment of the complaint as of right that dropped his supposed client;

(6) my husband's lawsuit against attorney Gerard Misk describing, on pages 6-9, Justice McBride's cruel and fraudulent shenanigans against my elderly and disabled husband, in retaliation of winning agaisnt Justice McBride as a DA, many-many times;

(7) my blog from December 9, 2023 - I will simply interlink it here - publishing my husband's complaint against Justice McBride.

Justice McBride is retaliating against me for that complaint to the point of not doing what he is supposed to do on the assigned case - getting nullified motions off the calendar - but actively catering for Attorney Miller and his law firm where the firm belongs to Timothy Murphy, brother of Chief Administrative Judge of Upstate New York - and to a bunch of relatives of NDNY judges.

Nothing unusual - about NYS court system.  Right?

I will, next, publish a description of reversals of this judge, including recent, and frequent, reversals - does not paint a picture of high competence, I can tell you ahead of time.

On the murder conviction ## 1, 2, and 3 of Peter Wlasiuk in Chenango County Court - the stepping stone of Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's judicial election - were the indictments valid due to familial connections of DA McBride and his employees?

In 2002, my husband Frederick J. Neroni, then a criminal defense attorney, represented a criminal defendant, Peter Wlasiuk, in a murder case prosecuted by District Attorney Joseph A. McBride who is now a Supreme Court Justice in the Chenango County Supreme Court.

Wlasiuk was convicted then, conviction # 1.  His conviction was then overturned by the 3rd Department because of misconduct of DA McBride who, among other things, were chastised by the 3rd Department for maligning defense counsel - my husband - depriving Wlasiuk of a fair trial.  That reversal was in 2006.

DA McBride reindicted Wlasiuk for the 2nd time, tried and had him convicted again, conviction # 2.  That conviction was, again, overturned by the 3rd Department in 2011 - now based on ineffective assistance of counsel (not my husband).

DA McBride did not rest easy with that second reversal.  He sought and obtained, according to filings in federal court by Wlasiuk, a special permission from the 6th Judicial District's Chief Adminsitrative Judge Robert C. Mulvey for a 3rd indictment, had Wlasiuk indicted - and this time the conviction stuck and was not overturned in 2016 - despite glaring improprieties of DA McBride and his office.

What I am going to write about here - with documents I recently obtained from Pacer.gov - for some reason unknown to me did not receive so far any public scrutiny.  I am rectifying it here.

There is a set jurisdictional rule in New York State Penal Law - the presence of an unauthorized or disqualified person in the grand jury room in violation of CPL 190.25(3) renders the proceeding jurisdictionally defective under CPL 210.35(5); dismissal of the indictment is required where the violation impairs the integrity of the proceeding and creates the possibility of prejudice, with certain categories (such as presence during deliberations or participation) treated as inherently impairing.

The dismissal is not automatic, but it may be raised at any time - since it goes to subject matter jurisdiction of the court.  

Based on what I recently learnt, DA McBride was disqualified from being in the grand jury in the Wlasiuk case, from being the legal advisor of that grand jury, and from prosecuting the case - three consecutive times, relentlessly.  

There are two reasons for that:

(1) the first defense counsel in the case, Peter McBride, was DA McBride's close blood relative, brother (based on obituary) or uncle (based on some witness reports);  moreover, Peter McBride had a charging lien on Wlasiuk's home for his legal services.  It is after Wlasiuk fired Peter McBride and hired my husband for the first trial, that DA Joseph A. McBride was so upset for his blood relative's loss of an opportunity for improper further financial gain that he jeopadized the conviction by openly maligning my husband in open court - the stated reason for reversal by the 3rd Department.

(2) Stephen Dunshee, the 1st ADA for DA McBride, who was then Family Court Magistrate in Chenango County, and is likely retired at this time, judging by his attorney registration information:

was, according to filings of Wlasiuk in federal court, a blood relative of the victim at the time of trials - AND was, according to Wlasiuk's filings, attorney representing the victim's mother in civil proceedings against Wlasiuk seeking to take away his property and his children.

Moreover, during the 3rd murder trial, Stephen Dunshee, according to Wlasiuk's filings in federal court, was actively influencing DA McBride by coming into the courtroom and whispering into his ear.

The full Wlasiuk's petition for habeas corpus can be read here.

The amended petition with a full description of the conflict with Dunshee is available here, and I additionally publish the snapshots about involvement of Dunshee in the murder trial as stated by Wlasiuk in federal court here:

Of course, the petition was denied by NDNY federal court - because its granting would upset reputations and careers of McBride's, and Dunshee's, and the 3rd Department's judges, and the Court of Appeals' judges who turned a blind eye on this travesty.

Notably, the exhibits supporting Wlasiuk's petition in federal court - transcripts of PUBLIC trials - have been sealed, secret and unavailable for me to download on Pacer.gov:

Somehow the toothless local press pretended not to see this glaring conflict.

I hope that Dunshee and Joseph McBride get finally investigated and disbarred for this.  Peter McBride is obviously beyond human discipline - but is before a higher court now.

Wlasiuk is continuing to be in prison.

Meanwhile, McBride, after having used this case, where his blood relative was the first defense counsel and where his the alleged victim's blood relative was his 1st ADA and influenced the 3rd trial - is enjoying all the privileges of a Supreme Court Justice without any discipline on record.

New York State's token attempts to eliminate qualified immunity: a shameful deception of the electorate

New York State introduced a bill to eliminate qualified immunity - the judicially created (unlawful legislation under Article III of the U.S.. Constitution) doctrine de facto reducing the Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution to unenforceable garbage.

The concept that NYS even undertakes such a feat is per se sad.  The federal Civil Rights Act was enacted by the U.S. Congress in order to bypass supposedly biased state court in a supposedly more "real people-friendly" federal court.

Not a chance.

Under this trick and that, federal courts created such a quagmire out of the Civil Rights Act that it has become more complex than any other type of litigation - contrary to its clear legislative intent:  because constitutional rights violated by the government are usually rights of vulnerable individuals, including indigent and illiterate, litigating these claims must be beyond simple, geared to pro se litigants.

Instead, pro se litigants, especially the poor ones, are tied by that same Congress to a 3-strikes-and-you-are-out-without-a-right-to-appeal thing-y allowing federal courts to act as a de facto advocate and representative of government defendants without any need for the government defendants to even appear.

Recently, such a principle was used by the recently (sadly, only partially) reversed NDNY Magistrate Miroslav Lovric who created a mile-long "report and recommendation" as to why, before service of the Complaint of a pro se litigant upon the government defendants, the complaint should be - and was - dismissed, WITHOUT a right to appeal.

For most lawyers who never practiced federal civil rights litigation, their brains will curdle by reading this "report".  Yet, a professional lawyer and judge Magistrate Lovric 

held a poor disabled person, likely of low literacy, to the standard of professional civil rights litigator - while Magistrate Lovric literally appeared on behalf of government defendants by SUA SPONTE (on the court's own motion) recommending dismissal of the case - because the poor person of obviously limited literacy:

see the complaint;

see the poor disabled person's application:

was (predictably) unable to navigate the judge-created (illegally created - remember that pesky U.S. Constitution giving the right to legislate, including to change statutes, only to the U.S. Congress?) labyrinth of precedents in the place of a clear and plain statute, the Civil Rights Act.

I wrote about the "3 strikes and you are out" statute, openly discriminating against the poor, the disabled, the illiterate victims of government's constitutional violations, analyzing this statute in detail 12 years ago here.  Nothing changed since then, as Magistrate Lovric's "report and recommendation" in Campbell v Broome County shows.

So - is it a lofty cause that New York State is attempting to eliminate at least one federal court invention barring victims of government's constitutional violations to receive any remedy from the court, as was contemplated by the U.S. Congress in the Civil Rights Act?  The so-called "qualified immunity"?  

It could be a good thing - had it been an honest attempt to eliminate it.

The way the bill has been drafted, it is not.

First of all, the bill expressly addresses only ELECTED public officials.  

That means that in the overwhelming majority of situations where the qualified immunity is used - hurting victims of constitutional violations by the government - including actions of social workers (unlawfully removing children in exchange for federal grants) or police officers using excessive, including lethal, force - New York State bill is inapplicable.

The next 9-day-wonder of the bill: that NYS AG - now an ardent DEFENDER of constitutional violators AGAINST their victims in every single civil rights action filed against a state public official - may now bring civil rights actions on behalf of the victims.

Representing parties on both side of the aisle, as far as I checked, was attorney misconduct.

The saddest part about it is that the bill is paraded as a real effort on behalf of the people.

What it is though - is empty promises to the electorate.

It at the same time 

(1) recognizes that qualified immunity - and federal courts that created it - is an increasing human rights problem of a constitutional dimension requiring legislators' attention;

and

(2) provides an insulting no-solution addressing exactly the officials who are not usually the problem in qualified immunity cases.

It is - very simply - a deception of the electorate.  Given who is usually suffering from qualified immunity - the poor, the illiterate, the disabled - a cruel and cynical deception.

The new lawsuit undermining the business of Coalition of Watershed Towns, of the Watershed Agricultural Council and of local municipalities in Delaware County, NY's plans to host solar and battery storage facilities

A lawsuit has been filed by Riverkeeper, Inc. against New York City's Department of Environmental Protection that can, if resolved in Riverkeeper, Inc.'s favor, together with the recent decision of Albany County Supreme Court annulling certain DEC regulation regarding watersheds, will reshape how local municipalities may or may not host solar and battery storage facilities on conservation easements (see here also an extremely interesting transcript in the Albany case).

By this publication I am making the text of the Riverkeeper's lawsuit available to the public.  You can click on the interlinked documents, they will take you right to the official site of the New York State Court system, NYSCEF, the document will open and you will be able to read it.

1. Summons
2. Notice of Petition
3. Petition
4. Exhibit A - Affirmation of Riverkeeper's member Kathleen Nolan;
5. Exhibit B - New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement, January 21, 1997;
6. Exhibit C - list of New York City owned properties in the Catskills Watershed;
7. Exhibit D - 2010 Side Agreement;
8. Exhibit E - 2010 Water Supply Permit;
9. Exhibit F - Fourth Supplement Side Agreement;
10. Exhibit G - Amended Model Conservation Easement;
11. Exhibit H - Notice of Material Breach;
12. Request for Judicial Intervention (to assign a judge to the case)

This newly filed lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Queens County challenges a December 2025 agreement that could significantly reshape how New York City protects its upstate drinking water supply.

The case, brought by Riverkeeper, Inc., is styled as a hybrid CPLR Article 78 proceeding, breach of contract action, and declaratory judgment claim against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

At the center of the lawsuit is the “Fourth Supplemental Side Agreement”, executed on December 16, 2025, between DEP and several watershed stakeholders.

According to the petition, the agreement fundamentally alters long-standing watershed protections by:

• Modifying approximately 1,403 conservation easements

• Covering more than 96,000 acres of protected land

• Representing roughly 9% of the Catskill watershed that supplies drinking water to millions of New Yorkers

Riverkeeper alleges that the agreement introduces, for the first time, development uses on lands that were previously required to remain permanently undeveloped. These include:

• Utility and transmission infrastructure

• Renewable energy facilities

• New road construction

• Commercial extraction of sand, stone, and gravel

The petition also claims that the agreement alters the purpose of conservation easements, shifting them from strict water-quality protection toward a framework that incorporates economic development considerations.

In addition, the agreement allegedly restricts future land acquisition for conservation, particularly in lower-priority watershed areas, thereby limiting expansion of protected lands.

Riverkeeper advances two primary legal theories:

1. SEQRA violation

The lawsuit asserts that DEP entered into the agreement without conducting any environmental review, including:

• No Environmental Assessment Form

• No determination of significance

• No Environmental Impact Statement

Under SEQRA, such review must occur before an agency undertakes an action with potential environmental consequences.

2. Breach of contract

Riverkeeper also alleges that the agreement violates binding commitments made in:

• The 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

• Subsequent watershed agreements and the 2010 Water Supply Permit framework

Those agreements require that lands acquired for watershed protection be maintained “in perpetuity in an undeveloped state” to safeguard water quality.

The petition asks the court to:

• Vacate the 2025 Side Agreement in its entirety

• Declare it void and unenforceable

• Require DEP to comply with SEQRA before taking similar action in the future

Why this case matters

This litigation goes directly to the foundation of New York City’s watershed protection system, which has operated for decades without filtration by relying on:

• Land acquisition

• Conservation easements

• Intergovernmental agreements

The lawsuit frames the 2025 agreement as a system-level shift—from strict land preservation toward a model that permits development within previously protected areas.

If successful, the case could:

• Reinforce strict limits on modifying conservation easements

• Expand SEQRA scrutiny over negotiated regulatory agreements

• Constrain how agencies balance environmental protection against economic development in watershed regions

Riverkeeper’s lawsuit challenges the legality of a major policy shift in watershed governance, arguing that DEP cannot relax decades-old land protections or rewrite conservation rules—particularly without environmental review—through a negotiated side agreement.

The aftermath of this lawsuit - if decided in favor of Riverkeeper - can be massive.

Local municipalities in the watershed, such as the Town of Hamden, NY, are already proceeding full speed into hosting of lithium-ion storage facilities presenting high environmental contamination and fire hazards.

If decided in favor of Riverkeeper - these plans can be abruptly halted, as they should be.

And, the kicker in the case is that it was brought in Queens County Supreme Court, far away from the local corruption, including court corruption.

So - let's see what happens.

Delaware County (NY) District Attorney's Office: let's generate business off traffic tickets - together with non-lawyer judges

The local press in Delaware County (NY) recently reported how excited Delaware County DA Smith is about the growing revenue from the so-called traffic ticket diversion program.

I have just asked the New York State Police and the 3rd Department's Attorney Grievance Committee to look into this glorious program - from the point of view of ticket-fixing, public corruption, ethical violation and undermining judicial independence by the DA's Office - in order to generate revenue for the County and for the local townships.

You can read the full complaint here.  8 pages with full analysis of the "program" and statistical graphs.