I have so far three episodes so far indicating that the Delaware County District Attorney's office would not investigate and prosecute violent crimes committed against local critics of judicial misconduct and, in one case, prosecuted the victim instead of the perpetrator of such a violent crime.
Three episodes, in my mind, constitutes a pattern.
The first episode happened in 2010.
A U.S. Marine Ryan Adams (now a reservist for the Marines whose location at this time, with his daughter, the granddaughter of Barbara O'Sullivan, upon information and belief, remains unknown since he absconded with the minor child without notifying the mother or the custody court of his current address, and the FBI is somehow not trying to locate him - and I wonder whether the reluctance to issue an Amber alert and treat Ryan Adam's behavior as parental kidnapping is due to the favoritism displayed to him by various courts because of he is a former U.S. Marine, a U.S. Marine reservist and because of his family connections to various U.S. senators and/or senator candidates), made a death threat against Barbara O'Sullivan on the phone some time in May of 2010. Since Ryan Adams had a history of violence before that, Barbara O'Sullivan perceived the threat as believable and notified the police and the military authorities.
The military authorities immediately issued an order of protection against Ryan Adams.
The Delhi Village Police Department considered the evidence of the death threat serious and substantial enough to bring criminal charges against Ryan Adams in Delhi Town court before judge Richard Gumo.
At that time, a custody proceeding was pending in the Delaware County Family Court pertaining to Barbara O'Sullivan's granddaughter.
Barbara O'Sullivan was not a party to the proceedings.
Ryan Adams was represented at that time in custody proceedings by a attorney William Brenner who previously ran against Hillary Clinton for the position of U.S. Senator for the State of New York on a Republican ticket.
Becker is a Republican.
Ryan Adams retained for representation in his criminal case attorney Michael McGuire out of Sullivan County who has become a judge during representation of Ryan Adams and who was similarly running, and was eventually elected, on a Republican ticket.
Michael McGuire announced his run for the position of Sullivan County Family Court judge in March of 2010, long before he undertook representation of Ryan Adams in his criminal case.
In September of 2010, without waiting for the disposition of the criminal case in People v. Ryan Adams in the Delhi Town Court, Judge Becker made a ruling in the custody proceedings giving custody to Ryan Adams, who was still under criminal proceedings for making a death threat against the grandmother of his child, punished the mother of the child (who was known to him for making a report against him regarding his misconduct in the Glenford Hull murder trial in talking to the jury during deliberations and demonstrating how a gun works) with extremely burdensome visitation, and punishing the grandmother who was the ALLEGED VICTIM in a pending, unadjudicated criminal proceedings in Delhi Town Court against Ryan Adams by directing the mother that she should not allow grandmother near the child.
The only basis for Becker's order like that was the pending unadjudicated criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams, which could be adjudicated only by the court where the proceedings were commenced, Delhi Town Court, yet, Becker made his own adjudication.
Senior ADA John Hubbard promised Barbara O'Sullivan, the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams, that she will be notified and be able to be present if any disposition in the case is about to be reached, in order to be able to oppose it and address the court.
Yet, Senior ADA John Hubbard misrepresented to Barbara O'Sullivan the time of appearance for Ryan Adams in such a way that, when Barbara O'Sullivan appeared in court, Ryan Adams was already given an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" for 6 months.
John Hubbard reacted to Barbara O'Sullivan's indignation at his misconduct by the question why Barbara O'Sullivan hired Tatiana Neroni (myself) to represent her daughter in the custody proceedings, and that if Judge Becker previously gave custody to the father, he must be right.
Of course, neither of these issue have anything to do with the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams.
Of course, John Hubbard who purchased the law office building and, possibly, the law practice from Carl Becker in 2002 when he first came to the bench, and who obviously was led in his prosecutorial duties by what Judge Becker, and not John Hubbard's duty as a prosecutor, dictated John Hubbard to do, indicated strong grounds for disqualification of John Hubbard from the case People v. Ryan Adams.
In plain English, it was none of John Hubbard's business who is hired to represent whom in the Family Court custody proceedings. It is simply irrelevant to the criminal prosecution in front of him.
In plain English, it was non of John Hubbard's business whether Judge Becker was or was not correct granting custody to Ryan Adams, since Ryan Adams was not prosecuted for anything related to custody, but for his death threat agaisnt the grandmother, a separate and distinct criminal offense.
Barbara O'Sullivan later filed with the Delhi Town Court, Judge Gumo, documents showing that Ryan Adams violated his ACD.
Judge Gumo disregarded the filing and let the proceedings against Ryan Adams to be dismissed - long after Ryan Adams' attorney of record has become a judge and without any substitution of counsel due to such judgeship.
In my legal opinion, the dismissal of criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams under the circumstances and at the time when Ryan Adams' attorney became a judge and could no longer represent Ryan Adams, indicates that the dismissal was unlawful and void and that the criminal proceedings in People v Ryan Adams must still be pending in Delhi Town Court.
John Hubbard's willingness to dismiss a criminal proceeding against a perpetrator of a death threat against an middle-aged woman simply because she hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker speaks volumes about integrity of the DA's office in Delaware County.
In fact, that dismissal was not the only misconduct John Hubbard committed in that case, People v. Ryan Adams.
At the time when charges were brought and filed agaisnt Ryan Adams, Ryan Adams resided out of the State of New York and could be arrested within the State of New York only when he came for court appearances in Family Court.
Naturally, if a criminal defendant is forewarned about a newly filed criminal charge, he could have skipped appearing in Family Court, allowing his attorney to proceed without him.
John Hubbard WARNED Ryan Adams that criminal charges were filed against him by sending to him a "Notice of Readiness for trial", BEFORE Ryan Adams was arrested and arraigned.
This is a "highly irregular" conduct by the prosecutor and, in my legal opinion, misconduct designed to warn Ryan Adams of criminal charges and prepare for the arrest.
Ryan Adams did prepare. He came to court with his highly influential stepfather, his Senator-candidate attorney, and he was not locked up as he should have been due to the nature of his crime.
John Hubbard was not disciplined for his misconduct.
Moreover, I am more than sure that, if the present DA Richard Northrup gets elected as a judge, John Hubbard will be placed in his stead as a District Attorney of Delaware County, at least for the first year, as a matter of temporary appointment, because prosecutorial misconduct in New York is a matter of course that is not addressed by disciplinary authorities as a matter of policy, which recently prompted a series of articles about that unspoken policy by ProPublica.org, and a proposed legislature to institute a separate commission to address prosecutorial misconduct, since the "regular" attorney disciplinary committees would not prosecute prosecutors.
Episode No. 2. happened in September of 2013 and continues to present time
It is well known now from my blog that I was and continue to be an active, eloquent and detailed critic of misconduct of Carl Becker who quickly retired from the bench on July 31, 2015 before his term expired and years before his retirement was required by mandatory retirement age.
I have been such a critic for years.
As I indicated above, John Hubbard, the Senior ADA, and the Delaware County District Attorney's office, would rather agree to the dismissal of criminal proceedings against a perpetrator of a death threat when the alleged victim is a critic of judicial misconduct who hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker, who sold to John Hubbard his law office and, likely, law business, in 2002.
A couple of years ago, my house was burglarized, and, as a warning to me, a burning cigarette was left on the floor of my bedroom which was located in such a place in the house that was not easily accessible by a stranger to the house.
We were at the house that day for the entire day, the only window of opportunity to do that was 3 hours when I went to appear in court in an adjoining county.
Only one person knew that we will be away.
Only one person, who knew that we will be away at that time, was on good enough terms with our border collie so that the border collie would welcome him into the house instead of attacking him.
The cigarette contained (or should have contained) DNA evidence of who was the perpetrator.
Valuables disappeared from the house, but that was not the main thing. The main thing was the threat that I perceived from seeing a burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom when I did not see it a couple of hours when I left the house.
Only my husband and I were in the house and in that bedroom at all times and on that day.
Neither one of us are smokers.
The cigarette in question was given to the police who were summoned to the house.
I made a direct report to the District Attorney's office, as well as to the Delhi Police.
The perpetrator was allowed to disappear without a trace, while the police had an opportunity to prosecute him (he lived nearby for months after our report).
The evidence, the cigarette, as far as I know, also disappeared and was never analyzed, even though at first the Delhi Police and John Hubbard pretended they were doing something.
I now am having back thoughts about what happened.
I now believe that the individual in question was directed to leave that burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom, as a warning to me that my house is not safe, and to be "careful".
In the alternative, the DA's office deliberately would not protect critics of governmental misconduct, making them feel unsafe in their homes in Delaware County, even when the DA's office has the evidence matching to the perpetrator, and the perpetrator who confessed.
The refusal of the Delaware County District Attorney and John Hubbard to prosecute the known perpetrator of a violent crime (home intrusion) against me as a critic of the local judge, clicks into a pattern when one considers refusal to prosecute Ryan Adams, as described above.
Episode No. 3 happened in September of 2014 and continues to present time
On September 5, 2014, upon report of Barbara O'Sullivan to me on that same day, Barbara O'Sullivan was assaulted with a police vehicle by Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie.
The assault occurred at the time and because Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping misconduct of Derek Bowie on her property, Derek Bowie tried to smash the tablet that was in the hands of Barbara O'Sullivan, even at the cost of potential injury of death of Barbara O'Sullivan.
The Delaware County District Attorney that employs the uncle of Derek Bowie, prosecutes Barbara O'Sullivan, the victim of the deadly assault by Derek Bowie, instead of Derek Bowie.
The Delaware County District Attorney never disclosed his office's disqualification to the grand jury where he obtained an indictment which is (in my legal opinion) void due to presence of a disqualified person in the grand jury. Instead, the DA Richard Northrup (a current judicial candidate) not only proceeds with prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan without disclosure of his office's disqualification, but "coincidentally" various people involved with the legal profession and the local government "approach" Barbara O'Sullivan and her family members with various threats that if she does not drop the civil lawsuit against Derek Bowie, she will get "locked up".
The pattern that arises out of these episodes clearly speaks to the unwritten policy of the local government in Delaware County, and especially of the local District Attorney's office (where the District Attorney currently running for a judge) - if you criticize misconduct of the local government, especially of local judges, your life is forfeit. The DA's office will not prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes against you, but there is a good possibility that a crime will be invented and you will be prosecuted for a crime against your perpetrators.
And that is not the rule of law, ladies and gentlemen, but the rule of the jungle - which will be perpetuated if the current District Attorney Richard Northrup who obviously maintains this unwritten policy becomes a judge.
THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment