"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.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Mama, I want a puppy for Christmas - but, Johnny, Daddy did not earn that much this year...

I have watched today the live-streamed public hearing in front of the NYS Commission for Legislative, Executive and Judiciary pay.

The hearing took several hours, it is a lot of testimony to digest.  I have a copy of the video testimony.  I will digest the testimony and written submissions and will post a series of blogs reporting on the hearing.

I was taking notes during the hearing, I will make my own transcription of the testimony and will share portions of those transcriptions with my readers.

One thing I did not hear today from any of the numerous advocates for the judicial pay raise is an economical analysis of budgetary situation in New York and a substantiation whether New Yorkers can afford the pay raises that judges claimed they are entitled to.

Yet, a report about economic ranking of the State of New York as opposed to other states of the United States exists, and here it is.

Based on that report, New York ranks 46th out of 51 state in budgetary health/solvency, which matches with the 47th place in the level of judicial pay (according to the today's testimony of the chief counsel for Estee Lauder at the NYS Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative pay raise).  

Yet, judges ask for "parity" (in pay only) with states that are ranking much higher than New York in budgetary issues.

That means that while judges ask for parity with other states in pay only, there exists no economic parity with other states because other states are managed better and, for that reason alone, can pay their public officials, including judges, more.

No advocates for judicial pay raises who testified today in favor of judicial pay raises (including, astonishingly, one of the members of presiding panel, retired judge Lack) mentioned that.

Here are some snapshots from a recent report on budgetary ranking across U.S. states.

New York has a debt of $17 dollars per EVERY resident - including babies, nursing home residents, prisoners and people who earn well below poverty levels.

At the very same time, judges claim "personal hardship" - when their current salaries are 3 times (!) higher than the average salary of New York taxpayers who fund them.

The long-term liability per EVERY New Yorker, once again, including, babies, retirees, prisoners and people earning under the poverty level, is a staggering $4,616.

So, a family of 4 people (two parents and two young children) are already saddled, on top of property taxes and annual income taxes, with $18,464 in DEFICIT generated by the government.

The key phrase here is that "New York relied heavily on neonate sources to cover spending".  The non-tax sources is debt.  Debt New Yorkers are going to be saddled with well into the future.

Under these conditions, businesses usually FREEZE or CUT wages of their workers, in order to survive.

Not so with New York court judges.

Under the conditions were economy is crumbling, they want an INCREASE of their already inflated salary which is already more than 3 times higher than an average salary of struggling New York taxpayers. 

Key words here is that 5.4% of "state personal income" and $2,946 per capita is "total bonded indebtedness" in New York State.

The key words here that New York has UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY of $251 BILLION, 8.4 TIMES more than the reported unfunded $30 billion.

Any judicial pay raises will only add to that already staggering unfunded mandate.

The mysterious OPEB is "other post-employment benefits" means "post-employment benefits that an employee will begin to receive at the start of retirement. This does not include pension benefits paid to the retired employee. Other post-employment benefits that a retiree can be compensated for are life insurance premiums, healthcare premiums and deferred-compensation arrangements", as reported by  Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Definition | Investopedia.

Preliminary conclusions - there were no surprises.

There was a lot of brown-nosing by attorneys and bar associations 
who described "personal hardships" of poor dear (very dear)
judges who "only" draw a paycheck of $174,000 a year, which is 
3.5 times more than the income of an average New York taxpayer 
who foots their salary and benefits, and their ability to do nothing
with the help of their similarly overpaid law clerks, to be
rude, aggressive and play Gods in the courtroom.

I will probably have to dedicate a separate post per each 
brown-nosing speaker to show the depth of moral degradation that
the New York legal establishment has sunk into.

There was a lot of self-glorifying flowery statements by judges and 
judicial associations, no surprises there.  They want more money,
they want it now, and they claim - about themselves - 
that they are the best, the brightest and the most impartial.

I told you earlier today it was going to be a stand-up comedy - and 
it was.

There was a lot of mentioning of the Constitution 
by the judges and the brown-nosing attorneys (which judges 
exclusively use in connection with pay raises, but give themselves 
a gift of absolute immunity to violate otherwise).

It is obviously safe to mention the Constitution in the setting
asking for judicial pay raises.  

When you mention the Constitution in a motion to recuse
or in a civil rights case - you and your client get monetary 
sanctions and you lose your law license,
so the use of the word "constitution" and "constitutional" today
by attorneys advocating judicial pay raises was sort of an
elaborate hedging technique, a survival-of-the-fittest (brown-nosers)

After all, I already stated earlier in this blog that the most 

There were several witnesses today who testified about 
judicial corruption and about the necessity to tie judicial pay 
to integrity, competence, fulfillment of constitutional duties, 
generally, to performance.

There was a witness who publicly announced that the federal
government is stepping in and planning to remove several
1st Department judges in 2016 and file indictments against them,
and the only reason why criminal charges will be confined
to 1st Department judges only is that the organization that
spearheaded investigation and surveillance of judges 
is located in the 1st Department and lacks fund for other

I already asked Preet Bharara to address corruption in the
3rd Department and I am going to ask the same Preet Bharara
to address corruption in the 4th Department.

There was a judge from the 2nd Department lamenting the 
loss of talent, where judges were leaving judicial positions for 
a better pay in the private sector.

One of such "lost talents"  is 2nd Department recently retired
judge Peter Skelos, brother of NYS Senate Majority leader 
Dean Skelos (recently resigned) who is currently tried by 
the feds for corruption.  

You can read my blogs about that particular legal "talent", 
Peter Skelos, by running his name in the "search" window 
on this blog and here.

What is also very interesting is that, even though the Commission 
was to deal with pay raises in all three branches of New York State
Government, witnesses testified only about one branch -

There are also some curious points at the hearing.

The only time when the microphone during live-streaming failed
was during the testimony of the first opponent of judicial pay
raises.  Consequently, listeners of the "live-streamed" video 
could not hear a chunk of an opponent's testimony.

Microphones worked fine for the testimony of supporters
of judicial pay raises before and after lunch.

The only witnesses at whom two members of the Commission
openly yelled at were two opponents of judicial pay raises.

Both yelled-at opponents were females.

Both yelled-at opponents said the taboo words "judicial corruption".

Both yelled-at opponents wanted more time to provide details 
to the Commission and were denied despite the fact that the 
public present at the hearing asked to give them more time.

One of the yelled-at opponents donated 2 minutes of her time 
to another, and was yelled-at by two panelists afterwards 
during her own testimony.

A panelist yelled at the public for advocating too loudly 
in favor of giving more time to the second yelled-at female
opponent of judicial pay (the last witness).

There were only three witnesses testifying after lunch, 
the hearing was concluded before 3 pm and there was no reason
why more time was not given to witnesses to allow them to
fully relay details of what they wanted to say to the Commission
and to the public.

All of what I described was documented.  I will post 
the clips with comments.

Stay tuned.

And yet another stand-up comedy - John Muehl is appointed as a "special investigator" and prosecutor for investigation into burglary in our house

At 9:13 pm on Sunday, yesterday, November 29, 2015, I posted a blog criticizing the Delaware County District Attorney and now Delaware County judge-elect Richard Northrup of stalling and undermining a burglary investigation and prosecution into our home that occurred in September of 2013.

I wrote in that blog that DA Northrup did nothing regarding that case in two years, and when I requested evidence back from that "non-investigation", DA Northrup 

  • put himself between myself and where the evidence was, 
  • claimed that NOW the investigation is "ongoing" (while it was not ongoing for 2 prior years) and that now I am not allowed to see the incident reports or evidence that likely was lost, spoiled or hidden by now, 
  • that now the Delhi Village police does not have a confession that the police officers voluntarily told us some time ago they had, and
  • that they do not have our statements that they collected from us in September of 2013, and we need to "re-submit" our statements to Northrup as an investigator.

Here is the yesterday's blog.

6 hours and 10 minutes of Sunday-to-Monday night time later, at 5:23 am (!) today, DA Northrup sent me to my former law office email account an e-mail advising me that a special investigator and prosecutor has been appointed for the burglary investigation.

Of course, Northrup sent that e-mail to my former law office's account, knowing that my law license was suspended as of November 13, 2015 and that he should find other means of communication with me and especially with the second victim, my husband, than through my former law office.

Of course, I reasonably consider such conduct of judge-elect Richard Northrup as an attempt to entrap me into the criminal charge of unauthorized practice of law if I would answer him from that e-mail account.  

But, the content of that e-mail is really precious.  Here it is.

The special person who was appointed as the impartial special investigator and prosecutor, our champion to protect us, the victims of a burglary into our house is - ta-da! - the Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, the star of my blogs about:

  • corruption of judge John Lambert and prosecutor John Muehl in the recently reversed case People v Michaels, 
  • corruption of John Muehl and judge Brian Burns (that story is not yet fully reported) in the case of teenager Anthony Pacherille; both as to the teenager defendant and his father and uncle - you can see all my blogs about Muehl by putting "John Muehl" into the search window on the right);
  • the prosecutor who has an obvious drinking problem, see my blog here;
  • the prosecutor who is systematically involved in ex parte communications with judges, and I am a witness to the fact that Muehl remains in the conference room with judges when defense attorneys leave that room and remains there until the next defense attorney comes in, and that John Muehl is in that room with the judge, police and probation officers, for some time before the defense attorneys enter;
  • the prosecutor who was sued for misconduct and escaped liability only because of "absolute judicial immunity";
  • the prosecutor who attempted to intimidate my own client to accept a plea bargain in a fabricated B-felony drug-related criminal case while not providing the key piece of evidence to me and my client (supporting affidavit for the search warrant) and while knowing that he did not have the main witness - Muehl tried to intimidate my client into accepting that plea by saying that if he doesn't, Muehl will re-indict my client with more and higher charges.  When my courageous client did not cave in and demanded to go to trial, Muehl folded and confessed he did not have his witness.  He did not reindict my client, as he threatened, and the case (a B felony!) was dismissed "on consent" because Muehl's witness - allegedly - disappeared.  Since we were never given a copy of that witness' supporting affidavit for a search warrant, we to this day do not know identity of the witness, content of the search warrant, or if that witness actually existed.

THAT is the prosecutor who was, of all people, appointed to investigate the burglary, attempted arson and intimidation committed at our home in Delhi, NY that was not investigated for 2 years, because our lives, as lives of critics of governmental misconduct in New York, are simply expendable.

THAT is the person whom we are supposed to trust to NOW give him our statements that he will compare with the incident reports created somewhere by the corrupt police Delhi Village Police Department who violated all possible procedures in investigation that they could violate, and who will have the pleasure to charging US instead for making some sort of false report.

He will have the whole-hearted support of the all judges who "serve" in our area who were ever criticized by my husband and myself through lawsuits, motions to recuse, complaints to the New York Glorified Shredder Commission (oops - that is, Judicial Conduct Commission) to do that.

And THAT is the "special", "honest", "impartial" man, the antihero of another blog - by Anthony Pacherille the father, the antihero of youtube videos by Anthony Pacherille and another videoblogger from Otsego County who exposed John Muehl's misconduct.  Just go to YouTube and type DA John Muehl in.

That is John Muehl who reportedly bullied a grand jury to indict a mentally ill teenager on a racist hate crime, bullied him into submitting to a plea "deal" and had him sentenced for 11 years in prison instead of being given a youthful offender status.

The teenager's father claims on his blog that he was contacted by a grand juror in his son's case who told him that he abstained from voting on the indictment because of how John Muehl was trying to coerce the grand jury to have a teenager indicted on a race-motivated hate crime.  

Anthony Pacherille's father claims on his blog, and it is reasonable for him under the circumstances to claim that, that Muehl was trying to advance his career on the back of his son by pretending to be a champion for minorities, while I can say that in my opinion, observing the racial composition of criminal defendants arraigned in Otsego County City Court and County Court, that John Muehl's exercise of "prosecutorial discretion" in disproportionately targeting minorities through criminal prosecutions, expose him as a racist.

To see how well backed up my opinion is, just visit Otsego City Court or to the Otsego County court to watch the "racial composition" of people who are being arraigned.

And remember, I am a minority myself, I am an immigrant and a Russian American, and I speak with an accent.  

That is the same John Muehl who tried to frame my then-client who had NO criminal record with a drug-related B felony while concealing (together with his buddy Judge John Lambert) the supporting affidavit for search warrant that likely does not exist along with the witness, and who tried to bluff my client into accepting a felony conviction and going to prison on a framed charge.

Guess what - my client in that now dismissed B-felony action was African American, an immigrant and spoke with an accent, and he was being ousted out of the area by the now-deceased (through a suicide) Oneonta mayor Richard Miller who was actively helped by the local police - and, necessarily, by John Muehl - to trump up fabricated charges and get the "likes of" my client out of the area where he was doing an impermissible offense - entertained minorities with music that they liked.

And guess what - John Muehl is likely the one, along with Judge Brian Burns, behind the raid of the Cooperstown police on the home of Anthony Pacherille's father to seize computers upon which the blog "Cooperstown Hall of Shame" criticizing Burns' and Muehl's corruption, was created.

Computers for my blog are a little far away for seizure by New York officials, who, like Richard Northrup, read my blog in the wee hours of the morning.

I am sure there was nobody more sober, more competent, more honest and more impartial to be appointed instead of the corrupt Delaware County District attorney Richard Northrup who reads my blog in the wee hours of the morning.

And - if John Muehl's disqualifications are not enough, here is the snapshot of the Otsego County DA's website featuring yet another "hero" from Muehl's DA's Office - his Chief Assistant District Attorney Michael Getman.

That is THE Michael Getman who represented my husband's co-defendant Connie Mokay in the so-called "Mokay saga" that led to my husband's disbarment through fraud of Richard Harlem - and Michael Getman - of which my husband received sworn proof that indicates that attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann definitely and Michael Getman likely should be investigated and prosecuted, charged with fraud upon the court and, if convicted, then disbarred.

We are actually considering, given the circumstances, who would be the impartial public official to even handle such a criminal case against 

  • son of a judge Richard Harlem, 
  • James Hartmann, husband of Delaware County Family Court judge-elect Gary Rosa's law clerk Nancy Deming, and 
  • son of a judge and Chief Assistant Otsego County DA Michael Getman.  

That is THE Michael Getman who is a likely witness to fraud of son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem in that "Mokay saga", at least draft affidavits of his client Connie Mokay against my husband were never provided to me in discovery as Richard Harlem's "work product" (Richard Harlem is suing Connie Mokay), so Richard Harlem, I guess, co-represents defendant Connie Mokay with Michael Getman in the Mokay action, with all judges happily accepting anything, any abominable, unlawful and stupid crap, as long as that crap comes from sons of judges.

That is the Michael Getman who appeared on April 7, 2015 at the ex parte Mokay trial and told Judge Kevin Dowd ON RECORD (I have the transcript) that his client, a co-defendant in the action, is "more aligned" with opponents of my husband.

With the above statement, Michael Getman earned from Dowd permission to leave the trial on damages (while his client was a co-defendant) in order to go do something else, more important to Getman than properly representing his client Connie Mokay.

In fact, by coming to the ex parte Mokay trial on April 7, 2015, Michael Getman, a full-time employee of Otsego County, with a reported annual salary of $52,159, as per

already violated his duty to Otsego County taxpayers, since he appeared in a private case during time for which he was paid as a criminal prosecutor by Otsego County taxpayers, and in a case where he represented a person who admitted under oath to committing fraud - a private job that was starkly contrary to his duties as an investigator and prosecutor of crimes in Otsego County.  

But, since Otsego County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, the wife of Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma who regularly employs pretty-face disgraced female attorneys as very "special" counsel (see also a report here indicating that the pretty-face fraudster and judge-elect Christina Ryba accepted the job offer), does the very same, represents private clients on county time and on taxpayers' dime - I guess, son of a judge Michael Getman can certainly do the same with impunity.

By the way, Otsego County Attorney Ellen Coccoma is a very "special" counsel for a Binghamton law firm Hinman, Howard & Kattell, advisor of state and federal judges, while she occupies the full-time position of Otsego County Attorney (the picture is old, by the way, Ellen Coccoma does not look in reality as young as the pretty-face "special counsel" of her husband, the moralist and churchgoer and "elder leader" Michael Coccoma):

At the same time, Ellen Coccoma is a full-time Otsego County Employee, and her salary, as reported by, is $75,349 per year, making any of Ellen Coccoma's work for HHK's private clients and presence at court proceedings during day time for her private climate a theft of public money.

Ellen Coccoma, as the County Attorney, is also responsible to provide legal review of FOIL request.  Yet, legal review is not a legitimate reason to delay release of public records.

At this very time, Ellen Coccoma is stalling my FOIL request to provide copies of HER OWN time sheets for the times she was involved during County time paid by taxpayers - in private cases paid for by Hinman, Howard and Kattel private clients.

And, she is stalling my FOIL request into emails of Otsego County employees, which are also public records.

The declared reason for stalling is the "legal review" which cannot be used as a legal reason (no pun intended) for such stalling.

I guess, if I ask for timesheet of Michael Getman for April 7, 2015, I will be similarly stalled by Ellen Coccoma, after all, the two of them are siblings-in-crime.

But back to Getman and his involvement, through a private client, in a case against my husband.

Since Michael Getman, the Chief Otsego County Assistant District Attorney, according to his own words stated on record in court as recently as on April 7, 2015, 

  • is "aligned", along with his client, against my husband, and is a witness, along with his client, against my husband, and has been for the last 7 years 
  • since Getman's client provided an affidavit against my husband in the Mokay case, 
  • since the appeal from the Mokay action is still pending, with Getman's private client who is "aligned" against my husband as a party to that appeal, 

the office where Getman is a Chief Assistant DA cannot in anybody's bad dream be assigned as a "special investigator" into a case where I and my husband are
victims of a violent crime, a burglary, possibly an attempted arson and likely an intimidation of witnesses of official misconduct.

I wonder who signed that order of appointment.

I wonder whether materials from the investigation into burglary in my own house that I was not allowed to see by Richard Northrup are now in the hands of John Muehl and his office, with Michael Getman having access and thus irreversibly tainting a criminal felony investigation.

I would be delighted to have been that proverbial fly on the wall to hear the accompanying conversations before that order was signed.

Alas, I did not have the pleasure to have been that fly on the wall.

Of course, I will not provide any information to the disqualified DA Muehl or his office.

Of course, this "appointement" will not stop me from continuing to expose John Muehl's misconduct.

And, of course, this "appointment" will not prevent me from continuing to report on the Anthony Pacherille story - as I promised, and, as part of it, on the lawsuit of Anthony Pacherille - father against John Muehl for misconduct and grave constitutional violations.

And you know what, my dear County Court judge who signed that interesting order of appointment of yet another corrupt local investigator and prosecutor to investigate and prosecute what is left of the burglary case into my home - if you cannot offer anybody better than Muehl and his disqualified office for a "special investigator", just hand me over the evidence collected at my house.  

I will hire a private investigator of my choice to do the job.

An honest one.

It is stand-up comedy - and it is free (to read)

I am following the "service" of the New York Commission for Legislative, Executive and Judicial pay raises.

I already wrote about disqualifications of the majority of the members of that Commission who staunchly refuse to disqualify themselves despite their obvious financial interests in the outcomes of their own decisions.

The Commission is going to live-stream a public hearing today at 11:00 am and posted a link that anybody can (allegedly) follow to watch the hearing online.

Here is the information and the link:

The sequence of invited witnesses suggests the following:

1) First, members of the Commission will hear praises to New York Judiciary from those who financially benefit from expressing such praises - attorneys and judges (see my post today about the main rule of the legal profession - "thou shalt brown-nose your judge").

2)  Then, members of the Commission will have lunch.

3) Then, members of the Commission will hear opponents of judicial pay raise, those pesky people who, year after year, raise the issue that the judiciary first needs to clean itself of the rampant corruption and only then it will be entitled to any pay raises - maybe.

We will see how Commissioner's digestive process works after lunch, whether all their blood will drain to their stomachs.

After all, all the most important issues they want to hear - the self-praising and the brown-nosing part - they will hear before lunch.

Yet, at least as a formality, an option to make written submissions is available.  So far the written submissions listed on the Commission's website as of today are not many.  

I am not persuaded that there were only three or four critical submissions against judicial pay raise in the whole New York, with a huge population of close to 20 million people by 2014 statistics.  Looks like the Commission may be hiding something - like NYS OCA is hiding affidavits submitted to the NYS Commission for Attorney Discipline that I asked for in a FOIL request.

After all, why would anybody be exposed to such uncivilized things as criticism of judicial corruption?

It is much more pleasant to hear one set of people interested in boons from another set of people to sing praises about one another - in order to justify putting their collective hands into your pockets, taxpayers of the State of New York.

And here is the announcement about written submissions that can be done to the Commission by e-mail before December 2, 2015.  

Don't miss the opportunity to address the pay raise of judges who - at least in New York - are not bound by the rule of law, but readily recall that they are "constitutional officers" when asking for a pay raise of their already inflated salaries.

And here is the kicker.

Judges submitted a report through the New York State Office of Court Administration, available on the Commission's website.

And in that report judges claim that the following principles must be applicable to the issue of pay raises for them:


I strongly recommend adding a "viewer discretion advised" to such pieces.

An unprepared person may suffer grave health consequences, after all.

Those same people who lack any of the four principles of 

  • fairness
  • objectivity
  • regularity, or 
  • institutional integrity
in their work and who recall that the word "Constitution" only when they claim they are "constitutional officers" entitled to a pay raise, and who at all other times claim that constitutional = frivolous and sanctionable, those same people ask to apply 

  • fairness,
  • objectivity,
  • regularity and
  • institutional integrity 
to their pay raise issue.

Well, if you, my dear dishonorables, undermined institutional integrity of New York government beyond the breaking point, how can you expect the corpse to walk for you and only for you?

I especially love that judges raised the issue of "regularity", that the way law applies should be predictable.

I am all for it.

But then - why are attorneys all over the country flocking to paid CLE seminars to learn "pet peeves" of judges?

Is it because of the "regularity", "objectivity and transparency", "fairness" and "institutional integrity", or maybe it is because, unless you know how to please a particular judge, you won't get anywhere in pursuance of your rights? 

Sunday, November 29, 2015

A new CLE course to be taught soon: "Praise Peebles' trumpet and other similar techniques"

As of November 13, 2015, my law license was allegedly suspended in New York.

I say "allegedly" because (1) I was never served with the order of suspension and because (2) the order of suspension posted online says I "should" be suspended, not that I am suspended.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court said that unconstitutional actions of the government are void, meaning they are a ZERO, a NOTHING, a NULLITY.

My order of suspension very clearly says that, as of November 13, 2015, the court at the same time found attorney disciplinary violations AND blamed me for not expressing remorse on a date prior to determination of liability.

That is called pre-judgment, which is unconstitutional, making the order of suspension, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v Madison some 112 year ago void and a nullity.

Nevertheless, despite the state order of suspension being a nullity, a federal court allegedly suspended my federal law license - without telling me - allegedly on November 18, 2015, even though my status was listed as "active" on the court's website until November 22, 2015 and only on November 23, 2015, through a "letter order" in another case, the court condescended to notifying me of the order of suspension allegedly made on November 18, 2015.

The suspension by NDNY court is peculiar.

TWICE I asked that same court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, for help based on constitutional violations that led to suspension of my law license.

In June of 2011 I sued Delaware County County, Family and Acting Supreme Court judge Carl Becker for misconduct IN and OUT of court.

After I sued him, Judge Becker immediately imposed sanctions upon me in three court cases.

Judge Becker's sanctions were imposed because, in his opinion, I harassed HIM by motions to recuse - which was grounds for disqualification, because a victim of alleged harassment may not preside, as a point of due process of law, over the case where the victim claims that harassment.

 A year before Becker imposed sanctions upon me in 2011, in 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit VACATED sanctions against an attorney for abuse of discretion - and those sanctions did not even involved statements about conduct of a public officials (which get additional 1st Amendment protection).

The 2nd Circuit has ruled that an attorney is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from facts the attorney is aware of to draw reasonable conclusions for purposes of his pleadings.

I did exactly that for motions to recuse.  I made all of my motions to recuse based on documentary evidence and inferences therefrom.  And, I was additionally protected by the 1st Amendment, because my statements were about misconduct of public officials:

  • Judge Carl Becker, since "retired";
  • then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney, since "retired";
  • District Attorney Richard Northrup, since elected to Judge Becker's seat, and
  • Vice-Chair of Commission of Judicial Conduct Stephen Coffey, who since was not re-appointed to the Commission after 16+ years of "service".
I can repeat under oath the contents of my pleadings, and the reasons for the inferences I made before a jury, and I am sure a reasonable jury will agree that there was nothing unreasonable in my inferences.

Moreover, it was my personal perception of impropriety, and an attorney may not be sanctioned for her personal perception.

Anyway, the timeline of participation of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in protection of my constitutional rights is as follows:

1/ September 2009 - I made a motion to recuse Becker from a child neglect case of my client because Becker represented the Petitioner and Petitioner's witnesses for 27 years.

2/ Later in September 2009 - my child is reviewed by local school's nurse and she makes a comment that my child has mosquito bites on him.  He did - he was fishing with family friends and their kids at our pond.  But I am not notified of the nurse's "mosquito" report.  

3/  A couple of days after the "mosquito report" and about 10 days after my motion to recuse, my husband and I are investigated by Becker's friend Commissioner Moon (since "retired") for child neglect. Later, Moon states under oath at a deposition that "had I opened that door" (and had I allowed search of our home law office) I wouldn't have been charged.

4/ October 2009.  A child neglect petition is filed against us by Moon.  Becker recuses.

Since Becker recused from our proceedings, Becker demonstrated his lack of impartiality and could not possibly sanction me.  Yet, he continued to preside over my other proceedings and recused only in 2012, after he imposed the sanctions that are now the basis of my no-hearing order of suspension.

5/ In early December of 2010 I file a complaint with the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct against Becker, describe in detail Becker's misconduct in 9 cases and request to take him off the bench.

6/  Instead, Becker is promoted to position of Acting Supreme Court justice in January of 2011 and assigns himself to all of my cases.

7/ Naturally, I make motions to recuse based on Becker's lack of impartiality against me that can reflect on my clients, and based on additional evidence in the record of Becker's misconduct and appearance of impropriety.  Appearances of impropriety is all that is required for an attorney to raise against a judge on a motion to recuse in New York.

Yet, attorneys are sanctioned, as I was, by the challenged judge no less, for not providing hard proof of misconduct, an invented elevated burden of proof.

8/ May 2011 - I request the New York State Attorney General to commence an ousting proceeding against Becker because his certificate of election for 2002 elections was never filed, and what was filed in 2011, is a forgery.

9/ June 27, 2011 - I file a lawsuit against Judge Becker on behalf of myself, my husband Frederick J. Neroni and my client Alecia Bracci (one of the sanctions imposed upon me was because of a motion to recuse I made PRO BONO in Ms. Bracci's case);  the lawsuit has been served upon Becker the same day by Barbara O'Sullivan, Alecia Bracci's mother.  "Coincidentally", both Alecia Bracci and Barbara O'Sullivan are now prosecuted on framed charges based on family court proceedings that are the basis of sanctions against me.

10/  July 1, 2011, August 2, 2011 and August 12, 2011 - Becker imposes sanctions upon me that are now the basis of the order of suspension of my law license without a hearing.

11/  On December 17, 2011 I file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Alecia Bracci, Frederick Neroni (my husband) and myself in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.  I will call it NDNY for brevity.

12/  Judge James Tormey is assigned to state lawsuit against Becker and dismisses the case after a public hearing and an ex parte  with the NYS Assistant Attorney General.

In January of 2012, Judge Tormey dismissed the state lawsuit against Becker on absolute judicial immunity grounds, even though the lawsuit covered Becker's administrative acts and out of court acts.

13/  Even though the sanctions (point 10 above) FOLLOWED the filing of the state lawsuit (point 9 above), and thus cannot be included into appellate review of dismissal of the state lawsuit, NDNY dismisses our federal lawsuit against Becker on absolute immunity grounds, WITHOUT LOOKING at the evidence;

14/  NDNY later imposes an anti-filing injunction upon my husband Frederick J. Neroni for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against Becker - that is the same Bracci v Becker.

15/  The appellate court dismissed appeal of one of the sanctions on a technicality and affirmed two other sanctions while ignoring large and material chunks of the record (a transcript where the then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney admits to an ex parte communication with Becker and a motion to compel disclosure of identity of plaintiff's expert whose position was contrary to plaintiffs and was showing that plaintiffs' lawsuit was frivolous in another case).

Appeals from sanctions were "vertical", pertaining to single-sanction-at-a-time, and did not involve the three sanctions and timing of the sanctions after I sued the judge, because of jurisdictional restrictions of the appellate court (or so they said).

16/  In January of 2013, because Becker's retaliatory sanctions were affirmed on appeal, a disciplinary petition is filed against me by the disciplinary committee of the Appellate Division 3rd Department where (1) supermajority of members - 18 out of 21 - are attorneys and my competitors, and many members of the committee have additional disqualification issues;

the petition contains Charge I Specification I charging me with neglect of clients at the time I was not admitted to practice law (which is fraud on behalf of prosecution, because they submitted under oath that they actually reviewed court records which would have readily alerted them that I was not admitted at the time they were charging me) and Charge IV that was dismissed even by the disciplinary court because it failed to allege a disciplinary violation.

I immediately forward to the disciplinary attorney Stephen Zayas (since "resigned" from the committee amid investigation into filing of false time sheets, employed by a prestigious law firm employing former judges, and then suddenly not employed there any more, but picked up by the State of New York again after I blogged about Zayas and his employment with the law firm employing former judges) - two sets of court records with a request to withdraw Charge I Specification I:

  • a transcript of the deposition that Zayas claims in the petition I failed to attend as an attorney on behalf of two clients or explain to the court why I failed to attend;
  • motion in that same case that I allegedly failed to oppose causing a default of those same two clients.
Dates on those two documents clearly show the year 2008, a year before I was admitted to the bar.

Thus, I was not an attorney in 2008, it was a crime for me to appear as an attorney on anybody's behalf in court or in depositions in 2008, and I could not be possibly charged for violation of attorney discipline for NOT committing a crime on two occasions.

I thought the incident will be resolved as soon as Zayas receives the documents, since they were obvious.

Zayas  instead continued to prosecute the case, fraud and all.

17/  In February of 2013 I removed the case to NDNY and filed an additional civil rights lawsuit.

18/  NDNY dismissed the civil rights lawsuit on Younger abstention grounds (meaning that the stat court is capable of handling federal constitutional issues) and remanded the disciplinary case for lack of jurisdiction because I alleged bias unrelated to racial discrimination (there is no such restriction in the removal statute I relied upon).

I would like to stress once again:

I asked THREE authorities in New York State to address Becker's misconduct:

  • NY State Commission of Judicial Conduct (2009, 2010, 2011- 2015) - where attorney Stephen Coffey was Vice-Chair while at the same time being part of litigation involving his own misconduct and coercing Becker to make improper bail release orders that plunged Delaware County into years of litigation (I actually won the money back for my client - after three appeals and a sanction, so that's why my license was taken because of a "client matter", because my representation of that particular client actually benefited that particular client);
  • NYS Attorney General (May of 2011), requesting him to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto (ousting) of Becker, because there was no competent documentary evidence of Becker's election in 2002;  instead, NYS AG represented Becker when I sued him;
  • Delaware County Supreme Court - where NYS AG represented Becker, and a judge was assigned who was also just sued for retaliation and was also represented by NYS AG.
After that, I asked NDNY to help against violation by the State of New York of my own and my clients' constitutional rights TWICE:

  1. through a lawsuit Bracci v Becker - dismissed on grounds of "absolute judicial immunity", meaning that the court said that, even if ALL that I was saying about Becker's misconduct was true, it DOES NOT MATTER, the lawsuit will have to be dismissed anyway, and the court will not LOOK at the evidence;
  2. through a removed disciplinary case - it was dismissed because, after all evidence that state authorities in New York WOULD NOT HEAR federal constitutional claims, NDNY stubbornly considered that I still can and should be plunged before the state government that does not want to hear about federal constitutional claims, especially about the government's own misconduct. Also, NDNY remanded because I was not RACIALLY discriminated by the state authorities (even though recently another attorney Leon Koziol has argued in a writ of mandamus against NDNY that NDNY itself discriminate against Mr. Koziol AND against me because of our Slavic origin).  So, had my skin been a different color than white, I would have had a chance at a removal of my disciplinary case, that is the inference that can be reasonably made from NDNY's remand.   

I will fast-forward what happened in state disciplinary court, I blogged a lot about it since the time of remand up to now.

I will only mention that, following the dismissal of my civil rights case on Younger abstention grounds by NDNY, I made motions in my disciplinary court raising federal constitutional issues, including due process and 1st Amendment not once, not twice, but three times.

Each time the motion was denied without an explanation, reasoning or legal grounds.

The first time it was "simply" denied without an explanation.

I moved to vacate, renew or reargue - and to provide a reasoned explanation and legal grounds, as was my due process right.  I was punished for that by an anti-filing injunction without court's permission - without a prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

I was then "allowed" to file yet another motion - when the referee refused to hold the court-ordered evidentiary hearing and instead illegally "decided the motion" for a summary judgment - together with the fraudulent charge that I neglected my clients in 2008, before I was admitted to the bar.

I did - and the November 13, 2015 decision to suspend me cites that, once again, my motions were denied, and once again without an explanation.

So much for the Younger abstention on the grounds that a state court is fully capable to resolved federal constitutional issues.  Denying a motion raising such issues without an explanation and punishing an attorney for raising those issues with a suspension is not a proper "resolution" of federal constitutional issues, and does not come close to the set of rights I am entitled to in a federal civil rights lawsuit that was dismissed under the Younger abstention.


I explored all avenues against a biased judge who recused from our case in 2009, but continued to assign himself to our other cases in order to be able to abuse his power and to retaliate against me and my clients for challenging his misconduct, using legal avenues.

(By the way, Becker sanctioned me TWICE for using public records in pleadings - in the "client matter" from Family Court which is used as one of the three sanctions in my order of suspension, for making FOIL requests seeking information about Judge Becker himself, and in another case where I used open court records to draw reasonable inferences - which the 2nd Circuit allowed and said it was not sanctionable as of 2010.)

After complaints and  motions to recuse did not help, and after I received information about Becker's out of court activities that were not subject to any kind of immunities, I sued the judge.

The judge retaliated with 3 sanctions.

I asked NDNY for protection pointing out that the timing, number and sequence of sanctions, and the basis of imposition of sanctions suggest retaliation in violation of my due process and 1st Amendment access to courts, for myself, my family members and my clients.

NDNY refused to help, tossing the case for the first time without looking at the evidence.

State appellate court similarly refused to look at the pattern of retaliation because of its restrictions to the record on appeal from a single case, which precluded the court from reviewing evidence between three cases forming  a pattern of retaliation.

I made three motions based on new evidence to vacate sanctions.

All of them were denied based on "collateral estoppel", which is only applicable when no new evidence is available.

A disciplinary action was brought against me exclusively on the basis of retaliatory sanctions.

I removed the case to NDNY and asked the court for the second time to help me against New York State's violation of my own and my clients' constitutional rights.

NDNY refused to help me, now for the second time, quoting that I did not assert racially-based retaliation.  Retaliation because I am Russian and an immigrant with an accent is not enough for "racially-based" retaliation and discrimination, I guess, not to mention that the statute of removal does not mention racially based discrimination as a condition precedent to grant the removal.

After NDNY refused to help me TWICE regarding KNOWN discrimination and KNOWN violation of my constitutional rights by the State of New York based on KNOWN retaliation of a state judge, 
NDNY now penalized me, a victim of judicial retaliation that NDNY refused to help, even more, by suspending my federal law license without a notice or hearing based on:

  • order of suspension of the state court without review of constitutional issues;
  • after dismissal by NDNY on Younger abstention grounds;
  • when order of suspension was exclusively based on Becker's retaliatory sanctions, and
  • when NDNY refused to address the pattern of retaliation by Becker when I sued back in December of 2011

And - the icing on the cake which I will address in detail in a separate blog is the identity of the attorney disciplinary committee appointed by NDNY, whom I will have to serve and who will be opponents to my requests to vacate the order of suspension in federal court.  It is as if NDNY hand-picked those same people who acted against me in state proceedings (and recused) and whom I sued in NDNY for due process and antitrust violations,  to finish me in the federal proceedings.

So, the pattern of how state authorities (all sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution) treated me as a critic of unconstitutional conduct of public officials is like that:

  1. ignore her complaints;
  2. if it does not help - intimidate her and harass her family and her child with a child neglect proceeding;
  3. if it does not help - intimidate and humiliate her with assigning a once-recused biased judge to the case and allowing him to unleash verbal tongue-lashing on her as if she is a second-grader;
  4. if it does not help - sanction her for making motions to recuse and for suing the judge;
  5. if you are a federal judge and she requests the help she is entitled to - refuse her any protection against constitutional violations by New York State pursuant to an act of the U.S. Congress, the Civil Rights Act, and the removal statute;  
  6. if it does not help and she goes public with exposure of judicial misconduct in both state and federal court system;
  7. suspend her state law license - just when she filed a motion to vacate in federal court based on misconduct of top court officials in the State of New York and was about to file a motion for sanctions against those same top court officials and the NYS Attorney General;
  8. suspend her federal law license without a hearing - in full knowledge, based on TWO federal cases that NDNY refused to hear, that what is being done to me in disciplinary "court" was unconstitutional.
And, after all that, (by the way, listen to the excellent musical piece at the end of my previous description of the pattern of how to eliminate a big-mouth civil rights attorney here), hope that she is tarred-and-feathered enough to be discredited and to crawl someplace licking her wounds - and that she will finally SHUT UP.

Did I mention tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions against her for doing her job for her clients, the job that other attorneys refused to do?

And, blast her for refusing to "admit misconduct", repent the error of her ways (even though a court is not a religious institution, or so they say), "express remorse" or ask for leniency and mercy from the criminal cartel that is operating attorney disciplinary system.

Really, I did commit the worst of attorney disciplinary offenses.

After all, I criticized NDNY magistrate David Peebles for too-cozy a relationship with rich and powerful legal-elite firms, for corruption in how he is trying to get re-appointed for his lucrative and highly paying (at taxpayers'  expense) position and for keeping attorneys who practice in front of him as a captive audience with his trumpet performances.

That is the main offense I committed:  I did not brown-nose the judiciary.  How did I live up to my gray hair and having raised three children, two of them adults, without knowing that simple truth?

Thou shalt brown-nose your judge!

In view of the above, I am planning to teach a CLE course, and I reasonably predict it will be wildly popular and financially lucrative.

It will be tentatively called: "How to Praise Peebles' trumpet - and other similar techniques".

That is the beginning and the end of what a lawyer in this country needs to know about the law and its application.

I will announce when the CLE course will be posted later on.  I might even combine it with a cooking show.

Stay tuned.