"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.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

New York Attorneys Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards - selling out their clients to get assigned again

Here is registration information for two New York attorneys, Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards.

Registration information as to both of them show "no record of public discipline".

Both of these attorneys are actively assigned to cases of indigent clients and as attorneys for children in Family Court cases in New York.

Here are assignments of Sarah Cowen available for review today on New York e-courts.

A very assignable attorney.

Sarah Cowen is being assigned in:

1)  all types of main Family Court cases:

       child neglect (NN), custody (V), Family offense (O), 

2)  as assigned counsel for parties and as attorney for the child;

3) in three counties - Delaware, Otsego, Chenango;

4) by four judges: Brian Burns and John Lambert (Otsego, also presiding in Delaware),  Frank Revoir and Kevin Dowd (Chenango, also presiding in Delaware and Otsego).

Each one of the above mentioned assignments brings Sarah Cowen $75/ hour of representation, in and out of court.

That is the kind of money in the shrinking market of paid legal services that an attorney cannot pass up.  It appears that, in Sarah Cowen's case (a young attorney admitted only 4 years ago), Sarah Cowen would rather sell her client out than do her duty, only not to jeopardize her future assignments.

I described in the previous post what Judge Connerton did in an ex parte conference of October 2, 2014.  I was in the courthouse on that day, waiting until I will be called to a joint conference.

Sarah Cowen was in that conference, as attorney for the child.

This is a portion of the order of Judge Connerton made afterward, on January 9, 2015.  Look how Judge Connerton describes a motion pending before the court on the day of the October 2, 2014 conference.

The motion, made on behalf of the mother and on my own behalf (addressing Judge Becker's illegal sanctions against me) seeks to vacate ALL orders of CUSTODY made by Judge Becker based on NEW EVIDENCE of Becker's misconduct and disqualification from the very beginning of custody proceedings.

Here is a portion of the transcript of the conference where I was not present and was not allowed to be present, with the exchange between Judge Connerton and attorney for the child Sarah Cowen on the subject of the SAME motions made BY THE  MOTHER - who is present with her new counsel Rosemarie Richards (I will provide assignments of Rosemarie Richards at the end of this blog below).

Note that somehow I am mentioned as an attorney of record instead of Rosemarie Richards, even though in a later letter of October 16, 2014 Judge Connerton recognized that I withdrew from the case as of September 2, 2014.

Once again, this is what Judge Connerton says about the same motion on October 2, 2014 - and Sarah Cowen, attorney for the child who expressed to Sarah Cowen a wish to stay with the MOTHER, says "yup" - even though she knows (or should have known, if she would actually have read the motion, as she was supposed to, as attorney for the child) that what Judge Connerton says is not correct, that a motion to vacate made BY THE MOTHER is also pending.

By her short "yup", Sarah Cowen waived her client's (the child's) right to be returned to the mother since Sarah Cowen did not bring to the court's attention that the motion to vacate pending was BY THE MOTHER - and Sarah Cowen had an opportunity to actually JOIN that motion, because she already ADDRESSED Judge Revoir at the previous hearing and already EXPRESSED her client's wish to stay with the mother, and there already EXISTS in the record an affidavit of Alecia Bracci about abuse of the child in the father's household which Sarah Cowen was served with.

Yet, Sarah Cowen says "yup", not to ruffle Judge Connerton's feathers and to secure future $75/hr assignments by other judges and by Judge Connerton for herself.

That is called "selling her client out" by Sarah Cowen - attorney-champion for the poor in three rural counties in upstate New York.

Now, wait a minute!  But, Alecia Bracci's new assigned counsel Rosemarie Richards is present at the proceeding.

Did she say anything to Judge Connerton?  Did she inform Judge Connerton of what Judge Connerton later acknowledged in her January 9, 2015 order?

That the MOTHER's motion to vacate ALL orders of custody remains pending?

Here is the real chance to have custody returned to Rosemarie Richard's client.

So what does this champion for the poor does?

Here is Rosemarie Richard's reaction to Judge Connerton's incorrect claim that the only outstanding motion is concerning me only and not Alecia Bracci:

Rosemarie Richards, attorney for the mother says that SHE DID NOT SEE the motion that the judge discusses.  Well, she was supposed to, to be ready for the conference.

Sarah Cowen bleats something incoherent and does not pursue the subject any further.

Rosemarie Richards did not say at the beginning of the conference she is not ready to proceed because she did not have the opportunity to review the pending motions and verify her client's position in litigation (the motion was supported by affidavit of Alecia Bracci, affidavit of her mother Barbara O'Sullivan and adjudications from other courts and from an administrative court revealing Judge Becker's misconduct and his role as a witness and fabricator of evidence against Alecia Bracci's mother for his own private financial reasons as an attorney for Alecia Bracci's aunt, evidence that was not discoverable and was discovered by a freak accident in 2012, long after Becker made his decisions in Alecia Bracci's custody case).   

Rosemarie Richards simply said that she did not read the motion the judge was discussing, and did not proceed asking for more time to actually read that motion in order to ascertain her own and her client's position regarding the motion.

Rosemarie Richards simply agreed with whatever the judge said. 

After all, the judge assigned Rosemarie Richards to the case, which will pay Rosemarie Richards $75/hr for doing nothing and for selling her client out.

Next, Judge Connerton decides to express her opinion about MY motion, in my absence and behind my back.

Does Sarah Cowen, an attorney with a duty to report judicial misconduct, make an objection to this obvious ex parte statement about a motion made by a person who was not allowed to be present at the conference?

Oh, no.

Sarah Cowen says "okay".  Sarah Cowen agrees that my motion containing constitutional arguments that could help Sarah Cowen's OWN CLIENT gave the honorable Rita Connerton a headache, and that the motion should be "dealt with" "on a different day". 

So, on October 2, 2014, and thereafter in the same proceedings, attorney Sarah Cowen committed an act of attorney misconduct an gross neglect of a client, a child, that resulted in dire consequences for her client, for the child - the father yanked the child to North Carolina and refused to allow her to see the mother or even talk to her on the phone for over a year (and was, thankfully, adjudicated, according to a witness, in civil contempt of court by a North Carolina Court on October 23, 2015, a year down the road).

The poor child did not have to be separated from the mother for over a year had her attorney Sarah Cowen done her job.  And, there was already an identical factual finding - without a contempt of court, in Pennsylvania in 2012, with a change of custody that the father later reversed by fraudulently serving appellate papers on the wrong person and not on the mother, and Sarah Cowen knew about that adjudication, it was part of the motion.

Did attorneys Sarah Cowen or attorney Rosemarie Richards, who knew about ex parte communication of Judge Connerton, about the disdainful remarks of the judge about an attorney's motion in attorney's absence, did they tell me about it?  

Of course, not, even though it would be their duties as counsel to prevent obstruction of administration of justice, in accordance with an attorney disciplinary rule.

Ok, that ex parte conference where Judge Connerton complained of a headache from the prospect of having to read my constitutional arguments, and complained about that headache in my absence, was on October 2, 2014.

Alecia Bracci told me later on about the headache of Judge Connerton.

I addressed that headache in a letter to the court requesting Judge Connerton to step down.

Here is what Judge Connerton answers to that letter on October 16, 2014.

First of all, Judge Connerton tells me, on October 16, 2014, that I was allegedly "misinformed".   

By the way, on September 18, 2014,  the person who allegedly "misinformed" me (Alecia Bracci), and who actually told me the truth, see the portion of the transcript above about Judge Connerton's headache, was "coincidentally" criminally charged by corrupt Delaware County officials for allegedly resisting arrest issued by Judge Revoir as a Family Court judge, after he claimed he had NO JURISDICTION in the case, and after he claimed that making constitutional arguments is the same to him as "lying to the court".  Judge Connerton was surely aware of that when she was claiming that Alecia Bracci "misinformed" me about her misconduct.

Once again, that is what Judge Revoir thinks about raising constitutional arguments in Family Court:

"We're not in Supreme Court arguing about some legal concept, where lawyers get to argue things in the alternative.  ...  In Family Court we call that lying".

So, if this is not a court where you can raise legal arguments, what kind of court is it?  Redneck court?  Where everything is decided the way a judge's left foot wants?

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to discipline Judge Revoir for his behavior in Alecia Bracci's case and for making this statement, and Judge Revoir continues to handle Family Court cases - and, as assignments of Sarah Cowen show, Sarah Cowen gets continued assignments from Judge Revoir since she did not "lie to the court" advancing constitutional arguments on behalf of her client.  Good girl.

Now, let's go on with Judge Connerton's letter of October 16, 2014.

Judge Connerton recognizes that I withdrew from the case on September 2, 2014 (immediately after I left the case, Judge Revoir first issued an illegal arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci, and then recused from the case).

Then Judge Connerton says the following:

"Upon review of the record, it appears that the only references made to that motion were to explain that 1) it was scheduled to be heard on October 2, 2014; and 2) to explain that it was not dismissed, but would be scheduled separately".

By this paragraph, Judge Connerton affirmatively denies that she said anything about headaches from reading or thinking about reading my motion, which is what I stated to her in my letter.

And that is, according to the transcript that I was not allowed to obtain myself because I was not a party to that proceeding, A LIE.

Why didn't the court personnel who knew about this lie, inform me?

Well, the current state of economy is tough, they are paid well, with benefits, why would they jeopadize their position by telling the victim of judicial misconduct the truth about judicial misconduct?  To be booted? Nah.

Not only court clerks did not tell me of this lie by Judge Connerton that helped preserve Judge Becker's unlawful sanctions against me and orders against the mother, the court clerks later made financial contributions to the friend of Judge Becker Porter Kirkwood (he was not elected), Delaware County Attorney who lied to me that there is no file in Delaware County Department of Social Services regarding Alecia Bracci.

The motion papers showed that there was such a file, and we discovered that only in 2012, accidentally, through Orange County Department of Social Services, and in that file - lo and behold - we discovered an indicated report about Alecia Bracci's mother that was not supposed to be there, so it was a lucky accident we even saw it (both reports, of Alecia Bracci and of Barbara O'Sullivan are vacated now).

The report against Barbara O'Sullivan was created in 2001, when Judge Becker was attorney for social services department that created the report.

The report was secret, it was false, it was supposed to be created against Alecia Bracci's aunt, but that aunt "coincidentally" was a paying client of attorney Carl Becker before he became a judge, and Attorney Carl Becker had his other client social services fabricate a report against another person to keep his paying client's record clean for purposes of intended future lucrative adoption proceeding.

Because Judge Becker was a creator of fabricated material evidence in the case, he was absolutely disqualified from presiding over the case as a judge.  

So, after Judge Connerton lied to me that she did not discuss my motion ex parte beyond scheduling issues, Judge Connerton does the following:

1) she denies my request for an oral argument on my motion to vacate sanctions;

2) she relies upon a record in front of a recused judge, Judge Revoir who thinks constitutional arguments is the equivalent of lying to the court, while the record before a recused judge does not exist as a matter of law;

3) she denies my motion to recuse that I filed on October 18, 2014 (and on that same day Alecia Bracci who provided to me information for the motion is arrested by Delaware County, her  mother is arrested, their dog is tasered and nearly killed and taken out of the house with a taser still sticking out of the poor animal's nose that remained there for the next two days; mother, daughter and dog are removed from home and the home is illegally searched by Delaware County); and

4) Connerton denies my motion to vacate based on new evidence and raising multiple constitutional issues, that same 500-page motion with multiple exhibits - denies it in one paragraph, two whole lines total.

Here is how Judge Connerton describes the same motion on October 2, 2014 (in my absence):

and in her January 9, 2015 decision:

And this is how Judge Connerton resolves that "500-page motion", with a "lengthy affidavit" and "numerous exhibits":

Two lines, at the end of a decision on several pages, stating "there is no basis is /sic/ law or in fact to grant the relief requested".

This paragraph shows that Judge Connerton's headache prevented her from reading the motion, and she resorted to the easy solution of not giving the reasons, but claiming that "relief requested" is not supported in fact or law.

How it is not supported, she does not say.

Why it is not supported, on each of raised constitutional issues, and as to each of documentary exhibits AND adjudications from other courts, she also does not say.

A very convenient approach.

AND, the WHOLE order denying relief and denying motion to recuse, as we know now, was based on a lie.

So, did attorneys Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards who were served with this court order speak out for their clients?  Did they file appeals on behalf of their clients? Of course, not.  I know because I would have to be served with such appeals, and I wasn't.

Both Cowen and Richards would have been paid, up to $4,700 for those appeals.  They were afraid to do their duty by their clients.

They were afraid to expose the judge's lie that was burying their colleague, unfairly burying, and they knew it.

Both Cowen and Richards took an oath to support the U.S. and the State Constitutions.  

They betrayed their oath of office.

They betrayed their clients and committed acts of malpractice in order to keep themselves in judical favors and get assigned again.

They betrayed their duty of candor to the tribunal and to the parties and colleagues, including me.

They did that to be able to stay on the payroll of assigned cases.

Those unfortunate people to whom these attorneys are assigned - beware.  

There is a potential that you will be sold, too, in all of Sarah Cowen's assigned cases listed above, as well as past and future cases, and in all of Rosemarie Richards' cases listed below, and in all past and future cases.

These two attorneys know how to keep their law license: they do not lie to the court in Judge Revoir's understanding (in other words, they will not fight for you and will not make constitutional arguments on your behalf), and they will bleat something incoherent like "I did not read it yet", "okay" or "yup" where such constitutional arguments must be made.

And you can kiss your constitutional rights, your parental rights, and, in child neglect cases, possibly, your employment rights, goodbye.

Yet, they will continue to get assigned and paid for doing nothing, for saying nothing and for selling their clients out outright.

Because that is better for judges than actually doing their jobs - if their jobs involve exposure of judicial misconduct.

Here are assignments of Rosemarie Richards as of today.

Remember, for Richards and Cowen, $75/hr and the right to receive that money for doing nothing on your behalf is more important than anything else.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.