"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.

Saturday, January 2, 2016

The former Delaware County DSS Commissioner plays dumb

I continue to publish information obtained from New York State Comptroller's office about the 30-year practice of no-bid contracts by Delaware County (NY).

In this blog I am publishing the interview with former Commissioner of Delaware County Department of Social Services, friend of judge Carl Becker who hastily retired, before expiration of his much-coveted term as a County Judge on the eve of publication of the audit of Delaware County and of Commissioner Moon.

Moon was recently caught in two acts of self-dealing:

1) in having his wife (with a different last name) to engage in "insider trading", buying up properties foreclosed upon by the county;  and

2) in acting as an "executor" of a coerced will from an elderly person, the will Moon petitioned the Delaware County Surrogate's Court to probate, while the decedent's daughter contested the petition and spearheaded an investigation and ultimately a prosecution of a social worker who participated in obtaining the will - but not investigation and prosecution of Moon.

Yet, instead of being fired and investigated and prosecuted for fraud, as his employee involved in the same will-scheme as prosecuted, Moon was allowed to quietly retire - and was already hired as a Deputy Commissioner of Social Services in Sullivan County, vowing for "change" in Sullivan County - God help it.

Here is the interview of the NYS Comptroller's office with Moon in 2014, the year when the audit was conducted and when, at the end of the year, Moon "retired".


First, Moon immediately called the audit a "McCarthy audit", after Bob McCarthy, the former Sidney Town Supervisor who for some time has been raising raised of improprieties in how Delaware County and, specifically, its Department of Social Services, conducts its contracts, as well as about Delaware County practices to employ relatives of Supervisors in situations fraught with conflicts of interest, generally involving employment of relatives without probationary period of 6 to 9 months that usual new staffers go through.

McCarthy was also fighting for a long time Delaware County DSS' lack of accountability and acting like a "feudal barony".

One of the major "contractor" of Delaware County DSS is Delaware Opportunity Inc., where many supervisors are on board of directors.

I will dedicate a separate blog to why Delaware County DSS needs so much in daycare services, why it farms it to Delaware Opportunities, Inc. and how it squashes and destroys anybody who questions propriety of its inside dealings.  I have public documents from two lawsuits shedding light on these practices.

Moon claimed that no RFP (request for proposal) and public bidding exists for DSS contracts because there is not enough vendors in the area.

Of course, the way to verify it is to post RFPs on the Delaware County's website, which will cost nothing extra, but Moon and other supervisors played dumb pretending that there are no vendors willing to work on public contracts in Delaware County - simply because no vendors outside of Delaware County are made aware of availability of such contracts.

Moon also played dumb pretending that, even though there is no policy of disclosure of conflicts of interest by members Board of Supervisors, there is no potential for conflicts of interest because all members of the Board of Supervisors are "either retired or small business owners".

Of course, such a claim was, very obviously, BS (and I do not mean Bachelor of Science), because being on the Board of Supervisors was regarded in Delaware County as an "especially plum job", where members of the Board were in command of distribution of tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded jobs to their relatives and friends, as well as of million dollars-worth of contracts through no-bid process.

And - of course - no-one was aware of any fraud, abuse or misconduct.  Of course, and the way to maintain this innocence is by not filing conflict-of-interest statements and financial disclosures.  And to bad-mouth objectors - as Bob McCarthy was badmouthed by Moon, and as Marjorie Miller was bad-mouthed by the Board Clerk.





No comments:

Post a Comment