The indictment was brought secretly, in violation of applicable law, and after the now-Acting DA Hubbard learnt through the felony hearing that the charges were unsustainable.
I have written about the circumstances preceding that occurrence when Derek Bowie assaulted Barbara O'Sullivan 2 weeks prior with a police vehicle and smashed a tablet in her hands with which she was videotaping his misconduct. When he read on this blog that the tablet and the recording on it still survived, he needed to get Barbara, Alecia and Alecia's dogs out of the house to get to the tablet. So he fabricated criminal charges of resisting arrest against Barbara and Alecia, and went to their property, at night, with the help of two other officers, Tahir Haqq and Eric Alexander.
I handled a felony hearing for Barbara on September 22, 2014.
I want to show that the charges against Barbara should have been dismissed as of September 22, 2014 by Gumo and should have never been brought into the grand jury by DA Northrup, employer of the alleged victim's uncle (please, also note that Northrup put the case through the grand jury without notifying Barbara or myself, as her counsel at the Delhi Town court level, which is a violation of Criminal Procedure law - Barbara made a motion to dismiss the indictment later, but Judge Lambert unlawfully denied the motion, saving the illegal indictment).
My opponent was John Hubbard, now the Acting District Attorney of Delaware County.
Here is what was established at that hearing:
1) Derek Bowie (who had a grudge against Barbara, was a suspect in an attempted murder/vehicular assault against Barbara 2 weeks prior and who should have been pulled from any investigations or arrests of Barbara) was the only witness of the alleged bite.
I will run a separate blog showing how Derek Bowie was trying to defraud the Workers' Compensation board about that alleged bite, and how the then DA and now-judge Richard Northrup was helping him do it, and create false evidence for trial (and, possibly, the grand jury) to make the case stick.
2) Officer Tahir Haqq did not see the dog bite Bowie because it was dark and because everything was "in a blur";
3) Officer Alexander did not see the dog bite Bowie either, because he was behind the house when the dog got out and did not see the door.
4) Officer Alexander saw Barbara secure the dogs, at the request of officers, into cages, before she went out to open the door. Officer Alexander did not exclude the possibility that a dog was first secured into his cage and then escaped.
5) Both officer Bowie and officer Haqq who saw how the dog came out of the door, describe it as "going around" Barbara, "pushing around" her or even "blowing around" her.
6) It was established on record that the dog did not belong to Barbara.
7) It was established on record that Barbara daughter Alecia, the owner of the dog, was not at home when the officers came.
9) It was well known in the area that Barbara, a lifetime resident of Delhi, a small town where everybody knows everybody, is a disabled corrections officer with a broken wrist, so for three male officers to expect her to control an escaped dog, not her own, was somewhat unreasonable - and did not establish her intent to release the dog beyond the reasonable doubt, or by any standard at all.
10) It was established on record that Barbara did secure the dogs and that it was possible that one of the dogs simply escaped and went around her when she opened the door.
On this record, no criminal prosecution was possible. It was not possible to prove intent on this record even by preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond the reasonable doubt, as a criminal case required.
Prosecutors Northrup and Hubbard, if they want to feign neutrality and good faith - it was all in there, in the felony hearing transcript of September 22, 2014, it was clear that a criminal case against Barbara was unsustainable.
John Hubbard, the current Acting DA, was there. He heard that testimony. He knew the case sucked, even without any other legal issues, and that he cannot prove it at trial.
The only reason to put that case, secretly as they did it, through the grand jury, was to harass Barbara and cause her stress.
After all, it is highly unusual that a prosecutor offers a no-jail-time and no-probation plea offer, only to make the case not go to trial - that's what John Hubbard several days ago.
John Hubbard also intimidated Barbara by threatening to depose her as to contents of MY blog, an act of pure stupidity since Barbara does not direct what I say on my blog, I am not sure she even reads my blog and knows its contents, and whatever is in my blog is pure hearsay as far as Barbara is concerned, and thus inadmissible at trial.
So, Northrup and Hubbard relied on their "star witness" Derek Bowie against Barbara O'Sullivan, Derek Bowie's victim.
Hubbard was a law partner of Judge Becker whom Barbara sued.
Hubbard told Barbara in 2010 that she shouldn't have hired me for Alecia's custody case and that whatever Becker does is correct - as an explanation as to why he let go the criminal case of death threat against Barbara O'Sullivan and deceived Barbara O'Sullivan as to the time of the proceedings, so that she would not be able to come and protest in open court.
Hubbard knew - for a million reasons in this case - that the case should not have been filed and should have been dismissed long ago on legal insufficiency, jurisdictional deficiency, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct grounds, because of
- reasons explained in my motion to dismiss that I served upon him before the felony hearing started on September 22, 2014 and that Gumo dismissed without reading;
- reasons that Barbara explained in her pro se motion to dismiss for failure to notify her of the grand jury proceedings and her pro se omnibus motion filed and denied by Judge Lambert, until he realized, with the trial pending within days, that another reversal on appeal on the law, right after the embarrassing reversal on the law in Norman Michaels' case, will be too much for his judicial career;
- in her writ of prohibition filed with the Appellate Division 3rd Department and ignored by that court; as well as reasons that transpired from the felony hearing that I describe here, and reasons.
- when it is not clear whether there was a bite, a bruise, or nothing,
- where the only witness is severely compromised by a self-interest to lie and is a suspect in an attempted murder on the alleged criminal defendant, so the alleged victim rather sought to be the first at the door of the courthouse with the criminal charges against the victims of his misconduct to discredit them if they would sue him:
- where the intent to release the dog could not be established on record even by preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond the reasonable doubt, as required in criminal proceedings;
- and where the alleged victim's injury was, as the O'Connor Hospital diagnosed, a BRUISE, which is insufficient to bring the D felony charges, even if all other issues did not exist:
It is exceedingly clear that they do not deserve ANY trust whatsoever in how they handle criminal cases.