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.


Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Comments to Barbara O'Sullivan's burnt house story - the smear tactics by a firefighter's wife and a firefighter's girlfriend tell me this story is on the right track

Overnight I've learnt that the firefighter's wife who initially reported to me that her husband made statements to her about what allegedly happened at the fire site - while the case is still under investigation - recanted and is now claiming that she was making statements to me in comments and on Messenger only based on her "independent thinking", not on her husband's reports to her, as she initially said.

That's why I accepted her message on Messenger (a procedure for messages from people who are not the addressee's Facebook friends).  It was a goldmine of information.

Appears that her husband or his superior worked with Mrs.  Sharon Reichert-Morgan overnight and showed her the error of her ways.

Not quite though, since she has sent me a half-naked picture of herself, looking suggestively, with a request to publish it.

Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan also disclosed to me that she has 3 additional jobs to the County job for the total of 5 (Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan's math, not mine) - which is a good material for a FOIL request to the County for time sheets.

I've also learnt that Mrs. Sharon Reichert-Morgan has a problem with either grammar or truth or her husband.

She claimed that she has to work (present tense) those multiple jobs, because she was (past tense) raising her two children alone, and now she is raising also her stepson.

Mrs. Reichert-Morgan is suggesting, I understand, that despite her marriage, she is the main breadwinner in the family providing for her children.

Which does not mesh very well with Mrs. Reichert-Morgan's statements that she is waiting at home with children for the return of her husband VOLUNTEER firefighter.

Either Mrs. Reichert-Morgan's "additional 3 jobs for a total of 5" are all from home, or her "independent thinking" is fuzzy not only on math.

And, if Mrs. Reichert-Morgan has to work 5 jobs to keep the family afloat, what is her husband doing volunteering instead of working to earn a living so that his wife does not have to work 5 jobs?

Doesn't he have a construction company to run (that's what my sources say)?  

So, doesn't he have an incentive to let a certain house burn - so, maybe, he would get a contract to re-build it?

A volunteer firefighter owning a construction company with financial problems in the family.  Nice.

And, according to at least one source, Josh Morgan the firefighter has been seen driving around without the tech inspection sticker required in New York to drive a vehicle.

I guess, Josh Morgan is allowed to do that because of his status as a "volunteer firefighter", and his wife's status as the employee of the local department of social services.  

That's why he volunteers - to get the special status that allows him to break the law?

There were some other comments, attempting to defame the victims of the house fire, diagnose me as crazy, silly, nuts, etc., and suggesting that I need to go re-learn the law.

A lot of comments were made by a Colleen Church who admitted she was not at the site of the house fire, but allegedly listened to the scanner left at home because her boyfriend is a firefighter.

Here is that last comment with a disclosure about a firefighter boyfriend, scanner and more rumors about the victims' entire large family now ("how the Bracci's operate" - the victim has 7 brothers and sisters, with a lot of nephews, many living in the area, as far as I know, now they are all being bad and smeared by Colleen Church).


My two answers to that comment:




The today's latest statement of Colleen Church posted above (see all comments to that blog here) was interesting from several points:

1) Colleen Church admitted she was not an eyewitness to the house fire or the efforts (or lack thereof) of the Delhi Fire Department to extinguish that fire, and her reports are pure hearsay;

2) Colleen Church most likely lies about listening to the scanner, because, if the scanner is her nameless firefighter boyfriend's scanner, and it was at home, that means her boyfriend was at home, too, and that means that he did not participate in extinguishing that fire - which also says a lot?  Why not?  Why didn't he go there?  And, if he didn't go there, he, most likely didn't listen to the scanner, and neither did Colleen Church, because she had no interest listening to the scanner in the middle of the night while her firefighter boyfriend was not going to the scene;

3) Colleen Church goes out on a limb now smearing not just Barbara and not just her daughter, and not just me and my husband who has nothing to do with the house fire or my reporting of the house fire, but she now attempts to smear the entire Bracci family - a very large clan of siblings and their offspring, many of them residing in the area, many of them occupying prominent positions in the local government (for example, Barbara's brother Peter Bracci was a recent Town Supervisor of the Town of Delhi and a supervisor of the Social Services in the entire Delaware County) and/or businesses.

4) Colleen Church loses her argument because she says she is not going to post any more - but pretends to be brave at losing her argument and throws a challenge at me "to confront her in public, face to face".  I do not know what Colleen Church is expecting from confronting her "face to face", and she knows I am far away and will not come 800+ miles to "confront her in public" - how - by fistfights?  

As to public DEBATES, if that is what Colleen Church meant, I invited people to such public, videotaped and live-streamed debates yesterday, before her "brave" parting challenge of today.  

Which brings me to another question - can Colleen Church read?



Colleen Church is also an author of this message on Google+ made yesterday:


Of course, as the author of this blog, I reserve the right to comment on messages voluntarily sent to me the way I see fit.

As to the claims I am crazy, that's not the first time such claims are made.

I am proud to disclose that at my very first appearance in court (that was a criminal court, and I was arguing an Omnibus motion) when I raised the issue of obvious police and prosecutorial misconduct revealed in the record, the local DA (it was close to the Canadian border) popped up, all red, and claimed that "she (I) is as crazy as her husband".  

That was my very first court appearance, and I perceived that spit-out as a badge of honor, where my performance was equated with that of a pre-eminent and skillful trial criminal defense lawyer whose trials gathered local attorneys as master classes.

My husband later won an acquittal in that case on the main count of the indictment, leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

And the crazy person, me, then won freedom for her client in the same case by my argument at sentencing on the remaining count of lying to the grand jury, where that particular DA argued for jail time in front of a crowd of TV and mainstream journalists in a highly publicized case.

I guess, all individuals who have ever done criminal defense, civil rights litigation - and especially divorces (Sharon Riechert-Morgan was especially bitter as to my husband doing some divorce cases in the future suggesting some personal animosity against my husband driving her, too) - are crazy and must check their heads out.

I also got comments - you can see them all on Google+ and blog articles relating to the house fire story - that I am "dumb", "silly", "crazy", "nuts".  Just to amplify the suggestion that I need to be diagnosed.

Having been born and raised in the Soviet Union, I am not at all surprised by this tactic - if you are criticizing actions of the government, you must absolutely be crazy.

Apparently, the tactic is alive and well on the American soil.

Now Colleen Church, as a mental health expert and a law expert advises me to (1) go get my "head checked" and (2) go relearn the law.

My diligent research of appropriate databases failed to reveal any public information indicating that Colleen Church is either a licensed mental health provider, or a lawyer.  

It is just a gratuitous spit-out of a firefighter's girlfriend. 

Moreover, what does my reporting of a house fire have to do with the law, and why I need to re-learn it because I reported a story about a house fire, I do not know, but I assure both my kind and unkind readers that I am re-learning the law every day - as any legal scholar should.

To sum up my overnight crop of comments, I am satisfied with the results.

The posted comments show that the blog is being read by the Delhi Fire Department employees (as well as their family members), and that DFD is now backtracking and trying to keep the runaway mouths of Sharon Reichert-Morgan and Colleen Church (which hurts their chances to backdate and fabricate incident reports) in check, at least in regards to facts about the fire that neither one of these women witnessed.  

It is already too late, since both women let out valuable information that cannot be taken back.  

The comments also show the caliber of individuals working for the local government at the town and County level in Delhi, New York, and Delaware County, New York.  

What is quite illustrative is that:


  • comments about a suspicious house fire and misconduct of public officials involved in extinguishing, investigating and reporting that house fire are not from eyewitnesses;  



  • if comments are from alleged eyewitnesses, those eyewitnesses do not dare to post under their own names and instead assume nicknames, like "Archer", or "LifeSaver", with profiles created that same day for the purpose of posting the comments, 



  • a commentator claiming she's got her information from her firefighter husband and then, in the middle of the night, recants and claims she is now an "independent thinker" (that would be news to many attorneys in the area - an employee of the Delaware County Social Services Department, an independent thinker), and that's how she learnt (by clairvoyance, I guess) about what has allegedly happened at the fire site she's never been to, and sends me her half-naked picture to support her idea of "independent thinking", and 



  • the comments are nothing more than a smear campaign as to the eyewitnesses, victims, victims' entire extended families, the reporter of the events and even the reporter's husband (a material difference here, because my husband did not extinguish the house fire in question and has nothing to do with this story, while the commentator's husband was on that site, according to her own admission) - that says a lot about the caliber of commentators.


It also says that I am on the right track in reporting this story.

Intimidation and smear campaigns are a sure sign that the story is true, and that there is more people are hiding and are trying hard to prevent from being discovered.

So, stay tuned for more coverage of the house fire and its non-investigation and non-reporting.





8 comments:

  1. OK you stupid mail order bride bitch, gloves are off. I have a scanner in my house a d I do listen to calls. I also stated that my boyfriend has not been a part of the DFD for some time and was not involved in any way. He did not leave his pager home because he takes it with him to work and he was working the night of the fire. I also stated that he is a member of the FD in the town that we now live in and that FD was not dispatched to help with the fire. Like any educated AMERICAN citizen, I can read. I have not been hushed by the DFD and I will not be. They have no say over what I say and/or do. I also have not let out any "valuable" information about anything. I am standing up for a very dedicated group of people that I USED TO fight fires with. You are the one who is promoting a smear campaign against firefighters you do not know,a job that you do not now or ever will understand and a fire scene that you know nothing about except what your alleged friend, Barbara O'Sullivan,chooses to tell you. I have not bashed Mr. Pete Bracci or anyone else in the Bracci family except your alleged friends. What right do you have to "investigate" anything in Delaware County? You live in South Carolina. Keep your crap down there and keep your nose out of business here. You have no license to practice law here and as far as I can see you are not a journalist in NY or for anything that happens in NY, nor do you work for any magazine or newspaper in NY. And to prove that nobody tells me what I can and cannot say, I am going to tell you this. If you we're ever on fire, and I was the only one who could help, I wouldn't even piss on you to put you out. Now that I have said what I wanted to, I will no longer be reading your "blog" or responding to it. It's very hard to have a battle if whits with someone who is unarmed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Colleen Church, you advised me several posts ago that you are leaving... leaving... leaving... leaving my blog.

    You are still leaving?

    Ok.

    One thing I agree with - it is hard to have a "battle of 'whits'" with some people.

    And, it is hard to call anything a "battle of wits" or "whits" - whichever you prefer, if the only language pouring out of your opponent's mouth is what your mother would have washed your mouth for.

    You must have noticed that I did not use profanities in my blogs. You do against me. That shows your own caliber - as I said before, too. You don't learn, do you?

    I am reporting news from Delaware County, New York, because I choose to do so. That's enough reason to me.

    There is no requirement for a permit or license in New York or South Carolina to be called or act as a journalist. You might educate yourself before you spit out another blunder next time.

    I am a journalist if I say I am, and I do say I am a journalist, and this is my own news outlet, whether you like it or not.

    I repeat once again that I perceive name-calling and threats as an indication that the story is good.

    And, you are wrong in saying you did not provide me with valuable information. You keep doing that.

    For example, in your earlier comments you stated that you heard what was on the scanner the night of the fire.

    Now you are saying that your boyfriend was working outside of the house the night of the fire and took his scanner with him, so you could not possibly have been hearing anything on the scanner the night of the fire. Therefore, you were lying in your comment that you were hearing anything on the scanner the night of the fire. So, not only you are offering your hearsay opinions, but you are also lying.

    And, you were lying by trying to produce an impression that your boyfriend is a CURRENT firefighter. Now that it appears that you, too, are in some kind of trouble because of your comments, you come at me with "gloves off" (funny, too), on the one hand, but, on the other hand, you recant your prior claims about your boyfriend being a CURRENT firefighter, and about you hearing what was going on on the scanner the night of the fire.

    All that will happen is that I will post one other blog about your lies, so that your lies are prominently displayed to all who deal with you.

    That's what happens to people when they underestimate their opponents.



    ReplyDelete
  3. Scanner: a piece of equipment, not portable, that picks up police/fire/ems frequencies.. used by many home owners, some not members of department at all.

    Pager: a piece of equipment, a portable device, issued by a department, to their members, to be toned out for fire/ems calls.

    I do know that the boyfriend in question is a member of a fire department in the area that they reside in. He was at one time a member of the department in question. His department was not called to the scene in question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for the information, LifeSaver.

    Yet, your information is useless to me since it does not provide (1) your real name, (2) the real name of Colleen Church's boyfriend, (3) the name of the Fire Department where the boyfriend is allegedly involved as a firefighter.

    I will explain.

    As any journalist will tell you, I must verify the identity of any witness reporting any event.

    Since the only self-identifier you give me is your nickname, I do not know who you are, and what is your credibility.

    Since I do not know your credibility, I cannot accept veracity of your statements as an expert, or as to knowledge of factual information. I do not accept for reporting multiple unknowns - your name, the boyfriend's name, the boyfriend's fire department's name.

    I cannot verify any of that through available public records.

    Therefore, thank you for the effort, but I cannot use the information. Yet, if you will come up with the courage of giving me your real name, and the real names of Colleen Church's boyfriend and the fire department, and, possibly, if you agree to appear on a live-streamed recorded video-chat and speak to me about what happened and how the investigation of this fire was handled, along with the other firefighters, instead of discussing it with third parties who have no influence on my reporting, I may consider reporting "your side of the story", too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Umm.. I was just explaining the scanner and pager devices to you since you were unaware of what they were and how they work..

    I am not reporting anything.. just correcting you on your misunderstanding of the 2 devices..
    As for Colleen Church's boyfriend.. I know him on a personal level since him and I have been friends for years.. so therefore I know he is a member of a department.. AND, I too have a scanner in my home so therefore I am able to hear police/fire/ems calls and can hear what is going on.. so therefore I am able to say that I did not hear his department toned to the call that these blogs are about.

    And as for you asking me to be involved in some live-streamed recorded video chat to discuss some investigation on a fire and ASSUME that I know anything about it and that I am discussing anything with any "third parties" is way out of line!!

    Sorry to upset and disappoint you.. but there is no "my side of the story".........

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been granted permission to tell you that Colleen Church's boyfriend is an active member of the Meridale Fire Department..

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I said before, no value as to information from an anonymous source. No disappointment, but I will not waste my time on these childish tricks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And, LifeSaver, when comment (anonymously) as if they know something about the case, but then seek the bushes when they are called out to a face-to-face video-conference, I would call that to be out of line. I legitimately assumed you know facts about the case, because you came here and left comments about a particular case, claiming you are a firefighter. Please, make yourself clear in comments, so that not to waste any more of my time - if you expressing your opinions without being an eye-witness of events, I am not interested.

    ReplyDelete