"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.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Deposition of Derek Bowie in Kylie Smith's case: stalling questions about Barbara O'Sullivan's case

I finished the reading of the deposition of the former ALLEGED Deputy Sheriff of Delaware County Derek Bowie in Kylie Smith's federal civil rights lawsuit scheduled for a jury trial for this coming December.

All the glorious 140 pages.

What a read.

Somewhere in the middle, Derek Bowie beaten girlfriend's attorney starts asking Bowie questions about Barbara O'Sullivan's case - I don't know at that time, whether the attorney knew that Barbara O'Sullivan is a look-alike of Kylie Smith, which, under the circumstances of both women ending up beaten by the same rotten cop, raises interesting and alarming thoughts of a serial in the making.

Derek Bowie's attorney goes all up in arms and claims that his client will not be making any statements about "pending litigation".

Kylie Smith's attorney inquires whether information he is seeking is privileged (that is the only reason why Bowie would be able to escape questions at such a deposition).

To assert the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination Bowie had to have a reasonable expectation and fear of criminal prosecution.

With his uncle an investigator in the Delaware County District Attorney's office, with Derek Bowie involved in two assaults on women - in January 2013 in Broome County and in September 2014 in Delaware County - and with both District Attorneys NOT pressing any charges against him, because he is a cop and comes from the family of cops firmly entrenched in local governments, and with ties to a District Attorney's office - there was no basis for such fear, and Bowie HAD to answer questions at the deposition about Barbara O'Sullivan's case, as a matter of law.

Moreover, Bowie did not even personally assert the privilege - it was for Bowie, not for his attorney, to assert the privilege, and he did not do that.

Still, the questions at the deposition about Barbara O'Sullivan's case were stalled, because the attorney - unlawfully instructed Bowie not to answer such questions, and Kylie Smith's attorney, surprisingly did not insist much.

So, Derek Bowie's attorney stalled - unlawfully - questions about Barbara O'Sullivan's case in Kylie Smith's case, asserting "pending litigation" against Derek Bowie (civil litigation).

The interesting part was that Derek Bowie himself tried to get Barbara O'Sullivan to divulge information in that civil case about her criminal case (now dismissed), which had nothing to do with her claim.

Her claim was asserted based on the events of September 5, 2014.

Bowie fabricated a criminal case against her based on the events of September 18, 2014, which obviously had nothing to do with Barbara's claim.

Bowie, sued in his individual capacity for an intentional tort of assault and battery, also defaulted.

Of course, Delaware County provided to Bowie, who was not even a legitimate Deputy Sheriff (according to the deposition, he lived in Broome County while falsely putting into his driver's license information and into his W2's that he lived in Delaware County, and while parking his patrol vehicle overnight at his mother's house in Delaware County to make it appear he resides in Delaware County), with a free legal defense team, at the expense of taxpayers.

Of course, Judge Lambert allowed to vacate the default of Derek Bowie on a completely frivolous statement by Bowie's attorneys, the Frank Miller Firm (who bowed out of his representation in Kylie Smith's case because of conflict of interest, where a member of their team attorney Brian Georgiady vigorously and in a hostile manner asked Derek Bowie questions at the deposition), that the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, Bowie's employer, did not know about his lawsuit.

First of all, whether Delaware County Sheriff's Department knew about a lawsuit against one of its employees, in an individual capacity, was absolutely irrelevant to the issue whether default should or should not be re-opened.

Delaware County was not sued in Barbara O'Sullivan's case, Notices of Claims do not have to be filed in intentional tort cases, because the County does not have to reimburse its employees in lawsuits for torts brought against employees doing something intentionally wrong, not just negligent, while on the job.

Moreover, you know who served upon Derek Bowie, personally, Barbara O'Sullivan's lawsuit?

The Delaware County Sheriff's Department.

Under such circumstances, to claim that Delaware County Sheriff's Department was "unaware of the lawsuit" - that it not only served, but also provided an affidavit of service to the court - was beyond frivolous.

Yet, Judge Lambert swallowed it - and vacated the default based on this fraudulent argument.

It has also been reported to me that one of the supporting affidavits for this arguments was also forged.

Two last pages were missing in the initial submission, that was scanned without those two last pages.  Then, the two last pages mysteriously appeared in the paper file.  Barbara O'Sullivan asked the Delaware County Clerk's office (she had to ask Deputy Clerk Deb Goodrich, the Clerk Sharon O'Dell is avoiding her) and the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo, how come that affidavits in court cases get "amplified" in this way, they gave her the perfect "Schultz defense" - "we don't know, we didn't see anything".

Of course they didn't.

Court files are available for anybody's review, there is no court supervision over review of the files (with one exception - when Tatiana Neroni asks to review trial exhibits from a court case for purposes of working on an appeal, then such records are not available for her review even with court supervision), so anybody can put anything into the file, or take anything out of the file.

The only degree of verification of what was originally filed is the scanned copy of the document - if the document is immediately scanned, and if scanned documents cannot be re-scanned, and files replaced in the record.

I do not know what technology is available to the Delaware County Clerk's office to replace scanned copies of "incorrect" documents in the file.

In this case, Barbara confronted the court personnel in time, and ascertained for herself that the initial supporting affidavit scanned missed two pages.

Ok, with all this fraud going on on Derek Bowie's side in Barbara O'Sullivan's case, Derek Bowie's attorneys in that case, the Frank Miller Firm (who disqualified themselves in Kylie Smith's case), asked the court to do you know what - sanction Barbara O'Sullivan for delaying resolution of the case and for stalling discovery!

When they asked her to disclose information about her then-pending criminal case.

When Derek Bowie refused to answer questions even about his civil case (hers) at the deposition by Kylie Smith's attorney.

And, Frank Miller's firm failed to disclose to Judge Lambert the little itty-bitty detail that Derek Bowie was not even a legitimate Deputy Sheriff at the time of his claim of "dog bite" (Judge Lambert generously allowed Derek Bowie to file even a counter-claim against Barbara O'Sullivan, despite the obvious default).

And, if he was not a legitimate Deputy Sheriff, and, since Judge Lambert HIMSELF established that the warrant with which Derek Bowie arrived on Barbara O'Sullivan's property was invalid, Derek Bowie's legal status on her property was as a criminal trespasser, who arrived on her property with an intent to commit a crime - kill her dog (and, according to Kylie Smith's attorney, he was accused of killing a dog by beating it to death before, by a witness in Deposit, NY by the name of T.J.Brown), subject her and her daughter to false arrests, get her out of the house.

And the dog had to be killed or taken out of the house because Derek Bowie and his crew wanted to illegally search the house looking for this:

Derek Bowie undertook his illegal Men-in-Black assault on Barbara's house, Barbara's daughter and her daughter's dog in an effort to get - and, no doubt, destroy - the tablet with which Barbara was videotaping how Bowie was roughing up yet another female victim of Derek Bowie, Barbara's daughter Alecia.

That's why Derek Bowie backed his patrol vehicle into Barbara O'Sullivan in the first place, to destroy the tablet in her hands - her own life and safety be damned.

He did not finish the job, so he used his armed authority to get a forged warrant, likely from the Delhi Town Court Clerk Kathy Fletcher because Judge Gumo was away dealing with his own troubles at the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct (and Judge Lambert already issued an order that the warrant was invalid, based on Gumo's testimony that was "either confused or disingenious" - in other words, Gumo lied under oath whether the warrant was signed or stamped, and if stamped, who has the hold of his signature stamp).

I wonder, I just wonder - how much more of this crap will Judge John Lambert or his court attorney Mark Ousler buy from the disqualified law Frank Miller Law Firm of the illegitimate former Deputy Sheriff of Delaware County Derek Bowie who was caught (but never prosecuted) for (1) pummeling various look-alike women; (2) beating up dogs and then pretending he was bitten by those dogs (by the way, one of Barbara's daughter's dogs DID get killed, under mysterious circumstances, after Barbara's criminal case was dismissed and after her daughter Alecia's was acquitted.

Both Barbara's and Alecia's criminal cases were brought on charges fabricated by Derek Bowie - and the prosecutors who prosecuted Alecia at trial in February of 2016 and who nearly brought Barbara to trial in the same February of 2016, knew or should have known that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Sheriff's Deputy at the time of events charged, because Derek Bowie's deposition where he testified under oath that he lived in Broome, and not in Delaware County, happened - at the Delaware County building - much earlier, on April 14, 2015.

Now Frank Miller's firm asks Judge Lambert - without disclosing that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate cop at the time of events charged in his counter-claim - TO SANCTION BARBARA for not answering questions about her NOW SEALED criminal case?

How much more CRAP will Judge John Lambert swallow to help cover up local police misconduct?

How much more? 

No comments:

Post a Comment