"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.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

On the other hand - why keep people waiting. Here it is: a firefighter's wife spits fire - and that fire is pure hearsay

Just received a threat from a firefighter's wife.

She is very transparently hinting to me that if my home in Delhi, NY is on fire, she will hide her firefighter husband's keys so that he wouldn't be available to extinguish it.

I have no doubt about that.

The attempted arson in our home was already ignored by the local police and the DA's office.

The firefighter's wife was not an eyewitness, but who nevertheless believes her husband's statements and calls me and the victim, Barbara, a liar, and accuses her of the death of a dog, and accuses her of starting the fire.

Obviously that is the theory of Delhi FD.

One criminal indictment against Barbara dismissed, they are immediately putting together another, with the help of the noble brave dog-pitying firefighter husband.

Which does not explain why the firefighter husband came home to his wife crying about the dead dog, instead of calling the warden (as he was supposed to) to come and collect the dog's body.

Which does not explain why Barbara was blocked from going back into the house to save that dog, and she did tell them that the dog is in.

She could only do so much.  There were three dogs in the house at the time the fire started.

The first one came out with her.

She went back into the burning building for other dogs.

She took her time - while the fire was raging in the house - to get the second dog out.  He was scared and confused and would not go.

She saved him.

She could not save the third one, she told the firefighters about the 3rd dog, and she was not allowed back into the house, nor did the firefighters do anything to extinguish the fire.

Since the firefighter's wife falsely claimed to me that I allegedly locked my blog for comments (I never did, and comments posted today by the firefighter "Archer" are the proof), I am publishing her fiery messages to me in full.

Apparently, she did that under her real name, and she can be called as a witness in any court proceedings that may ensue.

And, apparently, she or somebody in her family have a problem with my husband, and specifically about divorces my husband has handled, so I wonder whether my husband was on the other side of a divorce of the fire-spitting firefighter's wife or her friend or family member.

And the spitfire person, Sharon Reichert-Morgan, who toils in the Social Services Department of Delaware County, forgot to mention that my "slumlording" husband rented, until 2 months ago, an apartment approved for several years, for different tenants, by Sharon Riechert-Morgan's own employer, Delaware County, as the cleanest living quarters available in Delhi, NY.

And that the contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services ended only because the tenant is not longer there and the new tenants do not need public assistance.

Anyway, here is the spitfire comments that I was claimed to block from posting on my blog - in full:

I asked Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan these two questions, given her fiery speech:

Here is what she answered:

So - a worker supported by my taxes is threatening me to "correct the untruths" of my blog because Sharon Rienhart-Morgan, a social services department employee, believes her firefighter husband more than she does my friend - and victim in the case - Barbara O'Sullivan.

And, if I do not "correct the untruths", she is threatening me to withhold his husband's protection as a firefighter, and with a smear campaign.

Well, the smear campaign I will endure.  Not the first time.

The threat I will forward to Ms. Sharon Rienhart-Morgan's supervisors, with a request to fire her.

And, I will forward her threat to the Delhi Fire Department, Village Police, DA's office and the County Attorney with an indication that if ANYTHING AT ALL happens to my residence in Delhi, New York, I will know where to look for a culprit.

By the way, I did a little research on the Internet about the name of Sharon Riechert-Morgan's husband - since Barbara was denied any names of who was on site.

Here is the baby registry of Sharon Riecher and Josh Morgan, so Josh Morgan was allegedly on Barbara's property at the time of the fire.

Sharon Riechert-Morgan is also, "coincidentally", an employee of Delaware County (an entity much criticized by me on the blog) and specifically an employee of Delaware County Department of Social Services (an entity much criticized and sued by me and opposed in child neglect and abuse lawsuits by me and my husband).

Here is the fire-spitting firefighter's wife's picture:

Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) is also an employee of Delaware County since 2005, and a full-time employee, too:

Which does not prevent Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) to have a business on the side:

That little double-dipping makes me thinking - as a taxpayer in Delaware County - does Sharon Riechert-Morgan do her independent consulting on taxpayer-paid time?

By the way, as we speak, Sharon Reichert-Morgan keeps going on Messenger.

Here are her new spit-outs:

Since the smear campaign against Barbara already started, here are some answers.

No, Barbara did not have money problems.

She is retired and disabled from the NYS Department of Corrections and well cared for by the State of New York.  She had no motive to burn her own house.

I don't know whether Barbara was making any mortgage payments.  In fact, if she would be making any mortgage payments, I would be extremely surprised.


Those curious why might check out Barbara O'Sullivan's name in Delaware County Courthouse.

I represented Barbara on a motion to vacate foreclosure on her house - and was successful, because the foreclosing bank did not have standing to sue.  The foreclosure was vacated and the house returned back to Barbara.  In 2010.

Whoever is pretending that they still have a claim on that house (now former house) had no such claim, as of 2010 when the foreclosure was vacated, by Judge Eugene Peckham.  

Check it out, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan, because what you are spewing about Barbara is ... well... not a little lie, but a big lie.  Like a bad lie.  Like a very bad lie.

And - why a firefighter's wife and an employee of the Department of Social Services interested in Barbara's mortgage payments, unless she is part of the team preparing to frame Barbara for something more?

And, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan being an employee of the County who persecuted Barbara on false criminal charges (just dismissed) and that lied to Barbara about legitimacy of its alleged Deputy Sheriff, and that is funding the legal defense of Derek Bowie at this time....  Well, makes her an interested witness, doesn't it?

And, as I said above,  Barbara saved two dogs out of three, plus herself, out of a raging fire, a fire that melted her cars - not bad considering that whoever wanted to ignite the house did that in the middle of the night, when the residents were supposed to be asleep.

Taking one dog out - and herself - required opening the door.

Getting back into the house for the 2nd dog - required opening the door.

If Barbara would let the 2nd dog burn to death, she would have been accused now of killing two dogs.

She saved two, now she is accused of killing the third.  By a person who was not on site, but who believes her husband "smelling of sweat and fire". 

Barbara got lucky.  She wasn't asleep.  And that's why she and two dogs (out of three) survived.

And, had Barbara planned to put fire to her house, she would have saved the family heirlooms that perished in the fire.

I understand that those who planned this were upset that Barbara got out unscathed.  Bad for them.  Good for Barbara.

And - there is no statute of limitations for attempted murder, the second one against Barbara since Derek Bowie's in September of 2014.

So, before piling it all up on Barbara - instead of providing an incident report - Delaware County should get to think how to train their employees.  

Or how to hire people of better caliber.  In terms of intellect and integrity.

Oh, and by the way - it was just reported to me that Sharon Riechert-Morgan is the former girlfriend of Judge Yvonne Pagillo's policeman son Richard Pagillo.  Where Yvonne Pagillo and Richard Pagillo spread rumors starting in 2013 that I was disbarred - I never was.

And that Sharon Riechert-Morgan, the paragon of morality, has three children by three different men and only the youngest kid is with her husband, who - my source indicated to me - was divorced and got his kid living with his ex-wife, so it is very likely that a man gets together with a woman who is a social services worker to help the man get his kid back.

So much for three kids "waiting for THEIR" father, Sharon.

Just a little bit of untruth ruins it all, right?

No comments:

Post a Comment