"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.

Friday, June 17, 2016

How foster care/adoption pipeline works in Delaware County under the guise of fighting drugs

On June 15, 2016 Walton Reporter, of Delaware County, New York, published an "ongoing story" - how the heroic police officers of Delaware County continue to wage war on drugs.

Facebook comments to the article were predominantly:

1) lauding the heroic police officers;
2) badmouthing the presumed-innocent defendants; and
3) expressing that the baby that one of the defendants is very obviously carrying should be taken away from her by Social Services;
4) expressing that they are glad that the two "scumbags" are "off the streets" and "off the taxpayer's pay".

Yet, there are glaring discrepancies in the story that beg questions.

First, the couple, man and woman, were arrested based, allegedly, on a "sealed indictment".

Indictments are sealed so that the defendants would not flee.

But, despite the necessity to keep mum about the planned arrest, the police tipped of the Walton Reporter's journalist Lillian Browne who, according to comments on Facebook, arrived at the arrest scene at the same time or earlier than the police.

I wonder whether any officers from the Sheriff's department will be disciplined for creating unfair pre-trial publicity and potentially contaminating the jury pool for both defendants in this case?

I guess, subpoenaing Facebook comments against the defendants, as well as "likes" of such comments can be fun for purposes of picking the jury in this case.

Next, possession of controlled substances (which is what the charges allegedly are) is a non-violent crime.

Why then the two defendants have to be publicly arrested, with reporters called to the arrest scene?

Why do they have to be taken out of their homes in the middle of the day without proper clothing?

Why the male has to be taken out of his own home shirtless?  So that everyone would see his bare chest and judge him because he has tattoos?

And, tell me, please, why an 8-months pregnant woman (people who know her stated on FB she has 3 weeks to delivery of her child) has to be taken out of her home barefoot 3 weeks before giving birth to a child, on a non-violent crime?

The arrest could not wait?

The pregnant mother was about to flee?

From Walton, NY?

Once again, she would flee being on the verge of delivery and while her partner had a child still at school?


Then, what does the K-9 handler John Demeo (the fat guy on her right) doing arresting her?  Why is he Ozzi-less in these pictures?  Where is the dog?  If the dog is doing the drug search, why the handler is away from the dog?

The Ozzi-less picture of John Demeo on the job just proves Ozzi is a pet Delaware County taxpayers are paying for.

But, if John Demeo makes Ozzi-less arrests, who is handling #OzziTheK9 without shots while John Demeo is handling the arrest?

Are Delaware County taxpayers paying for yet another Ozzi-handler?

As to dragging the pregnant mother barefoot through dirt and stones - look at the posture of her foot, here:

She is afraid to step on a stone.  They didn't have time to let her put her shoes on, after arresting her in her own residence?  What was the urgency for that?

And, look at the stones and dirt the two police officers wearing boots are taking the barefooted pregnant near-delivery criminal defendant.

Who is presumed innocent, by the way.

So - why would a public arrest, with reporters, of two parents of a soon-to-be born unborn child, be needed?

Why is it so urgent?

Why should both future parents be publicly humiliated?

Why should the arrest be hailed as "war on drugs"?

I will tell you why.

When both future parents are "safely" in jail, Social Services will not have much difficulty grabbing the child into foster care when the child is born, right out of the maternity hospital, and that is THE ONLY reason why an arrest of a woman who is 3 weeks away from delivery, for a non-violent crime, is made.

And, please, consider that, with no proof of residency of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, and no proof of legitimacy of ANY of the Delaware County Deputies, both the alleged indictment and the execution of the alleged arrest warrant are patently illegal.

As to the concern that NOW these two people are taken off the taxpayers pay (hinting at welfare, probably), that is a patent misunderstanding of what is going to be happening.

Because if the woman was on Medicaid or private insurance, then Medicaid or her private insurance had to pay for her birth and after-birth care.

Now that she is a detainee of Delaware County jail, Delaware County taxpayers will have to pay for her delivery and post-delivery expenses.

Moreover, if Delaware County does not provide adequate care to the woman - and I've got many calls and visits to inmates and pre-trial detainees in Delaware County jail and many arguments in court dealing with inadequate care or lack of any medical care - then the Delaware County taxpayers will have to pay damages if she chooses to sue the County.

And, of course, a pregnant woman must have:

  • good nutrition;
  • lots of fresh air;
  • adequate exercise;
  • a comfortable place to sit and lay down on - frequently.
All of that is patently lacking in Delaware County jail, which feeds detainees bland food barely adequate to survive, where fresh air and adequate exercise for a pregnant woman is not available, and where the jail routinely denies even extra pillows for invalids with chronic back pain and after back surgeries.

As to "war on drugs", there are several places in Delhi, NY, where the Sheriff's Department is located, where drugs are freely exchanged for money, in large quantities, and the Sheriff's Department actually stopped patrolling the exchange areas, which can only lead to an inference that there is an agreement to not look that way - I wonder whether the agreement is in exchange for a donation, no doubt towards K-9 Ozzie's upkeep, or a little more incentive.

It is interesting that all the most corrupt officers have shown up at the arrest scene.

The K-9 handler John Demeo who has bought a 1-year-old untrained imported pup for $7,000 and claims to be supporting the dog with donations from individuals whose identity the Delaware County refuses to disclose.

Delaware County Under-Sheriff Craig Dumond who initiated the idea of the County having horseback police for "crown control" in a ghost County - in order to board the horses at his and his wife's private farm.

And, the arrest operation is run like a bad "Men-in-Black" copycat movie:

1) with people dragged out of their residence barefoot or shirtless;
2) reporters are immediately present to catch that and publish;
3) the whole thing is portrayed as a war on drugs;
4) the most problematic officers, from the point of view of corruption, are present and are handling the "war on drugs";
5) an officer is coming out of a residence in sunglasses, mimicking a "man in black" and apparently posing for the picture in the newspaper.

Who goes into a residence to arrest a criminal wearing sunglasses?  Isn't it a safety concern?  And, isn't it a competency concern if a cop does that?

Look at the cop.  A hero.  A macho.  A man in black, sunglasses and all.  Dragging out of the residence a shirtless man, as if there was no time to let him get dressed, in his own home where his clothes are, no doubt,  stored.

I mean, how stupid can one be?

How depraved, to arrest a woman who can give birth right then and there because of mere stress?

How dishonorable, to drag a woman on the verge of delivery without footwear into the dirty street?

That's our "honorable" Delaware County police.

And, I can just bet that the woman's baby is coveted by somebody in Delaware County where CPS works as an adoption pipeline paid for by federal taxpayer money, where foster parents - in practically every case of child neglect involving foster care that I worked on, and I worked on these cases in Delaware County (as a defense attorney) for years - are members of the local governments or are connected to people working in the government, or in Social Services.

And, information about identity of foster parents is routinely denied by Delaware County in response to FOIL requests - for "privacy" concerns.  Which is, in reality, a concern that people may put two and two together and see that babies and young children are snatched by Delaware County CPS and given to "their own" for fostering and then adoption, while CPS also files neglect petitions, imposes upon parents "services" from the "pet" projects of Delaware County officials, and fights in court (until last year, before their own former attorney of 27 years as a judge) against reuniting of children with their parents.

By the way, Delaware County recently disclosed to me that attorneys employed by Delaware County Department of Social Services are not prohibited from having private adoption practice on the side either.

Former Judge Carl F. Becker (who presided over the cases of his own client the DSS from 2002 to July of 2015) did have such a practice while representing Delaware County DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench.

So, the much-publicized (in a stupid way) arrests are simply gravy for Delaware County CPS and for all satellite non-profits and private practices feeding off CPS, as well as for those who stand to foster and then, possibly, adopt the now-yet-unborn child.

Now, as soon as the child is born, the child will be snatched and put into foster care.

With these payment rates in Delaware County (per response to my FOIL request), the foster parent will be paid $476.70 per month plus reimbursement for diapers, and with a chance to adopt the baby in the future and qualify for more subsidies.

So, please, don't tell me this arrest, the way it was timed and handled, was necessary at this time and against these defendants.

The only reason why it would be necessary is to take the baby away at birth, because both parents are in jail.

If at least one of the parents would be home, the process of baby-snatching would not have been that easy.

So, is it really "war on drugs" and a "job well done" by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department?


Delaware County Sheriff's Department would have better served the community if it would patrol Delhi, NY where people coming to certain locations in good cars blatantly exchange suitcases in the open.

THOSE are the real drug dealers.

But, it is easier (and, probably, safer), to arrest a pregnant woman and drag her barefoot through the streets of her hometown flanked by fully armed police officers with the pre-arranged photo-reporters snap-shooting her face.

Not only will this arrest force Delaware County taxpayers to pay for birth and after-birth care of the mother, not only will force Delaware County taxpayers to pay through their noses for the care of the baby in foster care, but it is downright cruel to the mother who will be denied breastfeeding of her baby - because somebody in the local government needs to adopt her baby. 

And, remember, with legitimacy of both the Acting DA and with of every single police officer in Delaware County not proven by records, both arrestees can also sue for illegal arrest and false imprisonment - with taxpayers having to pay for defense in that lawsuit, too.

Nothing surprising in Delaware County.

Just a war.

But definitely not on drugs.

On taxpayers and parents, rather.


An update:  after this blog was published today, the pregnant mother was reportedly released on her own recognizance after arraignment in the Delaware County Court. 

The Acting DA Hubbard (who recognized he reads this blog) has yet an election to win.

No comments:

Post a Comment