"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, November 4, 2016

New York #JudgeJohnFLambert continues to commit misconduct by trying to fix a case of a well-connected violent criminal, and cover up misconduct of their attorneys

On September 5 of 2014 Delaware County fake deputy Sheriff (and nephew of Delaware County District Attorney's Office investigator Jeff Bowie) Derek Bowie attempted to crash a tablet in the hands of the local resident (and critic of governmental and judicial misconduct) Barbara O'Sullivan, by intentionally backing a police car back into her.

Barbara suffered injuries to her hands, but survived.

Her tablet - and evidence on it, survived, too.

Derek Bowie was not taken off the case by the Delaware County Sheriff and was allowed to file criminal complaints against Barbara and her daughter Alecia, for "resisting arrest" - even though no arrest from a criminal court was issued at the time when Bowie intentionally backed the car into Barbara.

Without disclosure until January of 2016, John Hubbard who prosecuted both criminal cases, against Barbara and Alecia - and who is running unopposed for the position of Delaware County District Attorney in this year's elections - was the former law partner of the judge who Barbara O'Sullivan criticized and sued, and who retaliated by taking custody of her grandchild without disclosure of his own disqualifying conflicts of interests that came out after he recused from the case without vacating his orders.

Derek Bowie was sued by a his former girlfriend for assault and physical injuries - and the girlfriend looked surprisingly like Barbara, raising issues whether Derek Bowie saw one woman when assaulting the other, and raising issues as to Derek Bowie's mental health.

After Barbara sued Bowie in Delaware County Supreme Court, Delaware County let Derek Bowie go, but provided to him legal representation in that lawsuit at the County taxpayers' expense, he is represented in that lawsuit by the Frank Miller law firm - they found no law firm closer to represent the County, so the hourly rate of that law firm that is paid by the County's insurance company - which raises premiums for the local taxpayers - includes travel to each conference of Judge Lambert (and Judge Lambert loves to schedule conferences)

In the lawsuit of Derek Bowie's girlfriend in federal court, it was revealed that Derek Bowie did not satisfy:

  1. Education requirement;
  2. Civil service test; or
  3. Residency requirement (he lived in Broome County at the time of events, and could not legitimately claim that he was a Delaware County Deputy Sheriff).
to be employed as a Deputy Sheriff in Delaware County - so, Delaware County had no right to hire him, or provide a free attorney for him in the O'Sullivan v Bowie lawsuit.

In Barbara O'Sullivan's lawsuit, the Delaware County Supreme Court personnel, or the County Clerk's office, whichever of them are putting information about the case into the system, misrepresented the essence of the lawsuit by showing in the system that Barbara sued Derek Bowie in his official capacity, as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff.

Barbara O'Sullivan did not sue "Derek Bowie, Delaware County Sheriff".

Barbara O'Sullivan represented herself in that lawsuit, with a designation of SRL/Pro Se, and the same designation should have been given to Derek Bowie before Frank Miller's firm stepped in - Derek Bowie SRL/Pro Se, not Derek Bowie DC Sheriff (especially that Derek Bowie has never been the Delaware County Sheriff, and his employment as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff was illegal).

Barbara O'Sullivan sued Derek Bowie, individually, for assault, bodily injury and injury to property.

And in that lawsuit, Derek Bowie defaulted after being served by the civil division of Delaware County Sheriff's Department, his own employer.

And Judge Lambert unlawfully helped Derek Bowie to:

  1. undo the default;
  2. dismiss Barbara O'Sullivan meritorious lawsuit; and
  3. now pressures Barbara O'Sullivan to save Derek Bowie's and his attorney's asses for continuing with a frivolous counter-claim against Barbara O'Sullivan which they don't know what to do with after the criminal case upon which the counter-claim was based was dismissed and sealed - guess by whom? - by Judge John F. Lambert.  The pressure is for Barbara O'Sullivan to "stipulate" (agree) to discontinuance of the counter-claim - instead of dismissing that counter-claim as FRIVOLOUS, with sanctions imposed upon both Derek Bowie and his attorneys, which is Judge Lambert "discretion" and duty to do.


In any civil case in New York a litigant has 21 days since the day of personal service to file and serve an Answer to the lawsuit.

Failure to do that constitutes a default, which courts usually refuse to vacate in thousands of credit card debt and even foreclosure cases - causing defaulting parties to lose their homes, simply because they did not file their answers within 21 days.

Not so with Derek Bowie.

In Derek Bowie's case, after Derek Bowie defaulted, a motion was filed, at the expense of Delaware County taxpayers, by Frank Miller's law firm on behalf of Derek Bowie, on October 27, 2014, FRIVOLOUSLY claiming that

  • because Derek Bowie's employer the Delaware County Sheriff (the one that served Derek Bowie with the lawsuit in exchange for payment from Barbara to its Civil Service Division) was not notified of the lawsuit, the default must be vacated.

The motion was frivolous because:

Derek Bowie was sued in his individual capacity, for intentional torts, and was not subject to reimbursement by the County. 

Had Derek Bowie been sued for negligence, Barbara would have had to first file a Notice of Claim against the County - which she di not do. 

Frank Miller's law firm conceded the point that no Notice of Claim had to be filed in the case, by not moving not only to reopen the default but to dismiss the case for failure to file a Notice of Claim as a condition precedent to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was proper, against an individual defendant, the individual defendant defaulted, all that the court was authorized to do was determine damages against Bowie on Barbara's behalf.

Yet, Frank Miller's law firm filed a frivolous motion where it at the same time:

1) conceded the point that no Notice of Claim had to be filed - and that constitutes the official notice to the employer; and

2) claimed that the default must be vacated because of the lack of notice to the employer.

Frank Miller's motion was even more frivolous that it was filed against a pro se, unrepresented party without a law degree.

Not only Judge Lambert did not sanction Derek Bowie and the Frank Miller law firm for frivolous conduct, but he granted the frivolous motion to vacate the default, and the following string of appearances ensued:



After Derek Bowie, through Frank Miller's law firm, filed and obtained a victory from Judge John F. Lambert on his frivolous motion to vacate Derek Bowie's clear and irreversible default, they filed, on behalf of Derek Bowie, a counter-claim.

That was done in the fall of 2014.

The counter-claim was for the alleged injury that Derek Bowie allegedly suffered from a dog when Derek Bowie, after he tried to crash the tablet in Barbara's hands with a police car,

  • was not immediately fired or put on desk duty;
  • was allowed to continue to
  •  came to arrest Barbara O'Sullivan using his own fabricated the false arrest warrant

Derek Bowie's counter-claim was frivolous also because days after the alleged ferocious dog attack on him he was testifying in Barbara O'Sullivan's felony hearing in Delhi Town Court, with a Band-Aid only on his hand, and while in uniform, with a Taser and a gun on his side.  Since I personally cross-examined him, I can testify to it in court.

Moreover, I made a FOIL request to the Delaware County verifying his sick days, or desk duty days - there were none.

  • If Bowie was able to handle a car, a taser and a gun within two days after the alleged attack, he was not seriously injured.
  • Since he was not legally hired, he was not a lawful Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy, and had no right to be on Barbara's property in the pitch-dark night of September 18, 2014 when he attempted her arrest on
    • fabricated charges;
    • on a rubber-stamped false warrant, and;
  • Since Derek Bowie was not a lawful deputy Sheriff, and was disqualified to file criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan in his official capacity because of his prior assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, the criminal charges were void to begin with;
  • Since the arrest warrant was not legal (as Judge Lambert ruled in February of 2016, dismissing Barbara's criminal felony case), under New York law, Barbara had a right to resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force if necessary - and there is evidence in the case that she made sure that the dog would not come out, and that the dog came out by accident;
  • It was Derek Bowie who obtained the arrest warrant rubber-stamped by Delhi Town Court clerk Kathy Fletcher and not signed by the Delhi Town Judge Richard Gumo who, on the day the warrant was "signed" (rubber-stamped) was far away from Delhi, New York, testifying as to his prior misconduct in front of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.
Judge Lambert was well aware of Judge Gumo's perjury - and illegality of the warrant - because Judge Lambert himself dismissed Barbara's criminal case after ruling that Judge Gumo lied under oath, the warrant was illegal, and that was after Judge Lambert was provided the transcript of Judge Gumo's testimony on the day of the rubber-stamped arrest warrant in the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Since Derek Bowie had no legal right to be on Barbara's property in the middle of the night, his acts, and acts of his companions, were acts of trespass, assault, burglary, and violation of Barbara's 4th Amendment and due process - for which Barbara still has time out of the 3 year statute of limitations that expires only on September 18, 2017, to sue Bowie in federal court.

Derek Bowie came onto Barbara's property - as evidenced by the dash-cam video that was provided to Barbara by the DA's office - to kill her dog (he says on video before they approached the house, simply hearing the dog bark inside the house, that it is "one dead dog").

That is criminal mischief, destruction of property, so Derek Bowie came onto Barbara's property as a trespasser, in the middle of the night, with intent to commit a crime - and then, there is reason to believe that he broke into the house, after the dog, Barbara and her daughter Alecia were all carted away - to look for the tablet.


Judge Lambert dismissed Barbara's criminal case in February of 2016, and sealed evidence in those criminal proceedings.

With the dismissal and the sealing, Frank Miller's law firm had to withdraw the counter-claim, which became frivolous, and because they could no longer seek in discovery evidence from a sealed case, which is what they were doing at that time.

That was NOT what they did.

Instead, in March of 2016 - see the list of appearances in O'Sullivan v Bowie above - Frank Miller's law firm filed yet another frivolous motion - to compel discovery, including discovery from the sealed dismissed case, or dismiss the lawsuit against Derek Bowie.

In April of 2016, Barbara's house, with all documents prepared for the lawsuit and discovery, burnt down, and there are reasons to believe that the arsonist was Derek Bowie - while the local police, Derek Bowie's prior employer and the employer of multiple members of his family, or the local Acting District Attorney John Hubbard who still employs Derek Bowie's uncle, refused to investigate.

Instead of denying the motion, with sanctions against Bowie and his lawyers, on September 9, 2016, Judge Lambert granted the motion, dismissing Barbara's claim against Bowie.

So, now we have - a decision of Judge Lambert in February of 2016 in Barbara's case dismissing the criminal case and sealing evidence in that case, and the decision of Judge Lambert dismissing Barbara's civil lawsuit for failure to comply with discovery on a counter-claim based on that sealed case.

Great - crooked - job, Judge Lambert.

But, now Judge Lambert had the little problem of Derek Bowie's counter-claim still out hanging there.

So, Judge Lambert called a conference which happened, as far as I know, on October 28, 2016 where Lambert's court attorney Mark Oursler tried to get Barbara O'Sullivan to "stipulate" to the dismissal of the counter-claim.

Derek Bowie's alleged attorney Chris Militello who was present at the October 28, 2016 conference - and, likely, tried to audio-record it, causing the security officer to grab his phone and

and who should have come with his client - as Judge Lambert always requires for court conferences - could not locate Derek Bowie to "authorize" him to proceed with the stipulation.

Chris Militello did not try to withdraw the frivolous counter-claim. Chris Militello also did not know what the purpose of the conference was.

Derek Bowie testified in Alecia Bracci's criminal trial (resulting in acquittal) in February of 2016 in Delhi Town Court, that he was never even contacted by his alleged attorneys, the Frank Miller law firm.

Mark Oursler, Judge Lambert's Court attorney claimed that Frank Miller represents Derek Bowie as a private law firm representing a private party, not as a law firm hired by an insurance company to represent a public official.

Yet, Judge Lambert reopened Derek Bowie's default as a private party because his attorneys argued there was no notice upon his employer - which presupposes that Delaware County is being sued.

And, the court system lists the defendant in O'Sullivan v Bowie as the Delaware County (Derek Bowie, the DC Sheriff) - while the judge's law clerk claims it is against a private party.

What a mess!

By the way, the Delaware County, in an answer to a FOIL request, claimed that the Frank Miller law firm was hired by Delaware County for Derek Bowie.

Mark Oursler, and Judge Lambert, appears either not to know the case at all (which I doubt, since he handled not only the civil case, but also the dismissed and sealed criminal case underlying Bowie's counterclaim).

Or, Mark Oursler and Judge Lambert is shamelessly advocating for Derek Bowie - and that is especially so that Mark Oursler claimed to Barbara O'Sullivan in the conference of October 28, 2016 that it is Judge Lambert who "seeks" and "expects" a stipulation on the counter-claim from the parties.

Talking like that to a pro se non-lawyer party is inducing that party into a settlement and giving her an impression that if a judge "expects" something, it is an order from the court, and she must obey and stipulate.

Yet, Barbara O'Sullivan do not have to stipulate to a damned thing.

It is upon Derek Bowie's part to prosecute  or not prosecute the frivolous claim, and Barbara O'Sullivan is entitled to a jury trial in that case, can hire an attorney for that trial, can resoundingly win that trial, and apply for attorney fees for frivolous conduct against Derek Bowie - and that is what Mark Oursler and Judge Lambert are trying to save Bowie from.

The string of events in O'Sullivan v Bowie is simply too much of a coincidence to think that Lambert just erred - made "good faith mistakes" - instead of intentionally trying to help Bowie.

As to Frank Miller's law firm - litigants, beware.

These lawyers are unscrupulous, and have some high protection allowing them to file strings of frivolous pleadings from judges, as O'Sullivan v Bowie case clearly shows.

If you are on the other side of them, be prepared to fight frivolous pleadings.

If you are represented by them, be aware that at some point the "luck" with judges may run out, and an impartial judge may actually apply the law and sanction the lawyers - and their client, and make the client pay the opposing counsel legal fees, for frivolous conduct.

Barbara can, infact, insist on dismissal of the counter-claim as frivolous, with sanctions against Bowie and his lawyers.

And, I cannot wait to see the federal lawsuit she files against Derek Bowie.  It is a slam-dunk case for her, with all the documentary evidence available - from
  • Judge Lambert's adjudication of Judge Gumo's illegal arrest to
  • Derek Bowie's deposition in the lawsuit by his girlfriend to
  • Judge Gumo's deposition in front of NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct, to the whole sorry record of O'Sullivan v Bowie, lamely fixed by Judge Lambert.

As to Judge Lambert, as I said above, he needs to be criminally prosecuted and taken off the bench for his shenanigans.  Let's see if that happens.

Maybe, it will - who knows.

At this very time, the State of Tennessee, for example, does prosecute a judge for official misconduct on the bench.  New York may wake up and do that next to Tennessee.  The world is changing fast.

When a male judge and a male court attorney for the judge bend over backwards, violating every applicable law in the book, to protect a former County police officer who does THIS to one woman (picture submitted by Derek Bowie's girlfriend in the federal case against Derek Bowie)

and continues to commit violence to another - lookalike - woman - and, upon my information, remains a police officer in Deposit, NY, armed and dangerous, and on the streets - that really, really, really stinks.


No comments:

Post a Comment