Does a taxpayer have a right to know how his money is spent? Not if it is spent (or misspent) for assigned attorneys in Delaware County, NY

Several years ago, suspended attorney David Roosa sued Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker for his shenanigans in assignment of attorneys.


Among other things, David Roosa claimed that Judge Becker was upset that he, as an assigned counsel, was making motions and that Judge Becker assigns attorneys only if they do not make motions on behalf of their clients.


I can attest to that.


Even before Judge Becker's vendetta against me started that I amply described in this blog, Judge Becker never assigned my husband or myself to cases - and the reason is because we made no distinctions between assigned or retained cases and did our job fully, as it was supposed to be done.  If the case required discovery, motions and a trial - we did it.


Recently, I filed a FOIL request with Delaware County where I asked to show me documents pertaining to compensation of assigned counsel in local courts for the years when Judge Becker was on the bench.


The Delaware County denied my FOIL request claiming that such release of documents would require release of confidential names of parties in Family Court and juvenile proceedings.


My first question about it - why would documents that are transferred to the Treasurer for payment even contain names of parties instead of being indexed and codified, so that only the name of the court, the assigning judge and an identifying internal number remains.  This way, a taxpayer wanting to see a copy of these records that are presumed to be public records, would not have to jump through hoops or deterred from pursuing FOIL requests by a threat of having to pay for the labor of the Treasurer's workers in order to redact those confidential names from these documents.


Nevertheless, I was able to analyze at least what was available for public review - and that is scheduling in Delaware County Family Court on the website of the New York State Court Administration, on E-Courts.


There, any person can clearly see assignments of attorneys by designation of "18B" or "Attorney for the child".


The analysis of all assignments by Judge Becker of cases available on E-Courts in regards to Delaware County Family Court shows an interesting picture.


An assigned counsel in Family Court is paid $75.00/hr for in or out of court work, including waiting for the appearance in court and travel.


It would make sense for a Delaware County Family Court judge, especially for a judge who has a policy denying indigent clients experts and investigators if their extended family hires a retained attorney (on personal experience) and who refuses to assign only "tame" counsel who do not make motions or ruffle any feathers (David Roosa's federal lawsuit) to:


1) assign mostly attorneys from Delaware County;
2) assign attorneys who will not cost taxpayers much money for work not directly associated with representation of the indigent clients, such as travel.


Yet, assignments by Judge Becker show the opposite.


Below is a table that I compiled from assignments of counsel available on E-Courts in Judge Becker's Delaware County Family Court cases.


I verified on the public website of the New York State Court Administration the official registration addresses of assigned attorneys, verified through www.mapquest.com distances and travel time by car from that registration address to the courthouse and, by multiplying this travel time by 2 (roundtrip) and by the hourly rate, came to numbers that attorneys are paid for travel, or, for activities unrelated to representation of clients.


It is interesting to mention that two attorneys out of the list of attorneys assigned by Judge Becker, Dolores Fogarty and Bruce Maxson, are full-time employees of Otsego County.  Their salaries, according to seethroughny.net, is $46,161 each.  It is not clear how they can be assigned in Delaware County at all where their time belongs to Otsego County.


Attorney Fogarty's travel per appearance costs the Delaware County taxpayers $95.00, Attorney Maxson's - $87.50.


Next question - why does Judge Becker assign attorneys out of Delaware County, specifically, out of Jefferson, Otsego, Chenango and Schoharie Counties?  There are no attorneys in Delaware County to be assigned?  That is not true, there are plenty of attorneys in Delaware County, and I heard a lot of complaints (in private) from attorneys of Delaware County for assignments of cases to out-of-the-county attorneys.


As the table below shows, in majority of out-of-the-county assignments, travel expenses are a lot higher than in within-the-county assignments.


Judge Becker does not know the local distances and travel time, having resided in the area "only" for 40 something years?


 How about the fiscal discipline that Judge Becker always parades, to the point of denial of required services to the really indigent people who needs them?


There is no question that the main concern of the assigning judge is to assign competent counsel.


There are a lot of competent counsel in Delaware County, living much closer to the courthouse than out-of-the-county attorneys.


Why are those attorneys under-assigned?  Some special reasons?  Some personal preferences of the judge?


Should the New York State Court administration require judges assigning counsel to consider, right after availability of competent counsel for a case, the travel distance for such competent counsel to the courthouse, and choose accordingly?


To me as a taxpayer, as well as an attorney, it will only make sense.

Name of assigned attorney	Registered address	County where office located	Mapquest distance from office to courthouse in miles/hrs	Amount paid by taxpayers for each appearance for travel
Albaugh, Renee Jeanette	127 Main Street Delhi NY	Delaware	0	$                   0.10
Becker, Sean Thomas	28 Townsend Street, Walton NY	Delaware	16.84 miles/21 minutes	$                 52.50
Cahill, Joseph H.	1055 Charlotte Valley Rd, Summit NY	Jefferson	35.27 miles/46 minutes	$               115.00
Carrascoso, Victor Bernard
Cowen, Sarah Elizabeth	28 Townsend Street, Walton NY	Delaware	16.84 miles/21 minutes	$                 52.50
Deming, Nancy K.	court street	Delaware	0	$                        -
Diamond, Jehed Frances	6 2nd street delhi ny	Delaware	0	$                        -
Fogarty, Dolores G.	183 Main Street Unadilla NY	Otsego	29.79 miles/38 minutes	$                 95.00
Gallagher, Thomas	72 Main Street Stamford NY	Delaware	20.91 miles/ 26 minutes	$                 65.00
Gordon, David	60 Long Ridge Road Ste 407 Stamford NY	Delaware	20.78 miles/26 minutes	$                 65.00
Gouldin, Robert Anderson	93 Main Street Oneonta NY	Otsego	20.73 miles/27 to 29 minutes	$                 72.50
Hammond, Christopher	Cooperstown NY	Otsego	49.86 miles/ 1 hour 3 minutes	$               157.50
Harmon, Kara	47 sunset blvd, Oneonta NY	Otsego	33.86 miles/ 50 minutes	$               125.00
Hartjen, Lee Christian	117 Grandview Drive, Cobleskill NY	Schoharie	57.55 miles/ 1 hour 7 minutes	$               167.50
Hegeman, Thomas	812 Dietz Street, Oneonta NY	Otsego	23.89 miles/34 minutes	$                 85.00
Kottmeier, Gregory L.	145 Main Street Delhi NY	Delaware	0.22 miles/37 seconds	$                        -
Madison, Paul G. J.	31 Harper street stamford ny	Delaware	20.40 miles/ 26 minutes	$                 65.00
Maxson, Bruce Ernest	48 Dietz Street Oneonta NY	Otsego	24.03 miles/ 35 minutes	$                 87.50
McCue, Christine Ann	1507 GROVENORS CORNERS RD, Central Bridge NY	Schoharie	53.74 miles/ 1 hour 7 minutes	$               167.50
Natoli, Lisa Ann	27 w main street norwich ny	chenango	50.97 miles/ 1 hour 10 minutes	$               175.00
Neale, Erin J.	127 Main Street Delhi NY	Delaware	0	$                   0.10
Obolensky, Larisa	bovina ny	Delaware	12.75 miles/17 minutes	$                 42.50
Peirez, Gregory B.	3349 freer hollow rd walton ny	Delaware	16.71 miles/20 minutes	$                 50.00
Richards, Rosemarie	gilbertsville ny	Otsego	37.19 miles/ 53 minutes	$               132.50
Rothenberg, Steven J.	23-25 division street sidney ny	Delaware	35.04 miles/47 minutes	$               117.50
Schwartz, Donald J.	189 Main Street Oneonta NY	Otsego	20.93 miles/ 28 minutes	$                 70.00
Smith, Shawn Josef	28 Townsend Street, Walton NY	Delaware	16.84 miles/21 minutes	$                 52.50
Summers, Linden D.	Main street Milford NY	Otsego	34.84 miles/44 minutes	$               110.00
Van Buren, Andrew Horace	Hobart NY	Delaware	16.69 miles/21 minutes	$                 52.50
Walas, Carly Rose	28 Townsend Street, Walton NY	Delaware	16.84 miles/21 minutes	$                 52.50

As a disclaimer, my office is within a walking distance from the courthouse.  Yet, since Judge Becker permanently recused from my cases in 2012, I cannot be assigned to his cases - and am not seeking such assignments, in any court. 


I prefer to remain an independent counsel, as I understood early on that an expectation of continued assignments presupposes some implied obligation of an attorney to tone down and restrict what he or she is doing for his or her clients.

Will the 3rd Department judges, clerks and members and attorneys from the 3rd Department Committee for Professional Conduct be ever prosecuted for falsifying a public record or are blood ties and connections thicker than law in the State of New York?

There is an expression that blood is thicker than water.

In New York, it appears that blood ties are also thicker than law.

Earlier in this blog, here, here and here, I wrote about the sudden ex parte transfer to the 4th Department of my disciplinary case and of my husband's file from his closed disciplinary case access to which was subject of a pending federal lawsuit. 

The transfer created an impression of (1) retaliation against both myself and my husband, since review of the files became difficult by transferring them hours' drive away from us;  and of (2) an attempt to tamper with evidence, or claim that certain files were potentially lost or misplaced in the transfer.

Usually, tampering with the evidence or witnesses in an official proceedings should be subject to a criminal investigation.  In view of the ranks of individuals involved in the potential tampering, and blood ties of those people (at least those blood ties that are readily apparent from public records and public attorney advertisements), it is naïve to think that any of the wrongdoers will be brought to justice.

I also wrote in this blog that the 3rd Department issued an order of transfer of my pending disciplinary case and of my "proceedings" pertaining to my husband, where such proceedings ended three years prior, on  July 7, 2011 and could not be transferred anywhere.

I also wrote in this blog that the order of transfer mentions that an "application" was made for that transfer.

I also wrote in this blog and that neither Mr. Neroni nor I were served with any such "applications", as is the requirement for motion practice in New York and that the Appellate Division 3rd Department staunchly refused to provide to us copies of the allegedly existing "application" that was never served on us and that was used as a basis of the transfer.

Additionally, by the time the "application" (the equivalent word of a "motion") was made, motion deadlines were over, and the Committee for Professional Conduct (COPS) was not given any leave for the extension of those deadlines, nor did the COPS ask the court for such an extension - at least no such requests were served upon me.

As to Mr. Neroni, his disciplinary case was concluded with his disbarment (without a hearing) on July 7, 2011.

COPS obtained a dismissal of certain causes of action filed by Mr. Neroni in federal court specifically on the basis that his case is concluded and closed.

Rule 22 NYCRR 806.3(b) regulating authority of COPS specifically provides that COPS can only investigate attorneys for misconduct.  Mr. Neroni is no longer an attorney, therefore, COPS had no authority to conduct any further investigations after his disbarment.

Both Mr. Neroni wrote to the 3rd Department asking to provide us with a copy of (1) what was transferred to the 4th Department, and (2) of the application which was the basis of the order of transfer.

The 3rd Department denied our request for these documents.

I wrote to the 4th Department with the same request.

Today I received two letters, one regarding my case and one regarding my husband's.  I publish here the letter regarding myself and I publish the letter regarding my husband with his permission.

In the letter regarding my husband the 4th Department indicates that all they received is the order of transfer and an accompanying letter.  

The letter from the 4th Department does not list any "application" for the order of transfer that the order of transfer mentions.

The letter from the 4th Department regarding my case sheds a little more light on the situation, claiming that included into the transferred papers was a copy of my lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, Neroni v. Peebles. 

That lawsuit, as I wrote earlier in this blog, was dismissed before it was served by the court which was the defendant in that same lawsuit.  Since the United States (court) was a party in the action, I have 60 days to appeal that dismissal, and 60 days did not expire yet.

Yet, the letter from the 4th Department regarding my case still does not indicate that any "application" was included with the papers transferred to the 4th Department from the 3rd Department.

The letter from the 4th Department claims that there is no indication that our cases were consolidated.

Yet, the order shows one caption for both me and my husband as "In the Matter of [myself] AND [my husband]" which usually indicates one single case.

Moreover, my own and my husband's names are mentioned in one paragraph.  So, there is no point playing dumb and pretending that the cases were not consolidated and treated as one by the 3rd Department in making the order. 

4th Department's pretense that certain files regarding Mr. Neroni about "pending complaints" could be sent directly to the Committee for Professional Standards of the 4th Department have no legal basis, because, as I mentioned above, Mr. Neroni was disbarred as of July 7, 2011, and as of the same date COPS lost their authority to investigate and prosecute him on any "new complaints" against Mr. Neroni.

Moreover, no "new complaints" were served upon Mr. Neroni.

So, the bottom line that we have here is:

1) there is an order of June 11, 2014 from the 3rd Department claiming that COPS made an "application" for an order of transfer;

2) The 3rd Department considered the "application" and "upon due deliberation" granted it;

3) The application was never served either on Mr. Neroni or on me;

4) The 3rd Department denied access to the "application" to both Mr. Neroni and me despite our requests;

5) The 4th Department did not receive any such "applications".

So - did the 3rd Department lie that there was an "application" made in a court order, thus making the court order based on non-existing application and thus void?

Did the 3rd Department rely upon an oral ex parte application by the COPS?  Ex parte communications with the court, whether oral or written, are attorney and judicial misconduct.

Appears that no "application" by the COPS is in existence, and that the COPS, together with the 3rd Department simply falsified a public record, a court order, in order to get their wish.

Will they be prosecuted?

When

• the son of the late Chief Judge of the 3rd Department Anthony Cardona, Anthony V. Cardona Jr. is an Assistant District Attorney in the Albany County;
• Steven Allinger, the son of an Albany County Family Court Judge Susan Kushner whom I recently criticized in this blog is another Assistant District Attorney in the same Albany County District Attorney's office; 
• Amanda Kuryluk, the niece of a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Mae D'Agostino, who was sued in her individual capacity in the same Neroni v. Peebles lawsuit is a partner in of Anthony Cardona Jr.'s law firm, replacing there her aunt who was a partner in that law firm before coming to the bench;
• two sons of another judge, Gary L. Sharpe, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, also sued in Neroni v. Peebles, are employed, respectively, by the New York State Attorney General's office (Michael Sharpe) and by the U.S. Attorney's office (Robert Sharpe) - and Gary L. Sharpe already sanctioned both my husband and myself after I directly asked him to confirm the fact of his son Michael's employment with the NYS AG's office because NYS AG's office appeared before Gary L. Sharpe in a civil rights lawsuit where I represented my husband -

in other words, when the federal and state government is so tightly entrenched and interweaved by blood ties, there is a real fat chance for criminal prosecution of COPS attorneys, members and the judges of the 3rd Department who made a court order based on a non-existing application while claiming there is such an application (which was never served upon us), and who engaged in a cover-up of their misconduct, including the ex parte communication with the COPS.

Yet, any "person from the street", an "average Joe" who would forge a public document, would be criminally prosecuted.  Because they do not have the right pedigree - such as the appellate judges and their pet agency, the Committee for Professional Conduct have.

This is the reality in the State of New York.

This is the reality of attorney regulation and licensing where the Rules of Professional Conduct are inapplicable to the powerful attorneys employed in the government. 

As I said earlier in this blog - if the public is not protected from shenanigans of the most powerful attorneys, the whole idea of the regulation of the legal profession is a sham.

My husband's and my own cases clearly show that, instead of the declared "rule of law", what we have in New York, and for quite a while, is the "law of connections" or "law of blood ties" - that is the only "law" that matters here.

Brain drain and brain dump in the United States

Let's face it, the United States is not topping any lists in educational performance of its students.


Far from it, educational performance of United States students (on the average) is admittedly mediocre, and that is according to official reports.


When my daughter came to an American school from a Russian public school, we were both amazed how easy the curriculum is - as compared to what it is in Russian public schools, or at least was when I was growing up in Russia long time ago and when my older daughter went to school there.


The U.S. is making strong efforts to provide economic incentives to the bright and talented people from all over the world to come and work in the United States - both because within the country, interest of its own students to the "brainy" professions is lukewarm and because the bright and talented professionals from, let's say, developing countries may be cheaper than American college graduates.


Thus, the brain drain may help the U.S. economy, as well as hurt it.


From the point of view of human capital, it is interesting what is happening in the legal profession.


Here, law schools are competitive and are trying to attract students with the best performance, or, in other words, the intellectual elite of the nation.


After graduation and licensing, these same intellectuals are thrown into the murky waters of the practice of law where the best survival tool is scraping and bowing to the judge - no matter how stupid, immoral or incompetent the judge appears to be.


This is a mode of survival for many attorneys.


A retired judge once told me that "I am digging a hole for my client (a female college professor) with my intellectual efforts".  Not only he told me that without reading the record that he was commenting on.  He told me that without any qualms about the discriminatory and sexist nature of his statement.  The retired judge has actually retired from the Appellate Division 3rd Department.  His name is Carl Mugglin.


I noticed that raising constitutional issues is perceived as frivolous, unnecessary and wasteful conduct by most judges in most courts.


Research tools are prohibitively expensive, and, as far as I know, most small-firm or solo attorneys either do without them or reduce them to the bare minimum.


Finally, if you dare to criticize a judge, your license may be pulled, and no matter how skilled, bright or talented you are, you are prevented from sharing your skills, intellect, ideas and wisdom with the public - even the indigent and under-served public.


So, after the bright and talented graduate from law school, they must either engage in brain-dumping and risk brain atrophy by intentionally dumbing down their arguments in order to stay off the radar of judicial wrath and to survive and earn a livelihood, or are dumped out of meaningful employment, because a disbarred attorney has very little chances to get gainful employment.


Brain drain on the one side and brain dump on the other.  Isn't that a waste of human capital - of American college graduates, scientists and engineers, who cannot compete with cheaper foreign work force, and for American law school graduates who either need to dumb themselves down and not show their brains, thus stifling legal innovation, or risk showing it - and risk to be dumped out of professional workforce entirely.


Such a situation is demoralizing to any individual, and particularly to the bright individuals who were lured to law school with claims that they are "intellectual elite".


This "internal emigration" into kitchen dissent by the legal profession while having to publicly brownnose people who are possibly dishonorable and incompetent leads to high levels of stress, alcohol and drug abuse and burnout in the legal profession.


Because of the fear of retribution, attorneys, even the best and the brightest, are unable to show their true potential and help their clients the way they truly can - and that is especially sad in civil rights cases.


Reducing intellectuals to groveling and seemingly brainless sycophants as a point of survival cannot be deemed to be in the public interest.


What is in public interest is to use the human capital of the nation to the best of its abilities.


And that is one more reason for me to claim that independence of the legal profession from the stifling and retaliative control of the judiciary is a matter of urgency in this country.

Should these 14 New York Senators be impeached for voting in favor of a legislation that benefited them financially and protected the market of their professional services?

Recently a legislation was passed in New York State enhancing unauthorized practice of law from a misdemeanor to a felony.


According to my research of public records, 14 New York Senators whom I name in the table below voted for this legislation, legislation that enhanced restrictions to the market where they continue to provide professional services. 


Therefore, these New York Senators had a material interest in the legislation they were voting for - to restrict competition to their business - and should not have voted at all.


It is interesting to mention that what exactly constitutes the practice of law remains undefined, and thus is subject to selective and arbitrary enforcement. 


Yet, these 14 attorney-senators made sure that this vague and undefined activity must be now punished as a felony (1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison + fines and prohibition to vote and have firearms) rather than a misdemeanor (up to 1 year in the local jail + fines).

The data in the table below was compiled by me from two public websites - the website of the New York State Legislature as to the voting records for this particular statute, and the website of the New York State Court Administration as to registration statuses and information for senators-attorneys.


It is for the public to decide whether the senators who use New York Legislature to get benefits for their business should be impeached, thrown out of office and disciplined as attorneys for conduct unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

No.	Name of Senator-attorney	Attorney Reg. No.	Admitted to practice law in NY	Judiciary Committee Vote - Mar 1, 2011	Floor Vote, Mar 7, 2011	Judiciary Committee Vote  – Jan 18, 2012	Floor Vote – May 1, 2012
1.	Breslin,Neil D. ( in private practice, Hiscock & Barclay)	1431972	1972	Aye	Aye	Aye	Aye
2.	DeFrancisco, John A. (private practice, DEFRANCISCO & FALGIATANO) (co-sponsor)	1374495	1972	Aye		Aye
3.	Flanagan, John J., (in private practice, FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, COHN & TERRNA, LLP.)	2433803	1991	Aye		Aye
4.	Gianaris, Michael N.	2598399	1994	Aye		Aye
5.	Lanza, Andrew J.	2550093	1993	Aye		Aye
6.	LaValle, Kenneth P (in solo private practice)	2554574	1993	Aye		Aye
7.	Little, Elizabeth E. (in private practice, LITTLE & O'CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C.)	2528818	1993	Aye		Aye
8.	Nozzolio, Michael F. (in private practice, NOZZOLIO LAW OFFICES C/O HARRIS BEACH PLLC)	1818814	1980	Aye		Aye
9.	O’Mara, Thomas F. (in private practice, DAVIDSON & O'MARA, P.C.  243 LAKE ST)	2479269	1992	Aye		Aye
10.	Perkins, William P. (in private practice, WILLIAM PHILLIP PERKINS   SEYFARTH SHAW LLP)	2843191	1997	Aye		Aye
11.	Ranzenhofer, Michael H. (in private practice, FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER PC  PO BOX 31)	1765411	1980	Aye		Aye
12.	Saland, Stephen M. (co-sponsor, in solo private practice)	1634526	1969	Aye		Aye
13.	Zeldin, Lee M. (in solo private practice)	4195053	2004	Aye		Aye
14.	Adams, Eric R. (in solo private practice)	1786243	1978			Aye