Judge Dowd uses Kelly Sanfilippo to return the witness checks after trying the case despite being disqualified

I called Judge Dowd to testify in the Mokay proceedings, along with his secretary Brenda Beckwith and his law clerk Claudette Newman.

I had a reason to, I had evidence making these three people witnesses in the proceedings.  I will keep my reasons confidential, since I believe I will need them for the re-trial of the case after reversal of the ex parte trial.

The judge used my medical leave as an invitation to deny me and my client an adjournments for medical reasons, hold the trial in my absence (and not a jury trial as it was scheduled to be, but a bench trial), and conducting a "shrunk" trial in one day, or, possibly, one day and a portion of the next, since I am still on a medical leave and was not there, I am not sure what happened.

Yet, today Kelly Sanfilippo, the court clerk of the Delaware County Supreme Court, sent me an email:

As you see, no greeting, even though Ms. Sanfilippo knows me from communications on a daily basis, I was always polite with her and never failed to say "hello" to her.

Apparently, because Judge Dowd is rude to me and considers me and my client below the law, his employees join in the treatment, too.

Apparently, Judge Dowd took checks from the other two witnesses (which he had absolutely no right to do) and returned them back, and Kelly Sanfilippo simply told me to pick them up.

Well, I won't.

This case will have to be reversed because of the ex parte trial by a witness despite of a documented medical leave of the defense counsel, and Judge Dowd and his employees will have to take the stand.

They will need the checks then.

Here is my answer to Ms. Sanfilippo (we are on a first name basis, we know each other for a number of years):

And the e-mail exchange, of course, will go to the Judicial Conduct Commission - pertaining to behavior of Judge Dowd and off the bench behavior of Judge Claudette Newman.

A little more of conflicts of interest in the Mokay case

It was pointed out to me by an observer that the court clerk in the court that tried the Mokay case has as Facebook friends:

(1) a subpoenaed hostile witness;
(2) the secretary of a previously recused judge.

Specifically, Kelly R. Sanfilippo lists among her Facebook friends:

Gregory Kottmeier whom I subpoenaed as a hostile witness for the case

and

Stacy Johansen, secretary to Judge John F. Lambert who previously recused from this case.

I truly believe these friendships of the clerk of the court were supposed to be disclosed before trial as evidence requiring disqualification of the court and transfer of the case to another venue, but they were not.  

So, on top of the fact that the trial was happily conducted, without a jury (despite a paid for - three times - jury demand), in my absence due to illness despite a doctor-issued medical leave, and, as far as I understand, conducted by Judge Dowd who, together with his law clerk and his secretary was a subpoenaed witness in the case, the entire Supreme Court in Delaware County was compromised by Facebook friendships of its Chief Clerk.

Looks crooked to me...

Claudette Newman, a judge who wags ... another judge

I already wrote on this blog about the outrageous behavior of Claudette Newman, the law clerk of Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dowd in several cases.

Ms. Newman is allowed by this judge to butt into proceedings and give her suggestions and testimony on record, engage, without any discipline, in ex parte communications with parties and witnesses in the proceedings, sign orders on behalf of the judge and threaten attorneys who questioned propriety of her behavior.

Little did I know that Claudette Newman, the woman who, apparently, wags Judge Dowd, is also herself a judge.

In 2008 Claudette Newman announced in the press that she is running for the seat of a local town justice in the Town of Butternuts, Otsego County, New York.

In that announcement she said the following:

(1) that she "served" Chenango's courts "providing legal analysis, research and communication services for multiple benches".

(2) that "it is because of [her] desire to serve and make a difference in any way that [she] can that she became a lawyer", 

(3) that "that goal led [her] to many forms of community service", 

AND - here is the kicker

(4) that she may be leaving her position as a law clerk to pursue her candidacy as the judge in the Town of Butternuts.

Fast-forward 7 years, in 2015, Claudette Newman is still a judge in the Town of Butternuts (Otsego County), and did not leave her position as a law clerk to Judge Dowd (Chenango County Supreme Court Justice who is assigned to cases in Otsego County).

There was another court employee who was, at the same time, a secretary to a judge and a clerk to her husband judge in Otsego County - Stacy Johansen.  Her husband no longer works with a clerk, so apparently that was seen as a conflict of interest.

Nothing can be seen as a conflict of interest by Claudette Newman.

It did not appear awkward to Judge Newman to "serve" as a judge in the lower court and as a law clerk to a judge who is assigned to the court of appellate jurisdiction to that lower court (the Otsego County Court).

In fact, in 2012, when Judge Dowd ran for re-election, he ran in Otsego County, too.

Apparently, Claudette Newman did not consider this situation awkward.

As to Ms. Newman's "goal to serve the public", when will people stop pushing this "service" thing into people's face when all they want is money and power?

Claudette Newman reportedly earned as the law clerk of Judge Dowd, as of 2012, $132,809.00, 1.7 times greater than New York judicial employees and 2.8 times greater than all New York employees.

Seethroughny.net shows that Claudette Newman earned $133,535.00 in 2014 as a law clerk for Judge Dowd.

It was hard to leave this position, as she said she would in 2008 when she was running for a judge in Butternuts, to earn a meager salary of a town justice.

So, now Newman has power to sign search and arrest warrants, as a Butternuts judge, and at the same time she has the ear of a Supreme Court justice in that same judicial district who may be assigned to the Otsego County court, appellate jurisdiction to her decisions from Butternuts.

Claudette Newman "has the ear" of Judge Dowd to the point of Judge Dowd announcing her at conferences as "his brain" (which is not far from the truth, the way he acts), allows her to sign his orders, as I recently learnt in a case, allows her to offer unsworn witness testimony in court proceedings, and punishes those litigants who dare to point out her misconduct.

And all of that "to serve the public"?

At the price tag of over $133,000?

And what kind of shining service it is.

A neat arrangement, isn't it?

And I wonder whether it is "the goal to serve the public" that inspired Ms. Newman to run for a judge, or the evidence, while working with Judge Dowd, of unrestricted power and unrestricted abuse of power that judges are allowed to engage in in this country.

From what I know of Ms. Newman as a law clerk, to say that her "legal research" skills leave much to be desired is to say nothing, and the same can be said about her integrity, at least judging by her documented misconduct in several court proceedings that I am aware of.

And - my sympathies to the residents of the town of Butternuts and litigants appearing in judge Newman's court, especially with the new evidence, as reflected in my previous blog post, that this supposedly "honorable" person, Claudette Newman, is destroying evidence of her misconduct by erasing evidence that she listed three court stenographers as her Facebook friends, and hid her Facebook profile after I ran my blog about it.

If it was not improper, why hide it, Claudette Newman?

After my blog about Claudette Newman's Facebook friends and conflicts of interest associated with such friendships, it was reported to me that the following happened:

Claudette Newman hid her Facebook profile, or, in the alternative, blocked me and my friends from seeing it, and eliminated stenographers that were previously listed as her friends, from her friends, at least in open access.

So, my question is - if there was nothing wrong with such friendships, what was the need to hide them?

And isn't destruction of incriminating evidence in itself incriminating evidence?

And aren't such actions of a law clerk - and of a judge of the Town of Butternuts - undermine public trust in the integrity of the legal profession and of the judiciary?

I know that nobody will ever prosecute Newman in a disciplinary proceedings, no matter what she does - because working for a judge and being a judge in New York is a shield from the reach of any law.

And yet - shouldn't Newman at least have waited with hiding her profile and removing stenographers from her friend-list?

Nothing like getting caught with you hand in a cookie jar, isn't it, Claudette Newman?

Nothing like duping the public out of a public trial - in order to prevent observation of a trial-long ex parte communication between the court and plaintiffs' attorneys

A would be observer of the Mokay trial (see my previous posts of April 6, 2015 to date) contacted me and reported the following:

1) On the first day of trial, April 7, 2015 (when I was, as I am now, sick in bed with a back injury while the court, despite being notified of a doctor-issued medical leave, happily proceeded in my absence), the observer attempted to observe the trial.

That did not happen because the court officers diverted the observer by saying that the jury was dismissed and the attorneys are leaving to go home.

2) On April 8, 2015 when the same observer showed up to the courthouse and asked about the trial, the observer was then informed that the trial is already over because, even though the jury was dismissed, the trial proceeded without the jury and is already over.

By the way, there was a motion pending for multiple relief, including a request to allow to videotape proceedings, and the reason to ask for that was, among other things, an affidavit from a witness pointing out misconduct of Judge Dowd in a back room where he was badgering and insulting an immigrant witness. Another reason was that I myself observed nonverbal interaction between Judge Dowd and Plaintiffs' counsel at a previous evidentiary hearing in this case.

I am an immigrant attorney, so Judge Dowd's bigotry was a very big issue with me and my client.

Apparently, it was more convenient for Judge Dowd to hush the motion under the rug, use my illness to dismiss the jury, conduct a trial in my absence (which, again, was an ex parte communication of a giant proportions), and to fix the case on his own, the way he had always wanted it to be fixed.

Thus, not only the judge made everything in his power to prevent the case from being tried by the jury (which would have highlighted to the community the illegality of the whole proceedings), but, apparently, on the court's directions, an observer who wanted to observe the trial and showed up exactly when the trial was supposed to start, was misinformed that the jury is dismissed and the attorneys are leaving, with an implication that the trial is over, when that was not true.

So, not only the entire trial was one big happy ex parte communication since it was conducted during the absence of a defense counsel who was on documented medical leave, but the court also shut out a court observer, by tricks.

If everything was lawful, why was there a necessity to engage in such tricks?

The shrunk trial

I hold my breath to learn how it was possible to fit 4 days of jury trial into 1 day of bench trial, which is what Delaware County Supreme Court did in the Mokay case, using my diagnosed medical leave as an excuse to proceed without me, my client or the jury.

Will wait for the transcript to surface.

In New York, a judge can now overrule a doctor in a medical diagnosis

That's exactly what judge Kevin M. Dowd did, by forcing me, as a defense attorney in a civil jury trial case, to go to trial while it was impossible for me because of my back injury to appear.

The back injury was diagnosed, documented, with a doctor's note provided to the court.

When I did not appear, because of a legitimate medical leave, the judge just dismissed the jury and conducted a bench trial.  

And the whole reason for not giving me an adjournment was ostensibly the inconvenience for the jurors.

I knew only one other judge who constantly diagnosed medical conditions in Delaware County courts, it's Judge Carl F. Becker.

Based on his "diagnoses" at trials, he is a dentist, an eye doctor, an OB/GYN, a surgeon and what not else.

Now Judge Dowd joined the ranks.

And I thought practicing medicine without a license was a crime...