Mary Gasparini's confession

When Mary Gasparini argues something to the court, and especially on issues in which she has no competency as an attorney, she sometimes makes interesting revelations.

For example, Mary Gasparini, as a criminal prosecutor, argued to the court that exposure of prosecutorial misconduct (her OWN misconduct), is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

I cited a case claiming that it is - that blogging for public interest is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Mary Gasparini attempted to shift the issue and said the following:

Mary Gasparini stubbornly refuses to accept the law of the State of New York that provides that an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding holds the key to the proceeding's privacy and confidentiality - as soon as the attorney waived her own privacy (and I did, in writing, on notice to Mary Gasparini, in December of 2014), the proceeding is DEEMED open to the public as a matter of law.

Thus, Mary Gasparini's claims that anybody "blogged sealed records and documents" are fraudulent and defamatory.

Obsidian (the case sited in the snippet) actually provides that even if statements in the blog about a private person, but on issues of public interest, are FALSE, they are still protected by a higher standard against defamation, under the 1st Amendment of the State Constitution.

Mary Gasparini asserts that Obsidian is a case about defamation, not confidentiality.

To say that is the same as to say that my case is the case about confidentiality, not defamation.

If is it not about defamation, does it mean that Mary Gasparini just acknowledged to what she has been accused on the blog - conspiring to cook court transcript and knowingly submitted fabricated transcripts to get her way?

So, now, as Mary Gasparini argues, it must be illegal in New York to publicly report commission of a crime if it is committed by a prosecutor and a judge in the course of a publicly funded proceeding that is open as a matter of applicable New York law? 

And, as she argues, I must be put in jail for violating the sealing order that was put in place to protect my privacy that I waived?

The word "stupidity" does not even begin to describe what is going on, and that taxpayers money are spent on such prosecutions, done clearly for purposes of personal revenge, should be a subject of criminal investigations by state and federal law enforcement - if they are independent enough and have enough courage and integrity to do investigate public officials for fraud.

Dumber and dumber...

Here is the argument of disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini of Syracuse, NY that attorney disciplinary proceedings - and criminal proceedings that she concocted based on such disciplinary proceedings - should not be open to the public.

Mary Gasparini does not know what all 1st year law students know - that in criminal cases the prosecuted person is a Defendant, not a Respondent.  By positioning a criminal Defendant as a Respondent, Mary Gasparini attempts to confuse the court and shift it toward civil standards of proof and civil procedure, and away from constitutional protections required of all criminal cases.

Judiciary Law 4 provides:

    §  4.  Sittings  of  courts  to be public. The sittings of every court
  within this state shall be public, and every citizen may  freely  attend
  the  same,  except  that  in  all  proceedings  and  trials in cases for
  

divorce, 
seduction, 
abortion, 
rape, 
assault with intent to commit  rape,
criminal  sexual  act,  
bastardy  or  
filiation,  the  court may, in its discretion,  exclude  therefrom  all  persons  who  are   not   directly interested  therein,  excepting  jurors,  witnesses, and officers of the court.





There is a rule of statutory interpretation that is drilled into law students from day one of law school - if a statute contains a list of exceptions, that list is exhaustive and nothing else may be added by interpretation.




Attorney disciplinary proceedings are not part of exceptions where, by New York statutory llaw, the court is given discretion to CLOSE proceedings to the public.




Yet, such a trifle as statutory law will not deter Mary Gasparini.




She stubbornly wants me in jail for breaking my own privacy and confidentiality.




This is what Mary Gasparini argues to the criminal court:











To coerce the court to impose upon me a criminal conviction secretly and without a hearing,Mary Gasparini cites are cases in civil criminal contempt where summary judgments are allowed.




Mary Gasparini also argues that publicly discussing issues of public concern - issues of prosecutorial misconduct and of HER OWN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (using cooked cooked court transcripts) should be punished because the issue there is that I breached "confidentiality".  Whose?  My own, of course - New York State Court of Appeals clearly indicated that confidentiality protected in attorney disciplinary proceedings are designed to protect the attorney who is the subject of those proceedings.




First I was charged in a "civil" attorney disciplinary proceeding and prosecuted for NOT committing a crime of practicing law without a license - and 5 courts ignored that issue.




Now I am charged in a criminal proceeding for violating my own privacy and confidentiality.




We live in an increasingly Orwellian world - and the court will only persuade me what I already know if Mary Gasparini's request for a secret contempt of court finding on papers against me for violating my own privacy...  I know for a long time that, at least in New York courts and in federal civil rights litigation the rule of law is dead.

The Delaware County Department of So-So Services is going to enforce new vehicle use policy after the State Comptroller blasted them? Right!

Couple of days ago all local newspapers covered the scathing criticism of Delaware County vehicle use practices in the State Comptroller's audit report.

Delaware County, through its Chief of the Board of Supervisors Mr. Eisel assured the Delaware County taxpayers that what is going on is not corruption and that Delaware County will sure change their practices.

Well, they are not changing.

Just minutes ago I was walking my dogs (at about 5:10 pm) on the Legion Field in Delhi, NY.

Kids were playing baseball there.

Here we go - the Department of Social Services white car No. 95 came down the road at a high speed, windows down, elbow hanging outside, down a dirt road, stones kicking up, a clear joy ride, no concern for the county-owned vehicle, because if that was his own car, I doubt if he would go that fast with the windows open and the dust and stones coming through.

The car stopped by the baseball field, a heavy-set man in a baseball cap on backwards, black T-shirt, pops out of the car - and stays at the field, watching the game.

I did not have time to stay on and see for how long he was there, but I wonder whether that car is equipped with the "black box" that would show the route.  I will try to obtain it from Delaware County So-So Services on a Freedom of Information request.

It is nice to know my tax dollars work somewhere so "efficiently", as Mr. Eisel recently pledged to Delaware County taxpayers.

I wonder what Mr. Eisel is driving now.

Delaware County and Otsego County taxpayers - take action against misuse of your hard-earned tax money by the privileged politically connected attorney Ellen Coccoma, wife of judge Michael Coccoma

According to my information, Ellen Coccoma, wife of Chief Administrative Judge of Upstate New York Michael Coccoma used the public building at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY for a deposition for her private clients without paying rent to the Delaware County.

I reported this instance to the New York State Comptroller and requested to check how the Delaware County grants free use of public property, on what grounds, and whether grounds upon which such use was granted, were legal.

As far as I know, Ellen Coccoma had no court order granting her FREE use of the public building at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY.

This is not the first time Ellen Coccoma made "arrangements" for free use of public property located in Delhi.

Her first choice was Delhi Town Court, then the Delaware County Courthouse, now Delaware County building.

Ellen Coccoma obtained orders from two judges, both subordinates of her husband, for depositions at public buildings.  Yet, upon close inspection of the orders, none of the orders allowed Ellen Coccoma or her private clients FREE use of such public buildings.

So, as a taxpayer, I call other taxpayers to action:

1) Write, as I did, to the New York State Comptroller to investigate how does it happen that Delaware County gives free use of public property to a private attorney, wife of a powerful judge, on orders made by subordinates of attorney's husband; 

2) How does it happen that Delaware County does not appeal orders of depositions at their buildings made without notice to them or opportunity to intervene;

3) Write, as I did, to the U.S. Attorney General investigating corruption in New York State government who already indicted two top legislators in New York - Majority Leader of the Senate Dean Skelos and (now) former Leader of the Assembly Sheldon Silver, buddy and benefactor of NYS Chief Judge Lippman - ask to investigate the extent of these "free donations" by local counties to politically connected wealthy private attorneys and to their clients.

4) Write, as I did, to the Delaware County Treasurer and DEMAND that the Treasurer should demand payment from Ellen Coccoma.

By the way, Ellen Coccoma is also a full-time (I stress it, a full-time) County Attorney for Otsego County, and all of her daytime belongs to Otsego County taxpayers.  

I am one of at least five witnesses to the fact that at 10:00 am today Ellen Coccoma was in Delhi, NY representing private clients, instead of doing her job as the full-time salaried Otsego County Attorney.

As the full-time Otsego County Attorney of many years, Ellen Coccoma should know better than (1) to work for private clients during her time paid for by Otsego County taxpayers, and (2) to use public buildings in another county for the benefit of her private clients without paying for such use.

So, I believe, taxpayers of Otsego County may also want to make inquiries with its County government to verify how does it happen that the County allows its full-time salaried officers and/or employees to work on private jobs on the side during taxpayer-paid time? 

My belief is that Otsego County taxpayers are entitled to return of the portions of Ellen Coccoma's salary paid to her while she was in court on private cases, and an investigation as to how much of the taxpayer-funded time she spent representing her private clients should start immediately.

PS  This post was written in the State of New York.  The time of postings on the blog is stamped in accordance with the Pacific Time (California), where the blog's host server is located.

So, when this blog post showed that it was posted at 10:18 am, it was posted in reality at 1:18 pm New York time.

General licensing of law practice is a sham

I wrote a lot on this blog that licensing of the "practice of law" is a sham, from many points of view.

First of all, it hurts the consumers and protects the markets (and high prices) in the markets for influential attorneys only, because attorney discipline are only targeted against independent solo and small firm attorneys, predominantly civil rights and criminal defense attorneys.

Over 80% of consumers cannot afford to hire an attorney across the country, and for the legal profession to claim that licensing protects quality of services for the consumers is claiming that 80% of the poorest consumers must pay for the protection of quality of legal services for the remaining 20% of consumers of legal services who can afford to protect themselves.

Moreover, when an attorney is licensed to practice law in the State of New York, he or she is licensed to practice in all possible specialties.

As practice shows, that alone can be detrimental for the consumer, because the consumer relies upon the license as a guarantee of the lawyer's competence while, let's say, criminal law is such a specific area that without specific training in criminal law and especially in criminal procedure (not a required course in law schools), relying on such a presumption of competence of an attorney is foolish.

In my disciplinary case, I became acutely aware how incompetent an attorney who purports to practice criminal law can be.

Mary Gasparini, my disciplinary prosecutor (civil prosecutor) purported to practice criminal law while obviously having no clue about such important issues as:

1. how a criminal case can be brought;
2. what initiating documents for a criminal case are valid;
3. how documents initiating a criminal case must be served;
4. in which courts certain criminal cases may or may not be brought;
5. what constitute territorial jurisdiction of New York state courts and how it is determined;
6. what is presumption of innocence;
7. what is the constitutional right to remain silent;
8. what is the requirement for non-hearsay support for criminal charges;
9. what is the burden of proof in a criminal case;
10. who has the burden of proof in a criminal case and how that proof must be presented;
11. what are the elements of the offense charged and how those elements must be proven;
12. what are the rules of disqualification of a public prosecutor in a criminal case

In other words, Ms. Gasparini has no clue as to A-to-Z of criminal procedure, but boldly proceeds with trying to prosecute a criminal case.

And, I am sure, there are a lot of such Mary Gasparinis out there who boldly proceed to ruin people's lives while having no clue about the applicable law, but their law license serves creates in consumers of their services a false presumption of competence of such attorneys.

It will be lot more honest and will protect consumers of legal services more if licensing of the practice of law is scrapped, the and if people are finally given a free right to choose providers of legal services from who they trust by their own criteria, including by reputation the providers in cases they already handled, whether such providers have a formal legal education or not.

I know a lot of people who did not even finish high school, but who know criminal procedure better far than Mary Gasparini.

A summary judgment in a criminal case? We'll see...

I wrote on this blog that my disciplinary prosecutor (in the case which is claimed civil by New York law) also brought a criminal proceeding against me, for opening my own disciplinary proceedings to the public, which is what I am absolutely allowed to do by law.

In that criminal proceeding for contempt of court Ms. Gasparini - who has the audacity to lecture to attorneys about legal ethics during her taxpayer-paid time as a disciplinary prosecutor (by the way, her position is not supported by existing law) - acts as a prosecutor, as the sole complaining witness and as the alleged victim, which constitutes gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Now Ms. Gasparini, who has absolutely no clue as to criminal law and procedure, asks the court for a summary judgment without a hearing in a criminal case, where no such thing is available in criminal law.

We will see whether the court will "do the right thing", apply the law and toss Gasparini's self-interested and incompetent ravings - or violate the law, punish me for violating my own privacy.

I won't be surprised if the latter happens.

After all, several courts, since January 2013, disregarded court records clearly indicating that I was fraudulently prosecuted for an insane charge - for NOT practicing law without a license in 2008 (for not committing a crime).

After all, the disciplinary court pretends it is unaware that I have a right to open proceedings to the public and that Judiciary Law 90(10) that is used to seal documents in such proceedings may only be used as a shield for the attorney who is the subject of the investigation and never as a sword (the way Mary Gasparini is attempting to use it against me).

Throughout these proceedings, disciplinary prosecutors from two appellate divisions acted as if they have no clue of the applicable law or rules of evidence - not to mention of the attorney disciplinary rules requiring of every attorney, including a disciplinary prosecutor, elementary competency.

So - we will see whether the court will grant a summary judgment in a secret criminal case brought by the alleged victim/witness/prosecutor Gasparini to punish me for violating my own privacy.

It gets loonier and loonier by the day.

On the other hand, this case clearly highlights the problem that we have in New York (and in this country) not only in attorney disciplinary cases, but in all cases - the rule of law is dead, because justice is not blind.

Judges are actively considering status of who is asking for relief, and not legality of relief asked or legality of procedure followed.

Status trumps the rule of law practically every time in the courts and in front of judges of New York two appellate divisions that I am familiar with (3rd and 4th Departments).

The same is true with many lower court judges where I appeared as an attorney over my legal career.

Reports in the media and social media show that this situation is pervasive throughout the U.S.

Welcome to the Star Chamber where we will remain until we, as citizens of this country, undertake to introduce effective measures to address rampant misconduct of public officials, including and especially the judiciary and prosecutors - whether "civil" or criminal prosecutors.

Racists on the bench

This country will not make headway out of riots such as in Ferguson, New York City and Baltimore (and that is only the recent riots) while judges remain on the bench who ascribe to the "American Constitution Society" the following motto: "We love poor black people almost as much as we love puppies and kitties".

This is not humor.

This is not a joke.

This is pure unadulterated racism which is especially disgusting when it is coming from a judge presiding over federal civil rights cases and criminal cases (including death penalty cases), involving predominantly poor black and Hispanic people.

Judge Kopf should be removed off the bench - that is my personal opinion, based on his:

• open racism;
• considering people fighting for civil rights as narcissistic attention seekers;
• his belief that a judge may invent at least three reasons why he would allow execution of an innocent person to proceed  (all of it is in Judge Kopf's blogs).

Because of such white racist judges credibility of this country's stance as a beacon of democracy and as a fighter for human rights is below zero.

I encourage poor black litigants who have ever suffered an adverse determination by Judge Kopf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada to make motions to vacate based on new evidence of Judge Kopf's bias against poor black people. 

And - when a federal judge equates black people with animals,  and mock them for being poor, that should surely get him off the bench.  

Will it?