More on credibility of New York Senator John A. Defrancisco - and on his bills that appear to help his own and his son's law business. Should the feds get involved with investigation of yet another New York Senator?

I first wrote about Senator John A. Defrancisco on this blog in August of 2014 and raised the issue that the senator, along with other senators who are practicing attorneys, should be impeached for sponsoring bills and voting on bills that help their law business financially.

I do not presume to believe that Senator Defrancisco should be reading my blogs.

Yet, I do presume that Senator Defrancisco should not be continuing to sponsor bills that benefit his law business financially, and he still does it, while attempting to appear on the white horse and fighting prosecutorial misconduct in New York.

In my previous blogs today I raised issues as to credibility of New York State Senator John A. Defrancisco who was pushing his bill for a "state commission" to deal with prosecutorial misconduct, modeled after the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct - which, as practically every complainant about judicial misconduct (rampant in New York) knows, tosses meritorious complaints, and New York courts give complainants no recourse to appeal those dismissals, leaving them not only without a remedy, but in the hands of enraged judges who know about the complaints and revenge against the whistle-blowers, with no consequences for that revenge.

What raised red flags as to credibility of Senator Defrancisco for me is, among other things, his claim that the majority of prosecutors in New York were doing their jobs properly.

First, there is no statistics to say that.

Furthermore, 

• Senator Defrancisco is not a criminal defense attorney,
• has left the criminal defense field a long time ago, 
• has been himself a prosecutor once and is not impartial as to his former brethren, and
• can receive plenty of statistics if he would simply care to ask currently practicing private independent (not assigned) criminal defense attorneys about incidents of prosecutorial misconduct;
• Sen. Defrancisco would not be promoting such a bill if prosecutorial misconduct would not be rampant in New York, to the point of large (and usually deferential) media sources such as ProPublica and New York Times turning their eyes in that direction.

I guess, Senator Defrancisco does not care to ask defense attorneys, for he might not like what he would hear back, that prosecutorial misconduct is the rule in the State of New York rather than the exception - or Sen. Defrancisco tries not to ire prosecutors too much, because people who are prosecutors today may become judges tomorrow, and Senator Defrancisco is a practicing licensed attorney whose livelihood may be in the hands of people he is criticizing.  Nothing like a neat little conflict of interest.

Perturbed by Sen. Defrancisco's not-too-forthcoming statements to his electorate, I looked into Senator Defrancisco's background further.  

This is what I found.

New York attorney registration shows Senator Defrancisco as being employed at a Syracuse law firm, Defrancesco:

Yet, the webiste of Defrancisco & Falgiatano law firm does not list Senator Defrancisco as one of its attorneys, but it lists a younger male with the same last name, Jeff D. Defrancisco:

It is a disciplinary violation for an attorney to provide an incorrect registration, so I wonder whether Senator DeFrancisco will be subject to attorney discipline - or his status as a Senator will protect him, the same way it protects prosecutors whose misconduct Senator Defrancisco allegedly wants to address through creating a state commission on prosecutorial misconduct.

Let's note that Jeff D. Defrancisco (as I understand, Senator's son), who, in his 15 years of practicing, 

worked, besides his father's law firm, in the prestigious (and politically connected) law firm Harris Beach LLC that I wrote about on this blog, too, and in the Onondaga County District Attorney's Office.

The Onondaga County DA, according to news reports, is the law school friend and roommate of the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District James Tormey.

Sen. Defrancisco's law firm is located in Syracuse and is doing business there.  I highly doubt that Sen. Defrancisco would want to upset his own law firm's (and his son's) business and his and his son's law licenses and livelihoods by creating a commission that would have a potential to hurt the friend of the chief administrative judge who is in charge of assigning judges to Sen. Defrancisco's and his law firm's court cases.

Or, Sen. Defrancisco would be interested to make that bill as mild as possible to create yet another paper (and toothless) tiger to deflect public anger about misconduct of public officials - but not to hurt his and his son's own business chances and financial well-being.

What further bothered me is comparison of the list of the types of cases handled by Defrancisco & Falgiatano with the list of legislative activities of Senator Defrancisco.

These are the types of cases that the D & F law firm deals with, reportedly winning multi-million dollar lawsuits for their clients:

These are some of the latest bills sponsored by Senator John A. Defrancisco:

When Senator D's law business is, very likely, to oppose insurance companies who do not settle claims of their clients, Senator D has no business sponsoring legislation pertaining to any restrictions upon insurance companies, it is a direct conflict of interest (in my opinion).  The above bill is clearly in favor of Senator D's clients - it is not necessarily a bad thing, the bill in itself, the bad thing is who is sponsoring it, because the bill definitely helps potential client base of the Senator.  I wonder who lobbied the bill.

The bill for enhanced requirements for clinical "peer reviewers" appear to help in Sen. Defrancisco medical malpractice actions, making more strict (and costly for the hospitals) to review actions of their physicians, making it easier for attorneys suing for medical malpractice to attack alleged impropriety of physician's actions, and making hospitals more prone to settlements.  Once again, regardless of whether the bill will or will not be beneficial to the general public, Senator Defrancisco should not have touched this topic with a 10-foot fishing pole, because the Senator himself and his law firm, and its client base, will benefit from the bill, creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest against sponsoring such bills and an appearance of impropriety.

This bill is directly related to Sen. Defrancisco's and his son's law business.  If this bill passes, Senator Defrancisco will be able to create for his own and his son's law business a situation (now prohibited by law) where it can claim a contingent fee.

The bill, of course, sites an allegedly good faith reason for repealing a restriction on contingency fees:

Yet, it is undeniable that Senator D's and his son's law firm will financially benefit - big time - as attorneys specializing in personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits, if the bill passes, and such sponsorship should be prohibited to Senator D.  

The bill talks a lot about ethics and conflicts of interest - but it omits the fact that sponsorship of this bill by Senator Defrancisco is one big conflict of interest and an ethical violation for an attorney.

Legislating to change court rules that make it easier for a law firm to obtain a money judgment in court, should be prohibited to a Senator who is an attorney actively practicing, along with his son, in court, due to irreconcilable conflict of interest.

The bill, once again, directly relates to Senator D's and his son's law business, and such sponsorship should be prohibited to an interested legislator.

So, Senator Defrancisco - if you want to deal with attorney misconduct, including prosecutorial - first clean up your own act as a legislator drumming up legislation for his own and his son's law business.

For shame.

If a separate state commission for prosecutorial misconduct is a necessity, attorney licensing does not have legitimacy

A year ago, with much fanfare, New York Senate announced introduction of a bill for creation of a state commission to deal with rampant prosecutorial misconduct in this state.

The headlines presented this bill as a revolutionary event "poising" New York to become the first state in the nation to deal with the issue of prosecutorial misconduct on legislative level.

One year later, there is no discernible movement on the bill, even the sponsor of the bill, Senator John A. DeFrancisco, presented the bill on YouTube recently - with a resulting whopping 45 views as of today.  

I also believe that even the necessity of creating such a commission deals a heavy blow to legitimacy of attorney licensing.

New York maintains 8 (!) attorney disciplinary committees, 

• 1 in the Appellate Division 1st Department;
• 3 in the Appellate Division 2nd Department;
• 1 in the Appellate Division 3rd Department, and
• 3 in the Appellate Division 4th Department

These 8 committees have a duty of dealing with attorney misconduct.

Prosecutors are all licensed attorneys.

Therefore, there are already IN EXISTENCE governmental bodies with a duty to address prosecutorial misconduct, as a sub-species of attorney misconduct in general.

The need for attorney licensing is declared to the public to be justified because attorney licensing (and attendant discipline of attorney misconduct) allegedly protect the public from attorney misconduct.

Because of the need for a separate commission to deal with prosecutorial misconduct, it is apparent that that need is not satisfied, and not only in New York, but across the nation.

If misconduct of a particular class of attorneys, nearly the most powerful class of all attorneys (after judges), is systematically not addressed, leaving the public exposed to egregious harm from that misconduct, the question is - doesn't such non-prosecution of prosecutors undermine legitimacy of attorney regulation?

In my opinion, it does.

And you know what is wrong with Senator DeFrancisco's bill and why (in my opinion) it lacks credibility?

Listen to Senator DeFrancisco's video presentation of the bill.

Around 5 minutes into his speech, Senator DeFrancisco says that "almost all prosecutors do their jobs properly" and that the bill is allegedly only against a tiny number of prosecutors who commit misconduct.

Come on, Senator DeFrancisco.

You really lose credibility when you say that.

You wouldn't have introduced this bill if prosecutorial misconduct would not be rampant.

I, as a criminal defense attorney, have to see, as yet, a prosecutor, who would NOT conceal Brady material, who would NOT overcharge in order to coerce the defendant to plea-bargain, who would NOT intimidate defense witnesses, etc. etc. etc.

Such actions of prosecutors are now routine, and they are routine because of the absolute prosecutorial immunity that covers all prosecutors for any malicious and corrupt conduct during his or her prosecutorial activity, and because of a complete lack of disciplinary consequences as an attorney.

And absolute power breeds absolute corruption.

When you recognize that, Senator DeFrancisco, maybe your bill will gain a little bit of credibitility - which it totally lacks now.

And, by the way, modeling the proposed state commission on prosecutorial misconduct on the New York State Commission for judicial misconduct (a glorified shredder of public complaints against judges) is as good as announcing to people that it will be yet another waste of time and money and another decoy, a "Potiomkin village" meant to deflect public anger at unbridled prosecutorial misconduct by an appearance that it is "being taken care of".

Right.

Discovery in Family Court proceedings is routinely neglected by assigned counsel

Several readers of my blog alerted me to a problem with assigned counsel in Family Court proceedings - that counsel assigned to them pursuant to Section 722 of the New York County Law, do not do any discovery before trial, do not do any pre-trial motions and do not do any applications for funds for experts and investigators, despite, oftentimes, a dire need for such experts and investigators in particular cases.

Often, people who are speaking to me (prospective clients or simply readers of this blog), while being well into Family Court proceedings, do not even know what discovery is, and claim that their assigned counsel refuses to speak to them, dedicate any meaningful time to them, and did not do any discovery or pre-trial motion that (often reasonably) the clients ask the assigned counsel to do.

I cannot stress enough how valuable pre-trial discovery is for the success of the trial.  It may be, of course, trial strategy of counsel not to do discovery.

Yet, with assigned counsel, since, based on my own experience with Family Court and assigned counsel for opponents of my clients, what it appears to be is not any kind of trial strategy, but a uniform unspoken rule of not doing discovery.

I do not know what is the reason for it, I can only guess.

Assigned counsel is paid by the County where proceedings are conducted, and there are no restrictions on pay for such a necessary work as pre-trial discovery ("reasonable expenses out of court"), unless, again, there is an unspoken rule to assign only counsel who does not do "excessive" work for their clients, such as discovery and motions, and assigned counsel are concerned for their future earnings and do not do discovery (and pre-trial motions) in Family Court for that reason, which has nothing to do with their obligation to their client in the assigned case.

Assigned counsel has power to file ex parte applications in New York, pursuant to New York County Law 722-C for experts and investigators.

In fact, the soon departing Delaware County and Family Court Judge Carl F. Becker has made a point and a policy to repeatedly deny my clients who were eligible under County Law 722-C to receive funds for experts and investigators, their entitlement to those funds funds unless they agree to assigned counsel by Judge Becker instead of me, a private counsel hired by my indigent client's relatives, even though such policy was blatantly unlawful.

Thus, for Judge Becker (and, as far as I know through my own experience and reports of my clients and my readers) entitlement to funds under County Law 722-C are tied to having assigned counsel.

Therefore, an assigned counsel in many courts is the only path to get funds from the court for experts and investigators to do pre-trial work and prepare for trial testimony.

Yet, after years of litigating in Family Court, I have yet to see where an assigned counsel would apply for such funds for experts and investigators and who would present such experts and investigators and their work at trial, and that pertains to proceedings in custody, visitation, Article 8 family offense proceedings, child abuse and neglect. 

What can I say...

The indigent client must know their rights - and should be able to demand from his or her assigned counsel to do their job before trial - or ask the court to change counsel as providing ineffective assistance.

Having or not having done discovery (demands to produce, interrogatories, depositions), subpoening or not subpoening records from public entities for trial (DMV records, criminal records, social services records) which requires a motion to the court, or not doing that, subpoening or not subpoening trial witnesses, asking or not asking for funds for experts and investigators and having them do their work and present it at trial, may constitute a difference between winning and losing your custody, visitation, family offense or child neglect/abuse case.

Know your rights and insist on them.

One more point in favor of deregulation of the legal profession - talking to the regulator is like talking to a wall

I received today yet another "Affirmation in Opposition" from my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini.

In opposition to my uncontroverted assertion that Mary Gasparini disqualified herself by filing, as of January 28, 2015, criminal charges against me (dismissed before the initial appearance).

She would not have disqualified herself had she filed those criminal charges on somebody else's affidavit.

Yet, she has chosen to file multiple criminal charges upon her own affidavit, advancing those frivolous criminal charges as a prosecutor - and as the sole complaining witness - and as the alleged victim - a completely disqualifying set of roles.

In response to my assertion that Mary Gasparini is disqualified, she has provided the following "exhaustive" argument in paragraph 12 of her 2+ page "Affirmation":

"All remaining assertions regarding bias, disqualification, and recusal are without any factual basis or legal authority, are without merit, and should be therefore denied".

Mary Gasparini simply does not know how to answer factual assertions and citations to legal authorities in an attorney disciplinary proceedings (both of which were submitted to the court and served upon her).  Since attorney discpilinary proceedings in New York are so grossly unfair,  I understand that most attorneys find "alternative" ways of handling their disciplinary proceedings - either by admission to SOMETHING (whether they committed misconduct or not), just to cast the disciplinary inquisition a bone and to be able to escape with his/her law license, or by abandoning their practice completely, defaulting and thus allowing the disciplinary inquisition to take the law license and simply start a new life someplace else without that law license.

It is rare that an attorney fights the charges of misconduct for as long as I did, requiring the regulators to satisfy every procedural step and to make all substantive proofs - and the disciplinary committee did not meet those requirements.

Since usually attorneys do not litigate such charges, attorneys put in charge of prosecuting such proceedings obviously do not have to practice what they preach - professionalism, integrity, competence or adherence to ethical rules, or the rule of law.

Reading how Mary Gasparini asserts, again and again, despite the fact that both she and the referee were caught red-handed in using fabricated court transcripts, in not hearing the court-ordered hearing and thus defying the order of the appellate court, in submitting to the court, repeatedly, false statements in order to strip me of my due process right to work in my profession - and to provide help people through my professional services, reading all of that is absolutely surreal.

Did Mary Gasparini ever go to law school?

Did she ever pass the bar?

Did she ever take the oath of office as "an officer of the court", pledging to support the laws and Constitutions of the State of New York and the United States?

If she did, why does she continue to try to win a case where everything, from start to finish, constitutes fraud and shameful political persecution and where she must clearly see that no proof of my misconduct was provided to the court?

Why insist that "Judge /sic/ Sirkin found /sic/ that Respondent's pleadings did not raise any issue of fact, and therefore an evidentiary hearing on the petition is moot" if the ONLY duty that REFEREE Sirkin was supposed to discharge is hold the evidentiary hearing in question?

Mary Gasparini does not know how to read?

Or, Mary Gasparini refused to read the section of the New York State Constitution, Article VI paragraph 4 subsection (b) that provides that only a quorum of 4 appellate justices, with a concurrence of three such justices, can make decisions in the appellate court.

Therefore, Referee Sirkin (he is a RETIRED judge, and was never an appellate judge by the way, so he could never even be appointed as an appellate judge after retirement under New York law) had no authority to "find" anything ON THE PLEADINGS - WITHOUT A HEARING.

Well, at least, Mary Gasparini admitted in that statement that an evidentiary hearing that was ordered by the court was not held by referee Sirkin - and that referee Sirkin did make a decision to forego the evidentiary hearing, a decision that referee Sirkin had no authority to make.

Now we will see how the court will deal with the referee who refused to abide by the court orders.

The interesting part is that Mary Gasparini, with the help of the referee, is defying a court order ordering an evidentiary hearing in my proceeding, while at the same time has the audacity to pursue me for allegedly not "obeying an order of the tribunal" and not paying sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker after I sued him - that same Judge Becker who is, for some interesting and undisclosed reason, hastily abandoning his position 3.5 years before mandatory retirement.

What is the point of regulation of the legal profession if all that the regulation does is seeking to free the legal profession of those who truly work and truly provide to people actual valuable services, often for free or at a reduced rate - while helping out people who do not or would not accept the letter of the law as it is written if that letter is against their wishes and against the wishes of those who hold the key to their career advancement.

And they insist, as Mary Gasparini does, that all of that pretense for "justice" must be done behind closed doors, away from the very public Mary Gasparini is pretending to be protecting.

It is easy to state, in a conclusory manner, that "all remaining assertions ... are without any factual basis or legal authority".  The little problem is that - all assertions that I am making are, in fact, based on competent evidence and mandatory legal authority.

But, talking to Mary Gasparini is like talking to a wall.  Being a prosecutor - and a complaining witness - and the alleged victim in the dismissed criminal proceedings - Mary Gasparini simply does not know how to be impartial and professional with me, or how to rebut factual assertions and mandatory legal authorities with anything but conclusory statements.

We will see how the court will handle this epic mess on May 26, 2015.

Stay tuned.

The epidemic of selective illiteracy - or should we say selective misconduct - amongst state and federal American judges continues

I am sure that I am not the only person who has experienced on herself, as a litigant and as an attorney, this "phenomenon" - selective inability of judges, state and federal, to read.

The recent most interesting examples of this phenomenon included:

(1) Judge Gary L. Sharpe, the Chief Judge of the Northern District of New York, who sanctioned me for inability to read the 11th Amendment and who directed me to read it and find there that citizens of their own states are prohibited from suing their own states by the text of the 11th Amendment.

I read the 11th Amendment before and after that directive was made to me, before and after sanctions were imposed upon me, and I am still unable to find in it something that is not there.  Yet, Judge Sharpe did find there something that is not there - and sanctioned me based on his findings.

(2) The most recent case - Judge David Guy, originally of the Broome Surrogate's Court, assigned to the Delaware County removed Supreme Court case, but fighting an illusion that he was assigned to the Surrogate's Court case and ordering me and clerks of two courts to read the clear and unambiguous order of removal and of assignment of Judge Guy to the assigned case as if the order was erroneous, the case was not removed, and Judge Guy was assigned to the Surrogate's Court case.

(3) Judge Robert Mulvey, the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District, in one of the cases that I had in front of him, could not read submissions of my opponent who admitted that my client was incapacitated and incompetent (in a coma) and submitted to the court a court order of incapacitate from another state.  Under such circumstances, by statute, jurisdiction of the court, Judge Mulvey abated, and my authority to represent the incompetent  but Judge Mulvey made a decision that I did not provide to the court enough evidence of incapacitation of "my client" and made a decision against a person in a coma whom I could not, as a matter of law, represent, and told Judge Mulvey on record that I am not representing him, because he is adjudged incapacitated and his legal representative was not substituted.

Judge Mulvey was so upset by a lawsuit against him on behalf of my husband (and by my prior lawsuit against him on behalf of my husband, myself and another client) that Judge Mulvey could not even read correctly documents submitted to him by my opponent regarding incapacitation of my former client whom I could not continue to represent, as a matter of law, CPLR 1015, after his incapacitation occurred.

(4) I cannot say enough about selective blindness of Judges Elizabeth Garry, Molly Fitzgerald, Carl F. Becker (after a documented ex parte communication with my client's opponent's counsel), Kevin Dowd (after a documented ex parte communication with my client's opponent' counsel), Ferris Lebous (after a documented ex parte communication with my client's opponent' counsel) and of judges of the Appellate Division 3rd Department who affirmed decisions of judges Garry, Fitzgerald, Becker and Dowd, allowing the case Mokay v. Mokay to proceed - only because it led to the premature disbarment of my husband (without a hearing) and because they wanted to have that disbarment to continue.

Those elaborate 8-year efforts may be screwed at this time.

On April 7, 2015 Judge Dowd held an ex parte, secret bench trial where Judge Dowd,  subpoenaed by me as a trial witness, 

1. presided (which he had no right to do due to his disqualification because he was a subpoenaed trial witness), 
2. quashed subpoenas of my witnesses, 
3. disregarded my doctor-ordered medical leave, 
4. declared that I waived my client's right to a jury trial by not appearing at a scheduled trial when Judge Dowd knew my non-appearance was due to a documented medical disability, 
5. declared subpoena against himself and his secretary and law clerk "nullities", 
6. dismissed the jury;
7. conducted a non-jury trial himself;
8. had the court personnel mislead members of the public who wanted to observe the trial to prevent them from observing it, 
9. used the Facebook-friend-of-judge's-law-clerk stenographer,
10. admitted "documentary exhibits" (based on "non-jury trial minutes" that I obtained from the court clerk) at a sped of 19 seconds per exhibit

and may have done much more, based on documentary evidence of his ex parte communication in the Mokay case.

Judge Dowd engaged in ex parte communication with my opponents once, and I have documentary proof of that.

Thus, nothing would prevent him from doing that again.

So, the whole trial is not only illegal 

• because it was ex parte, 
• because it was tainted by secrecy, 
• because it was tainted by the judge subpoenaed as a witness presiding over the case (Judge Dowd, by the way, never moved to quash subpoenas against himself or his secretary and law clerk), but also 
• because there was no assurance that what the record created by the friend-of-the-law-clerk stenographer has any integrity to it, or that Judge Dowd is not engaging, as we speak, before he made the judgment on the case, in further ex parte communications with the Mokay plaintiffs and/or their counsel, as Judge Dowd and/or his office appeared to have done before - from documents I have on file.

All that mountain of work done by Judge Dowd and by Richared Harlem - with what incentive for Judge Dowd in mind, I do not know, maybe just out of hatred to me and my husband who sued him and exposed his incompetence in a pro se federal lawsuit - may become undone by the perjury of Daniel Mokay who, a month after the Mokay trial concluded, stated under oath that the essence of the case was misconduct of Daniel Mokay's father, the decedent.

On May 6, 2015 Daniel Mokay claimed under oath the following:

Since Richard Harlem and his father, retired judge Robert Harlem undertook to represent the decedent (his Estate) in February of 2006, Richard Harlem and Robert Harlem could not undertake to represent children of the decedent advancing a claim that their father committed misconduct and took what he was obliged to give to them, and ALL of Richard Harlem's legal fees, no matter what the number is, must be forfeited as a matter of law because of that irreconcilable conflict of interest, now confirmed, after the trial, as a new evidence, by Richard Harlem's client in the Mokay action Daniel Mokay.

Now let's see if judges will claim they do not know how to read the confession of Daniel Mokay or do not comprehend its meaning or implications for the Mokay case.

Judge Guy continues on his path of - what? Self-destruction or arrogance hoping for complete impunity? Future will show which one it will be

Received yesterday a letter that I already published on this blog, by Judge Guy, dated May 12, 2015, the date when I notified Judge Guy that I know that he is acting in clear absence of all jurisdiction when he made claims to me he is presiding over a case in the Delaware County Surrogate's Court.

As I wrote here before, according to the order of removal and assignment made on April 3, 2015 and filed in the Delaware County Surrogate's Court but never provided to me until I found it myself, the case was removed as of April 3, 2015 to the Delaware County Supreme Court, and Judge Guy was assigned to that removed case in the Supreme Court.

After having learnt that I know of the order of removal and assignment, Judge Guy stubbornly proceeded instructing the clerks of both courts, the court from where the case was removed and of the court where the case was removed, that the order of removal is "erroneous".

To me, Judge Guy has sent a letter denying my request for adjournment (that I made before I learnt that Judge Guy is acting without jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court).

I already answered that letter by e-mail when I received it e-mail, and that was 4 days ago, and I indicated to Judge Guy that I am abiding by the court order of removal, and to me all his directives in the Surrogate's Court are void.

The only order of assignment of Judge Guy that I have at this time is the one of April 3, 2015.

Judge Guy, who received my response and request to step down from the case because he appears to be unable to read and comprehend such a simply thing as his own order of assignment and attempts to change rules for the only reason that he has been caught breaking them, did not grace me with an answer to my request to step down.

This case is important not only for me.

It is important for pro se litigants who do not have a voice such as my client has, through me as a trained (and independent) attorney, to oppose judicial misconduct of this kind.

Note that Judge Guy stubbornly orders me in his May 12, 2015 letter that he has sent to me by e-mail and mail on May 13, 2015, that my service of process in the Surrogate's Court (the court from which Judge Guy knows the case was removed on April 3, 2015) must abide by the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SPCA).

Note that Judge Guy stubbornly claims that the case remains on the calendar of the Delaware County Supreme Court for May 22, 2015 when it was removed from that court's jurisdiction by clear order of Judge Guy's superior, Judge Mulvey, as of April 3, 2015.

The court order of removal and assignment clearly indicates that as of April 3, 2015 the case is in the Supreme Court, and thus I must abide by the CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) and not the SPCA in how the case is served and generally how I need to prosecute it.

Does Judge Guy not know how to read?

Of course, he does.

He simply does not WANT to read what implicates him in misconduct.  And he wants to change the rules, in arrears, so that he is no longer implicated in misconduct.

And that is the problem not specific to me, it is a problem of the entire judicial system of this court and this country - that immunity/impunity of judges, even for malicious and corrupt acts in office, breeds this kind of arrogant disrespect to the law and litigants' rights in judges.

Stay tuned as to how events developed.

A suggestion to start undoing immunities of all kinds

In New York, judges have to file semiannual (every half a year) financial reports.

Every time I tried to get those reports I was (1) stalled by the New York State Court Administration, (2) sanctioned or badmouthed in court proceedings by the very judges whose reports I was seeking.

What the New York State does NOT have - and should - is the requirement that all government officials file financial reports, readily available for public review, and not only of their own finances, but of finances of their significant others - being that spouses, girlfriends/boyfriends, or partners of either gender, and their relatives related to them to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity.

I am not asking for much, actually.

New York rules of disqualification of jurors as fact-finders already allow disqualification based on consanguinity or affinity to the 6th degree.

Rules of affinity actually need to be changed based on the changed concept of a family in New York and in the United States, where marriage is no longer a requirement for a family to be formed, exist and include ties with the extended family on both sides as strong as if the couple is married.

I am the witness of this process as an attorney representing both married and unmarried parents in Family courts in cases of custody of children, where there is no difference in vigor, sometimes vehemence, and strength of family ties with the child is demonstrated by the members of extended family without any relevance to whether the parents of the child are married or not.

Public must be able to know potential conflicts of interest of their public officials, and especially judges.

At this time, the public is stalled (as I was) in obtaining financial information from the New York State Court administration regarding judge's semi-annual financial disclosures.

At this time, the public is prevented and chilled by the increasing trend of sanctions against civil rights victims/plaintiffs in civil rights actions brought against judges and prosecutors from conducting discovery of that misconduct, from being able to call judges and prosecutors to depositions and having an ability, as litigants, to ask them questions that have to be answered under oath and subject them to scrutiny of jurors (and not fellow judges) as fact-finders.

It has been in the news that judges react by pressing charges (sometimes by abusing their power) against members of the public who came to the judge's home address to talk to the judge and address their concerns.

Relying on the decoy system of judicial and prosecutorial discipline is, of course, a joke, and the public knows it is a joke - where attorney disciplinary committees are never pursuing prosecutors for misconduct, no matter how bad and where and committees for judicial conduct, populated predominantly by judges and by attorneys whose licenses and livelihoods are in the hands of judges, thus creating irreconcilable conflicts of interest from the very beginning.

The only way the public will be able to know about judge's behind-the-scenes deals is simple enough:

1. push the state legislators - or push for an amendment to the state Constitutions, if legislators (dominated by the legal profession that is dependent for its livelihood on being on good terms with the judiciary) are unwilling to make necessary changes, to introduce a degree of transparency necessary for the public, the sovereign at both state and federal level, to conduct its own investigations:

A. prohibit restrictions on the use of videotaping of court proceedings by private citizens without the necessity to seek permission or give advance notice for doing such videotaping, in other words, permit spontaneous and surreptitious videotaping of open court proceedings by court observers.

B. Mandate judges who discharge functions of fact-finders (and all judges do, especially judges in administrative proceedings, special proceedings and proceedings in Family Court and at criminal pre-trial hearings) to file and make readily available to the public not only their own financial reports, but reports of their family members to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity, affinity understood broadly to mean the actual committed relationships and not only marital relationships.

Then, it will be easier for the public to oversee what now has become a monster of corruption, including judicial corruption, a monster that is protecting its existence through its mostly usurped power and through its secrecy and by creating bars for the public from accessing information.

I predict claims of violation of privacy by judges and other public officials.

I have a very simple response to those claims:  if you want to preserve your privacy, and that of your family, do not run for a public office.  Once you did, you and your finances are in the public domain, and must be disclosed to people who allowed you to rule them.  It is the condition of giving you that consent to rule.  If you do not want to satisfy that condition - do not opt for the job (a well-paying job, paying times more than the average income in this country, a job with a lot of power and a lot of benefits).