Attorney licensing exists - as consumers of legal services, 80% of whom cannot afford an attorney - are told time and again from high pulpits, to protect consumers from bad lawyers.
If that is so, then why Florida lawyers are so adamant against allowing multi-jurisdictional practice, specifically, against relaxing rules for out-of-state attorneys to get admitted to practice in the State?
They are adamant to the point of applying pressure to the President of the Florida Bar Association to go back on his prior word that he will support rules that will allow more out-of-state attorneys to practice law in the state of Florida.
Are out-of-state attorneys presumed to know Florida law worse and represent the local consumers worse than in-state lawyers?
Or are Florida lawyers afraid that out-of-staters will be attorneys of choice for legal consumers concerned that the local attorneys got too cozy with local judges and will not represent them independently and zealously?
Reaction of Florida lawyers to the potential "invasion" of out-of-state attorneys can be called only as an anticompetitive move to protect their market, and market protection, with the accompanying fewer provider of services, higher prices and less choice for the consumer, is a clear antitrust violation.
Is it any surprise? Of course, not.
Licensing of court representation should be repealed throughout the United States as unconstitutional and preventing independent representation in court.
And Florida snake-pit fights are only a confirmation of that requirement of modern times.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Proposed clear rules against violators of constitutional rights make clear sense. Legislators, any implementation?
The recent blog of an outstanding contributor to the Forbes.com blog on issues of constitutional rights, George Leef, is about knowing violation by a president of a State University of the State of Georgia (Valcosta State) of a student's free speech rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
George Leef rightfully questions why the $900,000.00 settlement and legal fees pertaining to obvious misconduct by the State University's president, in obvious violation of the student's constitutional right, must be borne by taxpayers and not by the violator.
A commentator to George Leef's blog proposed this rule as to government actors who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights, with an addition to the rule by George Leef:
So, the proposed rule, as stated by a member of the public plus a venerable commentator, is:
If you knowingly violate (let's take it more broadly) people's constitutional rights, you are fired and you are made to indemnify (let's take it more broadly, too) the taxpayers and the victims of your misconduct out of your own pocket.
There mere possibility of being hit in the pocket will drastically reduce constitutional violations, that's a guarantee.
Another recent settlement came to mind, of $600,000 that New York taxpayers had to pay in the case that lasted 4.5 years and involved clear misconduct of several high-ranking judges and their assistants in retaliation against a court employee who refused a judge's bid to engage in political espionage against another judge and Democratic judicial candidate.
That is the case of Bobette Maurin v James Tormey et al.
New York taxpayers also had to pay for the obvious misconduct of a judge, and the judge was, for some inexplicable reason, represented at the expense of taxpayers, even though his actions for which he was sued, were nowhere near his judicial authority.
That's why I would pose the question broader - why public officials who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights are not fired and are not made to indemnify victims of their misconduct - both the direct victims and the taxpayers who are made to pay for the misconduct?
And why the laws that condone, support or promote such a travesty of justice are not yet repealed, in our democratic society?
Will any legislators be bold enough to propose a bill repealing any and all absolute immunities of any and all public officials, and to leave, if even that is unconstitutional, only qualified immunities, to be tried to juries.
Tormey did not lose either his job or his license as a result of his shenannigans, and is now used by the court system as the ultimate "closer" of lawsuits against judges, as I found out, because he was assigned to three lawsuits (Bracci v Becker, Neroni v Zayas, Neroni v Follender) that I brought where a defendant is either a judge or claimed being part of a court (as a member of an attorney disciplinary committee - which made no sense because a member of the court may not investigate and prosecute under the doctrine of separation of powers), whether he was sued for what he did as a judge or not.
Tormey engaged in an ex parte communication in Bracci v Becker (the NYS Court Administration concealed that evidence, refusing to release to me courthouse videos in answer to my FOIL request under a laughable pretext), punished me for suing his own valuable self in federal court in Neroni v Follender, with an illegal anti-filing injunction and sanctions, and while misrepresenting the record, and dismissed Neroni v Zayas on "lack of service" where service was waived. A true closer.
I did not expect anything less from a judge whose level of integrity is as low as is described in the Maurin v Tormey lawsuit.
Since Tormey was not made accountable for his misconduct in the Maureen v Tormey lawsuit, he continued his shenanigans, and is being sued once again at this time, with taxpayers paying for his legal representation once again.
Tormey who, as I already wrote on this blog, has a distinct tendency of discriminating against women, is not unique in his misconduct. Other public officials, knowing that the state attorney general will represent them at public expense, and that federal courts will bend over backwards to absolve them of any liability, stretching the unconstitutional concept of immunity illegally created by judges beyond its declared logic and beyond any point of rationality, do whatever they want and think that they are the law because nobody can question or contain them when they are out there to strike in retaliation.
Only hitting them in the pocket will help.
It will not take much to send them a message that their misconduct is not tolerated.
Just issue the law repealing all kinds of absolute immunities, and make the law requiring that, when qualified immunity is asserted, it must be decided by the jury, not the federal judge - as any mixed issues of fact and laws should be decided - and that will be it.
I would also repeal all the laws allowing public officials to be represented at the taxpayers expense when they are sued for knowing constitutional violations.
People will then be more cautious when they run for public office. It will not reduce influx of real talent, but it will definitely reduce the influx to public office of unscrupulous crooks who come their to do their business with their friends and to wield revenge against their perceived enemies, at taxpayers' expense and in violation of state and federal constitutional laws.
George Leef rightfully questions why the $900,000.00 settlement and legal fees pertaining to obvious misconduct by the State University's president, in obvious violation of the student's constitutional right, must be borne by taxpayers and not by the violator.
A commentator to George Leef's blog proposed this rule as to government actors who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights, with an addition to the rule by George Leef:
So, the proposed rule, as stated by a member of the public plus a venerable commentator, is:
If you knowingly violate (let's take it more broadly) people's constitutional rights, you are fired and you are made to indemnify (let's take it more broadly, too) the taxpayers and the victims of your misconduct out of your own pocket.
There mere possibility of being hit in the pocket will drastically reduce constitutional violations, that's a guarantee.
Another recent settlement came to mind, of $600,000 that New York taxpayers had to pay in the case that lasted 4.5 years and involved clear misconduct of several high-ranking judges and their assistants in retaliation against a court employee who refused a judge's bid to engage in political espionage against another judge and Democratic judicial candidate.
That is the case of Bobette Maurin v James Tormey et al.
New York taxpayers also had to pay for the obvious misconduct of a judge, and the judge was, for some inexplicable reason, represented at the expense of taxpayers, even though his actions for which he was sued, were nowhere near his judicial authority.
That's why I would pose the question broader - why public officials who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights are not fired and are not made to indemnify victims of their misconduct - both the direct victims and the taxpayers who are made to pay for the misconduct?
And why the laws that condone, support or promote such a travesty of justice are not yet repealed, in our democratic society?
Will any legislators be bold enough to propose a bill repealing any and all absolute immunities of any and all public officials, and to leave, if even that is unconstitutional, only qualified immunities, to be tried to juries.
Tormey did not lose either his job or his license as a result of his shenannigans, and is now used by the court system as the ultimate "closer" of lawsuits against judges, as I found out, because he was assigned to three lawsuits (Bracci v Becker, Neroni v Zayas, Neroni v Follender) that I brought where a defendant is either a judge or claimed being part of a court (as a member of an attorney disciplinary committee - which made no sense because a member of the court may not investigate and prosecute under the doctrine of separation of powers), whether he was sued for what he did as a judge or not.
Tormey engaged in an ex parte communication in Bracci v Becker (the NYS Court Administration concealed that evidence, refusing to release to me courthouse videos in answer to my FOIL request under a laughable pretext), punished me for suing his own valuable self in federal court in Neroni v Follender, with an illegal anti-filing injunction and sanctions, and while misrepresenting the record, and dismissed Neroni v Zayas on "lack of service" where service was waived. A true closer.
I did not expect anything less from a judge whose level of integrity is as low as is described in the Maurin v Tormey lawsuit.
Since Tormey was not made accountable for his misconduct in the Maureen v Tormey lawsuit, he continued his shenanigans, and is being sued once again at this time, with taxpayers paying for his legal representation once again.
Tormey who, as I already wrote on this blog, has a distinct tendency of discriminating against women, is not unique in his misconduct. Other public officials, knowing that the state attorney general will represent them at public expense, and that federal courts will bend over backwards to absolve them of any liability, stretching the unconstitutional concept of immunity illegally created by judges beyond its declared logic and beyond any point of rationality, do whatever they want and think that they are the law because nobody can question or contain them when they are out there to strike in retaliation.
Only hitting them in the pocket will help.
It will not take much to send them a message that their misconduct is not tolerated.
Just issue the law repealing all kinds of absolute immunities, and make the law requiring that, when qualified immunity is asserted, it must be decided by the jury, not the federal judge - as any mixed issues of fact and laws should be decided - and that will be it.
I would also repeal all the laws allowing public officials to be represented at the taxpayers expense when they are sued for knowing constitutional violations.
People will then be more cautious when they run for public office. It will not reduce influx of real talent, but it will definitely reduce the influx to public office of unscrupulous crooks who come their to do their business with their friends and to wield revenge against their perceived enemies, at taxpayers' expense and in violation of state and federal constitutional laws.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Albany County District Attorney David Soares and why he is not being disbarred for misconduct that he was sanctioned for by a federal court
As I wrote on this blog, disciplinary proceedings against attorneys in New York State mostly target civil rights and defense counsel - and New York carefully conceals, as my recent FOIL request interaction, to put it mildly, with the NYS Court Administration's attorney Shawn Kerby indicated, statistics that would show this little slant in discipline.
Prosecutors are disciplined, if at all, very rarely, and even when they are disciplined, that is usually in response to some ongoing public scandal, the discipline is usually a slap on the wrist, and the State of New York does everything in its power to diminish and hide the fact that the discipline was ever imposed and what was it imposed for - as opposed to discipline upon defense attorneys which is publicized.
As an example, I can point out the discipline - and lack thereof - against Albany County District Attorney David Soares - as compared as to discipline, and what it was imposed for, against successful criminal defense attorney Terence Kindlon, Soares' frequent opponent and father of Soares' political opponent, attorney Lee Kindlon who ran for Soares' office in 2012.
Here are some interested public records showing why David Soares is so special that discipline for what he really did wrong does not reach him.
First of all, here is the biography of David Soares on the public, taxpayer-backed website of the Albany County District Attorney's office propounding Mr. Soares' integrity and "family values":
Let me remind you that Mr. Soares employs as an Assistant District Attorney the son of Albany County Family Court judge Susan Kushner Stephen Allinger (while Judge Susan Kushner, a judge of questionable integrity since the beginning of her judicial career, presides over Family Court child abuse cases where the District Attorney's office is a necessary party as a matter of law), which completely disqualifies Judge Kushner - but I doubt that Judge Kushner steps down from child abuse cases, and I doubt that the Albany County District Attorney's office seeks its own disqualification based on employment of Judge Kushner's son.
Let me remind you that Mr. Soares also employs as another ADA Anthony Cardona Jr., the son of the now deceased former Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Anthony Cardona.
Let me remind you that Anthony Cardona Jr. has a law firm where his law partner is the beloved niece of federal judge Mae D'Agostino Amanda Kurilyuk (and former partner of that same law firm, and attorney for David Soares in his individual capacity Mae D'Agostino, now a judge in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York).
Anthony Cardona Jr. has been with David Soares' office for 14 years, according to his admission on his own law firm's website in his own official biography.
Thus, Anthony Cardona Jr. was hired by the Albany County District Attorney's office in 2001.
David Soares is the Albany County DA since 2004, also according to his own admission in his official biography on the District Attorney's website.
So, for 10 years, since 2001 to 2011, and for 7 years while David Soares was the Albany County District Attorney, the Albany County District Attorney's office employed as an ADA the son of the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department (who served on that court as the Chief Justice from 1994 till his death in 2011), the appellate court where the Albany County District Attorney litigated cases.
That includes the time of controversial overruling by the Cardona-father's court of disqualification of Cardona-son's employer on August 4, 2011, several months before Cardona-father's death and while he was still Chief Justice of the Appellate Division 3rd Department.
Let's note for the sake of fairness that Cardona-father did not preside over the petition for the writ of prohibition filed by Cardona-son's employer.
Yet, the rules of disqualification are strict, and the position of Cardona-father as a presiding justice of the appellate court, whether he was or was not on the actual panel, cast a huge taint on the determination of the court.
The taint got only worse since the judge who has actually rendered the opinion in favor of her own chief's son's employer, Judge Karen Peters, was named as a successor to Judge Cardona after his death.
Cardona-son's law firm, as I wrote on this blog before, embraced and employed the starry-eyed disgraced former judge kicked off the bench of the East Greenbush town court for fixing a traffic ticket ( which is a crime) who was neither disbarred nor prosecuted and whose judgeship (but not its disgraceful end) is advertised on the law firm's website as the disgraced former judge's asset. Not to mention that the disgraced former judge in question formerly worked for Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma and was an adviser to town courts on legal ethics.
Recently I checked, and, apparently after I extensively blogged about impropriety of employment of former disgraced judge Diane L. Schilling by MGuire Cardona law firm, Diane L. Schilling left the firm and is now employed at Napierski, Vandenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, also in Albany, NY. Please, note that there is no public discipline for an attorney who engaged in a traffic ticket-fixing scheme and was kicked off the bench for that.
A big happy dynastic family, isn't it? Nothing to do with integrity or any kind of duty of loyalty to the law, don't you think?
The interesting detail is where exactly now-judge Mae D'Agostino represented David Soares in his individual capacity.
Mae D'Agostino represented David Soares in a civil rights case filed against him for what can only be characterized as gross prosecutorial misconduct, and where, while represented by Mae D'Agostino, David Soares was found to have engaged in bad faith and spoliation of evidence (see decision posted in full below) and was ordered to pay over $29,000 in attorney's fees of his opponents (see decision posted in full below).
After David Soares escaped disbarment for his shenanigans, obviously because he knows - and employs - the right people, properly connected to the judiciary - his attorney Mae D'Agostino received a federal judgeship for life, her niece received a partnership in her former law firm also employing David Soares' subordinate ADA Anthony Cardona (son of the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Department Anthony Cardona).
And, David Soares learnt that employing sons of judges pays off well, and employed another son of a judge, Stephen Allinger, son of judge Susan Kushner, after Kushner became a judge. Smart move, Mr. Soares.
And David Soares' "censure" imposed upon him on May 9, 2012 by the Appellate Division 4th Department (somehow the Third Department recused - which the Third Department should have done, but did not do in Soares v Herrick, too), even though
mentioned on his attorney registration website, the website modestly conceals the link to the actual decision as to his discipline.
Compare with the link on Terence Kindlon's registration website about his public discipline, imposed without any discussion as to WHAT was it exactly that caught his attention in an e-mail and made him photograph it - whether it was undisclosed information that the prosecution had their duty to disclose or not.
Mr. Kindlon, a war veteran, an attorney who is much older than David Soares, with a much more venerable record of public service, was not spared by the State of New York, and the link to his disciplinary decision is prominently on his registration website - unlike Mr. Soares who gets preferential treatement as a prosecutor even when the State of New York publicly announces that information about attorney discipline is now available on the website - but, apparently, not against prosecutors.
I will correct that error and publish the entire decision for discipline of David Soares.
Here it is, dated May 9, 2012.
Let's note that the only impropriety that the disciplinary court found is that David Soares criticized a judicial decision to disqualify him in a current case - that in New York warranted a public censure of the prosecutor.
Yet, here are decisions against David Soares by the Florida federal court as to his bad faith and spoliation of evidence, dated October 10, 2012, 5 months after the censure,
and a full decision by the Florida federal district court on attorneys fees as sanctions against David Soares dated December 21, 2012, 7 months after the censure.
And you know what is amazing?
That New York state courts and disciplinary committees, while prosecuting David Soares for criticizing a judicial decision during the pendency of a criminal case, completely disregarded discipline imposed upon Mr. Soares by a Florida federal court (where David Soares, apparently, did not employ any judge's offspring and thus suffered the discipline as required by law), right after David Soares was publicly censured.
No further disciplinary proceedings against David Soares occurred in New York, even though lying to the court and spoliation of evidence should have had him disbarred, which is the usual discipline New York disciplinary courts impose for lying to the court alone.
What is also amazing is that Terence Kindlon, a prominent criminal defense attorney from Albany, NY and a war veteran with a Purple Heart was sanctioned for so much as taking a picture of an admittedly inappropriate communication between the prosecutor and a former prosecutor - an action which did not warrant any discipline at all, while - coincidence! - Terence Kindlon's son Lee Kindlon was running against David Soares for the office of the District Attorney, and mentioning David Soares' public and private misconduct in his campaign and mentioning David Soares' centure in May of 2012 in his campaign.
Here is a report from that battle from a local Albany blogger, with multiple links to various interesting details. It is an enlightening read.
Such reports in the media undoubtedly should have resulted in the investigation of David Soares.
Yet, it resulted in the discipline against his opponent's father, a decorated war veteran, and in no discipline against David Soares, not for impropriety in office, not for lying to the federal court and destroying evidence for which he was sanctioned.
But, I guess, David Soares is anything but usual. He is special. He knows the rules. He employs the right people, with the right pedigree. As a consequence of his "employment policies", he has friends in high places.
I guess, it pays to have friends in high places when you are a public prosecutor.
I guess, it pays to employ offspring of judges.
It pays.
And it has nothing to do with the declared lofty goals and claims of integrity.
This is how prosecutorial "business" is done in the State of New York - and, Americans become increasingly aware, no thanks to the mainstream reporting but rather due to bloggers and social media, that this is the way prosecutors are handling their "business" across the country.
And that must change.
Prosecutors are disciplined, if at all, very rarely, and even when they are disciplined, that is usually in response to some ongoing public scandal, the discipline is usually a slap on the wrist, and the State of New York does everything in its power to diminish and hide the fact that the discipline was ever imposed and what was it imposed for - as opposed to discipline upon defense attorneys which is publicized.
As an example, I can point out the discipline - and lack thereof - against Albany County District Attorney David Soares - as compared as to discipline, and what it was imposed for, against successful criminal defense attorney Terence Kindlon, Soares' frequent opponent and father of Soares' political opponent, attorney Lee Kindlon who ran for Soares' office in 2012.
Here are some interested public records showing why David Soares is so special that discipline for what he really did wrong does not reach him.
First of all, here is the biography of David Soares on the public, taxpayer-backed website of the Albany County District Attorney's office propounding Mr. Soares' integrity and "family values":
Let me remind you that Mr. Soares employs as an Assistant District Attorney the son of Albany County Family Court judge Susan Kushner Stephen Allinger (while Judge Susan Kushner, a judge of questionable integrity since the beginning of her judicial career, presides over Family Court child abuse cases where the District Attorney's office is a necessary party as a matter of law), which completely disqualifies Judge Kushner - but I doubt that Judge Kushner steps down from child abuse cases, and I doubt that the Albany County District Attorney's office seeks its own disqualification based on employment of Judge Kushner's son.
Let me remind you that Mr. Soares also employs as another ADA Anthony Cardona Jr., the son of the now deceased former Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Anthony Cardona.
Let me remind you that Anthony Cardona Jr. has a law firm where his law partner is the beloved niece of federal judge Mae D'Agostino Amanda Kurilyuk (and former partner of that same law firm, and attorney for David Soares in his individual capacity Mae D'Agostino, now a judge in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York).
Anthony Cardona Jr. has been with David Soares' office for 14 years, according to his admission on his own law firm's website in his own official biography.
Thus, Anthony Cardona Jr. was hired by the Albany County District Attorney's office in 2001.
David Soares is the Albany County DA since 2004, also according to his own admission in his official biography on the District Attorney's website.
So, for 10 years, since 2001 to 2011, and for 7 years while David Soares was the Albany County District Attorney, the Albany County District Attorney's office employed as an ADA the son of the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department (who served on that court as the Chief Justice from 1994 till his death in 2011), the appellate court where the Albany County District Attorney litigated cases.
That includes the time of controversial overruling by the Cardona-father's court of disqualification of Cardona-son's employer on August 4, 2011, several months before Cardona-father's death and while he was still Chief Justice of the Appellate Division 3rd Department.
Let's note for the sake of fairness that Cardona-father did not preside over the petition for the writ of prohibition filed by Cardona-son's employer.
Yet, the rules of disqualification are strict, and the position of Cardona-father as a presiding justice of the appellate court, whether he was or was not on the actual panel, cast a huge taint on the determination of the court.
The taint got only worse since the judge who has actually rendered the opinion in favor of her own chief's son's employer, Judge Karen Peters, was named as a successor to Judge Cardona after his death.
Cardona-son's law firm, as I wrote on this blog before, embraced and employed the starry-eyed disgraced former judge kicked off the bench of the East Greenbush town court for fixing a traffic ticket ( which is a crime) who was neither disbarred nor prosecuted and whose judgeship (but not its disgraceful end) is advertised on the law firm's website as the disgraced former judge's asset. Not to mention that the disgraced former judge in question formerly worked for Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma and was an adviser to town courts on legal ethics.
Recently I checked, and, apparently after I extensively blogged about impropriety of employment of former disgraced judge Diane L. Schilling by MGuire Cardona law firm, Diane L. Schilling left the firm and is now employed at Napierski, Vandenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, also in Albany, NY. Please, note that there is no public discipline for an attorney who engaged in a traffic ticket-fixing scheme and was kicked off the bench for that.
A big happy dynastic family, isn't it? Nothing to do with integrity or any kind of duty of loyalty to the law, don't you think?
The interesting detail is where exactly now-judge Mae D'Agostino represented David Soares in his individual capacity.
Mae D'Agostino represented David Soares in a civil rights case filed against him for what can only be characterized as gross prosecutorial misconduct, and where, while represented by Mae D'Agostino, David Soares was found to have engaged in bad faith and spoliation of evidence (see decision posted in full below) and was ordered to pay over $29,000 in attorney's fees of his opponents (see decision posted in full below).
After David Soares escaped disbarment for his shenanigans, obviously because he knows - and employs - the right people, properly connected to the judiciary - his attorney Mae D'Agostino received a federal judgeship for life, her niece received a partnership in her former law firm also employing David Soares' subordinate ADA Anthony Cardona (son of the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Department Anthony Cardona).
And, David Soares learnt that employing sons of judges pays off well, and employed another son of a judge, Stephen Allinger, son of judge Susan Kushner, after Kushner became a judge. Smart move, Mr. Soares.
And David Soares' "censure" imposed upon him on May 9, 2012 by the Appellate Division 4th Department (somehow the Third Department recused - which the Third Department should have done, but did not do in Soares v Herrick, too), even though
mentioned on his attorney registration website, the website modestly conceals the link to the actual decision as to his discipline.
Compare with the link on Terence Kindlon's registration website about his public discipline, imposed without any discussion as to WHAT was it exactly that caught his attention in an e-mail and made him photograph it - whether it was undisclosed information that the prosecution had their duty to disclose or not.
Mr. Kindlon, a war veteran, an attorney who is much older than David Soares, with a much more venerable record of public service, was not spared by the State of New York, and the link to his disciplinary decision is prominently on his registration website - unlike Mr. Soares who gets preferential treatement as a prosecutor even when the State of New York publicly announces that information about attorney discipline is now available on the website - but, apparently, not against prosecutors.
I will correct that error and publish the entire decision for discipline of David Soares.
Here it is, dated May 9, 2012.
Let's note that the only impropriety that the disciplinary court found is that David Soares criticized a judicial decision to disqualify him in a current case - that in New York warranted a public censure of the prosecutor.
Yet, here are decisions against David Soares by the Florida federal court as to his bad faith and spoliation of evidence, dated October 10, 2012, 5 months after the censure,
and a full decision by the Florida federal district court on attorneys fees as sanctions against David Soares dated December 21, 2012, 7 months after the censure.
And you know what is amazing?
That New York state courts and disciplinary committees, while prosecuting David Soares for criticizing a judicial decision during the pendency of a criminal case, completely disregarded discipline imposed upon Mr. Soares by a Florida federal court (where David Soares, apparently, did not employ any judge's offspring and thus suffered the discipline as required by law), right after David Soares was publicly censured.
No further disciplinary proceedings against David Soares occurred in New York, even though lying to the court and spoliation of evidence should have had him disbarred, which is the usual discipline New York disciplinary courts impose for lying to the court alone.
What is also amazing is that Terence Kindlon, a prominent criminal defense attorney from Albany, NY and a war veteran with a Purple Heart was sanctioned for so much as taking a picture of an admittedly inappropriate communication between the prosecutor and a former prosecutor - an action which did not warrant any discipline at all, while - coincidence! - Terence Kindlon's son Lee Kindlon was running against David Soares for the office of the District Attorney, and mentioning David Soares' public and private misconduct in his campaign and mentioning David Soares' centure in May of 2012 in his campaign.
Here is a report from that battle from a local Albany blogger, with multiple links to various interesting details. It is an enlightening read.
Such reports in the media undoubtedly should have resulted in the investigation of David Soares.
Yet, it resulted in the discipline against his opponent's father, a decorated war veteran, and in no discipline against David Soares, not for impropriety in office, not for lying to the federal court and destroying evidence for which he was sanctioned.
But, I guess, David Soares is anything but usual. He is special. He knows the rules. He employs the right people, with the right pedigree. As a consequence of his "employment policies", he has friends in high places.
I guess, it pays to have friends in high places when you are a public prosecutor.
I guess, it pays to employ offspring of judges.
It pays.
And it has nothing to do with the declared lofty goals and claims of integrity.
This is how prosecutorial "business" is done in the State of New York - and, Americans become increasingly aware, no thanks to the mainstream reporting but rather due to bloggers and social media, that this is the way prosecutors are handling their "business" across the country.
And that must change.
Quo vadis, Carl Becker?
According to the rules of professional discipline in New York, an attorney must change register any changes in his/her mailing address within 30 days of the actual change.
As of July 31, 2015 Carl Becker officially retired from his position of the Delaware County County/Family/Surrogate's Court judge.
As of today, August 2, 2015, he is still registered as an attorney at his old, judicial address.
Carl Becker has until August 30, 2015 to change his attorney registration address.
Let's see whether he will comply with the rules of registration.
Let's also see who will embrace the retired judge who was a disgrace to the bench for his entire judicial career by accepting him into a law practice.
So, where are you going, Carl Becker? The law requires you to answer that question and to publish the answer for the public to see.
I will follow up on this.
Stay tuned.
As of July 31, 2015 Carl Becker officially retired from his position of the Delaware County County/Family/Surrogate's Court judge.
As of today, August 2, 2015, he is still registered as an attorney at his old, judicial address.
Carl Becker has until August 30, 2015 to change his attorney registration address.
Let's see whether he will comply with the rules of registration.
Let's also see who will embrace the retired judge who was a disgrace to the bench for his entire judicial career by accepting him into a law practice.
So, where are you going, Carl Becker? The law requires you to answer that question and to publish the answer for the public to see.
I will follow up on this.
Stay tuned.
Way to go, Gary Rosa!
A reader has recently pointed out to me that Gary Rosa is not active in his judicial campaign for the position of Delaware County/Family court judge (in New York).
I double-checked on the web - and was pleasantly surprised that the contrary is true.
Judicial candidate Gary Rosa is not only active, but is delivering rightly deserved criticism for the judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood for signing contracts for millions of taxpayer dollars where contracts were never subjected to bidding system, which is the ULTIMATE CORRUPTION.
Here is the newspaper report with a fuller account of Gary Rosa's criticism of Porter Kirkwood - which is all true and all fair, I must add.
As I stated in private and in public before, I know Gary Rosa as a Middletown town justice, through my appearance in front of him.
One thing that must be said about Gary Rosa as a judge is that, unlike his opponent Porter Kirkwood, he is a straight shooter, with an even temperament and rulings on the law, not upon wishes of the judge's buddies.
Porter Kirkwood is a political animal who is corrupt to his core, as more and more evidence of his dealings, as the recent audit of the Delaware County demonstrated, and as the recent news that Delaware County police, probation and prosecution are all financed out of conviction fines, with the blessings of both judicial candidates from the Republican party - Porter Kirkwood and Richard Northrup.
As a Republican myself, I wonder - can't the Republican party find somebody honest to run for a judge?
For shame!
And, by the way, Carl Becker in his campaign where he allegedly "eked" out a victory over Gary Rosa (through fraudulent statements to the voters and, possibly, through manipulation of ballots by the Delaware County Board of Elections controlled by Becker for years to the point that it submitted a false certificate of his prior elections in 2011 when no underlying documents to back up such a certification existed) pounded on his superior experience as a judge.
Yet, as Gary Rosa correctly stated to his electorate, he is the only candidate in the current judicial race who has ANY experience as a judge, and his ANY experience is not one, not two years, but 23 years on the bench and, I must add, unblemished years.
Gary Rosa is an absolutely superior candidate over the corrupt Porter Kirkwood.
As to the corrupt Richard Northrup who runs against nobody, "nobody" is a better candidate for a judge than Richard Northrup.
I double-checked on the web - and was pleasantly surprised that the contrary is true.
Judicial candidate Gary Rosa is not only active, but is delivering rightly deserved criticism for the judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood for signing contracts for millions of taxpayer dollars where contracts were never subjected to bidding system, which is the ULTIMATE CORRUPTION.
Here is the newspaper report with a fuller account of Gary Rosa's criticism of Porter Kirkwood - which is all true and all fair, I must add.
As I stated in private and in public before, I know Gary Rosa as a Middletown town justice, through my appearance in front of him.
One thing that must be said about Gary Rosa as a judge is that, unlike his opponent Porter Kirkwood, he is a straight shooter, with an even temperament and rulings on the law, not upon wishes of the judge's buddies.
Porter Kirkwood is a political animal who is corrupt to his core, as more and more evidence of his dealings, as the recent audit of the Delaware County demonstrated, and as the recent news that Delaware County police, probation and prosecution are all financed out of conviction fines, with the blessings of both judicial candidates from the Republican party - Porter Kirkwood and Richard Northrup.
As a Republican myself, I wonder - can't the Republican party find somebody honest to run for a judge?
For shame!
And, by the way, Carl Becker in his campaign where he allegedly "eked" out a victory over Gary Rosa (through fraudulent statements to the voters and, possibly, through manipulation of ballots by the Delaware County Board of Elections controlled by Becker for years to the point that it submitted a false certificate of his prior elections in 2011 when no underlying documents to back up such a certification existed) pounded on his superior experience as a judge.
Yet, as Gary Rosa correctly stated to his electorate, he is the only candidate in the current judicial race who has ANY experience as a judge, and his ANY experience is not one, not two years, but 23 years on the bench and, I must add, unblemished years.
Gary Rosa is an absolutely superior candidate over the corrupt Porter Kirkwood.
As to the corrupt Richard Northrup who runs against nobody, "nobody" is a better candidate for a judge than Richard Northrup.
Delaware County District Attorney's office to critics of judicial misconduct: your life is forfeit
I have so far three episodes so far indicating that the Delaware County District Attorney's office would not investigate and prosecute violent crimes committed against local critics of judicial misconduct and, in one case, prosecuted the victim instead of the perpetrator of such a violent crime.
Three episodes, in my mind, constitutes a pattern.
The first episode happened in 2010.
A U.S. Marine Ryan Adams (now a reservist for the Marines whose location at this time, with his daughter, the granddaughter of Barbara O'Sullivan, upon information and belief, remains unknown since he absconded with the minor child without notifying the mother or the custody court of his current address, and the FBI is somehow not trying to locate him - and I wonder whether the reluctance to issue an Amber alert and treat Ryan Adam's behavior as parental kidnapping is due to the favoritism displayed to him by various courts because of he is a former U.S. Marine, a U.S. Marine reservist and because of his family connections to various U.S. senators and/or senator candidates), made a death threat against Barbara O'Sullivan on the phone some time in May of 2010. Since Ryan Adams had a history of violence before that, Barbara O'Sullivan perceived the threat as believable and notified the police and the military authorities.
The military authorities immediately issued an order of protection against Ryan Adams.
The Delhi Village Police Department considered the evidence of the death threat serious and substantial enough to bring criminal charges against Ryan Adams in Delhi Town court before judge Richard Gumo.
At that time, a custody proceeding was pending in the Delaware County Family Court pertaining to Barbara O'Sullivan's granddaughter.
Barbara O'Sullivan was not a party to the proceedings.
Ryan Adams was represented at that time in custody proceedings by a attorney William Brenner who previously ran against Hillary Clinton for the position of U.S. Senator for the State of New York on a Republican ticket.
Becker is a Republican.
Ryan Adams retained for representation in his criminal case attorney Michael McGuire out of Sullivan County who has become a judge during representation of Ryan Adams and who was similarly running, and was eventually elected, on a Republican ticket.
Michael McGuire announced his run for the position of Sullivan County Family Court judge in March of 2010, long before he undertook representation of Ryan Adams in his criminal case.
In September of 2010, without waiting for the disposition of the criminal case in People v. Ryan Adams in the Delhi Town Court, Judge Becker made a ruling in the custody proceedings giving custody to Ryan Adams, who was still under criminal proceedings for making a death threat against the grandmother of his child, punished the mother of the child (who was known to him for making a report against him regarding his misconduct in the Glenford Hull murder trial in talking to the jury during deliberations and demonstrating how a gun works) with extremely burdensome visitation, and punishing the grandmother who was the ALLEGED VICTIM in a pending, unadjudicated criminal proceedings in Delhi Town Court against Ryan Adams by directing the mother that she should not allow grandmother near the child.
The only basis for Becker's order like that was the pending unadjudicated criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams, which could be adjudicated only by the court where the proceedings were commenced, Delhi Town Court, yet, Becker made his own adjudication.
Senior ADA John Hubbard promised Barbara O'Sullivan, the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams, that she will be notified and be able to be present if any disposition in the case is about to be reached, in order to be able to oppose it and address the court.
Yet, Senior ADA John Hubbard misrepresented to Barbara O'Sullivan the time of appearance for Ryan Adams in such a way that, when Barbara O'Sullivan appeared in court, Ryan Adams was already given an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" for 6 months.
John Hubbard reacted to Barbara O'Sullivan's indignation at his misconduct by the question why Barbara O'Sullivan hired Tatiana Neroni (myself) to represent her daughter in the custody proceedings, and that if Judge Becker previously gave custody to the father, he must be right.
Of course, neither of these issue have anything to do with the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams.
Of course, John Hubbard who purchased the law office building and, possibly, the law practice from Carl Becker in 2002 when he first came to the bench, and who obviously was led in his prosecutorial duties by what Judge Becker, and not John Hubbard's duty as a prosecutor, dictated John Hubbard to do, indicated strong grounds for disqualification of John Hubbard from the case People v. Ryan Adams.
In plain English, it was none of John Hubbard's business who is hired to represent whom in the Family Court custody proceedings. It is simply irrelevant to the criminal prosecution in front of him.
In plain English, it was non of John Hubbard's business whether Judge Becker was or was not correct granting custody to Ryan Adams, since Ryan Adams was not prosecuted for anything related to custody, but for his death threat agaisnt the grandmother, a separate and distinct criminal offense.
Barbara O'Sullivan later filed with the Delhi Town Court, Judge Gumo, documents showing that Ryan Adams violated his ACD.
Judge Gumo disregarded the filing and let the proceedings against Ryan Adams to be dismissed - long after Ryan Adams' attorney of record has become a judge and without any substitution of counsel due to such judgeship.
In my legal opinion, the dismissal of criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams under the circumstances and at the time when Ryan Adams' attorney became a judge and could no longer represent Ryan Adams, indicates that the dismissal was unlawful and void and that the criminal proceedings in People v Ryan Adams must still be pending in Delhi Town Court.
John Hubbard's willingness to dismiss a criminal proceeding against a perpetrator of a death threat against an middle-aged woman simply because she hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker speaks volumes about integrity of the DA's office in Delaware County.
In fact, that dismissal was not the only misconduct John Hubbard committed in that case, People v. Ryan Adams.
At the time when charges were brought and filed agaisnt Ryan Adams, Ryan Adams resided out of the State of New York and could be arrested within the State of New York only when he came for court appearances in Family Court.
Naturally, if a criminal defendant is forewarned about a newly filed criminal charge, he could have skipped appearing in Family Court, allowing his attorney to proceed without him.
John Hubbard WARNED Ryan Adams that criminal charges were filed against him by sending to him a "Notice of Readiness for trial", BEFORE Ryan Adams was arrested and arraigned.
This is a "highly irregular" conduct by the prosecutor and, in my legal opinion, misconduct designed to warn Ryan Adams of criminal charges and prepare for the arrest.
Ryan Adams did prepare. He came to court with his highly influential stepfather, his Senator-candidate attorney, and he was not locked up as he should have been due to the nature of his crime.
John Hubbard was not disciplined for his misconduct.
Moreover, I am more than sure that, if the present DA Richard Northrup gets elected as a judge, John Hubbard will be placed in his stead as a District Attorney of Delaware County, at least for the first year, as a matter of temporary appointment, because prosecutorial misconduct in New York is a matter of course that is not addressed by disciplinary authorities as a matter of policy, which recently prompted a series of articles about that unspoken policy by ProPublica.org, and a proposed legislature to institute a separate commission to address prosecutorial misconduct, since the "regular" attorney disciplinary committees would not prosecute prosecutors.
Episode No. 2. happened in September of 2013 and continues to present time
It is well known now from my blog that I was and continue to be an active, eloquent and detailed critic of misconduct of Carl Becker who quickly retired from the bench on July 31, 2015 before his term expired and years before his retirement was required by mandatory retirement age.
I have been such a critic for years.
As I indicated above, John Hubbard, the Senior ADA, and the Delaware County District Attorney's office, would rather agree to the dismissal of criminal proceedings against a perpetrator of a death threat when the alleged victim is a critic of judicial misconduct who hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker, who sold to John Hubbard his law office and, likely, law business, in 2002.
A couple of years ago, my house was burglarized, and, as a warning to me, a burning cigarette was left on the floor of my bedroom which was located in such a place in the house that was not easily accessible by a stranger to the house.
We were at the house that day for the entire day, the only window of opportunity to do that was 3 hours when I went to appear in court in an adjoining county.
Only one person knew that we will be away.
Only one person, who knew that we will be away at that time, was on good enough terms with our border collie so that the border collie would welcome him into the house instead of attacking him.
The cigarette contained (or should have contained) DNA evidence of who was the perpetrator.
Valuables disappeared from the house, but that was not the main thing. The main thing was the threat that I perceived from seeing a burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom when I did not see it a couple of hours when I left the house.
Only my husband and I were in the house and in that bedroom at all times and on that day.
Neither one of us are smokers.
The cigarette in question was given to the police who were summoned to the house.
I made a direct report to the District Attorney's office, as well as to the Delhi Police.
The perpetrator was allowed to disappear without a trace, while the police had an opportunity to prosecute him (he lived nearby for months after our report).
The evidence, the cigarette, as far as I know, also disappeared and was never analyzed, even though at first the Delhi Police and John Hubbard pretended they were doing something.
I now am having back thoughts about what happened.
I now believe that the individual in question was directed to leave that burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom, as a warning to me that my house is not safe, and to be "careful".
In the alternative, the DA's office deliberately would not protect critics of governmental misconduct, making them feel unsafe in their homes in Delaware County, even when the DA's office has the evidence matching to the perpetrator, and the perpetrator who confessed.
The refusal of the Delaware County District Attorney and John Hubbard to prosecute the known perpetrator of a violent crime (home intrusion) against me as a critic of the local judge, clicks into a pattern when one considers refusal to prosecute Ryan Adams, as described above.
Episode No. 3 happened in September of 2014 and continues to present time
On September 5, 2014, upon report of Barbara O'Sullivan to me on that same day, Barbara O'Sullivan was assaulted with a police vehicle by Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie.
The assault occurred at the time and because Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping misconduct of Derek Bowie on her property, Derek Bowie tried to smash the tablet that was in the hands of Barbara O'Sullivan, even at the cost of potential injury of death of Barbara O'Sullivan.
The Delaware County District Attorney that employs the uncle of Derek Bowie, prosecutes Barbara O'Sullivan, the victim of the deadly assault by Derek Bowie, instead of Derek Bowie.
The Delaware County District Attorney never disclosed his office's disqualification to the grand jury where he obtained an indictment which is (in my legal opinion) void due to presence of a disqualified person in the grand jury. Instead, the DA Richard Northrup (a current judicial candidate) not only proceeds with prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan without disclosure of his office's disqualification, but "coincidentally" various people involved with the legal profession and the local government "approach" Barbara O'Sullivan and her family members with various threats that if she does not drop the civil lawsuit against Derek Bowie, she will get "locked up".
The pattern that arises out of these episodes clearly speaks to the unwritten policy of the local government in Delaware County, and especially of the local District Attorney's office (where the District Attorney currently running for a judge) - if you criticize misconduct of the local government, especially of local judges, your life is forfeit. The DA's office will not prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes against you, but there is a good possibility that a crime will be invented and you will be prosecuted for a crime against your perpetrators.
And that is not the rule of law, ladies and gentlemen, but the rule of the jungle - which will be perpetuated if the current District Attorney Richard Northrup who obviously maintains this unwritten policy becomes a judge.
Three episodes, in my mind, constitutes a pattern.
The first episode happened in 2010.
A U.S. Marine Ryan Adams (now a reservist for the Marines whose location at this time, with his daughter, the granddaughter of Barbara O'Sullivan, upon information and belief, remains unknown since he absconded with the minor child without notifying the mother or the custody court of his current address, and the FBI is somehow not trying to locate him - and I wonder whether the reluctance to issue an Amber alert and treat Ryan Adam's behavior as parental kidnapping is due to the favoritism displayed to him by various courts because of he is a former U.S. Marine, a U.S. Marine reservist and because of his family connections to various U.S. senators and/or senator candidates), made a death threat against Barbara O'Sullivan on the phone some time in May of 2010. Since Ryan Adams had a history of violence before that, Barbara O'Sullivan perceived the threat as believable and notified the police and the military authorities.
The military authorities immediately issued an order of protection against Ryan Adams.
The Delhi Village Police Department considered the evidence of the death threat serious and substantial enough to bring criminal charges against Ryan Adams in Delhi Town court before judge Richard Gumo.
At that time, a custody proceeding was pending in the Delaware County Family Court pertaining to Barbara O'Sullivan's granddaughter.
Barbara O'Sullivan was not a party to the proceedings.
Ryan Adams was represented at that time in custody proceedings by a attorney William Brenner who previously ran against Hillary Clinton for the position of U.S. Senator for the State of New York on a Republican ticket.
Becker is a Republican.
Ryan Adams retained for representation in his criminal case attorney Michael McGuire out of Sullivan County who has become a judge during representation of Ryan Adams and who was similarly running, and was eventually elected, on a Republican ticket.
Michael McGuire announced his run for the position of Sullivan County Family Court judge in March of 2010, long before he undertook representation of Ryan Adams in his criminal case.
In September of 2010, without waiting for the disposition of the criminal case in People v. Ryan Adams in the Delhi Town Court, Judge Becker made a ruling in the custody proceedings giving custody to Ryan Adams, who was still under criminal proceedings for making a death threat against the grandmother of his child, punished the mother of the child (who was known to him for making a report against him regarding his misconduct in the Glenford Hull murder trial in talking to the jury during deliberations and demonstrating how a gun works) with extremely burdensome visitation, and punishing the grandmother who was the ALLEGED VICTIM in a pending, unadjudicated criminal proceedings in Delhi Town Court against Ryan Adams by directing the mother that she should not allow grandmother near the child.
The only basis for Becker's order like that was the pending unadjudicated criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams, which could be adjudicated only by the court where the proceedings were commenced, Delhi Town Court, yet, Becker made his own adjudication.
Senior ADA John Hubbard promised Barbara O'Sullivan, the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams, that she will be notified and be able to be present if any disposition in the case is about to be reached, in order to be able to oppose it and address the court.
Yet, Senior ADA John Hubbard misrepresented to Barbara O'Sullivan the time of appearance for Ryan Adams in such a way that, when Barbara O'Sullivan appeared in court, Ryan Adams was already given an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" for 6 months.
John Hubbard reacted to Barbara O'Sullivan's indignation at his misconduct by the question why Barbara O'Sullivan hired Tatiana Neroni (myself) to represent her daughter in the custody proceedings, and that if Judge Becker previously gave custody to the father, he must be right.
Of course, neither of these issue have anything to do with the criminal proceedings against Ryan Adams.
Of course, John Hubbard who purchased the law office building and, possibly, the law practice from Carl Becker in 2002 when he first came to the bench, and who obviously was led in his prosecutorial duties by what Judge Becker, and not John Hubbard's duty as a prosecutor, dictated John Hubbard to do, indicated strong grounds for disqualification of John Hubbard from the case People v. Ryan Adams.
In plain English, it was none of John Hubbard's business who is hired to represent whom in the Family Court custody proceedings. It is simply irrelevant to the criminal prosecution in front of him.
In plain English, it was non of John Hubbard's business whether Judge Becker was or was not correct granting custody to Ryan Adams, since Ryan Adams was not prosecuted for anything related to custody, but for his death threat agaisnt the grandmother, a separate and distinct criminal offense.
Barbara O'Sullivan later filed with the Delhi Town Court, Judge Gumo, documents showing that Ryan Adams violated his ACD.
Judge Gumo disregarded the filing and let the proceedings against Ryan Adams to be dismissed - long after Ryan Adams' attorney of record has become a judge and without any substitution of counsel due to such judgeship.
In my legal opinion, the dismissal of criminal proceedings agaisnt Ryan Adams under the circumstances and at the time when Ryan Adams' attorney became a judge and could no longer represent Ryan Adams, indicates that the dismissal was unlawful and void and that the criminal proceedings in People v Ryan Adams must still be pending in Delhi Town Court.
John Hubbard's willingness to dismiss a criminal proceeding against a perpetrator of a death threat against an middle-aged woman simply because she hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker speaks volumes about integrity of the DA's office in Delaware County.
In fact, that dismissal was not the only misconduct John Hubbard committed in that case, People v. Ryan Adams.
At the time when charges were brought and filed agaisnt Ryan Adams, Ryan Adams resided out of the State of New York and could be arrested within the State of New York only when he came for court appearances in Family Court.
Naturally, if a criminal defendant is forewarned about a newly filed criminal charge, he could have skipped appearing in Family Court, allowing his attorney to proceed without him.
John Hubbard WARNED Ryan Adams that criminal charges were filed against him by sending to him a "Notice of Readiness for trial", BEFORE Ryan Adams was arrested and arraigned.
This is a "highly irregular" conduct by the prosecutor and, in my legal opinion, misconduct designed to warn Ryan Adams of criminal charges and prepare for the arrest.
Ryan Adams did prepare. He came to court with his highly influential stepfather, his Senator-candidate attorney, and he was not locked up as he should have been due to the nature of his crime.
John Hubbard was not disciplined for his misconduct.
Moreover, I am more than sure that, if the present DA Richard Northrup gets elected as a judge, John Hubbard will be placed in his stead as a District Attorney of Delaware County, at least for the first year, as a matter of temporary appointment, because prosecutorial misconduct in New York is a matter of course that is not addressed by disciplinary authorities as a matter of policy, which recently prompted a series of articles about that unspoken policy by ProPublica.org, and a proposed legislature to institute a separate commission to address prosecutorial misconduct, since the "regular" attorney disciplinary committees would not prosecute prosecutors.
Episode No. 2. happened in September of 2013 and continues to present time
It is well known now from my blog that I was and continue to be an active, eloquent and detailed critic of misconduct of Carl Becker who quickly retired from the bench on July 31, 2015 before his term expired and years before his retirement was required by mandatory retirement age.
I have been such a critic for years.
As I indicated above, John Hubbard, the Senior ADA, and the Delaware County District Attorney's office, would rather agree to the dismissal of criminal proceedings against a perpetrator of a death threat when the alleged victim is a critic of judicial misconduct who hired me to represent her daughter in a custody proceeding in front of Carl Becker, who sold to John Hubbard his law office and, likely, law business, in 2002.
A couple of years ago, my house was burglarized, and, as a warning to me, a burning cigarette was left on the floor of my bedroom which was located in such a place in the house that was not easily accessible by a stranger to the house.
We were at the house that day for the entire day, the only window of opportunity to do that was 3 hours when I went to appear in court in an adjoining county.
Only one person knew that we will be away.
Only one person, who knew that we will be away at that time, was on good enough terms with our border collie so that the border collie would welcome him into the house instead of attacking him.
The cigarette contained (or should have contained) DNA evidence of who was the perpetrator.
Valuables disappeared from the house, but that was not the main thing. The main thing was the threat that I perceived from seeing a burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom when I did not see it a couple of hours when I left the house.
Only my husband and I were in the house and in that bedroom at all times and on that day.
Neither one of us are smokers.
The cigarette in question was given to the police who were summoned to the house.
I made a direct report to the District Attorney's office, as well as to the Delhi Police.
The perpetrator was allowed to disappear without a trace, while the police had an opportunity to prosecute him (he lived nearby for months after our report).
The evidence, the cigarette, as far as I know, also disappeared and was never analyzed, even though at first the Delhi Police and John Hubbard pretended they were doing something.
I now am having back thoughts about what happened.
I now believe that the individual in question was directed to leave that burning cigarette on the floor of my bedroom, as a warning to me that my house is not safe, and to be "careful".
In the alternative, the DA's office deliberately would not protect critics of governmental misconduct, making them feel unsafe in their homes in Delaware County, even when the DA's office has the evidence matching to the perpetrator, and the perpetrator who confessed.
The refusal of the Delaware County District Attorney and John Hubbard to prosecute the known perpetrator of a violent crime (home intrusion) against me as a critic of the local judge, clicks into a pattern when one considers refusal to prosecute Ryan Adams, as described above.
Episode No. 3 happened in September of 2014 and continues to present time
On September 5, 2014, upon report of Barbara O'Sullivan to me on that same day, Barbara O'Sullivan was assaulted with a police vehicle by Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie.
The assault occurred at the time and because Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping misconduct of Derek Bowie on her property, Derek Bowie tried to smash the tablet that was in the hands of Barbara O'Sullivan, even at the cost of potential injury of death of Barbara O'Sullivan.
The Delaware County District Attorney that employs the uncle of Derek Bowie, prosecutes Barbara O'Sullivan, the victim of the deadly assault by Derek Bowie, instead of Derek Bowie.
The Delaware County District Attorney never disclosed his office's disqualification to the grand jury where he obtained an indictment which is (in my legal opinion) void due to presence of a disqualified person in the grand jury. Instead, the DA Richard Northrup (a current judicial candidate) not only proceeds with prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan without disclosure of his office's disqualification, but "coincidentally" various people involved with the legal profession and the local government "approach" Barbara O'Sullivan and her family members with various threats that if she does not drop the civil lawsuit against Derek Bowie, she will get "locked up".
The pattern that arises out of these episodes clearly speaks to the unwritten policy of the local government in Delaware County, and especially of the local District Attorney's office (where the District Attorney currently running for a judge) - if you criticize misconduct of the local government, especially of local judges, your life is forfeit. The DA's office will not prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes against you, but there is a good possibility that a crime will be invented and you will be prosecuted for a crime against your perpetrators.
And that is not the rule of law, ladies and gentlemen, but the rule of the jungle - which will be perpetuated if the current District Attorney Richard Northrup who obviously maintains this unwritten policy becomes a judge.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Is the "right" of the government to hire dumb brutes for the police force, affirmed as a matter of constitutional law in the 2nd Circuit 15 years ago, responsible for the widespread wave of police brutality across the country?
I've recently blogged about the little scheme in Delaware County where prosecutors, police and probation officers are paid out of conviction fines through a "STOP DWI" program.
As much as it was pounded to the public as "savings" for taxpayers, it is a blatant constitutional violation that is geared to increase numbers of convictions without any regard to their legitimacy or constitutionality.
I've also blogged about incompetence and corruption in the Delaware County Sheriff's Department where police officer Derek Bowie who has been engaged in a vehicular assault upon a resident, a middle-aged disabled woman, and did that clearly in retaliation for her stance against misconduct in the government on the County level and in local courts.
I questioned more than once how can a police officer, or other public officials involved, be so DUMB as to not realize that their corruptness is quite transparent through their actions?
Well, I now found the root of the question.
Not only police officers in Delaware County are corrupt, incompetent and dumb, but the federal constitutional law in that jurisdiction allows the local government to sieve out smart applicants for police officer positions as a matter of intentional discrimination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 15 years ago (!), found that discrimination against applicants for the police force with a high IQ level.
Here is that brain-dead decision, in full glory.
Now, this is a galore for criminal defense attorneys... This "law" gives defense attorneys legitimate grounds to seek IQ scores of police officers in application for the position. And, if that is not a discrimination against an applicant, that is clearly a constitutional issue for members of the public who are stopped, investigated, prosecuted and put in jail by police officers picked out BECAUSE THEY ARE DUMB!
Wow.
Names of the "winner" judges of the 2nd Circuit who produced this masterpiece back in 2000 are:
Why NOT expect police to use their weapons, their TASERS, their vehicles, as tools of abuse of those they simply do not like?
As much as it was pounded to the public as "savings" for taxpayers, it is a blatant constitutional violation that is geared to increase numbers of convictions without any regard to their legitimacy or constitutionality.
I've also blogged about incompetence and corruption in the Delaware County Sheriff's Department where police officer Derek Bowie who has been engaged in a vehicular assault upon a resident, a middle-aged disabled woman, and did that clearly in retaliation for her stance against misconduct in the government on the County level and in local courts.
I questioned more than once how can a police officer, or other public officials involved, be so DUMB as to not realize that their corruptness is quite transparent through their actions?
Well, I now found the root of the question.
Not only police officers in Delaware County are corrupt, incompetent and dumb, but the federal constitutional law in that jurisdiction allows the local government to sieve out smart applicants for police officer positions as a matter of intentional discrimination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 15 years ago (!), found that discrimination against applicants for the police force with a high IQ level.
Here is that brain-dead decision, in full glory.
Now, this is a galore for criminal defense attorneys... This "law" gives defense attorneys legitimate grounds to seek IQ scores of police officers in application for the position. And, if that is not a discrimination against an applicant, that is clearly a constitutional issue for members of the public who are stopped, investigated, prosecuted and put in jail by police officers picked out BECAUSE THEY ARE DUMB!
Wow.
Names of the "winner" judges of the 2nd Circuit who produced this masterpiece back in 2000 are:
- The Hon. Jon O. Newman - still on the court and was even chief judge of the 2nd Circuit court from 1993 to 1997. Judge Newman got his bachelor's degree in 1953, which puts his age at 69 at the time of his "IQ discrimination is constitutional" decision in 2000, and at 84 years of age now.
- The Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler, Circuit Judges - is still on the court, in an active status. Judge Pooler recevied her bachelor's degree in 1959. That puts her at about 63 years of age when she made the decision in the "IQ case", 15 years ago, and 78 years old now.
- The Hon. Lloyd D. George,* District Judge - is still on the Nevada District Court. Since judge George reportedly received his bachelor's degree in 1955, and bachelors degrees are received usually at the age of 22, his date of birth is approximately 1933, 67 years of age or more at the time he made the "IQ case" decision, and at 83 years of age now.
* Honorable Lloyd D. George of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
The "trio" above affirmed, in a summary unpublished opinion, the decision of the Hon. Peter C. Dorsey, Senior United States District Judge - who died in 2012 at the age of 80.
Think about it!
All of these seniors making all of these CLEARLY DUMB decisions - while proclaiming the government's right to discriminate against the intelligent people in matters of employment!
How many lawyers argued, with a straight face, that intentionally putting in a ceiling blocking intelligent individuals from being employed on the police force is constitutional and is not violation of equal protection rights!
4 (four!) judges agreed!
Agreed that the government has a "state interest" to intentionally "dumb down" police force that is armed and is supposed to be able to make split-second judgment calls about life or death of citizens, your life or death.
After this decision, why NOT expect police brutality after that?
Why NOT expect dumb actions of police, like chasing shoplifters at ungodly speeds, that take away lives of innocent bystanders (2,400 innocent bystanders were reportedly killed in the US in a 35-year span as a result of high-speed police chases alone)?
Don't you think that this decision, and decisions like that may be responsible for the wide spread and ever spreading police brutality - because employing dumb brutes on the police force is the POLICY of the government? And NOT employing intelligent people is also the POLICY of the government - to prevent job turnover!
I think the same test is actually applied to judgeships and attorney jobs for the government.
I remember how a retired judge from the Appellate Division 3rd Department (he is a local of Walton, NY, an ardent supporter of Carl Becker), Judge Carl Mugglin, told me, without having any record in front of him, and without having any basis to "rule" at an appellate settlement conference - "you will dig a hole for your clients, Mrs. Neroni, with your intellectual efforts".
I was stunned, my female client was stunned, but obviously, with all my legal education, I did not know about the case, it was not taught in our Civil Rights litigation class in law school, my law school professors did not impress on me that being smart may prevent you from getting a job in the government!
The last question - if judges would apply their own "discrimination on the IQ basis is constitutional" test to themselves, would they have passed the test?
I bet they would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)