The "relaxed" rule of law in upstate New York courts...

A reader asked two questions on Avvo.

Avvo is an attorney rating website where anybody can rate any attorney's performance and/or ask legal questions that willing lawyers registered with Avvo answer, if they can and wish.

So, once again, a reader asked two questions on Avvo pertaining to legality of a judge's actions.

Question # 1

I already raised this question in my blogs pertaining to the case O'Sullivan v Bowie, Delaware County Index No. 2014-911, where the judge accepts motions from a police officer sued in his individual capacity for misconduct (vehicular assault) and where the police officer is not an indigent.

There, not only the fee was waived by the Delaware County Supreme Court (County Clerk Sharon O'Dell, presiding judge John F. Lambert, court attorney Mark Oursler, see my blogs about him and what he is doing /or not doing/ during court conferences here - and it was Mark Oursler who refused to put on record, despite my request, a court conference in a case where attorney Andrew Van Buren, political supporter of Judge Becker, was verbally harassing me, thus preventing me from having evidence of that harassment), but Mark Oursler, reportedly, made it his business to call people in charge of the Delaware County building at 111 Main Street and brokered for a rent-free room so that Derek Bowie's attorney could have a deposition at the building, at the County taxpayer's expense - and that is after the audit by the NYS Comptroller that already pointed out tremendous waste by Delaware County officials. 

 Remember, two of Delaware County officials, County Attorney Porter Kirkwood who ok'd the rent-free depositions, and the District Attorney Richard Northrup who employs Derek Bowie's uncle Jeff Bowie and refuses to prosecute Derek Bowie for vehicular assault and attempted murder of Barbara O'Sullivan ( a critic of judicial misconduct) while instead unlawfully prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan for a made-up crime where Derek Bowie is an alleged witness, are currently running for two judicial seats in the upcoming Delaware County elections.

This is what attorneys answered on Avvo to the question above - whether a filing fee must be paid before the Order to Show Cause is signed:

So, the law is:  no, the motion filing fee must be paid and the Order to Show Cause must be filed with the County Clerk (instead of being sent directly to the judge's chambers without paying any filing fees), and a judge in a New York court simply cannot sign an Order to Show Cause without such a filing and without a fee, unless (as to the fee only) the litigant asking for such signing is an indigent (which should be separately established).

Of course, Derek Bowie is not an indigent, of course, no application for the Order to Show Cause was filed (because the County Clerk immediately scans all filings, and nothing appeared in the record when the application for the Order to Show Cause to undo the default of Derek Bowie was made), and the filing fee was still waived, the Order to Show Cause was still signed by Judge John F. Lambert, heard without proof that it was properly served, and granted, and a motion to vacate that decision because it was unlawfully made was denied by Judge Lambert, raising questions of applicability of the rule of law in Delaware County (especially to critics of judicial misconduct suing police officers for crimes pertaining to citizen safety), as well as to competence and impartiality of Judge Lambert.

Question # 2

Several answers were posted to this question by NY-licensed attorneys.

The answer by the attorney Terry Horner of Poughkeepsie, NY, floored the reader who reported the answer to me.

Note that all three answering attorneys indicated that what the judge did was wrong.

One of the attorneys stated that such conduct by a judge is grounds for mistrial.

Another stated that an attorney may have no choice but to proceed if the judge wants to disregard the failure to file a note of issue.

Yet another stated that such a failure may happen because cases get "procedurally confused" when "a computer puts" the cases on the trial calendar with the trial Note of Issue filed and served.  So, now computers, not people, put cases on trial calendars - and computers are to blame for procedural violations.

Attorney Terry Horner, though, took the bull by the horns (no pun intended) by stating that "procedure upstate is, shall we say, more relaxed than in Southeastern NY".

That is another way of saying that such violations by upstate New York judges are to be expected, which prompted the reader to make the following comment:

I do not think any attorney in New York can, in good faith, say the "Wild West" comment was not true...

Do we trust in God in a New York State Court?

Here is a picture obtained from the Facebook page of Nancy Stroud, the Facebook friend of Albany County Family Court judge Susan Kushner (see my blog about Nancy Stroud's and Sue Kushner's unethical behavior in appearing in the same case without disclosure of their Facebook friendship, and when Sue Kushner actually denied that FB friendship, even though it was documented).

Apart from other interesting details which I will discuss in a separate blog post, what jumps into view immediately is the huge inscription on the wall of the State Court of the State of New York:  "In God We Trust".

That statement indicates that the judiciary in the State of New York operates by religious laws and not by the secular laws of the United States and the State of New York, nor by the state and federal Constitutions which all judges are sworn to protect and uphold, as a pre-requisite of taking that bench and donning those black robes.

I guess, it does not matter to the New York State Judiciary that promoting a religion in state court is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the litigants and their attorneys.

What if "we" do not trust in a God, in the particular God, or if we trust in Gods, or if "we" are pagans, or witches (wiccans - there is such a religion) - or, God forbid (no pun intended) if "we" are agnostics or atheists?

Then, we do not have a right to be heard in court?

I bet!

I know, for example, that a prosecutor from Delaware County District Attorney's office, John Hubbard, was spreading rumors about me that I am nuts and should not be hired as an attorney because I advocated for two clients who objected to being summoned, under the power of the People of the State of New York (and the threat of criminal contempt of court) to have a court deposition in a church building.

So, remember - when you are going to a State Court in the State of New York, you'd better trust in God - or else.

And, since the picture includes the radiant Judge Elizabeth Garry of the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Department, the rule "In God We Trust" in state courts of the State of New York also applies to appeals.

So, for those of us who do not trust in God - God help us?

I have a better suggestion - just advocate for removal of the "In God We Trust" signs in State Courts of any state.  Presenting those statements at all, and especially above the bench, above the U.S. flag and above the State seal is unconstitutional, unlawful and sends the message to the litigants and attorneys (albeit likely a correct message) that the judiciary in the United States is not governed by the law and is not enforcing the rule of law in the courtrooms, but whatever interpretation of God's (and the judge's own) will that the particular judge wants to impose on the people.

Assigned rotational citizen judges, universal public legal education, revocation of any and all immunities - any takers?

I already wrote on this blog about the necessity to provide public legal education - in view of the obvious "justice gap" that the New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman so likes to refer to in his various speeches year in and year out, and he is not alone in paying lip service to the "justice gap", but does not effectively address reducing it.

When 80% of litigants cannot afford an attorney, the state should at the very least teach them, through public education, how to fend for themselves in court.

I also wrote extensively on this blog about the necessity to repeal and abolish legislatively and/or through state and federal constitutional amendments any and all immunities for public officials to violate the law and state and federal constitutions and deprive people of basic human rights - without any remedies to the victims and any accountability to the perpetrators so cloaked in "immunities".

Many scholars have written so far that immunities are undemocratic and unconstitutional, and that creating them was usurpation of power by federal courts which was not given to those courts by Article III of the U.S. Constitution - and that is the power to legislate or amend legislation.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution must have within its text, clear and simple, a text describing the list of persons and the list of circumstances under which that same U.S. Constitution may be violated.  There is no such clause in the U.S. Constitution, and, therefore, there is no such right to violate it - no matter what the judge-created doctrines of various immunities say.

There is no question that the judicial system throughout the U.S. has become too expensive, too wasteful, as well as corrupt and disfunctional, delivering anything but justice, which is what it is supposed to deliver.

Judicial misconduct is rampant and unaccountable, attorneys whose livelihood depends on judges, are mostly silent,  it comes to the point that there is no assurance that judges on the bench are not high - see my blog about a judge who has lost custody of his child, through a court decision, because of use of cocaine, which did not prevent him getting on the judicial bench, and did not cause him to lose his law license.

Yet, with all of the above said, disputes that need final resolution exist and will continue to exist, and a system, some system that works is needed to resolve them, finally, efficiently, fairly and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and concepts of equity and fairness.

What should be done?

What kind of system would you create if, hypothetically, none existed, for dispute resolution?

I propose the following structure:

1/ all members of the public receive legal education at the high school level that would allow them to understand court rules and be effective either in representing themselves in court, or as judges presiding over court cases on a rotational basis.

2/ judgeships, whether by appointment or by election, should be abolished, and with such judgeships the structure of corruption and "career paths" through law clerkships to being hired by law firms that rely upon the former law clerk's ties to the judge, will be eliminated, too. 

With eliminated judgeships, attorneys in New York (as an example) will not be able to brown-nose judges no matter what judicial misconduct they commit, be as incompetent as they want, and then, after they did nothing to earn a pension, "run for the bench" and have taxpayers fund their pensions and medical needs while they continue to be as incompetent and corrupt, and even more than before they came to the bench.

3) as the alternative to term or "for life" judgeships I propose to computer-assign citizens, on a rotational basis, to cases in counties where they do not live and without prior warning as to what the case is about.

4) I suggest that an assigned citizen judge handles only cases on one certain day and is not forewarned as to which cases those are going to be, so that he does not make phone calls ahead of time and is not able to do research as to the background of parties.  This arrangement will certainly not eliminate corruption in court proceedings completely, but will dramatically reduce it, especially when every citizen acts as a judge at some point, and thus, it is not just the absolute unchecked and often corrupt power of one person, for years, over the entire county.

5) of course, there should not be any immunities for intentional violation of people's rights established by law, and no right of legal representation in lawsuits based on intentional violation of constitutional rights.

The state will assign taxpayer backed legal counsel in all cases, but judges will be aware that they will have to reimburse the state for legal fees should the jury find they were, indeed, violating people's constitutional rights.  At this time, cases against judges are dismissed before discovery, without even looking whether they, indeed, violated people's constitutional rights - because of the alleged (judge-created) judicial immunity - which, as I stated above, is unconstitutional.

6) Commissions for judicial conduct must operate openly, transparently to the public and should consist of members of the public.  Since there will be no position of elected or appointed judges, there will not be a conflict of interest, as it exists now, where commissions are mostly populated by attorneys whose licenses are in the hands of judges attorneys are supposed to discipline, and by judges who have a vested personal interest not to prosecute other judges and not to create bad precedents that may hurt themselves.
 
This way, judgeships will stop being such an attractive position for people who should not be close to the bench, will stop to breed corruption on the scale it is happening now, will stop being the source of absolute power of the government to oppress its citizens (and do that in a corrupt way, without any accountability) and will be reduced to the function it is supposed to accomplish - conflict resolution.

My proposal, of course, is not ideal, nothing in this life is.  But it is an attempt to reform the completely corrupt judicial system so that it discharges its function instead of being the sought-after sinecure to provide for financial security of otherwise incompetent and corrupt attorneys, to establish absolute tyranny of men (rather than laws) for years and decades in a certain locality, and to drum up business for family and friends of such judges, to the detriment of the public and litigants.

My readers are encouraged to post and send me comments, or to address their legislative representatives with their proposals as to how to reform the broken "justice" system in their state and on the federal level.

And yet another nail - by California lawyers, it is collective self-destruction in progress...

And one more nail into the declaration that attorney licensing is for the protection of consumers, driven by California attorneys.

I don't think much comment is necessary, just read this piece by "The Irreverent Lawyer", it is hilarious.

Florida lawyers put yet another nail into the declaration that attorney licensing is for protection of consumers of legal services

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.

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.

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.