The Alex Kozinski litigation saga: if a judge is a litigant in courts subordinate to him, only one rule applies - that no rules apply to that litigant-judge

Judges can be litigants, too, things happen.

And when judges are litigants, they are at least supposed to have same rules apply to them that they invented for others. 

And to follow laws, including case law, that they invented for others.

Not so for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In 2013 Judge Kozinski was a class member of a class lawsuits pertaining to a technical problem with his car.

Judge Kozinski, as a federal judge, regularly affirms dismissals of federal civil rights lawsuits dismissed before any discovery, on insufficiency of pleadings.

The claimed "insufficiency of pleadings" as to certain issues (such as state of mind of civil rights/governmental defendants regarding conspiracy to violate people's constitutional rights) often results from lack of discovery.  The discovery that federal district courts block. 

And federal appellate courts, such as the 9th Circuit over which Judge Kozinski was the Chief Judge at the time of filing his brief, affirm those dismissals, clearly leaving people who were often victims of egregious constitutional violations, without any remedy, moreover, sanctioned and ordered to pay fines and exorbitant legal fees of governmental offenders.

Discovery does play an important role in litigation.

Yet, discovery, especially non-paper discovery, depositions, is also expensive.

And, there is a rule and policy in both state and federal courts, including courts where Judge Kozinski was a part of for decades, favoring settlements - at any stage of litigation, with or without discovery.

Judge Kozinski did know that when he filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Division (Case No. 2:12-cv-8238-BRO-PJW), a frivolous brief (posted here) accusing the lawyers for the class action where he was a class member and had a vested financial interest in its outcome - of not conducting enough discovery before reaching a settlement. 

Somehow, only a foreign news agency dared to describe Judge Kozinski's misconduct, which tells a lot about freedom of press and integrity of mainstream journalism in the U.S. in covering issues of public concern.

Judge Kozinski's arguments, or rather, personal escapades against the lawyers for the class lawsuits, in that brief are, on top of being frivolous, extremely uncivilized and would have garnered any other party sua sponte (on the court's own motion) sanctions under the "inherent power of the court" and under 28 U.S.C. 1927.  

But that would be from an independent court.

The court where the case was heard, where Alex Kozinski was a litigant, was the court directly subordinate to the court where Alex Kozinski was a Chief Judge, including on issues of judicial discipline.

For that reason apparently, Alex Kozinski was never sanctioned.

Alex Kozinski stepped down as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit on December 5, 2014, well into his litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Region (litigation where Alex Kozinski was a party started in 2012).

Alex Kozinski stepped down as Chief Judge not because of appearance of impropriety due to his official duties as the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, and not because, due to his official duties, he had to delegate his authority as the Chief Judge to Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas to appoint a judge in Alex Kozinski's own case, but because his 7-year "Chief Judgeship" term ran out.

Judge Kozinski's replacement as new Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Judge Sidney Thomas, was "coincidentally" the very same judge to whom Alex Kozinski delegated the authority to assign a judge to his own case after several district judges recused and refused assignments to that case because of an obvious and glaring appearance of impropriety.

"Coincidentally", Judge Thomas's wife is, like Judge Kozinski's, an attorney, Martha Sheehy.

Same as Judge Kozinski's wife, Judge Thomas's wife has a different last name from her husband's, obscuring the connection to her judge-husband.  I was unable as yet to verify through available public sources whether she is or has been practicing in her husband's courts. 

After review of documents from the Alex Kozinski class litigation (to be published in separate blogs, stay tuned), the following sad rules appear - if a litigant is a judge in charge of the court where he is litigating as a party, the following new rules apply:

1/ the case remains in that subordinate court;
2/ the judge-party controls assignment of judges and, through his power to discipline those judges, controls the outcome of his case;
3/ normal rules of court as to e-filing, representation, service, motion practice, settlements and sanctions for misconduct against the judge-party do not apply.

I will provide documentary illustrations of the above mentioned new rules created just for Alex Kozinski and his wife in the blogs to follow.

I have just downloaded materials from Alex Kozinski's litigation and am preparing them for presentation in the next blogs.

Stay tuned.

Human-donkey and women-painted-as-cows porn disseminated by a federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski while presiding over an obscenity trial never led to discipline of judge Alex Kozinski. Why?

In 2008, federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski has come under fire and was the subject of scrutiny by an investigative panel because of series of articles in mainstream media (such as this) and in blogs describing the human-donkey porn video the judge posted (his wife claimed, inadvertently), on the Internet.

Alex Kozinski was ardently defended, in consensually published e-mails, by his wife, a California attorney Marcy Tiffany (interesting how judge's wives have a different name - so that people unfamiliar with the marital situation of the attorney would not see a potential for conflicts of interest).

A prominent attorney found that an image of "a fat man running from a donkey with an erection" is not an image of bestiality and was protecting Alex Kozinski from what the attorney believed (or at least expressed) to be a journalistic faux pas.

That prominent attorney apparently took upon himself something he, upon my research of him, was not qualified for - diagnosing a mental illness.

Bestiality, or zoophilia is described in DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental health disorders, 5th Edition) on page 705 as an "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder" with an assigned code of 302,89 (F65.89).  DSM (previous and current editions) is a reference source I regularly use in cross-examination of experts in court.

Here is the quote from the description of that mental health disorder:

         "... Examples of presentations that can be
              specified using the "other specified" designation
         inculde, but are not limited to, recurrent and intense
         sexual arousal involving ... zoophilia (animals)...
         that has been present for at least 6 months and
         causes marked distress or impairment in social,
         occupational, or other important areas of
         functioning".

Now, all we know is that Judge Kozinski kept on his "family computer" and published on the Internet images from YouTube of a man running away from a donkey with an erection. 

We do not know whether Alex Kozinski was aroused by those pictures, whether that arousal as to donkeys was present for 6 months and whether it caused marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of the judge's functioning.  That was for authorities to verify.

Judge Kozinski's wife, California attorney Marcy J. Tiffany (who was practicing in Judge Kozinski's court and whose livelihood heavily depended, as an attorney and as a wife, on Judge Kozinski keeping his position) ardently and publicly defended her husband, claiming that the images in question were just "funny" and that "sometimes funny has a sexual character".

A man running from an aroused donkey.  Funny.  To an judge-attorney couple.  To the point of keeping the image on the "family computer" and disseminating it to friends on the Internet.

In her e-mail, Marcy J. Tiffany inadvertently advertised the website/blog of an attorney/litigant who, Marcy J. Tiffany claimed, was behind the "smear campaign" against her husband.

The website posted correct analysis of incorrect decisions by the Ninth Circuit.

Marcy J. Tiffany (or her husband under her name) found it to be good grounds to attack the attorney who posted, once again, correct legal analysis of incorrect decisions of HER HUSBAND's appellate court in order to protect her husband who posted on the Internet human-donkey porn while presiding over an obscenity trial.

Very appropriate, nice balance, nice publicity, or rather, anti-publicity, for her husband.

And, a nice appearance of impropriety since the letter allegedly authored by Marcy J. Tiffany could be just as well authored by Judge Kozinski, for all the detail about the attorney who is allegedly "behind" the "smear campaign".

Alex Kozinski reportedly recused from the obscenity trial where he was presiding while having on this computer and sharing with friends human-donkey "funny" porn - but only AFTER the "controversy" was widely publicized.

Alex Kozinski reportedly even asked to investigate himself (see the same blog, but both links in the blog now "coincidentally" lead to empty pages). 

All we know is that after this "self-requested" "investigation", Judge Kozinski was "rebuked, but not formally disciplined", kept his law license, his judgeship and his chief judgeship on the federal appellate court which he himself called, correctly, one of the most powerful courts in the country.

Since Alex Kozinski remained the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit until 2014, for 6 more years after the "investigation", apparently, what he did was not found inappropriate.

And the issue whether the "humorous and witty" Judge Kozinski has a diagnosable mental health disorder which may prevent him from proper functioning as a judge remains outstanding - and very much a public issue.

The issue is not that a person views porn.  For good or for bad, it is legal.

The issue is that that person happens to be a judge who is often imposing his views and judgment on a vast community.

As one of the commentators to the blog with broken links has stated:

There was apparently not only man-donkey porn displayed by Judge Kozinski on the Internet, and kept on his "family computer".

"The issue is that I hold our federal judges to higher standard; a judge who finds it funny to see women painted as farm animals in a sexual position does not instill confidence".

I couldn't have put it better.

Wives of judges as successful litigators in their husbands' courts

It has come to my attention that the wife of an active-status federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski, California attorney Marcy J. Tiffany,  advertises her law firm and herself as "successfully" practicing in courts from which appeals are taken to her husband's court and in her husband's court.

It is illustrious that Judge Alex Kozinski was the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit from 2007 to 2014.

It is also illustrious that the "seasoned litigator" Marcy J. Tiffany successfully litigated before her husband's court, including the time period when her husband was the Chief Judge of that court.

I do not doubt for a second that Ms. Tiffany litigates successfully in her husband's courts and in courts where judges are depending for their reputations and reversal records upon decisions of Ms. Tiffany's husband's court.

Ms. Tiffany's shining example of practicing in courts where such practice raises huge conflict of interest issues, reminds me of another wife of a judge.

That is New York attorney Ellen L. Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma who practices in front of close-to-retirement judges assigned to her cases by her husband or her husband's subordinates, while her husband controls distribution of post-retirement perks, thus holding in front of these judges a stick with a banana tied to it.

Alex Kozinski is being paraded by the cream of the cream of the legal community as "one of America's most prominent jurists". 

Even though allowing his wife and his wife's law firm to "successfully" litigate in his own court does not seem to appear to the legal community, and law professors' community, as impeachable behavior for a federal appellate judge and a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for federal judges.

With the exception that it is not "appropriate" for lawyers and law professors to talk about "such things" as judicial misconduct and what appears as a conflict of interest. 

It is interesting to mention that Judge Michael Coccoma was recently promoted by New York Chief Judge Lippman to become  Statewide Administrative Judge for Fiduciary Matters, that was announced in Judge Lippman's State of the Judiciary address for the year 2015:

 

And that appointment was, by the way, right after a lawsuit for fraud and fraud upon the court against Michael Coccoma AND his wife Ellen Coccoma was dismissed by a federal court, by yet another Chief Judge, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe.

 

"Coincidentally", at the time of litigation and dismissal, Judge Sharpe's son Michael Aaron Sharpe was employed by the New York State Attorney General, the law office representing Michael Coccoma in that lawsuit. 

 

By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed on "absolute judicial immunity grounds", without reaching the merits of the case, so whether Michael Coccoma did or did not commit fraud upon the court remained subject to inquiry by disciplinary authorities.

 

So, what can beginning law students and those who consider career in law discern from this little pattern?

It is good to marry a judge - it is a path to a successful career.

 

When you are a judge, your conflicts of interest will not be even mentioned by the legal community, and you will be relentlessly (and shamelessly) promoted instead of disciplined.

 

But, the question of a disciplinary inquiry and impeachment for both of these "prominent" judges remains open.

 

Will authorities dare to touch them?

 

Integrity of Judge John F. Lambert continues to slide

At this time, the Otsego County Judge John F. Lambert is presiding over two cases: 

• the civil case in the Delaware County Supreme Court of Barbara O'Sullivan against officer Derek Bowie of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (where Judge Lambert regularly rules in favor of Bowie no matter even though the law favors the Pro Se Plaintiff Barbara O'Sullivan), and
• the criminal case in the Delaware County Court of People v. Barbara O'Sullivan brought against Ms. O'Sullivan instead of against Derek Bowie by the employer of Derek Bowie's uncle, the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup.

While Judge Lambert could at least pretend that he did not know of the disqualification of the Delaware County District Attorney before August 24, 2015, after he was served with Richard Northrup sworn admission that Jeffrey J. Bowie is, indeed,

(1) the prosecutor's own employee, and
(2) the main witness's and the alleged victim's uncle,

Judge Lambert cannot pretend lack of knowledge any longer.

Here is the cover letter that accompanied Richard Northrup's verified Answer to Barbara O'Sullivan's Petition for a writ of prohibition in the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department:

After having received a sworn statement by a prosecutor in a case indicating that the prosecutor has the appearance of representing the PRIVATE interests of the Bowie family in a criminal prosecution against Derek Bowie's victim, the allegedly Honorable Judge Lambert had and still has the power to:

(1) recuse from the case;
(2) dismiss the indictment sua sponte (on his own motion) as being brought by a disqualified prosecutor.

Judge Lambert did not do either of those two things.

He staunchly and now knowingly continues to preside over a case that heads for trial and may have a potential of putting an innocent disabled woman and a victim of misconduct of a close relative of the prosecutor's employee in prison for 7 years, and at the time when that same prosecutor refuses to prosecute that same relative for an earlier assault on that same innocent disabled woman.

Unlike often gigantic District Attorney's offices in more populated counties, in Delaware County, the District Attorney's office counts 3 lawyers, two secretaries - and investigator Jeff Bowie.

The entire office is contained in a small "suite" that consists of Richard Northrup's very small study, a room with office equipment outside that study with two desks for the two secretaries, and a 2nd-story loft with two tables for the other two prosecutors, John Hubbard and Marybeth Dumont.

It is an extremely close relationship, office personnel is closely bonded and Richard Northrup depends on investigations of Jeff Bowie in his daily work.

It is apparent that Richard Northrup does not want to upset his valuable employee and, likely, a friend, with a prosecution of his nephew that may end the nephew's career in the police force, brand him as a violent felon and, potentially, send him to prison for many years.

It is apparent that even an appearance that Richard Northrup's discretionary decisions not to prosecute his employee's relative and instead to prosecute that relative's victim are dictated by Richard Northrup's feelings toward his employee and his desire to preserve harmony in his working relationship with that employee, should have immediately disqualified Richard Northrup from the case.

Nor does Judge Lambert, a former recent prosecutor out of Otsego County who, likely, is also in a friendly relationship with Richard Northrup, a prosecutor from an adjoining county, want to undermine his friendly relationship with Richard Northrup over Barbara O'Sullivan.

It is apparent from Ms. O'Sullivan's two cases currently pending in front of Lambert that fairness falls through the cracks in Judge Lambert's courtroom, the rule of law falls through the cracks, and the only thing that matters to both Judge Lambert and Richard Northrup are, apparently, the old boys' ties.

I encourage the public to petition the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to investigate Judge Lambert's behavior in Barbara O'Sullivan's two cases and to have him disciplined for having the two cases to be ruled, instead of the rule of law, by the law of connections, further undermining the already disappearing public trust in the integrity of judiciary in New York State.

If you think that Barbara O'Sullivan's case does not concern you, New Yorkers, it does.

Judge Lambert is young and can remain on the bench for another 30 years or so.

If he continues on the bench, his misconduct will only get worse, while he is getting up on the administrative ladder.

You never know when you may have appear in the future in front of Judge John F. Lambert, in a civil or criminal matter - John Lambert is also an Acting Supreme Court Justice, presiding over a variety of civil cases, and a Family and Surrogate's Court judge assigned to cases in several counties.

So, it is not entirely unlikely that Judge Lambert will at some point be assigned to your case, or cases of your friends and relatives - and, naturally, he will act the way he acts now and will apply to you and your loved ones the same "law of connections" as he is applying to Barbara O'Sullivan.

He needs to be stopped now, before he, and his old boy buddies whom he favors, ruin more lives - possibly, yours included.

Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup confirmed under oath that Derek Bowie's uncle works for his office as an investigator

I now have in my possession two documents that show misconduct of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and of the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup who is currently running for a judge in Delaware County.

Here are the documents.

The first one is an affidavit from the Meredith Town Judge.

The second one is a sworn Answer by Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup to the Petition for a Writ of Prohibition by Barbara O'Sullivan against Judge Lambert of Delaware County.

On page 1 in paragraph 3 of the Answer Richard Northrup admits that he employes Derek Bowie's uncle as an investigator in his office.

On the same page in paragraph 5 Richard Northrup denies that employing the uncle of the alleged victim of Barbara O'Sullivan as to events of September 18, 2014 (who is also a perpetrator of a deadly crime against Barbara O'Sullivan on September 5, 2014 which is "coincidentally" not prosecuted by Richard Northrup's office) disqualified him from prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan.

Richard Northrup explanation of his position is that Derek Bowie's uncle allegedly did not participate in the investigation of Barbara O'Sullivan and that Richard Northrup did not talk to Jeff Bowie about Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

The point though is not whether Richard Northrup had conversations with Jeff Bowie about prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan or not, but whether there was an appearance that Richard Northrup made a decision to prosecute the victim of his employee's nephew instead of his employee's nephew for the benefit of his employee.

Richard Northrup knows rules of disqualification very well.  He regularly steps down from cases where there is even an appearance of impropriety.

Yet, in this case, he sticks to it like glue, being fully aware that his continued prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan looks increasingly political and increasingly self-serving and serving the Bowie clan rather than the People of the State of New York and of the Delaware County.
 

I will remind my readers of the situation with Derek Bowie.

===

1.  On September 5, 2014 Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie commits a crime of vehicular assault and attempted murder of Barbara O'Sullivan on her property, by intentionally smashing Barbara O'Sullivan with an open door of a moving police vehicle while backing up into her.  At the time of assault Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping misconduct of Derek Bowie, and Derek Bowie was trying to smash the tablet in Barbara O'Sullivan's hands, even at the expense of her life.

2.  That same night, Derek Bowie, who obviously did not report the incident with the vehicular assault which left Barbara O'Sullivan injured and shaken, to his authorities. 

Instead, he arrested Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter, and brought her for an "arraignment" to the Meredith Town Court (even though the arrest warrant was from a Family Court on an Article 6, child custody proceeding - and Family Court does not have criminal jurisdiction, and admitted as of August 31, 2014 that it had no jurisdiction even over the custody proceedings).

In Meredith Town Court, according to a sworn statement of Judge Field, Derek Bowie showed an attitude to the judge and adamantly required that Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter be incarcerated despite the judge's order to release her on her own recognizance.  The judge refused to change his order.

At the time of his "strong suggestion" to the judge to jail the daughter, Derek Bowie was already disqualified from handling cases of both mother and daughter because he committed a crime against the mother.

The portion of the audio file with that portion of the arraignment went mysteriously "missing" from the judge's court-assigned laptop, raising questions as to who exactly tampered with evidence to destroy proof of retaliatory behavior of Derek Bowie against the daughter of his victim.

Yet, the Meredith Town Justice, in an extraordinary step, provided an affidavit to the young lady explaining at least that Derek Bowie adamantly insisted on setting the bail for Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter, even after the judge already released the young lady on her own recognizance.   Derek Bowie explained his desire to put Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter in jail, right after he assaulted Barbara O'Sullivan with his vehicle, because, as the judge states in his affidavit, he was planning on September 5, 2014 to bring more charges against Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter.  The judge still released the young lady.

3.  Derek Bowie remained on the team investigating both Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter, he was not taken off duty and was not investigated for his misconduct of September 5, 2014.  Delaware County Sheriff did not even try to talk to Barbara O'Sullivan and verify circumstances of assault by its employee upon her with the of a deadly weapon - a police vehicle. 

4.  On September 18, 2014, Derek Bowie showed up on Barbara O'Sullivan's property, with arrest warrants against her and her daughter on charges that Derek Bowie promised to bring to the Meredith Town Justice on September 5, 2014, right after his assault on Barbara O'Sullivan.

Derek Bowie did file such charges, which he was disqualified to file because he was involved in a crime committed at that same time.

Yet, Derek Bowie did file charges and did obtain arrest warrants of both Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter from the Delhi Town Justice Richard Gumo (recently disciplined for misconduct).  Richard Gumo is a judge who considers it appropriate for himself to host Christmas parties for local public officials and people connected with them.  Richard Gumo had as a guest at such a Christmas party Barbara O'Sullivan's estranged brother Peter Bracci whom Barbara O'Sullivan sued on allegations of wrongful death of her father and fraudulent depletion of her father's Estate.

Issuing the warrants and presiding over cases of Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter under the circumstances looked like a direct favor to Peter Bracci by Judge Gumo - as well as a favor to the District Attorney's office that employed Derek Bowie's uncle.

Moreover, the prosecuted who handled the felony hearing in front of Judge Gumo was John Hubbard who, according to my information from a reliable source, is related by marriage with Barbara O'Sullivan's other estrange, her sister Mary Bracci Hallock who was also a defenant in the wrongful death lawsuit.

John Hubbard personally admitted the relationship to Barbara O'Sullivan, but did not do that at the time he was handling the felony hearing.

The fact that the District Attorney Richard Northrup, the current judicial candidate, picked Derek Bowie as a victim instead of a perpetrator of a violent crime against Barbara O'Sullivan committed earlier than any alleged acts of Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie, and is now prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan practically on behalf of his employee, shows voters in Delaware County what they can expect from Ricahrd Northrup once he gets on the bench as a judge.

It is going to be the law of connections, the law of kissing cousins and local clans, and not the law of the State of New York that Richard Northrup will be applying on the bench.

Don't let Richard Northrup occupy that bench.  It will be a 10+ year disaster for you and will mean destruction of many lives in order to please people with whom Richard Northrup is connected.

And, the question remains as to how a portion of the audio file disappeared from Judge William Field's computer, in the Meredith Town Court.

I believe, an investigation is in order as to how did that happen - did the judge or his employee simply erase a portion of the arraignment file to eliminate the proof of just how "strongly" Derek Bowie "suggested" to put the daughter of the victim of his criminal behavior in jail, in sheer abuse of his power as a police officer. 

Audio recording in justice courts is usually conducted through the judge's laptop equipped with a special recording software.  Normally, only the judge and the clerk of the court must have access to that computer.  There is no explanation as to why a portion, and a specific portion of the audio file disappeared from the judge's computer.  I wonder if any authorities will investigate what happened with the recorded audio file - how it happened and, actually, WHO happened TO that file.

Stay tuned as to how Richard Northrup shamelessly continues to make "discretionary" decisions not to prosecute his employee's nephew for a vehicular assault and attempted murder, but instead to prosecute his employee's nephew's victim in a case fabricated by his employee's nephew against his victim.

It would have cost Derek Bowie his job and career had Richard Northrup prosecuted him for what he did to Barbara O'Sullivan.

Barbara O'Sullivan is a retired and disabled corrections officer, and Richard Northrup does not care a rat's ass as to what will happen to her - all he wanted to do is to protect the relative of his employee from a disaster.

Corruption in Delaware County is such a routine thing that Richard Northrup, apparently, does not even recognize it (or at least pretends not to recognize it) when it is screaming back at him from the mirror.

Yet, for normal reasonable people, Richard Northrup's corrupted prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan is very obvious.

And that corrupted prosecution should prevent Richard Northrup from getting on the bench, should cost him his law license and should get him criminally prosecuted.

Self-dealing in New York State Legislature goes unaddressed by authorities

A gay legislator is paraded by the press for pushing through a pro-gay legislation.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, abstention from vote - no, NYS Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is paraded for "helping that law pass".

14 New York State Senators, licensed attorney with private practices, vote on legislation making it a crime to practice law without a license - thus protecting their own market and income.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, no abstention from vote.  On the opposite, licensed attorneys are "co-sponsors" of such legislation.

Another senator attorney, Senator DeFrancisco, drums up legislation that helps his own and his son's private practice.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, no abstention from vote.

Is the NYS Attorney General reluctant to investigate and prosecute these legislators for self-dealing in office because, by law, the NYS AG is also those same legislators' legal representative when they are sued for misconduct in office?

And the conflicted statutory scheme protecting the legislators (and other members of the New York government) and preventing New York State Attorney General, an elected public official, from prosecuting misconduct in office, is created, in yet another act of self-dealing, by the same New York State Legislature.

No investigations, no prosecutions for the self-dealing means encouragement of the same conduct at present and in the future, at public expense.

I understand that Preet Bharara only has 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a month to address corruption in New York State government, but Preet Bharara should not be the only messiah able to rescue New Yorkers from this corrupted mess.

What is official misconduct in Missouri, is business as usual in Delaware County, New York - and for two judicial candidates, Porter Kirkwood and Richard Northrup

As was reported today, a judge in Ferguson, Missouri, invalidated all arrest warrants made by the Ferguson municipal court before December of 2014 because of the alleged conspiracy between the local police, city officials and the courts to convict people in order to raise revenues.

In Missouri, apparently, such conduct of public officials is illegal.

In Delaware County, New York, similar conduct is being announced blatantly and unapologetically as a savings to taxpayer during a judicial election campaign of two county officials, and is officially approved by two current candidates for the judicial seat, Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood and Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup (see references to press releases  and press coverage in that blog).

These two public officials approved a position of a new prosecutor with benefits paid out of conviction fines.  

That is a financial incentive to that prosecutor that him/her and his/her family will not receive medical coverage unless convictions are brought in, rightfully or wrongfully.  Boy is that an incentive to convict.

A recent New York Comptroller's report indicates that a portion of conviction fines is earmarked to finance local law enforcement.

A description on the website of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that the STOP-DWI program as "self-sustaining" programs financed by conviction fines, together with the article in the Walton reporter (see link in the blogpost here) where Delaware County probation chief unapologetically states that not only STOP-DWI, but probation and law enforcement in Delaware County, NY, receive money from conviction fines, and that now that the new prosecutor will be similarly "stimulated", the law enforcement hopes for convictions - and revenue - to go up.

So, what is glaring official misconduct in Missouri, is business as usual - and laudable "savings" strategy pandered to voters in order to lure them to vote for two public officials responsible for the scandalous financial incentives for a prosecutor, and to put them even higher than where they are now - on the bench, for 10 years.

The more corrupt you are and the more willing you are to collude with the local law enforcement to bring up revenues and violate people's constitutional rights (to bring "savings" to taxpayers and voters, of course) - the more eligible you are for judicial office?

So, being able to use your public office in order to bring revenues at the expense of people's constitutional rights is yet another new qualification for judicial office in New York - in addition to being gay, as New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick insists.