Transcript of NYC public hearing before the Commission for Statewide attorney discipline shows that the Commission is not interested in hearing about public concerns or making any changes in the system

I read yesterday, in utter disgust, the 161-page transcript of the not-so-public hearing before the Statewide Commission for Attorney discipline that was held this past August in New York City.

If you remember, that was the hearing where a reporter with a video crew came, and was not allowed not into the public hearing - in violation of Open Meetings Law - but in the building where the hearing was taking place, and there was a demand made that he leave even the public sidewalk in front of the building, which Gary Jacobs refused to do and instead asked the demanding representative of the Commission to call the police.  They did not do.  They are cowards and did not want THAT kind of publicity.  They "only" wanted to conceal the outrageous way how the "public" hearing was going to be handled - and how it was, eventually, handled.

Well, first of all, the disparity in treatment.

There were, if I counted correctly, 13 witnesses testifying that day.  The Commission "allowed" an "extra hour" for the testimony.  So, it was supposedly 16 witnesses in 3 hours, minus two because two pairs of witnesses was given 10 minutes per pair.  So, 14 witnesses for time limit purposes.  10 minutes each.  10 minutes each times 14 witnesses is 140 minutes, or 2 hours 20 minutes.  I wonder if 40 minutes were needed for the politically correct self-congratulations by members of the Commission, and by attorney witnesses, of how good the Commission is, how good Chief Judge Lippman is for creating the Commission, how good retired administrative judge Prudenti is for initially handling the Commission etc.

By the way, at the end of the day, when lay witnesses were finally allowed to testify (and were handled rudely by the same Chair of the Commission who exuded sweetness to attorneys and heads of bar associations testifying prior to the lay witnesses), Elena Sassower, Director of the Center of Judicial Accountability, took the stand, and actually stated that, before she started to actively inquire into the actions of the Commission, the Commission (guided by the allegedly "wonderful stewardship" of Gail Prudenti) did not have a telephone number, a website, or any schedule of public hearings, or any plan or strategy how to proceed.

Yet, time was wasted by the presiding member of the Commission to bow to Gail Prudenti's "wonderful stewardship".

I guess, no matter what is happening, brown-nosing comes first.  After all, the super-majority of the Commission were licensed attorneys and, thus, market players who were not interested in changing the status quo.

The identity, sequence of witnesses, issues they raised, proposals they made and how the proposals were handled by the Commission, depending on whether the proposal touched upon vested financial interests of the Commission's members, is a separate story.

And, some testimony in NYC echoed with testimony in the prior two "public" hearings in Albany and in Buffalo (of which I still did not receive responses to my FOIL request, even though I made those FOIL requests more than 5 days ago), and undermined credibility of certain witnesses testifying in the prior hearings - and of some members of the Commission who attempted to rebut, or rather, to shut up, the scant public criticism that was allowed through testimony before the Commission.

Here is the list of witnesses who testified before the Commission in NYC, with a summary of their respective list of issues and solutions.  After this list of witnesses, I will publish lists of witnesses and issues in the Albany and the Buffalo hearings.  Since the NYC hearing was the most explosive and most closely came to raise the actual issues that are boggling attorney disciplinary system in the State of New York, I will start with the NYC hearing and will go back to the Albany and Buffalo hearing, to show how the issues were raised and handled there.

I will remind the readers before I publish the list of issues that the Commission was created when the U.S. Supreme Court stripped members of disciplinary boards dominated by super-majorities of market players of their antitrust immunity, exposing them to criminal liability to felony antitrust violations and to civil liability in lawsuits under the Sherman Act, presupposing treble (three times) money damages.

THAT was the real reason for creating the Commission, yet, from hearing to hearing to hearing, the Commission members claimed that it was created to "explore" these issues:

1. whether attorney discipline administered by four appellate divisions based on their own departmental rules should be made more uniform and converted into a statewide attorney disciplinary system;
2. whether rules should be change to provide attorneys with some discovery, such as in other civil court proceedings;
3. whether, and at what point, confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceedings should be lifted before the final imposition of discipline;
4. how to make attorney disciplinary system "more fair, uniform and efficient" to balance fairness to attorneys while protecting the public.

Somehow, only attorney members of the Commission were present in all three "public" hearings, testimony was by invitation only, and the overwhelming number of witnesses invited to testify in front of the all-attorney panels were attorneys, not consumers of legal services.

The U.S. Supreme Court case was never mentioned throughout the three hearings, I diligently went through all three of them.

Critics of the system were attacked by questions by attorney members of the Commission according to the following pattern:

• if the critic was basing his or her criticism not on his own experience, but on studies, their evidence was attacked as "anecdotal" and unreliable - even when they said that the reason why it is anecdotal is because either statistics is not kept by the disciplinary committees, or the records are not available from the disciplinary committees;
• if the critic was basing his or her criticism on his own experience, that was rejected as too personal, the "sour grapes" kind of thing.

So, the committees block access to information, create no statistics, keep no archives, allow no public audits of what they are doing - and then rebut criticism of their work based on the lack of information that the committees arranged.

Also, I wrote on this blog and on the new blog "Disbarred But Not Beheaded" about the pending appeal in a civil rights case Neroni v Zayas, where I described that the very same members of the Commission who are supposedly convened to hear all issues "from top to bottom" and provide recommendations to the New York court system as to how to reform the system of attorney discipline, are opposing the very same issues that are raised in front of them in the Commission in the lawsuit in Neroni v Zayas - which makes their opposition to the appeal in Neroni v Zayas frivolous and fraudulent, and their claims of goals in the Commission hypocritical.

So, here is a table with the preliminary (and short) overview of issues raised at the NYC public hearing before the Statewide Commission for attorney discipline.

No.	Name	Organization	Attorney Or Lay Witness/ Issue	Questions by the Commission	Rude treatment, attempts to cut off
1.	Andrea Bonina	NYS Academy of Trial Lawyers	Attorney Change nothing in the current disciplinary process	Yes	No
2	Pery Krinsky	NYS Academy of Trial Lawyers	Attorney, Same as Bonina	Yes	No
3	Karen Winner	No affiliation, a New York attorney	Attorney, Secrecy in disciplinary proceedings hurts consumers	Yes, aggressive	Yes.  Attempts to discredit through aggressive questioning, putting her down (“you are sort of an academic”), witness was testifying about improper dismissals of meritorious disciplinary complaints, public was applauding, advice to “participants today to try and maintain some control”
4	Deborah Scalise	Scalise, Hamilton & Sheridan, in Scarsdale, former Deputy Counsel at the Disciplinry Committee, “now my career is on the other side”.	Attorney, necessity for diversion programs for attorneys in disciplinary process	Yes	No
5	Bennett Gershman	Professor of law at Pace Law School	Attorney, non-prosecution of prosecutorial misconduct	Yes, extensive questions	Commission members made statements indicating that disciplinary committees lack power to compel the prosecutor to produce files necessary for investigation
6	Daniel Marotta	President, Richmond County Bar Association	Attorney, there should be measures in place to weed out early on unfounded complaints – notarization of complaints, filing fee of $100 with a waiver for poor persons,	Yes, added time for testimony through questions Several members of the Commission asked questions	No, very polite
7	Allyn Crawford	Vice- President, Richmond County Bar Association	Attorney
8	Robert Tembeckjian	Administrator and Counsel, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct	Attorney,  praised himself and his Commission for effectively handling theft by judges of public funds, vouched for uniform system of attorney discipline, continue discipline in 4 departments, but provide uniformity through rules from the Chief Judge	Yes	No
9	Andrea Composto	NYS Women’s Bar Association	Attorney, suggests a comprehensive review of 10 years worth of disciplinary cases in all 4 departments, then make suggestions - but what if dismissals are not reflected in the record?   Harmonize rules between Departments, provide means for an attorney to enter into a settlement early on, opposes making the proceedings public before imposition of discipline	Yes, a Commission member stated that it is troubling IF meritorious complaints are dismissed and MAYBE the Commission should look into it (how – if records are not kept?)
10	Carol Sigmond	President, NY County Lawyers Bar Association	Attorney, the move for procedural uniformity “should be guided by the geographic and population differences in the departments”.  So, still no uniformity. Opposes statewide attorney disciplinary system.  Give disciplinary committee more financial resources and introduce plea bargaining to allow quicker resolutions. Supports discovery for attorneys. Prefers referee (retired judges) to panels (possibly including lay legal consumers).  Opposes opening up the disciplinary process to the public.
11	J. Richard Supple Jr	New York City Bar Association, Committee of Professional Discipline	Attorney, supports uniformity of rules, supports disclosure to the attorney during proceedings, subpoena power to the attorney, access to the disciplinary file of the committee, ability to take depositions of committee’s witnesses and the accuser.  Supports greater screening of unfounded complaints.  Urges more use of mediation.   Supports plea bargaining.  Claims that complaints from judges are not revealed to the attorney by the committees.  Opposes hearing panels claiming they are “hard to convene”.	Yes. Skelos asks what empirical evidence witness has to suggest that cases are tossed between committees with no action taken, witness answers that the system is closed, information is private, he can judge only from personal observations and his own practice.	Yes. Skelos  was aggressive, claimed that he sat on the Appellate Division for 11 years and did not see any problematic cases that the witness (who practices in the field of attorney discipline for years) was talking about
12	Prof. Caprice Alves	No affiliation	Non-attorney, consumer perspective.  Supports publicizing complaints where probable cause is found.  Asks if she should name lawyers committing misconduct, Commission says “no”.  Describes a situation where 3 weeks after her disciplinary complaints were dismissed, the lawyer was arrested by the FBI.  Topic of her dissertation is “An Analysis of the Perception of the Legal Profession Through the Eyes of Dissatisfied Consumers of Legal Services in Manhattan, New York”.  Three complaints were dismissed without an explanation, she published information about misconduct online, got sued by lawyer for defamation. Opposes confidentiality of proceedings, says it hurts consumers, consumers choose attorneys they wouldn’t have chosen had they known of disciplinary proceedings.	Yes	No
13	Janice Schacter Lintz	No affiliation	Retired attorney, testified about the same issues before Congress and the Moreland Commission.  Supports uniformity of proceedings, greater transparency of disciplinary proceedings to protect the public.  States that centralized discipline system will help eliminate the local collusion of attorneys with judges, including through out-of-court connections through bar associations.  Urges to “codify” billing practices and introduce strict censure if attorneys fail to bill timely.  Urges to post online all book deals where attorneys curry favors from judges and other attorneys through “contributing quotes to books”, receiving speaking engagements and/or free passes to conferences.  Urges to have attorneys and judges disclose such income on a state controlled form listing who provided the benefit.  Urges to prohibit law clerks to be employed by law firms appearing before judges for whom the law clerks worked. Urges to require lawyers to sign statements disclosing all conflicts of interest, with censure for failure to do that, and license revocation for a second violation.  Asks to investigate the New York City Bar Association because “committee appointments are made at the unfettered discretion of the NYC bar president”.  Claims that a sitting judge, Evans, meets with “invited” attorneys on select committees, and that the bar gives certain attorneys preferential access to sitting judges. Claims she was rejected from sitting on the Committee when she applied, while she observed the judge in a room communicating with “key matrimonial lawyers”.  Claimed that “Ethics Committees are packed with ‘besties” overseeing their friends.  Urged that Ethics Committees need to be transparent and that sessions need to be public to avoid any appearance of helping out a friend, same as the public is subject to open courtroom and the media. Claims that empirical evidence that the Commission is seeking will appear when proceedings are made open to the public.	Yes. Question about Judge Drager who ordered witness to be in handcuffs and threatened to put her into Rikers for 20 days – whether the judge did put her in jail or not No other questions Witness claimed she is denied equal treatment with previous witnesses who were asked a lot of questions The public urges the Commission to ask witness questions Cozier explains that the witness’s testimony was different from testimony of previous witnesses because she allegedly “didn’t address the issues”, “you did mention the uniformed rules, a couple of things, but we understand the testimony, so if we don’t have any further questions”… Witness claims that she is sitting on state and federal committees for public policy, that she has made multiple disciplinary complaints and they were all dismissed without an explanation.  Explains that, had the dismissals been public record, it would have revealed that complaints are being made repeatedly, by different people, against the same attorneys and on the same issues, which would have facilitated attorney discipline.	Yes, when the public indicated they could not hear the witness and asked her to adjust the microphone, Cozier told the public not to “comment”. Witness asked for an extra minute because she had a problem dealing with microphone, Cozier denied her the extra minute Threatened to take out of the room a member of the public who commented on Cozier’s handling of the witness
14	Ellen Oxman	No affiliation	Non-attorney. Claims “there is an elephant in the room”, and that elephant is that no matter what rules exist (or will be introduced), they are not followed, and nothing will get changed if the new rules are not followed, too.  Claims there is no oversight over the Commission for Judicial Conduct or of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee, and there is “overwhelming evidence of corruption”, which is “well-documented”.  Claims “they simply don’t follow the rules when they don’t want to and there is nothing to be done about it”. Claims that “it is an open secret that these offices have been run in a rogue manner to target or protect select attorneys”.  Points out to the Murphy report on corruption in the First Department back in 1989, and claims corruption nowadays is much worse. Claims that 20 years later stories of same or worse corruption were heard at Senator Sampson’s 2009 hearings, then records of hearings disappeared and Senator Sampson was convicted. Claims you can make all the laws you want against looting, “but if the police … turn the lights off and lock the precinct doors, there will be looting on the streets and that is what you’re seeing”.  Claims NYS court system is “probably the most corrupt court system in the United States” (Applause from the public), “with the most corrupt attorneys in the history of this country who go blithely unpunished and are fully protected by those who are charged with exposing them”.  Questions how Judge Gonzalez, after acknowledging misconduct and untruthful behavior with mortgages, can preside over cases of attorney ethics. Points out that the mission statement of the Commission completely sidesteps the issue of corruption. States “here we are again today, pretending there is no corruption.  That we need to improve the rules”. Claims that meritorious disciplinary complaints are dismissed because of corruption in the disciplinary committees.  Claims that the Committees and the Commission on Judicial Conduct do nothing to address the issue of corruption of attorneys and judges that is destroying the court system. “Right now, that is your terrible legacy and instead of addressing it, you mock the public”. Claims that she is a victim of domestic violence from her husband, a famous lawyer, and that he escapes accountability because of his connections.	No questions whatsoever, even though, with previous witnesses, Cozier and Skelos were active asking for “empirical evidence”.  Here, the witness gave some undisclosed statistics to the Commission, in written format, and the Commission ignored the materials completely	Zauderer was rude with the lay witness.  When the witness said “I am giving you this because I believe you asked for some statistics, Zauderer said:  “Give it to Mr. Caher in the back”.  No “please”, as he addressed attorney witnesses.
15	Alton Maddox	No affiliation	Suspended attorney, claims that he is the leading voice in the black community, that the court system is racially biased, that a black person cannot expect fairness in that biased court system and that Mr. Maddox was suspended because he was effectively representing people in court. Claims that “blacks must boycott New York courts now”.   Accuses the Commission of bias because they did not want to ask questions of the previous witness on the issues of corruption in the court system.	Yes.  Witness was asked his opinion about opening up the disciplinary process. Mr. Maddox supported opening attorney disciplinary proceedings as a matter of 14th Amendment right of the disciplined attorney.  Claims that secrecy did not help him, and claimed that he does not want “to have the privilege of being a lawyer elevating [him] above the common people”.	Was handled politely.
16	Elena Sassower	Director, Center for Judicial Accountability	Non-attorney, daughter of two whistleblower attorneys who were disbarred (father) and suspended indefinitely (mother) for exposing judicial misconduct.  Stated that because of judicial corruption that her organization fights, attorney disciplinary proceedings are used “to protect and insulate from accountability the politically connected attorneys and to retaliate against judicial whistleblowing ones”.  Claims that the current system of attorney discipline exists for 35 years, and that it survived because “no one in a position of power or influence has confronted the proof of its dysfunction, corruption and politicization”. Ms. Sassower stated that “because [she] knew and understand that the attorney disciplinary system cannot survive an evidentiary presentation”, she contacted the Office of Court Administration to inquire WHETHER hearings would be held by the Commission – and at that point, the Commission did not have a phone, a website, or any schedule of hearings, so Ms. Sassower indicates, as I understood it, that until she urged the Commission into action, “until the third week of June” the Commission was “inaccessible”. Ms. Sassower provided statistics and indicated that they are not publicly available on the Commission’s website.  Ms. Sassower calls grievance committees “sham entities” where complaints are handled by staff and members of the committees do not even get to know the contents of the complaints before they are dismissed by staff.  Ms. Sassower urged the need for more statistics, to be able to see the complaints and dismissal letters side by side, to see whether dismissals (about 70% of all complaints in all departments, without investigation) are proper.  Witness states that lack of auditing of the activities of attorney disciplinary committees is a problem, that the Judicial Conduct Commission refused an audit from the State Comptroller urging the Comptroller to issue a report “Not Accountable to the Public”.		Cozier refused to accept a written submission from Ms. Sassower, even though he allowed other witnesses to provide written submissions if they did not have enough time to testify orally. Ms. Sassower claimed she was just presenting statistics and other information “that will make the testimony”, and was cut off at that point by Cozier At the end of Ms. Sassower’s testimony, Cozier relentlessly imposes the time limit upon Ms. Sassower while she is trying to point out to the Commission where the Commission can get information and arguments about unconstitutionality of NYS Attorney disciplinary system (pleadings of disciplined attorneys that became public record when discipline was imposed). The public urged to ask Ms. Sassower questions. Ms. Sassower wanted to address the question that Zauderer asked at the Albany hearing. Zauderer consented to hear her answer. Cozier repeatedly continued to try to cut Ms. Sassower off and prevent her from answering Mr. Zauderer’s question at the Albany hearing that Mr. Zauderer allowed her to answer.  Even when the public asked him to allow her to continue. Cozier finally relented and grudgingly allowed Ms. Sassower to answer the question as to what opposition can exist to the right of an attorney to discovery in the disciplinary proceedings that the president of the State bar was unable to answer in the Albany hearing. When Ms. Sassower, answering the question “what” is the opposition, claimed that the opposition comes from the court system where courts refuse to listen or respond to constitutional arguments of attorneys in support of discovery in disciplinary proceedings, Cozier cut her off while stating “Ms. Sassower, I think you have said enough”, despite public support of her statement, and did not allow her to finish or elaborate on that answer. Because Ms. Sassower was cut off on the most important topic that the judiciary is the main bar to adjustment of attorney disciplinary proceedings and making them comply with constitutional due process and fairness requirements, Ms. Sassower tried to briefly touch upon one more topic – lack of funding of attorney disciplinary system, at the same time as judges obtained for themselves a pay raise that cost taxpayers at least 10 times more than attorney disciplinary budgets. Cozier then closed the testimony.

I would like to point out the following order in which witnesses were called:

• first, 11 (!) attorneys were called, mostly heads of various bar associations, and one law professor;  the attorneys were treated politely - if they did not raise sensitive issues, otherwise they were aggressively questioned by Commission members (Cozier and Skelos, more on Skelos' own appearance of ethical challenges in a separate blog post);
• then, 3 legal consumers (one of them still a retired attorney and the other an attorney's wife) were called, the first lay consumer (a professor) was treated politely, but the next two were discriminated against - one by denying her an extra minute of testimony that she lost because the Commission did not provide her with a functional microphone that glitches; and Commission member Zauderer was rude with the other lay witness
• then, a suspended attorney testified, and
• at the very end, as a witness No 16, the Commission allowed to testify the witness, Elena Sassower, daughter of two whistleblower attorneys who both lost their licenses for their exposure of judicial misconduct, after distinguished careers.  Yet, Elena Sassower is the person who has actually made possible the public hearings in the first place, by actively urging the Commission to open up to the public what it is doing, creating and publishing some contact information, creating a website and holding the public hearings.  From the very beginning to the very end the head of the Commission's panel Cozier was rude to Elena Sassower, and that was,  possibly, because and in retaliation for Elena Sassower actions, because she made sure that the Commission was prevented from conducting its affairs in secret, at the beginning of her testimony, Cozier denied Elena Sassower the right to give written submissions to the Commission, which Cozier allowed to attorney witnesses.  At the end, Cozier was repeatedly trying to cut off Ms. Sassower from answering a question that another Commission member Zauderer, asked at the Albany hearing, even though Zauderer allowed Ms. Sassower to proceed with answering that question.  Cozier tried to interfere into Ms. Sassower's answering several times, then grudgingly "allowed" her to answer, but cut her off while she just started answering - not the way Cozier wanted to hear.  I guess, had Ms. Sassower engaged in the same kind of brown-nosing some attorney witnesses were doing before her, like praising the "distinguished panel", the "distinguished Commission" ,everybody distinguished, for their good efforts, public service, wonderful stewardship - Cozier would have cut Ms. Sassower off.

All-in-all, out of 16 witnesses testifying at the New York City not-so-public hearing, only ONE witness Professor Alves was not affiliated with the court system in any way.  She was:

• not a licensed attorney (witnesses No. 1 through 11);
• not a retired attorney and wife of an attorney (Ms. Lintz);
• not a suspended attorney (Mr. Maddox);
• not an ex-wife of an attorney (Ms. Oxman), and
• not a daughter of two attorneys (Ms. Sassower)

The Commission did not care, obviously, to invite LEGAL CONSUMERS and NON-ATTORNEY LEGAL CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS, in equal numbers as attorneys, to testify.

The Commission did not alternate testimony of attorneys and lay consumers of legal services.

The Commission made very obvious:

• by the sequence and the number disparity between attorney and non-attorney witnesses, 
• by having NO lay members of the Commission - none- preside over a single public hearing out of three (Albany, Buffalo, NYC), and 
• by cutting off and discriminating against any witness who would point out that members of the Commission, the judiciary and attorney disciplinary committees and their actions are at the core of the problems, and the clean-up of the system should start from them

that the Commission members are not interested in changing the status quo - or to honor the declaration that attorney disciplinary proceedings and attorney regulation exist not to protect attorney from accountability, but to protect the public from bad attorneys.

All the Commission wanted to hear is how to protect attorneys from the public, predominantly through secrecy.

Even when suspended civil rights attorney Alton Maddox correctly stated that secrecy actually VIOLATES the 14th Amendment rights of the disciplined attorney - and I have evidence, in the form of criminal charges filed against m by the disciplinary committee of the 4th Department, for waiving my own privacy in attorney disciplinary proceedings and letting the public and the press know what is going on behind closed doors, that secrecy is being used by disciplinary prosecutors as a sword against the disciplined attorneys and not as a privacy shield for them, as the testimony went at the hearings.

Mr. Maddox also correctly - and courageously said, and deserves a lot of respect for what he said, that he, as an attorney, does not want the privilege of privacy and confidentiality that the public at large does not have, that he does not want, as an attorney, to be above the public.

Apparently, THAT is why he is suspended and why his suspension lasts for so many years.  Mr. Maddox is too much of an example of what an attorney is - while the majority of attorneys are not.

For a conclusion, let me say that this post is only an overview of the issues raised at the public hearing in NYC before the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline.

Issues raised there need to be digested and discussed issue-by-issue.

The transcript, after all, was 161 pages.  It requires substantial time, on top of my other obligations, to  dissect and analyze the issues, look up the background of witnesses, and present analysis of those issues in separate blog posts.

But I will strive to do that, I only need time.

Thank you for reading and stay tuned.

The list of attorneys who contributed to the campaign of Delaware County attorney Porter Kirkwood who runs for a the Family/County Judge - watch out for conflicts of interest

I obtained from the New York State Board of Elections campaign finance reports of Porter Kirkwood who is running for the seat of the Family/County judge in Delaware County.

I already wrote on this blog that Porter Kirkwood has zero integrity and should be disbarred, not elevated to the position of a judge - at least, for his role in approving $129.6 mln in public contracts to be awarded without public bidding plus $700,000 without even written contracts - and that's only in one year, and according to conservative audit of New York State Comptroller.

So, this wonderful person is running for a judge, and I wanted to check who supports his election efforts financially.

First of all, I must state that you will not be able to find Porter Kirkwood's campaign finance reports on the NYS Board of Elections website.  I tried, the database does not return any results.

The only way you can get to the reports of Porter Kirkwood's campaign finance - whether it was done intentionally or not - is only by logging in Porter Kirkwood's campaign's "Filer ID", and you need to know it in order to use it and to get to the reports.

I obtained Porter Kirkwood's Filer ID and am now making it public - it is C03616.

When you put in that Filer ID, you will get to his campaign finance reports.

I strongly suggest people who foresee appearing in front of Porter Kirkwood to download all of his campaign finance report for purposes of future cross-reference for conflicts of interest.

Porter Kirkwood never discloses his conflicts of interest (after all, he learnt from the "best" - from now retired Carl Becker who, also, never disclosed his conflicts of interest and punished those who challenged him for those conflicts of interest after discovering them, often after the end of court proceedings, on their own).

Porter Kirkwood was also caught in awarding millions of dollars in public contracts without public bidding.

Think how he will be awarding attorney assignments when (and if) he becomes the Family/County judge.

Therefore, first of all I started with the list of attorneys who so far contributed to Porter Kirkwood's election campaign.

Here is the list that I cut out from Porter Kirkwood's campaign finance reports:

Christine Becker is not an attorney, but she is married to attorney and retired judge Carl Becker.

Lauren Clark is the law clerk of retired judge Carl Becker

Leslie McKeegan is not an attorney, but she is wife and sister-in-law to two local attorneys.

Bruce Maxson is regularly assigned to Delaware County Family Court cases.  Apparently, he tries to secure his place on the assigned counsel list under the prospective new judge.  Bruce Maxson donated to Porter Kirkwood's election campaign twice so far.

John Hubbard is Chief Assistant District Attorney of Delaware County who will be appearing in front of Porter Kirkwood as a County judge, and as a Family judge in child abuse cases where the DA's office is, by statute, a necessary party.

John Hubbard contributed to Porter Kirkwood's campaign so far twice.

 Retired appellate judge Carl Mugglin, friend and supporter of the retired monster judge Carl Becker.  Has become famous because of his phrase that a female attorney will dig a hole for her female client with her intellectual efforts.  A supporter of criminal trials in churches.

Despite a Las Vegas address, Mr. Mackin is a New York lawyer out of Hancock, New York.

Mr. Grayson is often appointed as a referee in residential foreclosures in Delaware County Supreme Court.  Since the County/Family Court judge is expected, as his predecessor, to be appointed an Acting Supreme Court justice, apparently, Mr. Grayson is trying to keep himself on the prospective referee list.

Charles Hill is more of a commercial litigation and wills-and-trusts attorney.  Since the County/Family Court judge will also be a Surrogate and, likely an Acting Supreme Court justice, Mr. Hill apparently tries to bow to the prospective judge ahead of time with a present.

Thomas Gallagher is a staple on the Family Court assigned counsel list, and, apparently, wants to keep it that way.

 Frank Miller Law firm is Delaware County's litigation attorneys.  Frank Miller is currently defending in Delaware County Supreme Court Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, nephew of District Attorney's office investigator Jeff Bowie, against a lawsuit for vehicular assault upon a woman in order to destroy a tablet in the woman's (Barbara O'Sullivan's) hands while she was, reportedly, videotaping Derek Bowie's misconduct.

Frank Miller already obtained certain breaks from Judge John Lambert which his client was not entitled to, and, apparently, hopes for even more breaks when the former Delaware County attorney may replace Judge Lambert in that lawsuit after election, to save Judge Lambert time for travel from Otsego County.

Frank Miller is also the attorney who has handled an "investigation" into police misconduct of a local police officer and deposed for that purpose many people without telling them that he is not a neutral public investigator, but an attorney hired by Delaware County and by the Village of Delhi to defend these entities from liability.

When that apparent conflict of interest or not-so-forthcoming behavior was brought up to his attention, he threatened me with a complaint to disciplinary authorities because I dared to soil his impeccable Martindale rating.

Frank Miller is known to be aggressive and, in my experience, outright rude at depositions.

Ms. McCue is on the Family Court assigned counsel/law guardian list and, apparently, wants to keep it this way with the prospective new judge.

I posted this list of contributors first because potential conflicts of interest in the future appearances before Porter Kirkwood as a judge are, probably, most serious here, and people should know about these campaign donations by these attorneys and should remember the names of these attorneys for future reference.

I also understand that money does not smell and that anybody has a right to donate to a judicial election campaign - as well as to accept donations.  Yet, to me there is certainly an appearance of impropriety when an attorney sponsors a judicial candidates with knowledge that he or she will appear in front of the judge, after elections, in the future, no matter how small the donation was.

And, in my opinion, there is an appearance of impropriety for a judicial candidate to accept donations for the election campaign from attorneys who will then expect to get lucrative assignments from that judicial candidate, once he becomes a judge, or other favors.

Studies show that judges most often rule in favor of attorneys who contributed to their campaigns.  Even the famous satirist John Oliver recently took up judicial elections as "justice for sale".

Thus, accepting contributions from attorneys amounts to a disqualification from these attorneys' cases to avoid appearance of impropriety (if Porter Kirkwood, of course, wants to follow rules of Judicial Conduct when/if he gets on the bench), and bringing a judge from out of the County will add to taxpayers' burden.

Maybe, for Porter Kirkwood no conflicts of interest exist - considering his recent approval of $129.6 mln in public contracts without public bidding (I will show in the next posts how Porter Kirkwood was "rewarded" for that approval by various members of Delaware County Board of Supervisors who supported his judicial election campaign financially).

Yet, because, apparently, for Porter Kirkwood no conflicts of interest exists, Porter Kirkwood should not be allowed to get on that bench, no matter who supports his judicial campaign financially.

Vote for Gary Rosa!

Will Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl prosecute his own subordinate, Chief Assistant District Attorney Michael Getman for aiding and abetting (and profiting by) unauthorized practice of law in his own jurisdiction as a prosecutor?

In the previous post, I cited to the ruling of New York State Appellate Division Second Department ruled that when a paralegal drafts legal papers, that constitutes a crime of Unauthorized Practice of Law, in violation of Judiciary Law 478.

Since Judiciary Law 478 is a criminal statute applying to "any natural person", it should be identity-blind and should apply equally to a person who never had a law license, as well as to a person who lost that law license through suspension or disbarment.

It is an established fact, as a matter of law, through an Affirmation under oath and through the testimony under oath in Delaware County Supreme Court on June 23, 2014 of attorney Richard Harlem, with an office in Oneonta, NY, Otsego County, that Richard Harlem's employee Patrick Orr who is not licensed to practice law in the State of New York, engaged in what the 2nd Department considered a violation of Judiciary law 478, working as a paralegal and, while being a paralegal, drafting legal papers.

So, it is an established fact, in view of the case "Matter of Brandes" decided by the 2nd Department on June 3, 2015,  that Richard Harlem, as of June 23, 2014, violated criminal law, Judiciary Law 478, by aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the same statute, Judiciary Law 478, by Richard Harlem's paralegal Patrick Orr.

These crimes were committed by Richard Harlem and Patrick Orr, as established by Richard Harlem's sworn testimony in court, in Otsego County, where Richard Harlem's law office is located.

That is the jurisdiction of the Otsego County District Attorney.

The Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County Michael Getman

drawing the salary (according to seethroughny.net) of $51,439 a year, which requires him to dedicate all business hours to taxpayers' business and not his own private practice, does have an active private practice, and represents a private client in the same case where Richard Harlem testified about him and his paralegal Patrick Orr engaging in the crime of unauthorized practice of law.

Even though Michael Getman was not personally present at the hearing of June 23, 2014 where Richard Harlem admitted under oath in engaging his employee Patrick Orr in the crime of unauthorized practice of law, when I filed an appeal of Judge Dowd's decision, I personally served Michael Getman on September 30, 2014, as an attorney of record in that case, with the transcript of Richard Harlem's testimony, as well as a Notice of Stipulation to that transcript.

Since Michael Getman did not respond with objections to the transcript within 15 days after being served, as a matter of law he waived those objections.

So, Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County Michael Getman was notified by me as of September 30, 2014, by being served with he transcript of testimony of attorney Richard Harlem, that Richard Harlem and his paralegal Patrick Orr were engaged in aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law/UPL (Richard Harlem) and UPL itself (Patrick Orr).

What did Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County Michael Getman, drawing taxpayer-paid salary of $51,439 do when he was notified and was provided irrebuttable evidence that Richard Harlem and Patrick Orr committed crimes in Michael Getman's jurisdiction as a criminal prosecutor?

Did he prosecute these two individuals?  Oh, no.

Instead, Michael Getman, during his taxpayer-paid time, appeared in court in Delhi, NY, while his prosecutorial office is in Cooperstown, NY, 1.5 hours' drive from Delhi, NY, on April 7, 2015, nearly one year into the 2-year statute of limitations for the misdemeanors committed by Richard Harlem and Patrick Orr:

And what did the Chief Assistant District Attorney Michael Getman did in Delhi court on taxpayer-paid time?  What did he say?

Here is what he said:

Michael Getman told the court that his client's interest is "aligned" with the interests of Richard Harlem and his clients.

That was because Richard Harlem was representing the Estate of Andrew Mokay, and Michael Getman's client was the beneficiary of that Estate and made a claim against that Estate, so anything that the Estate would squeeze out of disbarred-through-a-bribe by Mr. Harlem Frederick J. Neroni would benefit Mr. Getman's private client, and thruogh her, Mr. Getman who will get paid from his client's bounty.

So, did Mr. Getman sell out his prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute Mr. Harlem and his paralegal Patrick Orr for violation of Judiciary Law 478 for a bribe from Mr. Harlem?  Yet another bribe for Mr. Harlem who already bribed the law firm of Mr. Neroni's prosecutor John Casey with a lucrative private representation contract into not prosecuting Mr. Harlem (whom Mr. Neroni turned in) and instead disbar Mr. Neroni?

It certainly appears so.

It is not the first time, after all, when Michael Getman engaged in conflicts of interest, but escaped without any accountability or discipline.

Here is the settlement by the New York State Attorney General reached in 2002 in regards of misconduct of Michael Getman and his now-late father, retired judge Frank Getman in regards to self-dealing in a charity.  I put in just a scan about what Michael Getman got out of the settlement:

Since Michael Getman escaped without any discipline - and I personally turned him into the Committee for Professional Conduct in the Third Department who tossed my complaint without an explanation or record that such complaint even existed (and, as I learnt through a federal court case, the Committee deliberately does not maintain an archive of complaints andof its actions on the complaints), Michael Getman felt free to engage in further conflict of interest.

Now son-of-a-judge Michael Getman aimed higher than mere self-dealing in a charity and sold his prosecutorial discretion to the experienced bidder - yet another son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem.

He refused to prosecute Richard Harlem and his paralegal Patrick Orr for violation of Judiciary Law 478 (Patrick Orr) and aiding and abetting the same for a profit (Richard Harlem) because, as Michael Getman stated to Judge Dowd on April 7, 2015 on record, his private client's interests are "aligned" with Richard Harlem through her claim agaisnt the Estate in the Surrogate's Court while Richard Harlem's extortion in the Supreme Court in front of "mind-boggled" judge Dowd can land for Michael Getman's client and for Michael Getman a piece of that bounty.

Nice work, Richard Harlem.  You learnt from the best - your father had to disgorge $600,000 that he obtained through self-dealing and unlawful practice of law while being a sitting judge, with Richard Harlem's keen assistance.

Now Richard Harlem corrupted not only one judge - his father, not only one disciplinary prosecutor - John Casey, but also a criminal prosecutor - Michael Getman.

So - will the Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl have the backbone to investigate and prosecute his own Chief Assistant District Attorney for:

• selling his prosecutorial discretion for a financial benefit to his private client and himself;
• theft of public money through engagement in a private practice during the hours that he was supposed to work as a public prosecutor?

Time will show, but I am turning in Michael Getman, Richard Harlem and Patrick Orr for criminal prosecution by John Muehl based on their conduct described in this blog post and in the previous one.

The law that boggles Judge Kevin Dowd's mind and seems unreasonable to Judge Lawrence Kahn, makes perfect sence to the Appellate Division 2nd Department - after talking to spirits, of course

I would like to show how judicial minds work - it is rare when you can make such a dihotomy (I would prefer a lobotomy for these judges, of course, that suits the situation better, but - alas, they are stuck to their benches, their black robes, their power, their salary and their benefits like glue).

The law in the State of New York prohibits unauthorized practice of law.

The law does not define what practice of law is.

The law does not really define what unauthorized practice of law is, either - but the statute for unauthorized practice of law exists anyway, it is a criminal statute and it is applied by courts on a case by case basis, with notice given to criminal defendants in arrears - we caught you and NOW we say that THIS is unauthorized practice of law.

I will illustrate in this blog post how the same conduct is considered unauthorized practice of law for two disbarred attorneys and legitimate conduct for which an attorney can charge a client a legal fee when the very same thing is done by a person who has never had a law license.

On June 23, 2014 I appeared in front of Judge Kevin Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court who has won his seat in a "landslide" election without any opposition - so he needed only one vote to win that election, and that vote could have been his own.   

At the hearing on June 23, 2014, attorney and son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem, who has his law office located in Oneonta, NY (Otsego County), provided an Affirmation to the Court with attorney fees that Richard Harlem wanted the court to award against my client, and husband, Frederick J. Neroni.

Richard Harlem then testified at the hearing about the contents of the Affirmation, subject to my cross-examination.

Here is part of my cross-examination of Richard Harlem on June 23, 2014 in the Mokay action:

Richard Harlem's Affirmation stated that Patrick Orr, his paralegal who is not licensed to practice law, was drafting legal memorandums and pleadings for Mr. Harlem.

I requested Judge Dowd to strike these "legal fees" as illegal fees, because Patrick Orr engaged in unauthorized practice of law (UPL, a crime of misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail), and attorney Richard Harlem aided, abetted and profited by Patrick Orr's UPL:

I made the following argument to Judge Kevin Dowd about Attorney Richard Harlem's employee engaged, at Attorney Richard Harlem's direction, in the crime of unauthorized practice of law, and Attorney Richard Harlem aiding and abetting that crime, at a profit to himself and while committing his own crime (aiding and abetting commission of a crime is a crime of its own).

Here is Judge Kevin Dowd's response to that argument:

First, Judge Dowd pronounces an opinion that he finds nothing out of the ordinary in an attorney making his paralegal engage in a crime of UPL and then charging the results of that crime to his own clients and requesting the court to charge the result of that crime to his opponent in litigation.

Judge Dowd claims that it is done all the time, it is nothing unusual, so it should not even be mentioned.

Then, Judge Dowd offers his own unsworn testimony from the bench in support of Mr. Harlem, claiming that he himself drafted legal documents without being admitted to the bar, there is nothing about it, everybody does it, and that it is "mind-boggling" for me even to raise that issue as improper.

Apparently, all it takes to boggle Judge Dowd's mind in the absence of his "brain" is citing applicable law about a son-of-a-judge.

Here is Judge Dowd's unsworn testimony from the bench about HIS unauthorized practice of law - to prove that what Richard Harlem and Patrick Orr did is nothing out of the ordinary and, thus, if Judge Dowd engage in UPL all those years ago, it is legitimate for Richard Harlem and his employee to violate that criminal law now.

What boggled the mind of Judge Kevin Dowd, also boggled the mind of Senior Judge Lawrence Kahn, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Remember, I made an argument to Judge Dowd that what he considers lawful behavior of paralegal Patrick Orr and his boss, attorney and son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem, would have been considered a crime of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) for Frederick J. Neroni, a disbarred attorney (disbarred BECAUSE of the Mokay saga and as a direct result of Richard Harlem bribing-in-kind the disciplinary prosecutor, for which there is documentary evidence).

Here is my argument about that once again:

I made the same argument on behalf of my client and husband Frederick J. Neroni in his lawsuit Neroni v Zayas in federal court - that New York government discriminates against suspended and disbarred attorneys by charging against them as the crime of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) what is considered legal conduct to people who never had a law license.

Judge Lawrence Kahn found my arguments unreasonable and dismissed that claim, and all other claims accompanying and resulting from that claim.

Here is what Judge Kahn stated, as of March 31, 2014, three months before the mind-boggling decision of Judge Dowd on June 23, 2014 that Patrick Orr could draft legal papers, chargeable to clients as a legal fee, and that would not be any kind of impropriety or, God forbid, a crime of UPL, nor would it be a crime of aiding and abetting UPL by Mr. Harlem, Patrick Orr's boss.

Please, note that Judge Kahn claims very clearly that what Mr. Neroni said he could be prosecuted for as unauthorized practice of law ("working in a law office in a non-attorney capacity") was not, in Judge Kahn's opinion, practice of law, cannot be charged as unauthorized practice of law, and Mr. Neroni's (or my own, as his counsel in that litigation) interpretation of the UPL statute is unreasonable, and because of it, Mr. Neroni's challenge (facial and "as applied to him") of constitutionality of the UPL statutes and for an injunction to stop state officials from enforcing UPL statutes against Mr. Neroni based on such legitimate non-practice-of-law conduct, was denied.

Mr. Neroni was subsequently punished with an anti-filing injunction by the Chief Judge of Judge Kahn's federal court who claimed, on his own motion, that Mr. Neroni's entire lawsuit Neroni v Zayas was frivolous, including the above claims (while the remaining claims were at that time still pending in front of Judge Kahn and with me as Mr. Neroni's counsel; that fact did not bother Judge Sharpe who acted over the heads of both Judge Kahn and me as Mr. Neroni's counsel and served Mr. Neroni directly with his "sua sponte" action).

Well, here comes a bummer.

On June 3, 2015 New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Judicial Department denied reinstatement to a disbarred attorney, a well-known expert in the field of family and matrimonial law, Joel R. Brandes.

In its decision denying reinstatement to a disbarred attorney, the 2nd Department claimed that when the disbarred attorney drafted legal papers as a paralegal (and helped other attorneys as a legal expert - compare with the piece from Judge Kahn's decision above), he engaged in - guess what? - unauthorized practice of law.

Here is the decision, in full:

===
Quote

Matter of Brandes, Joel R.

Motion No: 1999-07006

Slip Opinion No: 2015 NY Slip Op 81096(U)

Decided on June 3, 2015

Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department M190260 E/ct RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS MARK C. DILLON RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

1999-07006 In the Matter of Joel R. Brandes, a disbarred attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1168483)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by Joel R. Brandes for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Brandes was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 19, 1969.  By opinion and order of this Court dated April 28, 2002, Mr. Brandes was disbarred upon a finding that he was guilty of five charges of professional misconduct (Matter of Brandes, 292 AD2d 129).  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 16, 2002, Mr. Brandes's motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, was denied.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 5, 2009, Mr. Brandes's first motion for reinstatement was denied.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 26, 2011, Mr. Brandes's second motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on his current fitness to practice law.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 17, 2012, this Court, inter alia, denied Mr. Brandes's second motion for reinstatement.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 5, 2013, Mr. Brandes's motion for for leave to file a motion for reinstatement prior to expiration of the one-year period pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.11(e)(1) was denied.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 8, 2014, Mr. Brandes's third motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on Mr. Brandes's current fitness to practice law, including but not limited to, his future intentions with regard to the paralegal services portion of his Internet business.  Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied.  We find that Mr. Brandes engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of his disbarment when he provided paralegal services via the Internet.  Mr. Brandes represents that he has since ceased this portion of his Internet business because it proved unprofitable.  Mr. Brandes's provision of such services through his corporation, Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., during the period he did operate this portion of his business, violated Judiciary Law § 90(2) and this Court's order of disbarment, which, inter alia, directed that Mr. Brandes "desist and refrain from . . . practicing law in any form, [and] giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto." "The practice of law involves the rendering of legal advice and opinions directed to particular clients" (Matter of Rowe, 80 NY2d 336, 341-342).  Under the guise of being a paralegal, Mr. Brandes, a noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce (see Brandes, Law and the Family New York [2d ed rev 1997] and cumulative supplements), for instance, would give advice to an attorney, who had a difficult case.  Mr. Brandes would speak to the attorney over the telephone or by e-mail regarding a particular aspect of the difficult case.  Upon presentation of the particulars of the case or problem, Mr. Brandes would guide the attorney to the applicable statutes and precedent cases, and offer his past experience.  Such rendering of legal advice or opinion constitutes the practice of law, since Mr. Brandes in so doing, exercised professional judgment directed at the legal problem of a particular client, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Brandes had no direct contact or relationship with the client.  In many other instances, Mr. Brandes contracted to draft briefs and other litigation papers for other attorneys (that's what Patrick Orr did for attorney Richard Harlem - and Judge Dowd considered it to be perfectly normal, reasonable, not UPL, and "everybody do that" - TN). Given the fact that Mr. Brandes was vastly more experienced in matrimonial and domestic relations matters than the attorneys for whom he was performing services, the provision of such services can be deemed to be performing legal services for a client, namely, the attorney for whom he drafted the brief and documents.  Such giving of advice and performance of legal services certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Judiciary Law § 478 (see 22 NYCRR 691.10[a]).  Accordingly, we find that Mr. Brandes does not demonstrate the requisite fitness and character to practice law. ENG, P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

==

Unquote

===

So.

March 31, 2014 - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - Judge Lawrence Kahn - disbarred attorney Frederick J. Neroni is claiming that he may be charged for UPL for working in a law office in a non-attorney (paralegal capacity) - Judge Kahn said it is not the practice of law and such an interpretation is unreasonable - and tosses constitutional challenge to overbroad UPL laws, as interpreted by New York courts and as applied to Mr. Neroni.

June 23, 2014 - Judge Kevin Dowd, of Chenango County Supreme Court - allows as legitimate and not UPL, drafting by a paralegal Patrick Orr of legal papers that his boss attorney Richard Harlem then charged, through a court order of the same Judge Dowd, against Frederick J. Neroni (disbarred because of Richard Harlem's timely bribe to Mr. Neroni's disciplinary prosecutor), and charged as legal fees.

June 3, 2015 - A panel of the Appellate Division 2nd Department which included judge Peter Skelos, member of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline that was supposed to toil on how to make attorney discipline in New York more uniform, more efficient, and more FAIR

(who quickly retired since then as part of epidemic of early retirements among New York judges - Carl Becker, Peter Skelos, Gail Prudenti and right after his brother, former NYS Senate majority leader was indicted by the feds for corruption),

- denies reinstatement to a renowned legal expert because that expert worked as an expert (see Judge Kahn's opinion that it is unreasonable to claim that working as a legal expert is UPL), and because he did what paralegals do all the time, according to Judge Dowd and which should not even reasonably be considered the practice of law, according to Judge Kahn.

Of course, Judge Skelos and his companion judges on the panel that denied reinstatement to Joel R. Brandes, claimed in their decision that Mr. Brandes violated the "spirit, if not the letter" of the UPL statute.

Now criminal defendants must look to "spirits" and not the letter of statutory law (and criminal law in New York is ALL statutory law) in order to discern what will courts "find" to be a violation of that "spirit" - whatever it is.

I guess, the bummer produced by Peter Skelos may undo the bummers produced by Judge Dowd in Mokay v Mokay in Delaware County Supreme Court and by Judges Kahn and Sharpe in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New  York.

Because it affects not only a Neroni who is not entitled to the rule of law anyway - inconsistent and not identity-blind application of criminal law hurts everyone in New York. 

Campaign contributions and expenditures of judicial candidate Richard Northrup remain a mystery for now

I received a response today from the NYS Board of Elections to my FOIL request regarding campaign contributions and expenditures of judicial candidates Porter Kirkwood (Delaware County Attorney) and Richard Northrup (Delaware County District Attorney).

As to Porter Kirkwood, State Board of Election has campaign finance reports filed, and I will post them after I review them.

As to Richard Northrup, the State Board of Elections advised me that it has no filings as to his campaign finance.

He could have filed it with the local, Delaware County, Board of Elections, where I also filed a FOIL request.

I will be waiting for response to my FOIL request regarding Richard Northrup's campaign finance from Delaware County Board of Elections and will post it in this blog.

Stay tuned.

A new blog was created dedicated to rights of disbarred and suspended attorneys

I've started a new blog dedicated to the rights of disbarred and suspended attorneys.

In analyzing how attorneys are suspended and disbarred (or not suspended and disbarred when they should have been), and how the disbarred and suspended attorneys are discriminated, and for what REAL reasons, I will point out how courts refuse to give such people any rights, apply to them any laws, as to other people, allow them such natural things as even family privacy and communication with friends without intrusion by the state.

I will also show how discrimination of disbarred and suspended attorneys on the basis of their status is a reflection of the not-so-blind justice and discrimination of other "unpopular" classes of litigants in New York and U.S. courts.

You are welcome to visit that blog if you are interested in such topics.

State of New York, leader of the nation

 I.

According to studies cited by witnesses who testified in front of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline in New York, New York and Texas are leading the nation in the number of wrongful convictions.

At the public hearings before the Commission witnesses asserted, and members of the Commission tried to deny that the problem of non-enforcement of attorney discipline against prosecutors even exists.

At the same time, New York State Legislature:

1) fights on appeal a lawsuit (Neroni v Zayas) asserting that selective enforcement of attorney discipline exists; and

2) promotes a bill to create an "independent" Commission to deal with prosecutorial misconduct - while attorney grievance committees already have such authorities, but obviously do nothing.

In my view, assertion of these two diametrically opposite directions is frivolous as to the opposition to the appeal - but courts never punish state defendants for frivolous conduct, one more point of selective enforcement.

The District Attorneys' Associations, according to a witness who testified at the Buffalo public hearing before the Commission, "descended upon the Capitol as a bunch of paratroopers" (citing from recollection) in order to prevent creation of such a commission.

From the "brother state" in wrongful convictions, Texas - today's news about yet another prosecutor exposed for committing misconduct, this time by the court (a rarity), but without any sanctions (the usual). 

II.

New York and Texas are not prosecuting its criminal prosecutors for misconduct (hence, more wrongful convictions).

III.

New York does prosecute attorneys who criticize prosecutorial misconduct - and gives them no rights during those proceedings, like no discovery - contrary to 40 other states who do give such discovery rights.

IV.

Federal courts dealing with non-prosecution of selective enforcement of attorney discipline in New York make such lawsuits go away, not without "incentives" from the market players, on the alleged grounds that "private citizens have no justicially recognized interest" to make such challenges.

V.

And, finally - New York is leading the nation in exodus of its residents from the State. 

So, people run from New York in droves while criminal prosecutors descend upon the Capitol as a bunch of paratroopers trying to prevent any efforts to enforce laws against law enforcers.  

Any surprises?