Who investigates and prosecutes U.S. Supreme Court judges? Anyone?

On September 15, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer has published a book, "The Courts and The World".

Justice Breyer then engaged in heavy advertising of the book in the media, and the mainstream media bends over backwards in promoting Judge Breyer's book.

Here are promotional articles by:

• NPR;
• The Wall Street Journal;
• FORA.tv;
• The Diane Rehm Show;
• USA Today;
• The New York Times;

 The book is available in three formats - Kindle, Paperback, and even Audiobook.

That requires some work.

Justice Breyer is 77 years old.  

His court is presiding, as the FINAL appellate jurisdiction, over ALL appeals from 50 STATES and from 12 FEDERAL CIRCUITS.

Imagine the number of cases that people would like Judge Breyer's court to review.

Yet, with growing population - and thus, growing number of cases, the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court is "shrinking".

The shrinking docket of the U.S. Supreme Court was reported 

• in 2011, 
• in 2012,
• and in 2015 - by Justice Breyer himself, who at the same time explained the "shrinking docket" and advertised his new book

There is an ongoing battle of reviews on Amazon.com as to that book.

After a 5-star review, a 1-star review appeared asking to take Judge Breyer off the bench.

I added my 2 cents and mentioned sponsorship by Judge Breyer of a foreign all-expense-paid trip for his law clerk, after which trip Judge Breyer's book coincidentally appeared.

Because of appearance of impropriety involved, I gave the book 1 star only (Amazon.com does not allow to give less than that in ranking). 

Amazon deleted links from my review supporting my claim of the judge's solicitation of sponsorship for his law clerks, thus detracting from credibility of the review.

After my review, somebody else gave Judge Breyer's book 5 stars, with the same reasoning (or lack thereof) as the guy who asked to take Judge Breyer off that court.

 Amazon.com interlinks the name of the author to all of his products traded on Amazon.com.

I followed the link to Stephen Breyer as an author.

It has 63 titles, some of them are in several formats - audio CD, audio book, Kindle, hardcover, paperback.

Most of these books were written while the judge was on employed in public service and was on the bench.

Judge Breyer was in public service his entire life as a lawyer.

Judge Breyer was on the bench since 1980 when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

For 14 years, while being on the busy bench of the Circuit that handles appeals from death penalty cases, Judge Breyer continued to teach in Harvard Law School - and write books at a speed raising a question whether he had time for anything else BUT writing books.

In 1994, Judge Breyer was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and continued to write books at the same speed, raising a question whether he has time for to review cases on the court's docket and raising further questions whether the "shrinking docket" of the court can be explained by the necessity for judges to reserve more time for their book-writing activities, and other activities that has nothing to do with judging.

Yet, Justice Breyer, first and foremost, is a public employee.

He is paid, per year, as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, $246,800 per year, out of OUR pockets.

And we, the taxpayers, have a right to ask where exactly does Justice Breyer find time for his book-writing, at his age, and at the background of the "shrinking docket" of the court, while population of this country, and the volume of litigation coming to the court, grows.

And whether we, as taxpayers, would prefer Justice Breyer to write and advertise his books in retirement - so that we are assured that his vigorous book-writing does not cut into his public duties as a judge, paid by us the taxpayers at the rate of $246,800 a year.

Interestingly, the latest book of Justice Breyer is about the use of foreign law in the U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Justice Breyer advocates wider use of foreign law, because of globalization of the world.

In this respect, I have even more questions about motivations of Justice Breyer for making that claim, and whether Justice Breyer uses his law clerks to provide information for him for his books.

And whether the trips by Justice Breyer's law clerks, which are likely used to collect information for Justice Breyer's books, are financed in such a way that suggests at least an appearance of impropriety - where the judge SOLICITS funding of such trips from private attorney organizations with secret membership.

And whether Justice Breyer's law clerks are used by Justice Breyer to draft all, or portions of those books, during their taxpayer-paid time. 

Here is the link to the list of "Temple Bar scholars" in an organization called "The American Inns of Court".

I've written about this organization on this blog during the last year.  You can word-search it in this blog.

The most prominent problem with the organization is that it reports that it has 27,000 attorneys AND judges as its members, but the membership in the organization is secret, and, according to the scant information that appears here and there on the websites of certain chapters of this organization, judges and their law clerks are not required to pay membership fees, while private attorneys do pay high membership fees, and the members (judges and attorneys) meet for attorney-funded receptions and, of course, for "educational meetings", over wining and dining, once a month, behind closed doors.

Not only there is a possibility of ex parte communications with undisclosed number and identities of powerful legal elite, but there is an appearance of impropriety where ALL judicial decisions in this country are compromised by a POSSIBILITY that your judge has been wined and dined by your opponent in litigation, behind the closed doors of this secret membership private attorney organization.

But the impropriety, as I found out from the "scholars" list, goes much further.

As the list of the Temple Bar Scholars suggests, since as far back as 1996, U.S. Supreme Court justices (not just Justice Breyer) SOLICITED funding of all-expense-paid month-long trips for their law clerks.

Year	Name of U.S. Supreme Court Justice soliciting Temple Bar Scholarships (and of appellate judges) for the justice’s law clerks	Number of law clerks sponsored that year
2015	·      Justice Thomas ·      Justice Alito ·      Justice Breyer	1 law clerk per each justice – total of 3
2014	·      Justice Scalia ·      Justice Alito ·      Justice Breyer (for law clerk Julia Malkina), together with retired Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Ginsburg	1 law clerk per sponsor – total of 4
2013	·      Justice Kennedy ·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Justice Scalia ·      Justice Kagan	1 per each sponsoring justice – 4 clerks in total
2012	·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Justice Kennedy ·      Justice Sotomayor + retired Justice O’Connor ·      Chief Justice Roberts, Jr. ·      Justice Thomas	1 per each sponsoring justice – 5 clerks in total
2011	·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Chief Justice Roberts, Jr. (2) clerks ·      Justice Thomas ·      Justice Kennedy	1 per each sponsoring justice, other than Chief Judge Roberts who sponsored 2 clerks – 5 clerks in total
2010	·      Justice Scalia ·      Justice Kennedy ·      Justice Seymour (U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit) ·      Judge Kavanaugh (U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit)	1 clerk each per sponsoring judge – 4 total
2009	·      Justice Scalia ·      Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Justice Alito ·      Judge Ambro, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit	Justics O’Connor and Ginsburg co-sponsored the same clerk, otherwise one clerk per sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2008	·      Justice Scalia ·      Chief Justice Roberts ·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Judge Stahl, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2007	·      Justice Stevens ·      Judge Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit ·      Judge Gregory, U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, ·      Judge Ambro, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2006	·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Judge Tallman, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit ·      Judge Carman, U.S. Court of International Trade ·      Judge Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2005	·      Justice Souter ·      Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Thomas ·      Judge Arnold, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2004	·      Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Stevens ·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit ·      Judge Boudin, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2003	·      Chief Justice Rehnquist ·      Justice Thomas ·      Justice Scalia ·      Justice Breyer	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2002	·      Justice Breyer ·      Justice Thomas ·      Chief Justice Rehnquist ·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2001	·      Justice Kennedy ·      Justice Breyer (2 clerks) ·      Judge Torruella, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit	Justice Breyer – 2 clerks Other judges – 1 clerk each, for a total of 4 clerks
2000	·      Justice Stevens ·      Chief Justice Rehnquist ·      Justice Scalia ·      Judge Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1999	·      Justice Breyer ·      Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Souter ·      Judge Jones, U.S. Court Appeals, 5th Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1998	·      Justice Kennedy ·      Judge Kleinfeld, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit ·      Judge Wald, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1997	·      Justice O’Connor ·      Justice Kennedy ·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit ·      Judge Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit	1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1996	·      Chief Judge William Rehnquist ·      Justice Stevens & Justice Powell ·      Justice Ginsburg ·      Judge Higginbotham, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

 
All justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and some federal appellate justices from federal court of appeals, solicited such scholarships for their law clerks since 1996.

According to the American Inns of Court, the scholarship is "competitive", and many law clerks other than those who are listed as having won the trip may have applied - which we will never know, unless applications for such private sponsorships by public servants are made public.

U.S. Courts of Appeals affirms most of appeals.  Now you need to wonder, is it influenced by those who "won" those appeals because of sponsorship of appellate law clerks.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects the overwhelming majority of cases.  Now you need to wonder if those cases which are rejected - and those few which were accepted for review - were the result of sponsorship of law clerks, and of membership of judges, by attorneys participating in those cases, through ex parte communications and wining and dining judges in the American Inns of Court.

All sponsoring judges listed as having sponsored their law clerks, as well as their law clerks, are members of the American Inns of Court, because the scholarships are a "member benefit" only. 

I am filing Freedom of Information Requests for the vacation schedules of all of the "scholars" in this list for the time of the years they made their trips, and will report to my readers as to the results.

Yet, people whose lives were affected by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can only scratch their heads and ask, if they lost their case, or lost a petition for the writ of certiorari and were denied review by this court at all - was that denial motivated by your opponent's financing the trips of the law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court justices behind the doors of the secret membership of The American Inns of Court?

Because, really, the Temple Bar Scholarship comes from England (which is one other matter of concern - where a foreign country sponsors trips of public servants, and then a U.S. Supreme Court justices, after such a trip, starts glorifying the use of foreign law in the American courts), but it comes in exchange for American Inns of Court sponsoring trips of British lawyers to the U.S., so the hands paying for the trips of law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are BOTH foreign hands and the hands of undisclosed American private legal elite.

Which to me is absolutely abhorrent and requires intervention, through impeachment, of the U.S. Congress - of ALL U.S. Supreme Court justices involved in solicitation of such sponsorships.

And we, the People of this country, should ask the U.S. Congress not to slack on its duties and to investigate and impeach judges who undermine public trust to provide free trips to foreign countries for their clerks and - as it appears to be in Justice Breyer's case, benefit by such trips in later book-writing efforts.

Here is the entire list of law clerks sponsored only by this "scholarship" solicited by U.S. Supreme Court Justices since 1996.  Who knows how many more of such sinecures exist that are not published.  The links are to the glowing reports of public servants, law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, after they made those all-expense-paid trips, paid for by foreign entities and by private American legal elite.

And, of course, I am writing to the authorities in U.S. Congress requesting impeachment of these "sponsoring" judges.

I already requested discovery of information on membership of judges and lawyers in the American Inns of Court, the lawsuit was dismissed "as frivolous" by the very court whose judges participate in that organization and are thus witnesses in litigation.

Thus, there is no point filing lawsuits.

There is no point asking judges to police themselves - that will never happen.

I will try checking on the integrity of our representatives in Congress - I will write to a couple of presidential candidates who are U.S. Senators and see whether they will react.

I will post response of Senators Bernie and Cruz to my request to commence impeachment proceedings against the "sponsoring" judges on this blog. 

Stay tuned.

===

The list of law clerks "sponsored" by judges for free trips funded by foreign entities and private American attorneys (undisclosed identities because of secret membership), as published by the American Inns of Court:

===
 

2015 

• Jennifer M. Bandy Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
• Megan M. Dillhoff Sponsored by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
• Ilana B. Gelfman Sponsored by Justice Stephen Breyer
• Megan M. O'Neill Sponsored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood

2014

• Katherine Mims Crocker Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• Kyle Douglas Hawkins Sponsored by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
• Julia Malkina Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Ret.) and Justice Stephen Breyer
• Daniel A. Rubens Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

2013

• David W. Denton, Jr. Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
• Nathan Rehn Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Danielle R. Sassoon Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• David J. Zimmer Sponsored by Justice Elena Kagan

2012

• Benjamin J. Beaton Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Ishan K. Bhabha Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
• Candice Chiu Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Ret.) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor
• Christopher DiPompeo Sponsored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
• Michelle S. Stratton Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas

2011

• Amy Bergquist Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Kate Heinzelman Sponsored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
• David Zachary Hudson Sponsored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
• William R. Peterson Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
• James Yarbrough Stern Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

2010

• Jonathan C. Bond Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• Katayoun Azizpour Donnelly Sponsored by Judge Stephanie K. Seymour, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
• Claire Virginia McCusker Sponsored by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
• Scott A. Keller Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

2009

• Loren L. AliKhan Sponsored by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
• Jameson Reece Jones Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• Isaac Jared Lidsky Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Andrew Stephen Oldham Sponsored by  Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

2008

• Rachel Kovner Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• Joshua Hawley Sponsored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
• Ashika Singh Sponsored by Judge Norman H. Stahl, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
• Zachary D. Tripp Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

2007

• Jean Galbraith Sponsored by International Criminal Tribunal / Justice John Paul Stevens
• Azra Hot Sponsored by Judge Harry Pregerson, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
• Candace Rae Jackson Sponsored by Judge Roger L. Gregory, Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
• Intisar A. Rabb Sponsored by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

2006

• Rebecca Gabrielle Deutsch Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Peter M. Koski Sponsored by Judge Richard C. Tallman, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
• Catherine Dong Soon Miller Sponsored by Judge Gregory W. Carman, U.S. Court of International Trade
• James C. Owens Sponsored by Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

2005

• J. Alexander Cooke Sponsored by Judge Morris S. Arnold, Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
• Matthew S. Hellman Sponsored by Justice David H. Souter
• Joshua A. Klein Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• Henry C. Whitaker Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas

2004

• Janet Rhiannon Carter Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• Arthur W.S. Duff Sponsored by Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
• Leondra Reid Kruger Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens
• Anna-Rose Mathieson Sponsored by Chief Judge Michael Boudin, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit

2003

• Leah Brannon Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
• Adam K. Mortara Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
• John C. O'Quinn Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
• Maritza U.B. Okata Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

2002

• Collin Joe Cox Sponsored by Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
• Mirah Anne Horowitz Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
• Brett H. McGurk Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
• Neomi Rao Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas

2001

• Brett Gerry Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
• Asha Rangappa Sponsored by Chief Judge Juan Torruella, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
• Alexander Reinert Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
• Russell Robinson Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

2000

• J. Brett Busby Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens
• Trevor M. Jefferson Sponsored by Judge R. Guy Cole, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
• Neil M. Richards Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
• Kannon Shanmugam Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia

1999

• Curtis E. Gannon Sponsored by Judge Edith Jones, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
• Jenny Martinez Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
• Jennifer Mason Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• Catherine Sharkey Sponsored by Justice David H. Souter

1998

• Michael Raibman Sponsored by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
• Laura Heymann Sponsored by Judge Patricia Wald, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
• A. Louise Oliver Sponsored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
• Stephanos Bibas Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

1997

• Rebecca Beynon Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• Julian T.H. Kleindorfer Sponsored by Judge Anthony Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
• Kristen Silverberg Sponsored by Judge David Sentelle, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
• Anthony Vlatas Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

1996

• Eric Claeys Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
• Mark Harris Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens & Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
• Michael Wang Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Norman Williams Sponsored by Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

Will Monica Duffy be disciplined by her own Professional Conduct Committee (and by herself) for lying to the public at the public hearing before the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline

In July of 2015 there was a public hearing in Albany before the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline.  The transcript of the hearing was recently posted by the Commission.

At that hearing, Monica Duffy, Chief Counsel of the Professional Conduct Committee, took offense at the testimony of a witness about failure of attorney disciplinary committees across the State of New York to prosecute criminal prosecutors who commit misconduct.

Yet, it is undeniable that such non-enforcement happens - because none of prosecutors who were involved in wrongful convictions in New York were disciplined.

Yet, Monica Duffy made the following speech in front of the public and other members of the Commission:

By making these statements pretending that non-prosecution of criminal prosecutors never happens in the Third and Fourth Departments, Monica Duffy committed attorney misconduct, by interfering with administration of justice and by attempting to avoid reform of her own agency - and, possibly, to avoid discipline for not doing her job properly, the job that pays her, out of taxpayers' pockets, $140,508 (that's the annual rate) per year, and somehow Monica Duffy outdid herself by earning more than her annual rate in 2014 - $143,640 according to seethroughny.net.

Because it is, once again, obvious that prosecutors who commit misconduct are not prosecuted - because, according to testimony of the Chairman of It Could Happen to You before the same Commission on the same day, according to his own research of over 3,000 wrongful convictions, no prosecutors involved in those wrongful convictions and whose misconduct caused those wrongful convictions, have been publicly disciplined.

I myself turned in prosecutors to 3rd and 4th Departments, including attorneys WORKING FOR THOSE DEPARTMENTS - with zero results.

Monica Duffy did not disclose to the public that her Committee, as well as the Committees for the 4th Department, dismiss complaints AGAINST THEMSELVES - while there is no alternative forums to file complaints against them but with themselves.

And that is, too, a disciplinary violation that goes unaddressed.

Monica Duffy, of course, succeeded in browbeating the witness before the Commission into recanting his testimony about selective nonenforcement of attorney discipline against criminal prosecutors:

After all, Mr. Downs is an attorney and knows that whistleblowers of official misconduct get targeted by disciplinary committees, while prosecutors are protected.

And Mr. Downs would have become such a target, had he not humbly retracted his testimony.

Now Mr. Downs, who dismissed complaints against judges for 28 years of working in the Commission for Judicial Conduct, who co-founded a group that is supposed to help victims of wrongful convictions, obviously considered it a safer path to "absolutely agree" with Monica Duffy who, as the head of a disciplinary committee that DOES NOT prosecute prosecutors (criminal or civil) is one of the REASONS why victims of prosecutorial misconduct do not have closure.

By the way - as committees always claim in attorney disciplinary proceedings, there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

So, why didn't Monica Duffy ask Mr. Downs for the lists of prosecutors who were involved in wrongful convictions, to verify whether any of those prosecutors committed their wrongful acts within Monica Duffy's prosecutorial jurisdiction - and why wouldn't she publicly pledge to at least investigate them, and to prosecute them if she finds that their misconduct really resulted in wrongful convictions?

After all, fraud upon the court is a disbarring offense for an attorney, and fraud upon the court does not make a distinction whether the fraud was committed in a civil or a criminal proceeding.

So, 

• why didn't she inquire, as a member of the Commission, 
• why didn't she ask for the lists of cases and prosecutors, and 
• why didn't she make such a public pledge?

Because she didn't want to prosecute those powerful prosecutors, especially because many of those prosecutors have since become judges, and judges hold in their hands Monica Duffy's own license and livelihood to the tune of $140,508 a years, with benefits - and Monica Duffy knows firsthand how investigation of a judge may result in losing one's law license, because SHE DOES IT HERSELF - to other people.

Because what she said when she was denying the obvious - that her committee DOES NOT prosecute prosecutors who commit misconduct, or any other well-connected attorneys or attorneys working for the government or having "friendly", familial or political ties with the government - was a lie designed to deceive the public, the lay consumers, and to delay reform of the attorney regulation system, by which Monica Duffy herself profits, at a rate of $140,508 per year, with benefits.

I am going to file yet another complaint against Monica Duffy, for this particular lie - and see WHO and HOW will investigate and prosecute that complaint.

I will keep you informed about the progress of that complaint through this blog.

Stay tuned.

To Delaware County voters: ask the judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, the Delaware County Attorney, on what grounds he approved representation of a police officer sued for intentional violent acts at the expense of taxpayers/ County insurance?

New York State has a strict law regarding insurance - insurance DOES NOT cover intentional acts.

It makes sense because the policy behind insurance is to reimburse losses for "fortuitous events" - events that cannot be foreseen.

When a person commits an intentional bad act, that does not constitute a "fortuitous event".

Insurance carriers usually deny the right of representation when the carrier of the insurance policy requests it in a lawsuit alleging an intentional (criminal) act.

For example, Ellen Coccoma and her husband, Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York Michael Coccoma, were denied legal representation at the expense of their homeowners' insurance company when they were sued for, among other things, fraud and fraud upon the court, by my husband Frederick J. Neroni, the case was Neroni v Coccoma.

Of course, using their influence and the fact the the judge on that federal case had a son employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, they obtained a free representation for both from the New York State Attorney General - even for claims of intentional misconduct that had nothing to do with official duties, and even for acts of Ellen Coccoma as a PRIVATE attorney in a private case.

This way, an "assigned counsel for the rich - and privileged" class has been created, see my blogs here and here.

That glorious tradition was continued when Delaware County Attorney, and now judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, approved representation of a police officer Derek Bowie, nephew of District Attorney's Office investigator Jeff Bowie, at the expense of taxpayers.

Derek Bowie, a deputy Sheriff of Delaware County, was sued by Barbara O'Sullivan ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in his individual capacity. 

Barbara O'Sullivan DID NOT sue the Delaware County.

Thus, the lawsuit was not involving any liability to the County - or its supporting taxpayers.

The County is NOT responsible for the criminal acts of its employees - if, of course, it does not condone and/or encourage such acts.

Once again, Officer Bowie was sued for his CRIMINAL, DELIBERATE acts - vehicular assault and battery upon Barbara O'Sullivan.

He DEFAULTED, by failure to answer the complaint timely.

How many of you, Delaware County voters, were thrown out of your homes, or got judgements in credit card debt lawsuits because you did not answer the complaint timely and were in default?

Did the court spare any of you?

Did the government provide a free attorney for any of you to rescue your legal rights in such a foreclosure proceedings (by the way, some of you may be entitled to free legal representation in foreclosure proceedings - did you even know about that)?

Did the court allow you to get back in time and answer the complaint, undoing your default?

I bet that it never happened.

It happened to Officer Bowie, though - at your expense, and with Porter Kirkwood's approval as the County attorney.

Because all of a sudden, Officer Bowie got representation from Frank Miller's Law firm, that is the law firm usually hired by Delaware County through its insurance.

And Frank Miller's law firm appeared in court on behalf of Office Bowie - sued by Barbara O'Sullivan for his criminal acts, in his individual capacity, which does not allow for representation by an insurance carrier, because of New York policy prohibiting insurance of criminal acts.

And the court - judge John Lambert - bent over backwards by waiving Officer Bowie's filing fees, waiving Officer Bowie's duty to serve the motion papers in compliance with the Order to Show Cause that ordered personal service of the papers - which was never done by Officer Bowie's counsel Frank Miller.

After all, Frank Miller made good conversation and entertained the judge well during the motion hearing that the judge had no right to allow (because there was no proof of service upon Barbara O'Sullivan of the motion papers before the judge, and the basis of the motion itself was frivolous, and the judge should not have signed the Order to Show Cause to allow the motion to proceed in the first place).

I FOILed the Delaware County Treasurer, there are no records of fees paid by Frank Miller's firm for the motion that it made in front of Judge John Lambert, which Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell accepted without a filing fee paid, Judge John Lambert reviewed and granted without a filing fee paid - or proof of service upon Barbara O'Sullivan of the motion papers in compliance with Judge Lambert's own signed order to show cause.

And you know what reason for a "meritorious excuse" for default was given to the court - which the court accepted?

Delaware County allegedly did not know of the lawsuit in order to timely respond to it.

That was a clear and documented lie and fraud upon the court (a crime) committed by Frank Miller's law firm that should be prosecuted, because Barbara O'Sullivan paid the Delaware County Sheriff to serve the lawsuit upon its own Officer Bowie, that was done, and the Delaware County Sheriff's affidavit of service is on file with the court.

By the way, a single incident of fraud upon the court for an attorney is an offense warranting disbarment.  
 
Of course, that crime was not prosecuted against the law firm, Frank Miller as the chief partner of the law firm, or attorneys who signed and argued the fraudulent pleadings - Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup "chose", in his "discretion", not to prosecute that crime of fraud upon the court.  Possibly, because he "coincidentally" employs Officer Bowie's uncle Jeff Bowie and thus did not prosecute two crimes:

• by Officer Bowie against Barbara O'Sullivan; and
• by attorney Frank Miller and his law firm against the court - by making a fraudulent argument that Delaware County was not properly on notice of the lawsuit, even though Delaware County Sheriff was hired to serve the lawsuit on its own officer - and did it, and the record that he did it, the affidavit of service, is in the record.

Moreover, Frank Miller's claim of meritorious defense to the court (that the County did not know about the lawsuit in time to answer it) was fraudulent also because the County has nothing to do with the lawsuit and did not have to answer the lawsuit.

Had it been different, the first thing Frank Miller would have done (and he is a knowledgeable attorney in this respect, so he cannot claim ignorance of that particular law) would be to file a motion to DISMISS Barbara O'Sullivan's action for failure to file a Notice of Claim against the County.

Barbara O'Sullivan did not do that because the law does not require reimbursement by the County to its employees of any damages awarded against them as a result of their CRIMINAL ACTS committed during their time of employment with the County.

Frank Miller held numerous depositions on Notices of Claim against the County, he is an expert in that particular field of litigation.

So, when Frank Miller's Law Firm instead of filing a motion to dismiss for failure to file a Notice of Claim, filed a motion to vacate the default on behalf of a County employee sued for his CRIMINAL acts in his INDIVIDUAL capacity, in my legal opinion, it committed fraud upon the court.

Yet, Frank Miller's Law Firm is also a law firm that would represent the District Attorney himself, should he be sued for misconduct - and for that reason, too, the DA "chose" not to prosecute his own counsel for fraud upon the court, an offense warranting disbarment.

Hiring of Frank Miller's Law Firm by the County could not be done without approval by County Attorney Porter Kirkwood, because insurance policies normally do not cover representation through insurance company in lawsuits claiming intentional misconduct/criminal acts.

Frank Miller showed his appreciation of Porter Kirkwood's hiring him for the job by making a financial donation to Porter Kirkwood's election campaign as a judge.

I will follow up with Freedom of Information requests as to Delaware County insurance policy that allows representation by Frank Miller of Officer Bowie sued in his individual capacity for intentional misconduct, of how much money Delaware County spent on such representation - or on the raised insurance rates because it acknowledged and defended a lawsuit that was NOT against Delaware County.

Yet, the question that remains for voters is - after approving such a shameless waste of taxpayer money to provide unwarranted free legal representation to a County employee sued in his individual capacity for intentional misconduct, after he defaulted and thus WAIVED ALL DEFENSES and should pay money damages for his misconduct to his victim as a matter of law Barbara O'Sullivan, Porter Kirkwood should not be allowed to become a judge and rule your lives for 10 years - including taking your homes in foreclosure because you do not have money for counsel to timely answer foreclosure complaints.

The judicial seat that Porter Kirkwood is running for is for 10 years.

He will - for sure - be appointed an Acting Supreme Court Justice for the same length of time. That is a matter of convenience for the court system, to have a local County/Family Court judge in a remote rural county to also preside over Supreme Court cases.

Porter Kirkwood will not give you, homeowners suffering foreclosure proceedings, assigned counsel in time to rescue your homes, the way he gave approval for unwarranted free representation of Officer Bowie at the County's expense.

Porter Kirkwood - and Richard Northrup, the two judicial candidates from the County, should be, instead of elevating them to the judicial bench, impeached for shirking their duties in order to cover up a violent criminal act committed by a County employee closely related to the other, long-time, County employee who works for the District Attorney's Office (investigator Jeff Bowie).

Delaware County voters!

I appeal to you not to vote for Porter Kirkwood or Richard Northup at the upcoming judicial elections.

Instead, I appeal to you to impeach both of these public officials for their misconduct in office.

There is no selective enforcement of attorney disciplinary rules in New York. Right?

In the three "public" hearings before the New York Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, that were held in Albany, Buffalo and New York City at the end of July - beginning of August this year, members of the Commission ardently argued with witnesses who were claiming that attorney disciplinary process is corrupt and is designed to target judicial whistleblowers and protect high-ranking attorneys from accountability.

Yet, here are two scans from New York attorney registration website that will prove that selective non enforcement of attorney discipline in New York is a reality.

Attorneys disciplined in New York, especially the whistleblowers against judicial misconduct get suspended and disbarred all the time.

The burden of proof for such a suspension or disbarment is extremely low - by preponderance of the evidence.

When probable cause is found to prosecute an attorney for a crime, that probable cause is found on th same standard of proof, by preponderance of the evidence.

Thus, a criminal felony indictment may be used to prosecute an attorney in a disciplinary proceedings, and even an acquittal by the jury will not help vacate attorney's discipline, because an acquittal happens because the case cannot be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, while lower proof is needed to find against the attorney in the disciplinary proceedings.

The scans above show two recently (and, maybe, still) powerful attorneys:

• The recent and now former New York State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, and
• The recent and now former New York State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos

None of them lost their license.

None of them was even censured - even though there was enough time since federal felony indictments for corruption as to each one of them, to commence and bring to conclusion a disciplinary prosecution.

Are committees waiting for these two former giants to rebound and are afraid of retaliation from their still powerful friends, should they commence investigations and prosecutions?

Then, the should not pull wool over the eyes of the public pretending that selective enforcement of attorney discipline in New York does not exist.

To illustrate the point even further, here is yet another scan of a formerly powerful New York Senator - John L. Sampson, head of the Judiciary Committee:

As of today, former Senator Sampson is employed, very coincidentally, by Bullock & Fox, an asbestos injury law firm.

Coincidentally because the recently indicted Sheldon Silver also provided services - and was charged for corruption in relation to those services - to yet another asbestos law firm.

The interesting fact about former Senator Simpson and his successful employment with a powerful and rich law firm - and having no record of public discipline - is that Senator Simpson, as of July 25, 2015, has been convicted of THREE felony counts - one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements to federal agents.

Conviction for a felony is grounds in New York for AUTOMATIC disbarment.

It is certainly not advisable for a law firm to have on board as their attorney a convicted felon.

Yet, as of today, nearly 2 months after his felony conviction that should have led to automatic disbarment, former Senator Sampson, a convicted felon, "enjoys" employment at a powerful and rich law firm - and no public discipline.

As one of the witnesses at the NYC public hearing before the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline said:

it is time to stop mocking the public by pretending that the committees do not see the elephant in the room - their own corruption.

A disciplinary complaint was filed against Richard Northrup, the Delaware County DA

I have been informed that a disciplinary complaint has been filed against Delaware County District Attorney and judicial candidate Richard Northrup on the grounds that:

• he knowingly engaged in a case where he knew he was disqualified;
• knowingly proceeded in prosecution of a criminal case for the benefit of his office's employee and against the interests of the People of the State of New York;
• failed to prosecute a heinous and violent crime because the perpetrator was a close blood relative of an employee of the DA's office;
• prepared to use forged evidence at a felony criminal trial in the case that Northrup knew was fabricated that is to commence next week.

At the recent public hearing in Albany, NY before the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, Monica Duffy, Chief Counsel of the Professional Conduct Committee, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department, claimed, in answer to public criticism of the Committee for non-prosecution of rampant prosecutorial misconduct, that the Committee does not engage in selective enforcement of attorney disciplinary rules and that the Committee does investigate and prosecute criminal prosecutors committing misconduct.

Evidence complained about in the just filed disciplinary complaint against Northrup is overwhelming, documentary, and should result in his disbarment.

We will see if the Committee will stick to its word and prosecute the prosecutor who knowingly and intentionally, knowing that he is disqualified, and while using falsified evidence, tried to attain a criminal conviction for political reasons.

Stay tuned.