The Beast's privileges die hard?

A witness from Delaware County reported to me that the witness has seen the car of the now-retired former Delaware County Judge Becker parked in the employee-only parking space behind the courthouse, with license plates saying "County Court" still on.

Here are the pictures that the witness has sent to me:

The vehicle identified as Carl F. Becker's car parked today, 1.5 months after Becker's retirement, in the employees-only parking slot of the parking lot behind the Delaware County courthouse - but, interestingly, not in a "reserved for the judge" space.

Here is the close-up of the plate clearly indicating showing the words "County Court" and "JCC" - "judge of the County Court".

There are several problems with what happened today, if this is Becker's car parked behind the courthouse in the employees-only parking lot, and bearing plates identifying him as still a judge.

First of all, there was recently an investigation by the Commission for Judicial Conduct of the use of such plates by judges in the State of New York.

There was a report published by the Commission, here it is.

The report says that, judges (not retired judges, acting judges) have a right to have such plates:

But, as soon as a judge retires, he must turn in license plates identifying him as a judge.

Apparently, Becker did not relinquish the license plates and is still driving around in a car identifying him as a judge and giving him certain privileges with the police.  The police will think twice before stopping a judge - while Becker is (thankfully) not a judge already.

The next problem I see in Becker parking behind the courthouse is that he, apparently, had to access the courthouse through the employee door.

Every member of the public with the exception of court employees, must access the courthouse through the front door and pass through metal detectors.

Obviously, if Becker allows himself to park behind the courthouse, I highly doubt that he entered through the front door.  Most likely, he entered through the back door, where there is no metal detector.  I will FOIL the NYS Court Administration for security videos from today, but I highly doubt anything will be given to me, as usually NYS COA invents reasons why I should not receive such videos - I asked three times on different occasions, and the videos were either destroyed, or the video cameras allegedly did not work, or I was flat out denied access.

Yet, witnesses who were in the courthouse on the first floor at the time Becker arrived, did not see him come in through the front door.  Thus, he had to come in through the back door.

I would feel uncomfortable knowing that a retired County judge who was reportedly seen around bars and who has run from the bench at around the time where a state audit of Delaware County was published that revealed a lot of interesting misconduct, in other words, he "retired" for an unknown reason, likely while holding grudges against multiple people, and allowing him, after retirement, to come to the courthouse through the back-door accessible to employees only, and without passing through the metal detector, as any other mortals have to, is a danger to public safety.

Moreover, today was the day where the criminal trial against Barbara O'Sullivan who is prosecuted on political grounds by the corrupt Delaware County Prosecutor Richard Northrup who is prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan instead of a perpetrator of a crime against her police officer Derek Bowie, because Derek Bowie's uncle Jeff Bowie works for the District Attorney's office and, according to witnesses, Jeff Bowie has a nasty temper, is prone to retaliation and has a good relationship with the DA.

Barbara O'Sullivan sued Becker and reported his misconduct for years.

When Becker, after his retirement, appears in the courthouse "coincidentally" on the day of Barbara O'Sullivan's criminal trial (it was adjourned today to February of 2016), and does not pass through the metal detector, as he should, and court attendants allow that, that is downright scary.

I wonder if Becker still has a key to the backdoor of the courthouse, and to confidential court files.  I will not put it beneath him, or the court system that has served him so loyally, law or no law, to allow him to keep that key and access the building at all time of day and night.

After all, that is a small step after allowing him to park in employees-only parking lot and access the courthouse from the back door, bypassing metal detectors.

To those against whom Becker has personal grudges - now that he is no longer a judge, but has access to the house through the back door while bypassing metal detectors - it is my personal opinion that under such circumstances I would be concerned for my safety and would have a friend stand vigil behind the courthouse when I am in the courthouse, to make sure that Becker is not tipped by court personnel and does not arrive through the back door, bypassing metal detector, to do something bad to you.

It is better to be safe than sorry.

The government should define what exactly it regulates before regulating it

The concept in the headline is pretty simple - before the government starts regulating certain conduct, it first needs to define what is it that the government is regulating.

What is involved here are constitutional rights of people to receive:

• clear and advance notice of prohibited conduct;
• not to be prosecuted on a case-by-case basis in an arbitrary manner, with the government determines in arrears, after certain conduct already occurred, whether that conduct was right or wrong

That concept seems pretty clear.

Yet, it is not at all clear when it comes to regulation of professions, while in the United States over 30% of all jobs are regulated by the government through permits, certificates or licenses.

When what is being regulated, is unclear and is decided on a post-hoc, "in arrears" basis, interesting things start to occur, such as

• the State of Louisiana government's attempt to prosecute monks for selling plain coffins, because they were not trained and licensed as mortuaries and funeral directors;
• the State of Utah government's attempt to prosecute people who braided the hair of African Americans because the braiders did not have a cosmetology license requiring hundreds of hours of training, which does not include braiding;
• the State of New York government's punishment of a suspended attorney Leon Koziol for his testimony about judicial corruption in front of the Moreland commission, and punishment of a disbarred attorney Joel Brandes for, allegedly unauthorized practice of law when he engaged in provision of paralegal and law expert services that anybody without a law license is allowed to provide.

I will concentrate briefly on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) adjudications.

Once again, what constitutes the practice of law is not defined by New York law (I doubt that it is strictly defined in state law of other states, I looked up some, it is the same as in New York, courts define it after the fact on a case by case basis) - which is, immediately, a fundamental constitutional problem.

The government may not regulate "they do not know what", when the government does not know and does not give clear notice to the public what it is the government is regulating, and especially where, as it is in New York state, consequences can be from a misdemeanor to a felony charge (up to 4 years in state prison).

In June of 2015, New York State Appellate Division 2nd Department denied reinstatement to a disbarred attorney Joel R. Brandes for providing paralegal and law expert services to attorneys, which any lay person never licensed to practice law can provide without fear of prosecution in New York.

Earlier, some time in the summer of 2014 (the decision is not even posted) New York State Appellate Division 3rd Department denied reinstatement to a suspended attorney (civil rights attorney, by the way) Leon Koziol based on a report that cited, as grounds making Mr. Koziol unfit to practice law, his testimony before the Moreland Commission on corruption in the court system, I am referring to Mr. Koziol's statement in his federal civil rights complaint (since dismissed on grounds of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts).

Mr. Koziol mentions denial of reinstatement based on his testimony to the Moreland Commission about corruption in courts in his Complaint, Docket 4, page 2, paragraphs (6) and (8), the full case name, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, is Koziol v King, Case No. 6:14-cv-000946-GLS-TWD.

The abbreviation GLS in the name of the case means that the court's Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe was presiding, while his son was employed by the New York State Attorney General's office and while the New York State Attorney General represented Mr. Koziol's opponents in litigation before Judge Sharpe.  In my opinion, there is an appearance of impropriety and that justice is not done in civil rights cases where a judge whose son is employed by the New York State Attorney General, for years, presides, also for years over cases defended by NYS Attorney General in his court and persistently rules in favor of NYS Attorney General's clients.

Courts regularly toss civil rights lawsuits dealing with occupational regulations, and with near certainty toss those brought by suspended or disbarred attorneys, even though federal courts may not institute policies, that is not within their Article III power.

Yet, courts miss, I would say, quite deliberately, the ultimate elephant in the room - if the government failed to define

* what funeral directing and mortuary science is;
* what cosmetology is;
* what the practice of law is

the government has no right to even begin regulating that profession before the government actual figures out what the heck it is regulating.

Because otherwise, the government starts regulating not only monks selling coffins, but people's participation in democratic process of this country clearly protected by the 1st Amendment, such as punishing Mr. Koziol for his testimony about judicial corruption before the Moreland Commission.

And that is, ladies and gentlemen, regulation gone way, way too far.

Will my critic "Coyote Waits" come to a public dispute at Google+ Hangouts to discuss the issues of judicial corruption and application of judicially created restriction on jurisdiction of federal courts?

As I wrote on this blog recently, I am studying new technology and will soon start publishing podcasts and, possibly, videoblogs (Vlogs).  

That, of course, requires a steep "learning curve", to learn a lot of new things and new technologies, which requires some time.

But, some of the technology is readily available by Google+ already - and there is a wonderful way of communicating with the public and holding public video interviews and public disputes, through Google+ Hangouts.

So, by this blog I am making a direct proposal to my critic by the name of "Coyote Waits" from a profile that had 0 views and 0 followers when I looked it up today, and which is by now locked to me, so I cannot see any followers or views.

But, I did see in the morning that it was an account with no views or followers as of today.

"Coyote Waits" placed the following comment to me blog post asking a question regarding selective enforcement by federal courts of the so-called domestic relations exception, created by federal courts to restrict their jurisdiction in some cases, but not in others.

Here is the comment:

So, a person without a face or real name, but with legal training, judging by the way that person writes (I don't know whether it is a "he" or a "she") claims the following:

1. That what I am claiming in the blog post about selective enforcement of the domestic relations exception is rather silly;
2. That I did not do proper research before I made my posts;
3. The implication is - that I am incompetent as a civil rights lawyer;
4. The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me about federal jurisdiction and how to do research;
5. The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me how to allocate my time, specifically, to spend time on "spinning conspiracy theories" regarding judicial corruption and "spend more time reading the law [I am] supposedly writing about".

Well, first of all, I am not SUPPOSEDLY writing about the law, I am ACTUALLY doing it.

Second, in criticisms raising the "conspiracy theory" claims it is always amusing to see that such criticism are always what courts call "conclusory".  In other words, the Coyote Waits persona, on the one hand, accuses me of "spinning conspiracy theories", and "spinning" presupposes that I am using false information, yet, fails to provide a SINGLE instance where I made a false statement and any proof that anything I said on the blog is false.

In other words, the Coyote Waits persona is not happy that I am raising the issue of judicial misconduct, which is tough.

It is not by chance that I put on top of this blog, as a header shown in all blogposts, a quotation from a federal civil rights case dismissing civil rights claims against the "Kids-for-Cash" judge Mark Ciavarella on judicial immunity ground for malicious and CORRUPT acts.  If the judiciary considered it necessary to introduce such immunity to help themselves avoid lawsuits charging them with corrupt acts on the bench, corrupt acts on the bench are not only a reality, but a pervasive reality, otherwise this absolute immunity would not have been devised about 40 years ago.

And the other quote on top of every blog post is from a 19th century court case providing that a lawyer, MORE than anybody else, is entitled to disclose facts of judicial misconduct in public speech, without fear of retaliation or punishment.

I have a funny feeling that the Coyote Waits persona is upset with one thing about my blog - it shows that I, as an attorney who may be severely sanctioned (and already was sanctioned, and await more sanctions) for my free speech exposing judicial misconduct, still have no fear, and that I still continue to bring these issues of public concern sidestepped by the mainstream media squarely to public attention - and the public is reading me, as the number of reviews on my blog shows.

And I am grateful to every reader - including those who does not like what I write, including those who criticize me, because these issues need at least to be raised, read and discussed.

The Coyote Waits persona is not the first representative of the legal profession who is upset with my blog.  There were several lawyers who were trying to use my blog in their pleadings to inflame judges against me and obtain sanctions against me.  

But Coyote Waits persona is the first voice from the legal profession who, even though anonymously, without a name or a face, published something on my blog in comments - and that is in 1.5 years of the blog's existence, with over 276,000 views 

and over 600 posts so far.

When a person is criticizing a post made by a person like me, who posts under her real name and with her real face on all blogs, without revealing the critic's name or face, like this

that immediately detracts from the person's credibility.

What further detracts from the Coyote Waits persona's credibility is what that persona actually says in the criticism.

Remember, the CW persona accuses me of not having read the law I am talking about.

It appears that the opposite is true, that the CW persona did not read the applicable law when attempting to criticize me and teach me how to allocate my time.

I will address the substantive points of CW's criticism one by one.

Here is the comment once again, piece by piece:

Ok, CW asserts that, before posting a blog about a dismissal of a federal civil rights case based on the so-called "domestic relations exception" and before making a point that federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, selectively enforce their own judge-created (and unconstitutional) restrictions on federal jurisdiction, CW claims that I had an obligation to read Ankenbrandt v Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), because otherwise I assert silly and incompetent things.

Here is Ankenbrandt v Richards.  It appears that CW, who made his post either in the middle of the night if he is in California (the time stamp on the comment is 2:27 AM Pacific time, since the Blogger server is in Los Angeles, CA), or at 5:27 AM, still very early, if CW was in New York or on the East Coast.  Not many people will spend the wee hours of the morning by putting legal briefs in comments on blogs.

So, CW had a purpose, and the purpose was, obviously, to discredit me and to present me to my reading community as an incompetent attorney who spins conspiracy theory without checking the applicable law.

Well, Ankenbrand is not the applicable law to application of "domestic exception to jurisdiction" that I discussed as applied to civil rights cases - because Ankenbrand is not a civil rights ("federal question jurisdiction") case, it is a diversity case, where exception to jurisdiction is based on other grounds.

So, to begin with Ankenbrand, a diversity case, is inapplicable to civil rights cases that I discussed in my blog that CW criticized.

Moreover, when the "domestic exception" restriction to jurisdiction is applied to a civil rights claim brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any "domestic relations exceptions", or deferences, or immunities, or comities, or abstentions, when the court invents grounds like exceptions-deferences-immunities-comities-abstentions etc., the court does usurp the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress to legislate or amend enacted legislation, granted to it by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but not granted to federal courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, under the Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

CW, being, as the way he/she writes an individual trained in law, could not miss such a difference, and could not miss that he is accusing me of not reading an inapplicable and irrelevant case.  Thus, I can reasonably believe that CW's deliberately made a false claim that I should have read Ankenbrand before making my blog post about the selective enforcement of "domestic relations exception" in civil rights cases - documented by the court order that I posted in that blog post, as opposed to other civil rights cases where such domestic relations exception was not applied.

I am fortified in my belief by the fact that CW made his/her false claim of my alleged incompetence anonymously, obviously being in fear of a lawsuit for defamation.

Next, CW undertakes to teach me about federal courts' obligation to analyze whether they have jurisdiction over a case.

Yet, here CW is also discussing apples and oranges, because I was discussing in the blog post that CW criticized illegally created "exceptions" to jurisdiction of federal courts where jurisdiction DOES EXIST according to a plain-text statute, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

So, who is spinning what here?

It has become a tradition in the legal profession - and, unfortunately, the courts - and even in perceptions of the public, that the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions are somehow the final authority on the issue of what the U.S. Constitution means and part of the Supreme law of the land.

Yet, that is not so.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not include U.S. Supreme Court cases.  It does include though the U.S. Constitution itself and the written laws enacted under the Constitution, as well as treaties. 

Thus, if a statute was enacted under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, like the Civil Rights Act was, and the statute is a plain-text and completely straightforward statute without any ambiguities, as the Civil Rights Act is, and the statute is a civil twin of a criminal statute that provides for no exceptions through immunities/abstentions/deferences etc., which is what Civil Rights Act also is, the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court are tied and it is not ALLOWED BY LAW to provide any interpretations, because such interpretations of a plain-text statute are, in fact, amendments of the statute through interpretation, which the U.S. Supreme Court, deriving its sole power from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is not allowed to do.

So, when CW is teaching me in the comment about how federal courts should review cases as to whether they have jurisdiction - I wholeheartedly agree.

They absolutely should.

And once they find that the case raises issues pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, they are not authorized to invent any reasons why they would not take the case.

They absolutely should take that case - which in 85% or more of civil rights cases (I read scholarly reviews of the statistics on the matter) does not happen, civil rights cases are increasingly tossed automatically based on court-invented restrictions to jurisdiction that are nowhere to be found in the statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

So, my anonymous critic, once again, tried to spin the discussion away from its real focus - that federal courts deliberately make it impossible for people to enforce their constitutional rights through a private cause of action allowed by the U.S. Congress, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

And criticism of this kind, especially of issues that are issues of serious public concern, should not be anonymous.

For that reason, by this post I invite the Coyote Waits commentator to a Google+ Hangout that will be  streamed to the public in real time, as well as recorded and, without redactions, posted online in video format.

And, for purposes of that video debate, I will absolutely demand that Coyote Waits should disclose his/her identity.  I debate under my own name and only with real people.

Can a corrupt prosecutor make a good judge?

I was informed incorrectly this morning that Richard Northrup was disqualified from Barbara O'Sullivan's felony criminal trial.

He was not.

He was only asked by Judge Lambert to leave the room where Barbara O'Sullivan's defense attorney's motion to withdraw was argued, but he was not asked to leave the case.

And that is a shame.

As I said before, Richard Northrup was disqualified from prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan because the complaining witness is a nephew of Richard Northrup longtime employee Jeff Bowie, and because that same nephew, Derek Bowie, committed a crime against Barbara O'Sullivan 2 weeks earlier than he fabricated criminal charges against her, and Richard Northrup refuses to prosecute Derek Bowie both for the vehicular assault and for fabrication of criminal charges (because that charge will obviously include Richard Northrup as a co-conspirator).

When Richard Northrup, under such circumstances, obtained an indictment not against Derek Bowie, but against Barbara O'Sullivan, that is corrupt behavior. 

Richard Norhtrup is running for a judge now - unopposed, which means that he needs only one vote to be elected, and that vote is his own.

Because of Richard Northrup's corrupt behavior, Barbara O'Sullivan suffered the following injuries:

• the perpetrator of a vehicular assault upon her, police officer Derek Bowie, was not prosecuted;
• Barbara O'Sullivan was put in jail on false charges, in a jail that was run by the employer of Derek Bowie who, knowing that Derek Bowie committed a vehicular assault upon a resident of Delaware County, kept him on the job;
• the Sheriff's Department employing Derek Bowie, perpetrator of a crime against Barbara O'Sullivan blocked her counsel (me at that time) from visiting Barbara O'Sullivan and giving her legal advice unless I would allow search of my privileged attorney files, which I, of course, refused to do
• Barbara O'Sullivan had to pay over $7,000 so far in legal fees to her defense attorney Tyner (who withdrew from the case without making a motion to dismiss the indictment while knowing about disqualification of Richard Northrup) while she was prosecuted for a legally void indictment;
• Barbara O'Sullivan was an object of nasty articles in the press and harassment in the social media based on an orchestrated leak from the Sheriff's Department which did not appear as an official press release;
• the felony prosecution initiated by the disqualified police officer Derek Bowie and continued by the disqualified prosecutor Richard Northrup and his office, continues, so Barbara O'Sullivan must continue to be under the stress of possibly be locked up for 7 years for the crime she did not commit and that was fabricated by perpetrator of a crime against her, Derek Bowie, and Derek Bowie's uncle's employer Richard Northrup.

The case against Barbara O'Sullivan should not even have been brought - by the police or by the prosecution.  Her loss of health and, possibly, years of her life lost because of this fabricated corrupt prosecution cannot be undone or returned to her.

It is clearly a political case, especially when you consider that Derek Bowie was not prosecuted for a crime committed against Barbara O'Sullivan, for intentionally backing up his police vehicle into her while she was videotaping his misconduct on her property.

Derek Bowie had no authority to appear on Barbara O'Sullivan's property on September 18, 2014, the day charged in the indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan.  Derek Bowie was disqualified from acting  in his official capacity in investigation or prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan on September 18, 2014 by his crime against Barbara O'Sullivan committed on September 5, 2014.

Richard Northrup had no authority to prosecute that crime because, on to of Derek Bowie's disqualification to file such charges, Richard Northrup was disqualified to prosecute such charges, because he employed Derek Bowie's uncle, for years.

When a prosecutor engaged in corrupt behavior, he is immune from civil lawsuits - but not from criminal liability.

Will Richard Northrup be prosecuted for his conduct in Barbara O'Sullivan's case?  I highly doubt that.

If people do not act to stop it, corruption will continue and will be elevated from the prosecutorial position to the judicial bench when Richard Northrup elects himself, unopposed, to become a County judge in Delaware County, presiding over criminal cases while he was just caught in corrupt behavior in one of them.

Thus, the question remains, a rather rhetorical question - can a corrupt prosecutor make an honest and good judge?

And - is it because corrupt prosecutors already made it to the judicial seat, in droves, why prosecutors involved in wrongful convictions in this state are not prosecuted, and New York State Senate has to create a new commission (see Bill S24) to address prosecutorial misconduct through a separate public body.

This situation has to stop.

Petition the Governor to impeach and prosecute Richard Northrup, the Delaware County Attorney and a judicial candidate for the seat of the County Judge.

Because a corrupt prosecutor will not magically become a good and honest judge once he gets into a black robe and on that bench.  He will get only worse - to your detriment.

My very first podcast - why Porter Kirkwood is a bad candidate for the position of Family or County Court judge in Delaware County, New York

As I mentioned above, this is my very first attempt at podcasting.

I wanted to put a real human voice on the issues I am raising regarding a very important decision each voter in Delaware County, NY will have to make this coming November on Election Day - who to put on the judicial seat of Delaware County Family and County Court.

This podcast was made based on feedback I received from my readers, family and friends.

Many people who are going to vote, have never been inside the courtroom and do not have information, and without information, complete understanding of what kind of issues are involved in election of this or that judicial candidate.

Local attorneys are under the gag of disciplinary rules and will not speak out against Porter Kirkwood.

On the opposite, some of them already started contributing to his election campaign financially, so that not to be excluded from the gravy train of lucrative assignments when/if Porter Kirkwood gets elected.

I appeal to my readers to have patience with me and to listen to my first podcast.

Thank you for your attention and I hope that I have helped you with providing information for your voting decision in November.

To listen to the podcast, click here.
 

A 1 billion dollar question

As to all death penalty appeals rejected in this country, by state and federal courts since 1996, and all executions that occurred since that time, a question:

did presiding judges who made decisions to reject those death penalty appeals, requests for stay and habeas petitions communicate with prosecutors, and with attorneys for the families of victims of the condemned individuals behind closed doors of The American Inns of Court, and did sponsorship through the American Inns of Court, or similar organizations with secret membership, influence their decisions that led to executions?

A public request was made to Senators Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz to consider impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court justices who solicit private (including foreign) sponsorship for their law clerks for all-expenses-paid trips abroad

Making public requests to public officials have never been easier - thanks to Facebook.

I "liked" the pages of both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Ted Cruz, and then tagged them in a public request to consider impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court justices and of federal appellate judges involved in solicitation of private (including foreign) sponsorship of all-expenses-paid trips for their law clerks to foreign lands.

The two U.S. Senators I addressed are also presidential candidates in the middle of their election campaign.

We will see how quickly - if at all - these presidential candidates will respond to this well warranted request.

I will post their reponse, if any, on this blog.

Stay tuned.