Porter Kikwood working hard for "hard-working Delaware County families" - splitting them and defrauding them

While the headline, and the statements below, read like sick jokes, those are statements in Porter Kirkwood's election campaign:

Leadership and work ethic.

In delivering justice.

Working hard for people of Delaware County.

I am a Delaware County taxpayer, and thus, part of the "people of Delaware County". 

I am very much interested to know how Porter Kirkwood "works hard" for me.

Judicial candidate Gary Rosa already stated - quite precisely - as to how hard Porter Kirkwood works for Delaware County:

1) that Kirkwood “came here less than 20 years ago to work for the commissioner of social services”;

2) that Kirkwood “has no ties that bind him to Delaware County other than a good-paying job at taxpayer expense.  I predict that when he no longer has a good job at taxpayer expense, he will no longer be in Delaware County because other than a job he has no stake in Delaware County”;

3) “The fact is, each and every time [Kirkwood] appeared in family court it was to represent the commissioner of social services. Regardless of how many times he has been in family court, it has always been on behalf of the same client,” he said. “In contrast, my trips to family court have been on behalf of people – Delaware County families";

4)"When my opponent gratuitously says he has saved your taxpayer dollars, ask him how. How do no-bid contracts save taxpayer dollars?”

5) Gary Rosa also mentioned, back in June 2015, that Porter Kirkwood asked for a $40,000 raise from his salary of $93,000 when he became Delaware County Attorney.

Porter Kirkwood answered that criticism, and specifically the part that one of his first steps on the job is to lobby for a steep salary increase for himself.

In his criticism in June of 2015, Gary Rosa used old information about Porter Kirkwood and claimed his salary was, as reported by seehthroughny.net in 2013, $114, 917. 

While confirming Gary Rosa's numbers from seethroughny.net, Porter Kirkwood did not disclose that his salary, since January of 2015, was actually $125,917.

Not disclosing his brand new salary hike in response to Gary Rosa's criticism was omission amounting to representation - and fraud upon voters.

Porter Kirkwood claimed that his salary hike was justified, because he should get as much as the District Attorney, yet, he allows an outside law firm to handle litigation for the county.

The District Attorney - as much as I criticized him for his misconduct which, I firmly believe, makes him unfit to be a judge or a lawyer - is actively litigating in court in front of juries, while Porter Kirkwood's only "advantage" was litigating in front of his former boss and colleague and current friend Becker and getting the cases of Delaware County Social Services fixed this way between two attorneys for social services - one present and one former, who was on the bench.  Not much honor, experience or competence is needed for such shady dealings - only a lack of integrity.

It does not take much brain, ladies and gentlemen, to get a case fixed from a judge who works not as a judge, but as a second counsel for social services in child neglect proceedings - as Becker did for years.  All it takes is just the lack of integrity, and Porter Kirkwood has enough of that "quality".

As to Kirkwood's competence, I know of a case that Porter Kirkwood lost at trial with nobody appearing against him - a statement of complete incompetence.

In two recent cases that I handled in federal court, in one of them, Porter Kirkwood filed a notice of appearance without indicating who is his client, on whose behalf he is appearing - a statement of complete incompetence.

In another, Porter Kirkwood represented a County official as long as he was able not to file his own motions and responses to motions, but support other people's motions.  As soon as his serious input was needed, an outside law firm was hired.

Let's also note what kind of cases Porter Kirkwood handles in order for him to claim that he has been "working hard" for "hard-working families" in Delaware County, and that, as a judge, he will continue doing it.

People who provide financial support to Porter Kirkwood are either government officials, or rich landowners and professionals like accountants and real estate brokers.

They are NOT appearing in Family Court cases.

They are hoping, apparently, to appear in front of Kirkwood in Supreme Court cases once Kirkwood is appointed an Acting Supreme Court justice (a usual practice for rural Family Court judges) - and then he will fix cases for his supporters the way Becker fixed cases for his supporters, after all, Kirkwood learned at the knee of the best fraudster on the bench.

The spread of supporters for Kirkwood is here:

The "leaders you trust" include:

• Carl Becker - a much sued recently retired fraudster on the bench;
• Shields - who obtained a case fix from Becker and then supported him for reelection;
• several town supervisors - who had to participate in the CRIME of awarding public contracts without public bidding
• 3 senators - well, endorsement by senators at the time when senators in New York are dragged away in shackles one after another, does not add much to credibility of the supported candidate, and, to crown it all,
• the retired judge Carl Mugglin, a sexist - and brainless -  bully,  who went to the bench after demonstrating incompetence as an attorney (three courts could not make head or tail of the will drafted by Carl Mugglin some 40 years ago) and who harbors an opinion that criminal trials can be held in churches, and that female attorneys should shut up and not "dig holes for their clients with their intellectual efforts", count on Carl Mugglin to tell you that he has never seen a better lawyer than Porter Kirkwood, Carl Mugglin is a real expert to discern attorney excellence, after all, he also endorsed Becker.

And - by the way - it is a mystery to me how the 3 senators, NONE OF WHOM reside in Delaware County can support Porter Kirkwood with their votes on November 3, 2015 - that is one more fraud upon the voters.  I wonder if these senators know how their names are used by Kirkwood.  If they do, they are participants in voter fraud.

And, dear voters, please, pay attention to the fact that NONE of these endorsers will EVER be litigating in front of Kirkwood in Family Court.

Their interests lay in a completely different territory - Supreme Court, where Kirkwood will be fixing cases for rich parties, providing return on investment for support in election by providing the "right" decisions and sanctioning the enemies of supporters, their families, friends and political connections.

So, the leaders you, dear voters, allegedly trust, include people like Becker - who split "hard working families" for 27 years through social services, and then fixed cases for the same social services, and for his friends and former colleagues since 2002 when he came to the bench.

The "leaders who you trust", dear voters, are the town supervisors who participated in the sweet deal of awarding millions of dollars in YOUR money to unknown individuals bypassing public bidding - and Delaware County still resists my FOIL request to provide copies of those contracts. 

The "leaders who you trust", dear voters, is Beverly Shields who makes "final determinations" on public contracts that bypass public bidding - according to her own statement in support of Porter Kirkwood, endorsed by Porter Kirkwood by placing it on his Facebook campaign page.

The "leaders who you trust" are those who, for years, used your hard-earned money exacted out of you in taxes, under the threat of foreclosure on your homes to defraud you and self-deal for themselves, their friends and relatives using YOUR money.

Becker was the one who would endorse County foreclosures on your homes if you do not pay taxes to support these fraudsters.   Now Becker is gone, but the County needs "its own person" on the bench, so Kirkwood is now up for sale.

Gary Rosa already summed up the essence of Porter Kirkwood's election campaign - and the essence of his activities:

“I don’t know about you, but there’s nothing that disgusts me more than a government official trying to insult my intelligence,” Rosa said. “It’s exactly this kind of arrogance we can no longer accept.”

And we shouldn't.

Don't vote for the fraudster Porter Kirkwood.

Vote for Gary Rosa, the only candidate not only with 23 years of judicial experience (while Kirkwood has none) - but with integrity (while Kirkwood has none).

Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields as the expert in Family law - and in defrauding voters, for a consideration

I wrote on this blog about fraud upon the voters of now quickly retired Delaware County judge Carl F. Becker.

How he misrepresented his record of reversals in his own recent election campaign in 2012.

How he used a party in litigation in front of him, Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields (who was, as the election fliers disclosed, after the court case closed, Becker's close personal friend who knew Becker's after-hours and weekend schedule).  

Of course, such close "friendship" required disqualification of Becker from Shields' case - which, of course, never happened.  Instead, a transcript exists in that case where the then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney (retired "with an honorable plaque" in 2012) admits to an ex parte communication with Becker when Spinney either came to Becker's chambers or called Becker to discuss the case - and even that did not get Becker off the case.   

And, I reproduce here the table I have put into the original blog about Becker defrauding his voters in the 2012 election campaign with the help of Beverly Shields.  Becker was "rarely" reversed.  Indeed.

No.	Case Name	Date	Reversed or Modified	Reason	Appellant’s attorneys
1	People v. Miller, 11 A.D.3d 729, 783 N.Y.S.2d (3dr dept., 2004)	October 21, 2004	Reversed and remitted	Ineffective assistance of counsel	David Roosa, Sidney
2	People v. Van Buren, 4 N.Y.3d 640, 830 N.E.2d 1130 (N.Y., 2005	May 10, 2005	NY Court of Appeals reversed decision of 3rd Department which affirmed Judge Becker's decision	Erroneously dismissed traffic ticket to an attorney issued by environmental police	Andrew Van Buren, Hobart, Pro Se
3	Edward S. v. Kelly S., 18 A.D.3d 976, 795 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2005)	May 12, 2005	Reversed and remitted 2 orders	Erroneous dismissal of father's petition for substantial change of circumstances for failure to state a cause of action without a hearing	Lo Pinto, Schlather, Solomon & Salk, Ithaca (Diane V. Bruns of counsel)
4	In re Jessica GG., 19 A.D.3d 765, 797 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2005)	June 9, 2005	Reversed and remitted	Family Court's admonition to minor that she had the right, but was not required, to testify at fact-finding hearing did not satisfy requirement that minor be advised of right to remain silent at proceeding to adjudicate her a person in need of supervision (PINS).	Jehed Diamond, Delhi, attorney for the child in PINS (persons in need of supervision) proceedings
5	Smith v. Smith, 24 A.D.3d 822, 804 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2005)	December 1, 2005	Reversed	Appellate court vacated order of protection against the father	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield
6	People v. Abuiz, 31 A.D.3d 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2006)	July 13, 2006	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court reversed defendant's convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 of the indictment; matter remitted to the County Court of Delaware County for a new trial on said counts;  Judge Becker usurped the jury's fact-finding function in response to jury inquiry,  factually directed a verdict of guilt as to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree in the event that the jury found defendant guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree	Rosemarie Richards, Gilbertsville
7	Sparling v. Robinson, 35 A.D.3d 1142, 826 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2006)	December 28, 2006	Reversed	(1) mother's failure to have child return several telephone calls from father and members of father's household, and reference to father in derogatory terms, did not amount to change in circumstances warranting modification of custody order, and (2) modification of custody order to grant father sole custody of child was not in child's best interests.	Jehed Diamond, Delhi
8	Tanner v. Tanner, 35 A.D.3d 1102, 826 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2006)	December 28, 2006	Reversed and remitted	Denial of incarcerated petition for visitation with the child without a hearing	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield
9	Meier v. Key-Meier, 36 A.D.3d 1001, 828 N.Y.2d (3rd Dept., 2007)	January  4, 2007	Affirmed as modified	Appellate Court reversed denial of counsel fees to father	Rosemarie Richards, Gilbertsville,  Andrew Van Buren, Hobart
10	Armstrong v. Heilker, 47 A.D.3d 1104, 850 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2008)	January 17, 2008	Affirmed as modified and remitted	Appellate court reversed order directing mother to submit to mental health evaluation by expert chosen by father	Jehed Diamond, Delhi
11	Amato v. Amato, 51 A.D.3d 1123, 857 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2008)	May 1, 2008	Reversed and remitted	Failure to appoint an attorney for the child	Andrew Van Buren, Hobart
12	Gil v. Gil, 55 A.D.3d 1024, 870 N.Y.S. 2d (3rd Dept., 2008)	October  16, 2008	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court vacated stay away provisions of the order of protection against the father as unsupported by the record	James M. Hartmann, Delhi
13	Hills v. Madrid, 57 A.D.3d 1175, 869 N.Y.2d (3rd Dept., 2008)	December 18, 2008	Affirmed as modified	Appellate Court vacated award of sole custody to the mother as not supported by the record, restored joint legal custody	Cynthia J. Tippins, East Greenbush
14	Adams v. Bracci, 61 A.D.3d 1065, 876 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2009)	April 2, 2009	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court vacated award to father of sole custody where father did not request such a relief in petition, no notice to pro se mother	Paul J. Connolly, Delmar
15	People v. Beames, 71 A.D.3d 1300, 896 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2010)	March 18, 2010	Reversed and remitted	trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review, and (2) mitigating circumstances did not support downward departure in defendant's presumptive sex offender risk level classification	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield
16	People v. Hull, 71 A.D. 3d 1336, 898 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2010)	March 25, 2010	Reversed and remitted	Ineffective representation of counsel	Jonathan I. Edelstein, New York City
17	In re Village Of Fleischmanns, 77 A.D. 3d 1146, 909 N.Y.S.2d 564 (3rd Dept., 2010)	October 21, 2010	Reversed	Village was not equitably estopped from foreclosing	Bond, Schoeneck & King, P.L.L.C., Albany (Robert H. Feller of counsel)
18	Moore v. Sloan, 88 A.D.3d 1193, 932 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2011)	October 27, 2011	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court vacated order without a hearing that granted mother sole medical decision-making authority	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield
19	Geywits ex rel. Geywits v. Charlotte Valley Cent. School Dist., 98 A.D.3d 804, 949 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2012)	August 16, 2012	Reversed	Appellate court reversed the denial of motion for the summary judgment to the school sued for failure to supervise minors who were allowed to go to the restroom alone and were exposed to sexual misconduct of a sophomore, the appellate court found that the  school lacked notice of prior similar misconduct	The Mills Law Firm, LLP, Clifton Park, Christopher K. Mills
20	Shields v. Carbone, 99 A.D.3d 1055, 952 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2012)	October 18, 2012	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court reversed portion of the decision requiring Delaware County to return the bail, instead requiring the law firm O'Connell and Aronowitz, PC to first return bail to Delaware County	Richard Spinney, Delaware County Attorney
21	Scribani v. Buchannon, 101 A.D.3d 1517, 957 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2012)	December  27, 2012	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court reversed dismissal of complaint against second defendant	Tatiana Neroni, Delhi
22	People v. Hazen, 103 A.D.3d 943, 962 N.Y.S. 2d (3rd Dept., 2013)	February  14, 2013	Reversed	Appellate court reversed summary denial without a hearing of a motion to modify sex offender level classification, failure to satisfy procedural requirements	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield
23	People v. Lynch, 104 A.D. 3d 1062, 961 N.Y.S. 2d (3rd Dept., 2013)	March 28, 2013	Reversed	Failure to grant a motion to withdraw the plea because of a conflict when two criminal defendants were represented by the same counsel	Galluzzo & Johnson, New York City, Matthew J. Galluzzo for appellant
24	Hurtado v. Williams, 112 A.D.3d 1047, 976 N.Y.S.2d (3rd Dept., 2013)	December  5, 2013	Affirmed as modified	Appellate court reversed denial of a motion to dismiss a common law negligence claim by a tavern in a case alleging negligent service of alcohol	Costello, Cooney & Fearon, PLLC, Camillus (Maureen G. Fatcheric of counsel)
25	In re Bayley W., --- NYS2d ---, 2014 WL 1316462, 3rd Dept., April 3, 2014	April 3, 2014	Reversed	Severing parental rights of an incarcerated father without an evidentiary hearing	Theresa Mulliken, Harpersfield

Beverly Shields provided support to Becker after Becker:

• refused to sanction Beverly Shields (without disclosing that she was Becker's personal friend) for contempt of court in Shields v. Carbone, Delaware County Index No. 2009-440, when Beverly Shields refused to abide by a clear and unambiguous court order of the Appellate Division; and
• instead, sanctioned the attorney who brought the contempt of court proceeding against Beverly Shields - for making a motion to recuse Becker (who should have recused not only on the basis of what I argued, but also on the basis of what I did not know at that time - ex parte communication with Spinney and personal relationship with Shields).

So,  it clearly appears that Becker paid for Shields' support in re-election of 2012 ahead of time by getting assigned to her case and "fixing" it for her and sanctioning the attorney who wanted legitimate sanctions against her, and Becker's buddy Spinney.

Now I was alerted by a reader that Beverly Shields is engaged in a new bout of fraud upon the voters, now supporting Becker's friend, former subordinate, colleague - and apprentice, Porter Kirkwood, and, it appears, also for a consideration.

In January of 2015, Porter Kirkwood as Delaware County attorney, approved of Beverly Shields new salary - $63,292.  

In October of 2015, Beverly Shields returned the favor by endorsing Porter Kirkwood as a judicial candidate and playing law expert once again, as she - fraudulently - did for Becker in 2012.

Here is what Beverly Shields said in support of Porter Kirkwood:

Of course, Beverly Shields is not an attorney, does not have any training in the law and has no clue about Family Law.  Yet, same as with Becker, she did not care whether what she says in support of a judicial candidate is outright voter fraud - as long as the supported candidate gets on the bench and provides favor for her and for the county where she is an officer.

Bev Shields also chimed in with a "letter to the editor" - reproduced by Porter Kirkwood on his Facebook page:

In her letter in support for Porter Kirkwood Bev Shields claims that two falsehoods are circulated about poor Mr. Kirkwood.

She claims he had nothing to do with the court case in the Surrogate's Court involving Commissioner Moon's and another DSS employee's self-dealing and preying on an elderly person.

Yet, if he had nothing to do with the court case when it was litigated, that does not mean he had nothing to do with legal advice to Commissioner Moon who did not step anywhere without such legal advice.  Shifting the focus to who represented the county in the surrogate court does not take out of the equation that Commissioner Moon acted unethically, and that Porter Kirkwood, as County Attorney since 2013, did nothing to put in an ethical code prohibiting what Commissioner Moon was doing - because Porter Kirkwood himself had a private practice on the side, taking cases that violated his ethical obligation to the county, and working on private cases, including court appearances, during taxpayer-paid time.

Beverly Shields' claimed "Falsehood # 2" - that Porter Kirkwood had nothing to do with the county awarding contract while bypassing public bidding.  Beverly Shields could not even lie credibly for Porter Kirkwood - who endorsed her lies by posting them on his campaign Facebook page.  She said that she "negotiates" her own contract and "only" sends them to Kirkwood for legal review, and then they are sent back for a final determination.

Shields apparently gave away more than she wanted to - that happens with our brainless public officials.  What she gave away is that public contracts MAY NOT be "finally determined" without a PUBLIC HEARING.  Shields has not authority to "finally determine" contracts that require public approval and public bidding.

Hello, Beverly Shields - you did not know that?

Hello, Porter Kirkwood, who endorsed that statement of Beverly Shields' on his Facebook campaign page - you did not know that, with all your 21 years of experience as a lawyer and your $125,917 salary with benefits, at our (and my own) expense as a taxpayer?

Yet, a County Attorney is responsible for verifying whether a contract is legal or not, and a contract that bypassed public bidding is illegal, so his "legal review" amounted to fraud, if he allowed such a contract to proceed - without public bidding.

Apparently, Beverly Shields tried to represent Porter Kirkwood as an attorney, explaining how the process of public contracts by a municipality must work - which Porter Kirkwood gladly accepted by posting it, which once again confirms Porter Kirkwood's utter incompetence. 

Where Bev Shields appears with her support - voters can be assured they are being defrauded and duped.

With friends such as Bev Shields - judicial candidates do not really need enemies.

Judge Robert Mulvey grants adjournments to parties who sold their interest in litigation - as long as his ruling is against clients of an attorney who sued him and turned him in

There is bias and bias.

Judge Robert Mulvey has some bias against me that spills over into retaliation against my clients.

I represent a client in a residential foreclosure case brought by a bank.

At the beginning of October this year, when Judge Mulvey knew full well that I was located in the middle of a catastrophic flood in South Carolina, Judge Mulvey "so-ordered" a very interesting letter from the attorney for the bank that initiated the foreclosure proceeding.

It is important to note the flooding because I was unable to get to the post office, my e-mail address was well known to the court and to the opposing counsel, the letter by the opposing counsel was not duplicated by e-mail, but was sent only by mail, I was unable to get to the postoffice due to flooding, and Judge Mulvey whose office is usually very courteous to OTHER attorneys and calls them to verify whether they agree to adjournments, never called me nor sent me an e-mail verifying whether I received that letter or not or whether I consent to any adjournments or not.

But what is the most astounding thing is WHY the adjournment was requested by the bank's attorney.

The bank's attorney asked the court to adjourn the deadline to file the motion for a summary judgment in the foreclosure action because the ownership of the mortgage has changed - but the attorney did not know who is the new owner of the mortgage.

In her letter to the judge, the attorney for the bank clearly stated that her client (the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action) WAS the owner of the mortgage, not IS the owner of the mortgage.

When such a letter comes before the judge, the judge (if he is competent and unbiased) must STAY proceedings and order disclosure who is the owner of the mortgage.

Most definitely an adjournment for the now FORMER owner of the mortgage cannot be granted for any reason, because the FORMER owner of the mortgage has no rights left to prosecute the action, and its attorney is no longer attorney of record.

What Judge Mulvey granted to the FORMER owner of the mortgage is a right to prepare, until December of this year, a motion for a SUMMARY JUDGMENT in an action where the FORMER owner no longer had ANY interest.

Talking about incompetence of the judge here...

But, the circus continued even further.

After I received this extraordinary "so-ordered" letter from Judge Mulvey's chambers, I called the attorney who requested the adjournment - for her client who already sold his interest in the case.

When I called the attorney who has sent the letter to Judge Mulvey about her client being the FORMER owner of the mortgage, the attorney already left the firm - that is, the judge "so-ordered" the letter on a Friday - the attorney left the firm on the following Monday, within 2 days, with a lightning speed.  A coincidence.  Right.

My further conversations with other attorneys in the same law firm revealed that attorneys for the bank are unaware as to who is the new owner of the mortgage, but they are belligerent that they are still attorneys of record in a case where their client no longer owns the mortgage (which is, of course, a frivolous position).

An attorney for the bank explained to me that she has "just got the file" and, for that reason, could not tell me who is the new owner of the mortgage.

I've sent to that attorney an e-mail requesting an urgent disclosure more than a week ago, and I am still waiting for her response.  A week is more than enough time to figure out who you client sold its interest to, isn't it - and that is AFTER the bank's attorneys submitted to the court a letter saying that their client DID sell its interest, but they do not know to whom. 

Had I filed such a letter, I would have been sanctioned by now, because the minimum duty of due diligence and candor to the tribunal requires an attorney to instantly verify with the client who is the new owner the client has sold its interest to - and report it to the court and the opponent, as well as the fact that Plaintiff can no longer proceed with the residential foreclosure action.

For a judge to grant an adjournment to an attorney who is NO LONGER AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD (since it represents a client who has sold its interest in the mortgage and/or the note) - and without consulting the only remaining legitimate attorney of record - is quite incredible and shows an extraordinary level of bias.

Of course, I am turning Mulvey into the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct.

When a judge cannot control his bias against an attorney (who sued him in the past and turned him in in the past) to the point that he grants for the asking ANYBODY's request for ANYTHING, including the request for adjournment from an attorney who is no longer an attorney of record in the case by operation of law - keeping such a judge on the bench presents a serious jeopardy to public safety.

How many more ex parte communications Judge Yvonne Pagillo is engaged in without knowledge of defense counsel or parties?

I had an experience recently in Walton Village Court with Judge Yvonne Pagillo that I thought I need to share with the public, as it is a matter of public concern.

Judge Yvonne Pagillo received from prosecution an email containing a full thread of previous e-mails negotiating a plea in a certain case.

That same thread was not sent to me as a defense attorney - by mistake (as the prosecution) claims or otherwise.

The thread contained certain information that the prosecution could not introduce at trial for reason of its inadmissibility.

The judge read that information.

Judge Pagillo is not an attorney, and her level of education is unknown.

I do know though that Judge Pagillo's son is a police officer in Norwich, and that my other clients reported to me that he was spreading rumors a couple of years ago, allegedly coming from Yvonne Pagillo, that I was disbarred.  Nothing like appearing before such an "unbiased" judge - to begin with.

I would never have known about the ex parte exchange between (the thread) between the prosecution and the judge had the judge not triggered my inquiry into her misconduct, because the judge actually CALLED me, in an ex parte manner, and left a message on my voice-mail.  I have it on file and am turning it into the Commission for Judicial Conduct.

In her statement on the voice-mail Judge Pagillo state the following:

1. that I was dragging on with the case - which was a lie;
2. that my client was a no-show in court - which was a lie;
3. and that, based on reading of the thread, Judge Pagillo will not allow me to drag on with the case any more and will require a personal appearance of me and my client - in a traffic case

Now,

the adjournments in the case occurred as followed:

1/ because there was no judge in Walton Village court, review of the case was delayed by several months - not my fault;

2/ an adjournment was granted by Judge Pagillo because of ongoing plea negotiations, on consent with prosecution - cannot be attributed to me as dragging the case;

3/ the prosecution failed to conduct review of the case (which was the basis for the request to adjourn) within a week, as it promised, and conducted such a review only within days of the next appearance, making it impossible for me to make a motion and making it necessary to ask for another adjournment.  Judge Pagillo apparently attributed to myself and my client prosecution's delay in reviewing the case with the police officer and turning down the prosecution's plea offer.

The case involves constitutional issues - but, not having legal education and listening to everything that the prosecution puts into her ears, apparently, Judge Pagillo equates "constitutional argument" with "frivolous argument".

The interesting point is that, while both the Judge and the Delaware County District Attorney's office both recused from the case, the DA's office denies any wrongdoing and tried to ardently argue with me against turning the judge into the Commission for Judicial Conduct.

When the DA's office is an advocate for such a judge - it appears to me that such a conduct is ongoing and a pattern, and investigation of a judge may open up a can of worms regarding interaction of the DA's office with non-attorney judges and giving them legal advice - as I observed happening on other occasions with other judges, too.

I feel other defense attorneys and the public must know about what is going on behind closed doors and must seek in discovery, through subpoenas duces tecum, access to court computers to verify that no improper exchanges were happening between the prosecution and the court.

And, by the way, I only learnt about improper disclosure of inadmissible plea negotiation information to the factfinding judge by the DA's office because of (1) Judge Pagillo's misconduct, her ex parte phone call to my voice mail;  (2) admission by the prosecutor as to sending the e-mail thread to the judge (at least, the prosecutor had the integrity to admit that).

But, my question is - in how many cases such issues remain unknown for the defense and parties?

I believe, Judge Pagillo should be disciplined for her misconduct and that the State of New York (and the Village of Walton) must make sure that the judge presiding over proceedings is properly trained to understand his or her duties.