Will Porter Kirkwood and Carl Becker be disciplined for misconduct for having Becker appear in a judicial robe in Porter Kirkwood campaign flyer - after retirement?

Now, I understand that the sense of privileges and entitlement die hard.

Especially for such a self-important buffoon as the recently retired Delaware County Judge Carl Becker who, reportedly, could storm into a post office and get into the face of a federal postal worker asking her if she knew WHO HE IS, that he is A JUDGE.

It is hard to accept that yesterday you were an almighty God with absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts - and today you are just an ordinary attorney without employment.

So, Becker, despite his claim that he left the bench in a hurry, years before reaching the mandatory retirement age, in order to spend more time with his family, after he learnt that his daughter is pregnant with his second grandchild and will soon move to Australia.

Yet, instead of spending time with his daughter, who does not reside in New York, as far as I know - Becker mentioned Seattle when I was appearing in front of him - after retiring, Becker is seen all the time hovering around the courthouse, parking in employee parking spot and driving a car that still sports a "judge" license plate - in violation of the law.

Impersonating a judge when you are not a judge is misconduct for an attorney.

Becker continues to impersonate a judge when he parks in the employee parking lot when he is no longer an employee of the court system and when he drives around with "judge" license plates on his vehicle when he is no longer a judge.

But, Becker's misconduct rose to new heights when he appeared on Porter Kirkwood's judicial election campaign flyer in his robe - while stating that he is a "ret." judge.

Well, many people will not recognize "ret." as "retired", but will see the robe and identify Becker as a presently sitting judge who renders support to Porter Kirkwood's election - which is fraud upon voters.

And, Porter Kirkwood positioned Becker as one of the "leaders we trust" on his campaign flyer when he intentionally put Becker's old photo from his years as a judge on his present campaign flyer.

Now, at the time of Porter Kirkwood's election flyer went out, Becker was no longer a judge, and Porter Kirkwood well knew it.

With support sings for Porter Kirkwood reportedly all around Delhi and Delaware County, to the point that it seems to observers like an assault of the Red Army on the county with all those red signs around - I doubt that Porter Kirkwood did not have enough money to invest into a new post-retirement picture of Carl Becker.

At least, he knew not to put a picture in a robe of another retired judge and unemployed attorney - Carl Mugglin

- who offered support to Kirkwood in the same flyer, or at least he cut the photo off so that what Mugglin is wearing does not look like a robe.

In Becker's case, his photo is the identical photo from his recent judgeship, that was published a news article when Becker was a judge, and there is no question that what Becker is wearing is the black robe.

Yet, for Porter Kirkwood's information, it is not Halloween yet, and Becker, while he can use his black robe as a bath robe and walk in it around the house reminiscing his past glory, he has no right to appear in that robe in public, or endorse election campaign flyers in a robe, as if he is still a judge.

And I will make sure that the disciplinary committee for election of Porter Kirkwood, and the Judicial Conduct Committee - if Porter Kirkwood is elected - takes up the case of Porter Kirkwood soliciting impersonation from Carl Becker as if he is still a sitting judge.

Because for a retired judge to appear in an election campaign wearing a robe to which he is no longer entitled is attorney misconduct.

As well as it is attorney misconduct for Porter Kirkwood to solicit and publish such impersonation.

No presumption of innocence in Mississippi - and not only there

It was reported today that a Mississippi judge, in an interview, stated that people charged with crimes are all criminals.

That is - people who are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers, are guilty, according to the judge - just because they were charged with crimes.

And this is the mentality of many criminal judges, and not only in Mississippi.  A mentality that needs to be weeded out of the system in order for people to get elementary justice.

The Mokay saga continues as a black comedy - after 8 years of litigation, Plaintiffs got a $156,290 judgment against themselves

I've been writing about the Mokay saga extensively here, you can run the work "Mokay" in the keyword search window on the right in this blog to see all the blog posts about it.

The latest interesting news are that - after 8 years of litigation of a completely meritless case, the six plaintiffs got a $156,290 judgment against themselves.

The case started in Delaware County Supreme Court in June of 2007.

A partial summary judgment on liability was made in 2008.

In 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals allowed to charge attorney fees as damages in litigation.

In the Mokay case, the ONLY items charged as damages at the ex parte trial in April of 2015 were attorney fees of two  law firms:  Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis.

There was no retainer agreement in the record for Harlem & Jervis.

There was no consent to change counsel in the record for the change of counsel from Harlem & Harlem to Harlem & Jervis, notarized by each one of the six plaintiffs in the action.

Judge Kevin Dowd did not care about such pesky issues as retainer agreements and consent to change counsel.

He was irate because of the length of litigation - against Mr. Neroni, of course, not against Harlem & Jervis.

And, in order to "make Plaintiffs whole", Judge Kevin Dowd has awarded $156,290 in actual damages based on attorney fees of these two law firms chargeable by Harlem & Jervis and Harlem & Harlem against their clients. 

Yes, of course, Judge Dowd made the judgment against defendant Frederick Neroni.  Yet, by saying that Plaintiffs claimed that those attorney fees are their damages against Mr. Neroni, Judge Dowd also acknowledged that Plaintiffs agreed to those attorney fees by Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis.

Which made Plaintiffs liable to Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis for those legal fees, jointly and severally.  In other words, the money judgement acknowledging attorney fees of $156,290 as "actual damages" of the Plaintiffs, is a money judgment by Plaintiffs' alleged attorneys against the Plaintiffs.  Against each and every one of them.

So, as of June 12, 2015, the date of the decision of Judge Kevin Dowd, 

1) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff Daniel Mokay individually, and against his property;

2) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff Andrew Mokay individually, and against his property;

3) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff David Mokay individually, and against his property;

4) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff Patricia Knapp individually, and against her property;

5) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff Christine Reed individually, and against her property;

6) $156,290 money judgment became collectable by Harlem & Jervis against Plaintiff Estate of Andrew Mokay Sr, and against its property (and the property of all of its beneficiaries) - and that is in addition to attorney and Executor fees of Harlem & Jervis and the Executor Daniel Mokay charged against the Estate in the probate proceedings.

But the beauty of it all is that Judge Dowd created this money judgment of $156,290 against the Plaintiffs without any testimony from the Plaintiffs!

That's right, none of the Plaintiffs testified in the ex parte Mokay trial (where the public was also not allowed, I have an affidavit from a witness who was duped by the court personnel into believing that the trial was adjourned and not happening, when it was happening at the very same time as the witness asked to go observe it).

None of the Plaintiffs came forward at the trial to say:

1) yes, I hired Harlem & Harlem to represent me in this litigation;
2) yes, I hired Harlem & Jervis to represent me in this litigation;
3) yes, I am aware of every billing item that Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis presented to this court today;
4) yes, I approved of these billing items as MY legitimate costs of litigation;
5) yes, I am aware that the money judgment that I am seeking against Defendant Mr. Neroni is also collectable by Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis against me, as attorney fees against a client;
6) yes, Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis advised me of the potential conflict of interest in obtaining such a money judgment in this trial against Mr. Neroni, which will also be enforceable against each one of the plaintiffs;
7) yes, I agreed in writing for Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis to proceed to trial and obtain a money judgment against Mr. Neroni that will also be collectable against me by Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis.

None of the Plaintiffs testified.

And Judge Dowd rubber-stamped boxes of evidence supplied to him during and after (!) trial by Harlem & Jervis, simply because they were submitted against the much hated Mr. Neroni who sued Judge Dowd and whose wife sued Judge Dowd on behalf of client (not Mr. Neroni) - without any verification of the above issues by any of the Plaintiffs through testimony.

The only testimony upon which this money judgment was entered against Mr. Neroni and against the Plaintiffs was testimony of a non-party with interest in the money judgment, attorney Richard Harlem, son of a judge.

Of course, Judge Dowd's "brain", his law clerk Claudette Newman (who is also a local town justice, a judge in her own right), could not sit with him on that bench and could not advise him how to rule while he was dreaming of urinals built by law schools in his honor -  that's what he has put on record in a custody proceedings several years ago, and I do not think his mental capacity has improved since then.

Yet, the decision of June 12, 2015 was made two months after the trial ended.  Judge Dowd's "brain" had enough time to function and not to make a money judgment enforceable against the Plaintiffs where Plaintiffs did not testify, and THE ONLY witness who did testify was a non-party with interest in the money judgment, whether against Mr. Neroni or against the Plaintiffs - attorney Richard Harlem.

Good job, Judge Dowd.

Good job, Claudette Newman.

Good job, Richard Harlem.

Good job, James Harmann, the "trial counsel" for the Plaintiffs.

Good job, Michael Getman, another son of a judge, who stated before the trial began that his client Connie Mokay's interests 

         (Connie Mokay was a co-defendant in the action 
         and a beneficiary of the Plaintiff Estate of Andrew Mokay 
         as a widow with a right to an elective share of 1/3 of 
         the Estate, reduced in half by agreement with 
         Mr. Getman without any consideration) 

are "aligned with the Plaintiffs" and then left the trial - thus allowing Judge Dowd to create, without any objections, to enter a money judgment of $156,290 enforceable by Harlem & Jervis against the Estate in which Michael Getman's client Connie Mokay has interest as a widow with an elective share.

As I said above, the Mokay saga is quickly becoming a black comedy - or a vaudeville. 

Yet, serious researchers of Judiciary Law 487 and Amalfitano v Rosenberg, the New York State Court of Appeals case that allowed attorney fees as damages in Judiciary Law 487 claims, need to at least take note that, if attorney fees incurred by plaintiffs and chargeable against plaintiffs by their attorneys are advanced as damages at trial on behalf of plaintiffs, 

• a conflict of interest is present where attorneys have interest in obtaining a money judgment not only against the defendant in the action, but against their own clients;
• such a conflict of interest must be discussed with the client;
• a written consent for the attorneys to proceed must be signed by each plaintiff;
• plaintiffs - at the very minimum - must testify at trial to confirm that they DID hire these attorneys who have an interest in a money judgment against their own clients, and that they DID approve legal fees of these attorneys claimed as damages.

Because - otherwise we get what we got in the Mokay saga.

A $156,290 money judgment against each and every one of the Plaintiffs, enforceable against them by allegedly their attorneys Harlem & Jervis and obtained against them while their presence is not mentioned in the trial transcript (in their absence) and without their testimony.

Just think about the potential of abuse - an attorney walks into the courtroom, gets on the witness stand and testifies that A, B, C, D, E and F owes him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the court approves a money judgment that goes both against the A, B, C, D, E and F's alleged opponent and against them, too.

And, the court, without hearing out the testimony of A, B, C, D, E and F, grants the hundreds of thousands of dollars against the defendant, but also by the attorney against A, B, C, D, E and F - without their testimony or even presence.

Here, "to make Plaintiffs whole" (or rather, to make a hole in Plaintiffs' pocketbooks), Judge Dowd created a money judgment of $156,290 against each one of them, enforceable against them by son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem, in their absence and without their testimony.

That decision, by far, beats the decision about the urinals built by law schools in Dowd's honor - as part of a custody proceeding.

All in all, it was really well worth the 8 years of litigation in Mokay v Mokay - for Richard Harlem, not for the Plaintiffs.

I wonder when Richard Harlem will start collecting his hard-earned judgment of $156,290 against Daniel Mokay, David Mokay, Andrew Mokay, Christine Reed and Patricia Knapp.

But, that will be part of the black comedy genre.

I will report further on this case as information becomes available.

Stay tuned.

Porter Kirkwood's additional conflict of interest triggered a question - why do we need courts at all when most important issues are already being decided out of court?

I indicated in the previous blog that a Porter Kirkwood's supporter has claimed, no doubt as a public "service", Porter Kirkwood's participation in the so-called "surrogate decision-making committee".

Here is some more information on these "committees".

Here is their composition:

Consider it:

for some reason, you temporarily cannot make an informed consent medical or end of life decision for yourself.

Instead of going to court to have a legal guardian appointed for you by the court and have issues of medical treatment and end of life decided in court, a "panel" is appointed consisting of:

• a physician who may be connected to the organ-donation industry;
• an attorney who may be connected to your heirs;
• your heirs who may be interested in your quick departure over the rainbow; and
• an "advocate for persons with mental disabilities" - who also can have his or her own conflicts

These individuals will decide your fate - from surgery to end of life.  Without court.  Without law guardians.  Just like that - a panel of four people, not elected by the people to be a judge, not meeting requirements of the New York State Constitution to become a judge.

And Porter Kirkwood is already a part of this unconstitutional arrangement with a clear potential for eugenics.

There is no reason whatsoever - NONE - why courts should not or cannot be involved.  Major medical treatment and especially end of life decisions should not be handled without consent of either the person him- or herself or his legally appointed (through courts) guardian who is sworn to protect the person's best interests.

Moreover, persons with interest in the patient's demise (such as family members) may not be involved in decision-making - as it happens in these "panels".

Here is some more information provided by the Committee itself.  This is what Porter Kirkwood is ALREADY doing.

So, SDMC recognizes that it is an "alternative approach to the court system", and, since a deprivation of life and liberty is involved, it simply cannot be done through out-of-court panels consisting of people with conflicts of interest and a direct interest in the patient's demise.

Courts can hold emergency sessions if treatment is needed immediately, so the problem is not with time.  There is simply no constitutional justification for these death panels.

When people are unable to provide informed consent, a court-appointed representative should be able to do it, but the keywords are - "court-appointed".  And when people have "no surrogate to provide consent on their behalf", there is a procedure under Mental Hygiene Law to have such a person court-appointed.

Whatever authority is claimed under the statute, the statute itself is blatantly unconstitutional.  No other state allows such an out-of-court procedure, and for a good reason.

Facilities who are interested in providing medical care and being paid (involuntarily) out of property of the person incapable of giving consent, are now eligible for a "consideration", out of court, to MAKE you, if you cannot make a medical decision for yourself, undergo their costly treatment - for which you will then be made to pay.  Isn't that a perfect setup for corruption?

For Kirkwood, who already ok'd award of millions of dollars bypassing public bidding - participation in this committee is a perfect fit.

One more reason to flee from New York until your former client or a disgruntled family member puts you to death, through the use of such a "panel".

And - isn't it a sad irony that the issue as to WHY WE NEED THE COURTS if issues of life and death can be decided informally, out of court - would pop up as a result of a JUDICIAL ELECTION campaign?

Because the question is very clear.

Why are we talking about Gary Rosa's judicial experience in Family court matters?

Why are we talking about Porter Kirkwood's experience in Family Court matters?

Why do we need to talk about experience in court at all?

Why do we need to elect judges at all?

Why do we need courts at all?

Why wouldn't we have "appointed" some "panel of volunteers", and they will decide all issues in our life for us - without the costly court system.

Why?

Porter Kirkwood serves up hamburgers really well and plays God with people's lives through the "surrogate decision making committee"

No, I am not joking.

This was offered "on a personal note", as a qualification of a judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood for the position of a Family Court judge - as opposed to Judge Gary Rosa's statement in his election campaign that he is always "on-call" as a judge for criminal arraignments and orders of protection.

Porter Kirkwood obviously endorsed his qualification by posting his "personal note" on his Facebook campaign website:

It is not only that Porter Kirkwood is a perfect hamburger server 4 days a year during Fair-on-the-Square in Delhi (happens every Friday in July), he also volunteered in DelYouth Soccer (where his son was), Boy Scouts (where his son was) and Youth Court (again, in the school where his son is).

Wow - what a public service, to participate in extra curricular activities of your own child.  

Now, Glenn V. Cole Jr. advertises Porter Kirkwood "professionally speaking", reiterating the tired fairy tale about the allegedly 3,000 cases allegedly handled by Porter Kirkwood - an absolutely unlikely and unverifiable claim.

Moreover, Glenn V. Cole Jr. is not an attorney:

has no verifiable legal training and certainly cannot pronounce a "professional opinion" as to how good Porter Kirkwood is as an attorney.

I am an attorney, I do have a legal training, I participated in cases where Kirkwood appeared - both in Family Court and in federal court - and I can attest that Kirkwood lacks basic competence and ethics.

How Kirkwood was "instrumental" in forming Drug Treatment Court and Family Court is also (1) unverifiable, since information about that court is not public, and (2) raises all kinds of conflict-of-interest and ex-parte-communication issues, because the alleged "creator" of Drug Court in Delaware County (who was re-elected in 2012 on the same fairy tale), Carl Becker, presided over child neglect proceedings while communicating with Porter Kirkwood in "creating Family Treatment Court" and "Drug Treatment Court" - and that is in addition to their ex parte communications behind the courthouse that were visible, and those likely ex partes by phone and in person that were not visible or verifiable.

Mr. Cole also indicated that Porter Kirkwood was allegedly recently appointed to the Surrogate Decision-Making Committee by the New York State Justice Center for Protection of People with Special Needs.

Sounds wonderful and honorable.  Right?  Let's look into what the alleged Committee does and how what the Committee does fits with what Porter Kirkwood does in his public employment and private practice.

Here is what the Committee does:

Even though SDMC claims legal support in a 2012 New York Legislation, the powers of the Committees and their functioning is clearly unconstitutional, since they sit in "panels" in substitution of courts and have authority to make, on behalf of incompetent individuals, major decisions involving major treatment and even end of life.

There can be no constitutional basis for medical and especially end-of-life decisions to be made, for an incompetent individual, without a court-appointed legal guardian and outside of court procedure.

It is no wonder that this program is "unique" for New York only - no other states authorized such an extraordinary setup that can be potentially used for elder cleansing and cleansing of people with disabilities - outside of the court system, with not judges, but "panels of volunteers" deciding issues of people's major treatment and even lives.

For Porter Kirkwood to wield such a power is especially horrible, since Porter Kirkwood, while being a social services attorney for Delaware County,  recently represented, for money and during taxpayer-backed county time, defendants in a civil action accused of elder abuse and wrongful death of an elder.  

Moreover, Porter Kirkwood is the last person who should be appointed to such a panel, since he tried to have concocted a mental health diagnosis of a child, by a hired expert who never saw the child, in order to label the child and thus diminish the child's credibility against Porter Kirkwood's own son in a potential court proceeding.

It is interesting that Kirkwood was appointed to this particular "death squad" panel when Delaware County Surrogate's Court was litigating the shenanigans of his clients, a social worker and the ex-Commissioner of Social Services, who self-dealt specifically with an end-of-life patient, a 89 old lady, and played with her will. 

One thing I can say about Kirkwood - while Judge Gary Rosa "simply" serves the public straight as a 24-7 on-call judge, Kirkwood is engaging in "projects", one shadier than the other.

Good grief - end of life decisions, out of court, by Porter Kirkwood as a member of a "panel".  Gives me creeps.

Porter Kirkwood and his alleged 3,000 cases: let's have a trip to Delaware County Family Court and then do the math

A reader sent me an election campaign flyer of Porter Kirkwood, a judicial candidate for the Family Court seat in Delaware County, New York.

In that election campaign flyer, Porter Kirkwood claims that he has "handled" 3,000 cases in Family Court.

First, this claim is absolutely unverifiable - because Porter Kirkwood was and still is a social services attorney, his "Family Court cases" must be exclusively child neglect and abuse cases.

I encourage future voters to march into Delaware County Family Court at 3 Court Street, Delhi, NY 13753 across from the post office, and demand review of Porter Kirkwood's 3000 Family Court cases.

You will be denied that access because child neglect cases are sealed, so Porter Kirkwood can blow bubbles all over you and can tell you how many thousands of cases he allegedly "handled" in Family Court - it is absolutely unverifiable.

Moreover, I suggest for the readers to engage in a little math experiment to show that not only the number 3,000 is unverifiable - but it is likely false, as are many Porter Kirkwood's claims in his election campaign (I will continue to analyze Kirkwood's election campaign flyer, issue by issue).

So, this is the claim that Porter Kirkwood made in his flyer - once again:

Porter Kirkwood was admitted to practice law in 1994 after graduating from an elite private law school:

Upon information and belief, he worked for Delaware County Department of Social Services ever since he was first licensed in 1994, including at least 6 years under the "guidance" of Carl Becker as his boss and mentor.

So, Porter Kirkwood worked for Delaware County for 21 years as an attorney for social services.

Most of the time before Becker got on the bench in 2002, Becker litigated child abuse and neglect cases.

After Becker got on the bench, Amy Merklen litigated child abuse and neglect cases, with Porter Kirkwood handling only a small fraction of the cases.

As I stated above, his participation in cases is unverifiable, because Delaware County Family Court will not allow review of any child neglect or abuse cases by anybody who was not a party or attorney of record for a party in those cases, so he can just as well tell the public that he handled a million such cases - it will be equally unverifiable.

Yet, realistically speaking, let's do the math.

To be able to handle 3,000 cases in Family Court over the course of his career, Porter Kirkwood was supposed to be in court every other day to handle child neglect cases.  

That is simply not happening - not only Porter Kirkwood was not in court nearly every day, and there were times when I was in that same court every single day, and did not see him at all, but other attorneys were usually litigating child neglect cases, and my suspicion is - because Porter Kirkwood is not a good litigator.

I dare Porter Kirkwood's election campaign to present to voters his court calendars indicating that he, indeed handled 3,000 cases. Court calendars do not mention names, only file numbers, and are public.

I doubt Kirkwood can or will produce such calendars to the public.

Which brings me back to the 3,000 cases.

When such numbers are unverifiable, and the level of competence in participation in such cases is similarly unverifiable, such numbers should not be used in bold font, white on red, in an election campaign - because, without ability to verify these numbers, they very likely be fraudulent.

Porter Kirkwood appreciates bashing the hard working families of Delaware County

Here is what judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood has posted on his Facebook page.



This is what Porter Kirkwood appreciates - I obtained a copy of the statement by following the link:

==

Based on what I have been reading and on my attendance at a recent debate, I would like to take just a minute to compare the two candidates for Delaware County Family Court judge.

Gary Rosa is basing his campaign on basically three facts. The first fact is that he was born and raised in Delaware County. Porter Kirkwood was not born and raised in Delaware County. Does that really make Gary Rosa a better candidate? Not in my opinion.

The second aspect that Gary Rosa is promoting is the fact that he is a town justice, having his campaign pictures taken with a judicial robe. Literally anyone in New York state can be a town justice, provided he is elected. New York state requires more schooling for such occupations as manicurists and hairstylists. Porter Kirkwood has worked as an attorney in the Family Court system for approximately 20 years. I personally would rather have a Family Court judge that has been a practicing Family Court attorney. This experience is insurmountable.

Lastly, Gary Rosa is saying that as a town justice, he has presided over family court matters. Yet, to my knowledge he has never given the public the number of family court cases he has overseen. Porter Kirkwood, on the other hand, has presided over at least 3,000 family court matters. This obviously gives Porter Kirkwood overwhelming experience.

I strongly urge Delaware County registered voters to vote for Porter Kirkwood for Delaware County Family Court judge on Nov. 3.

==

So, Porter Kirkwood appreciates:

(1) his supporters express extreme disrespect to his opponent - an attorney and a judge - by saying that "New York state requires more schooling for such occupations as manicurists and hairstylists" (than town justices), thus practically spitting on Gary Rosa's 23 years of public service as a town justice, and

(2) that his supporters misrepresent his experience in Family Court by saying that he allegedly PRESIDED over 3,000 cases - Porter Kirkwood did not correct that statement, he instead "appreciated" it "genuinely".

Only a judge "presides" over cases, so Kirkwood tries to dupe the voters into believing that he has judicial experience - while he has none.

Porter Kirkwood, by endorsing this disrespectful statement of Barbara Cole, showed his real face.

Apparently, "manicurists" and "hairstylists" do not deserve respect, the way Barbara Cole mentioned them - and Porter Kirkwood endorsed that disrespect.

Yet, Delaware County is a poor county, and hairstylists and manicurists actually make good money for the county - and work really hard to get that money.

Kirkwood wants to run on a platform of "public service" and "helping hard-working Delaware County families" by gathering support from those who despise those very people who do his hair and nails?  Great job, Porter Kirkwood, in serving the hard-working families of Delaware County, especially those of hairstylists and manicurists.

Kirkwood learnt from his mentor, Becker, first, mentioned in his campaign interview that more social services supervision is needed of schoolchildren because the quality of schoolchildren has gone down since there are not as many "doctors, lawyers and shopkeepers" in Delaware County - clearly showing that Becker's idea of public service is social control over the poor whom he despises, them and their children, and considers them second-rate.  

Becker was also condescending and disrespectful to his opponent Judge Gary Rosa - which also showed him as the self-important buffoon that he is - same as Porter Kirkwood, Becker's dutiful apprentice.

In 2012, Becker was trying to compare his allegedly "superior" experience to Gary Rosa's alleged lack of experience this way:

 "Gary (note the condescension where Becker calls his opponent by his first name, and his opponent calls him respectfully Judge Becker - even though Gary Rosa at that point was Judge Rosa, too - T.N.) did some family court work when he first came back to Delaware county, but after about four years, he drifted away from it. Currently, he cannot come into my family court and represent a child in an abuse or neglect proceeding or in a custody proceeding because he has never taken the training. 

He’s dealing with traffic tickets and DWIs -- the small stuff. The difference between what he’s doing and what I'm doing is the difference between flying a single engine prop plane and a 747. It’s just a completely different skill set."

Of course, Becker lied, because no additional training is required for an attorney to appear in child neglect and abuse cases, and Gary Rosa not appearing in Becker's court representing child neglect cases does not mean he did not appear in any other Family Courts - but you can expect Becker to lie, one way or another.  In my experience, he always lied in cases - either by misrepresenting the record, or by failing to disclose his conflicts of interest, or by having the Election Board file a false and fraudulent certificate of election when his judgeship was challenged - correctly - as illegal.

Yet, Becker is a past experience for Delaware County.

His 747 has crashed - but his dutiful student Kirkwood is trying to land and saddle Delaware County voters, with Becker's help.

Yet, Kirkwood is the same as Becker:  self-dealing, dishonest, disrespectful to opponents and looking down on the "hard-working families" of Delaware County who he has been splitting in Family Court and robbing by approving awards of no-public-bidding contracts.  

Not a good judge material.