With the two judicial candidates, Gary Rosa and Porter Kirkwood, experience and integrity does matter - Gary Rosa's experience and integrity

We have in Delaware County two people running for the same judicial seat in Family Court.

Here is comparative information about Gary Rosa and Porter Kirkwood:

	GARY ROSA	PORTER KIRKWOOD
Experience as a judge	23 years	None
Presiding over jury trials	Yes	No (it will become relevant since Porter Kirkwood will also be appointed an Acting Supreme Court judge presiding over jury cases)
Problems with temperament	None, very fair to litigants, even-tempered in the courtroom	Yes, Kirkwood is very vindictive
Problems with ex parte communications	None	All the time with Becker
Problems with shady deals with public funds	None	Millions of dollars approved by Kirkwood without public bidding
Evidence of case-fixing as a judge	None	All the time with Becker, his former boss and colleague

We have enough corruption in the government.

We had a corrupt judge since 2002, and we are lucky he disappeared from the bench.

People of Delaware County should not replace an elderly monster with a younger one.

Vote for Gary Rosa.

Say "no" to Porter Kirkwood, the new candidate for case-fixing in Delaware County Family Court after the previous case-fixer Becker ran off the bench

Imagine Family Court proceedings where a judge is impartial.

Imagine Family Court proceedings brought by social services where the presiding judge and fact-finder does not have out of court knowledge about every single person in the courtroom, witnesses, attorneys and parties, through his prior representation of social services.

Imagine Family Court where the presiding judge does not consistently rule in favor of his former client of a lifetime, the Department of Social Services.

That court will be Judge Gary Rosa's court.

And that is exactly the reason why Porter Kirkwood is running for judgeship - that is, apart from the salary increase and power grabbing, of course.

Delaware County Social Services has lost an case-fixing judge when Becker announced his early retirement in May of 2015 and ran from the bench in July of 2015, just 2.5 years into his new term that he fought tooth and claw to win and years before his mandatory retirement age.

Delaware County Social Services could not tolerate NOT having a case-fixing judge.

That department is too used having a case-fixing judge since 2002 when its own attorney of 27 years, Becker, took the bench.

So, now they want to put Kirkwood instead of Becker on the throne.

And they are using the voters as a vehicle to promote that corrupt purpose.

Do not buy into Kirkwood's fraudulent claims that he has "served" the county for 20 years.

He only served himself and his department and split numerous local families for no reason other than social services' need to justify its ballooning budget, and the budget of the associated non-profits preying upon Delaware County taxpayers.

Say no to the new case-fixing judge.

Vote for Gary Rosa on November 3, 2015.

Porter Kirkwood - a soft spoken corruptioner

Porter Kirkwood launched a new YouTube ad in his election campaign for the judicial office.

In that ad, he continues to claim that he handled 3,000 Family Court case - an unprovable fact.

He continues to claim that Family law in New York is such a difficult topic that his handling 3000 cases (allegedly, again, it is not provable because social services cases are sealed) makes him uniquely qualified for the job.

Porter Kirkwood is soft spoken and tries to create an impression of an intelligent and nice fellow.

He is neither nor.

Please, remember that Porter Kirkwood is the one who approved in 2013-2014 alone $129 million worth of no-bid contracts - and Delaware County is hiding identity of people who got those contract.  Such conduct is ILLEGAL.  Moreover, it may be CRIMINAL.  We do not need a judge on the bench who can be dragged away in shackles at any time, and $129 million in no-bid contracts is too big an amount to simply let it go without any investigation, so there WILL be an investigation, whether Porter Kirkwood wants it or not, by authorities or by citizens and the public.

Please, remember that the very first thing that Porter Kirkwood asked when he became County Attorney was a raise for himself - a $40,000 dollar raise from a $93,000 salary.

Please, remember that while being Assistant County Attorney, Porter Kirkwood, during County time, had on the side a private practice where he represented clients sued for elder abuse and wrongful death, issues which were in direct conflict with Porter Kirkwood's duties as an attorney.

Please, remember that, as County Attorney, Porter Kirkwood approved a financial arrangement where the new prosecutor in the Delaware County District Attorney's office will be financed out of conviction fines, which is a DIRECT and IRRECONCILABLE conflict of interest with the prosecutor's constitutional duty to be fair, and a financial incentive to seek convictions no matter whether they are false or not, simply to be paid and to have medical benefits of the prosecutor and his or her family covered.

Please, remember that under Porter Kirkwood as a County Attorney and as an Assistant County Attorney, Delaware County did not and still does not have an ethics code for its employees, and its employees were caught by the media in unethical behavior - both in shady employment of social services investigators through the District Attorney's office without having passed a civil service exam, see here and here, and in where its social worker and Commissioner preyed on the elderly instead of helping them - and it is an insult to anybody's intelligence to say that Porter Kirkwood was blissfully unaware of what was going on.

Please, remember that under Porter Kirkwood as a County Attorney and Assistant County Attorney, Delaware County did not and still does not have an anti-nepotism policy prohibiting employment of relatives in positions where conflicts of interest may arise.

Delaware County Department of Social Services always employed clusters of family members, and Porter Kirkwood's most ardent supporter, Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields, has a whole bunch of family members working in Delaware County DSS as social workers and investigators, with Kirkwood's approval.  No wonder Shields is supporting Kirkwood - because Kirkwood will continue Becker's tradition in case-fixing for his own client the Department of Social Services.  

Please, remember that the bulk of the illustrious alleged 3,000 cases that Porter Kirkwood is so proud of handling were FIXED cases because they were irreversibly tainted by having attorney for that same department of social services, attorney representing that same department for 27 years, preside over that department's cases as a judge (that is the retired judge Carl Becker).  In Family Court there are no jury trials.  All fact-finding decisions, including decisions on credibility are made by the judge.

When the judge is your own former attorney of 27 years, guess whose side will that judge take?

Judge Becker was notorious in inventing law in favor of social services and the police.

In one of the cases, Judge Becker invented a "mandatory reporter exception to hearsay" and claimed that a police officer has inherent credibility just because she is a police officer.  That is BIAS, ladies and gentlemen, but that is how Becker - Kirkwood's "mentor" and supporter - operated.  And, there is, of course, no such rule of law, but Becker relied on the fact that not many people appeal, usually people who are pursued by social services are poor, representation by assigned counsel in the trial court and on appeal is poor, on appeal counsel has a monetary cap that guarantees that appellate counsel for the poor does not work too much, because otherwise he or she will not be paid for his or her work, appellate courts are lazy and rubber-stamp nearly every factual finding of the lower court.

So, when Kirkwood talks about "keeping children safe" and "keeping families safe", he is LYING.

He SPLIT families in order to have his department funded, in order to obtain state and federal incentive money for adoption out of foster care, in order to grab children into foster care and have his department use the children's Social Security Disability monies.  It is ALL about money.  And you WILL NOT be able to verify anything that Kirkwood claims he was doing  because everything about social services is secret.

Also, Porter Kirkwood knows so much about, probably, every single person in the county, through secret investigation of his department, that you will never know what are the true reasons of his factual findings - the record in front of him, or secret investigations he was privy to.

Last, but, certainly, not least, is the fact that Porter Kirkwood was seen engaging in conversations with Becker when Becker was a judge and was presiding over Porter Kirkwood's cases, behind the courthouse.

It was blatant ex parte communication.

We will never know how many of those ex parte communications were conducted over the phone.

In 2011, Porter Kirkwood's then-boss, County Attorney Richard Spinney let out a secret - that he actually came to Becker's chambers or called Becker to discuss a case.

Spinney blurted that out on record, there is a transcript about it.

Becker blanched, but did not recuse and instead retaliated against the attorney who asked for his recusal.

Remember that Becker and Spinney are Porter Kirkwood's mentors and have been for years.  And now Becker is Kirkwood's supporter - for an unknown reason, because Becker retired to spend time with his pregnant daughter who lives in Seattle and plans to go to Australia, so it is a mystery what kind of interest the retiree Becker still have in election of the new Delaware County Family Court judge.

Please, also remember that for Porter Kirkwood constitutional issues are frivolous issues.  He argued that more than once in Family Court and in federal courts in civil rights cases brought against his department of social services.

And constitutional issues abound in Family Court where families are split by Kirkwood and children are ripped out of families by Kirkwood to be given in adoption to waiting Delaware County officials who grab both children and federal and state incentive money that accompany adoptions.

This is the kind of ethics that the soft-spoken Porter Kirkwood is bringing with him to the bench.

We do not need more dirt on the bench than is already there.

We need, instead, to clean the bench, and Porter Kirkwood is not good material for that.

Members and founder of the New York State Commission for Attorney Discipline oppose the Commission's own recommendation in a civil lawsuit

This blog contains the texts of referenced pleadings and court orders available through links.

I wrote in this blog that the Final Report of the New York State Commission for Attorney Discipline borrowed reform ideas from the lawsuit that I filed on behalf of my husband in 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Neroni v Zayas, Case No. 3:13-cv-0127.

I also wrote that I filed a motion to vacate the two orders of dismissal, see orders here and here, in that case based, in part, on new law that emerged since the decisions and based on the Commission's Final Report that claimed Mr. Neroni's ideas from Neroni v Zayas as their ideas for reform of attorney discipline.

The founder of the Commission Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and members of the Commission Monica Duffy and Third Department Court/Chief Judge Karen Peters (who participated in the Commission through its deputy clerk and through Chief Judge's special counsel) are now fighting the motion.

They filed an opposition in court where they say the following:

How can it be "a motion for reargument" when it invokes Defendants' actions (as Commission founder and members) AFTER the dismissal occurred - Defendants do not explain.

Defendants Lippman, Duffy and Peters also fail to explain how can Mr. Neroni's motion be "without merit" where the motion to vacate and reinstate Mr. Neroni's claims is based on irrefutable documentary evidence which clearly matches arguments in Mr. Neroni "incoherent" complaint with IDENTICAL ideas offered as "reform recommendations" in the Commission members'/Neroni v Zayas defendants report to the Commission founder/Neroni v Zayas defendant Jonathan Lippman.

Of course, Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal was filed one day BEFORE the date of the Final Report and Recommendation that is one of the bases of the motion to vacate was issued, and thus, the appeal could not possibly touch upon the contents of the Final Report and Recommendation.

Moreover, all public hearings of the Commission were conducted after the final order of dismissal was issued.

Additionally, all public hearings of the Commission, transcripts of which are part of the motion to vacate, were conducted after the order of dismissal and may not be reached by the appellate court.

The State Defendants - or their attorney, New York State Attorney General, elected public official who was elected to SERVE THE PUBLIC - apparently, do not know where to stop and do not know how to simply NOT OPPOSE what is NOT OPPOSABLE, and how to simply APOLOGIZE.

In fact, if Mr. Neroni's lawsuit would go through, and if Mr. Neroni gets a declaratory judgment on the VERY SAME ISSUES that are raised in the Report and Recommendations, then the Commission's work will be actually CARRIED OUT BY MR. NERONI, faster than what Judge Lippman can do - through a federal court order.

So, while Monica Duffy's, Karen Peter's and Jonathan Lippman's claimed interests as the Commission's members and founder are aligned with Mr. Neroni's interests in Neroni v Zayas litigation, Duffy, Peters and Lippman continue to fight Mr. Neroni's claims (identical to their own in the Commission's Report) as "being without merit".

I do not know what can be more frivolous than this conduct.

I do not know what can be more fraudulent than:

1) claiming that somebody's ideas are "incoherent";
2) then plagiarizing those same ideas and presenting them as their own idea for "reform" benefiting the public;
3) and then fighting those same ideas in court when the author of those ideas wants to implement those ideas to make that same reform FASTER, through a declaratory judgment in a lawsuit.

I must stress that Duffy, Peters and Lippman ARE NOT sued for money damages.  All they are sued for is injunctive and declaratory relief, and declaratory relief for EXACTLY THE SAME ideas as they recommend in their Final Report and Recommendations - which, I must stress once again, will only be faster to do through the lawsuit.

All that Duffy, Peters and Lippman have to do to promote their own recommendations for reform (borrowed from Mr. Neroni and myself from the Neroni v Zayas lawsuit) is to simply AGREE to a declaratory judgment.  That is ALL.

Yet, Duffy, Peters and Lippman continue to waste public money on opposing in court the same ideas that they promote outside of court through the Commission.

Instead of APOLOGIZING to the plaintiff Mr. Neroni or to me for 

(1) having his meritorious civil rights claim dismissed;
(2) plagiarizing his (and my) ideas from the dismissed civil rights lawsuit and presenting them as their own in the Final Report and Recommendation,

Duffy, Peters and Lippman continue to bad-mouth Mr. Neroni for being a "disbarred attorney" - illegally disbarred without a hearing by themselves in violation of those same rules of procedural protection that they claim should be present in attorney disciplinary proceedings (in the Final Report), but which they fight and try to prevent introduction of through a declaratory judgment in Neroni v Zayas lawsuit.

Moreover, Duffy, Peters and Lippman ask the court to derail Mr. Neroni's (and their own) ideas for reform once again on the basis of ideas of "judicial economy" and on procedural grounds - because Mr. Neroni filed an appeal on October 1, 2015, hinting that the appeal was filed AFTER the report and recommendation of the Commission (September 24, 2015) and could discuss it.

Yet, Duffy, Peters and Lippman do not point out that the appeal was SENT on September 23, 2015 (of which they are fully aware, and the date of service is reflected in the appellate court record), one day BEFORE the Report and Recommendation was issued.

And, Duffy, Peters and Lippman do not point out to the lower court that they already fraudulently obtained an order of conditional dismissal of that same appeal that they invoke for the lower court as the basis of "divestment of jurisdiction" of the motion to vacate, by e-filing with the appellate court and knowingly serving Mr. Neroni, a pro se appellant, to the wrong address, an unsigned opposition against Mr. Neroni's request for an extended page limit, a request that was made exactly so that he could cover the work of the Commission, and ts transcripts (post-dating the order of dismissal) matching what was sought in the transcripts with what he was seeking in his lawsuit.  

In their unsigned fraudulent ex parte opposition to Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal, for which Mr. Neroni already filed a motion for sanctions against Duffy, Peters and Lippman - which fact they also did not feel obligated to reveal to the lower court - Duffy, Peters and Lippman asked the appellate court not to give Mr. Neroni an extension of page limits because his lawsuit (from which Duffy and Peters's personnel, members of the Commission, plagiarized Mr. Neroni's and my own ideas) was allegedly "incoherent".  That Mr. Neroni was asking to extend the page limit to cover the new development in the law and the work of the Commission which was in addition to coverage of the contents of the Amended Complaint, was not even mentioned by Duffy, Peters and Lippman in their fraudulent ex parte opposition to the appellate court.

So, in the appellate court, the Commission members and founder - Neroni v Zayas defendants - fraudulently derailed additional page limit to cover their actions in the Commission where they supported and recommended the very same ideas that they fought and continue to fight in Neroni v Zayas.

And, in the lower court, the Commission members and founder - Neroni v Zayas defendants - refer to the appeal from the order of dismissal where the motion court could not possibly review activities of the Commission because those activities and the Final report occurred AFTER the order of dismissal, and refer to that appeal (that they already fraudulently derailed) as grounds to request the lower court to "exercise judicial economy" and to derail Mr. Neroni's lawsuit once again, even though Mr. Neroni is claiming in his lawsuit THE VERY SAME THINGS that the Commission members and founder - defendants in Neroni v Zayas lawsuit, all public servants, are heralding as their own recommendations for reform of the attorney disciplinary system in New York.

How fraudulent, especially given the flashy sub-headline of their own Report and Recommendation that Duffy, Peters and Lippman are fighting in federal court.

How predictable in New York public officials to engage in completely shameless and frivolous conduct - because they are never held accountable for it.

At the very least, the public has a right to know about fraudulent behavior of its public servants who are frivolously wasting public money on opposition of now their own ideas for reform, and on trying to slow the very same reform through a lawsuit while heralding the need for that same reform to the public through the Commission.

Blood donation as a sentencing substitute

We have the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

All punishment that may be meted in criminal offenses is described in statutes, and no other punishment may be imposed.

All judges are sworn to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution, including its 8th Amendment.

Yet, a judge in Alabama, Marvin Wiggins, ordered various offenders, from traffic tickets to criminal misdemeanors, to pay fines by donating blood - under the threat of jail time.

People complied.

It was wrong because such punishment, by an invasive procedure and donating of a part of your body in lieu of sentencing, is prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

It was wrong because it was a medical invasive procedure that was not beneficial to donors, that was used as punishment.

It was wrong because blood donations cannot be forced.

It was wrong because blood donations can be medically counter-indicated to a lot of people, and it was reported that at least one of the offenders who complied with the judge's order and donated blood fainted.

It was wrong because donated blood must be free of viruses, and not every donor is or should be accepted.

It was wrong because it was done in cooperation with a blood collection company who recently was slapped with a $4 million dollar judgment based on an HIV-contaminated blood transfusion, and there are certain risks for both the donor and the recipient of blood donation as to sterility and virus transmission.

I wonder whether the judge will be disciplined.  A disciplinary complaint was filed - but not by any attorneys who represented the offenders made to donate blood as punishment. 

In fact, an attorney who appears in that judge's court and was interviewed, was not forthcoming as to his opinion and indicated he does not really know whether the judge's actions were unethical, illegal or unconstitutional. 

Yet, if an attorney, a law expert, does not know - who does?

It is not only lack of accountability of judges that allow judges to act the way Judge Wiggins did, but the total cowardice of the legal profession that allows judicial misconduct to proceed - in various ways, across the country.

7th and 2nd Circuit now approved exceptions to prosecutorial immunity

I wrote recently in this blog about the recent decision (September 2015) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that carved out an exception to prosecutorial immunity in preparing false evidence for presentation to the grand jury in prosecutor's investigative capacity.

I recently found another, earlier, case from the 7th Circuit (of January 2014) where the court similarly made an exception to prosecutorial immunity when false evidence was prepared in the prosecutor's investigative capacity.

The 7th Circuit court rejected the prosecutor's claim that, notwithstanding that the false evidence was prepared during the investigative stage, the injury occurred during the trial when the false evidence was introduced and where the prosecutor was covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Such a claim is obviously completely immoral - not that the prosecutor advancing it cared a bit about immorality or dishonesty rather than his liability.

The court very logically reasoned that, for example, in products liability case, the injury may occur when a pipe bursts, but the future injury is put into motion when the defect is created.

So far, 2nd and 7th Circuit started to chip away at prosecutorial immunity, even though by small pieces.

I wonder when it will occur to federal courts (where majority of judges are former prosecutors who, of course, feel for the fate of their brethren appearing in front of them as defendants in civil rights actions, see for example, my previous blog post) that the concept of absolute prosecutorial immunity is not only immoral, but has nothing to do with Civil Rights Act or the U.S. Constitution that is enforced by private actors - victims of prosecutorial misconduct - through the Civil Rights Act.

The not-so-sharp Gary Sharpe is replaced in his position of Chief Judge of Northern District of New York - by yet another former prosecutor Glenn Suddaby

Since 2000 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York was led exclusively by former prosecutors.

First it was former prosecutor and former Onondaga County assistant District Attorney Judge Scullin who served as Chief Judge 2000 to 2006.

Then it was former prosecutor and former Onondaga County district attorney Judge Mordue who served as Chief Judge from 2006 to 2011.

Then it was not-so-sharp Judge Sharpe who punishes people for correct reading of the 11th Amendment.  Judge Sharpe served as Chief Judge of NDNY from 2011 to, as far as I understand, end of August of 2015 when Judge Suddaby was appointed in his place. 

Before becoming a federal judge, Judge Sharpe toiled as a prosecutor in the New York State Attorney General's office, and then in the U.S. Attorney's office, and left a son as his successor for each of his former employers, who continued to appear in front of Judge Sharpe after employing his sons.

Now it is a career prosecutor and former Onondaga County assistant district attorney Judge Suddaby who replaced Judge Sharpe as Chief Judge in NDNY.

By the way, the current Chief Magistrate that regularly pairs up with Suddaby, Sharpe, Mordue and Scullin while presiding over civil rights cases - and regularly tosses them on court-contrived grounds that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or the Civil Rights Act - is David Peebles, yet another former assistant district attorney from Onondaga County.

As we see, former prosecutors led the NDNY court for the past 15 years, and former prosecutors from Onondaga County District Attorney's office have led the court for 11 out of those 15 years, including now.

That is, while the law school roommate and buddy of the current Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick Judge James Tormey, and Fitzpatrick himself are being sued in the same court where so many judges, including the Chief Judge are Fitzpatrick's former colleagues in the Onondaga County District Attorney's office and might very well know him personally.

The court, as far as I could see in the docket of that lawsuit, never attempted disclosure or transfer of the case to another court due to the HUGE appearance of impropriety.

Well, at least appointment of Judge Suddaby removed the embarrassment of having a Chief judge of a federal court who cannot read the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn to protect - and who presides over and rules for cases where his sons' two employers (U.S. Attorney and New York State Attorney General) are appearing.

Yet, Suddaby, as a career prosecutor, has a prosecutorial mentality which, coupled with absolute prosecutorial immunity that Suddaby "enjoyed" for his entire legal career could not but breed a special kind of arrogance and disdain to the rule of law and a sense of entitlement.

The entitlement that allows Suddaby to regularly preside, without disclosure, over cases where his former employer the Onondaga County is sued (according to my review of cases on Pacer.gov) and ruling for that former employer.

When prosecutors become judges reviewing civil rights cases, you know civil rights will be screwed, and they are.