U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York defies a direct court order - as a party litigant

In the fall of 2014, the then-Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Gary L. Sharpe, brought a "civil rights action" against my husband Frederick J. Neroni, sua sponte, on his own initiative.

Note that the case is positioned as a "civil rights - other". Meaning that the defendant (here - Mr. Neroni) must be a state actor.  Judge Sharpe just sanctioned Mr. Neroni for suing a person who Judge Sharpe did not consider a state actor.  So, for Mr. Neroni to sue a non-state actor in a civil rights action is a sanctionable offense.  For Gary Sharpe - the same thing is an exercise of power.  Not supported by any law, as the order that follows, shows, just a sheer exercise of force.

A civil rights action presupposes that the suing party, the plaintiff, must have an injury, and the defendant must be a "state actor" that perpetrated a constitutional violation against the plaintiff.

There was no declared plaintiff (as of October 16, 2015, the 2nd Circuit recognized the court to be the respondent, as the initiating party of the litigation, see the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit below), but the case was brought against Mr. Neroni BY THE COURT, by its Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe.

Gary Sharpe sought to impose an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni for filing 5 civil rights actions in the court, while two of those actions were still pending at the time the anti-filing "civil rights action" was filed by Gary Sharpe against my husband, and referred to sanctions in two actions against judges or their relatives (Neroni v Becker, Neroni v Coccoma) that were imposed exclusively by Gary Sharpe for correct reading of the law and the U.S. Constitution and despite my husband's motion to recuse Gary Sharpe due to conflicts of interest involved.

Despite my husband's cross-motion to dismiss and recuse the illegal sua sponte action, and a request for an evidentiary hearing, despite my husband's pointing out that there are two still pending COUNSELED actions, pending before other judges than Gary Sharpe, where neither the judges nor the counsel were notified about the related anti-filing civil rights lawsuit, as required by law - Gary Sharpe plowed right through, denied the evidentiary hearing, denied the motion to recuse and imposed his anti-filing injunction and blocked my husband's access to court unless he discloses to the court things that nobody has to disclose as a pre-condition of filing a civil rights action for a constitutional violation.

The injunction imposed by Sharpe on November 26, a month after filing the sua sponte action, without a due process pre-deprivation evidentiary hearing required by law, mentions for the first time the legal basis for the injunction - 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), while that legal basis was not included as a notice to Mr. Neroni in the initial sua sponte "civil rights lawsuit" (see above), and thus, an action without a legal basis and a proper notice, was legally void.

Yet, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) is not listed as the basis for the lawsuit in the docket sheet (above).

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides as follows:

(a)

The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

The sua sponte action was not formulated as a sua sponte petition for a writ, did not give notice it was based on 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), was misleading as claiming it was a "civil rights action" in the Docket, did not contain a docket sheet, as required by law for all filings in the NDNY court, did not list all related actions, and did not notify judges and attorneys in the related actions.

Apparently, the Chief Judge allowed himself to violate every rule in the book to exact vengeance upon Mr. Neroni - which was not "agreeable to the usages and principles of law".  Not at all.

Here is my husband's Affirmation in opposition to the injunction.

But, here is the injunction blocking my husband's access to court guaranteed to him under the 1st Amendment, Petitions Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, to complain about present and future constitutional violations.  All of them.

So, Gary Sharpe put a bull's eye on my husband and made him a target of governmental misconduct, because Mr. Neroni was stripped of any possibility of seeking a legal remedy against governmental violators.

My husband appealed.

He appealed a long time ago.  Usually, civil rights appeals are put on a fast track.  This one wasn't.  The appeal was filed in 2014.  We are at the end of 2015.

My husband just received in the mail a court order ordering the Chief Judge of the U.S. Attorney's office, on behalf of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to file a responding brief in the case by October 30, 2015.

Here it is.

Today is November 1, 2015. 

My husband, as always, was not allowed to file electronically and does not receive electronic notifications of filings in his case.

Thus, I went and checked whether the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and its representative, the U.S. Attorney's Office, complied with the court order of the 2nd Circuit and filed a responding brief by October 30, 2015.

They didn't.

Instead, they filed a "letter" indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office is "seeking guidance" from the U.S. Justice Department whether they have authority to represent the Chief Judge - who is no longer Gary Sharpe, Sharpe was demoted, now the Chief Judge is Glenn Suddaby.

So, the NDNY court, through their attorneys the U.S. Attorney's office, tell the 2nd Circuit court (appellate Court): "we will continue our efforts to obtain guidance" - while defying the court order! And, NDNY and their attorneys expect the 2nd Circuit to swallow it while any other litigant or attorney sending a letter like that will be sanctioned.

Well, they should have thought whether they are putting themselves in a position of a party in litigation and who is going to represent them on appeal when Sharpe FILED his "sua sponte" "civil rights action" against my husband in October of 2014, A YEAR AGO.

Obviously, the thinking process of Gary Sharpe did not spread out farther than to exact revenge upon Mr. Neroni for bringing out the fact Gary Sharpe's conflicts of interest.

Sharpe's not-so-sharp thinking process may also be blurred by drinking.  Anyway, the only time I saw Gary Sharpe in court (and he sat far away up from me up on top, so I could not smell his breath), his face, eyes and mannerisms clearly suggested that he imbibed, and that's - during an official court proceeding.

By the way, Gary Sharpe's one son, Michael Aaron Sharpe, is employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, and another - Robert Sharpe - in the U.S. Attorney's Office.  

The very office that was ordered by the 2nd Circuit to represent Sharpe's court in an appeal of Sharpe-created mess.

See, now, by court order, the U.S. Attorney's Office in NDNY/Robert Sharpe/Gary Sharpe's son is required to deal with Gary Sharpe's mess.  And the new boss of Gary Sharpe Glenn Suddaby, as well as the U.S. Attorney's office balked at that and defaulted.

Time for retirement or impeachment for Gary Sharpe - finally?

And now they defaulted and defied a direct court order of the 2nd Circuit.

I wonder if now the U.S. District Court for the NDNY which clearly defied a court order and filing deadline, will be held to their default - and contempt of court.

Had any of civil rights appellants, instead of complying with the briefing deadlines, filed not a motion to extend, following the required Form 1080 that was never filed by the NDNY court, but a "letter" "notifying" the court that, instead of complying with a court order, the responding court and its counsel are "seeking guidance" from somebody else - they would be held in contempt and sanctioned, and their pleadings will be barred.

I also wrote on this blog about dismissals of pro se indigent (poor person's) civil rights cases by NDNY court - at a lightning speed, without any opportunity for them to "seek guidance" of counsel, even when they are begging that same U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to assign counsel to them or give them time to consult a counsel.

Obviously, NDNY court, consisting of legal experts that SET the law through precedents, does not want to apply to itself the standard it applies to other people - even to people with no legal background, poor and hardly literate.

The 2nd Circuit has a history of not giving any chances to civil rights plaintiffs, of being unforgiving to civil rights plaintiffs, of declaring "defective filings" of the civil rights plaintiffs wherever they file any "letters" meant as motions to extend time, without the required Form 1080 motion forms. 

Recently, the 2nd Circuit refused to file into Pacer Mr. Neroni's appeal claiming it is "defective" because it exceeded the page limit.

It also refused to file Mr. Neroni's appeals previously because of an alleged lack of a comma (literally!) on the front page of appellant's brief.

Here, a letter meant as a motion is filed by a court-as-a-party, without the required motion form, clearly constituting a defective filing - and no "defective filing notice" is issued by the court.

So, the favoritism towards the court-as-a-party already started.

We'll see what next the 2nd Circuit will devise to protect the ass of Gary Sharpe - who was, until he was booted from his position as Chief Judge, was sitting on the "Judicial Conduct" Committee of the 2nd Circuit - at the very time when he was committing rampant misconduct.  

I will report here the development in this case.

Stay tuned.

Oneonta, NY, a town with a history of racial profiling, to commemorate the memory of its recently deceased racist mayor Dick Miller - with a garden. How sweet.

Recently, plans of the City of Oneonta, New York, were announced to commemorate the memory of the recently deceased mayor of the City of Oneonta Richard Miller - with a garden in his memory, the "Miller garden", to preserve and further Miller's "legacy".

There is one glitch in those sweet commemorating plans.  Part of Miller's "legacy" is that of a racist.

A year before his reported suicide in October of 2014, Richard Miller was sued for racial discrimination by a black individual who claimed that Richard Miller, as Director of the Board of a local theater that announced renting out its spaces, refused to rent a space to his studio entertaining minorities and specifically told him that Miller does not want "the likes of him" to be given rentals, and that the "likes of him" should actually leave the city.

"The likes" was black, and there was no reason to deny him the rental of the spaces.  The civil rights plaintiff against Richard Miller had no criminal record.   Of course, the local police attempted to create such a criminal record for him.

The local police first arrested him in the middle of the night because he did not put on a turn-signal on an empty street in a lane with an arrow clearly showing that he is intending to turn.

Then the police beat him, pepper-sprayed him and tasered him.

Then the police charged him with resisting arrest.

That was not enough - when the charges were reduced to a plea of "making unreasonable noise", the police charged him with felony drug possession, put him in jail, and then the team of Otsego County judge John Lambert and Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, acting together, attempted to drain his financial resources for the trial (Lambert, ordering numerous unnecessary "pretrial conferences", see how he does it in my previous blog) and to intimidate him that, if he proceeds to trial on THIS indictment, Muehl will RE-indict him for higher counts.

When the courageous individual persisted in proceeding to trial, Muehl finally coughed up a confession that he does not have a witness for the prosecution, that their alleged witness disappeared somewhere in Florida and was not to be recovered for trial.

Yet, Muehl continued to bluff that he had a witness - up until the trial date approached, and continued to intimidate the black individual who was the target of campaign orchestrated by Richard Miller to "get the likes of him out of town" - because he provided entertainment to minorities constituting just 4% of the City of Oneonta's population, but constituting over 60% of criminal defendants in Oneonta City Court, charged by the city's all-white police force.

After the felony counts were dismissed for failure of prosecution to provide a witness (if prosecution ever had a witness, or instead just tried to intimidate the victim of racial discrimination to plead guilty to a felony - against no prior criminal record - in order to get a basis to further discriminate against him) - he sued.

The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, was named Baron v Miller, 3:13-cv-153. 

The City of Oneonta is notorious for racial profiling, and commemorating a garden in the memory of a racist is a slap in the face of the unlawfully profiled, discriminated and prosecuted minorities in the City of Oneonta.

Some years ago, a racial profiling sweep by the Oneonta police was upheld by a federal court because the racial factors were allegedly not the only factors in the sweep.

The sweep was triggered by a complaint of an elderly woman who was burglarized and who vaguely remembered the attacker as a "young black MAN".

That characterization was enough for the sweep of the whole city and of the SUNY campus, arrest of a black professor walking down the street, arrest of many young people including a young black WOMAN - and constitutionality of all of that was upheld by our glorious federal courts.

Yet, there were vigorous dissents in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Brown v Oneonta, including one joined by the current U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor, see comments about the dissent legal blogs.

There was also a petition by the New York Civil Liberties Union for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, available here.

The Brown v Oneonta case was not the only case that caught public attention involving racial profiling in the City of Oneonta.

Some time in the early 2000, I report the case from memory, several young black people were charged by Oneonta City police for defending themselves against assault by several white students in the Oneonta Parking garage.  A white student suffered brain damage.  No white students were charged, only the black young people who were defending themselves.  The first indictment was tossed because the identifying information about the alleged perpetrators of crimes were "young black people in baseball caps".  Later on, one of the initially indicted black individuals was not re-indicted, one pled guilty on ill advice of his attorney, and the others were acquitted at trial.

Then, there was the felony drug case, tossed because allegedly the prosecution's witness was nowhere to be found - after Judge Lambert denied access to the initial reports that the black individual was entitled to, attempted to drain his resources by dragging him to multiple unnecessary conferences off record where he was not allowed to appear, and after the courageous individual did not succumb to intimidations of John Muehl to indict him "higher" if he proceeds to trial.

There were also recent, May 2015, anti-racial profiling demonstrations in Oneonta, NY, you can see a video report about it here.  

With THIS history of racial unrest and tension in the city, to dedicate a GARDEN to a racist who has reportedly killed himself recently (shortly after being sued for racial discrimination)?

A very bad idea.

Porter Kirkwood vs Gary Rosa - main problematic positions of candidates as expressed at the meeting with voters in October of 2015 in Sidney

I watched and listened through the one-and-a-half hour video of the meeting of judicial candidates Gary Rosa and Porter Kirkwoods with voters in October 2015.

The main problems that spring up (my personal opinion, of course) come from answers of candidates to two questions of the moderator

1) if and when it is appropriate to terminate parental rights;

2) if and when it is appropriate to put parents in jail for non-payment of child support,

and based on statements of Porter Kirkwood

3) about his devotion to work to protect "families and children", 

4) his alleged encouragement by Porter Kirkwood to his supporters not to succumb to the alleged, but not specified "negativity" in the current judicial election campaign and the alleged "high road" of his campaign;

5) about Kirkwood's alleged love for appellate practice (while Rosa professed no experience in appellate practice);

6) and, the most horrible of all, a boastful revelation of Porter Kirkwood about a program of unlawful psychological experimentation on foster care children at taxpayers' expense.  What Kirkwood parades as his advantage over Gary Rosa, is in fact, attorney misconduct warranting disbarment - where Porter Kirkwood first prosecuted as juvenile sex offenders, and then Porter Kirkwood, as advisor to the Delaware County DSS, the children's legal guardian, gave consent to experimental "treatment" (torture and sexual abuse) of those foster care children by a notorious, indiscriminate and greedy snake-oil peddler, the now-deceased psychologist "Dr." Hamill who was NOT a medical doctor and whose methods were NOT scientifically proven, at a cost to taxpayers of over $52,000 per foster child per year.

I already posted yesterday a blog about Kirkwood's appellate experience, which makes his claims that he took the job with the County because of his love of appellate practice a joke.

The rest of the five topics I outlined here require consideration in separate blogs, which I am going to do shortly.

Stay tuned.

Judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood abuses his power as the Delaware County Attorney in order to get elected and stalls disclosure of his potential undisclosed unethical interest in Delaware County contracts

Porter Kirkwood has been chest-pounding throughout his judicial election campaign about his alleged honesty, integrity, stellar reputation and qualification for Family Court judgeship and "taking the high road" as to the alleged "claims of negativity".

Yet, Delaware County, advised by Kirkwood as a legal advisor, stalled disclosure of contracts that were subject to New York State Comptroller's office, in answer to my Freedom of Information Request.

And here is the likely reason, why - Porter Kirkwood may have been involved in an undisclosed interest in those contracts.

Here are some pieces from the New York State Comptroller's audit report of May 2015 on Delaware County.

Once again.

The New York State Comptroller's Office made inquiries about possible interests in contracts pursuant to General Municipal Law of 24 individuals, including 19 members of the Board of Supervisors, four Department heads and the County Attorney (that is our judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood).

Apparently, since the Delaware County stalls disclosure about the contracts, I will have to file a FOIL request with the New York State Comptroller's office about the contracts covered by audit, vendor names, inquiries into the "possible interests in contracts" of "24 individuals", including a County Attorney.

The NYS Comptroller's audit report indicates that "one individual", without stating his name, out of 24 individuals that included the County Attorney Porter Kirkwood, did not comply with disclosure requirements of the individual's "potential interest in contracts".

Whether that individual was Porter Kirkwood or not, was not announced.

Porter Kirkwood would have an affirmative duty to come forward to the public and, during his judicial campaign, clearly state that he WAS NOT the individual mentioned in the NYS Comptroller's report who had an interest in the County contracts, but did not comply with disclosure requirements.

He did not make such a disclosure.

Instead, throughout his election campaign, he repeatedly stated that he had nothing to do with the no-bidding contracts - despite the report about the NYS Comptroller's inquiry about HIS "possible interest in contracts".

And now the County still does not have a procurement policy (according to the County's disclosure in answer to my FOIL request) - as was recommended by the NYS Comptroller in its "key recommendations":

The County reportedly "opted" not to have a Board of Ethics that the County announced in its own earlier resolution it will have.

And, the County, instead of committing ethical questions to a Board of Ethics, a public body whose meetings and decisions would be subject to public meetings law, "opted" to entrust the henhouse to the fox, to the behind-the-doors decision-making of the target of the NYS Comptroller's inquiry into unethical conduct - County Attorney Porter Kirkwood.

There is NOTHING ethical about this "ethical policy".

Porter Kirkwood's name cannot possibly be cleared after the audit report.

It is a violation of disciplinary rules for an attorney to have ANY interest in his client's dealings without a written disclosure of conflict of interest and a written waiver of that conflict of interest.

Porter Kirkwood's client is Delaware County, a public body supported by our, the taxpayers', money.

Porter Kirkwood owes us the taxpayers and voters an explanation he never gave during his judicial campaign - as to his own self-dealing in the County contracts, and as to covering up self-dealing of county officers and employees.

Instead, Porter Kirkwood claimed "taking the high road", not engaging in "negativity" and denouncing "attacks" on him during his judicial campaign.

While all the time he was stalling disclosure of public records that could provide the voters much needed - and potentially damaging - truth about the true face of Porter Kirkwood The Smiler.

I, of course, will get to the bottom of the names and numbers, through FOIL requests filed in various public agencies.  

It will take time, but I will do it.  I owe it to my family who pays the taxes.  I owe it to my neighbors and friends who pay the taxes in Delaware County and do not have my knowledge and skills to pursue FOIL requests - an act presumed to be done in public interests (as courts ruled), and an act for which, nevertheless, I was repeatedly sanctioned and persecuted by the targets of the FOIL inquiries.  People are afraid nowadays to even file a FOIL requests. Even more reason for me to do that, as my public service to my neighbors and friends in Delaware County.

Yet, while I am making my ways through the stallings of government agencies with FOIL requests, Porter Kirkwood may become an elected judge, elected through his fraud and non-disclosure to the voters of his misdeeds, as well as through his efforts to hide his misdeeds by abusing his power as the County Attorney and advisor to the Records Officer of the County and to deny release of records to me pursuant to FOIL requests.

Yet, there are precedents in the State of New York where a judge was taken off the bench based on something he did long before he became a judge - or even a lawyer.

Nor does judgeship protect Porter Kirkwood from criminal liability, if such liability is warranted based on public records that he is concealing from exposure to the public.

So, Porter Kirkwood should rest assured that, even if he gets elected as a judge, and if his "possible" misdeeds with contracts, which are PUBLIC RECORDS, and MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW,  are revealed when he is already a judge, there are plenty of legal avenues to address it and make sure he is no longer a judge.

Yet, there is enough impropriety in Kirkwood abusing his power, stalling public access to potentially damaging information, and now appointing himself THE person to address ethical questions in Delaware County instead of a public body subject to public meetings law - to simply NOT elevate Kirkwood into an even higher position of power.

His ethics on that high bench will not get miraculously better.

Absolute judicial immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts is what he craves - not service to the people.  And corrupt acts will follow.

Now, let's count unethical acts Porter Kirkwood have so far been caught in:

1. Representing private clients on taxpayer-backed time as a private attorney, during his employment for the County;
2. Representing Social Services supervisor Peter Bracci sued for elder abuse and wrongful death of his father by his own sister (not a job for the County Attorney), which was in direct contradiction with Porter Kirkwood's duty to prosecute elder abusers;
3. Failure to submit his own son's assault on another child on school grounds to a special juvenile delinquency investigator and prosecutor, and instead malicious prosecution of his son's victim's parents and (failed) vigorous efforts at two court levels to label his son's victim as mentally ill, to discredit the victim as a witness against his son;
4. Ex parte communications with his friend, former boss and presiding judge Becker during pendency of cases before Becker leading to "winning" the cases before Becker;
5. Interest in County contracts that was subject of NYS Comptroller's inquiry in May of 2015, and stalling disclosure of such contracts during his election campaign;
6. Disclosure at the meeting with voters that Kirkwood participated in masterminding a program of psychological experiments on juvenile delinquents in foster care - where Kirkwood was, at the same time, an advisor of the County as legal guardian of the children, and the prosecutor of those same children, an IRRECONCILABLE conflict of interest that warrants DISBARMENT of Porter Kirkwood, not his elevation as a judge;
7. False claims of superior appellate knowledge;
8. Claims of allegedly handling "3000 cases" in Delaware County Family Court that Family Court refused to allow to verify, and, thus, truth or falsity of such claims cannot be established;
9. Endorsing claims of other people who repeat his claim of "3000 cases" in Family Court, while, same as everybody else, are blocked from verifying truth or falsity of such statements, and thus, are made in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of such statements.

Voters, when you go to the booths on November 3, 2015, please, think if you need Porter Kirkwood who is a good candidate for disbarment AT THE VERY LEAST, as your Family Court judge who will also be appointed the local Acting Supreme Court justice and, as such, will decide ALL aspects of your life for the next 10 years, with absolute immunity for his MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts - which acts, judging from his past record, we as taxpayers and voters may be assured, will come.

Carl Mugglin's support of Porter Kirkwood as one of the best attorneys Mugglin knows - a fake

Porter Kirkwood is proud of support he is given by the retired Judge Carl Mugglin who allegedly claimed in Kirkwood's campaign flyers that Porter Kirkwood is allegedly the best attorney Carl Mugglin knows.

Well,  Carl Mugglin's judgment is questionable to begin with, given his sorry record of will-drafting (see Matter of Arthur Kilmer's Estate in Delaware County Surrogate's Court, Kilmer v Moseman in Delaware County Supreme Court where courts and attorneys were battling as to interpretation of the will Carl Mugglin drafted as an attorney); claims that criminal trials and deposition under the threat of criminal prosecution can be held in churches; and that female attorneys dig holes for their female clients if they engage in intellectual efforts.

So, this misogynistic bully who had earlier endorsed Carl Becker as an honest and good judge - which is laughable to all litigants not connected to Carl Becker through family, friends or ties to the County and who has ever crossed his middleschool-bully temper.

Yet, the misogynistic bully Carl Mugglin actually lied to the voters when he claimed that Porter Kirkwood is one of the greatest attorneys he knows.  Here is why.

I analyzed Porter Kirkwood's appellate record, available at the website of the NYS Appellate Division Third Judicial Department.

Here are the results.  I made it initially in a table format, but the table did not fit into the blogger platform.


1/ 26-Dec-02 Matter of Nora M. and others Delaware County Family Court Judge Estes Child neglect petition Delaware County DSS appeal dismissed as moot Mugglin was part of appellate panel Neither won nor lost

2/ 8-May-03 Matter of Jordan E., Juvenile delinquent Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Juvenile delinquency Delaware County Modified on Kirkwood's cross-appeal Mugglin did not participate Won

3/ 12-May-05 Matter of Edward S. v Kelly S. and 2 other proceedings Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Dismissal of petition for modification of custody and visitation based on change of circumstances Client - Delaware County DSS Reversed on the law, petitions reinstated, matter remanded to Family Court Mugglin did not participate won in front of Becker, lost on appeal

4/ 9-Jun-05 Matter of Jessica GG, PINS v Tim Card, juvenile probation officer, Delaware County Delaware County Family court Carl Becker Violation of probation petition for a person in need of supervision (minor) Client - Delaware County probation Department, DSS Reversed, on the law, remanded - the minor was not advised by Becker of her right to remain silent Mugglin participated lost

5/ 7-Jul-05 Matter of Matthew WW. V. John A. Johnson Delaware County Supreme Court, transferred Article 78 proceeding 3rd Department Denial of annulment of an indicated report of child maltreatment Client - William Moon, Delaware County DSS Petition granted, indicated report annulled on insufficient evidence Mugglin did not participate lost

6/ 9-Mar-06 Timothy R. Moon v. Cortland Memorial Hospital Corland County Supreme Court Judge Philip Rumsey The lower court granted summary judgment to the hospital Timothy R. Moon, DSS Commissioner's relative Affirmed, with costs Mugglin did not participate Lost

7/ 22-Feb-07 Jesse L., juvenile delinquent Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Juvenile delinquency Delaware County Affirmed - Mugglin did not participate - won

8/ 29-Nov-07 Matter of Brooke II, alleged to be juvenile delinquent Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Juvenile delinquency Delaware County Modified  Mugglin did not participate won

9/ 1-Apr-10 Matter of Richard S., Michael S. Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Child neglect, having access to own children in violation of order of probation applicable to sex offenders for a non-sex offender Delaware County DSS Affirmed  Mugglin did participate Won

10/ 2-Jun-11 Matter of Skyler R. Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Child abuse proceeding Delaware County DSS appeal dismissed as moot Mugglin did not participate Won before Becker; neither won nor lost on appeal

11/ 2-Jun-11 Matter of Nicole K., permanently neglected child Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Termination of parental rights Delaware County DSS Affirmed Mugglin did not participate won

12/ 14-Jul-11 Matter of Joseph RR. And others Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Child neglect proceeding Delaware County DSS Affirmed  Mugglin did not participate won

13/ 27-Oct-11 Matter of Kimberly Z. Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Child Neglect and abuse proceeding Delaware County DSS affirmed Mugglin did not participate Won

14/ 8-Dec-11 Matter of Riley SS. Delaware County Family Court Carl Becker Child Neglect proceeding Delaware County DSS appeal dismissed as moot Mugglin did not participate Won before Becker; neither won nor lost

15/ 1-Mar-12 Matter of Alexander G. Delaware County Family Court Rita Connerton Dismissal of child neglect petition Delaware County DSS Dismissal affirmed Mugglin did not participate Lost

16/ 13-Dec-12 Barbara O'Sullivan v Mary Bracci Hallock et al Delaware County Supreme Court Carl Becker Wrongful death, elder abuse, fraudulent waste of trust and estate assets Private defendants, including Supervisor of Social Services, sued in individual capacity by his sister Affirmed despite deafult by Kirkwood Mugglin did not participate Won before Becker and on appeal

17/ 17-Oct-13 Delaware County v Leatherstocking Healthcare LLC Delaware County Supreme Court John Lambert breach of contract case Delaware County partially affirmed, partially reversed Mugglin did not participate lost half and won half

Please, note that when Appellate Division affirmed Becker's determinations as a trial judge, it followed its rules of "deferring" to credibility determinations of the trial judge - even if such credibility determinations were based on the judge's representation of witnesses in front of him without the required disclosure of the conflict of interest.

When I raised such conflict of interest, I was immediately charged with child neglect myself, and had to fight frivolous charges - prosecuted by Kirkwood - for two years before they were dismissed.  At the very same time, Porter's son was not charged as a juvenile delinquent for assault on my son on school grounds, an interesting "coincidence".

In his 21 years of experience as an attorney and his claims at the meeting with voters in October of 2015 that he loves appellate work and chose the job in Delaware County because he loves appellate work, he only handled 17 appeal in his lifetime, 2 of them for private clients.  That is less than one appeal per year, a very scanty record for an attorney who claims expertise in appellate work.

Morever, out of those 17 appeals, Kirkwood:

·         Lost outright – 5 appeals, badly, on the law and on insufficient evidence - which spells out his own incompetence in putting a case together;

·         Appeals dismissed as mooted (not a win or loss) – 3 appeals;

·         Won – 8 appeals, all from Carl Becker’s decisions, which is no win at all, but rather evidence of case-fixing by a friend, former boss and the prior attorney for the Department of Social Services of 27 years who engaged in ex parte communications with Porter Kirkwood (I have witness accounts), and intimidated those who raised the issue of impropriety of Carl Becker presiding as a fact-finder over issues of credibility of his clients of 27 years, by sanctions and improper child neglect prosecutions.

·         Lost half and won half – 1 appeal, from Judge Lambert’s decision

As to judges who ruled in the trial court on cases that Porter Kirkwood appealed, it is clear that only local judges favored Kirkwood:

Court	Judge	Result
Delaware County Family Court	Estes	Won, appeal mooted
	Becker	Won
	Connerton	Lost
Delaware County Supreme Court	Lambert	Half won and half lost
	Becker	Won
Cortland County Supreme Court	Rumsey	Lost
Appellate Division 3rd Department (transferred Article 78)	Appellate panel	Lost

Kirkwood lost to Judge Connerton from Broome County, NY.

Kirkwood half-lost to Judge Lambert from Otsego County, NY.

Kirkwood lost to Judge Rumsey of Cortland County, NY.

Kirkwood lost to the trial panel of the 3rd Department on an Article 78 proceeding.

Yet, Kirkwood was always handed victories by Carl Becker, and he wants to continue this tradition by being elected to the position of a judge who will hear all of the cases of Delaware County Department of Social Services, his current client of 20 years where he hired, checked background, counseled, trained and very likely had social relationships with many social workers that are supposed to appear in front of him as a judge in Family Court - as it happened before Becker as a judge.

As to Mugglin, Mugglin ruled in only three appeals of Kirkwood's - one that was mooted, one that was lost on the law, in a PINS/violation of probation case where Becker violated the minor child's constitutional rights to favor Kirkwood, by failing to advise the child of her right to remain silent, and one where Mugglin engaged in judicial misconduct and failed to point out in his decision the subsection of the criminal statute that the father was convicted out - which was not a sex offense, and thus the father was not subject to sex offender related probation conditions or treatment requirement, thus making Mugglin's decision illegal.

So, based on this appellate history of Porter Kirkwood, Mugglin had absolutely no basis to claim that Kirkwood is a good attorney, or "one of the best attorneys" Mugglin knew.

There are also two suspicious private appeals, both undertaken by Kirkwood for people associated with social services, during his county-paid time.

One was for a relative of Commissioner Moon.

The other was for then-Supervisor of Social Services Peter Bracci sued by his sister for elder abuse, wrongful death of their father and for plundering their father's trust accounts and estate.  There, Becker assigned himself in the Supreme Court to the case and ruled for Kirkwood's client after reported ex parte discussions behind the courthouse, even though Kirkwood failed to raise the issue of standing in the answer on behalf of his clients (I reviewed the case).

Kirkwood's representation of a person sued for elder abuse and wrongful death of an elder was in stark conflict with his obligation as a County Attorney to prosecute elder abuse - no matter who was the perpetrator, even if the perpetrator was Peter Bracci, Supervisor of Social Services.  Yet, instead of prosecuting Peter Bracci on report of Barbara O'Sullivan, Porter Kirkwood instead accepted from him reportedly $17,000 to represent him on appeal alone, not counting how much money was paid to Kirkwood by Peter Bracci and other defendant for representation in the court below.

I believe, those $17,000 could just as well be deemed to be a financial incentive paid to Porter Kirkwood for non-prosecution of a public official for elder abuse.  

If Porter Kirkwood's honest services as a prosecutor could be bought, his services as a judge can be bought, too.

Kirkwood also represented the Bracci defendants during his taxpayer-paid County time, which he considers completely proper.  

Moreover, according to a witness, Kirkwood boasted at the meeting with voters in August 2015 that he has a private practice that generates $2,000 a month for him - obviously, on County time. 

That's what you are going to get if you vote for Porter Kirkwood - a judge who will engage in egregious conflicts of interest, will be fixing cases for his friends and former clients of a lifetime, engaging in ex parte communications and doing his private business on the job.

If you want such a judge - vote for Porter Kirkwood.