Election results for judicial candidate Christine Ryba should be voided because of false advertisement in her election campaign and fraud upon voters

Recently, the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline where the judicial nominee Christine Ryba is a member, issued a Final Report where there was no trace of the problem of selective enforcement (or, rather, non-enforcement) of attorney discipline against politically connected attorneys, and no trace of concern about corruption within the court system.

I already wrote about the reasons for such stark omissions - despite public testimony in the three "public" hearings about such corruption and selective non enforcement.

The reason is simple - because members of the Commission were those who actually participate in such corruption and selective non-enforcement.

Christine Ryba is a good example of unethical behavior that is occurring under the very nose of the Chief Judge of Appellate Division 3rd Department which disciplines, to the point of disbarment, civil rights attorneys, but allowed Christine Ryba to use court computers to pressure court employees to make contributions to her campaign.

I am not familiar with names of court clerks across the State of New York, so I will have to take some time and use this tip, comparing the names on Christine Ryba's financial filings with the New York State Board of Elections with available databases of court employees to see the matches.

I will report as to the matches on this blog.

Chrstine Ryba was also reported to have misrepresented her status in her election campaign - initially, before she was caught - as being already "of New York Supreme Court", instead of being a mere nominee for New York State Supreme Court.

Here are the "before" and "after" screenshots off of Christine Ryba's Facebook campaign page.

The 1,795 "likes" on the screen above are at least 1,795 defrauded potential voters - and this fraud is irreversible.

Christine Ryba also reported in her 30-second video clip that she "recommends and drafts" judicial decisions for the 3rd Department court.

Watch how confidently Ryba tells her voters that she, in fact, does what she has no authority to do ("recommend" decisions), that she, in fact, influences decisions of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, a court which for most litigants is the first and last appellate destination, because the NYS Court of Appeals is a court of extremely limited jurisdiction, and there is no right of appellate review "as of right" in the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention that every new appellate step, on top of its uncertainty, is prohibitively expensive.

If she could exert improper influence upon judges of the Appellate Division before her ascension to the bench, she will retain those connections after she takes the bench, and if she could not be deterred by attorney ethics from influencing judges before she came to the bench, for the sake of her career advancement, think what she can do to prevent reversal of her decisions when she comes to the bench.

In her video clip, in addition to boasting that she "recommends and drafts" decisions of Appellate Division 3rd Department, she claims superior trial experience.

Here is an anonymous comment from the blog featuring her unethical conduct in her election campaign, and they are anonymous for fear of retribution and for real fear of losing law licenses - and from the office that is the legal representative of the 3rd Department AND Cristine Ryba, the New York State Attorney General's office:

So, a colleague of hers who is fearing for his or her livelihood to show his or her name, does not have such a superior opinion of her alleged trial experience, and Ryba did not present a list of cases in her campaign where she would be the 1st chair, so the comment may very well be true.   

Here is another comment, from the same blog:

I think so, too.  If Ryba is behaving this way in her election campaign, just think what she will do on the bench.

And the naive me, an appellate attorney in that court, was hoping, same as my clients do, that it is the judges elected to the Supreme Court and then appointed by the New York State Governor to the Appellate Division that make the decision.

Now I will have to make motions to vacate all decisions made by that court as having been influenced by a non-judge - according to Christine Ryba's video confession to the voters.

Christine Ryba was also quite recently criticized in the press for violating rules of ethics for judicial candidates by not-so-subtly stating in her campaign that a judge of town court handling traffic tickets (which is not the only thing that a town justice do, where a town justice also handles felony arraignments, felony hearings and a full scope of misdemeanor procedure, from arraignment to jury trials - as well as a variety of civil cases) is not sufficiently qualified for the high position of a Supreme Court justice.

People wrote unnamed letters about Christine Ryba's solicitation of funds for her campaign from court employees through the use of court e-mails for fear of retribution from the "ethical" Ryba and her "benefactor" judge Karen Peters.

Here is the letter that was initially reported on this blog - also by an anonymous blogger.

Here is a screenshot from Ryba's Facebook campaign page I took today where Ryba is boasting of endorsements from two bar associations:  

• Albany County - where the 3rd Department court is sitting and where Ryba is on the executive committee (thus disqualifying attorneys from that committee from appearing in the court through possibilities of ex parte communications); and
• Ulster County - where Judge Peters' chambers are located (Kingston, NY, Ulster County).  Last year I wrote a blog about an incident that occurred in Ulster County Supreme Court where Supreme Court Judge Cahill's chambers were located on the same floor with Karen Peters' chambers, and I personally sat in the waiting room shared by the two judges in Kingston, NY, Ulster County.

Yet, Ryba lies on her Facebook page above that the endorsement from Ulster County Bar Association is "valuable" for her because there is allegedly no connection between the Ulster County Bar Association and Ryba - who is necessarily working for the judge she serves in that same Ulster County, where her judge's chambers are located.

And she lied not once, but twice, with an hour's interval, deliberately.

So, she is caught in one misrepresentation - and changes her post on Facebook, and immediately puts in another misrepresentation.

What kind of judge she is going to be if for her, the main thing is not to be caught?

And, her reprehensible (although, very likely, true) claim that she had the power to influence the appellate court by "recommending" and "drafting" the court's decisions means that it is Ryba who recommended suspension and disbarment of other attorneys for allegedly unethical behavior!  While considering herself untouchable because of her proximity to and influence upon the Chief Judge.

Reba already posted her "acceptance speech" thanking everybody who she defrauded into voting for her:

Now that she successfully defrauded voters, I suggest that petitions should be filed with the NYS Board of Elections and with the State Supreme Court in the district where Ryba is elected to void her elections based on fraud.  

I also suggest that New York State Attorney General should take his head out of the sand and finally stand up for the People of the State of New York who elected him to protect them from fraud, even and especially when it comes from public officials - and to oust Ryba if she is elected (and she is leading in the race right now, according to reports) based on a write of quo warranto, as a usurper-through-fraud of a high public office of a Supreme Court judge.

I suggest that NYS AG looks in the direction of the trial now occurring against Sheldon Silver and that will soon occur against Dean Skelos.

It was NYS Attorney General's job to protect the public from fraud in the government.

He did not do his job and allowed fraud to thrive for years and decades, hurting people and costing them millions of dollars in public funds.

It is time to start doing his job.

I believe, Ryba's behavior in her election campaign warrants ousting her from the bench she grabbed through fraud, and it also warrants her disbarment.

If access to legal remedies is thwarted, there should be no surprises that alternative valves to find those LEGAL remedies are sought

Over the course of my law practice as a criminal defense, Family Court, Supreme Court and civil rights attorney, over my history as a blogger, I have been talking to many people, clients, friends, neighbors, readers of my blog, about the essential goals and purposes of the court system - and whether those purposes and goals are fulfilled in the United States.

The goal of any court system is to set conflict resolution in a society in an orderly fashion, thus preventing social chaos, unrest and private vendettas.

When the court system does not fulfil those functions and, in and of itself, starts to spread injustice and personal vendettas of the administrators and insiders of the system against non-insiders, the natural thing occurs, the natural thing being appearance of alternative ways for people to seek legal remedies.

That is done by speaking out in public forums - with the hope that the public becomes aware of the issues, that exposure of perpetrators of abuse of public office will be brought to justice or at least shamed into changing their ways.

Yet, I will remind my readers that in the United States and in every state of the United States the sovereign is We the People, by the state and federal Constitution and by our Declaration of Independence, and this collective sovereign may rule either through its representatives (the government) or directly. 

By the way, we have a U.S. Supreme Court case stating that directly in no uncertain words, putting the direct exercise of sovereign power actually ahead of exercising it through a government representative.

I took this quote, actually, from the filing of a common law grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.  They did pretty legal good research of the subject matter.

Yet, when people who become desperate to fight the impenetrable wall of injustice created by the "justice" system, start participating in such alternative-court programs, exercising their rights to directly govern as a popular sovereign, they are:

1) targeted as "domestic terrorists" - see my blog about it here and here;

2) criminally charged, convicted and sentenced for fraud and "simulating legal process" as it just happened in Texas;

3) mocked as "nuts",  and their pleadings as "comic" - see even such a respectable legal blog as Jonathan Turley's blog to sink as low as calling the actions of the Texas woman "comic" pleadings; and

4) blocked from access to court, as the candidate to become new Chief Judge of the State of New  York Gail Prudenti did - without any authority - in blocking court filings of a movement called "the common law grand juries", and blocking access to court only aggravates the problem, not resolves it.

Prudent claimed that "there is no authority for a grand jury to be formed outside of the auspices of the court".

Yet, the law clearly says otherwise.  Here is an excerpt from a federal filing by the same entity.

See also the decision of the Greene County Supreme Court on the issue of New York Common Law grand jury (from a federal filing).

In the above decision the court:

1) mocked the common law grand jury's filings by calling it an application in quotes;
2) claimed that the application could not be entertained for the only reason that:
     a) it did not comply with CPLR 3013 and CPLR 3014; and
     b) did not state a "cognizable cause of action".

Yet, the filing was not for a civil lawsuit, but was a summons to a criminal grand jury, so no "cause of action" needed to be stated there.

Now, despite the accusations that these organizations are terrorists, criminals and nuts, all they are doing is asserting their rights found in the laws of this country.

Thus, the honest way of dealing with them is to oppose their arguments not with blunt force of the government, 

• not by putting them on the "domestic terrorist" watch list - as the FBI did with the "common law sovereign movement";
• not by blocking their access to court as our candidate for the Chief Judge A.Gail Prudenti did, without authority, in New York, after reportedly calling a SWAT team to protect court officials from simply filing papers in court calling them to appear in front of "common law grand juries", and
• certainly not by convicting them criminally for "simulating legal process". 

Because what these people are doing, is protected by laws of this country, including the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech and access to court - and by the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Not only ideas should be fought with ideas, not blunt oppressive force by the government - that is what the 1st Amendment is about, at its core, but the government demonstrates the weakness of its position and the possibility that these alternative court movements are right in their ideas and arguments.

When you punch your opponent instead of putting an argument in opposition of his argument, that means, you do not have good arguments.

People who think differently, drive social innovation.

Usually, innovation is first met with mockery, if not outright hostility.

The usual initial reaction of society to innovation is hostility and rejection.

Think about replacement of horses with automobiles or, God forbid, planes.

Automobile inventors were initially mocked and disbelieved.

The legend of the Icarus shows what people thought of such innovators - they were impractical dreamers at best, dangerous nuts at worst.

The same applies to social innovation.

What was a dangerous idea (like allowing women to vote, or to have control over their own property or destiny, to choose their husbands freely - or not to choose them at all) now is completely mainstream.

What was a crime of homosexual sex just 15 years ago, think about it, 15 years ago, is now not only legitimate, but a same sex marriage has been proclaimed a constitutional right.

Social progress will not be possible without some initial trailblaizer expressing an idea that initially appears as "comic" or "nutty" or "dangerous", or even terrorist to the mainstream government.

Yet, the 1st Amendment was introduced and exists BECAUSE of the prior similar abuses by the sovereign that had an absolute power - the King.

The 1st Amendment prohibits ANY infringement by the government on freedom of political expression.

Let's remember that - if our judges wouldn't.

What the "alternative court" movements are doing is, very simply, political activity aimed at drawing public attention at imperfections (that is an understatement of the century) of the American court system that turned into a place that strips people of their right to legal remedies instead of giving those remedies to the people, as was the initial goal.

Courts, judges, lawmakers and law enforcers, should really open their minds and just LISTEN to what people in the "sovereign" or "common law jury" movement have to say.

If they do, very possibly, a constructive solution will be found.

Public servant should talk to the members of the popular sovereign.

It is a very simple idea.

Truth can be found in a discussion and in exchange of ideas, not in throwing punches.

If our court systems prefer to throw punches to giving people an opportunity to be heard, and if insiders of the court system position themselves about the law (as they do through the court-created concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench) and operate to engage in every trick in the book, no matter how illegal, to abuse their power and to deny people legal remedies, there should be no surprises that the steam of dissatisfaction will seek alternative relief valves.

I do hope that the sentence for the woman in Texas is overturned on 1st Amendment grounds.  It should be.

And I do hope that federal courts will finally review, on the merits, the ideas expressed by those movements, I do hope that the courts stop hiding behind their vast oppressive machine and just honestly do their jobs for the people, providing to them legal remedies they are entitled to.

We do not need anything more than that from our court system.

But we are right to be upset  and to seek legal alternatives, through constitutionally protected activities, when the court system, or any other branch of the government, fails to fulfil their designated goal.

The dishonorable Carl Becker is still listed as a judge on the Delaware County Family, Surrogate and Drug Treatment Courts' websites

I checked out the website of the Delaware County Family, Surrogate's and Drug Treatment Court today.

Interestingly enough, the dis-honorable Carl Becker who ran from the bench on July 31, 2015 is listed as judge of:

1. Delaware County Family Court;
2. Delaware County Surrogate's Court;
3. Delaware County "Adult and Family Drug Treatment Court"

Here are the scans I took today:

I find this as misinformation of voters by the court system, giving more credibility to support by Carl Becker of judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, and as a type of voter fraud.

Watch Porter Kirkwood confronted by Gary Rosa for his lies of "taking the high road" in his election campaign

During his meeting with voters in October of 2015, the slimey (oops, smiley) Porter Kirkwood claimed that no, never, under no circumstances would he advise his supporters to engage in "negative attacks" during his election campaign.

Watch what Gary Rosa has to say to this.   

For attorneys and litigants who have ever lost to Porter Kirkwood in Family Court - you have a right to file a motion to vacate because of Kirkwood's "relationship" with court clerks

During his October 2015 meeting with voters, judicial candidate in Delaware County Porter Kirkwood claimed that he is better suited (than Gary Rosa) for the position of a judge because, among other things, he has "relationships with court clerks".

Well, if he had relationships with court clerks and is "part of the team" with Family Court, all litigants and attorneys who have ever lost to Porter Kirkwood in Delaware County Family Court have a basis to make motions to vacate - because those "relationships" with court clerks and that Kirkwood was "a team member" in Family Court was never disclosed during proceedings, and Kirkwood should have disqualified from all cases where he had "relationships" with court clerks.

And, Kirkwood should be disbarred for not disclosing this major disqualifying conflict of interest in the cases he handled in Family Court.

Porter Kirkwood and his experimental "treatment" program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care - the essence of the program is likely criminal sexual child abuse

I have dedicated the last several blog posts to Porter Kirkwood's experimental "treatment" program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care that he announced at the meeting with the voters in October of 2015 in Sidney, NY, see here, here and here.

Please, see my previous blogs for today (interlinked above) to see the issues of legality of such program covered, ethical issues and issues of credentials of the "treatment provider" covered.

In this blog post I will cover the likely contents of the program.

I say "likely" because Kirkwood did not reveal the contents of the program, and I will not hold my breath for Delaware County to disclose such contents, which, most likely, constitutes criminal sexual child abuse.

I will simply describe what constitutes a usual "sex offender treatment" program, as described to me by my clients (without disclosure of identities, of course), as described in articles and books that I read over years of research and practice as criminal defense and Family Court attorney representing people accused of sex crimes and sexual child abuse.

The contents of this post will be difficult to digest and very hard to read.

Yet, I encourage my readers to read, and to read it today, before you go tomorrow to the voting booths.

Please, don't be squeamish as to reading descriptions of sex offender "treatment".  

Because this is a special type of torture that Kirkwood to already subjected captive foster children of Delaware County.

You need to know what you money was used for.

You need to know to what kind of torture Porter Kirkwood, this smiling man, will subject your helpless child if he or she, God forbid, finds himself or herself without your care, alone, and falsely accused of a sex crime.

CRIME OR DISEASE

The first question you need to ask yourself when dealing with the issue of "sex offender treatment" is that this word combination is inherently incompatible, an oxymoron.

If a person has a disease that he or she cannot control, he or she cannot be held responsible for his or her actions and thus cannot be convicted of a crime.

If the sexual act committed was committed while a person could control himself or herself, it was a crime, but was not a disease and cannot be "treated".

So, the "sex offender treatment", a multi-million, if not billion, industry (I am sure) in this country is peddling snake oil and completely illegal to begin with - from criminal theory's point of view.

IF CHILDREN CANNOT GIVE CONSENT FOR SEX, HOW CAN CHILDREN BE PROSECUTED FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT?

That is my next "theoretical" question.  It is nonsensical to claim, at the very same time, that children may not give consent to sexual acts - any sexual acts.

Yet, at the same time, Kirkwood prosecutes children for sexual misconduct - and then, as a loving legal guardian, tries to treat children as "juvenile sex offenders" - I already wrote in my previous posts that a "juvenile sex offender" is yet another legal oxymoron, because a "sex offender" is a person convicted of a sex crime, and juvenile delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction.

WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF TREATMENT AND WHAT IS A SUCCESS IN TREATMENT?

Kirkwood claimed that he had an over 60% "success rate" in "treatment" of children in the age group of 12 to 14.

Yet, he did not disclose, what was considered a "success rate".

Mental castration of a child?

Through mental techniques, causing future impotency of a child?

Making the child believe that any sex is bad, making him a miserable person for the rest of his life - and making him a possible (and possibly sadistic) deviant?

I am filing a FOIL request for the contest of the "program" its goals and what constitutes "success" and "cure".

Also, would you go for an intrusive and torturous treatment for your child with only a 60% success rate?

METHODS OF "TREATMENT"

CLINICAL INTERVIEW

One of the main "tool" of "treatment" by psychologists is "clinical interview".

The problem is that clinical interview is not a good diagnostic tool, because clinical psychologists are supposed to believe anything their client says.

Well, in case of sex offenders, clinical psychologists are supposed NOT to believe anything their client says.

Neither "belief" or "disbelief" anything a patient says is a good diagnostic tool.

Yet, psychologists do not have any other tools in peddling their snake oil, especially in sex offender treatment.

My clients reported to me that they were threatened by probation officers and by "licensed clinical social workers" to disclose their innermost thoughts, sexual fantasies and intimate experiences with their partners.

Setting aside impropriety of it all in adult patients (imagine having to disclose private information concerning not only you, but your spouse or intimate partner, too), we are dealing with children in the "juvenile sex offender" case.

So, a psychologist will be asking about sexual experience or fantasies of minors?

That is criminal behavior, sexual child abuse - on behalf of the person who asks such questions.

Moreover, a child might not even have the level of development, physical or mental, to handle such questions.  Such questions can HARM the child.  Not that the smiling Kirkwood cares, obviously.

HAMILL'S TREATMENT METHODS

Hamill is dead, but his articles describing his methods of treatment remained.

Here is one of them.

In this article, he describes three methods of treatment he used on "sex offenders":

1/ certain risk-assessment methods which are based on prior convictions - and cannot be applied to children who were never convicted of crimes;

2/ a lie detector test;

3/ a penile lie detector test - plethysmography.

PLEASE, remember that all of the above described "methods" - the test that seeks to "obtain information on an offender's degree of sexual deviance and risk of recidivism", a test that "measures changes in penile tumescence (erection) as sexual arousal increases in response to a set of stimulus slides" - as well as a "lie detector test" seeking to uncover the "offenders' sexual interests" - are and, likely, WERE ALREADY all used, with Kirkwood's approval, ON CHILDREN.

LIE DETECTOR

Not only it constitutes sexual child abuse to delve into a CHILD's "sexual interests", but results of a lie detector tests are inadmissible in court - and Hamill admitted he knew it.

So - not only it is a crime, but it is senseless torture of children.

PLETHYSMOGRAPHY

Due to representation of individuals accused of sex crimes and sexual child abuse, I had to extensively research all aspects of the offered "sex offender treatment", this aspect included.  

Plethysmography is nothing other than measuring the changes in the volume of a male penis while the subject is shown child pornography.

Yes, child pornography - which is illegal to possess, even to the alleged "sex offender treatment provider".

I happen to own a manual as to how the testing must be handled.

Not only it is very specific as to the temperature of the room etc. that can affect the results of the test (and the fate of the subject), but it specifically warns those administering the test of two "no-no's":

1/ Do not tell the subjects that THEY CAN CONTROL engorgement of the penis (sorry - I have to be blunt describing what the manual said); and

2/ that every male, whether a sex offender or not, has the same reaction to "child pornography", especially where what is understood by "child pornography" is showing to males naked images of physiologically mature girls.  The result is arousal - in all males.  

So - the entire test is a fake.

And, let's face it, a lot of sadistic rapists and pedophiles, the most dangerous type, were impotent, and that's exactly why they seek to rape and murder vulnerable populations.

You can run the "penile lie detector" on a sadistic impotent pedophile all you want, there will be no reaction.

Yet, a healthy male who will never offend may fall victim to this so-called "test".

The test, by the way, does not require prior medical checkup and does not take into account hormonal imbalances, medication or swings of blood pressure or other diseases that may affect the result of the test.

And - in the "juvenile sex offender" context the use of plethysmography will be criminal sexual assault and battery on a child, or - a rape.

Imagine - to put a contraption on the penis of a helpless parentless boy and to make the boy watch child porgnography waiting for a result?

Or - maybe, plethysmography was not a part of this particular program?  How will we know when Kirkwood did not elaborate as to the contents of the "treatment program" and when Hamill said he uses it in his "sex offender treatment"?

So - did Hamill, with the help of Kirkwood, rape foster children in Delaware County.

I bet, we need to know before we vote for him Kirkwood as a judge.

But - of course, he will not tell us.

So - the safest way to go is simply not to vote for the creep.

Porter Kirkwood and his experimental program of sex offender treatment of "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care - credentials of the "treater"

I covered in my two previous blog posts illegality of the so-called "sex offender treatment" of foster children adjudicated as juvenile delinquents, and multiple conflicts of interest of judicial candidate for Delaware County Family Court (NY) Porter Kirkwood in masterminding and executing such a program (and those are the conflicts I know about, who knows how many other conflicts are still undisclosed).

I would like to concentrate in this blog post on one issue: 

1. credentials of "Dr." Richard Hamill who was invited into the rural upstate Delaware County to run his "experimental program" of "treatment" of "juvenile sex offenders"; and

Kirkwood referred in his meeting with voters in October of 2015 that he was lucky to lure a Dr. Hamill to Delaware County to devise and run a treatment program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care.

Here is the obituary for Richard Hamill were people usually say the best thing about the dear departed.

According to his obituary, Hamill was a psychologist, not a medical doctor.

Hamill was a "consummate shopper" - and such habits must be fed with money, and a lot of money.

Hamill was also a "connoisseur of Scotch whiskey", and, please, don't tell me that such "expertise" comes without alcohol abuse.  

As a husband, he "emerged from a crucible of marriage with a soft glow" - which is an enigmatic way of saying, in my perception, that he did not want to be constrained by marriage and could be a philanderer.

Here is what his obituary says about "Dr." Hamill's professional career:

Quote

=====

For 30 years, Richard was Founder and Director of Forensic Mental Health Associates and consultant to St. Anne Institute. He creatively and tirelessly promoted community safety and best treatment practices in local and national arenas, and was a leader in the creation and management of numerous community task forces, service boards and programs, and professional organizations, such as the START Children’s Center and the NYS Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers. He was consultant to various entities within the criminal justice system and adjunct professor at Union and Sage Colleges.

Unquote

______

Wow.

Imagine that 

1. a consummate shopper;
2. a connoisseur of Scotch whiskey;
3. a man who emerged from a crucible of marriage with a soft glow;
4. a consultant to "various entities within the criminal justice system" (an expert to prosecution at sex offender criminal trials - which requires neutrality);
5. a promoter of community safety (an advocate - doesn't mesh with expert neutrality);
6. a leader in creation and management of:
1. community task forces;
2. community service boards;
3. community programs;
4. professional organizations - one of them was a child victim advocacy organization "Start Children's Center"

So, the man 

1. ascertained convictions for sex offenses by his testimony, thus cornering his market for treatment;
2. got to treat convicted sex offenders on probation - and got to send those who did not want to get treated (because legally they were not sex offenders or because they could not afford treatment at $600 a pop from the "consummate shopper" "Dr" Hamill);
3. got to treat "child victims" of sex offenders.

One can emerge not only out of marriage with a soft glow with business opportunities heaped up upon you by "various entities within the criminal justice system".

According to Kirkwood, Hamill was the ultimate authority and the best expert in the far and wide of the State of New York on the issue of treatment of sex offenders.

Yet, there are sources that would disagree.

In 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed a criminal conviction of a doctor from Albany, New York because of "Dr" Hamill's testimony.  The sentence that was overturned because of "Dr" Hamill's inappropriate testimony was 48 years (!).

Reportedly, a defense expert  in the above case basically called "Dr" Hamill, a "child advocate/expert for hire for the prosecution/treater of resulting convicted sex offenders" as a charlatan whose feet need to be put on fire.

Imagine that you are choosing a healthcare provider for treatment of your child.

Will you use for that purpose:

1. a spender (here your fee for "services" is skyrocketing);
2. a drinker;
3. a philanderer;
4. and an unscrupulous man who peddles his alleged "neutrality" while drumming up false convictions to get to treat both the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim

I doubt it.

But that is the man who Porter Kirkwood enthusiastically invited to continue the glorious history of human experimentation on vulnerable populations in this country, and provide illegal and unnecessary "snake oil" to a captive audience - children committed to his client the Delaware County's foster care.

Do you really want Porter Kirkwood to be your Family Court judge for the next 10 years?

And I did not even start to describe the actual sex offender treatment that Porter Kirkwood subjected foster children to - at taxpayers' expense.