Worse than terrorists

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government action directed at communication with foreign terrorist organizations is subject to coverage under the 1st Amendment and requires strict scrutiny as content-based regulation.  That regulation included legal advice.

...

...

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, as of 2010, took a position that attorney speech potentially in aide of foreign terrorist organizations, is covered by the 1st Amendment and is entitled to heightened scrutiny.

Yet, state courts suspend and disbar attorneys for criticism of judicial misconduct (as it was done to me and to many more attorneys lately, a separate blog naming attorneys and providing overviews of their stories will follow shortly), repeatedly rejecting the claim that attorney speech on the issue of public concern, misconduct of public officials (judges) is entitled to 1st Amendment coverage and heightened scrutiny.

In my case my 1st Amendment challenges were not even reflected in the order of suspension, my constitutional challenges were simply denied without any explanation or reasoning.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from such conduct is - under the U.S. law, I and other attorneys who took on judicial misconduct, are treated worse than if we would be aiding foreign terrorist groups.

And that is - for doing our job for our clients and for establishing the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review, which necessarily required making motions to recuse and, in those motions, spelling out judicial bias, conflicts of interest,  misconduct or appearance of impropriety.

I think, the issue of protection of attorney speech and attorney independence is now ripe for review of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 5: Judge Burns hires a law firm with ties to the presiding magistrate judge in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit

I continue reporting on the story of Anthony Pacherille,  16-year-old mentally disabled boy who was sentenced as an adult to 11 years of adult maximum security prison (instead of a youthful offender status to which he was entitled) by Otsego County (NY) Judge Brian Burns who prefers to go easy on wealthy drunk killers of poor women and maimer of poor children than to do his duty of fairness towards a teenage defendant.

I also reported that the likely reason why Judge Burns denied the YO status to the child was because the child's father had the misfortunate of asking Judge Burns for mercy, as a father of a teenager to a father of a teenager.

Judge Burns, who paraded his three teenage children in front of everybody at his swearing-in ceremony just 5 months prior to the Pacherille-father's letter to the court (sent as part of pre-sentencing procedure and approved by the child's attorney), felt threatened by the letter - but did not recuse, and instead retaliated for the father's letter against the child.

See the prior parts of Anthony Pacherille's story reported on this blog here:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

In Part 4, I also reported how Tony Pacherille tried to verify Judge Burns' address to satisfy the ordinance of the City of Oneonta that requires to disclose ahead of time the place of peaceful demonstrations.  Tony Pacherille wanted to demonstrate in front of Judge Burns' home, went to the home, knocked on the door, Burns' wife opened the door, Pacherille-senior asked whether it was judge Burns' residence, the wife answered "yes" and asked Tony Pacherille to leave, he did leave.

I also reported in Part 4 how Judge Burns unlawfully used, at taxpayers' expense, a highly paid attorney representing the Office of New York Court Administration (NY OCA) to pen and send to Pacherille-father a letter, fraudulently representing to Tony Pacherille (the father of the teenager Anthony Pacherille) that the NY OCA represents Judge Burns (in a private matter), and that the father should cease and desist coming to Judge Burns' residence, otherwise civil or criminal action will be considered.

The letter from John McConnell (NY OCA attorney) was dated August 3, 2011.

Judge Burns submitted a deposition sworn to on August 5, 2011 to a criminal court, as a witness and complainant in a criminal proceeding against Tony Pacherille, indicating that Judge Burns felt threatened by the letter of Tony Pacherille written to the court as part of pre-sentencing procedure before Burns proceeded to sentencing Tony Pacherille's son.

Tony Pacherille was actually prosecuted for harassment based on deposition of Judge Burns, and the proceeding was dismissed by Judge Downey based on 1st Amendment grounds.

Tony Pacherille sued Burns in federal court.

Usually, judges are represented in actions pertaining to their official duties by the New York State Attorney General.

The docket report of the lawsuit shows that initially Burns was represented in that case by the New York State Attorney General:

Note Docket 4 dated 7/15/2013, Notice of Appearance of attorney Stephen M. Kerwin.

Note below attorney registration information of the same Stephen M. Kerwin as working for the NYS Attorney General's office.

Yet, on September 3, 2013, Docket 19, a law firm Hancock & Estabrook filed with the court a "letter motion" requesting permission to allow it to proceed on Burns' behalf, and directed the "letter motion" to the decision of Judge David Peebles.

Here is the letter of Hancock Estabrook and attached stipulation with NY Attorney General for the substitution.

It took David Peebles only two days to give business to Hancock Estabrook, under the circumstances where NY AG's office would have represented Burns for the set salary, and Hancock Estabrook would be paid out of New York taxpayers' pockets additionally.

Here is the caption of an order from that lawsuit dated 7/3/14, a year after the lawsuit was filed:

As I already described in Part 4 of Anthony Pacherille's story, abbreviations "GLS" and "DEP" on the path on top of the filing in federal court show the names of the assigned judge and magistrate, the then Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe and Magistrate David E. Peebles.

Now let's see whether there is any appearance of impropriety in David Peebles presiding over Tony Pacherille's case and especially making the orders of substitution of counsel, without any disclosures to the parties or the court.

According to the biography of Chief Magistrate Peebles posted on the website of that court, David E. Peebles came to the bench from that law firm, Hancock and Estabrook, and was "affiliated" with that law firm since 1978, for 27 years.

According to the website of that court's bar association where the picture of all judges of the court is prominently placed on the front page of the association's website, clearly sending a message to the public that the bar association is somehow part of that court - and has influence on that court, which, judging by decisions the court is making, is true.

Review of the website of NDNY bar association reveals that:

1) only a few prominent law firms are Trustees, Officers and members of "standing committees" of the bar association, and as such, are in frequent contact with judges of the court and communicate and take directives from the Chief Judge of the court;

2) Hancock Estabrook is one of those law firms - its partner Doreen Simmonds (a co-alumni with David Peebles not only in the law firm, but also in Peebles' prior employment in the Onondaga County District Attorney's office) is:

      (1)  is a past president of NDNY Bar Association (2004-2005) that is merged at the hip with the court;

      (2) A member of two "standing committees" of the NDNY bar association, one of them requiring a close interaction (ex parte as to any parties and opposing counsel in any litigation Hancock Estabrook handles in NDNY court) with a judge of that court Frederick Scullin and his employee

(3) "coincidentally", Doreen Simmonds is also a recipient of a "Judge Duane" award for, among her other accomplishment, "promoting relations between the bench and the bar".

4) Doreen Simmonds is also a member of a secret-membership organization sponsoring judges and their law clerk's trips abroad, and monthly dining and wining for judges, the American Inns of Court, and received an award from that organization in 2013.

As of September 23, 2013, right at the time when Hancock Estabrook appeared as Burns' counsel in Pacherille's case, Doreen Simmonds was also a Chair of the Attorney Grievance Committee in the Fifth Judicial District - so her law firm was covered on all sides.

By establishing close social ties with the Onondaga County District Attorney's office (where the DA is a law school buddy with the Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District James Tormey), with a judge of the Northern District of New York, by "serving" as officers, trustees, members of "standing committees" of the NDNY bar association that is merged at the hip with the NDNY federal court, by having its partner former partner chair the local attorney disciplinary committee, Hancock Estabrook covered all bases - to drum up business, get the ear of judges and escape any possible discipline.

 and, Hancock Estabrook partner John G. Powers is a current Trustee of NDNY bar association.

It is clear that with so much on her plate in terms of public service, Doreen Simmonds would not have time for work, but, there is an appearance that her "public service" in "promoting relationships between the bench and the bar", specifically, between her law firm and the Northern District of New York court, likely an ex parte relationship based on past ties with Magistrate Peebles, IS her main job.

Also, please, note that the firm employs an attorney by the last name of D'Agostino that has a striking facial resemblance with the court's judge Mae D'Agostino:

The firm has even more connections with Judge Peebles and the court.

For example, 

5) Hancock Estabrook employs Judge Peebles' judicial intern Douglas G. Gorman;

6) In February of 2013 (before the Pacherille's lawsuit was filed on 7/3/2013) Hancock Estabrook hosted a "moot court competition" for law students where David Peebles was presiding (and, naturally, had to have an opportunity for ex parte contacts with Hancock Estabrook lawyers).

Note that Peebles was participating in this worthy civic event, the First Year Moot-Court competition sponsored by Hancock Estabrook and communicating with Hancock Estabrook, in February of 2013, when he was one of the assigned judges in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit against Judge Burns.

Even though the moot competition was hosted before the filing of the lawsuit, not all law firms can have a judge to preside over a competition they sponsor, and "coincidentally" the presiding judge is the former partner of the main sponsor, showing the close social and emotional ties of judge Peebles with Hancock Estabrook.

As always, Judge Burns chose wisely - in his usual corrupt way.

Same as in sentencing - lenient for the rich and powerful, blasting against those who crossed his fragile little ego, to the point of retaliating against the child for the requests of leniency by the father - Burns unmistakeably chose one law firm that was dear to the heart of one of the presiding judges, Magistrate Peebles.

And, instead of disclosing his connections to the law firm and recusing from the case, David Peebles presides over the substitution of counsel "letter motion" and grants it - in two days only.

For the detailed description as to how the court got rid of Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit against Judge Burns after Hancock Estabrook appeared on Burns' behalf, stay tuned for my next post.

As to what happened after the dismissal...

The usual.

One of the partners of the firm, Janet Callahan, was appointed on November 6, 2015, according to Hancock Estabrook's own press-release, to the so-called "screening committee" for the appointment of Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, the chief state judge, and "interviewed candidates" for the position of the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.  

As always, such "interviewing" was committed to an attorney from a powerful law firm with an incestous relationship with the judiciary and who is financially interested in the outcome of their own "screenings", not to the public.

The appointment of a Hancock Estabrook partner to the position of choosing a possible candidate for the position of Chief Judge of New York State was made after Hancock Estabrook obtained from the pair of federal judges Sharpe-Peebles (Peebles being their former law partner) a dismissal of a lawsuit against a state judge Burns for misconduct outside of his judicial capacity.  

Hancock Estabrook served the state judiciary well, Judge Peebles helped them do that service and get business, now Hancock will give back to the state judiciary through the screening committee.

Not too corrupt.

And, of course, the Sharpe-Peebles tandem dismissed not only the lawsuit against Burns, but also the lawsuit against his partner in crime Otsego County DA John Muehl.

John Muehl, of course, misrepresented the dismissal to the public in a public statement to the local newspapers "The Daily Star" (of Oneonta, NY) that the lawsuit was dismissed because there was no truth in it.

Yet, the lawsuit was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.  When a lawsuit is dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts, the issue whether the corrupt acts occurred remains wide open.

John Muehl apparently conceals from the public the fact that the lawsuit against him was dismissed on prosecutorial immunity grounds, and conceals the fact that prosecutorial immunity was (unconstitutionally) give by the U.S. Supreme Court to criminal prosecutors in reliance on "availability" of attorney discipline - which, we know it for a fact, is not available in New York against criminal prosecutors.

So, both Burns and Muehl, undisciplined, unaccountable and empowered by lack of accountability, remain on the loose.

Beware.

When your opponent in litigation takes your attorney's license

Imagine that you sue somebody for something wrong done to you, let's say, an assault upon you, or a battery, or fraud.

Imagine that you hired an attorney who represents you in that lawsuit, paid that attorney, and that attorney made good advances for you in litigation, and your position in litigation, because of services of that attorney, is promising.

Imagine that, in the middle of your litigation, the person you are suing takes your attorney's license, and thus you find yourself without an attorney and with a necessity to find another attorney, paid him or her again, get him or her familiarized with your case again, and, possibly, lose all the progress gained by your attorney, because in many cases progress made by attorneys is also based on attorney's record in litigation and experience in particular proceedings, which might not be matched by the new attorney.   

You think it is not possible?

It is, if your opponent in litigation is the government.

That is exactly the situation my clients are now.

I sued the State of New York on behalf of one set of clients in federal court.

I represented a client sued by the State of New York in federal court.

On November 17, 2015 was my deadline to file a motion for sanctions against the State of New York and its various public officials, for frivolous conduct in two federal courts.  The lawsuit was on behalf of a client.

On November 13, 2015, four days before the deadline to ask a federal court to sanction the State of New York for frivolous conduct, State of New York as a licensing authority suspended my law license and gained advantage in litigation against all my clients.

So, as you see, the State of New York as a party-opponent to my clients in litigation can simply take the law license of their attorney and deprive them of effective legal services this way - after I provided those services for those particular clients for YEARS, and after it will cost them dearly to replace me as an attorney, because a new attorney will have to be explained everything that happened in the YEARS of prior litigation, and read the record of the prior litigation - which, at the average trial attorney's hourly rate, looks like a punishment of my clients for opposing the State of New York in litigation.

That is exactly why I have been advocating for years that regulation of attorneys by the government while attorneys may have a duty to oppose the government, sue the government, investigate the government, challenge misconduct of the government  - is completely unconscionable, unconstitutional, undemocratic, undermines independence of the legal profession and deprives people of truly effective and independent representation in court.

So, next time you try to hire somebody to sue the State of New York, or in defense of a lawsuit against you by the State of New York, note why you will  have a difficulty finding an attorney willing to represent you.  

Because they wouldn't want to lose their law license and livelihood in the middle of that representation, if the State of New York chooses to gain advantage in litigation this way, yet again.

Two words on the New York State Commission for pay raises for New York judges, legislators and other unconstitutional officers

A Commission of insiders is going to hold a "public" hearing on November 30, 2015 in New York City in order to make "binding" report to the Legislature with recommendations of pay raises for all three branches of the government - judges, legislators and executive officers, collectively called "constitutional officers".

That is done without first cleaning up corruption in all of those three branches.

I will run a fuller blog on the issue tomorrow.

Today I wanted to say just a couple of words.

Here is a picture I took today near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

This is a report that the State of South Carolina expects next year 1 billion dollars in extra revenue, and there was already a media report in the local press as to a gradual plan of returning the revenue back to taxpayers through income tax reduction.

I a still a newcomer in the State of South Carolina, but, compared to what is going on in New York, these reports show me that in South Carolina, the government actually works.

In New York, we see exodus of taxpayers out of the state, we see recurrent huge budget deficits, we see one senator after the other being criminally prosecuted, we see shady conduct of New York State Governor and people close to him reported constantly.

We see gas prices somehow higher in New York (a colder state with a higher demand, higher supply and better bargaining power of purchasers of gas in bulk due to volume) than in South Carolina.  It is clear there is an oligopoly somewhere, but New York State Attorney General, instead of looking into it, helping New Yorkers and fighting such monopolies and oligopolies in gas pricing that hurts people, especially in winter time, badly, instead of that, NYS AG is involved in defending violators of people's constitutional rights in federal court.

And, no doubt, expects a pay raise for that, too.

We experience rampant corruption in the New York judiciary - even though unaddressed by the disciplinary authorities who mostly have conflicts of interest to even be on the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct (because most people on that commission are licensed attorneys, and a licensed attorney attempting to punish a judge who holds that attorney's license in his hands, is suicidal for an attorney).

In New York, I handled constitutional litigation since 2009 and was suspended last week from my practice of law as a penalty for doing that constitutional litigation.

Anybody who tried to sue state officials in New York, or raise constitutional issues in New York state court, or in federal court, knows that the judiciary has an extremely sour look whenever a constitutional argument is raised.

For the New York judiciary a "constitutional argument" is the equivalent of a "frivolous argument", with the resulting consequences.

The only time we hear about "constitutional officers" is when those officers ask for a pay raise.

The pay of government officials in New York, on average, is already very much over $100,000 a year, much more than the average income of taxpayers who pay them out of their pockets, which makes no sense.

And, it makes no sense for those unconstitutional officers to claim pay raises when the state is going through one year of budgetary deficit after another, when both leaders of the state legislature are criminally charged for fraud and corruption, when only a willfully blind person would not see corruption in the judiciary, in every court a person has the misfortune of setting his or her foot into.

I suggest this.

Let's charge the government with creating a database of all of its sworn officers.

With a family tree for each officer until the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity (NY standard for disqualification of jurors), affinity understood broadly, and including any significant other, boyfriend or girlfriend, and their relatives, not only spouses and their relatives.

Let's make all those "constitutional officers" (including attorneys who are deemed "officers of the court" and have overwhelming influence upon all branches of the government) self-report those connections, put them into a database.

With places of work, of course, along with places of work of close friends of those relatives.

Let's demand introduction of anti-nepotism and anti-cronyism policies in all three branches of the government, prohibiting employment of close relatives in the same branch of the government and/or agency, and closely verifying friendships between public officials with a duty to appear in front of one another in adversarial proceedings.

Let's demand disclosure of memberships of public officials in memberships in all non-public organizations, with a list of members in those organizations.

All of that should be self-reported and self-entered into a relational computer database.

This way, when a person is to appear before a judge, it will be easy to enter the judge's name and the name of the opposing counsel and/or party for the red flags of potential conflicts of interest to pop up.

When one public official nominates a candidate for another governmental position, recommends a promotion, a benefit, makes a favorable decision in favor of somebody - red flags may come up indicating a potential conflict of interest.

When we do those elementary initial steps and see how clean our government is, then we can review their claims of pay raises.

What I would advocate for now is not a pay RAISE, but, as I wrote before on this blog, a pay REDUCTION, and tying public officials' income to the average income of the area they are serving.  

They did not deserve a pay raise, not yet.

Let's tie the eligibility for pay raises to the government's degree of transparency, efficiency and accountability.

My order of suspension might be not valid for yet another reason - they cannot even suspend people in a coherent way

A non-attorney reader pointed out to me a fatal flaw in my order of suspension that, I admit, I missed with the emotions of the last couple of days.

My order of suspension said that I "should be suspended", but does not say that I was actually suspended.

There is a difference to say that a person should be beheaded rather than that the person was actually beheaded.

As the order was worded - by people for whom, unlike me, English is a native language - my head is still on.

Can these klutzes even suspend people properly?

And - thank you for the tip! (I will not disclose the reader's identity).

The Anthony Pacherille story: Part 4 - freedom to protest in front of a public official's home

I posted three reports so far about the Anthony Pacherille's story where Judge Brian Burns, of Otsego County Court, New York, presiding over a case of a teenager charged with a crime, disliked the teenager's father's letter asking for leniency at sentencing, because the letter asked for compassion and mentioned that the judge had a teenage son (a publicly known fact through the judge's appearance with his wife and three teenage children, a girl and two boys, at his own swearing-in ceremony several months prior to the date of the letter).

Judge Burns felt that his, his children's and his family's safety was threatened with the defendant's father's letter, but did not recuse and instead denied the child the youthful offender's status that the child was entitled to and sent the mentally ill child to a maximum security adult prison for 11 years.

The father wanted to demonstrate in front of the judge's home, the local ordinance required to put in the actual address where the demonstration will be held, in order to apply for a permit.

The father went to the judge's residence and knocked on the door to verify whether it was the judge's address. The judge's wife answered the door, confirmed it was the judge's residence and told the father to leave.  The father apologized and left.

For that, the father was charged, on the judge's complaint, with harassment in criminal court.  The criminal proceeding was dismissed on 1st Amendment free speech grounds, but the father, as I understand, was not able to hold his planned demonstration in front of Judge Burns' home.

Recently, because of a protest in front of a State Senator's residence in the town of West Depford, New Jersey.

The town of West Depford tried to introduce an ordinance that would prohibit demonstrations other than 100 feet away from a residence, with the following restrictions:

• not more than 10 people;
• once every 2 weeks,

and some people protested introduction of such an ordinance as unconstitutional, see comments to the interlinked article, one of such comments I post here:

The ordinance was actually enacted, with an added restriction that the city must be notified in advance of 24 hours.

The restriction of "no more than 10 people once every 2 weeks" is clearly unconstitutional as violative of protesters' 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, and it is a matter of time when a lawsuit challenging it will be filed, but that is not the point as applied to Tony Pacherille's case.

In Tony Pacherille's case, there is no indication that the City of Oneonta had such an ordinance, and without such an ordinance, the local police had no right to prohibit a demonstration by Tony Pacherille outside of Judge Burns' home.

See also how a demonstration outside a public official's residence was handled in California.

Here is a report with an included video of a protest outside the residence of the City of Los Angeles this past summer.  The police controlled the crowd when the mayor tried to sneak out of the residence through the back door and was confronted by the demonstrators, but the demonstration was not dispersed by the police and was allowed to proceed.

In this country, there are cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dedicated to the 1st Amendment freedom of speech and association that will make your blood boil.

They seem to be grossly unfair to the victims of offensive expression.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court doggedly supported freedom of speech over hurt feelings, even in situations where the speech was grossly, extremely offensive.  The U.S. Supreme Court's message was always - that those who were offended should simply look the other way, because the core of speech is protected content, political expression.

With the determination to protect the constitutional freedom of speech and assembly, the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. disregarded the feelings of Holocaust survivors and their families by allowing a march of "national socialists" (fascists) through their town;
2. disregarded the feelings of African Americans as to the history of lynching by repeatedly striking down criminal statutes for cross-burning in front of residences of African Americans, see here and here;
3. disregarded the feelings of mourners of fallen soldiers who died protecting this country who were confronted with hateful speech right at their loved one's funerals.

If SUCH feelings under SUCH circumstances were disregarded on 1st Amendment grounds, the mere displeasure of a judge and his wife as to a picket on a public sidewalk in front of the judge's residence, where there were no safety issues involved whatsoever (Tony Pacherille verified the address, Judge Burns' wife told him to leave, he left, the Chief of Police called, Tony Pacherille said he will not come TO the residence again, meaning on the judge's property).  

Tony Pacherille could still walk the public street where the Judge's house was located.  As a taxpayer, Tony Pacherille was paying for upkeep of that street and was entitled to walk it.

There is nothing more protected as political protest in front of a residence of a public official.  

To any reasonable observer, it would be clear that Holocaust survivors would feel threatened by a march of fascists through their town.

To any reasonable observer, it would be clear that an African American family would be more than alarmed and threatened by a burning cross on their lawn - and, by the way, their lawn was PRIVATE property, so a trespass was involved, too.

Here, Tony Pacherille planned a peaceful picketing outside a judge's residence on a public sidewalk.

If there are no safety issues involved - and in Tony Pacherille's case there were none, as the criminal court subsequently concluded - such a protest should have been allowed.

So, restrictions imposed on Tony Pacherille's right to demonstrate in front of Judge Burns' home were clearly unconstitutional, and imposing such restrictions was abuse of power - both on the side of the police and city authorities, and on behalf of Judge Burns who sought such restrictions, knowing (as a judge who was sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution) that such restrictions are in violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free association.

The Anthony Pacherille's story, Part 3 - after the sentencing: thin skin, long arms, the sense of entitlement and the complete lack of integrity of Judge Brian Burns of Otsego County

This is the 3rd story in my series of blog posts about the case of Anthony Pacherille and his family, of Cooperstown, NY, Otsego County, and about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct involved in this case see Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

I left off in Part 2 where Judge Burns failed to disclose that he felt unsafe because of the contents of the boy's letter sent to Burns as part of regular pre-sentencing procedure.

If the judge felt personally unsafe, he had to recuse before the sentencing of the boy who just turned 16 at the time of the shooting and who was definitely entitled to a youthful offender status, and especially because of his mental health status and the evidence of cruel, consistent and prolong bullying that his family said it had.

Instead, Judge Burns lashed out and retaliated against the father through his teenage son, by sending him for 11 years into an adult maximum security prison.

The father was legitimately upset as to that outcome, and wanted to protest.

According to the father's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court with the Northern District of New York, the father, with a constitutionally allowed protest in mind, and having been advised that the City of Oneonta where Judge Burns apparently resided at that time, had an ordinance in place requiring protestors to apply for a permit with determination of time and place of the protest, Anthony Pacherille father went to what he thought was Judge Burns' address to verify if it was, indeed, Judge Burns' address, in order to put it on the application for a permit with the City of Oneonta.

The father reportedly knocked on the door at 9 Union Street, Judge Burns' wife answered, the father asked whether it was Judge Burns' address, the wife confirmed it and expressed displeasure that Tony Pacherille came there, Tony Pacherille apologized and left.  That was all.

Here is what happened next, according to Tony Pacherille's federal complaint.

After his visit to Judge Burns' residence Tony Pacherille received a call from the City Police Chief telling Tony Pacherille that the City Police received a call from Judge Burns expressing displeasure about Tony Pacherille's visit, and the Chief of Police asked Tony Pacherille to "cease and desist" from coming to Judge Burns' residence, I understand, at the threat of criminal prosecution.

The call to the police, however misguided, was a legitimate way to address the situation for Judge Burns.

The situation was diffused by that phone call, Tony Pacherille did not intend to visit Judge Burns' residence again and consented not to do that in his conversation with the Police Chief.  No further action was required.

Yet, Judge Burns did not restrict himself with legitimate ways.

Here is the letter dated August 3, 2011 that Tony Pacherille received from John McConnell, Esq., counsel to the Unified Court System (it was attached to Tony Pacherille's Amended Complaint in federal court, I obtained it from Pacer.gov).

Talking about thin skin, long arm and a feeling of entitlement of New York State judiciary.

Here is the salary of attorney John McConnell, Esq. paid to him by you, my readers from the State of New York.  I obtained this information from seethroughny.org.

The letter was written in 2011.

In 2011 John McConnell's salary was $136,500 a year.

What occurred between Judge Burns and Tony Pacherille was a PRIVATE dispute.  Judge Burns could:

1) complain about Tony Pacherille to the police - and he did;
2) ask the local authorities to start criminal proceedings against Tony Pacherille - and he later did;
3) SUE Tony Pacherille for, let's say, trespass (there is no civil private right of action for harassment in New York) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) on himself and his wife - but Judge Burns knew that, had he sued Tony Pacherille for IIED, he would have had to disclose to Tony Pacherille his and his wife's mental health records, which Judge Burns obviously did not want to do.

If Judge Burns so desired, he could hire an attorney to assist him in filing the criminal complaint, and assisting him in filing a civil action against Tony Pacherille, which would have included a filing fee of $210 in the Supreme Court, and a substantial retainer to the attorney - since it was a PRIVATE action by Judge Burns against Tony Pacherille.

Instead, Judge Burns used a state employee, an attorney paid BY US THE TAXPAYERS $136,500 a year at the time (and whose pay skyrocketed to $185,000 by 2015, obviously for "serving" judges proper and improper requests), to represent Judge Burns for free in a private action.

Attorney McConnell stated in the letter that the Office of the Court Administration represents judges of the State of New York "in legal matters".

That is not true.

New York State Attorney General represents judges of the State of New York "in legal matters", and NYS AG claims that such a designation of his office as legal counsel for judges is statutory, by Public Officers Law Section 17.   New York State Attorney General has claimed that much recently in federal court, and the federal court agreed.

It is NOT the duty of the New York State Court Administration to represent Judge Burns in private matters.

It is not a duty of the New York State Attorney General, or of ANY public official, at public expense, to represent Judge Burns in matters where he thinks his personal safety is jeopardized because a visitor on his porch.

New York State Court Administration has no authority to represent judges in civil or criminal matters.  So, attorney McConnell (1) lied, and (2) misused his time paid for by taxpayers to give a personal favor to a judge - on an official letterhead.

Since attorney McConnell had no right to write or send such a letter, it was attorney misconduct and harassment of Tony Pacherille.

Was Attorney McConnell disciplined for that misconduct?  Of course, not.

Attorney McConnell was instead promoted, and his salary soared $49,300 in 4 years,  a 36% increase from the already unreasonably huge salary of $136,500.  That's at the background of the ongoing budget crisis, the exodus of people (taxpayers) out of New York state and shrinking tax base that pays attorney McConnell's salary.

That's who you pay your hard-earned tax money, New Yorkers, and that's what your money is used (or, rather, misused, for).

Was Judge Burns disciplined for abusing his power in utilizing a highly paid court employee to send this "Cease and Desist" letter when he had to hire a private attorney to do that and pay him or her out of Judge Burns' own pocket?  Of course, not.

Brown-nosing the judiciary pays off, and no laws will stand in the way of providing a private favor to a judge, even if that favor is illegal.

"Brown-nosing the Judiciary 1, 2 and 3" must be the main subject taught in the "legal ethics class" in law schools, not the lies about "attorney ethics" and "judicial ethics" that law schools preach to law students, because THAT is how you REALLY advance in the legal profession in the State of New York.

By the way, McConnell was, reportedly, the one who signed the letter about the "stop-gap" job offer to Christine Ryba on behalf of Michael Coccoma, after she was secretly booted by 3rd Department Chief Justice Karen Peters for unethical conduct - strategically booted, I must say, only one day before elections, so voters did not know of her termination and voted her into a judicial office nevertheless.

As I said above, as to attorney McConnell - brown-nosing the judiciary to cater for their little illegal whims, including the married Judge Coccoma's whim in wasting taxpayer money to offer an unnecessary for him "consolation stop-gap job" for 6 weeks to a pretty-face young female attorney fired for unethical conduct - works.  

You can expect yet another salary increase for attorney McConnell after the tear-jerking letter to Ryba on Coccoma's behalf - at your expense, New York taxpayers, of course.

As to Judge Burns and McConnell's claim that the NYS Office of Court Administration represents Burns in "legal matters", that was not only not true (NYS Attorney General does - in matters connected with official conduct, not in private matters like Tony Pacherille's visit to the judge's front porch and the judge's displeasure about it), but, eventually, even NYS AG did not get to represent Judge Burns when Tony Pacherille filed a federal lawsuit against him.

I will post in one of my next blog covering the Pacherille story as to what kind of law firm Judge Burns has actually hired to "effectively defend" him against Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit, as well as about other ways in which the Otsego County establishment persecuted the Pacherille family.

I will also write about our right and entitlement, as citizens, to protest in front of homes of public officials, even those with thin skin, long arms, a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of integrity - and about the applicable law on the subject.

Stay tuned.