Disability of Family Court Judge Mary Rita Connerton - headaches from constitutional arguments

In 2014 I filed a motion to vacate sanctions against me as a pro bono counsel in a custody proceedings, based on new and previously unavailable evidence of misconduct of Judge Becker who imposed the sanctions.

The case started in New York where sanctions were imposed upon me by Judge Becker for making in 2011 a motion to recuse him imposed 3 days after I sued him on behalf of my Family Court client Alecia Bracci, myself and my husband Frederick J. Neroni.

The custody case proceeded to Pennsylvania in 2012 (where I was not an attorney of record), and then in North Carolina in 2014 (where I similarly was not an attorney of record).

In both of those states, Pennsylvania in 2012 and in North Carolina in 2015, findings were made by courts consistent with my arguments on behalf of my pro bono client Alecia Bracci (for which arguments I was sanctioned).

Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., assigned instead of now-recused and not-yet-retired Becker, yelled at me in August of 2014 at the oral argument on the motion and informed me, on record, that he considers making "alternative arguments" in Family Court as "lying".

I have the transcript on file where Judge Revoir says that.

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to discipline Judge Revoir for his statement, as well as for his actions in first claiming he has no jurisdiction over the case and then issuing an arrest warrant against a litigant in the case as if he had jurisdiction, and that arrest warrant was used by corrupt Delaware County officials to plunge both the young mother from the custody proceedings and the maternal grandmother into criminal prosecutions against them.   

"Coincidentally" the "alternative arguments" that Judge Revoir deemed as "lying" were constitutional arguments in support of my motion.

Judge Revoir recused from the case before deciding my motion to vacate sanctions.

Judge Mary Rita Connerton from Binghamton was assigned instead.

By that time I withdrew from representation of Alecia Bracci, and Alecia Bracci was assigned another counsel, Rosemarie Richards.

Judge Connerton scheduled a conference where Alecia Bracci and her new counsel Rosemarie Richards, attorney for the child and Ryan Adams appeared (Adams appeared by phone).

I was not allowed into that conference because I no longer represented Alecia Bracci.

Alecia Bracci later told me that Judge Connerton referred to my still pending motion to vacate custody determinations against Alecia Bracci AND sanctions against myself and Alecia Bracci and on my behalf (Judge Revoir recused without deciding it).

Alecia Bracci told me that her new attorney Rosemarie Richards did not discuss with there contents of my motion on Alecia Bracci's behalf (which was still pending and not withdrawn), and showed no indication that she was aware of the motion or read it.

According to Alecia Bracci, Judge Connerton claimed at the conference where I was not allowed to attend, that the mere idea of reviewing my motion (containing multiple constitutional arguments, with multiple documentary exhibits based on new evidence) gives her a headache.

After hearing about Judge Connerton's ex parte characterization of my motion to my opponent Ryan Adams without my presence, and of her plans as to that motion, similarly without my presence, I requested Delaware County Family Court for access to the audio recording of that conference (the conference was officially audio-recorded, according to Alecia Bracci).  

It is easy for a litigant in Family Court in New York to see whether the record is being made because there is a recording monitor facing the parties in front of the judge, and the judge pushes the recording button which sets recording monitor into motion.

I had no doubt that Alecia Bracci was telling me the truth as to what Judge Connerton said in an ex parte manner at the conference about my motion.

Delaware County Family Court denied me access to the audio recording.

Judge Connerton sent out an official letter claiming that she never discussed my case at the conference where I was not present.

Then, Judge Connerton denied my motion to vacate sanctions against me without a due process hearing, and in reliance on the record before a recused judge, a clear due process violation.

Judge Connerton's actions in deciding a case on the record before a recused judge, and after her ex parte statement that having to review my motion gives her a headache, indicated that Judge Connerton did not read my motion at all, she simply rubber-stamped the convenient label of "collateral estoppel" on something that she did not read because "it gave her a headache" to simply think about reading my motion, containing a lot of documentary exhibits including several audio recordings.

Naturally, I was not able to appeal on full record pertaining to the case because my access to the conference where Judge Connerton discussed the case was blocked and because Judge Connerton officially stated, in a letter, that she never discussed my case ex parte at the conference where I was not present and was not allowed to be present.

Only recently, a witness provided to me a copy of the transcript of that conference in October of 2014 where I was not allowed to attend.

I reviewed it and saw that, as I thought all along, Alecia Bracci told me the truth.

Judge Connerton DID discuss my motion on record.

Judge Connerton DID state that the motion refers to me only and not to Alecia Bracci (which indicates Judge Connerton did not read the motion).

Since there was no opposition from Alecia Bracci's new assigned attorney Rosemarie Richards, it is apparent that assigned attorney Rosemarie Richards also did not read the motion I made on behalf of HER client, and sold out her client by not insisting on adjudicating the PENDING motion to vacate custody determinations by Judge Becker based on new, previously undiscoverable, evidence office disqualification and misconduct to preside over Alecia Bracci's custody proceedings in the first place.

The beauty of the transcript was also that you know who was listed as Alecia Bracci's counsel on "appearances"?

Your humble servant.

Even though the court had my filed Notarized Consent to Change Counsel to Pro Se, signed by Alecia Bracci after we understood that the court will punish Alecia Bracci simply because she is my client if I do not withdraw (as it happened before), even though the court had on file the application of Alecia Bracci for an assigned counsel which was GRANTED by the court;  

even though the court had an order of assignment of Rosemarie Richards to the case as Alecia Bracci's new counsel;  

even though it was Rosemarie Richards' statements that the transcript mentioned as Alecia Bracci's counsel and not mine, and my statements do not appear in the transcript; 

even thought judge Connerton asked Rosemarie Richards questions about Alecia Bracci's position in the proceeding and not me who, according to the appearances on the front page of the transcript, was attorney of record for Alecia Bracci, 

the front page of the transcript was fabricated and fraudulently showed me as attorney for Alecia Bracci, contrary to court records.

This is not the first, and not the second time when court records are misrepresented in order to absolve a judge from liability for misconduct and to validate fabricated sanctions against me.

It happened in Bracci v Adams, Delaware County Family Court, Family File No. 6995.

It happened in Shields v Carbone, Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2009-440.

It happened in M & C Brothers v Torum, a Delaware County Supreme Court case, Index No. 2007-280.

It happened in the Mokay v Mokay case, Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No.  2007-695, where a retired judge and his son, as well as another son-of-a-judge and a husband-of-a-now-law-clerk-of-a-judge, committed fraud and fraud upon the court that, if prosecuted, will put the son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem away for the rest of his life, for prosecuting a case, submitting multiple sworn statements to the court and obtaining a money judgment based on alleged attorney fees on behalf of a person who never hired them in the first place.

It happened in the Department of Environmental Conservation case against my husband where I was brought as a necessary party  by the DEC while the same DEC at the same time was claiming I was not a necessary party in those proceedings, Delaware County Supreme Court, Index No. 2011-413.

All of the above cases where misrepresentations were made and condoned by the court were with Judge Becker as a presiding judge - what a surprise!

Another case where fabrication of court transcripts were discovered was my husband's disciplinary case where the archive relied upon disappeared, and my case where court records disappeared, archive relied upon disappeared and two court transcripts relied upon were fabricated, with evidence of fabrication (audio recordings of conferences that were allegedly reflected in the transcripts) were provided to the court.

Those who made misrepresentations or were responsible for fabrications of court records, were not disciplined, neither attorneys nor judges, multiple judges.

Instead, my license was suspended for blowing the whistle on that misconduct.

The latest fabrication, of my alleged appearance in the conference where I was not allowed to appear, was not a surprise to me, it was part of the pattern that spans back years.

Yet, there are glitches in that fabrication, visible to a naked eye.

If I was present at the conference, I knew about the conference and what was happening at the conference.

I immediately addressed the issue of ex parte communication of Judge Connerton back in 2014, before the fabricated appearances in the transcript were created, the court blocked my access to the audio recording of the conference, there are documents on file showing that at the time of the conferences I was not Alecia Bracci's attorney of record, but Rosemarie Richards was, by an order of assignment.

Judge Connerton addressed the issue of the ex parte conference and clearly assured me, in a letter she sent to me in 2014, before the transcript was created, and stated in that letter that she did not discuss my motion to vacate sanctions in that case behind my back.

In that letter Judge Connerton's statement is inconsistent with appearances reflected in the later-fabricated first page of the transcript of that conference.

Judge Connerton does not state that Mrs. Neroni has no right to claim that the judge engaged in an ex parte communication when Mrs. Neroni, according to the court records, was present at the conference.

But - had she said that, I would have had the right to claim access to the record and include it into the Record on Appeal, or would have a right to use it in making an immediate motion to recuse and vacate any decisions Judge Connerton made.  That was not the plan.

The plan was to lie - twice.

Once to me in 2014, blocking my access to the audio recording of the conference and preventing me from prosecuting an appeal or making a motion to vacate Judge Connerton's decision which could stall my disciplinary action.

And the second time in 2015, by clumsily lying on the appearance page that I was actually present at the conference.

This is, by the way, not the first time when "lying-through-appearances-in-the-transcript" occurs in Delaware County Family Court.

In yet another case, a case of my client, appearances were fabricated to not show that children were present during Judge Becker's diatribe during which he claimed that a female child present in the courtroom "is not college material" - in opposition to my argument on behalf of the child's father that he wants the child (who was in foster care at the time) to be educated in school so that she receives a high school diploma that allows her admission into colleges, other than the IEP diploma that is not accepted by New York colleges for purposes of admission.

Federal law required what the father asked.  Yet, Becker had to protect his client William Moon, Commissioner of Social Services and the child's legal guardian, who obviously violated the child's rights by not providing to her the required education.  After all, Moon was Becker's client and buddy of several decades.

So, instead of following the law (state and federal) and granting my client's request Becker made a disdainful discriminatory female-hating comment that the female child sitting in that same courtroom "is not college material anyway".

And, to conceal the fact that he said that in front of that child and caused her shock, humiliation and tears, appearances on the transcript were changed, and the stenographer (a court employee) refused to change appearances when the mistake was called out to her attention.

What am I going to do with this new evidence of lies by Judge Connerton?

Of course, I am not going to let this slide, especially that because of Judge Connerton's lies, other fraudsters, in the Appellate Division 4th Department, were able to take my law license.

Of course, I will complain about Connerton, just to make the record, to our Glorified State Shredder of Complaint Against Judges, the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Of course, I will take the necessary legal steps to try to vacate decisions of Judge Connerton based on her adamant lie, ex parte communication and misconduct in my case.

I do not know what will be the results, but I will do that.   Judicial misconduct should not be allowed to escape without accountability OR exposure to public scrutiny.  If NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct does not want to do its job, public scrutiny will be here, through reading this blog.

I will report results of my efforts pertaining to Judge Connerton's disability, headaches from constitutional arguments, here.

I will also request removal of Judge Connerton because of her self-admitted disability, headaches she develops just thinking of reviewing motions containing constitutional arguments.

Such a disability in a judge is incompatible with the duties of judicial office, so Judge Connerton should seek a profession where her duties do not cause her headaches.

I wonder, in how many more proceedings in Family Court Judge Connerton ignored constitutional arguments because of her disability.

NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct should address the matter.  If it doesn't, I will continue to address it anyway on my blog.

Stay tuned.

A legislative proposal of how to transform Wicked Stepmothers into Fairy Godmothers

On October 14, 2015, a federal court in the Southern District Court of Florida, in reliance on a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1994, made an astonishing claim (while dismissing portions of a federal lawsuit made by a suspended attorney Erwin Rosenberg) that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction of federal courts cannot be EXPANDED by judicial decree.

While that is absolutely true, what the court said is also part of a more generalized concept, that under Article I of the U.S. Constitution only the U.S. Congress has exclusive authority to adjudicate, and that federal courts cannot legislate and AMEND statutes, either by EXPANDING its limited jurisdiction given by statute, or to RESTRICT it.

The judge of the Southern District Court of Florida recognized only the prohibition on EXPANSION of jurisdiction of federal courts by judicial decrees in excess of a statute or of the U.S. Constitution while ignoring the matching prohibition on restriction of jurisdiction of federal court by judicial decree.

Yet, as I wrote before on this blog, federal courts engage in RESTRICTION of their jurisdiction, which is not authorized by Article I and Article III of the U.S. Constitution as well as expansion of jurisdiction by judicial decree.

Courts unlawfully restrict their jurisdiction, and thus slam the doors to the courthouse into the faces of injured victims of constitutional violations through the following judicial decrees/judicially created concepts (this may be an incomplete list):

1. comity/federalism;
2. deference to state officials who are sued as defendants in civil rights lawsuits (deference to one of the parties based on the party's status = bias, it is a very simple concept that federal courts would not see even when it is screaming in their learned faces);
3. full faith and credit to state adjudications through courts or administrative agencies that either refused to review federal constitutional claims or had no authority to consider federal constitutional claims/ collateral estoppel/ res judicata on the same grounds;
4. various immunities:
1. absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts;
2. quasi-judicial immunity to a host of people not subject to judicial discipline;
3. absolute prosecutorial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts;
4. qualified prosecutorial immunity for investigative actions;
5. qualified immunity to a host of people, including police officers and social services that is not subject to public discipline;
6. "sovereign immunity" that most states waived (the State of NewYork waived "sovereign immunity" in 1929 through a Court of Claims Act).
5. Various abstentions of federal courts recognizing jurisdiction, but refusing to exercise it on various pretexts, mostly invented after state and federal judiciaries agreed in 1970 through so-called "State-Federal Judicial Councils", a shady quasi-governmental organization with secret membership, to make efforts and "relieve tension" between state and federal judiciary through court decisions of federal courts in favor of state officials brought in before federal courts as defendants in civil rights actions;
6. the Rooker-Feldman bar (claiming that unconstitutional actions by the government had to be brought up in state court and, if not brought up, waived - which is not conceptually correct because under 42 U.S.C. 1983 a civil rights plaintiff is allowed by the U.S. Congress to choose federal courts as forums for federal constitutional claims, without any conditions precedent, and failure to bring such claims in federal court thus does not constitute any bar for exercising this choice);
7. specific pleading requirements in civil rights cases, which transform "claim pleading", as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 into the ancient and long-abolished factual pleading where the plaintiffs are required to do the impossible - plead facts pertaining to conspiracy and shady dealings of state government officials in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights before discovery;  moreover, civil rights lawsuits are often dismissed for failure to comply with that impossible task, and plaintiffs and their attorneys sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" for such failure.

I bet, those judges who dismiss cases on the grounds of failure to carry out an impossible judicially created pleading requirement, and sanction for such failure to satisfy an impossible task, watched - a lot - "Cinderella" when they were children, and now happily follow in the footsteps of the Wicked Stepmother.

Federal courts not only unlawfully restrict their jurisdiction based on "judicial decrees", but also punish civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys for bringing civil rights lawsuits despite those unlawful judge-created decrees unlawfully restricting jurisdiction of federal courts.

In other words, federal courts unlawfully punish victims of constitutional violations for asking a federal court for help against perpetrators of those constitutional violations.

And this situation has been ongoing for quite a while, since 1970 and became most acute nowadays.

Yet, without novel constitutional arguments, there will be no development in constitutional law, in civil rights movement and in social progress of this country.

I understand that preservation of the status quo and protection of state public officials from lawsuits based on their misconduct is what federal courts consider their duty, Constitutional oath of office be d**ned.

Any law is as strong as its enforcement.

The U.S. Constitution has been made unenforceable for some time through "judicial decrees" of federal courts restricting their jurisdiction and forcing civil rights plaintiffs to involuntarily "choose" as a forum to adjudicate their federal constitutional claims biased state courts that ignore their constitutional claims and punish those who raise them, litigant or attorney.

It is time to reverse this habit of lawlessness by our most "honorable" adjudicators, our Wicked Stepmothers who don't give a fig whether they violate the law and their constitutional oath of office (that they needed only to claim their salary, benefits and power for our LIFE OR DEATH, literally - federal courts handle death penalty cases), as long as they forge connections with the powerful people who appear in front of them as defendants.  

I encourage my readers to contact their representatives in Congress and to demand introduction of legislation to:

protect the Civil Rights Act, legislatively prohibiting :

• any of the above-mentioned restrictions to jurisdiction of federal courts, legislatively providing that 
• the use of any of the above mentioned judicially created restrictions on jurisdiction of federal courts, or of any other, new judicially created restriction to jurisdiction of federal courts which are not reflected in the text of federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution, as well as imposition of punishment upon civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys for filing civil rights actions and raising constitutional arguments, should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office of any federal judge.

Since our Wicked Stepmothers, our federal judges who we recklessly entrusted to be in charge of the "rule of law", 

are spitting on that rule of law from a high bell-tower where they sit and enjoy their salaries and benefits, fruits of our labor as taxpayers, 

the only language they will understand is a boot to their backside for betraying their oath of office, 

and the procedure for removal/impeachment of our beloved Wicked Stepmothers must be legislatively made AUTOMATIC, 

as long as there is evidence that a judge either: 

1. refused to review a civil rights lawsuit on grounds that are not found in the TEXT of a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution, and/or 
2. punished a litigant or attorney for: 
1. filing a civil rights lawsuit, a lawsuit meant to enforce the U.S. Constitution and to obtain a private remedy to the victim of constitutional violations from perpetrators of such constitutional violations, or
2. for making any arguments in that civil rights lawsuit, as all arguments in a civil rights lawsuit are arguments based on the U.S. Constitution.

When that legislation is in place, and is enforced, I bet that our federal judges, our Wicked Stepmothers, will immediately recall their Constitutional oath of office (not just to lash around in blind rage, garner courtier's flattery and gifts or draw a paycheck as they do it now), and will become our Fairy Godmothers.

A transformation from a Wicked Stepmother to a Fairy Godmother - isn't that magical?

Let's create the magic.

Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore - promoted to the position of top New York State judge instead of being disbarred. How predictable. How appropriate.

As I wrote in my previous blog, Governor Cuomo nominated Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore to the position of the Chief Judge of the NYS Court of Appeals instead of the retiring Jonathan Lippman, buddy of convicted felon, former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

I did not practice in Westchester County much, but this is what I learned last year about operations of Ms. DiFiore's DA's office when I did have a case there.

1. An A-felony case can be brought where the DA's office had no evidence supporting the case;
2. a substitution of counsel from the corrupt public defender to the independent private attorney could be thwarted, long enough for the corrupt public defender to probe with me on the phone whether I am going to engage in plea negotiations or ask for a felony hearing, and when the public defender learnt I was going to ask for a felony hearing where evidence supporting charges was supposed to be presented, the corrupt public defender, knowing that another counsel was hired for the defendant, went right into jail to try and thwart my plans and to coerce the defendant to waive grand jury indictment and proceed by the "Superior Court information", thus obscuring the lack of evidence and eliminating the need to confess lack of evidence to the grand jury - and that is multiple fraud;  I am happy my smart client did not fall into the trap and insisted to first talk to his new counsel before making any decisions, there are many people who do fall into such corrupt traps;
3. a collusion with the judge of the lower court can be arranged, and, in accordance with that collusion:
1. the criminal defendant can be ordered by the judge, without consent of counsel, into a talking session with a non-profit ABOUT THE CHARGES, in violation of his constitutional right to remain silent - as all criminal defendant with drugs charges are ordered to do in that court - with an order that the results of the talk session be supplied to the court AND to the prosecutor (the illegal order was cancelled by the judge after the initial yelling at me, refusal to vacate it, taking a break, and vacating the order after a break, after obviously consulting with the judge's seniors - and after yanking from me what I was going to use as evidence, a typographically PREPRINTED form with a PREPINTED judge's approving signature on it for the illegal order);
2. the judge of the lower court that has no authority to anything in a felony case other than (1) hold a felony hearing - which I asked for, and the court instead released my client without a hearing; (2) transfer the case to the grand jury, which the court did not do - that judge instead, without authority, started to drag me EVERY WEEK, from Delaware County to Westchester County, a 6 hour roundtrip each time, to appear at "conferences" where the DA's office would appear and announce that they, yet again, do not have the lab report that they were supposed to have before they filed charges and put the person into jail, jeopardizing his life in that jail;
3. after several such financially draining conferences, when the judge and the DA's office saw that the defendant, despite the financial drain on legal fees for these unnecessary conferences, is not relenting (and after two motions to recuse and disqualify the DA's office), the DA's office reduced the charges from an A felony to a misdemeanor (!), and gave me a lab report that showed that  there was no evidence against my client for the A felony to begin with, and the police either spoiled the evidence, or threw it away, or never had it, at least, my efforts to obtain evidence through discovery in misdemeanor proceedings resulted in an offer of a violation - which my client took to end the harassment.  From an A felony to a violation, quite a drop.  And when it started, the judge was yelling at me for refusal to settle with the prosecution:  "Do you realize, counsellor, that this is an A FELONY CHARGE?  You'd better talk to the ADA!"  Right.  That is exactly why I was hired, because I know what an A felony charge is and how to defend against it.  And - I got my client out of jail, where he was neglected by Westchester County, where appointed public defender attempted to sell him out, and where the DA's office obviously was behind that attempt to defraud him and cheat him out of his constitutional rights.  

By the way, in that same court, DA's employee, her Assistant District Attorney, is actually routinely accepting plea bargains on behalf of the court and advising criminal defendants at plea allocutions on behalf of the court, which is a gross constitutional violation.

This way, Ms. DiFiore sends a message to the public that her office is PART OF THE CRIMINAL COURT, and that criminal defendant had better plea because there is no choice.

By the way, with the fairly large courtroom packed, and with me coming from far away (over 3 hours' drive one way), the judge always kept calling me until the courtroom was nearly or completely empty (with the exception of the time when my client took a plea for a violation, that was paraded in front of a full courtroom). 

 I guess, my feistiness and opposition to the illegal practices set between the judge and Ms. DiFiore's office was giving a bad example to other attorneys and criminal defendants.

Well, my feistiness, or rather, doing my duty for my clients, bore results.  I got the charges reduced, without indictment, first from an A felony to a misdemeanor, and then from a misdemeanor to a violation.   That was not the first felony charge that I either reduced to a violation or had dismissed or reduced to a non-crime, a YO status.  I guess, New York has an abundance of skilled criminal defense attorneys and does not need such skilled attorneys, because less than a year after that, my law license was suspended because I made several motions to recuse against a corrupt judge in 2011.

Based on misconduct of DA DiFiore's Office that I observed in just one criminal case, DA DiFiore should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.  

Yet, she has been elevated to now set policies, court rules and to be the top judge of the State of New York.

While such a nomination fits right into the current corrupt culture in the New York State government, I, as a taxpayer and litigant, refuse to be victimized by DiFiore's corrupt conduct in higher office, the way she victimized and attempted to victimize my client in the criminal case.

It will be a disservice to New Yorkers to have, as the Chief Judge of the State, a person who treats the U.S. Constitution and people's rights pursuant to that Constitution, as a stepping stone to office, as a claim for a bigger paycheck, and as nothing else, violating that same U.S. Constitution once her paycheck is secured.

I am filing a complaint against Janet DiFiore with disciplinary authorities listing what I know about her office's misconduct in a felony case, and I am forwarding the copy of that complaint to the New York State Senate that will have to review it while considering DiFiore's appointment.

I am forwarding a copy of that complaint to the New York State Senate and also pointing out to the New York State Senate that one of the previous nominations to the New York State Court of Appeals by Governor Cuomo, Judge Leslie Stein, was appointed under the circumstances suggesting that appointment was meant as a quid pro quo in a court case that could result, if decided properly, in a flood of lawsuits from New York landowners against DEC and a flood of motions to vacate improper criminal convictions, civil penalties, and to return improperly imposed fines, civil penalties and money paid for costly "remediations" on New Yorkers' properties, remediations that DEC had no authority to require.

Judge Stein, in return for a higher paycheck, made sure that flood of lawsuits did not happen.

I do not know what kind of deal with Janet DiFiore, who remains a prosecutor before her candidacy was confirmed, did the Governor seek as a quid pro quo for her nomination for the New York State Court of Appeals, but, judging by how Leslie Stein was nominated by Cuomo, I cannot expect that Andrew Cuomo would let a chance pass not to exact some kind of return on his nomination of Janet DiFiore.

What should be done with Otsego County DA John Muehl: rehab or/and impeachment?

A reader has tipped me off about this article in the newspaper "The Daily Star", of Oneonta, NY, reporting dismissal of the 14-count grand jury indictment in Otsego County, regarding charges for alleged sex crime against two underage girls, ages 11 and 15, based on misconduct of the legal advisor of that grand jury, Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl.

Now, I wrote on this blog about misconduct of John Muehl in several cases:

• about the recent reversal in People v Michaels, 
• about the massive misconduct of John Muehl in Anthony Pacherille's case (see my blogs "Anthony Pacherille's story", I did not finish reporting that case yet), 
• about routine ex parte communications of John Muehl with County Judges John Lambert and Brian Burns, 
• about intentional draining of financial resources of criminal defendants by ordering their counsel into an endless string of unnecessary pre-trial conferences, at which the criminal defendants are not even allowed to be present, as required by law;
• about filing false felony charges to indulge racist dislikes of certain people by the now-deceased Oneonta mayor Dick Miller, and attempting to intimidate that particular criminals defendant that if he does not cave in and accept a felony plea, he will be reindicted for more - of course, when he did not accept that plea, and the trial was coming, Muehl had to cough up the confession that he did not have the witness and withdrew all charges, without being sanctioned by his former subordinate judge Lambert, who was likely in on the fraud.   

I wrote on this blog that Muehl's, let's say, facial color and glassy eyers, behavior and prior reports of leaving the scene of the accident before he even became a DA suggests that Muehl is a raging drinker who should not be handling criminal cases at all.

Of course, after I reported all of that, Muehl was appointed a "special investigator and prosecutor" to handle a so far botched-up investigation by the corrupt Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup into burglary, attempted arson and attempted witness intimidation at our own home in Delhi, NY.   

I guess, New York court system practically requires a succession from one corrupt prosecutor to another.

He is usually appointed as a very special prosecutor to fix cases wherever misconduct of a public official is involved.

He did not find anything inappropriate in a case against an assistant U.S. attorney Craig Benedict - in a case involving (gasp!) allegedly serving alcohol to minors.  John Muehl! Alcohol!  a very appropriate topic for him to review.  How can John Muehl The Drinker not forgive any powerful public official for anything involving alcohol.  Unthinkable.

In May of 2015 John Muehl, as a very special prosecutor, fixed the little feud within the Delaware County establishment claiming that top cops in Delaware County Sheriff's Department did nothing wrong, in answer to criminal allegations of Delaware County DA Dick Northrup's investigator Jeff Bowie (note that John Muehl cannot conceal his blushing color even when a picture is taken for a newspaper - of course, it would have been more appropriate on a mug shot, but we know that criminal prosecutors in New York are never criminally prosecuted, no matter what they do, especially that John Muehl recently ACD-d an Assistant U.S. Attorney).

Note that the little brawl in Delaware County that John Muehl was appointed to fix was started on allegations of Jeff Bowie, investigator for Delaware District attorney Richard Northrup.

That is the same Jeff Bowie to whom Richard Northrup is giving Barbara O'Sullivan's head on a silver platter, in order to save Jeff Bowie's nephew for from prison for vehicular assault, battery and attempted murder of the same Barbara O'Sullivan.  

Punish the victim!  Especially when she dared to stir up the marshes and filed a lawsuit against the beloved nephew in his individual capacity, for intentional misconduct, not covered by any insurance policies - and yet, Delaware County is using taxpayers'  money to oppose that lawsuit.

Yet, that case is too precious for John Muehl-The-Fixer to be appointed to fix it, so Dick Northrup, the now judge-elect of Delaware County Court, is holding onto that case for the dear life.

All this prosecutorial misconduct going on in the neck of woods in the rural upstate New York - Otsego and Delaware County - is not surprising.

After all, Propublica.org recently ran a series of articles that prosecutorial misconduct is not addressed in New York.

After all,  there was massive testimony on the same topic before the recent NYS Commission for Attorney Discipline that was not called to change anything rather than to create a "legacy" for the departing buddy-of-a-felon Judge Lippman.

After all, a bill for a separate Commission for attorney discipline, specifically for prosecutorial misconduct, is being promoted by NYS Senator DeFrancisco through the Senate, which would not have been necessary had there not been a selective policy of non-prosecution of prosecutorial misconduct by the existing attorney disciplinary committees.

After all, yet another prosecutor that was responsible for egregious misconduct of her subordinates in office and for massive violations of constitutional rights of criminal defendants (a blog will follow), Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore, was just nominated by the NYS corrupt Governor Andrew Cuomo to succeed the New York State Chief (corrupt) Judge Jonathan Lippman, buddy of the newly convicted felon Sheldon Silver.   I dare to suppose that our corrupt Governor Cuomo expects something from Janet DiFiore in return for the appointment, the way he got an instant return from Judge Leslie Stein after he appointed her while she as reviewing a case of Cuomo's subordinate the Department of Environmental Conservation.  I turned Cuomo and Stein into a criminal investigation by Assistant U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in October of 2014.  In return, in November of 2015 New York State suspended my law license and now Leslie Stein will hear my appeal from the suspension.   How appropriate.

But, back to our glorious John Muehl.

It is interesting to mention that the judge who tossed the 14-count grand jury indictment was not either of the local County judges, not Brian Burns, the former Otsego County Assistant District Attorney, and not John Lambert, the former Otsego County Chief Assistant District Attorney.   

It was judge Joseph Cawley who tossed the indictment blasting misconduct of John Muehl, but did not take John Muehl off the case for misconduct, which would be the next logical step, and gave John Muehl instead "on option" to present the case to the grand jury yet again, while knowing that John Muehl is not an impartial prosecutor in this case as he is supposed to be.

Reportedly, Judge Cawley was perturbed and tossed the indictment, I repeat, a 14-count grand jury indictment alleging sex crimes against two children for the following reasons:

1. because John Muehl presented to the grand jury, according to the Daily Star (I will try to obtain the actual text of the order of dismissal, it is a public record) extensive testimony from the girl’s mother — testimony that produced 41 transcribed pages — even though she had “no personal knowledge of the charges set forth";
2. because "the volume of inadmissable evidence presented and its prejudicial effect is significant", Judge Cawley reportedly noted, which is an understatement of the century.  It is 41 pages of hearsay from a witness who should never have been put on the stand in the first place;
3. because John Muehl injected his personal beliefs into the proceedings and to vouch for the credibility of witnesses - and after that John Muehl was still allowed by Judge Cawley to proceed on the case.  Sweet.

Usually cases regarding alleged sex crimes against children are not so easily tossed.

What happened in the grand jury must have been pretty bad.

The problem is, though, that usually the defendant and his/her counsel never gets to see that testimony unless it is presented as the so-called "Rosario" material when the same witness testifies at a pre-trial hearing or at the trial.

Judge Lambert (former Muehl's subordinate) always claims in response to motions to review grand jury minute that it is unnecessary to give the criminal defense attorney a right for such a review, because HE THE JUDGE reviewed it and did not find there anything inappropriate - because that is a way of the system to coerce people into pleas, drum up wrongful convictions, profess being "tough on crime" and being re-elected and promoted - both for the judge and for the prosecutor.

Judge Cawley, at the very least, did not have the stomach to allow this travesty of an indictment to proceed - as Lambert is doing with, as an example, indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan in Delaware County advanced by the corrupt Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup in a case where:

Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, nephew of Richard Northrup longtime investigator Jeff Bowie is the alleged victim (while Northrup already prepared for submission at trial false evidence, as reported to me, I have documents showing that on file).  

That is going on when the same Northrup refuses to prosecute the same Derek Bowie for vehicular assault, battery and attempted murder against the same Barbara O'Sullivan.  How sweet.

Does the tossing of the indictment, with such a rare, scathing criticism of John Muehl, mean that John Muehl's career is coming to a lull?

Maybe, just maybe, the system is getting wary about corrupt prosecutors - at least, about those whose actions are put on the spot through blogs?

Maybe, John Muehl needs to check himself into a rehab?

Maybe, then he will not be putting on the stand in front of the grand jury witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the case.

Maybe, after getting cleaned up, Muehl will not be then arresting and putting people in jail and ruining their lives by allegations that could not even withstand a motion to dismiss?

Was John Muehl drunk in presenting the witness without personal knowledge - something that a 1st year law student knows cannot be done?

Will authorities finally look into John Muehl's "errors of judgment"?

Repeated, bad errors of judgment, violating people's constitutional rights, ruining lives, repeatedly, time after time?

And, ladies and gentlemen, if John Muehl's, let's say, erratic judgment, is not attributable to his use of alcohol, that is even worse.

An alcoholic can be cleaned up (at least, theoretically).

You cannot change a corrupt mind.

In which case the only remedy for a corrupt prosecutor is impeachment.

Federal Trade Commission's guidelines toll funeral bells to attorney licensing in New York

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission where the U.S. Supreme Court declared that occupational licensing and discipline by members of the regulated profession may be in violation of federal antitrust law, without protection of the so-called "state immunity defense".  That was in February, 2015

On October 14, 2015, the FTC issued a press release introducing guidelines explaining how a state regulatory board can still get coverage under the state immunity defense, and what kind of conduct will not be covered.

Conduct NOT covered by the immunity defense, according to FTC guidelines, is:

1. disciplinary proceedings according to a pattern or policy that can have a substantial anticompetitive impact on the market, where
2. there is either no clear articulation of statutory authority of the disciplinary board to act in an anticompetitive way, or
3. where the regulatory board is composed of super-majority of market players (instead of consumers of services in the regulated market), there is no active oversight by an INDEPENDENT government agency.

FTC Guidelines also provided certain examples as to what will NOT constitute an active market supervision, such as:

1) when the supervising agency itself consists of regulated market participants; and

2) if the supervising agent is State Attorney General, and he or she represents the regulatory board on an ongoing basis.

FTC Guidelines also provides that an individual who was a market participant does not cease to become a market participant for purposes of "active supervision" element of the "state immunity defense" if the individual becomes a public servant and stops practicing the profession for the time of participation in the regulatory board.

Now, how does all of this apply to attorney regulation in New York?

CLEAR ARTICULATION BY STATUTE

NOTHING in the attorney licensing statute, Judiciary Law Section 90, provides for attorney disciplinary committees.

NOTHING allows such committees to exist, or conduct investigations or prosecutions of existing attorneys.

The only "committees" provided by the regulatory statute are "fitness committees" that pre-screen candidates for admission to the bar, but have no clear statutory authority (or any statutory authority) to investigate an attorney or revoke his or her law license.

So, attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are already failing one of the two prongs of the state immunity defense, and all attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York, consequently, are conducted in violation of civil AND CRIMINAL federal laws.  In other words, attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are operated as criminal cartels.

ACTIVE MARKET SUPERVISION

As FTC Guidelines provided, active market supervision element of the state will not be met:

1) when the supervising agency itself consists of regulated market participants; and

2) if the supervising agent is State Attorney General, and he or she represents the regulatory board on an ongoing basis.

New York attorney disciplinary regulation fails the active market supervision test on both counts above.

1) The controlling agency is the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Divisions.  Appellate Divisions are comprised of judges, all of whom must be market participants, licensed attorneys.  If a judge's license is revoked or suspended, the judge will cease being a judge, so the judge's regulatory supervisory function is conditioned upon approval of the judge's attorney license by the regulatory board that the judge supervises.  Obviously, such a dependency fails the active supervision test.

Appellate Judges in New York are not elected for life, serve only 14-year terms and, if not re-elected, return to their occupation as licensed attorneys unless they resign.  Thus, appellate judges are active market participants for purposes of "active supervision" analysis.

2) New York State Attorney General is not (at least not yet) the public official or agency appointed to supervise attorney disciplinary boards.  If he is, his supervision will fail the "active supervision" test because NYS Attorney General represents regulatory boards in an ongoing way, advising them how to conduct disciplinary proceedings in order to escape liability, and then representing them as an advocate in possible resulting civil rights lawsuits.

NYS AG's position as an advocate of attorney disciplinary board is incompatible with the necessary independent of the supervisor in order to meet the "active supervision" test.

And, finally, since there is a pronounced policy of attorney disciplinary committees in New York to target with discipline only solo, independent, minority, female, immigrant and civil rights attorneys, likely with lower fees and who more willingly and more often work at reduced rates or pro bono, and to whitewash misconduct of politically connected attorneys whose fees are higher, this anti-competitive conduct through attorney disciplinary proceedings may have a substantial impact upon competition in the regulated market.

So, the logical conclusion is that New York State attorney disciplinary/licensing system, as it exists today, operates in violation of federal criminal antitrust laws.

An antitrust lawsuit against attorney regulation is being litigated in a federal district court in Florida

The case has been filed in June of 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is called Erwin Rosenberg v Florida State Bar, Case No. 1:15-cv-22113.

Antitrust claims were dismissed since then - unfortunately, but several due process challenges to Florida bar rules survived.

In the case, attorney Erwin Rosenberg has been suspended for one year, judging by the pleadings submitted, at least in part for criticism of judicial misconduct and with judicial misconduct that led to the disciplinary proceedings - a husband judge affirming a wife-judge's decision challenged by Mr. Rosenberg for bias.

Erwin Rosenberg advanced very skillful argument pertaining to invalidity of attorney disciplinary rulings against him on antitrust and due process grounds.  

Erwin Rosenberg's argument can be used to show conceptual invalidity of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, one of the main  court-created bars to civil rights litigation.

I wish Erwin Rosenberg luck in his lawsuit.  

Mr. Rosenberg's brilliant arguments may pave a path for other attorneys unjustly disciplined for doing their jobs for their clients.

A disciplinary complaint was filed against New York attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis, James Hartmann and Denis Dineen requesting their disbarment

As the heading says, a disciplinary complaint was filed (I was not the complainant) against the following attorneys:

1) Richard Harlem - son of the late New York Supreme Court Justice and Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Harlem, law partner in the law firm Harlem & Jervis, of Oneonta, NY;

2) Eric Jervis, Richard Harlem's law partner;

3) James Hartmann, of Delhi, NY, husband of the law clerk of the judge-elect Gary Rosa of the Delaware County Family Court, New York, and

4) Denis Dineen, former law clerk of Richard Harlem's father, the late judge Robert Harlem.

There is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct in New York, so no matter when misconduct was committed by an attorney, it is still reachable by attorney discipline.

The complaint was based on a reportedly unsolicited affidavit sworn to on November 2, 2015 from a witness who asserted under oath that attorney Richard Harlem filed a lawsuit on behalf of the witness while the witness never hired Richard Harlem and never authorized him to file lawsuits on his behalf.  

According to the affidavit, Harlem was notified by the witness about the problem and that Harlem is proceeding on a retainer agreement where the witness's signature was forged.

According to the affidavit, Harlem arrogantly asserted to the witness, an indigent and disabled individual, that Harlem is still his attorney.

According to the affidavit, knowing that he was never hired by the witness to file or prosecute lawsuits on the witness's behalf, attorneys Richard Harlem and Eric Jervis made multiple sworn statements to several courts that they do, indeed, represent the person in question, and obtained a large judgment based on their alleged legal fees against that individual who, according to the affidavit, never hired them in the first place.

Attorney James Hartmann failed to verify whether the witness (one of several parties in the litigation) ever hired Harlem & Jervis or James Hartmann for the trial in the lawsuit, and submitted to the court boxes of sworn statements of Richard  Harlem and Eric Jervis, as well as solicited testimony of Richard Harlem, but not of the individual in question, in support of the contention that Richard Harlem did represent the individual.  

The complaint also points out that Richard Harlem intentionally lied to the court that he represented the person in question when he blocked discovery directed at that person, and that, by lying to the court that Richard Harlem and his law firm represents the person in question, the defendant in the lawsuit was blocked from direct communication with a valuable material witness, which severely impaired the defendant's defense in the case.

The complaint also adds that Richard  Harlem's fraud upon the court was not isolated (it happened in that particular lawsuit over the course of several years), but is coupled with his, his father's and Denis Dineen's misconduct in the Blanding case in Otsego County Surrogate's Court.

The complaint requests disbarment of attorney Denis Dineen (who is now employed with New York State Workers' Compensation Board) for aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law by a sitting Supreme Court Justice Robert Harlem, while knowing that the sitting judge is not allowed by the State Constitution to practice law, and knowing that an attorney is not allowed to bequeath to himself in a will he drafts any benefits, as Judge Harlem did.  Instead of reporting Judge Harlem's misconduct, Dineen helped Judge Harlem by appearing as a witness on one of the codicils (additions) to the will that Judge Harlem drafted in his favor for a multi-millionaire testator.

I will hold my breath if the system will dare to discipline "blue blood" attorneys who so far escaped discipline for decades.

If it doesn't, you know that attorney disciplinary system exists not to protect you from attorneys who commit misconduct, but to protect powerful attorneys who commit misconduct from criticism and to quash criticism of judicial misconduct and corruption amongst attorneys.

An affidavit like that is at the very least worth investigation and, possibly, referral from the attorney disciplinary committee to appropriate criminal investigators and prosecutors.

If the statements in the affidavit are true, Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann committed massive fraud upon the court that requires their disbarment and incarceration for the rest of their lives.

Once again, will the system dare to apply the rule of law against these politically connected attorneys?

Stay tuned.