New York Attorneys Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards - selling out their clients to get assigned again

Here is registration information for two New York attorneys, Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards.

Registration information as to both of them show "no record of public discipline".

Both of these attorneys are actively assigned to cases of indigent clients and as attorneys for children in Family Court cases in New York.

Here are assignments of Sarah Cowen available for review today on New York e-courts.

A very assignable attorney.

Sarah Cowen is being assigned in:

1)  all types of main Family Court cases:

       child neglect (NN), custody (V), Family offense (O), 

2)  as assigned counsel for parties and as attorney for the child;

3) in three counties - Delaware, Otsego, Chenango;

4) by four judges: Brian Burns and John Lambert (Otsego, also presiding in Delaware),  Frank Revoir and Kevin Dowd (Chenango, also presiding in Delaware and Otsego).

Each one of the above mentioned assignments brings Sarah Cowen $75/ hour of representation, in and out of court.

That is the kind of money in the shrinking market of paid legal services that an attorney cannot pass up.  It appears that, in Sarah Cowen's case (a young attorney admitted only 4 years ago), Sarah Cowen would rather sell her client out than do her duty, only not to jeopardize her future assignments.

I described in the previous post what Judge Connerton did in an ex parte conference of October 2, 2014.  I was in the courthouse on that day, waiting until I will be called to a joint conference.

Sarah Cowen was in that conference, as attorney for the child.

This is a portion of the order of Judge Connerton made afterward, on January 9, 2015.  Look how Judge Connerton describes a motion pending before the court on the day of the October 2, 2014 conference.

The motion, made on behalf of the mother and on my own behalf (addressing Judge Becker's illegal sanctions against me) seeks to vacate ALL orders of CUSTODY made by Judge Becker based on NEW EVIDENCE of Becker's misconduct and disqualification from the very beginning of custody proceedings.

Here is a portion of the transcript of the conference where I was not present and was not allowed to be present, with the exchange between Judge Connerton and attorney for the child Sarah Cowen on the subject of the SAME motions made BY THE  MOTHER - who is present with her new counsel Rosemarie Richards (I will provide assignments of Rosemarie Richards at the end of this blog below).

Note that somehow I am mentioned as an attorney of record instead of Rosemarie Richards, even though in a later letter of October 16, 2014 Judge Connerton recognized that I withdrew from the case as of September 2, 2014.

Once again, this is what Judge Connerton says about the same motion on October 2, 2014 - and Sarah Cowen, attorney for the child who expressed to Sarah Cowen a wish to stay with the MOTHER, says "yup" - even though she knows (or should have known, if she would actually have read the motion, as she was supposed to, as attorney for the child) that what Judge Connerton says is not correct, that a motion to vacate made BY THE MOTHER is also pending.

By her short "yup", Sarah Cowen waived her client's (the child's) right to be returned to the mother since Sarah Cowen did not bring to the court's attention that the motion to vacate pending was BY THE MOTHER - and Sarah Cowen had an opportunity to actually JOIN that motion, because she already ADDRESSED Judge Revoir at the previous hearing and already EXPRESSED her client's wish to stay with the mother, and there already EXISTS in the record an affidavit of Alecia Bracci about abuse of the child in the father's household which Sarah Cowen was served with.

Yet, Sarah Cowen says "yup", not to ruffle Judge Connerton's feathers and to secure future $75/hr assignments by other judges and by Judge Connerton for herself.

That is called "selling her client out" by Sarah Cowen - attorney-champion for the poor in three rural counties in upstate New York.

Now, wait a minute!  But, Alecia Bracci's new assigned counsel Rosemarie Richards is present at the proceeding.

Did she say anything to Judge Connerton?  Did she inform Judge Connerton of what Judge Connerton later acknowledged in her January 9, 2015 order?

That the MOTHER's motion to vacate ALL orders of custody remains pending?

Here is the real chance to have custody returned to Rosemarie Richard's client.

So what does this champion for the poor does?

Here is Rosemarie Richard's reaction to Judge Connerton's incorrect claim that the only outstanding motion is concerning me only and not Alecia Bracci:

Rosemarie Richards, attorney for the mother says that SHE DID NOT SEE the motion that the judge discusses.  Well, she was supposed to, to be ready for the conference.

Sarah Cowen bleats something incoherent and does not pursue the subject any further.

Rosemarie Richards did not say at the beginning of the conference she is not ready to proceed because she did not have the opportunity to review the pending motions and verify her client's position in litigation (the motion was supported by affidavit of Alecia Bracci, affidavit of her mother Barbara O'Sullivan and adjudications from other courts and from an administrative court revealing Judge Becker's misconduct and his role as a witness and fabricator of evidence against Alecia Bracci's mother for his own private financial reasons as an attorney for Alecia Bracci's aunt, evidence that was not discoverable and was discovered by a freak accident in 2012, long after Becker made his decisions in Alecia Bracci's custody case).   

Rosemarie Richards simply said that she did not read the motion the judge was discussing, and did not proceed asking for more time to actually read that motion in order to ascertain her own and her client's position regarding the motion.

Rosemarie Richards simply agreed with whatever the judge said. 

After all, the judge assigned Rosemarie Richards to the case, which will pay Rosemarie Richards $75/hr for doing nothing and for selling her client out.

Next, Judge Connerton decides to express her opinion about MY motion, in my absence and behind my back.

Does Sarah Cowen, an attorney with a duty to report judicial misconduct, make an objection to this obvious ex parte statement about a motion made by a person who was not allowed to be present at the conference?

Oh, no.

Sarah Cowen says "okay".  Sarah Cowen agrees that my motion containing constitutional arguments that could help Sarah Cowen's OWN CLIENT gave the honorable Rita Connerton a headache, and that the motion should be "dealt with" "on a different day". 

So, on October 2, 2014, and thereafter in the same proceedings, attorney Sarah Cowen committed an act of attorney misconduct an gross neglect of a client, a child, that resulted in dire consequences for her client, for the child - the father yanked the child to North Carolina and refused to allow her to see the mother or even talk to her on the phone for over a year (and was, thankfully, adjudicated, according to a witness, in civil contempt of court by a North Carolina Court on October 23, 2015, a year down the road).

The poor child did not have to be separated from the mother for over a year had her attorney Sarah Cowen done her job.  And, there was already an identical factual finding - without a contempt of court, in Pennsylvania in 2012, with a change of custody that the father later reversed by fraudulently serving appellate papers on the wrong person and not on the mother, and Sarah Cowen knew about that adjudication, it was part of the motion.

Did attorneys Sarah Cowen or attorney Rosemarie Richards, who knew about ex parte communication of Judge Connerton, about the disdainful remarks of the judge about an attorney's motion in attorney's absence, did they tell me about it?  

Of course, not, even though it would be their duties as counsel to prevent obstruction of administration of justice, in accordance with an attorney disciplinary rule.

Ok, that ex parte conference where Judge Connerton complained of a headache from the prospect of having to read my constitutional arguments, and complained about that headache in my absence, was on October 2, 2014.

Alecia Bracci told me later on about the headache of Judge Connerton.

I addressed that headache in a letter to the court requesting Judge Connerton to step down.

Here is what Judge Connerton answers to that letter on October 16, 2014.

First of all, Judge Connerton tells me, on October 16, 2014, that I was allegedly "misinformed".   

By the way, on September 18, 2014,  the person who allegedly "misinformed" me (Alecia Bracci), and who actually told me the truth, see the portion of the transcript above about Judge Connerton's headache, was "coincidentally" criminally charged by corrupt Delaware County officials for allegedly resisting arrest issued by Judge Revoir as a Family Court judge, after he claimed he had NO JURISDICTION in the case, and after he claimed that making constitutional arguments is the same to him as "lying to the court".  Judge Connerton was surely aware of that when she was claiming that Alecia Bracci "misinformed" me about her misconduct.

Once again, that is what Judge Revoir thinks about raising constitutional arguments in Family Court:

"We're not in Supreme Court arguing about some legal concept, where lawyers get to argue things in the alternative.  ...  In Family Court we call that lying".

So, if this is not a court where you can raise legal arguments, what kind of court is it?  Redneck court?  Where everything is decided the way a judge's left foot wants?

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to discipline Judge Revoir for his behavior in Alecia Bracci's case and for making this statement, and Judge Revoir continues to handle Family Court cases - and, as assignments of Sarah Cowen show, Sarah Cowen gets continued assignments from Judge Revoir since she did not "lie to the court" advancing constitutional arguments on behalf of her client.  Good girl.

Now, let's go on with Judge Connerton's letter of October 16, 2014.

Judge Connerton recognizes that I withdrew from the case on September 2, 2014 (immediately after I left the case, Judge Revoir first issued an illegal arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci, and then recused from the case).

Then Judge Connerton says the following:

"Upon review of the record, it appears that the only references made to that motion were to explain that 1) it was scheduled to be heard on October 2, 2014; and 2) to explain that it was not dismissed, but would be scheduled separately".

By this paragraph, Judge Connerton affirmatively denies that she said anything about headaches from reading or thinking about reading my motion, which is what I stated to her in my letter.

And that is, according to the transcript that I was not allowed to obtain myself because I was not a party to that proceeding, A LIE.

Why didn't the court personnel who knew about this lie, inform me?

Well, the current state of economy is tough, they are paid well, with benefits, why would they jeopadize their position by telling the victim of judicial misconduct the truth about judicial misconduct?  To be booted? Nah.

Not only court clerks did not tell me of this lie by Judge Connerton that helped preserve Judge Becker's unlawful sanctions against me and orders against the mother, the court clerks later made financial contributions to the friend of Judge Becker Porter Kirkwood (he was not elected), Delaware County Attorney who lied to me that there is no file in Delaware County Department of Social Services regarding Alecia Bracci.

The motion papers showed that there was such a file, and we discovered that only in 2012, accidentally, through Orange County Department of Social Services, and in that file - lo and behold - we discovered an indicated report about Alecia Bracci's mother that was not supposed to be there, so it was a lucky accident we even saw it (both reports, of Alecia Bracci and of Barbara O'Sullivan are vacated now).

The report against Barbara O'Sullivan was created in 2001, when Judge Becker was attorney for social services department that created the report.

The report was secret, it was false, it was supposed to be created against Alecia Bracci's aunt, but that aunt "coincidentally" was a paying client of attorney Carl Becker before he became a judge, and Attorney Carl Becker had his other client social services fabricate a report against another person to keep his paying client's record clean for purposes of intended future lucrative adoption proceeding.

Because Judge Becker was a creator of fabricated material evidence in the case, he was absolutely disqualified from presiding over the case as a judge.  

So, after Judge Connerton lied to me that she did not discuss my motion ex parte beyond scheduling issues, Judge Connerton does the following:

1) she denies my request for an oral argument on my motion to vacate sanctions;

2) she relies upon a record in front of a recused judge, Judge Revoir who thinks constitutional arguments is the equivalent of lying to the court, while the record before a recused judge does not exist as a matter of law;

3) she denies my motion to recuse that I filed on October 18, 2014 (and on that same day Alecia Bracci who provided to me information for the motion is arrested by Delaware County, her  mother is arrested, their dog is tasered and nearly killed and taken out of the house with a taser still sticking out of the poor animal's nose that remained there for the next two days; mother, daughter and dog are removed from home and the home is illegally searched by Delaware County); and

4) Connerton denies my motion to vacate based on new evidence and raising multiple constitutional issues, that same 500-page motion with multiple exhibits - denies it in one paragraph, two whole lines total.

Here is how Judge Connerton describes the same motion on October 2, 2014 (in my absence):

and in her January 9, 2015 decision:

And this is how Judge Connerton resolves that "500-page motion", with a "lengthy affidavit" and "numerous exhibits":

Two lines, at the end of a decision on several pages, stating "there is no basis is /sic/ law or in fact to grant the relief requested".

This paragraph shows that Judge Connerton's headache prevented her from reading the motion, and she resorted to the easy solution of not giving the reasons, but claiming that "relief requested" is not supported in fact or law.

How it is not supported, she does not say.

Why it is not supported, on each of raised constitutional issues, and as to each of documentary exhibits AND adjudications from other courts, she also does not say.

A very convenient approach.

AND, the WHOLE order denying relief and denying motion to recuse, as we know now, was based on a lie.

So, did attorneys Sarah Cowen and Rosemarie Richards who were served with this court order speak out for their clients?  Did they file appeals on behalf of their clients? Of course, not.  I know because I would have to be served with such appeals, and I wasn't.

Both Cowen and Richards would have been paid, up to $4,700 for those appeals.  They were afraid to do their duty by their clients.

They were afraid to expose the judge's lie that was burying their colleague, unfairly burying, and they knew it.

Both Cowen and Richards took an oath to support the U.S. and the State Constitutions.  

They betrayed their oath of office.

They betrayed their clients and committed acts of malpractice in order to keep themselves in judical favors and get assigned again.

They betrayed their duty of candor to the tribunal and to the parties and colleagues, including me.

They did that to be able to stay on the payroll of assigned cases.

Those unfortunate people to whom these attorneys are assigned - beware.  

There is a potential that you will be sold, too, in all of Sarah Cowen's assigned cases listed above, as well as past and future cases, and in all of Rosemarie Richards' cases listed below, and in all past and future cases.

These two attorneys know how to keep their law license: they do not lie to the court in Judge Revoir's understanding (in other words, they will not fight for you and will not make constitutional arguments on your behalf), and they will bleat something incoherent like "I did not read it yet", "okay" or "yup" where such constitutional arguments must be made.

And you can kiss your constitutional rights, your parental rights, and, in child neglect cases, possibly, your employment rights, goodbye.

Yet, they will continue to get assigned and paid for doing nothing, for saying nothing and for selling their clients out outright.

Because that is better for judges than actually doing their jobs - if their jobs involve exposure of judicial misconduct.

Here are assignments of Rosemarie Richards as of today.

Remember, for Richards and Cowen, $75/hr and the right to receive that money for doing nothing on your behalf is more important than anything else.

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.