Florida's conflicting "compelling interests": maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and protecting corrupt judges from criticism and discipline

A protestor was arrested on public property with a sign protesting certain actions of the government.

That was a classic 1st Amendment activity that was not subject to any punishment from the government.

Yet, the government wanted to punish the protestor.

The way to do that was to lie to the criminal jury that the protestor was trespassing on private property rather than that he was on public property and, as a taxpayer and co-owner of public property, could not possibly be "trespassing" on it.

But, that the protestor was on private and not public property would have been perjury.

And, to introduce such perjury in court would have been a crime.

And, a criminal defendant who knew he was on public property would have been entitled to point out that crime of perjury by stating to the jury - "I was on public property, and the People's witness is lying", and offer documentary proof, and witness accounts that the location where the protestor was peacefully standing with a sign was public property.

So - what was the government to do to still introduce perjurous testimony and still get the conviction for trespass on public property?

The government needed a corrupt judge.

And the government got two such judges - one who the criminal defendant from introducing the truthful statements that he was standing on public property with the protest sign when arrested, and the second one who added to the corruption of the first by issuing an administrative order threatening to arrest anybody who would stand, again, on public property holding signs accusing the first one of corruption.

Here are the names of the heroes of this story that happened recently in Florida.

The protestor's name is Michale Hoffman, member of a group called "Photography is Not a Crime" (PINAC).

The name of the first corrupt judge is Duval County judge Brent Shore who granted prosecution's "motion in limine" (motion to exclude) truthful testimony of criminal defendant that he was on public property, peacefully holding a protest sign and that his activity is fully protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here is the motion to exclude of the prosecution.

Two public prosecutors, State Attorney Angela B. Corey and her deputy attorney Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez signed this plea to the court to allow perjurous testimony and to block the truth from being heard by the jury.

They requested the court to block the truth because that truth could be "highly prejudicial to the State in the minds of the jury".

Attorneys Corey and Hernandez acknowledged in a sworn statement to the court that the defendant will be seeking to introduce at trial evidence on three issues:

1/  that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment;
2/ that "the property Defendant was located on and trespassed was a public forum" ;
3/ that the Aviation Authority trespass warning violated Florida public records law.

In other words, attorneys Corey and Hernandez asked the judge to prevent the criminal defendant from countering perjurous evidence that attorneys Corey and Hernandez were seeking to introduce at trial to establish "trespassing" to a criminal jury.

The motion could be plainly worded like that:  judge, why wouldn't you allow us to introduce perjury by blocking defendant from introducing the truth - because we will not be able to prove our case if the jury hears the truth.

The judge said - ok, of course, and blocked Michael Hoffman from introducing evidence that he was on public property and that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment. 

Of course, blocking a criminal defendant from effectively confronting a perjurous witness would be a violation of the criminal defendant's due process of law and his 6th Amendment right to effectively confront a perjurous witness.

Even then, the jury was initially deadlocked, and a juror sent a note to the judge asking whether it was illegal to protest on public property.

Judge Shore whose duty was to give all applicable laws to the jury, refused to do his duty and refused to answer that question.

Moreover, after Judge Shore obtained unlawful conviction by:

1. unlawfully refusing to grant a motion to dismiss;
2. unlawfully granting a motion in limine;
3. unlawfully blocking truthful evidence at trial and
4. refusing to do his duty by refusing to give the law to the juror as to whether it was illegal to remain on public property with a protest sign

Judge Shore included into the sentencing of Michale Hoffman a prohibition to participate in 1st Amendment protests, so the very same evidence that was blocked from the jury as "prejudicial" to the prosecution, was used to impose the criminal sentence.

Were judge Shore's actions corrupt?

Clearly appears that way.

Here is Judge Shore's picture, so that you can see our self-complacent and very likely corrupt hero.  

 

And of course, Judge Shore worked in the same office that asked him to allow them to prove their criminal case by perjury while blocking confrontation of the perjurous witness, in violation of the 6th Amendment.

Judge Shore gets $138,000 a year from taxpayers (including Michale Hoffman) for his unlawful activity of drumming up wrongful convictions based on perjury.

Here is the picture of state attorney Angela Corey who obtained from the judge permission to prove a criminal case by perjury.

She is listed as a religious person.  Her religion allows her to solicit perjury and fabricate criminal cases, relying on judge-created absolute prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts during prosecution of criminal cases and the unwritten policy of the Florida Bar of never disciplining criminal prosecutors for attorney misconduct.

Corey apparently has a history with attorney misconduct and perjury.

Attorney professor Alan Dershowitz called for Corey's disbarment in 2013 when she submitted what he called a false affidavit in the famous Zimmerman case.

Corey was also reported to have overcharge people in order to drum up guilty pleas, to obtain 20-year sentences for self-defense in what was called a case fraught with instititutional racism, in charging a 12-year-old child as an adult on a "felony-murder" theory (a theory that he was present as part of the team when another member of the team committed murder).

And, that Corey enhanced without authority her own pension and gave illegal bonuses to her staff - I wonder whether the bonuses were for drumming up wrongful convictions.

Quite a history.

The second attorney who obtained permission to commit perjury under Angela Corey's authority, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez, was not even supposed to prosecute cases at the time she prosecuted Michael Hoffman's case, because she herself was under investigation for "domestic battery", from which her boss Angela Corey recused.  To allow a person under criminal investigation to prosecute crimes is something else.

According to her personal LinkedIn profile, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez graduated from law school in 2013, just 2 years before she tried Michale Hoffman's case:

 
Kathleen Hernandez was admitted to practice law in September of 2014 and had less than a year of experience as a lawyer when she prosecuted Michale Hoffman.

And, with a charge for domestic battery and the history of obtaining permission from the court to prove a criminal case by fabricated evidence - and actually fabricating the case at trial - Kathleen Hernandez has no record of public discipline.

So, this was the "dream team" that drummed up the wrongful conviction of Michale Hoffman by blocking the jury from knowing the relevant evidence and the relevant law.

The "dream team" had a higher protector, Chief administrative judge of Florida's 4th Judicial Circuit judge Mark Mahon.

To quash protests against corruption in Michale Hoffman's case, and in continuation of the circus that the State Attorney Corey started by charging and prosecuting Michale Hoffman for trespassing on public property by peacefully holding a protest sign, Judge Mahon issued two administrative orders, one in March of 2015 and another in July of 2015.

Here is the March 5, 2015 order of Judge Mahon where Judge Mahon defines what is and what is not news media and introduces paid "Media Authorization Cards" and a burdensome procedure to prove that those who want to videotape a public trial (which is allowed by Florida law) are, indeed, "media" in Judge Mahon's understanding.

Here is the order of July 1, 2015.

In his July 1, 2015 order, Judge Mahon clearly brands speech criticizing judges as "unprotected" speech and proclaims his purpose of protecting "integrity" of the judiciary - by arresting critics of judicial corruption.

Really, sometimes you need to give people enough rope to hang themselves.

For a self-important tyrant which is what the majority of judges become with years of impunity for malicious and corrupt acts and no discipline and accountability whatsoever, you only need to give him a forum to make a complete idiot of himself - which is what Judge Mahon did with his July 1, 2015 order.

And, being a "third generation attorney", apparently filled Judge Mahon with a huge sense of entitlement, but did not prevent Judge Mahon from making, once again, a complete idiot of himself in his profusely worded order that had little sense.

Judge Mahon even advertised in his order of July 1, 2015 the youtube videos that he did not want people to see.

Here they are:

Interview with the "main media" posted on YouTube.

This footage includes videotaping of the "main media" attending a press conference of what appears to be the prosecutors where reporters walk right by a person who tells them he is a 15-year fraud investigator and who offers them evidence of corruption in the courthouse.  Actually, one female reporter told the person with evidence of judicial corruption to talk to her manager.  It appears that the reporters had a directive from their managers not to gather certain types of materials for their news coverage.

Also, the footage shows that court security officers allowed reporters with video-cameras to videotape state attorney's press-conference right in front of the courthouse's door, but ordered the person videotaping that conference to leave and requiring him to provide a "press pass".

The security officer who required the video reporter to leave is arrogantly chewing gum, open-mouthed (disgusting!) right into the camera and refuses to reveal his name and badge number as required by law.

 Three other officers who formed a wall before the video reporter gave their names and badge numbers.  The gum-chewing officer gave his name, separately, and badge number, separately, only after being threatened to be turned into Internal Affairs for discipline.

Here is the video of the "secure parking garage" that allegedly posed security concerns.  It is still publicly available on YouTube and not ordered pulled from it.  Had it presented security concerns, it would not have been allowed to stay in the public domain.

By the way, note in the order that representatives of mainstream media were, for some reason, packed in the secure parking area reserved for the State Attorney (prosecution).   So much for the "independent" media coverage.

Please, note also that in his July 1, 2015 order Judge Mahon lumped prosecutors and law enforcement officers together with judges in his reference to the Florida record access statute which made an exemption to the judiciary.

Actually, Judge Mahon should know as a lawyer and a jurist that prosecutors and law enforcement officers are part of an executive branch.

Yet, advocacy of the judge for the prosecutor and law enforcement officers who were insuring that criminal trial will be held on perjurous evidence inside the courthouse, has nothing to do with ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial.
 

Judge Mahon quickly rescinded his order on July 7, 2015, but only after he was sued, see docket report of the federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge Mahon based on the order.

In rescinding the order directing to arrest any person engaged in constitutionally protected activity on public grounds outside the courthouse, Judge Mahon stated that the reason for the unconstitutional July 1, 2015 order (for which he was sued and which was rescinded as soon as he was sued) was to allegedly protect the unnamed defendants' right to a fair trial.  

Yet, if that was the reason, Judge Mahon shouldn't have been swayed by a lawsuit, shouldn't have rescinded the order and should have stood his ground.

In reality, his order was doing the opposite - trying to protect the prosecution's permission received from Judge Shore to an unfair trial based on fabricated evidence against defendant Michale Hoffman, and protests actually enhanced Michale Hoffman's chance to a fair trial.

Moreover, the text of the July 1, 2015 order (above) plainly speaks for itself and has nothing to do with fairness of trial for defendants, but has everything to do with protection of judges and court personnel from criticism for corruption.  

Prohibition to photograph judges and their cars was laughable since the same buildings, vehicles and individuals whose photographing was prohibited could be videotaped and photographed and seen through Google Maps photography, without any restrictions.

And, defendant Michale Hoffman would only benefit by the videotaping, as it would be evidence of judicial, prosecutorial and police corruption.

The bottom line.

Judge Mahon was not publicly disciplined.

Judge Shore was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Corey was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Hernandez was not publicly disciplined.

Michale Hoffman was publicly convicted of a crime of trespass on public property (!!) as a result of corrupt efforts of the four above mentioned "public servants" highly paid by the taxpayers of the State of Florida, and now Mr. Hoffman must fight and pay his way through appellate courts to have the fabricated conviction reversed.

Coincidentally, on April 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of discipline against a Florida attorney who solicited funds for her judicial election campaign.

In affirming the judgment of discipline, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated the following:

"Florida's interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary is compelling".

Here is some additional information from the Florida Bar's website about the case.

So, the same state of Florida whose State Attorney asked Judge Shore and received permission from him to fabricate a criminal case, and who did fabricate a criminal case with Judge Shore's help, had apparently a compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary.

And, in order to maintain that public confidence, Judge Mahon issued an "administrative order" threatening to arrest anyone who would say that a judge is corrupt, even if that statement is made during a peaceful 1st Amendment protest on public property and was based on clear evidence of such corruption.

I wonder whether people in the State of Florida will actually demand and insist on discipline for judges Shore and Mahon and for prosecutors Corey and Hernandez.

"Photography Is Not A Crime" has already held a rally in front of Judge Mahon's courthouse chaning "Judge Mahon has to go", and they are right. 

Because, if these four people, Judges Mahon and Shore, and prosecutors Corey and Hernandez, are not disciplined and if Michale Hoffman's fabricated conviction is not voided without any appeals, the public will have absolutely no reason to have confidence in the integrity of the Florida judiciary - or its legal profession.

On inviting to this country the "hordes of wild Syrians"

So, today many Americans battle against inviting to the country what they fear as crowds of wild and violent Syrians.
 "In July 1797, Congressman Harrison Gray Otis of Massachusetts sounded the alarm on immigration in what became known as the “Wild Irish” speech, warning that while he had nothing against “honest and industrious” immigrants, the country could not afford to “invite hordes of wild Irishmen”: “The mass of vicious and disorganizing characters who could not live peaceably at home, and who, after unfurling the standard of rebellion in their own countries, might come hither to revolutionize ours.”3

7 Annals of Cong., 430 (1797)."

Slack, Charles (2015-03-03). Liberty's First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech (Kindle Locations 108-112). Grove/Atlantic, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 

And, along with "wild Irishmen", there were also "wild Italians", and "wild Jews", and wild - anybody who did not fit into the WASP standard.

In this country of immigrants, let's remember the "Wild Irish" speech.

SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin: selling out her judicial integrity to buy back into good graces of her peers - at the expense of an indigent civil rights plaintiff and his attorney

As a disclaimer, I never litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and have no plans to do so.

I do not have personal knowledge of participants in this story.  I formed any opinions expressed in this blog as to SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin by reading court documents.

Here is an article in The New York Times of December 15, 2015 where the reporter asserts that a woman reported domestic abuse by her husband, then recanted, criminal charges against her husband were allegedly dropped because of her alleged recantation, her husband nevertheless sued the police, and SDNY Judge Shira Sheindlin (1) granted against the civil rights plaintiff a summary judgment and (2) ordered the indigent civil rights plaintiff and his attorney to pay $19,075 in legal fees to New York City.

I am very interested in the topic of chilling civil rights litigation through sanctions and attorney fees, so I pulled court records of the case from Pacer.gov to form my own opinion as to what occurred.

As it often happened, what occurred was not as it was described in the mainstream press.

First, any law school student knows that a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment cannot engage in credibility determinations and claim that she does or does not believe affidavits of witnesses presented to her.  

By doing this, a judge usurps the role of a jury, and in a federal civil rights case, that right is guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Judge Shira Scheindlin was sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its 7th Amendment, not to violate it.

New York City and its police department made a motion for a summary judgment supported by inadmissible hearsay statements of plaintiff's wife (not a party in the proceeding) presented through affidavits of other people.

Such statements are not only inadmissible as hearsay, but the wife:

• denies even making those hearsay statements that NYPD defendants attempted to ascribe to her, since they were recorded in English from her statements Spanish about her diabetic episode, and without the benefit of an interpreter;
• denies that a Spanish interpreter was provided to her and
• stated that people to whom she spoke did not know Spanish, while she did not know, speak or understand English. 

Yet, Judge Shira Scheindlin, who was admitted to practice law 39 years ago, in the far-away 1976, 

in reviewing a motion for a summary judgment where she has no right whatsoever to assess the evidence submitted for credibility, rejected as "incredible" the sworn affidavit of the wife obtained with the help of a certified court interpreter and, instead, believed affidavits referencing to the wife's alleged hearsay statements which she denies making and claims that she was never provided an interpreter while those to whom she spoke did not understand Spanish and she does not speak or understand English.

What happened, in fact, was as follows:

A plaintiff brought a civil rights action.

The defendants brought a motion for a summary judgment, supported by inadmissible hearsay.

Under such circumstances, defendants did not meet their burden of proof, and plaintiff did not even have a necessity to oppose the motion.

Yet, the plaintiff did oppose the motion and provided an affidavit from the very witness whose inadmissible hearsay statements the defendants provided to the court on their motion for a summary judgment, denying that she ever made those inadmissible hearsay statements.

The judge, instead of denying the motion for a summary judgment to defendants, sanctioning defendants for frivolous conduct and granting the reverse summary judgment to plaintiff because plaintiff presented the only admissible competent evidence in the case, engaged in assessing credibility of the evidence provided by plaintiff and defendant, which a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment has no authority to do, decided credibility issues against plaintiff's witness, against plaintiff and against plaintiff's attorney, granted the summary judgment to the defendants and slapped the indigent plaintiff and his young civil rights attorney with $19,075.00 legal fees of defendants.

Why Judge Shira Scheindlin acted contrary to the law and contrary to her duty in those proceedings (Jimenez v New York City)?

A likely answer can be found in Judge Scheindlin's prior, very recent, history.

Here is some information about the judge.

It was also reported that the judge is something of a control freak, running her clerks to tears and, let's say, extremely unreceptive of criticism:

she "has a reputation has a holy terror. She works her clerks like dogs, berates them frequently, and sometimes even makes them cry. Don’t pee on her robe and tell her it’s raining!" 

Judge Scheindlin's clerks, government employees, are reportedly required to work 11-hour workdays plus 6 hours every weekend, which amounts to a 61-hour week, which, I am sure, is a violation of labor laws.  

Judge Scheindlin is reportedly such a control freak that she prohibits her clerks from eating their lunch outside of her chambers. 

I wonder if Judge Scheindlin controls the length of her clerks' restroom breaks as she controls their eating and leisure time.

Judge Scheindlin was also portrayed in the press as a judge who frequently ruled against the New York City police department:

In the Jimenez case Judge Scheindlin, while unlawfully assessing credibility of Mrs. Jimenez, as opposed to alleged hearsay statements of the same Mrs. Jimenez presented by the police, which Mrs. Jimenez denied, stated that there is no reason to believe that the police would lie in concert with hospital personnel (from a hospital who failed to provide an interpreter to Mrs. Jimenez and thus may have engaged in medical malpractice for which the statute of limitations did not yet run). 

 Judge Scheindlin's role, presiding on a motion for a summary judgment, was not to "take" or not to "take Mrs. Jimenez' statements as true".

Judge Scheindlin's role was to verify whether, on the basis of admissible and competent evidence, triable issues of fact were presented in the case.

There were no triable issues of fact, and the motion for a summary judgment should have been granted to Mr. Jimenez (the plaintiff), because he provided an affidavit of a witness, and the opposing party provided only inadmissible hearsay.

In the alternative, Judge Scheindlin had to note that parties' stories differ, triable material issues of fact were raised on the record, and the summary judgment should have been then denied and the case should have proceeded to trial.

Yet, Judge Scheindlin engaged in credibility determination between admissible evidence (plaintiff's) and inadmissible evidence (defendant's) and inadmissible evidence provided on behalf of NYPD - won.  

The "alleged conspiracy" of fabrication of documents obtained without an interpreter, to Judge Scheindlin, was "too fantastic to be credible".

Yet, Judge Scheindlin was not at all as naive as an unborn babe and is very well aware of the potential and tendency of police witnesses for perjured testimony and cover-ups, and she had several points of personal disqualification that she has failed to disclose in the record, as she was required by law.

For example,  in 1998 Judge Scheindlin did not allow introduction of an elaborate lying scheme of police officers who tried to blame strangulation of a victim upon a mysterious "black stranger". 

And, Judge Scheindlin is far from being impartial as to ability of medical personnel to lie, having a husband, Dr. Stanley Friedman (note the difference in last names preventing research on issues of disqualification), professor of pharmacology in SUNY-Downstate Medical Center, MD/PhD Program Director at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and reportedly, in the past the Dean of that entire Medical Center.  

As to misconduct of NYPD that Shira Scheindlin refused to believe on a motion for a summary judgment, despite a sworn affidavit provided to her, as recently as in May of 2013 the "New Yorker" claimed that:

"The primary outlet for Scheindlin’s judicial creativity has been an enduring battle she has fought with the N.Y.P.D."

In the same article, the "New Yorker" stated that:

"A federal judge since 1994, she has been hearing lawsuits against the police for more than a decade.   In decision after decision, she has found that cops have lied, discriminated against people of color, and violated the rights of citizens."

Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez are Mexicans, immigrants, and Mrs. Jimenez does not speak English, which would be the prime targets of discrimination and lying behavior of both the police and the medical personnel who did not provide services of interpreter while attempting to provide treatment, and thus may have committed an act of malpractice.

Additionally, Judge Scheindlin is Jewish.

She willingly discloses that her daughter is "a political consultant and pollster in Israel". 

The hospital that did not provide an interpreter to a medical patient who did not speak or understand English, was the Mount Sinai Hospital.

Last, but not least, in October of 2013 Judge Scheindlin was taken off a case by the federal appelalte 2nd Circuit court because of the legal advice to sue in an additional case, and to sue - guess who - the NYPD that Judge Scheindlin gave, on record, to a civil rights plaintiff.

The sua sponte removal of Judge Scheindlin by the 2nd Circuit in the middle of the trial was unprecedented.

Even more unprecedented was Judge Scheindlin motion to vacate the order of reassignment that she presented through an attorney and that was versed as a motion to vacate OR as a petition as a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae), which was a complete procedural faux-pas.

Judge Scheindlin did not have a right to give any party a legal advice to sue their opponent in litigation or anybody else.

She still did.

Judge Scheindlin had no authority whatsoever to make motions to vacate the order of reassignment of another judge, because she was not a party and has no procedural right to make such a motion.

She still did.

Her motion, of course, was denied by the 2nd Circuit.

I will provide the decision of the 2nd Circuit in a separate blog, it is long, but it is worth publication, with comments, in full.

After being removed from a case where she advised a party to sue NYPD, Judge Scheindlin certainly should not have ever been assigned to a case involving NYPD.

She still was.

And she ruled for NYPD, disregarding the rules of evidence and usurping the jury's right to decide issues of fact in a trial, not in a motion for a summary judgment.

So, NYPD whose shenanigans came in front of Judge Scheindlin for decades, now cannot have a motivation to lie and act in concert with medical personnel.

Of course, medical personnel cannot possibly have motives for a cover-up.

That's Judge Scheindlin's statement while:

• she believed instead to hearsay statements in the affidavit of "Hannah Cohen, a volunteer advocate with the Mt. Sinai Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Program", a Jewish witness volunteering for a program ran by a Jewish hospital who claimed that she spoke to Mrs. Jimenez through a Spanish interpreter - even though an affidavit from the interpreter herself was not provided;
• the judge herself is Jewish;
• her husband is Jewish and a physician in charge of a medical hospital program, whose privileges or standing in the medical community could very well be affected had Judge Scheindlin allowed the case to proceed to trial, and
• her daughter is a "political consultant and pollster" in Israel.

Of course, since Hannah Cohen did not know Spanish, her affidavit was worth absolutely nothing without an affidavit of the actual interpreter - which was not provided - about what Mrs. Jimenez allegedly said, and Judge Scheindlin knew that.

Yet, to rule in favor of an immigrant and against credibility of a Jewish witness Hanna Cohen (even under the circumstances when credibility determinations was not within her authority) was not a self-restriction that a control freak such as Judge Scheindlin could bear.

Judge Scheindlin should never have been assigned to the Jimenez case.

The only likely reason Judge Scheindlin was assigned was for her to restore her reputation after her disgrace of removal from the case Floyd v City of New York in October of 2013, reconfirmed in an order of removal of November 13, 2013 that I quote below:

It must be noted that Judge Scheindlin, after giving legal advice to a party during litigation as to who to sue, was only removed from the case, but not from the bench, even though removing her at that point was very simple, since Judge Scheindlin has been on senior status since 2012.  She would simply be told to take full retirement and not assigned new cases.

Had Judge Scheindlin been just directed (as she should be directed now, after her disgraceful performance in the Jimenez case) to just go on full retirement, she wouldn't have suffer any financial loss.

She would have suffered only the loss of power, the loss of her unlawful power to engage in giving legal advice as part of litigation, her unlawful power to deny her clerks, making unlawful and self-serving decisions that a law student would have got an "F" for, to deny her clerks, federal employees, their right to a 41-hour work week and their basic human right not to be hypnotized by their employer while they are munching on lunch.

But, that did not happen.

Judge Scheindlin is still on the bench.

Apparently, our federal court system is very forgiving to misconduct -  if it is judicial misconduct, and very unforgiving against indigent civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys, even when they are completely without fault.

Apparently, a federal judge in this country MUST be biased, but she must be biased only in favor of the government.

Had Judge Scheindlin counseled the "right party", the NYPD how to sue a civil rights plaintiff, I can bet she will never have been removed from the case.

Yet, she counseled against NYPD, was removed and disgraced, and her lifetime tenure and, in apparently tried to rescue her reputation with the higher court authorities by selling out her judicial integrity and ruling in favor of NYPD - even if the record and the law was against that ruling.

Apparently, it was acceptable for Judge Scheindlin to have an indigent plaintiff and his young attorney, both people without any political clout, to pay - in reputation and in financial sense - for her trick of rescuing her reputation by ruling in favor of NYPD, even if it was against the law and the record.

It was really worth the 61-hour work week and gulping your lunch under supervision of a control-freak judge to author such opinions...

Poor clerks...


 
 

Lippman's court system stalls announcing automatic disbarment of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos

Under New York Judiciary Law 90(4) a lawyer licensed in New York and convicted of a felony, is automatically disbarred, by operation of law, as of the date of conviction, and an additional disbarment proceeding or order are not needed.

NYS Assembly Speaker (now former) and attorney Sheldon Silver (a close friend since childhood of New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman) was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on November 30, 2015.

NYS Majority Leader (now former) and attorney Dean Skelos was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on December 11, 2015.

As of today, New York State Unified Court system headed by Silver's buddy Jonathan Lippman, lists both Skelos and Silver as licensed attorneys with "no record of public discipline" - a slap in the face to all New Yorkers.

I urge my readers to write to New York State Office of Court Administration, as I will do myself, to demand immediate correction of the record for Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver and reflect their automatic disbarments as of the dates of their convictions.

Marjorie Miller, the (conflicted) revolutionary of Delaware County, New York, and other members of the board of Delaware Opportunities, Inc.

In the documents provided by the New York State Comptroller's office in answer to my FOIL request, there was an interview report of the then member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors Marjorie Miller, as well as interview reports of other people referencing Marjorie Miller.

Marjorie Miller was listed as one of the members of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors who is also on the board of directors of Delaware County's largest no-bid contractor the Delaware Opportunities (a non-profit corporation), which is a conflict of interest, and which was not disclosed by Ms. Miller.

I have personally researched, as part of a court case, Ms. Miller's incestous relationship, along with other local public officials, with Delaware Opportunities.

Ms. Miller has been also reported in 2013 in some controversy in her own town of Middletown in allegedly sneaking in a new town law bypassing the necessary steps as to introduction of that law, see her video-interview here.

Against this background, it was interesting to see Ms. Miller described by other Delaware County officials and employees interviewed by the office of the New York State Comptroller as a "troublemaker" and rubble-rouser.

Here is the full interview report of Marjorie Miller provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's Office:

What can I say...

The report reflects, among other problems: 

• in-fighting in the Board of Supervisors, 
• branding members of the Board who complain about improper procedures or not following proper procedures as "trouble-making", 
• obtaining "services" from friends of members of the board at inflated rates without public bidding;
• awarding contracts to friends of members of the board;
• encouraging members of the board to approve budget proposals without reading them, 
•  removing members of the board from legislative duties (which is not possible under the law) when they start to voice concerns about improper actions of the Board and its members

Marjorie Miller was voted out of the office of Middletown Town Supervisor in this past election for the term starting 2016, but at this time, she still remains Middletown Town Supervisor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors.

Here is the current list of the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities that I obtained just now from the Corporation's website:

The May 2015 audit of the New York State Comptroller mentioned conflicts of interest of  FOUR Delaware County Supervisors

1. Samuel Rowe
2. Wayne Marshfield
3. Tina Mole, and
4. Marjorie Miller

who combined their position as legislators of the Delaware County budget with their positions on the Board of Directors of the largest Delaware County's no-bid vendor (I will dedicate a separate blog to contracts of Delaware Opportunities).

Out of the four, three remain on the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., moreover, Delaware County Supervisor Wayne Marshfield is the corporation's Teasurer and Delaware County Supervisor Tina Mole is the corporation's vice-president.

 Here is information for all current members of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. Board of Directors (at least, what I could find on the Internet):

No. 1.  Frank Bachler - a local farmer who was awarded "a senior citizen of the year" award of 2013 by Delaware County Office of the Aging;

No. 2 Edward DuVal - died on August 22, 2015, but 4 months after his death is still listed as member of the Board of Directors.

Edward DuVal was, according to his obituary, an employee of the NYS Department of Corrections for 22 years.

Edward DuVal's greatest reported accomplishment, according to his obituary, was that for 30 years he was a recoverING (not recoverED) alcoholic.  That was a great person to appoint to handle public funds (Delaware Opportunities is the largest no-bid contractor of the Delaware County).

No. 3  Arthur Edel - a Colchester Town Justice who handles evictions of tenants sponsored by Delaware Opportunities Inc. where he sits on the Board of Directors. 

No. 4  James Ellis - a SUNY professor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors for the town of Meredith, NY; Delaware County Board of Supervisors is a legislative body that votes for the budget that funds operations of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., Delaware County's largest no-bid vendor.

 No. 5 Thomas Hynes - member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, for the town of Roxbury;

No. 6  Peggy Kearney - president of Senior Club, Fleishmanns, NY;  a "collaborative" in projects funded by NYS Department of Transportation

No. 7 Jean Krzyston - Town of Delhi Health Officer and, reportedly, a relative (wife?) to Village of Delhi council member Matthew Krzyston

No. 8 Ann LePinnet - according to her own Facebook profile and according to seethroughny.net, a resident of Walton, NY and a retired (as of 7/1/2010) teacher from Walton Central School

No. 9 Wayne Marshfield - a Delaware County Supervisor; 

No. 10 Steve McKeegan - SUNY Delhi professor of applied technologies, and, upon information and belief, brother of attorney Bruce McKeegan, law school buddy of NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo and school attorney for Delhi and Andes Central School District involved in misappropriation of school funds, but not disciplined or prosecuted, obviously because of high protection by Cuomo.

No. 11 Marjorie Miller - Delaware County Supervisor;

No. 12 Tina Mole (Vice-President) - Delaware County Supervisor;

No. 13 Shirley Niebanck - a lady reportedly in her 80s;

No. 14 Nancy Olechnowicz - a teacher in Delhi Central School District (Elementary School) (personal knowledge, of a few years back) who, by her reports as a mandatory reporter, may be supplying children into foster care "served" by her corporation Delaware Opportunities Inc.

Here is the scan I took of Nancy Olechnowicz's LinkedIn profile today.

No. 15 Thomas Schimmerling - a local attorney in Delhi, NY who was was reported at a Village of Delhi meeting of the Board of Supervisors where I was present as a non-payer of over $14,000 in back taxes in the village of Delhi for over 8 years, using the loophole in the Delhi Village law that does not allow enforcement of delinquent taxes against non-payers' properties.  

Such a dishonest man who fails to pay over $14,000 for 8 years into public coffers of a poor town where he lives, is really a good candidate to sit on a Board of Director of a non-profit handling millions of dollars in public funds.

Had that amount been in federal taxes, Schimmerling would be sitting in federal prison by this time and long disbarred.

Under the corrupt system of non-prosecution of "blue blood" attorneys who provide financial benefits to government officials, Schimmerling sits, but on a board of directors of a non-profit corporation, helping a local judge, four county supervisors and the relative of a councilman of the Village of Delhi engage in activities in violation of federal civil and criminal Sherman Act.

He can be trusted with that task for sure.

No. 16  Jeff Staples (Secretary) - a pastor of the First Baptist Church in Delhi, NY.  I guess, the Christian faith allows the Reverend to record all the self-dealings of local public officials at the expense of the poor county taxpayers.

What a nest of corruption...