11 out of 23 NYS Senators on the Judiciary Committee, about to vote in confirmation of Janet DiFiore as Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals, are disqualified by personal interests, as licensed attorneys, officers of the court and market players in the market of legal services that Janet DiFiore, if elected, will regulate

Here is the list of the NYS Senate's Judiciary Committee that is about to vote on confirmation of Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore as the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, with the exclusion from oral testimony of those who oppose such confirmation.

According to my preliminary research today, out of 23 members of the Committee, 11, including the Chairman, are licensed attorneys who are market players in the market of legal services regulated by New York State Courts, officers of the court, whose licenses, reputations and livelihoods are in the hands of New York judiciary and who are thus disqualified from voting in the confirmation hearing.

It is very likely that participation in voting regarding confirmation of judges, if done by market players such as senators, in furtherance of helping themselves in regulating the market from which they and their family members derive income:

1. Bonacic;
2. Boyle;
3. Breslin;
4. Croci;
5. Hoylman;
6. Lanza;
7. LaValle;
8. Nozzolio;
9. O'Mara;
10. Ranzenhofer;
11. Venditto - are not only acts of public corruption and ethical violation (at the very least), but are also violations of civil and criminal antitrust statutes.

Voting by senators disqualified by personal interest was, is and is going to be, my personal expert opinion, void.

I will provide a fuller analysis of conflicts of each of the senators in a separate blog.

Stay tuned.

No.	Name	Attorney or not (Yes/No)
1	John J. Bonacic, Chairman	Yes
2.	George A. Amedore, Jr.	No
3.	Tony Avelia	No
4.	Phil Boyle	Yes
5.	Neil D. Breslin	Yes
6.	Leroy Comrie	No
7.	Thomas D. Croci	Yes
8.	Ruben Diaz, Sr.	No
9.	Martin Malave Dilan	No
10.	Adriano Espalliat	No
11.	Kemp Hannon	No
12.	Ruth Hassel-Thompson	No
13.	Brad Hoylman	Yes
14.	Andrew J. Lanza	Yes
15.	Kenneth P. LaValle	Yes
16.	Michael F. Nozzolio	Yes
17.	Thomas F. O’Mara	Yes
18.	Bill Perkins	No
19.	Michael H. Ranzenhofer	Yes
20.	Diane J. Savino	No
21.	Sue Serino	No
22.	Toby Ann Stavisky	No
23.	Michael Venditto	Yes

NYS Senator Bonacic delegated to his counsel authority to reject oral testimony applications to his attorney Jessica Cherry

I called the office of Senator Boracic today, inquiring how to get an invitation to testify in the confirmation hearing AGAINST confirmation of Janet DiFiore for the position of New York State Court of Appeals.

I was immediately told that Jessica Cherry (Sen. Bonacic's counsel) does not accept applications for oral testimony, only written submissions.

That is not what the public notice for the confirmation hearing of Janet Difiore on NYS Senate's webpage says, right now:

A witness contacted me who told me that the witness talked to Senator Bonacic' office yesterday, including to his secretary Tania and his counsel Jessica Cherry, and that they said that Senator Bonacic has a policy to allow ONLY BAR ASSOCIATIONS to offer testimony at confirmation hearings.

I filed a FOIL request with NYS Senate today asking for a list of things, such as:

I also filed a written submission and request for oral testimony indicating that I am opposed to elevation of Janet DiFiore as Chief Judge of New York State Court as a witness of gross, deliberate and continuous violations of constitutional rights of criminal defendants that I witnessed as a criminal defense attorney when I represented a client in Westchester County in 2014, see also my blog here.

I will report on this blog how the NYS Senate answers my FOIL request.

If all who are allowed to testify in the confirmation hearing of Janet DiFiore are attorneys, they are interested witnesses, because their financial well-being rests in their law licenses, and thus they will be in fear of losing their livelihoods if they testify against Janet DiFiore, while she will be confirmed despite such testimony; so, of course, they will be testifying in support of her, and such a policy of invitations for oral testimony, picking for invitation only those who support the nomination and not those who oppose it, smacks of corruption, Senator Bonacic.

By the way, at about 9:30 am today (when I called Sen. Bonacic' office), the secretary told me that Jessica Cherry will call me back, because at that time she was "on the other line".

3 hours later, Jessica Cherry still did not call me back.

That must be one long telephone conversation - at taxpayers' expense.

If judges are not trusted to make fair decisions in death penalty cases, why should they be trusted to make decisions on constitutional issues in other cases?

The interesting focus of the today's U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking the death penalty regime in Florida is that judges were given more power than juries in death penalty cases.

Here is the full opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hurst v Florida.  It has just come out, I will take my time analyzing it, but will post analysis on this blog.

Is the highest court admitting now that judges may be not as fair as juries on important issues?

If judges should not be given too much power in death penalty cases, why should they be given absolute power to decide family court custody and child neglect cases where fundamental constitutional rights to rear a child are involved?

The grip of attorneys on the government is in decline

According to a recently published report, the percentage of lawyers among public officials elected to high offices by the American public is in steady decline.

The numbers quoted are:

80% of government officials in mid-19th century were lawyers
60% in the 1960s and
40% (less than half) in 2015

That steady decline clearly shows public distrust to the "honorable" legal profession.

And, if the legal profession will continue to do what it is doing, stripping the public of their right to choose independent court representatives, depriving the public of independent court representatives on contrived grounds and giving to lawyers elevated to the judicial and prosecutorial positions absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts - lawyers will be elected to public offices less and less.

Will the legal profession take notice or will it continue to parade to its own drum, in complete oblivion of the writing on the wall?

Will the IRS strip the non-profit status off bar associations in New York for endorsing DiFiore for Chief Judge of the State of New York?

New York State and New York City bar associations are non-profit organizations registered with IRS and having a tax exempt federal status.

As a condition of that status, these organizations may not be involved in any political activities.

Yet, that's exactly what these associations did when they recently:

(1) testified to lobby for certain changes in attorney disciplinary rules (in the summer of 2015);
(2) testified to lobby for judicial pay raises (in December of 2015), and used their tax-exempt money to hire an expert to support their lobbying efforts on behalf of judges (see testimony of David Miranda, president of tax-exempt non-profit, the New York State Bar Association, lobbying for judicial pay raises);

(3) endorsed candidates for the office of Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals, and
(4) are, reportedly, now invited to testify at a confirmation hearing of Janet DiFiore in New York State Senate while no other members of the public are permitted to testify.

All of these activities by bar associations in the State of New York must lead, under the federal law, to stripping these non-profit corporations of their tax exempt status and to making them pay taxes for the year 2015 and 2016 and for all other years when they engaged in political activities, including lobbying.

Moreover, since bar associations engage in such political activities openly, it reflects a long-established practice, and an investigation of how far back in time New York bar associations engaged in political activities,  (and bar associations from other states and from the federal bars) is in order.

I am sure state and federal budget may greatly benefit from tax infusions from bar associations who would be stripped of their tax exempt status, and that stripping bar associations of their tax exempt status for their political activity will also show the public that lawyers are not above the law. 

And recently, heated petitions were filed by thousands of people demanding that IRS revoke tax-exempt status of a church that engaged in a clearly political activity.

And, IRS was sued recently for its lax enforcement of the tax exempt status against politically involved nonprofits.

Bar associations, same as churches, should not be allowed to engage in political activities while claiming a tax exempt status.

So, will the numerous bar associations in New York, all non-profit corporations, that recently lobbied for raising judicial pay and who endorsed candidates for the Chief Judge position be stripped of their tax-exempt status and be made to pay taxes, as everybody else does?

NDNY has much to fear to make secret its public suspension of my attorney license

Every federal court case in the United States is assigned a case number and committed to the public electronic information system, Pacer.gov.

Here is my scan of federal trial cases where I am listed as a party.

There is no case filed in November of 2015 when I was suspended.

Yet, such a file - allegedly - exists.

I was suspended by the NDNY - allegedly - on November 18, 2015, while I was listed as attorney in good standing on November 20, 2015, documentary proof of which I submitted to that court in a filing.

I filed in NDNY a motion to vacate the "reciprocal" order of suspension based on a facially invalid order of suspension in state court (facially invalid because of a pre-judgment - the state court faulted me not to "admit misconduct" or "express remorse" at the time when the state court did not decide the issue of my liability).

Here is what I received today:

Note that the court assigned a case number to my attorney disciplinary "proceedings" in NDNY - 3:15-mc-00053-GTS.

This case number is not listed on Pacer, even though the case file contains a very public order of reciprocal suspension.

The way it is usually done is - the case file is public and is available on Pacer, the public entries in the case are also public and available on Pacer (like my order of suspension is supposed to be), and only the sealed entries are marked "sealed" and are not available for review of the public.

But, there is no such thing in federal courts as "sealed" secret court cases that do not even show on the court's docket, especially in a case of already PUBLICLY imposed attorney discipline - unless we turned into a dictatorship overnight that I was not aware of, and our courts turned into Star Chambers also overnight, ruled only by their own whim and not by judge's constitutional oaths of office.

Suddaby could choose to seal a case if he refused to review it on the merits.  Yet, Suddaby gave me a "special solicitude", reviewed and decided the case on the merits.

And, where a motion challenging an order of public discipline is decided on the merits, it is a public record and may not be sealed.

So, I wonder, since I just unsealed Judge Suddaby's illegal order denying on the merits my motion to vacate his sua sponte order of PUBLIC suspension of my law license - will he now prosecute me for such unsealing?

Is it unlawful in this country to disobey an illegal court order?

The State of New York already tried to criminally prosecute me for unsealing an illegal sealing order of my state disciplinary case while it was pending.   The State of New York obviously was very concerned about me blogging regarding my pending disciplinary case and misconduct of public authorities in that case.

Obviously, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is similarly concerned, so concerned that he has sealed and hid the entire disciplinary case, containing public records.

A federal court and a federal judge is supposed to enforce federal constitutional rights of people who come before them.

Instead, Glenn Suddaby is copycatting the State of New York in violating them.

So, readers and researchers, here is a secret order in a secret attorney disciplinary case that imposed public discipline of reciprocal suspension.

I or my family will report on this blog if I am going to be arrested and prosecuted for unsealing it.

So far, I was threatened with an arrest:

• By disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini - for violating my own privacy and for talking about my disciplinary case and her own (and the court's) misconduct, while the case was pending;
• By the Chenango County Supreme Court judge Kevin Dowd for not coming to trial because of a documented back injury (Dowd who has no medical license, criminally practiced medicine without a license and re-diagnosed me that I did not have back injury, was not in pain and could come, even if my doctor said I couldn't)

I am waiting whether Glenn Suddaby will now have me arrested for talking about his own misconduct, his alleged "special solicitude" and his alleged "special liberality" towards me.

Thank you, Judge Suddaby.  I do not need "a special solicitude" or "a special liberality" from you - I only need you to follow the law, which you continuously refuse to do.

You must know that whatever procedural mishaps you can conjure up against me based on your "Local Rules" produced by your court in an incestuous cooperation with a select few law firms that you favor,  my 1st Amendment right of access to court trumps all of your local rules, nor do you have no authority to take my federal law license based on a facially void state license suspension.  

And under your own constitutional oath of office you had to file my motion to vacate, and show people just why you believed that my request to void your "reciprocal suspension" is "unsupported by cause" - which you had to explain, but did not, same as the New York State disciplinary court that refused to explain why my constitutional motions were rejected.

I guess, if the state disciplinary court and Glenn Suddaby both fear me so much that they seal entire proceedings pertaining to discipline about me - I did something right in those proceedings.

Once again - if the federal court attempts to prosecute me for exposing their misconduct, I or my family members will post news about it.

Stay tuned.

Clients and potential clients beware of attorney Woodruff Carroll - he is selling out his clients

On November 13, 2015 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a scheduling order and scheduled for trial a civil rights case I was litigating by that time for 3.5 years, against Chenango County Department of Social Services, its Commissioner and its social workers.

The case, Argro v Osborne, 3:12-cv-910 in NDNY survived two motions to dismiss, went through full discovery, including a deposition, and survived a subsequent motion for a summary judgment.

On the same day as the case was scheduled to trial, I was suspended from the practice of law by the State of New York.

NDNY imposed a reciprocal suspension on November 18, 2015.

It may be a coincidence that the attorney for the Chenango County Department of Social Services is on the judicial screening committee of Appellate Division 3rd Department which withheld part of the record of my disciplinary case - or it might not be.

But, coincidence or not, I was eliminated from a case scheduled for trial.

There exists a statute though, 42 U.S.C. 1988, allowing a civil rights attorney to be reimbursed for her legal fees from the defendants, if the trial is to be won.

3.5 years of litigation is a long time, and a high legal fee to be paid by Chenango County.

So, a plan was concocted even further to eliminate such a scenario.

After about 60 attorneys rejected my former client's ready-for-trial case as soon as they heard that it was against social services, my client were "in luck" - they hired an attorney Woodruff Carroll.

Mr. Carroll reportedly, told my former clients that he will not charge them anything, will not get anything from any settlement he would negotiate, but would be paid "$500 by the State".

First, the lawsuit is against the County and not the State of New York.

Second, Mr. Carroll is retained and not assigned, and is not entitled to any payments by the government.

The only plausible explanation of what Mr. Carroll's pending reimbursement "from the State" at $500 an hour no less (no assigned counsel is paid that much by the government), is that Mr. Carroll has sold my former clients to the Chenango County Department of Social Services and is paid by the Chenango County CPS and their attorneys Levine, Gouldin and Thompson, of Binghamton, NY, to reduce a 10-mln-dollar lawsuit into a 35-thousand-dollar settlement, without paying me my legal fees for 3.5 years of litigation.

My former clients reported to me that Mr. Carroll told them that "juries never award a lot of money", because jurors are taxpayers, and that they should better agree to a mere pittance, and that they MUST make their decision by this coming Wednesday.

Here is an example as to just how much a jury awarded, very recently, in a lawsuit against social services - $4.9 mln.

The Argro lawsuit requested $10 mln in punitive damages, and the facts of the case are so bad that more than that may be awarded by the jury.

Obviously, Mr. Carroll does not want to put in any pre-trial work, does not want to prepare for trial scheduled for February 29, 2016.

It is easier to do nothing and to sell your clients out to your opponent, especially such a powerful opponent as Chenango County CPS, for a quick buck ($500 an hour) and a record of a big favor to be returned at a later date.

Mr. Carroll also quite aggressively and without permission or request of my former clients (I checked) gave me an ultimatum that I will not be paid if I do not agree to the settlement Mr. Carroll bought from Chenango County CPS at $500 an hour for himself, and that Mr. Carroll is researching the issue how to deny paying me anything at all,  for my work for 3.5 years of litigation, from 2012 to 2015, at the time I was a fully licensed attorney, because of my suspension in November of 2015.

Of course, Mr. Carroll was not authorized by his clients (my former clients) to threaten me or to give me ultimatums.  Of course, the law on that issue is quite different, and Mr. Carroll, no doubt, knows that, being an attorney of 22 years.

Nor was he authorized to state the following:

Prudent people do not write such things before they research such a sensitive topic.

Mr. Carroll is not prudent, he is arrogant, and he thinks that because I am suspended, I have no rights and forfeited all the fruits of my prior labor - to him.

It is very obvious that Mr. Carroll is dishonestly capitalizing at my expense, since the only reason why he is able to be hired into a ready-for-trial case and why settlement negotiations are even possible, is due to my work of 3.5 years, my filing of a civil rights lawsuit and my perseverance to prosecute it, despite threats of sanctions.

Mr. Carroll also created an impression in my former clients that they are somehow mandated to settle, and to settle on this coming Wednesday.

Of course, I cannot advise my clients, because I was gagged by my suspension, but nobody can preclude me from commenting on illegality of Mr. Carroll's actions, because NOBODY can mandate a settlement of a civil rights action ready for trial, and such a settlement, if mandated or coerced, will simply be not valid.

As to Mr. Carroll, he very clearly attempted to defraud not only his clients, but me, too, and to get rich quick at our expense - after all the heartache that my clients went through and all the work that I put into this case.

Of course, I have no control over how my former clients will decide to act as to the case - whether they will go to trial or will feel forced to settle on terms that their dishonest attorney bought from Chenango County CPS at the price of $500 per hour for himself.

But, I do have a right to go public about misconduct of attorney Woodruff Carroll  ("Woody" as he signs his e-mails to me, a person who he has never seen in his life).

So, clients and former clients of "Woody" - beware how he does his work, check what he claims on your behalf to anybody, and especially in settlement negotiations.

Because you can be sold out by Woodruff Carroll the same way Mr. Carroll is now selling out my former clients in Argro v Osborne, for $500 an hour obviously promised to him by the opponent.