Corrupt prosecutors Hubbard and Northrup should be impeached and disbarred for prosecuting an unsustainable criminal case for the benefit of a relative of their employee, on unsustainable and fabricated evidence

Delaware County DA - now judge - Richard Northrup brought a felony indictment against my friend Barbara O'Sullivan in the fall of 2014 for allegedly having a dog (not her own) assault a police officer, Derek Bowie - which was dismissed on February 25, 2016, when even Judge Lambert and Acting Delaware County DA John Hubbard could not proceed to trial with the case as dirty, while Barbara refused to allow them an easy way out and plea to a misdemeanor.

The indictment was brought secretly, in violation of applicable law, and after the now-Acting DA Hubbard learnt through the felony hearing that the charges were unsustainable.

I have written about the circumstances preceding that occurrence when Derek Bowie assaulted Barbara O'Sullivan 2 weeks prior with a police vehicle and smashed a tablet in her hands with which she was videotaping his misconduct.  When he read on this blog that the tablet and the recording on it still survived, he needed to get Barbara, Alecia and Alecia's dogs out of the house to get to the tablet.  So he fabricated criminal charges of resisting arrest against Barbara and Alecia, and went to their property, at night, with the help of two other officers, Tahir Haqq and Eric Alexander.

I handled a felony hearing for Barbara on September 22, 2014.

I want to show that the charges against Barbara should have been dismissed as of September 22, 2014 by Gumo  and should have never been brought into the grand jury by DA Northrup, employer of the alleged victim's uncle (please, also note that Northrup put the case through the grand jury without notifying Barbara or myself, as her counsel at the Delhi Town court level, which is a violation of Criminal Procedure law - Barbara made a motion to dismiss the indictment later, but Judge Lambert unlawfully denied the motion, saving the illegal indictment).

My opponent was John Hubbard, now the Acting District Attorney of Delaware County.

Here is what was established at that hearing:

1) Derek Bowie (who had a grudge against Barbara, was a suspect in an attempted murder/vehicular assault against Barbara 2 weeks prior and who should have been pulled from any investigations or arrests of Barbara) was the only witness of the alleged bite.  

I will run a separate blog showing how Derek Bowie was trying to defraud the Workers' Compensation board about that alleged bite, and how the then DA and now-judge Richard Northrup was helping him do it, and create false evidence for trial (and, possibly, the grand jury) to make the case stick.

2) Officer Tahir Haqq did not see the dog bite Bowie because it was dark and because everything was "in a blur";

3) Officer Alexander did not see the dog bite Bowie either, because he was behind the house when the dog got out and did not see the door.

4) Officer Alexander saw Barbara secure the dogs, at the request of officers, into cages, before she went out to open the door.  Officer Alexander did not exclude the possibility that a dog was first secured into his cage and then escaped.

5) Both officer Bowie and officer Haqq who saw how the dog came out of the door, describe it as "going around" Barbara, "pushing around" her or even "blowing around" her.

Derek Bowie:

Tahir Haqq:

6) It was established on record that the dog did not belong to Barbara.

Tahir Haqq:

7) It was established on record that Barbara daughter Alecia, the owner of the dog, was not at home when the officers came.

Tahir Haqq:

8) It was established on record that the dog was large and heavy.

Derek Bowie:

9) It was well known in the area that Barbara, a lifetime resident of Delhi, a small town where everybody knows everybody, is a disabled corrections officer with a broken wrist, so for three male officers to expect her to control an escaped dog, not her own, was somewhat unreasonable - and did not establish her intent to release the dog beyond the reasonable doubt, or by any standard at all.

10) It was established on record that Barbara did secure the dogs and that it was possible that one of the dogs simply escaped and went around her when she opened the door.

Eric Alexander:

On this record, no criminal prosecution was possible.  It was not possible to prove intent on this record even by preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond the reasonable doubt, as a criminal case required.

Prosecutors Northrup and Hubbard, if they want to feign neutrality and good faith - it was all in there, in the felony hearing transcript of September 22, 2014, it was clear that a criminal case against Barbara was unsustainable.  

John Hubbard, the current Acting DA, was there.  He heard that testimony.  He knew the case sucked, even without any other legal issues, and that he cannot prove it at trial.

The only reason to put that case, secretly as they did it, through the grand jury, was to harass Barbara and cause her stress.  

After all, it is highly unusual that a prosecutor offers a no-jail-time and no-probation plea offer, only to make the case not go to trial - that's what John Hubbard several days ago.

John Hubbard also intimidated Barbara by threatening to depose her as to contents of MY blog, an act of pure stupidity since Barbara does not direct what I say on my blog, I am not sure she even reads my blog and knows its contents, and whatever is in my blog is pure hearsay as far as Barbara is concerned, and thus inadmissible at trial.

So, Northrup and Hubbard relied on their "star witness" Derek Bowie against Barbara O'Sullivan, Derek Bowie's victim.  

Hubbard was a law partner of Judge Becker whom Barbara sued.  

Hubbard told Barbara in 2010 that she shouldn't have hired me for Alecia's custody case and that whatever Becker does is correct - as an explanation as to why he let go the criminal case of death threat against Barbara O'Sullivan and deceived Barbara O'Sullivan as to the time of the proceedings, so that she would not be able to come and protest in open court.

Hubbard knew - for a million reasons in this case - that the case should not have been filed and should have been dismissed long ago on legal insufficiency, jurisdictional deficiency, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct grounds, because of

• reasons explained in my motion to dismiss that I served upon him before the felony hearing started on September 22, 2014 and that Gumo dismissed without reading; 
• reasons that Barbara explained in her pro se motion to dismiss for failure to notify her of the grand jury proceedings and her pro se omnibus motion filed and denied by Judge Lambert, until he realized, with the trial pending within days, that another reversal on appeal on the law, right after the embarrassing reversal on the law in Norman Michaels' case, will be too much for his judicial career;
• in her writ of prohibition filed with the Appellate Division 3rd Department and ignored by that court; as well as reasons that transpired from the felony hearing that I describe here, and reasons.

No self-respecting prosecutor would bring felony charges in good faith on the record such as this, 

• when it is not clear whether there was a bite, a bruise, or nothing, 
• where the only witness is severely compromised by a self-interest to lie and is a suspect in an attempted murder on the alleged criminal defendant, so the alleged victim rather sought to be the first at the door of the courthouse with the criminal charges against the victims of his misconduct to discredit them if they would sue him:

• where the intent to release the dog could not be established on record even by preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond the reasonable doubt, as required in criminal proceedings;
• and where the alleged victim's injury was, as the O'Connor Hospital diagnosed, a BRUISE, which is insufficient to bring the D felony charges, even if all other issues did not exist:

This was released to Barbara in discovery in March of 2015 by Northrup.

In June of 2015, Northrup released to Barbara Derek Bowie's worker's compensation claim stating that he had not only a bruise (as O'Connor diagnosed him and which was insufficient for charges),  but also a puncture wound.

Northrup knew that when a medical document says, as a diagnose from neutral medical personnel, "bruise", and a workers comp claim  filled out self-servingly by Bowie himself says "puncture wound and bruise", that is workers compensation fraud.

Yet, he unflinchingly proceeded to prosecute the case, obviously intending to introduce the "puncture wound" fraudulent and self-serving claim of Derek Bowie at trial.  Grand Jury minutes are secret, but I bet that Derek Bowie's puncture-wound claim was submitted to the grand jury, too, with Northrup's blessing.

Neither Barbara's previous attorney Tyner who received this information initially, nor her current attorney Ermeti who got her file in October of 2015, made any efforts to move to eliminate fraudulent evidence and preclude Derek Bowie from testifying about his "puncture wound".  

Ermeti did not move to preclude Bowie's testimony about his "injury" even when Hubbard added insult to injury by sending to him an uncertified and unauthenticated copy of pictures that Hubbard received, allegedly, from Delaware County K-9 officer John Demeo (who himself has a dark history albeit protected by Civil Rights Law 50-a blocking access to records of misconduct of police officers) who was not on the property when the alleged dog attack happened, but who somehow had the possession of the picture allegedly of Derek Bowie's "injury":

The picture shows a puncture wound and not a bruise.

I was at the felony hearing and saw Bowie wear a tiny band-aid on his arm, while being in uniform, with a taser and a pistol on his belt. So, Bowie was not off duty and was allowed to handle a police vehicle, a taser and a pistol, even though he complained under oath on September 22, 2014 that their fingers were allegedly numb - from a bruise, which was likely self-inflicted by his baton, based on the contents of the video CD from the dash cam of one of the police cars.

Bowie was  very interested to lie in this case.

He was also very interested to have the dog killed.

That's why he nearly tasered the dog to death.

That's why the dog, with a taser barb sticking through his jaw, was left in the pound by the dog control officer who acted on directions of the police, FOR THREE DAYS, without permission to the shelter to remove the barb.  The dog's owner's permission or requirement to treat the dog were ignored since the dog was officially in the custody of the dog control officer. 

Bowie and his cronies definitely were waiting until the dog either rips himself apart from pain and bleeds to death, or infection will set in and kill him, or Judge Gumo will kill him (Bowie applied to have the dog killed) - but, at all costs, the dog should not  have survived by the trial, so that dog experts would not be able to evaluate the dog and see that he is not dangerous (my 8-year-old son was around him many times, with never an issue to his safety).

By the way, Ermeti reportedly ignored Barbara's request to hire a dog expert for trial.

The hospital record of Derek Bowie indicates a bruise, not a puncture wound, so it is clear that Hubbard, to win the case, same as Northrup before him, was going to introduce fabricated evidence at trial, and Ermeti, Barbara's defense attorney who outright refused to confront Hubbard for any misconduct in the case, not only condoned it, but agreed to introduction of this evidence at the hearing for the validity of the warrant, with no hearsay objections or objections to certification, authenticity or clear inconsistency between this picture and the diagnosis in Bowie's medical records.

Moreover, the picture that does not show whether it is on an arm or leg, on a male or female, on Derek Bowie or on John Demeo bit by his K-9 companion, was sent in an uncertified format by Hubbard to Ermeti.

Ermeti did not question Hubbard's "integrity" on that and allowed introduction of this totally hearsay picture from an unknown source into evidence at the hearing before trial - a complete sell-out of Barbara as Ermeti's client, in my opinion.  Ermeti also refused to file a motion to disqualify Hubbard for misconduct, to move to dismiss the indictment because of the presence of a disqualified prosecutor in the grand jury (disqualified as the employer of the alleged victim's uncle, investigator Jeff Bowie), or to recuse Lambert.

Ermeti actually lamented to Barbara that, because he "had" to challenge Gumo, he would not be able to work in Gumo's court any longer and that he will not make a motion to recuse Lambert, because he does not want to lose his business before Lambert. 

Instead, Ermeti told Barbara that, if Lambert would rule against her as to the warrant (fortunately, that did not happen, but it is in hindsight now, yet Ermeti said that before the order was made), Ermeti would advise her to take the plea - but he STILL did not want to move to recuse, disqualify or dismiss, nor did he make the necessary motions for judicial subpoenas of records, from the Sheriff's department,  from the Town court, from the Family Court, from the Worker's Compensation board where Bowie submitted his medical records, or from the hospital.

Why Ermeti steered Barbara into a plea? Because he knew the law very well.  He was already paid an enormous sum by the family, which he likely already partially or fully spent on his trip to the Bahamas while Barbara was scrambling what to do before trial.  Yet, New York law does not allow a criminal defendant to sue her attorney for malpractice, unless the conviction is overturned, even if the conviction was caused by that malpractice.

So, had Lambert ruled against Barbara on the warrant, and had Ermeti steered her into the plea bargain, Barbara would not have been able to sue Ermeti for malpractice and not making the necessary motions for her in the 4 months since he received a huge retainer from Barbara's family.  In fact, Ermeti disclosed to Barbara right before trial that he did not know which motions were or were not made in the case and which hearings were or were not held in the case.  

And, there is a reason to believe that Ermeti had a reporter on hold to report Barbara's plea bargain, so it was all planned and arranged.  Only Barbara appeared stubborn and did not want to plea.  Not when she was clearly framed by the prosecution.

Northrup and Hubbard should not be "serving" the public in their high positions of trust.

It is exceedingly clear that they do not deserve ANY trust whatsoever in how they handle criminal cases.

Whether they will be disciplined, is another question, but complaints against them for misconduct in this case will most assuredly be filed.

As to how those complaints will be resolved, stay tuned, I will report it here.

Congratulations, Barbara O'Sullivan, on the dismissal of fabricated criminal charges against you!!!!!

I have written a lot on this blog about fabrication of criminal charges against my friend Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci.

We are three women out of Delaware County who happened to criticize and sue the now-quickly-retired-before-the-end-of-his-term Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker.

The case in federal court, Bracci v Becker, filed in December of 2011, was dismissed only on the grounds of "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts", leaving the question whether such malicious and corrupt acts occurred or not, open.

After we had the audacity to sue the high-and-mighty Judge Becker in Delaware County Supreme Court and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Bracci v Becker, Case No. 1:11-cv-1473), the following happened to us:

Becker got himself assigned to all of my cases, sanctioned me in several of them, sent the charges to the disciplinary committee, and I was eventually suspended without a hearing based on his retaliative sanctions because I dared to make motions to recuse him to secure an impartial judge for my clients.

I was also criminally charged for discussing my disciplinary case, including my plans to call Carl Becker to testify - charges were quietly dismissed on May 11, 2015, but my law license was nevertheless suspended on November 13, 2015, just in time to prevent me from helping Barbara in her criminal case - God forbid I would fly over and handle the trial for my friend, no, Becker and the crew couldn't have that.

Barbara's daughter Alecia Bracci was prosecuted on fabricated criminal charges, courageously went all the way to a jury trial - and was acquitted by the jury.

Criminal charges were also fabricated against Barbara, which were finally dismissed yesterday on a pretext that the magistrate who signed her arrest warrant, judge Gumo, did not actually sign that warrant and lied under oath about it.  Judge Lambert caustically said in his order granting Barbara's pro se motion (that Lambert initially denied without much reasoning) that Gumo was either "confused or disingenious" when he testified.

I must note that for the previous trial date (adjourned because Barbara changed her counsel from one attorney who did no trial preparation to, unfortunately, another attorney who did not appear to do much trial preparation either, but who took the money while being afraid of doing the job properly), Becker was seen around the courthouse, obviously anticipating Barbara being led away in shackles.

Yet, Becker, reportedly, was not seen anywhere near the hearing of February 24, 2016 (I will only be able to provide an order from that hearing in this blog that led to the dismissal of charges, and will reserve my analysis of what occurred there until I get access to the transcript of that hearing).   

Apparently, Becker may have realized that the case goes where it was supposed to be in the first place - down the drain, and that nobody wanted to put their career on the line for a has-been like him anymore.

I must also note that, after I was squeezed out of Barbara's case at the level of the lower (Judge Gumo's) court, because the nepotism-infested Delaware County Sheriff's Department (I will dedicate a separate blog to nepotism in Delaware County employment that affected this case) did not allow me even to visit her in Delaware County jail without my attorney files being searched, which I refused to allow, and because I had to leave the State of New York for fear of physical retaliation against me and further fabricated criminal charges brought against me, Barbara had two attorneys.

In fact, it came out on February 24, 2016 as a result of Gumo's perjurous testimony that Gumo knew at the time when I was handling a felony hearing for Barbara on September 22, 2014, two days before the Delaware County Sheriff's Department blocked my access to Barbara unless I allow to search my attorney file, that charges are based on a defective warrant - his own.  

Not only Gumo did not tell me or the prosecutor about it (maybe, the prosecutor knew, but I definitely did not), but Gumo, despite his earlier promise to the Commission of Judicial Conduct that he has made only FOUR days prior to that date, Gumo did not record our conference during the felony hearing proceedings and denied my motion made on legal insufficiency of charges and jurisdictional grounds, without reading it - he said as much on record.  

BECAUSE there were too many case citations in that motion for Gumo's little head to digest.  It was easier to deny it, conceal his own misconduct and subject Barbara to 1.5 years more of harassment, including incarceration.  

I will dedicate a separate blog to Barbara's felony hearing and Gumo's misconduct there.

After I was squeezed out of the case, Barbara first represented herself in the County Court, and then had two attorneys representing her.  

Yet, her dismissal was based on materials in the omnibus motion that she has made pro se before she hired the first attorney who represented her in the County Court, and based on materials from the Judicial Conduct Commission that she obtained on her own through a Freedom of Information Law request, while her second attorney was on a vacation (before her jury trial) on the Bahamas and out of her reach.

So, congratulations, Barbara!

This is your victory, and a big one.  To beat the entire corrupt machine of criminal "justice" where several corrupt judges and prosecutors were bent on locking you up for up to 7 years in prison, required unmatched courage.

Many criminal defendants, even strong (at least outwardly) men, fold when prosecutors threaten them - like they threatened you - and agree to some kind of a plea bargain in order to avoid a long prison sentence.

You courageously held out, even though you were threatened with a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison and a D felony conviction if you went to trial.

You were intimidated with cross-examination about THIS blog - where you were not an author (I will run a separate blog with an analysis of how stupid and unethical it was of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard) to intimidate you in this particular way.

You were offered a misdemeanor with only a fine and no jail time - so that you could "escape" prison time.

You held out.

Even though you loved your daughter to death and did not want to go away from her for 7 years.

Even though you loved your only granddaughter to death and did not want to lose out on even more years of her growing up than what Becker maliciously caused you, in retaliation for reporting him for misconduct in the murder jury trial of People v Glenford Hull.

You held you, you dug yourself for information when your own attorney refused to file the necessary motions to recuse and disqualify the presiding judge and prosecutor for bias (judge) and conflicts of interest (prosecutor), and to dismiss the indictment because the disqualified prosecutor was present in the grand jury.

I wrote about all of that on this blog.

It broke my heart to not be able to help you even with verbal advice after my license was suspended, because to do that would have been a crime for me.  

At that time, more than at any other time, it showed to me that attorney licensing is NOT meant to protect legal consumers from bad attorneys, it is meant to defend judges from criticism and actually deprive criminal defendants and civil rights plaintiffs of good, courageous and independent legal advice.

It should not be a crime to share knowledge and expertise in order to help a person beat dirty, politically tainted, fabricated criminal charges.  But it is, and this "protection" of you as a legal consumer, which is what my suspension is supposed to be, did not allow me to actually help you in the last months before your trial.

You held out, you stood up to intimidation and refused plea offers, and did your own investigation and documentary discovery, as much as you could.

And you won.

Here are the orders of the assigned judge John F. Lambert from the February 24, 2015 hearing, the letter of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard asking Judge Lambert to drop the criminal charges against you with prejudice, and the order of dismissal of your criminal charges.

 

It was sad that, after prosecuting you for a year and a half for a D felony, John Hubbard did not read the file attentively enough to get it through his head that there was never a SEARCH warrant issued, applied or even pretended in your case, and that all the 9 yards was about the ARREST warrant that was used as a pretext 

Congratulations!  The dismissal will not give back the time you would have used other than by preparing for criminal defense or for a possibility of 7 years in prison.

The dismissal will not give you back the health you've lost in this battle, will not reimburse you, your daughter or your granddaughter for the stress you all underwent in this horrible ordeal, orchestrated by one man, and his cronies, just because the man could not take fair criticism from women.

But, at least, your dismissal can show to people that it is do-able to overcome the corruption in Delaware County and make corrupt and dirty public officials, including prosecutors and judges, to, at least through a pretext through designating one victim (Judge Richard Gumo of Delhi Town Court) amongst themselves, maybe, not the dirtiest of all, no matter how bad his misconduct was, but to distance away from prosecuting your case.

I will give a full analysis of what , who and how fabricated evidence and lied, abused their power or failed to deliver on their duty, and about the price to Barbara, her daughter Alecia, granddaughter and their pets in this whole ordeal, in further blogs.

The important thing is - this courageous woman, same as her daughter Alecia shortly before her, showed that there is a way to beat corruption in Delaware County.

The judge and prosecutor were afraid to proceed to trial against Barbara O'Sullivan, were afraid a reversal of this extremely dirty case on appeal - right after Lambert was reversed in the Norman Michaels case I blogged about earlier - and quietly dropped the charges.

I will dedicate a separate blog to misconduct of Richard Gumo, how far it went and what long-ranging consequences it may have for criminal cases Gumo has handled.  There is a clear possibility that Gumo would be taken off the bench.   I was told there is a likelihood that Gumo was, once again, referred for his misconduct to the Commission for Judicial Conduct, that won't be as lenient to him, I think, as it was recently, because he engaged in misconduct right after his testimony before the Commission pledging he wouldn't do it again.

I will talk about it in the days to come.

Today, I congratulate Barbara O'Sullivan.  For her courage.  For her commitment to not fold and not yield to powerful public officials engaged in misconduct against her, for years and years, simply because she told the truth about misconduct of a dirty judge.

You made them afraid, Barbara.

You showed people that honest people can also win their cases, even when railroaded, even when prosecutors and judges are beyond biased and corrupt.

Congratulations!

I suggest an offer of a collective gift from the U.S. taxpayers to the Malaysian government - our judges

As reported by The New York Times yesterday, a Malaysian judge upheld the ban of the government on using the word "Clean" on yellow T-Shirts.

The ban was imposed by the Malaysian prime minister who was publicly accused of corruption (people were protesting against corruption of the Prime Minister in creating a $700 mln "trust fund" funded from an undisclosed source where the Prime Minister is a board member - and where $620 million were hastily "returned" because that money was allegedly "not used", $80 mln obviously was used).

I have been writing on this blog for 2 years about corruption in the government of this country, and especially in its judiciary, the subject that mass media avoids at all costs.

I also wrote on this blog that New York state government attempted to silence me for my blogs exposing judicial and prosecutorial corruption by bringing criminal charges against me (since dismissed) for publishing evidence of such corruption in this blog.

I am not the only one victim of judicial retaliation in this country.

Far from it.

I recently published a list of attorneys who I know about who were disciplined for criticizing the government/judiciary.

Social media (but not mass media) is full of accounts of judicial retaliation.

It is futile to sue, because federal judges (all of them attorneys licensed by state governments and thus dependent for their continued judgeships on the good graces of such governments) gutted civil rights litigation against state governments by inventing numerous "abstentions", "deferences", "immunities", "comities" as bars to civil rights litigation, and by increasingly imposing sanctions upon civil rights attorneys and plaintiffs for bringing civil rights lawsuits against state governments.

I wrote about that tendency on this blog numerous times, and, once again, I refer readers to a law review article on the subject of such sanctions as a chill on civil rights litigation.

I also wrote recently about tricks used by all three branches of the New York State government, as a fine example of collusion instead of "checks and balances", where the Legislature created, the district attorneys are called to enforce and the judiciary to adjudicate two crimes:

(1) to publish a "false and grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding", and
2) to create a very accurate report of a court proceeding through videotaping.

To have both of these crimes on the books is, in effect, to create a monopoly for the court and court reporters for creation of "accurate reports of court proceedings", and, when such reports are cooked, as I have shown by posting audio recordings of a court conference which clearly did not coincide with the transcript of the same conference, the challenger will be criminally charged.  I was.

In my case, I at least had an audio recording as proof of misconduct, and the "only" thing the government could do to me is attempt to put me in jail (they tried) or take my law license (they succeeded in that).

When it is your word against the word of court personnel, you know you are doomed, because court personnel, for purposes of job security, did not report even sexual assaults of various judges on court personnel, or the use by a judge of a penis pump during court proceedings for years - during trials.  I wrote about it on this blog.

By the way, I have on my blogroll on the right a blog by LegalSchnauzer.  

One of the authors of that blog, Roger Shuler, did jail time, 5 months in jail to be exact, in the State of Alabama for blog posts on issues of public concern protected by the 1st Amendment.

Now, a federal judge indicated that an arrest of a person who is trying to preserve evidence of a police misconduct by videotaping it (this is the only way to help the police accountable, because otherwise they will mount a "blue wall of silence" and lie on the stand about one another) - is not in violation of the 1st Amendment.

The decision was made by a judge of the U.S. District Court by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the judge is an attorney licensed by the state of Pennsylvania, and you know what the state of Pennsylvania does to attorneys, even public officials, who dare to go against the flow of the establishment.  

Recall the Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane whose law license was suspended, and she was criminally charged, after she exposed prosecutorial and judicial corruption in the state, an ongoing "porngate".

Recall that very recently, a federal judge Matthew Brann, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, slapped a Pennsylvania civil rights attorney Donald Ross with nearly $116,000 in sanctions, thus putting a further chill on civil rights litigation and preparing the grounds for a possible disciplinary action against such a civil rights attorney, a real help by Pennsylvania state licensee Matthew Brann to the State of Pennsylvania, which can be reasonably reviewed as a corrupt act by Judge Brann to help the government that holds Judge Brann's own livelihood in their collective hands.

Recall that before that, that same federal judge who slapped civil rights attorney Donald Ross with sanctions, denied admission to practice in federal court to yet another civil rights attorney (and recent candidate for Congress) Andy Ostrowski - for criticism of the judiciary.  

In 2014, after civil rights attorney publicly criticized Judge Brann on the Internet,   Judge Brann retaliated and conditioned Andy Ostrowski's admission in state court by his admission by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court (the one that suspended the law license of Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kathleen Kane for doing her job in investigating judicial and prosecutorial misconduct).  There is no statutory requirement in federal law to condition admission in federal court by a state law license, as there is no requirement for state approval of any other federal employment or business.  Yet, Judge Brann did what the state court that holds in its hands Judge Brann's own law license, judgeship and livelihood, wanted.

And, finally, recall that Pennsylvania is the proud home of the "Kids for Cash" scandal, where attorneys were afraid to speak up about criminal conduct of judges because (1) they were not allowed to videotape, obviously, and (2) they were afraid of retaliation and sanctioned for such reporting into silence.

So, in the state where videotaping of public officials should be super-protected in view of all the misconduct of the government and retaliation against reporters is a subject of very public scandals, ongoing for years, a federal judge Mark Kearney, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, protects the Pennsylvania police by allowing it to arrest those who videotape their misconduct to create the only record that can prevent the police from lying under oath as to what occurred.

Welcome to Malaysia, ladies and gentlemen.

Or, on the other hand, maybe there is a simple solution of the problem.

We might consider giving a generous gift of our wonderfully trained judiciary to the Malaysian government.  To help the Malaysian government further chase yellow T-shirts in a blessedly warm climate.  As far away from us as possible.

Taxpayer-paid cell phone numbers and e-mails of some (291), but not all, employees of Otsego County, New York

On September 8, 2015 I filed a Freedom of Information request with the Otsego County, New York, asking, among other things, e-mails and cell-phone numbers assigned (and paid-for) by the County to its employees.  All of them.

My FOIL was triggered by this announcement on the County's website (which is still very much there).

I promised to my readers that I will try hard to obtain the cell phone numbers of phones that taxpayers pay to provide to County employees - and I succeeded, partially at this time.

FOIL requires the County to provide the records within 5 business days.

I made my FOIL request on September 8, 2015, a Tuesday, by e-mail, which was instantly received by the County, so there were no excuses for any delays.

5 business days were up within a week, by September 15, 2015 another Tuesday.

Yet, initially I was told by Otsego County that they are taking their sweet time to do a "legal review" of my request - which does not constitute legal grounds for the delay.

The County Attorney who was supposed to conduct the "legal review" is Ellen Coccoma:

Ellen Coccoma is the wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, Ellen Coccoma, who holds two jobs (that I know of) - as a full-time County Attorney, and as a "special counsel" for a large Binghamton law firm Hinman, Howard and Kattel, LLP (for that reason, I asked for Ellen Coccoma's own time-sheets for certain dates, which I still did not get.

I understand, Ellen Coccoma was too busy in her multiple jobs to conduct a 5-second research on the Internet, on the website of the Committee for Open Government, to find the Committee's advisory opinion of June 5, 2007, providing, among other things, that "the telephone numbers and email addresses assigned to public employees clearly relate to the performance of their duties and, therefore, there is nothing “personal” or intimate about them".

After much additional correspondence with Otsego County that I did not have to engage had Otsego County complied with the Freedom of Information Law as they were supposed to, the Otsego County sent me SOME information about "assigned" (not necessarily cell phone numbers) of its officers and employees, and some e-mail addresses of its officers and employees while keeping them secret on their website.

Providing "assigned" phone numbers, without indicating that they are assigned cell phone numbers, as I requested, is not an appropriate response to my FOIL request.

It appears that the phone number provided to me of, let's say, Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, (607) 432-7568, is his cell phone number, since it does not coincide with his office number listed on the Otsego County website, (607) 547-4249, but, since the Otsego County did not state in so many words that the assigned phone numbers disclosed are cell phone numbers, there is no clarity about that.  

The first 3 digits appear of many disclosed phone numbers (published below) appear to be of local cell phone numbers, but I did not ask in my FOIL to make me guess or speculate, I asked disclosure of assigned CELL phone numbers, and I did not get a statement that the disclosed numbers are CELL phone numbers, making disclosure incomplete.

Otsego County also stated that "disclosure of cell phone numbers and email addresses of law enforcement personnel and emergency services personnel is denied pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 87, subd. 2".

Please, note, that while I asked the records to be provided to me to my e-mail address in a scanned format, not utilizing any paper, the records were sent to me in printed format, against my wishes, and the County is attempting to charge me $2.75.  

Yet, the County was supposed to provide to me scanned copies of the 11 pages it sent me for free, which is exceedingly clear from the advisory opinion of the New York State Committee for the Open Government of September 4, 2012, also available after a 15-second word-search on the FOIL advisory opinion index.

Moreover, as a veteran of e-filing with federal courts, I know that any information that exists on a computer, and cell phone and e-mail assignments are obviously kept by Otsego County in a computer file and not in a leather-bound hand-scribbled volume, such computer files (any files) can be easily printed into a pdf file and attached to an e-mail - so no scanning and no printing is even required to produce a CRISP pdf print and satisfying my FOIL request the way it was made, requesting an attachment of requested records by e-mail.

Moreover, even if Otsego County was decided between scanning and printing, its decision to print and not to scan, as I requested, is even more suspect that Otsego County happily announced on its own website an ongoing sale of "surplus" equipment:

I read buyers' feedback to Otsego County and printed it - 8 pages of it.

In those feedbacks, Otsego County is praised for selling, individually and as LOTS, printers, SCANNERS, monitors and other valuable equipment - for peanuts.

I preserved those feedbacks - by paperlessly printing them into a PDF file, and will run a separate blog analyzing the types of equipment and prices for which it was sold to happy e-bay buyers whose names remain "private", even though equipment belonging to taxpayers must be sold at PUBLIC auctions, with names of people who bought it being PUBLIC, to preclude self-dealing of Otsego County officers and employees and giving themselves taxpayer-funded equipment for free or nearly for free.

I will also turn the feedbacks into the respective agencies with authorities to investigate to verify the identities of the happy buyers of equipment from Otsego County.

It is clearly a big question why FOIL requests that could be easily and effortlessly satisfied by a printout to a PDF file and by sending it (for free) to an e-mail address (as I requested), Otsego County, after a 5-months' "legal review" by its County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, (1) blocked records pertaining to Ellen Coccoma herself, and (2) wasted postage and paper on a FOIL request that could be satisfied without postage and paper.

As to denial of some cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses, here is yet another opinion of the Committee for the Open Government, dated June 29, 1994 and issued by the Executive Director of the Committee Robert Freeman, states that Freedom of Information Law creates a presumption of access to the records, unless records fall into one of the exceptions provided for in Public Officers Law 87(2)(a) through (g).  Finding it also required only the time to type "basis for denial" into the search window of the FOIL advisory opinions index on the website of the New York State Commission for the Open Government.

The Otsego County Records Officer Carol McGovern, who New York law allows to be held personally responsible for attorney fees if sued for withholding records that must be released, pointed (obviously, after a "legal review" by Ellen Coccoma) only at the root section and subsection, Public Officers Law 87(2) as a basis for denial, but not at the exact subsection which she used to deny me access to cell phone numbers and e-mails of "law enforcement and emergency personnel".

Here is Public Officers Law 87, subd. 2 - in its entirety:

 2. Each agency shall, in accordance with  its  published  rules,  make
  available  for  public  inspection  and copying all records, except that
  such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:
    (a) are specifically exempted from  disclosure  by  state  or  federal
  statute;
    (b)  if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
  privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of  section  eighty-nine
  of this article;
    (c)  if  disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or
  collective bargaining negotiations;
    (d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency  by  a  commercial
  enterprise  or  derived  from  information  obtained  from  a commercial
  enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to  the
  competitive position of the subject enterprise;
    (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed,
  would:
    i.   interfere   with   law  enforcement  investigations  or  judicial
  proceedings;

    ii. deprive a  person  of  a  right  to  a  fair  trial  or  impartial
  adjudication;
    iii.   identify   a   confidential  source  or  disclose  confidential
  information relating to a criminal investigation; or
    iv. reveal criminal investigative  techniques  or  procedures,  except
  routine techniques and procedures;
    (f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person;
    (g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
    i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
    ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
    iii. final agency policy or determinations;
    iv.  external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by
  the comptroller and the federal government; or
    (h) are examination questions or answers which are requested prior  to
  the final administration of such questions.
    (i)  if  disclosed,  would  jeopardize the capacity of an agency or an
  entity that has shared information  with  an  agency  to  guarantee  the
  security  of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing
  both electronic information systems and infrastructures; or
    * (j) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under  authority of section eleven hundred eleven-a of
  the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed December 1, 2014
    * (k) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under  authority of section eleven hundred eleven-b of
  the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed December 1, 2014
    * (l) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  produced  by a bus lane photo device prepared under authority of
  section eleven hundred eleven-c of the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed September 20, 2015
    * (m) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under the authority of section eleven hundred eighty-b
  of the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed August 30, 2018
    

==

So, which one of the exceptions listed in subsection 2 - none of which applies - did Otsego County mean?  Nobody knows, because Otsego County denied me access to cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of law enforcement and emergency personnel without any explanation whatsoever as to which subsection of Subdivision 2 is the basis for the denial, and that is not a valid reason for the denial of my presumed right of access.

I do not know also which employees Otsego County chose to group under "law enforcement and emergency" personnel, which is yet another problem.  Their names may be the point of disclosure in a lawsuit.

Here are lists of cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of Otsego County employees (still not disclosed on the Otsego County website) that I did receive.  I publish it as a matter of my public service as a citizen journalist to the public of Otsego County and beyond.  Area code is (607), I presume.  I publish the records as I received them.  I will try to verify with the County what are the first three digits of cell phone numbers on the top of pages where they are not indicated.  

The first name on the list is Theresa Lombardo, and her phone number is 4262, the first 3 digits not provided, and the same for phone numbers of people listed underneath her, up until the "Public Health Director cell phone".    

I will have to file an administrative FOIL appeal for that information.

Now, if the "assigned phone numbers" are assigned cell phone numbers, as I requested in my FOIL request, Otsego County pays for cell phones of its 291 officers and employees, some of them attorneys with a private practice on the side, such as:

• Michael Getman;

• Ellen Coccoma, 

- and that is only what I spotted now, without in-depth analysis.

Please, note that Michael Getman, the "Chief Assistant District Attorney" of Otsego County does not mention that in his official attorney registration, but mentions his private business.

Please, note that Ellen Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York, does not mention in her official attorney registration that she is a full-time employee of Otsego County, but that she is an attorney for Hinman, Howard & Kattel, LLP.

Apparently, for these "public servants", their private businesses are more important than their government-paid jobs.

Illustratively, after 5 months instead of 5 days (as provided by law) of "legal review", Ellen Coccoma did not provide me copies of HER OWN time-sheets that I requested for certain dates.  I wonder what was there so damaging to her that she is defying the law and abusing her position as Otsego County attorney to deny me my FOIL request.

As to cell phones for 291 Otsego County employees, as a citizen, I wonder - whether to pay for cell phones of such a number of employees is a necessary expense for a small and poor rural county where people cannot afford county taxes to the point that there is an ongoing foreclosure crisis and controversy.  

People are losing homes to pay for cell phones of OVER 291 County employees (remember, the 291 presumably cell phone numbers are not a complete list of cell phone numbers Otsego County pays for, cell phones of "law enforcement" and "emergency" personnel were not disclosed).

I wonder what kind of cell phones are assigned to those officers and employees ("smart" or "dumb", the brands), which cell phone operator or operators is/are used, which cell phone plans are used, how much data on those cell phones, whether there are overages on the data plans on the county-assigned cell phones.

Recently, the New York State Comptroller's audit found out that Delaware County Social Services did not track use county-assigned vehicles by county officers and employees.

I wonder if Otsego County tracks the use of county-assigned cell phones and whether they are used for purposes that has nothing to do with County business, for officers and employees' own personal or private business matters.

And, here is the list of e-mail addresses (those that Otsego County disclosed to me, with the exception of e-mail addresses of "law enforcement" and "emergency personnel", what that is):

If any numbers or names are not clear from the scanned copy, please, e-mail me at tatiana.neroni@gmail.com, I will clarify if it is more visible on my paper copy.

On importance of quality criminal defense and funds for the indigent criminal defendants

This story is gruesome, and a lot of what allegedly happened in that story, happened only reportedly or allegedly, because no proof of it was or was allowed to be presented to the criminal court.

A stepfather who happened to be a billionaire allegedly disclosed to a psychological counselor in Arizona that he allegedly sexually abused his stepdaughter.

The counselor, being a mandatory reporter required by criminal law to report even a suspicion of sexual abuse of children on the threat of criminal prosecution (against the counselor) for non-reporting, reported what the stepfather said to authorities.

Criminal felony proceedings were brought against the stepfather in the State of Wisconsin.

In the criminal charges, the stepfather was accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old child about 20 times.

Yet, Johnson was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, 4 months in jail only, with the so-called Huber privileges, meaning that he could be released as early as after 60 days' incarceration for good behavior.

Johnson was also ordered to pay a fine of $6,000 which, for a billionaire, of course, was not a burden or problem to pay.

There was a lot of indignation in the mainstream and social media as to how did this happen and how the billionaire was allowed to escape the charges.

Yet, in this particular situation, where no foul play is apparent, the only thing that is apparent is - lack of available proof on the one hand, and good criminal defense work and availability of funds for such works in several states, on the other.

The key was that the alleged victim fought against efforts to make her testify at the trial, and to turn over records of her own counseling sessions, which the defense required to use as potential impeachment evidence to attack truthfulness of her accusations. 

The defense team did its job, and the prosecution could not do anything without the key evidence, but agree to the plea bargain that the defendant agreed upon, under the circumstances, simply to stop the publicity circus.  It is a slap on the wrist - IF those crimes were, indeed, committed, for which we do not have proof.  Mr. Johnson will not even have to register as a sex offender...

Yet, a bitter aftertaste of this case remains because the same arguments that were considered favorably for this particular criminal defendant, whose family reportedly generously donated to various Republican PACs, likely would not have been considered as favorably by various courts in various states had the defendant not been a billionaire, and had his family not have the political clout it has and had his family not been such a generous donors to various election campaigns.

I do not have enough facts and cannot speculate whether the stepdaughter's disappearance to North Carolina and refusal to come to trial to testify, was caused by intimidation or payoff. 

Also, usually witnesses do not have enough funds, as the girl had, to legal advice and would not have funds to mount a legal defense against a subpoena to trial to testify, seeking reportedly to dismiss the action.


Once again, as an expert in criminal defense, I realize that the prosecution could not get a felony conviction at a trial (or any conviction) under the circumstances and opted for a misdemeanor plea, which was accepted by the court, but the court rejected a maximum jail recommendation by the prosecutor of 9 months and imposed 4 months with a possibility of early release after 60 days. 
 
Yet, had the family of the defendant not been super rich and influential, the scenario could have been very different, and I am not talking about bribes or promises of bribes, I am talking about a possible unwillingness of judges to displease an influential and rich family, thus harming their own careers in the future.

And, of course, an indigent criminal defendant who usually would be assigned an overworked and underpaid assigned counsel, not necessarily a good one, and no funds for experts, investigators or litigation spanning several states, would most likely plead to a much higher charge, a sex offense, and that is whether the allegations against him/her are truthful or not, simply not to risk the maximum sentencing after trial.

Just another example of what money and clout can do when they are available to fight a criminal proceeding.

This has happened in a country with jails overfilled where 95% or more of inmates are convicted on plea bargains (often coerced, and based on bluff or fabricated evidence) and being used by for - profit prisons as slave labor.
 
An example of what a good and well-funded criminal defense can do.

When such a disparity in prosecution and defense of serious crimes exists, where only the cost of criminal defense, and not the merits of the cases, define whether a person will or will not be convicted of a serious crime, especially a sexual crime against a child, and where inmates are predominantly those who pled guilty and inmates are used by for-profit prisons for slave labor, I wonder what we as taxpayers fund in funding law enforcement and prosecution of crimes.

Without a well-funded criminal defense for the indigent, prosecution of crimes appears to be just a measure of social control of the poor, and provision of slave labor to the for-profit prison industry.