THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
"Good" attorney misconduct in stalling and misleading a FOIL inquirer regarding sensitive information about corruption in New York and federal court system
People responding to the FOIL request and preparing or inspiring those responses clearly think that they are talking to idiots, or pretending that they are themselves idiots and do not understand what they are asked for - in very clear requests.
I've just published my clear and unambiguous FOIL request about operations and members of the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, a quasi-governmental organization that some people periodically claim they have an "honor" of belonging to - and "advising state and federal judge" - but no information is available anywhere about it.
The organization, based on information available to me, exists since 1970s, but for over 40 years of existence, with so many "honorables" claiming being "appointed" to it, the only record that New York State Office of Court Administration coughed up for me was one puny letter signed by outgoing former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman on December 31, 2015, it is available on that same blog I published a couple of days ago.
When I pointed out to the NYS OCA that stalling is not the best tactic in answering FOIL request and warned them that I will file an administrative appeal of their constructive denial of my FOIL request, and possibly, will sue the responding person personally, with attorney fees, if responsive records are not provided to me, the following delightful message arrived into my e-mail box yesterday:
I followed the suggested link and here is what it contains:
So, the deciphered message of the New York State Court Administration may be read as follows:
1) we do not have to create records that we do not want to create - that will embarrass or expose us for corruption (or, we destroyed those records and you will never know when, how or whether we did it - given the stakes involved in information sought through this FOIL request);
2) we do not have the records you are asking for about the over 40 (!) years of existence of a shadow organization controlling state and federal courts, providing a means for legal elite to "advise" the very judges in front of whom that legal elite appears, and
3) when we provided to you one sheet of paper out of all records that should have been created in OVER 40 YEARS of existence of an organization to which the Chief Judge of the State of New York has the power to appoint other judges, we killed your right to appeal our failure to provide you other records that we hid or destroyed.
Not so, NYS OCA, that is not what the FOIL law says.
I have a Juris Doctor degree and a specific training, not to mention experience, to handle Freedom of Information law requests.
Yet, my concern is that attorney Shawn Kerby misleads the same way inquirers who do not have legal training, and that is attorney misconduct, which (I am sure) the judiciary will not address because it was attorney misconduct advanced to protect the judiciary, so that's "good" attorney misconduct in the State of New York.
I will definitely file an administrative appeal for constructive denial of this FOIL request and will publish the NYS OCA's response to it.
Stay tuned.
A Freedom of Information Request about the #K-9OfficerOzzie was filed with Delaware County, New York
I am looking forward to Delaware County's response to this FOIL, and will publish it on this blog.
Stay tuned.
Monday, March 21, 2016
On defaults and sovereign immunity - when laws are applied differently to "popular" and "unpopular" litigants, there is no rule of law
I would love to analyze this particular twist in application of default laws and giving or withholding "sovereign immunity" in the United States where an unpopular litigant, "Islamic Republic of Iran", is denied "sovereign immunity", and gets a judgment against it without any evidence that supports the judgment, while a political and financial ally, Saudi Arabia, gets a preferential treatment by the same judge, "sovereign immunity", and a dismissal of an identical lawsuit, by the very same judge, just several months ago, even though Saudi Arabia citizens and legal residents participated in 9/11.
I wrote on this blog about, let's say, identity-specific application of laws in the United States - favoring friends, disfavoring "unpopular litigants", to the point that recently a criminal defender was bypassed for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court because of who she was - a former public defender, courageous and successful.
But, interestingly enough, when I downloaded from Pacer.gov the docket report of the case where the default judgment was reportedly made, In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York , the last docket entry in the docket report was 02/05/2016.
So, I am still looking as to where the "default judgment" of Judge Daniels was posted, and, when I discover it, I will run a full report.
Yet, application of sovereign immunity to Saudi Arabia and refusal to apply the same to Iran, on the same topic, by the same judge is bizarre at best.
When courts, or any other governmental officials, bend or break the law to cast stones at "unpopular" people, entities or countries, that means that there is no rule of law, and that the principle of "no rule of law for those we do not like" can be applied against any one of us, at any time.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
U.S. Court of Appeals judge Rosemary Pooler is fixing cases for her former law clerk's firm?
Here are some examples of judicial misconduct that, in my view, put a taint on judicial decisions of federal courts.
Barclay Damon, a successor in interest to Hiscock & Barclay, employs a former clerk of 2nd Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler Daniel J. French.
Judge Rosemary Pooler presided over a case where NDNY not only dismissed my husband's pro se civil rights case, but also awarded draconian attorney fees against him, a civil rights plaitniffs, for raising constitutional arguments - in favor of Barclay Damon's predecessor in interest Hiscock & Barclay.
On January 30, 2015, Judge Rosemary Pooler affirmed the decision in its entirety, without disclosure of her connection to the law firm, and without a full opinion explaining her reasoning.
On March 2, 2015, Rosemary Pooler also affirmed NDNY decision in Neroni v Becker (similarly imposing sanctions upon Mr. Neroni - and upon me as his counsel, for making constitutional arguments), where issues of misconduct of Barclay Damon's partner John Casey were raised, and also without a full opinion explaining her reasoning or disclosure about her connection to the law firm.
It is interesting to mention that these two cases, over which Judge Pooler presided on appeal, are the only cases where monetary sanctions were imposed upon my husband and/or upon me by a federal court, once again, for making constitutional arguments - conduct which was invalidated on June 18, 2015 as a violation of 1st Amendment through the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reed v Town of Gilbert requiring to apply strict scrutiny to content-based regulations of protected speech.
Judge Pooler was obviously making sure that sanctions should be affirmed for even mentioning corrupt behavior of her former law clerk's law firm and its partner John Casey - or at least this is how it appears.
See that Mr. Neroni has made arguments pertaining to Judge Pooler's age and potential inability to dedicate enough energy to important civil rights appeal.
The 2nd Circuit struck the brief as untimely because it first prohibited Mr. Neroni to file electronically, and then refused to consider as timely his Reply brief that was timely sent by overnight mail, but delayed by the federal US Postal service.
The elderly judge was reportedly recently involved in an undisclosed health-related "accident", so my husband's concerns about her ability to perform her judicial functions was more than justified.
Yet, the 2nd Circuit court made no disclosures about Judge Rosemary Pooler previously employing as her law clerk an attorney Daniel French from the law firm who is successor in interest to Hiscock & Barclay, beneficiary of Rosemary Pooler's decision described by Mr. Neroni in his Reply Brief.
It appears that incestous relationships between prominent law firms employing judicial law clerks are not only rewarded, but whistleblowers about such misconduct are most viciously punished, by those same judges who employed the law clerks in the first place.
How can the 2nd Circuit impartially decide the issues of whether NDNY correctly dismissed cases where misconduct of Barclay Damon's attorneys is raised (Bracci v Becker, Neroni v Becker, Neroni v Coccoma), when one of its judges, Judge Rosemary Pooler
- is the former judge of the same court whose decisions (and misconduct) are contested on appeal, and
- actually employed as law clerk, an attorney from that law firm, and presided over appeals in two out of three cases raising issues of the law firms' and its attorney's misconduct?
For development of this particular story - and it will develop, I will make sure of that, stay tuned.
State Federal Judicial Councils - the shadow governments of this country - are fixing cases behind your backs and creating laws for their own benefit
Many attorneys, most of them from prominent and politically connected law firms, proudly announce on the websites of law firms that they have been "appointed" (by whom - is never mentioned) to the "Advisory Group of New York State-Federal Judicial Council"), see, for example such announcements by:
Attorney Linda Clark of Hiscock & Barclay, now Barclay Damon of Albany NY.
By the way, Linda Clark is also part of another secret-membership judge-financing organization American Inns of Court.
You can see my blogs about this organization, here, and here, and here (about the potential such organizations create for ex parte communications with judges and for fixing court cases), and here, and here (about involvement of U.S. Supreme Court judges and their law clerks' expenses-paid international trips funded by the organization's foreign partner), and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here (about a federal lawsuit I filed - since the blog was published, the lawsuit was quickly dismissed as "frivolous" before even the answer was served, by the very court whose judges were involved in misconduct, and the court retaliated by:
- imposing sanctions upon my husband in other cases,
- imposing an anti-filing injunction upon my husband for raising constitutional issues in several civil rights lawsuits, including two counseled pending lawsuits,
- suspending my law license and
- attempting to rob me of statutory attorney fees due me pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 in a civil rights I brought to trial against Chenango County Department of Social Services for 3.5 years of litigation - that saga is currently developing).
I did not interlink all blogs about American Inns of Court I have written in the over 2 years of existence of this blog. You can find all of them by putting the words "American Inns of Court" in the "search" window on the right of the blog.
Coming back to our Linda Clark of Barclay Damon,
an attorney who, like Sheldon Silver, is handling reportedly handling asbestos litigation, who is "a court-appointed defense liaison counsel in the three upstate jurisdictions spanning most of the Northern District of New York:
Linda Clark is also advertised as an attorney who successfully works with the executive branch of New York State Government
- why not, when she has access to judges for wining-and-dining them and for ex parte communications through the New York State-Federal Judicial Council (and her other law partners - through American Inns of Court), and is the referee on cases of judicial discipline - imagine the possibilities for fixing cases and influencing judges by both carrot and stick!
Here are Linda Clark's "memberships and affiliations":
Barclay Damon is also part of all kind of "rule-making" and other "committees" of the Northern District of New York Federal Bar listing judges of the court (including Peebles and Kahn) as part of that professional organization.
The federal bar, as you can find here, exists to "provide a forum to promote a more effective exchange of ideas between the practicing bar and the federal court".
In other words, the federal bar exists to provide a means of ex parte communications between participating attorneys (as opposed to non-participating attorneys and pro se parties) and presiding judges of the court.
Linda Clark is also a referee presiding over cases of judicial discipline in the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, upon my review of annual reports of that Commission (list of referees who "served" in each year is available in annual reports that can be found on the Commission's website, by the way, I copied them and have them on file, so, please, contact me for any information contained therein if the Commission decides to take them off their website).
As to the federal bar, please, note second from right - federal Judge Mae D'Agostino.
Several months ago, I filed a FOIL request with the New York State Office of Court Administration:
Since so many attorneys from prominent law firms were so proudly announcing that they have been "appointed" to the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, since, according to that council's member former judge Jack Weinstein, the Council exists to smooth out "friction" between state and federal judiciary (which statement cannot mean anything but fixing civil rights cases where the "friction" comes in the form of a civil rights case before a federal judge where a state judge is a defendant), and since the "smoothing out friction" in the form of federal court-created bars to civil rights litigation against state government and especially judges, such as:
- abstensions;
- deferences;
- immunities etc.
Note the mission of the Council admitted by the then-Chief Judge Lippman:
A secret-membership, secret-everything organization where state and federal judges and members of legal elite participate, with a mission "to promote communication between the state and federal courts in New York".
Let's stop right there.
When a judge or a court is a defendant in a federal action, all communications between the state and federal court should be ON RECORD and ON NOTICE to opposing party. All communications outside of court proceedings "to address issues of common concern between the two systems" during pendency of civil rights lawsuits addressing in federal court constitutional violations in the state court system, is ex parte communication, judicial misconduct and judicial corruption.
So, we have a letter of a now-retired Judge Jonathan Lippman dated December 31, 2015, "appointing" Judge Terry Jane Ruderman of Westchester County Supreme Court to this secret-membership organization presided - lo and behold - by Judge Mae D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Note that Judge Ruderman's participation in the Council is not noted on the judge's official biography listed on the website of the New York State Court Administration (I saved it, so if the NYS OCA removes the biography, feel free to contact me, I will provide you with a copy), and that it took me months to get even that one letter of appointment from the death grip of NYS OCA.
Note that Judge Ruderman is also listed as a Vice Chair of New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct - the organization shredding without investigation most of the public's complaints about judges, without any opportunity to appeal the dismissal, and where members, former members and law firms of members and former members, appear in front of the Commission:
Actually, Judge Ruderman was appointed by Lippman to both the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, AND the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct:
Well, at least Judge Ruderman's biography on the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct freely admits her membership in the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, something that her court biography doesn't:
So, how does it work for Judge Ruderman?
Judge Ruderman is untouchable by judicial discipline - because she is Vice-Chair of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and members of the Commission NEVER, in my experience, disqualify themselves from dismissing cases against them, their courts or their law firms and friends (I wrote on this blog about such failure to disqualify themselves by the now-Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters and the previous Vice-Chair of the Commission attorney Stephen Coffey of O'Connel & Aronowitz, P.C.).
Judge Ruderman is officially engaged in ex parte communications with state and federal judges, likely those state judges appearing in front of her in the Commission and those that are secret participants in the State-Federal Judicial Council.
Judge Ruderman likely presides over cases where attorneys in front of her are "advisors" to the state and federal judiciary through such a council, where Judge Ruderman is herself a member, and, is possibly engaged in ex parte communications with such attorneys behind the back of their opponents in litigation.
Judge Ruderman, if sued in federal court, will receive every leniency there is, and then some, including the federal court-invented deferences, abstentions and immunities, and a possibility to participate, ex parte, in communications with the federal court through state-federal judicial council.
What can I say.
Lovely.
Lippman's letter mysteriously says that the council "sponsors projects and educational programs related to its mission".
The mission - look up the link with Jack Weinstein's article above - is to make "occasional decisions that slightly modify the law so as to eliminate sources of friction between state and federal law officers" - which obviously includes judges and other state defendants appearing in federal courts.
Thank you, the New York State Court Administration, for at least confirming that Judge Mae D'Agostino of NDNY (one of presiding judges who dismissed my first federal case in that court, Bracci v Becker, after which all of the Plaintiffs - I, my husband Frederick J. Neroni, and my clients Alecia Bracci and Barbara O'Sullivan - suffered repercussions from Becker and/or his cronies) is part of the case-fixing council.
So, New York State Court Administration admitted that Chief Judge Lippman did participate in appointment of judges to this council, and that such appointments were obviously considered as part of his official duties - otherwise the letter wouldn't have been released in response to my FOIL request.
But, even though the council is admittedly part of New York Chief Judge's official business, none of my other questions for records about this "official business" - since 1970s - were answered in response to my FOIL request by New York State Court administration, making one wonder even more - what kind of case-fixing mysteries lay beneath New York State Court Administration's stalling tactics?
Please, note, my dear readers, that these "councils" were planned for ALL states, so New York is just a not-so-shining example of what is going on behind closed doors between state and federal judiciary throughout this country.
By the way, the current Chief Judge of New York State Janet DiFiore is a defendant in a federal lawsuit in front of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge Kahn (officer of the American Inns of Court) with Judge Peebles (officer of the American Inns of Court) presiding.
Judge Mae D'Agostino, the now-admitted Chairperson of the secret New York State-Federal Judicial Council, an organization which, according to confession of its member former judge Jack Weinstein, was formed to "relieve friction" between state judiciary (defendants in civil rights cases in federal courts) and federal judiciary (presiding judges in such cases) - was an invited guest to Judge DiFiore's confirmation - while the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, of which D'Agostiono's is a judge, handled a motion to vacate dismissal of the lawsuit against the Chief Judge of the State of New York.
Now that it is revealed that D'Agostino was also a Chairperson of the New York State-Federal Judicial Council at the time of her attendance of Defendant DiFiore's swearing-in ceremony, the case-fixing possibility because a gruesome reality.
I was advised by New York State Office of Court Administration (NYS OCA) that the letter you see above is the only record that NYS OCA has about this Council, and advised me to contact the federal court - may be, they have more than New York State court does.
Of course, I will file an administrative appeal for the constructive denial of records by NYS OCA.
Of course, I will contact #JudgeMaeD'Agostino with a separate Freedom of Information request.
Of course, I will also contact federal authorities to investigate whether records pertaining to this case-fixing not-so-little organization between New York State legal elite, state judges and federal judges, were simply destroyed so that not to show the extent of corruption going on, in response to my FOIL request.
In view of the recent scandal with #AntoninScalia's death during one of his litigant-sponsored hunting trips where members of a secret "hunting lodge" were also present, membership of judges in secret-membership organization, with its potential to fix cases, finally came to the spotlight of the American public.
I will continue to cover this case and publish responses of various government organizations to my inquiries.
And - did I mention that Barclay Damon, the law firm whose partners:
1) a Barclay Damon partner John Casey recently was on the Professional Conduct Committee of the Appellate Division 3rd Department regulating attorneys (John Casey); as part of that Committee, John Casey saved from prosecution (and then employed) Cornelia Cahill, wife of Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Claims Richard Sise, and saved from prosecution former judge Robert Harlem, his son Richard Harlem and their law firms for fraud upon the court - and instead prosecuted the whistleblowers against the Harlems, both of them (me and my husband);
3) a Barclay Damon partner is a referee of many years on the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct (Linda Clark);
4)a Barclay Damon partner is an officers, along with two federal judges from the court where Barclay Damon practices, in the American Inns of Court for Intellectual Innovation (Douglas Nash);
5) Barclay Damon partners are on FIVE committees of the Federal Bar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gabriel M. Nugent, David M. Cost; Jason C. Halpin; Karen C. Southwick; John P. Langan)
6) Barclay Damon partners are or were recently officers and trustees of NDNY Federal bar (Michael J. Sciotti - President; Gabriel M. Nugent - Trustee; Yvonne E. Hennessey and John B. Langan, past Presidents)
By the way, while partners in Barclay Damon are:
- officers in American Inns of Court in Intellectual innovation where two of NDNY judges are officers,
- members of "Advisory Committee of the New York State-Federal Judicial Council" where Judge Mae D'Agostino, without disclosure to litigants, is Chairperson;
- members of various committees, including the RULE-MAKING Committee of NDNY Federal Bar,
- officers and trustees of NDNY Federal bar and
- employe law clerks of NDNY and appellate federal court judges,
6) Barclay Damon partner is on the NDNY's disciplinary Committee (J. Eric Charlton):
7) Several of Barclay Damon partners and associates are former law clerks (some very recent) of judges of Northern District of New York or the higher court, the appellate U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (including presently sitting judges):
John D. Cook - member of NDNY rule-making committee - former law clerk of NDNY former Chief Judge Howard G. Munson (deceased in 2008)
Jacon C. Halpin - recent law clerk of the present NDNY Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, see also here about Judge Suddaby's biography. Jacon C. Halpin is also on the "First Year Committee" of the NDNY Federal Bar, see scan above.
Judge Mae D'Agostino presided, without disclosure of her involvement in the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, without disclosure of Hiscock & Barclay/Barclay Damon incestous relationship with the court, presided over one of our cases where both my husband and I were parties, I was the attorney of record for the plaintiffs, and Barclay Damon (then Hiscock & Barclay) partner John Casey's corrupt conduct was mentioned in the pleadings, making him and his firm that employed law clerks of the court a witness in the proceedings, and requiring (1) disclosure from Mae D'Agostino, (2) disqualification of the entire court.
Judge D'Agostino dismissed the case, with insulting language (see her diatribe with a truncated quote from Winston Churchill), and the case was used to impose an anti-filing injunction on my husband, blocking him from filing ANY civil rights actions in NDNY unless he satisfies extremely burdensome and irrelevant, not to mention unconstitutional conditions.
This is just one law firm, and just the tip of the iceberg as to how the judiciary is joined at the hip with well-connected attorneys practicing in front of it. Judges are members of attorney-financed groups. Attorneys are members of groups making court rules. Both are members of groups with secret membership that meet behind closed doors, with a potential of ex parte communications and fixing cases.
Then, cases get decided by the court in favor of the law firm, without disclosure of connection and conflicts of interest.
No discipline will ever reach this law firm, as you understand, no matter what misconduct its attorneys and partners commit, they know too much about judges, judges owe them too much, judges and judicial relatives and former employees get employed in such law firms - so judiciary will not "regulate" these oasises of the legal profession for the benefit of consumers, attorney regulation is all make-believe, because it will never reach the most powerful attorneys, capable of the most damage to their clients and to the public.
Here is my previous blog about another monster law firm in New York, with similar incestous connections to the judiciary.
But, interesting things may happen due to revelation through this little letter disclosed to me by the New York State Court Administration, and more disclosures may follow.
I will keep putting pressure on state and federal authorities for more disclosure about this mysterious "New York State-Federal Judicial Council", its members and activities, and will keep covering the story.
Stay tuned.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Discipline might still be available for #TheBeckerBeast, after all
And, the annual report of New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct indicated that some judges retired during investigation.
It clearly seemed like Becker was one of that number, and "retired" not to be booted.
At this time, Becker violates rules of attorney discipline by not providing on his attorney registration website either his business address, or his home address.
It is apparent that, since the Becker Beast does not want his whereabouts known, even at the expense of violation of attorney disciplinary/registration rules, that also means that the Becker Beast does not practice law - which is a small blessing.
Yet, the retirement was, for sure, meant to escape any and all kinds of discipline for Becker's misdeeds.
As to that, the Becker Beast may be disappointed.
There is no statute of limitations to attorney discipline in New York. That particular rule was certainly not made with Becker in mind, but it is equally applicable to Becker, too.
It is an increasingly common practice to disbar judges for misconduct in office, after they resign or retire.
See such a practice used recently in:
Ohio;
Florida;
New Mexico
and even in New York.
A precedent has been recently created in Florida where a judge was forced to resign and was then disbarred for her conduct as an attorney, before she became a judge.
So, the Becker Beast can still be held accountable, at least somewhat, for wrecking thousands of lives through his corrupt and malicious conduct on the bench where the only people he served were himself and his cronies.
Come July, when the new rules of attorney discipline kick in, allowing to appeal dismissal of complaints, we will see if those new rules are applicable to the Beast.
Private pets working as public K-9 officers while supported by private donations. #TheOzzieSaga
The following information so far emerged about the new celebrity of Delaware County, NY, the Ozzie dog, through media articles, press releases and other reputable sources:
1) A German shepherd by the name of Ozzie is allegedly "employed" by Delaware County (New York) Sheriff's Department and regularly participates in drug-related arrests;
2) The Delaware County does not have provisions for Ozzie in its budget, and instead
3) Delhi Animal Hospital (an institution that handles controlled substances that Ozzie is trained to sniff out) allegedly provides free vet care for Ozzie; I am not saying Delhi Animal Hospital is involved in drug-smuggling, I am just saying that it is theoretically possible, thus making financial support from Officer Ozzie of "Officer Ozzie" inappropriate. Free vet service of "Officer Ozzie" also prevents verification through FOIL requests of any injuries incurred by "Officer Ozzie" if "Officer Ozzie" would attack or kill somebody's pet or even a person. Very convenient.
4) a Delhi store "Tractor Supply", a store handling large amounts of cash that can easily be turned into a drug money laundering operation allegedly provides food for Ozzie; I am not saying "Tractor Supply" is involved in drug-smuggling, I am just saying that it is theoretically possible, thus making financial support from "Tractor Supply" of "Officer Ozzie" inappropriate;
5) Ozzie's "handler" (and owner?) police officer John Demeo provides for the board of Ozzie and will have Ozzie "after retirment" (Ozzie's or Demeo's - is not clear, but whichever retires first, I guess);
6) Ozzie's "handler" John Demeo is being compensated by Delaware County for training Ozzie and for Demeo's own training of how to handle and train Ozzie.
7) a local Walton, NY restaurant, another entity that handles large amounts of cash runs fundraisers to further provide for the "care" of Ozzie; and a "spaghetti dinner" fundraiser gathers $28,000 in ONE DAY in Walton, NY, a ghost town known only for - guess what - its drug dealers? An interesting coincidence. And a very clear possibility that drug dealers invented a new way of bribe-giving to local police officers - through fundraisers. Not too smart though. A private fundraiser to finance a public police drug enforcement program stinks to high heaven to any reasonable person outside of the "realm" of Delaware County;
8) reportedly, a recent state grant of $40,000 given to Delaware County was returned to the state, but instead a private donation fundraiser is run to provide for Ozzie. That is easily understandable, since there is no requirement to account for funds from a private donation, while there is to account for the use of funds from a state grant. And numbers are close...
This whole Ozzie saga is so bizarre that more information is needed, and I will sure try to get information from tight clutches of Delaware County records clerk Christa Schafer.
Right now it clearly appears that Delaware County, without any appropriate authority, pays Demeo for using his own pet in criminal drug stings, and that businesses that have a direct interest for non-investigation on behalf of local drug authorities, are privately financing police operations in Delaware County. The implications of such a sweet deal is obvious.
If private donors stop donations, Ozzie does not eat.
Thus, Ozzie's handler Demeo is well advised not to investigate donors - ever, no matter what they do.
That's the whole reason to NOT allow police operations to be financed by private donors.
I will verify through FOIL requests the particulars of "Officer Ozzie's" employment with Delaware County and will publish Delaware County's responses, whatever they are going to be.
Stay tuned.