Ticket fixing in justice courts in New York, dishonesty of attorney-judges and how to fix both problems

In 1951, reportedly, a ledger listing traffic tickets of New York City politicians disappeared during investigation into possible ticket-fixing.

It was later revealed by the investigation that NYC police officers sold to motorists $10 "courtesy cards".  You flash the card to the cop - you can speed all you want, it's paid for.

Naturally, it's not only cops who wanted to benefit by the traffic-fixing, judges pitched in, too.

Here is a hilarious public document - a report of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct from 1977, when the Commission was in its diapers.

This 39-year-old document states this (among other things):

The Commission states that "most" case-fixing were based on bribes "in kind" - up to sexual favors from friends of defendants.

The Commission - that is 39 years ago - also mentioned that when sitting judges are lawyers and are allowed to practice law on the side, and when they do or seek favors to their own clients or friends of clients appearing in front of them or their fellow judges, "the judge's private law practice is enhanced".

Now, how to trace whether a certain litigant is also a client of a certain judge who is also a private attorney?

How to verify whether, for example, any litigant who wins in Delhi Town Court is or is not a client - or friend of a client - of Judge/attorney Richard Gumo ( who was just adjudicated by assigned judge in Delaware County Court John Lambert as having lied under oath regarding an invalid arrest warrant that resulted in jailing a person and a 1.5 year-long felony litigation that was dismissed once Judge Gumo lie was ascertained).

Ask Gumo?

But he is lies under oath - that's what Judge Lambert just said.

What about Judge/attorney Jonathan S. Follender, of Town of Denning Court, Ulster County, New York?

How to ascertain that litigants appearing before him in Denning Town Court are not his clients or friends of his clients, and, if they win, that the "victory" was not a favor to them "to enhance the judge's law practice"?

By the way, Judge Follender received in 2015 a salary of $6,332.00

 (1/2 of federal poverty guidelines of $11,770 for 2015) 

and, according to E-courts, does not have a Family law practice, and has one (ONE) case with future appearance in the Supreme Court?

There is a lot of enhancing to be done here.

Ticket fixing by judges is an ongoing problem in New York, long after the release of the Baby Commission's report in 1977, while the whole idea that judges can be disciplined for misconduct, including ticket-fixing, caused a furor in New York when the Commission just started out and tried to be honest (it has changed its ways since then to a glorified shredder of complaints against high-ranking judges):

In 1973, a judge by the last name of Maidman was reportedly suspended for 4 months (the horror!), but not removed from office for being involved in 12 (!) case of ticket-fixing.

In 1976, a judge Jones was removed from office for ticket-fixing and an adamant scheme to fabricate evidence:

The hilarious part was that "because so many judges had been involved in ticket-fixing, they were censured" only - because, I understand, otherwise there would be no judges to handle cases.

I wonder if that's the policy guiding the Commission now - if all judges are involved in similar misconduct (like ex parte communications, blatant constitutional violations), there is nothing to be done, otherwise there will be nobody left to handle cases.

One ticket-fixing judge, Judge Richter, waged a whole war on the Commission and filed an Article 78 claiming that the Commission exceeded its authority for investigating him through reviewing public files.

Since Judge Richter has actually WON on that issue - and the precedent remains on the books - I wonder whether that is why the Commission fails to conduct any investigations of public records on complaints against judges.

It is not even funny, but I found another Ricther, in the modern-times, in 2011, who is a police captain, and who was similarly involved in a ticket-fixing scandal.  Was this Richter the same as that Richter, were they related?  Who knows.  The problem seems to be contagious.

In 1979, a Judge James Reedy was censured (but not taken off the bench) for "improper influence in traffic cases".

Judge Reedy was not an attorney.

In the same 1979, a Judge Horace C. Sawyer was censured, but not taken off the bench, for massive for ticket-fixing:

Judges involved in the Sawyer ticket-fixing scheme were (I only list judges who received favors from Judge Sawyer):

1. Judge John O'Connor with whom Judge Sawyer traded ticket-fixing favors;
2. Judge Joseph W. Dally;
3. Judge Edmund V. Caplicki;
4. Judge Edward E. Lahey;
5. Judge Robert J. Bronner;
6. Judge George L. Mapes;
7. Judge Lyle McDowell

Of those 7 judges, 

1. Judge O'Connor - is not an attorney;
2. Judge Dally - is not an attorney;
3. Judge Caplicki is an attorney "with no record of public discipline":

but with a record of sexist comments in court about female attorneys.

Judge Caplicki was censured in 1978 for ticket-fixing, and in 2007, for discussing in open court the "nice butt" of a female defense attorney.

4. Judge Edward E. Lahey - is not an attorney;
5. Judge Bronner is not an attorney;
6. Judge Mapes is not an attorney; and
7. Judge McDowell is not an attorney


In 1980, a Judge Hopeck was censured (but not removed from office) for ticket-fixing and more:

In 1985 Judge Wesley R. Edwards was censured, but not taken off the bench, for attempting to fix his son's speeding ticket.

Judge Edwards was not an attorney.

In 1985, two judges were removed for traffic ticket-fixing - Judge William W. Seiffert of Nassau County District Court in Mineola and Town Justice Ronald Fabrizio of New Windsor in Orange County.

Judge Seiffert, removed for misconduct in 1985, died while being a licensed attorney with "no record of public discipline".

The second removed ticket-fixing judge, Judge Fabrizio, was not an attorney, so the public was spared representation by such an "officer of the court".

In 2004, the Commission censured, but did not remove from the bench, Judge Karl T. Bowers for insistent attempts at traffic-fixing, falsely representing the defendant for whom the fixing was sought as a relative and using the court stationary and status as a judge in seeking the special favor for the speeding ticket defendant:

Judge Karl Bowers was not an attorney.

In 2005, Judge Daniel LaClaire was kicked off the bench for ticket fixing.  

Judge Laclaire was not an attorney.

Some judges fix tickets based on their personal patriotic views - of course, when fixing tickets for a friend's wife.

In 2008, the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct censured Judge Morris H. Lew for fixing a woman's ticket because of an e-mail he received that the woman's husband is deployed in Iraq.

The Commission noted:

I know a whole number of judges in New York who fixed criminal and child custody cases on the same "patriotic" basis, with no discipline imposed whatsoever.

Reportedly, Judge Lew fixed the ticket for Lori Gilmore fixed soon after he received an e-mail from her husband, Martin Gilmore, from Iraq wondering what could be done. The men had been in the Army Reserves together.

Usually, people come to the bench in their 50s or 60s, with a whole life and career behind them, and a whole host of people they've known, befriended or antagonized.

How would one know who a particular judge has been "in the Army Reserves together", who e-mails the judge?

How do you know?

You insist on an investigation of a judge in every single case?

And, as it happened to me, the judge will retaliate by sanctioning you - and then the sanction will be used to remove your law license and livelihood?

How to fix that?

In 2011, the Commission censured (but did not remove from the bench) Judge Kevin V. Hunt, for "seeking special consideration for a defendant" because the defendant was the judge's "friend whose family are 'good people'":

Judge Kevin V. Hunt was not an attorney.

In 2012, an East Greenbush judge Diane L. Schilling was kicked off the bench for attempting to fix a traffic ticket.

Diane L. Schilling, a former "special counsel" of upstate New York Chief Administrative Judge Michael V. Coccoma, is still gracing New York courtrooms as a licensed attorney with no record of public discipline.

She so far changed law firms though, when I pointed out - in this blog on September 17, 2014 and in court papers - that her law firm that prides itself on partners who are relatives of judges, engages in false advertising by mentioning that she was an East Greenbush judge, but not that she was kicked off the bench for ticket-fixing.

Schilling was never disciplined (possibly, because of protection of her former employer, the married Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma who has an apparent weakness for pretty young female "special counsel")

and now toils as an associate (that was a bump down from a partner in Maguire Cardona) at the law firm of Napierski, Vandenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP in Albany, New York.

Schilling's new employer, as Maguire Cardona before that, 

similarly engages in false attorney advertising, a serious kind of attorney misconduct, by claiming that Schilling "served for 10 years" as a judge of East Greenbush town court, but not that she was kicked off the bench for ticket-fixing, which is a material misrepresentation of Schilling's integrity - a major omission amounting to fraud as to clients who hire Schilling, and her employer through that false advertising, in matters involving trust.

Schilling even continues to practice "in the area of Vehicle and Traffic Law".  Having been kicked off the bench for fixing a traffic ticket, she must know this particular area of law well.

It must be noted that, of all the cases that are readily available on the Commission's website and are discussed on the Internet in newspaper articles and scholarly reviews, in the overwhelming majority of cases judges were not removed - only censured.

While that is not a correct decision, in my personal opinion, because ticket-fixing shows a complete unfitness for judicial office, it draws attention to those cases where the Commission considered judges misconduct outside of the "ordinary" ticket-fixing cases, to warrant removal from office.

There are only 5 of such cases over 40 years of the Commission's existence that I've found so far:

1.  In 1976, when, as I stated above, a judge Jones was removed from office because he ordered his clerks to destroy evidence in the very next room to the room where the Commission was conducting its investigation:



2 and 3.  In 1985, two judges were removed for traffic ticket-fixing - Judge William W. Seiffert of Nassau County District Court in Mineola and Town Justice Ronald Fabrizio of New Windsor in Orange County.

Judge Seiffert was an attorney, so his removal was dictated on the same grounds, as removal of Judge Schilling, see below.

4.  In 2005, Judge Daniel LaClaire was kicked off the bench for ticket fixing.  

Judge Laclaire was not an attorney.

5.  In 2012, an East Greenbush judge-attorney Diane L. Schilling, because, "as an experienced judge and as an attorney with expertise in providing advice, support and training to local justices, respondent should have recognized and avoided any taint of favoritism"

That in New York, it is acceptable to discipline, and even remove a judge from the bench for dishonesty, but it is acceptable to allow that same judge, as an attorney, to suffer no attorney discipline, as it is shown here in three cases of ticket-fixing judges, only shows that not only traffic ticket proceedings are ridden by favoritism, and that the whole puffed-up declaration that attorney licensing exists to protect consumers of legal services from dishonest people - like these, below:









is just a smoke screen to distract the public from what is really going on behind closed doors of courtrooms.

I believe, one step towards fixing this problem must be that judicial records, and especially e-mails of the courts must be disclosable subject to Freedom of Information Law - right now judicial records are an exception to that law in New York; in other words, New York Freedom of Information Law should be amended to expand and include judicial records.

Too many of case-fixing cases mention that cases were fixed on letters or e-mails from friends and fellow judges.

The second step towards fixing the case fixing problem and the problem of judicial misconduct that I see is - where attorney-judges are involved, New York State Court Administration, where it posts "public discipline" of attorneys, must be made to publish on attorney registration pages decisions regarding discipline of attorneys as judges, not only by attorney disciplinary authorities, but also by the Commission for Judicial Conduct.

This way, attorneys and their law firms will be prevented from doing what attorney Schilling's TWO successive employer law firms are doing - engaging in false advertising by glorifying Schilling's "service" as a judge, and thus drumming up their business by preying on public perception of a judge as an honorable and knowledgeable person, while concealing the fact that Schilling was actually kicked off the bench for dishonesty that the Commission considered egregious warranting removal from the bench - while usually the Commission only censures judges for ticket-fixing.

And, as a third step, there should be a body, an inquisition if you may, where members of the public - not connected to the judiciary system - should have access to the e-mail system of the courts in order to be able to check what is going on with the case-fixing.

A new way to make motions in New York - Judge/attorney Jonathan S. Follender makes more of exciting new law

I wrote earlier on this blog about the exciting new laws that attorney Jonathan S. Follender of Arkville, NY (also a judge of Denning Town Justice Court, Ulster County, New York) spawns from time to time.

So far, Attorney/Judge Jonathan S. Follender has created the following exciting laws:

• Loss of companionship of a dog - with all due respect to dog owners and lovers (I am one of them myself, long-term), there is no such cause of action in New York common law, and what is remotely similar, loss of consortium, presupposes loss of spousal company, so "loss of companionship of a dog" raises some peculiar bestiality suspicions in this context;

• Death of corporation, Mr. Follender made a motion "nunc pro tunc" for substitution of his "dead client", the client being a corporation, and the dead individual being the corporate officer, which did not make the corporation "die".  That did not prevent Mr. Follender from being silent when that same corporation really died - by dissolution.  Mr. Follender did not make any motions at that point and did not notify of the dissolution the court or his opponent in litigation;

• Frivolous default - a default in a civil action is when a party does not "appear" after being legally served with process, and the case is decided by default against that party.  There is no legal concept in New York of "frivolous default".  Mr. Follender argued a "frivolous default" concept (you ask him - he knows what it is, I don't and nobody else does) to the now-retired Judge Carl Becker in Delaware County Supreme Court, Judge Becker swallowed anything from Mr. Follender as long as he was saying that I was bad, no matter how legally impossible and crazy the concept of "frivolous default" in a civil action where I did not represent anybody, could be;  my name was on it - so Becker granted anything to Follender, since he said it was against me;

• Frivolously causing loss of subject matter jurisdiction by the court (I hear laughter by any attorneys who know what I am talking about) - Mr. Follender argued that to the same Judge Becker, and then both of them happily proceeded litigating a case where jurisdiction was lost;

• Frivolous satisfaction of a money judgment "too soon" - Mr. Follender argued that to the same Judge Becker, right after he alleged frivolous delay of satisfaction of that same money judgment, and obtained a ruling on frivolous conduct on both - in the second case, after arguing that I frivolously caused loss by the court of subject matter jurisdiction and while there was no indication that I was attorney of record in that case.

Those are Mr. Follender's past accomplishments.

Yet, his unrestricted creativity does not stand still.

Recently, Mr. Follender added to his treasure box of inventions by spitting out a brand spanking new way of making motions in the State of New York - by a request to the court for a "sua sponte" determination.

Now, a request to a court for an order is called a motion in New York, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 2211.

CPLR 2211 says:

 "Application  for  order;  when  motion  made. A motion is an application for an order. A motion on notice is made when notice  of the motion or an order to show cause is served."

Yes, a motion is an "application for an order".

And it is made - when? - when:

1) a notice of motion, or
2) an Order to Show Cause (signed, Mr. Follender serves unsigned orders) - is served, and served correctly:
3) served not by a party - Mr. Follender serves his own pleadings regularly in that particular action, in violation of the law; and
4) served within the statutorily required time - 

• at least 8 days in advance of the returnable date noted in the Notice of Motion, if done by personal service (too far for Mr. Follender to come visit me in South Carolina), or 
• by overnight mail within 9 days of the returnable date in the Notice of Motion asking the court for particular relief - overnight mail costs money, not for Mr. Follender, or 
• by regular mail adding 6 days to 8 days - 14 days in advance of the returnable date, that also requires some money, as well as thought and knowledge.

And, don't forget - a filing fee of $45.00 and filing of the new Notice of Motion, supporting affidavit and Afifdavit of service, with the County Clerk.  

Of course, when a motion is already pending, as it was in this particular case, an attorney can simply amend his old notice of motion, notify the opponent about that by serving the Amended Notice of Motion within a reasonable time for the opponent, especially and out-of-state opponent, to be able to respond to it, use the same filing fee that you already put in for the old motion, and ask the court to adjourn the returnable date to allow the opponent opportunity to oppose the new motion.

That requires some thought though.

Definitely not for Mr. Follender.

His signature behavior is, instead, to ask the court, within 4 days of the old returnable date, breaking every rule in the book of how motions must be made, and notifying me post-factum of the "request for sua sponte order" that I received more than a week AFTER the returnable date.

Here is a brand new subspecies of motions that Mr. Follender invented - very cheap and economical one.

Right.

Mr. Follender sent all those multiple above-mentioned requirements of New York motion practice to the winds and instead "requested that the lower court sua sponte vacate ...".

The date he asked for it was March 28, 2016.
The returnable date of the PREVIOUS motion was April 1, 2016.
No Notice of Motion accompanied this request.
No filing fee.
No new motion returnable date.
And it was served, by a party, Mr. Follender, just 4 days before the OLD returnable date.

See how many conditions you can skip if you follow Mr. Follender's innovative lead?


Instead of jumping through all of those boring hoops called statutory law and due process (Mr. Follender is especially oppositional to due process, I will show you how oppositional later in this blog), you can simply "ask the court that the court sua sponte do something".

By the way, my heart of a grammarian (I have a Masters degree in teaching English as a foreign language, by the way) soared when I saw that construction used by Mr. Follender.

That grammatical construction is "elliptical", it misses a word - "should", or "shall".

Defendants-respondents, in fact, requested, that "the court should/shall sua sponte vacate" - Mr. Follender was giving the court an order, not requesting one from the court.

Consider the savings!

No filing fees.

No mailing expenses or expenses for personal service.

None of that.

Just "request that the court (should) sua sponte" do what you need the court to do.

At any time.

Of course, you need to have a really privileged position so that the court would rubber-stamp any rubbish that comes out of your mouth.

Or a real grudge against the person who is the targeted victim of that rubbish.

Like my friend recently told me - when in doubt, blame the Neronis.

But - for what it's worth, I am publishing Judge/attorney Jonathan S. Follender's new invention:

no notices of motion
no orders to show cause

Just a "request that the court sua sponte...".  You know.

And as to due process -  you know what Mr. Follender (remember, he is a judge in a criminal court) thinks about due process.

Here it is, from the horse's mouth (no pun intended, I don't want to hurt any equine feelings):

I will explain the complex thought process of Mr. Follender (a criminal court judge, as well as a private attorney).  As a criminal court judge, Mr. Follender MUST know what due process is.  

Mr. Follender says that "[o]f course, to Ms. Neroni, any adverse judicial decision of any court impinges upon her "14th Amendment" rights...".

In the VERY SAME BREATH, Mr. Follender says that jurisdiction of the New York State Court of Appeals was invoked "as of right" (constitutional appeal) improperly because "this court"

(yes, he is asking the 3rd Department to determine alleged frivolity of my appeal to the UPPER court, the New York State Court of Appeals, for which the 3rd Department does not have subject matter jurisdiction - but it did not stop Mr. Follender before - see above shenanigans with Carl Becker) 

the 3rd Department "did not determine any direct or indirect issue of the 'state constitution or of the /sic/ United States" (he meant the Constitution of the United States, it is difficult to write that word too often for Mr. Follender).

But, the interesting point is that the fact that constitutional issues were raised, but the court IGNORED THEM - as Mr. Follender acknowledged - DOES constitute a violation of PROCEDURAL, most basic, due process, under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I was entitled at least to a review and a REASONED determination of why my constitutional issues, most importantly, the 1st Amendment issue in criticizing misconduct of Mr. Follender, a judge, and my access to court, another 1st Amendment issue - were denied.

I guess, in New York it takes a judge to be so incompetent, and it takes a judge to be so coddled by the system that he instead thinks himself a legal genius and starts celebrating his own incompetence with further and further "discoveries" - like "a request that the court ( ) sua sponte vacate" - without any restraint.

On the death of a "trouble-maker"

I was waiting how the story of Adam Rupeka will develop before blogging about it.

That was, when Adam Rupeka was still alive.

He isn't any more, according to press reports.

And, with the overwhelming wave of hatred directed against him, even upon his death, in social media by pro-police commentators, I think, his story deserves a thorough review.

Here is Adam Rupeka.

Here is his website, CopBlock, stating on top:

Here are some of Adam Rupeka's videos of police, which expose either embarrassing lack of competence and professionalism, or pure misconduct.

In March of 2015, Adam Rupeka posts a video about police trying to stop and ID him, and being upset when they see that they are being videotaped.

In May of 2015, Adam Rupeka was arrested and pepper-sprayed by a now former police officer, Nathan Baker, for "flipping the bird" on him and not stepping out of the car when police officer told him to.  Moreover, officer Baker roughly handled Rupeka during the unlawful arrest and told him that now "all his freedoms are gone".

In June of 2015, charges for "resisting arrest" were dismissed.

In August of 2015, without suing, Rupeka received a $50,000 settlement, and the police officer was fired, see also here.

It appears that Rupeka did not even have to sue to get the settlement, the police department knew what was done was wrong and paid without a lawsuit.  At least, Pacer.gov does not show any civil rights lawsuit by Adam Rupeka.

By the way, in the hate comments on Facebook, some people are asking - now that Rupeka is dead, isn't it time to rehire officer Nathan Baker?  

Just like that.  If the victim is dead, police misconduct is now expunged...

On September 17, 2015 Adam Rupeka posts a video on YouTube claiming that the state police confiscated his camera drone.

In October of 2015, Adam Rupeka was charged and arrested for "reckless endangerment", for flying a drone into a governmental building.

The details of the charges are interesting.

Apparently, the state police confiscated a drone belonging to Rupeka that Rupeka allegedly used to take pictures and videos of police misconduct.

In protest, Rupeka flew another drone over the state police headquarters in Albany, New York.

Adam Rupeka's website reacted by posting an article that his "drone arrest" is retaliatory.

On October 17, 2015 Adam Rupeka posts a detailed article explaining to pro se litigants how to sue the police in federal court.


By the way, Rupeka also posted on YouTube the video of a security guard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York attempting to block Rupeka from videotaping the court entrance from a public street.

In November of 2015, Senator Schumer introduced a bill to restrict drone technology, because of "recent incidents" involving drones.

In December of 2015, after Rupeka's drone arrest in October of 2015, FCC prohibited drone flights over governmental buildings in Washington, D.C.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that a similar charge, only for "flying a drone into a state penitentiary" were recently dropped, reportedly, in Oklahoma.

Upon my information, the "drone" charges against Rupeka were dismissed on or about March 16, 2016.

On March 26, 2016, 10 days after the dismissal of those charges, Adam Rupeka and his girlfriend Jennifer Ogburn were arrested and charged for sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl and endangering welfare of a minor, both misdemeanors.

The focus of Facebook comments immediately changed from calling Adam Rupeka just as a busybody, "police harasser", "wacko" etc. to a "scumbag".

That reaction was predictable.

Back in October of 2015 I posted a blog about general reaction of the public on social media to charges of sexual molestation or endangering welfare of children.

The commentators, as a general rule, reject any concept of presumption of innocence and offer to torture the accused in elaborate ways.

The case with Adam Rupeka was no different.

My work, for years, as a criminal defense attorney, handling all cases including cases of sexual abuse, taught me that sexual abuse allegations are the easiest to fabricate, the easiest to use for smearing people's reputation, and the hardest to break since it is "he said - she said", "children do not lie" and no evidence is needed, "he just touched me 'there'".

False allegations of sexual abuse are especially likely in cases where there are split families and estranged spouses.

Adam Rupeka had an estranged wife and a young girlfriend.

Such cases overwhelmingly result in plea bargains, under intimidation of stiff jail/prison time, so issues in such cases are most often not tried, and whether there was a crime committed or not, usually is not revealed, other than through a confession at the plea allocution hearing - while a bare confession, under New York law, for example, is not valid at trial without corroboration.

Here, there was no confession.

There was an accusation of sexual abuse of a child.

The name of the alleged victim is not known because of her age.

The details of the case are that Rupeka allegedly had the 15-year-old girl in bed with him and his girlfriend, and "rubbed and touched the girl in a sexual manner".

Now, how can one disprove rubbing and touching? There is no physical evidence of it.  It is "he said - she said, children don't lie".

Yes, there is presumption of innocence.

But, this is the public sentiment about presumption of innocence when allegations of crime committed against a child are made.

And this is the sentiment of judges on the same subject.

Yet, the Rupeka's name, while he was still presumed-innocent, was smeared and put him on the run, because he was now afraid of being tortured or killed in prison, in retaliation of his work as an activist to expose police misconduct (and many Facebook commentators suggested he should be tortured or killed in prison).

Many commentators claimed that because he ran, he is guilty - innocent people do not run.

Only a few commentators, vigorously attacked by the majority, raised the issue of presumption of innocence and that if a person has a reason to believe his life is in danger, and is running for his life, he does not care how he looks.

On March 29, 2016 Adam Rupeka is bailed out, bails out his girlfriend, and leaves the State of New York, according to his video, running for his life, believing that the police is seeking to kill him.

On March 30, 2016, Adam Rupeka posts another video, claiming that he is crossing into Canada.

On April 1, 2016 the judge in the sexual abuse case issues a bench warrant for Adam Rupeka when he did not show up for his court appearance.

On April 6, 2016, Mexican newspapers reported that Adam Rupeka and his girlfriend Jennifer Ogburn were found dead allegedly from a drug overdose - in Tijuana, Mexico.

The report said that allegedly, there was a writing on the mirror in the hotel room where the bodies were found: "Take our IDs and give them our bodies. Nobody knows we’re in Mexico".

IDs, for people on the run, messages on mirror in hotel rooms in a country other than the intended country of escape?

Yet, the estranged wife of Adam Rupeka, Rebecca Rupeka, reported that the claim of death from drug overdose does not make sense because Adam Rupeka never did drugs, and, coming from an estranged wife who was abandoned for a girlfriend, that is the most believable information.

According to police reports, Adam Rupeka and Jennifer Ogburn checked into a hotel in Tijuana, Mexico, on April 2, 2016, and on August 3, 2016 Adam Rupeka was found dead, and Jennifer Ogburn alive, but dying, was taken to the hospital and died there. 

According to the autopsies, the cause of deaths was "pulmonary thromboembolism", or blood clots, in their lungs, and both had the drug Clonazepam "in their systems".

Murder investigations, opened before the autopsies were done, were closed.

So.

A man who was an ardent activist exposing police misconduct, was stopped by police at least five times (that's what I found on the Internet) and arrested at least three times in less than a year.

Stops and arrests:

March 2015 - videotaped a police stop, police was upset

May 2015 - videotaped the police stop for "flipping the bird", was charged and peppersprayed, charges dismissed, resulted in a $50,000 settlement and firing of a police officer

September of 2015 - police took his drone for videotaping them

October 2015 - arrested for flying and crashing another drone into the state police headquarters' building, charges dismissed in mid-March of 2016

End of March 2016 - arrested for sexual abuse of a minor, endangering welfare of a minor

March 29, 2016 - bailed out, bailed out his girlfriend, fled the country allegedly to Canada after seeing his house searched by "men in black",

April 3, 2016 - turned up dead in Mexico together with his young girlfriend (36 and 26 years old, respectively), with a drug in their system, even though the wife says he does not use drugs.

Both had the same side effect, at the same time.

Both died of that same alleged side effect.

Both are claimed to have conveniently OD'd and committed suicides, saying "sorry" and leaving behind their IDs - after being on the run for their lives.

And, under all those suspicious circumstances, there is no murder investigation.

Not if of anybody else's fingerprints.

Not of injection marks.

Not as to what the girlfriend could have said while she was still alive (she was found alive - by somebody, and then died in the hospital, was her death "facilitated", not to leave witnesses)?

There is no logic in all of it other than it is a murder that nobody wants to investigate.

And - in Facebook comments, there were comments like that - "I would like to see Rupeka in need of police help someday".

Rupeka is dead, but justice requires the police to do their jobs and investigate their deaths.

Of course, it's Mexico, sir.

Of course, it's another country, with their own laws and rules.

Yet, Mexico has a long-standing "tradition" of police corruption of its own, so the cover-up of murder investigations could be easily arranged there.

It's pure logic.

The timeline leads to a reasonable suspicion of murder, not suicide.

Dropping murder investigations under the circumstances was extremely suspicious.

And the case stinks.

New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct dismissed complaints against judges Janet DiFiore, Christina Ryba, Michael Coccoma and Karen Peters without an investigation

I wrote earlier on this blog that I filed 3 separate complaints against judges:

1.  Janet DiFiore - Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals;

2.  Richard Northrup - Delaware County Judge

and, as a group:

3.  Christina Ryba, Supreme Court, Albany County;
     Karen Peters, Chief Judge, Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department;
     Michael Coccoma, Chief Administrative Judge, Upstate New York  

All three complaints were made by e-mail on January 28, 2016.

Here they are:

Against Mr. Northrup - please, note that I requested in this complaint, at the end, to preclude relatives, friends and colleagues of members of the Commission from investigating and prosecuting the complaint (as is the tradition in the Commission).  I do not know whether my request was honored, the letter of dismissal does not show it one way or another.

On the other hand, a perfect solution is to dismiss without ANY investigation - which is what appears to have happened.

Here is the complaint against Janet DiFiore

Here is the complaint against Judges Christina Ryba, Karen Peters and Michael Coccoma:

The letter from the Commission dated March 29, 2016 that I just received claims that my "complaint" (singular) dated January 28, 2016 was dismissed.   

Here is the letter.

Note that all three complaints allege serious judicial misconduct warranting to take judges off their respective benches, if allegations are proven true.

Note that the letter of dismissal mentions "careful consideration", not "investigation" of complaints.

In other words, complaints alleging serious misconduct against high-ranking judges were dismissed without any investigation, whether because of the Commission's policy, lack of funds, outside political influence or inside conflicts of interest, since many members of the Commission are appointees of Governor Cuomo (and, thus, possibly, his friends or connected with his friends, otherwise they wouldn't get the appointment - that is the reality in New York).

As appointees of Cuomo, they wouldn't hurt another appointee of Cuomo, Janet DiFiore, even if she did commit everything described in my complaint against her.

Since the Commission mentions one out of three complaints in one letter, and complaints are identifiable only by dates when I filed them (that's why I am doing it by e-mail, to help identify which dismissed complaint is meant), the Commission may have not even read the complaint, but waited a particular period of time before sending out a form letter of dismissal.

As I stated above, three were three complaints filed by e-mail on that date.

All of complaints were supported by documentary evidence.

All of complaints were about egregious violations of high-ranking judges.

I was never contacted by the Commission with even an attempt to investigate the complaints.

Once again, the complaints were dismissed on March 29, 2016, here is the letter of dismissal.

During the pendency of the complaints,

on March 3, 2016, Karen Peter's court retaliated against me by affirming severe sanctions against me imposed, in retaliation, by Judge James Tormey (twice sued by female employees so far for egregious retaliation) for suing a private attorney for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court - based on underlying court records in two cases that Judge Tormey did not read (I have sign-out sheets from Delaware County Clerk's office to prove it, and provided it as part of the record to the appellate court), and that the 3rd Department appeared not to have read either;

on March 24, 2016, Janet DiFiore retaliated against me by dismissing ON HER OWN MOTION my constitutional appeal "as of right" in my disciplinary case as if it was discretionary appeal, thus leaving undisturbed the facially invalid disciplinary decision against me where (1) I was punished for not "expressing remorse" before the decision on liability was made; and (2) I was punished for criticizing a judge in motions to recuse, in violation of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent on content-based regulation of speech.

Once again, complaints against these judges were dismissed without ANY investigation.

Nobody contacted me, nobody contacted, upon my information, any other witnesses.

I guess, tossing meritorious complaints against high-ranking judges involved in egregious misconduct is part of the "excellence" plan to "improve" the corrupt New York Unified Court system:

After all, if everything is dismissed, everything is excellent, isn't it?

I wonder whether the New York State Commission experiences political pressure, similar to the same Commission in Georgia where its Chairman recently resigned saying that he is unable to do his job because of political influence by judges' high-ranking friends.

Or, whether NYS Commission is so rotten from inside from its own connections to those same friends.

I didn't see anybody resigning from that Commission lately - or ever.

Yet another litigant blogs about shenanigans with court records in Delaware County

I just posted a blog article about Delaware County court system finicking with court records.

Here is another blog, by another person, on the same subject - court records being manipulated by Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk's office and by the Delaware County Clerk's office - as of a year ago.

Litigants and attorneys, beware.

By the way, this is happening in a case where my friend Barbara O'Sullivan's criminal case was dismissed (see my blogs about dismissals of her own and her daughter's fabricated criminal cases, here and here, and about the subsequent death of her dog here, Barbara also wrote about it here).

With that dismissal, the counter-claim of officer Bowie against Barbara O'Sullivan for the alleged "dog bite" when Officer Bowie was on Barbara's property illegally, must go up in smoke, because Officer Bowie was a trespasser and a burglar and, even if it is found by any jury that Barbara had any hand in the dog doing anything against Officer Bowie, legally she would be in the right - because in New York, an individual may resist an unlawful arrest with DEADLY force.

Moreover, the presiding judge on the civil case, Judge Lambert, is the one who dismissed the criminal case against Barbara O'Sullivan, and where it was argued that (1) there was no bite; (2) no legal warrant for Officer Bowie to execute; and (3) it is clear from the court records that Barbara O'Sullivan did not do anything that would provide for her liability for Derek Bowie's alleged (fabricate) injuries - I posted this evidence earlier here.

As far as I know, the Frank Miller firm continues with the frivolous counter-claim, Delaware County is persistent in not prosecuting Derek Bowie, who is no longer with the Sheriff's office, for vehicular assault and attempt to murder Barbara O'Sullivan.

Nothing changes.