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, April 12, 2016

What is a suspendable offence in Missouri is business as usual in New York

According to news reports, a Missouri attorney was suspended from the practice of law when he used confidential information that his client in a divorce case, illegally obtained by breaching into his wife's e-mail account after guessing his wife's password.

The EXACT same thing happened when my former recent client in a divorce action suffered a breach of his e-mail account by the opposing spouse.

I complained about it to the judge.

The judge chose his hatred against me over propriety, and DID NOT sanction the attorney or the e-mail breaching client.

I cannot divulge the name of the former client or any other information other than that the exact same breach of e-mail happened, since documents divorce proceedings in New York are sealed and that the attorney remained un-sanctioned, un-disciplined and still practicing law, and I cannot unseal them.

Yet, information that an attorney used in court proceedings what is a suspendable offense in another state, and a result of a federal crime (Internet hacking), is a matter of public concern.

I do not know whether the breach occurred at the direct order of that attorney or not, yet the attorney did know that the information the attorney was using was from the e-mail account from the opponent of the attorney's client in an extremely bitter divorce litigation - so the information could not possibly be obtained through consent of the e-mail account's owner.

There is no point for me complaining about that attorney, since the professional conduct committee has a tendency to go against me on such complaints, and not against the attorney I am complaining about, even with documentary evidence supporting my complaint (there was such incident in the past).

I just wanted to make the public know that, as I said in the heading, what is a suspendable offense in Missouri, is business as usual in New York, for some lawyers.

Monday, April 11, 2016

A FOIL/Judiciary Law 255 request was made to the Committee of Professional Standards, 3rd Department, New York, for the records in the Matter of Hennessey

I've just made a Judiciary Law 255/FOIL request in the Matter of Hennessey, the case I've just blogged about pertaining to New York's statutory rule and court precedent allowing to punish criminal defendants for filing appeals of their criminal convictions by exposure of their criminal records even if their convictions are overturned - as opposed to records of criminal defendants whose convictions are overturned and who did not appeal.

Here is my request.




I will publish any responses of the Committee to my request.

Stay tuned.

New York State and its Appellate Division 3rd Department has set a precedent penalizing appeals in criminal cases

On April 7, 2016 the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department made a case in attorney disciplinary proceedings, Matter of Hennessey.

In that case, the court allowed the Attorney Disciplinary Committee to use materials from a dismissed and sealed criminal court case based on an exception to sealing the records of a criminal proceedings that is apparently contained in Criminal Procedure Law 160.50(1)(c ).

Criminal Procedure Law 160.50(1)(c) requires sealing of all documents of criminal proceedings that ended in favor of the accused, with one exception:


"(c) all official records and papers, including judgments and orders of  a court but not including  published  court  decisions  or  opinions  or  records  and  briefs  on  appeal, relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with  the  division of  criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor's office shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency".

Here is what this statute and the court's decision in the Matter of Hennessey means.

First, the procedural history of the case.


  1. A criminal defendant pled guilty to a felony (I will omit the details, and will state the case in the most general terms, relevant to ALL criminal defendants);
  2. Notwithstanding the plea of guilty, the criminal defendant appealed the conviction, which was affirmed on appeal.
  3. After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, the top state court declared the statute upon which the defendant was convicted, unconstitutional - in another case.
  4. Based on that declaration, the defendant's conviction was vacated.
Seems pretty straightforward so far.

Here is where the complication starts.

The criminal defendant in question was an attorney.

By statutory law in the State of New York, conviction of a felony of an attorney results in an automatic disbarment by operation of law.

By the same logic, when such a conviction is vacated, the automatic disbarment should be automatically vacated and the attorney automatically reinstated, also by operation of law.

Not so fast.

Here is where the CPL 160.50(1)(c ) kicked in.

Attorney disciplinary proceedings are deemed in New York as "civil proceedings".

The 3rd Department did not want to automatically reinstate the attorney's license - even though it was reinstated by operation by law, without permission of the court, same as it was revoked by operation of law on the attorney's conviction, also automatically.

The 3rd Department refused to acknowledge automatic reinstatement.

Moreover, the 3rd Department went to extraordinary lengths to prevent such reinstatement.

  1. The 3rd Department issued a "confidential order" allowing investigation of the attorney before a petition was filed - even though normally the Committee does not need a court order allowing investigations; the court is not involved at the pre-filing stage in attorney disciplinary proceedings.  I will try to obtain that "confidential" order since it stopped being confidential because the attorney in question waived confidentiality in writing (see footnote 1 in Matter of Hennessey);
  2. The 3rd Department held his reinstatement "in abeyance" - even though it had no authority to do so, because by that time the attorney was already reinstated by operation of law as of the date his conviction was vacated, same as he was automatically disbarred as of the date of his conviction, without any input from the court;
  3. The 3rd Department denied both the attorney's motion to prevent unsealing of the records of his criminal proceedings and from the Committee to unseal such records by pointing to CPL 160.50(1)(c), saying to the Committee - here, those records are open for your review, even if the criminal case is dismissed and OTHERWISE sealed.

Now, if the 3rd Department Committee wanted to investigate and prosecute an attorney under such circumstances, the CORRECT procedure would be this:

1) the attorney is automatically reinstated when his conviction that resulted in his automatic disbarment, was vacated;
2) the committee files a disciplinary petition, and moves for a temporary suspension during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings;
3) the attorney has a right to oppose;
4) the 3rd Department has a right to grant such a request for interim suspension - IF the grounds for the request are constitutional.

That procedure was not observed in Mr. Hennessey's case.

Moreover, had it been observed, the suspension would still have to be denied, because the underlying conviction was vacated on 1st Amendment grounds - which fully applies to any other prosecution by the state, in criminal or civil proceedings.

==

So, the 3rd Department, and its Attorney Disciplinary Committee wanted a certain result - and got that result.

Mr. Hennessey remains without a license.

They pretend they followed SOME procedure, even though the "procedure" they followed is completely illegal and the grounds they pursue discipline are completely unconstitutional.

===

Yet, if we forget for a second that this case is about an attorney, and go back to the generalities of the case, we come to this:


  1. A criminal defendant pled guilty to a felony (I will omit the details, and will state the case in the most general terms, relevant to ALL criminal defendants);
  2. Notwithstanding the plea of guilty, the criminal defendant appealed the conviction, which was affirmed on appeal.
  3. After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, the top state court declared the statute upon which the defendant was convicted, unconstitutional - in another case.
  4. Based on that declaration, the defendant's conviction was vacated.
Now, what happens next, in general terms, is:

5. BECAUSE the criminal defendant appealed his criminal conviction, after his criminal conviction was vacated, and his criminal case otherwise sealed, the record of his criminal appeal REMAINS OPEN to the public and for use in civil court proceedings.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the general rule and a precedent set by the 3rd Department and unrelated to the former criminal defendant's identity as an attorney.

So, now, the rule in the 3rd Department is:

  • you have a right to appeal, but -
  • if you win on appeal and your case is dismissed,
  • your appellate record remain open to the public - 
  • and MAY BE USED AGAINST YOU in other court proceedings.

Now, had Mr. Hennessey "simply" pled guilty without appealing that conviction by plea, and obtained an identical end result of having his conviction vacated after a later decision in an unrelated criminal case, the record of his criminal case would not have been open for review by the Professional Conduct Committee under CPL 160.50(1)( c).

The only reason why they are is because Mr. Hennessey appealed his conviction.

In other words, Mr. Hennessey is penalized for appealing his conviction - which constitutes a FACIAL equal protection and access-to-courts violation.

In other words, 

the State of New York as of the date of enactment of CPL 160.50(1)(c) (the entire statute, CPL 160.50,  was reportedly last modified on February 15, 2014

and the 3rd Department, as of the date of its ruling in Matter of Hennessey, April 7, 2016, 

announced to the whole wide world that they are PUNISHING criminal defendants FOR APPEALING their criminal convictions AS OF RIGHT - 

and they are accomplishing this punishment 

by creating an exception that, even if criminal defendants win a reversal or vacatur of their conviction, 

thus expunging their criminal record, 

SOME of that criminal record will be still available for OPEN review and 

can become a basis of other court proceedings against them - civil or criminal (criminal proceedings on the same subject are precluded by double jeopardy, but introduction of unadjudicated crimes as "prior bad acts" is possible in future criminal proceedings on other charges).

I bet, this one is awaiting a constitutional challenge in federal court, and I will hold my breath to see how the State of New York will be wiggling out of this disgusting "law".

But, I wanted New York State criminal defense attorneys, civil rights attorneys and criminal defendants to be aware of this little rule.














It doesn't get any better - motions to recuse and RICO varieties

I've JUST posted a blog about suspended attorney John Aretakis - who was repeatedly muzzled, sanctioned and ultimately suspended in New York for his vigorous defense of sex abuse victims in the Catholic church scandal.

Now a new method of silencing attorneys for making motions to recuse has been invented - to sue them for RICO, see what RICO is here.

Great.

When John Aretakis, as a civil rights attorney, or I as a civil rights attorney, or other civil rights attorneys suspended for criticism of the government, sue in federal courts for RICO - lawsuits nearly always are dismissed on "pleading insufficiency" grounds.

The plaintiff went so far as including even a minor child into the "racketeering enterprise".  So, when you are suing for custody, you can sue a child for allegedly interfering with your lawsuit?  Sweet.



Here, a lawsuit against an attorney, and other alleged members of the "enterprise" proceeds, where, as part of the conspiracy, making motions to recuse is alleged - and it is OK with the federal court to allow that lawsuit to proceed, obviously.

So, there is RICO and RICO, I guess.

If you are suing judges and the government - that's a bad RICO, to be dismissed, and you will be sanctioned.

If you are suing an attorney who is seeking to recuse a judge - that's a good RICO.




Criticizing a judge in New York is worse than a federal felony conviction

Many of my readers who send me feedback, wonder why the mainstream media does not pick up and cover stories of judicial misconduct and corruption which are out in the open.

This mainstream media story may answer this question - why, showing mentality of the mainstream media regarding criticism of judges by attorneys.  It has become an ultimate taboo not only in the legal profession, but also in the mainstream media.

I wrote on this blog about a case in Florida where a protestor of judicial corruption, who worked as an investigator for many years, approached journalists who were heading to a press-conference held by a prosecutor at the courthouse, and asked them to take his information, documentary evidence, of court corruption.

They declined and walked right past the person offering them documents about court corruption, some heads down, some explaining to him that he should "speak to their manager". 

I recalled that episode when, yesterday, I read an article about Sheldon Silver, New York's former longtime Assembly Speaker and one of the most influential people in the State, now a convicted federal felon and a disbarred attorney.


OK, now that Silver is convicted and disbarred, it is in vogue to kick Silver, who is already on the ground - while the press was timid to reveal his corruption for years and decades that he was in power and was "honorable" (but still involved in corruption).

The article contained information that an individual by the name of John Aretakis, who dealt with Silver as an attorney and victim advocate at the time of sex abuse scandal in Catholic church, reportedly sent a letter to Silver's sentencing judge, detailing how Silver has killed the legislative bill aiming to aide sexual abuse victims after the Catholic priests hired his lobbyist friend.

Ok, I get that, too.

Sentencing judges can consider additional information, aggravating and mitigating, for purposes of verifying what kind of sentence to impose.

What Mr. Aretakis did was entirely appropriate.

Mr. Aretakis is described in the article as a "victim advocate".

So, he advocated for victims of sexual abuse before, and he is fighting corruption in the government now, by his letter to the sentencing judge.

That's good, right?

Not so.

The Catholic church establishment, of course, was not happy with such an exposure - and started to badmouth Mr. Aretakis as allegedly "having a longstanding animus" against the Catholic Church.

And, you know what else is piled up against Mr. Aretakis?

That he was suspended in New York - you know why?

For criticizing a judge in a motion to recuse.

Mr. Aretakis is my male twin.

Of course, in June 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. __ (2015) declaring that content-based regulation without strict scrutiny (a test that cannot be met in Mr. Aretakis' case - or mine) is presumptively unconstitutional.

That made Mr. Aretakis' suspension unconstitutional - just on the basis of what the article said his suspension was about.

But, when I read the order of suspension, I was amazed - and not much can amaze me these days:

Here is the main charge against Mr. Aretakis in his order of suspension:

"...respondent engaged in frivolous conduct by making false accusations against judges, which accusations were prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as an attorney, asserted positions which served to harass and maliciously injure, knowingly made false statements of law and fact, and engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct degrading to the court, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (4), (5) and (7); DR 7-102 (a) (1) and (5); DR 7-106 (c) (6); and DR 8-102 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], [7]; 1200.33 [a] [1], [5]; 1200.37 [c] [6]; 1200.43 [b]). "

All of those charges, especially those about judges, are forbidden by the 1st Amendment, prohibition on content-based regulation of speech, especially speech criticizing public officials such as judges.

It gets merrier though.

"In 2005, Christian F. Hummel, Acting County Judge of Rensselaer County, sanctioned respondent for his frivolous conduct in making a recusal motion in a criminal matter."

The decision of Judge Hummel was "ultra vires" - outside of Judge Hummel's authority - because the rule of frivolous conduct is INAPPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.


Note the words "any CIVIL action".

Not in criminal proceedings.

With stakes as high as in criminal proceedings, a defense attorney cannot do anything frivolous by making a judge to recuse, even the New York State Court Administration that invented the rules of frivolous conduct, with their cave mentality, excluded criminal proceedings from the text of the rule of frivolous conduct.

So, what happened in 2005 with judge Hummel, who presided in Rensellaer County (near Albany, NY, the capital of the State of New York) over a criminal proceedings where Attorney Aretakis was, I understand, a criminal defense attorney?

In 2006 Attorney Aretakis made a motion to recuse judge Hummel in a criminal case - where he was unreachable by the rule of frivolous conduct.

That motion to recuse was not the first that Attorney Aretakis made of this particular judge, Judge Christian Hummel. 


Attorney Aretakis made motions to recuse previously, in civil lawsuits where he sued the Albany Catholic Diocese for sexual abuse of priests, on behalf of the victims and where Judge Hummel was the third assigned judge - after recusal of two judges in a row.

The previous judge, Judge Teresi, was accused of an ex parte communication with the church's attorney Michael Costello before his recusal.

Judge Hummel, reportedly, "was elected Surrogate's Court judge in November 2001, previously served on the Family Court bench. He was East Greenbush town justice from 1986 until 1993 and was a member of the East Greenbush Board of Education for nine years.

In private practice, he was a member of the Albany law firm Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case, Blackmore and Napierski from 1982 to 1993. "

In his motion t recuse, Attorney Aretakis accused Judge Hummel of criminal conspiracy, as he did previously, in his motions to recuse in civil cases involving sexual abuse by Catholic priests.

The criminal conspiracy that Attorney Aretakis was accusing Judge Hummel of is conspiracy to pre-judge cases with the Catholic Diocese.

Knowing that no evidence is good enough for New York (and not only New York, see also here) courts when a judge is accused of misconduct, and knowing that the threshold standard for an attorney to be able to bring a motion to recuse is "appearance of impropriety", I believe that Mr. Aretakis, having appeared before Judge Hummel in several prior cases, may have a basis to move to recuse him.

Judge Hummel punished Mr. Aretakis for frivolous conduct - illegally, since it was in a criminal proceeding, where the rule of frivolous conduct does not apply.

The Appellate Division 3rd Department - the same court that in 2008 imposed a suspension based on Judge Hummel's sanctions, in a criminal proceedings, FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT - REVERSED the "frivolous conduct" sanctions in 2006, two years prior, and gave Judge Hummel legal advice how to sanction Mr. Aretakis better - under a contempt of court statute.

Judge Hummel followed the 3rd Department's legal advice, " [u]pon remittal, Judge Hummel held a hearing, found respondent in contempt of court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 750 and imposed the maximum allowable fine".

Let's remember - Judge Hummel was an alleged VICTIM here, pissed off that HIS integrity was criticized in the motion.

So, he had a disqualification problem right there, to preside over a contempt proceeding where he was a victim, a witness, a prosecutor, a judge and a jury.

Later, Judge Gary Sharpe - the one that cannot read, I wrote about him on this blog, he looks like a permanently drunk person, and punishes people for CORRECT reading of the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, after my repeated criticisms of Judge Sharpe on this blog, Judge Sharpe first was demoted from his Chief Judgeship, and then quickly assumed a "senior status".

So, THIS Judge Gary Sharpe awarded in favor of Catholic priests and against civil rights attorney John Aretakis attorney fees in a civil rights litigation, in 2008 - and such sanctions were used against John Aretakis in his 2008 order of suspension which remains in force until today!

Of course, in 2002, 6 years prior to the sanctions of Judge Gary Sharpe in favor of Catholic Diocese, that same Catholic Diocese has settled a lawsuit with a man alleging sexual abuse by priests for $1 mln.

The lawyer for the settling victim, predictably, was John Aretakis.

At the time of the settlement, back in 1999, the following statements were reportedly made by Mr. Aretakis about his client, and by another attorney about the character of the case:

quote
-------

''This was a client I had to take the gun out of his mouth once,'' Mr. Aretakis said. ''He wanted to kill the priest, and he wanted to kill himself.'' 
      

"Settlements in the range of $1 million for a case that never went to trial are ''clearly the exception'' said Jeffrey R. Anderson, a lawyer in St. Paul who has handled hundreds of sexual abuse cases against the Catholic Church. He said that such large settlements usually result when the crime falls within the statute of limitations, when it can be proved that the diocese was negligent or when the victim suffered profound damage."
unquote
----------

So, after that outstanding settlement, charges of "frivolous conduct" were piled up upon Mr. Aretakis from different judges in different courts.

It can be very easily arranged, as the standard for imposition of sanctions is "discretion" (choice, whim) of judges, and what is "discretionary" is always affirmed on appeal.

And, this is the official reasoning for suspension of Mr. Aretakis, who obtained a $1 mln settlement from Albany Catholic Diocese for his client, a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a Catholic priest:

"In mitigation, we have considered that respondent has no public disciplinary record and that his misconduct has already been punished to some extent by sanctions.

However, we find that this record clearly shows that respondent has repeatedly crossed the line separating zealous advocacy from professional misconduct.

Accordingly, we conclude that, to protect the public, deter similar misconduct, and preserve the reputation of the bar, respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of one year. "

To protect the public - from an effective protector of the public?
To deter what - effective protection of the public?
To preserve reputation of the bar as protecting Catholic priests and being shamefully silent as to corruption in New York courts?

Well, what was declared to be meant as a 1-year suspension, without automatic reinstatement, turned out to be an indefinite suspension - it's been 8 years, more than required for reinstatement after a disbarment, and Mr. Aretakis is still suspended.

He was too good.

He protected his clients too well.

He stepped on too many powerful toes.

Now, what has happened since then to the judges who sanctioned him?

Judge Christian Hummel, from an assigned Rensellaer County judge, became a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, the same court where Judge Sharpe was the recent Chief Judge.



Judge Hummel was not disciplined for punishing an attorney for contempt of court for making a motion to recuse in a criminal proceeding.

Instead, Judge Hummel was promoted to a federal court judgeship.

Judge Teresi, who was accused of an ex parte communication with attorney Michael Costello, was not disciplined, neither was attorney Costello.

The only person who was disciplined - for protection of the public, no less - was the attorney who was the most ardent protector of the public, John Aretakis.

His "crime" (criticizing judges for misconduct) was so bad that even his family ties to the judiciary and the political and financial prowess of his extended family did not help - 




On the opposite, John Aretakis' stance against the Catholic church may have nipped the budding judicial career of his wife - who, as of 2003, was running for a judicial seat in Rensellaer County Court, but, as of 2005, reportedly joined a homebuilding company as its corporate counsel:



where she works until now.  



No judgeship for a judge's niece - because of her controversial, and now suspended, attorney husband?

When John Aretakis wrote a letter to the sentencing court of the convicted felon Sheldon Silver - all of the dirt was dug up and thrown at Aretakis claiming that he is incredible.

Why?

Because he was suspended for criticizing judicial misconduct in motions to recuse, trying to secure for his clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review of their claims.

And was sanctioned for suing Catholic priests for sexual abuse.

And was made to pay attorney fees of the Catholic priests he was suing.

Don't laugh, it's not funny.

And, maybe, all sanctions against John Aretakis, including his order of suspension, happened BECAUSE Silver's friend was hired by the Catholic church establishment?

Will Preet Bharara, the federal prosecutor who took down Sheldon Silver, care enough to investigate this one - or, will John Aretakis be left holding the ball, and suspended, the ardent and effective victims' advocate in the sex abuse scandal involving Catholic church who was suspended from the practice of law BECAUSE he was an ardent advocate for sex abuse victims - and BECAUSE a federal judge ordered him, the victims' attorney, to pay the Catholic church's attorney fees?

Because if this happens, it will appear to the whole wide world that criticizing a judge in New York is equal to or worse than a federal felony conviction - it "warrants", in the eyes of New York judicial establishment, a de facto disbarment.

Even your pedigree and family connections to the judiciary - which usually absolves attorneys in New York of discipline for most egregious fraud - will not help you if you criticize a judge.

Criticizing judges is an absolute taboo.  Worse than the worst crime.

Remember that.






Sunday, April 10, 2016

Just a card

A reader has sent me this card given to him by the Legal Aide public defender in New York City.

Here it is:

The rabid K-9 of Delaware County, New York - #TheOzzieSaga

According to the records of Delaware County (NY), Delaware County residents and visitors have a healthcare crisis waiting to  happen, and Delaware County and its CCCs (captive cash cows - homeowners, taxpayer) has a huge liability problem.

The problem is good-looking, has four paws and is called Ozzie.

Or "Officer Ozzi" - according to the website of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department.


Because "Officer Ozzie" was allegedly purchased "from funds contributed by the good citizen of Delaware County" and because his "basic needs are totally sponsored" also by the "good citizens of Delaware County", and not out of the County budget, I especially want to see title records of "Officer Ozzie" - when Delaware County answers my FOIL request.

And, for the same reason I will hold off on the "officer" part until Delaware County provides me copies of the title records of Ozzi - because if Ozzi is privately owned, he cannot be an "officer" of Delaware County Sheriff's Department.

Now, why do I call the handsome Ozzie a healthcare nightmare for Delaware County and its CCCs (myself included) waiting to happen?

Here is why.

The description of "Officer" Ozzie on the website of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department shows that "Officer Ozzie" is - allegedly - a fully trained "dual purpose" German Shepherd.

A bite from a German Shepherd, according to the National Geographic, equals 238 pounds of force, just 3 times less than a bite of a lion, weaker than a Rottweiler's and stronger than a pit bull's.

You know what kind of dogs were used by the Nazis in concentration camps - to rip people apart? 

German Shepherds.

A German Shepherd is a dangerous and powerful dog.

THAT'S WHY it is used for patrol.

It can easily overpower a human and effect an arrest.

Look, for example, at this video of an attack by two German Shepherds on a human (I understand, in a training session) - I warn you that the video is graphic.

Here is also an excerpt from an old Russian movie - I apologize, there are no English subtitles, but it is self-explanatory and shows a German Shepherd in its full attacking glory - just rewind the clip to about 3:00 (the episode describes how a plain-clothes specialized K-9 police officer comes to get an abandoned German Shepherd out of a train car).

Such a dog can kill, and it certainly can bite.

The use of such a dog is no different than the use of a gun - the dog's force can be deadly.

But, the "deadly" part can also come from a single non-fatal bite - if the dog has a transmittable disease because it is not protected by shots.

Not only Ozzie is around his handler John Demeo all the time - which is more dangerous than to be exposed to a rabid raccoon, in view of Demeo's violent tendencies that gets him shifted from department to department and from handling people to handling dogs, but does not get him canned - but in Delaware County where Ozzie lives and works there are  also 4-legged wild animals all around, and rabid ones, too - foxes, skunks, raccoons.

And, there are no records that Ozzie has his proper shots.

Here is an answer to my friend Barbara O'Sullivan's Freedom of Information Request to Delaware County about the vet records of the alleged officer Ozzie.


No records means no records.

And that's a big problem.

Because each dog in Delhi, NY needs to receive shots, and ESPECIALLY when such dogs is used by the County for drug arrests - and is flaunted to the public AND the children in various gatherings.

It is good if this dog helps apprehend suspects - if the use of the og is legal and if the arrest is legal.

Yet, if the dog has rabies because he did not get shots - and the dog develop rabies itself, think what will happen, unexpectedly, to people and animals around that dog, and that includes children.

On March 4, 2016, Delaware County publicly invited children, including children under 10 years old, to a fundraiser held in Walton, NY for Ozzie.


Ozzie himself was there at the fundraiser, exposed to children.



Yet, on April 8, 2016, Delaware County answers a FOIL request regarding Ozzie's vet records and says that there are no such records.

Meaning, Ozzie has no shots.

I lived in Delhi, NY for 16+ years, until last year.

At all times when I lived in Delhi, NY we had dogs, both larger and smaller than Ozzie.

We had:

2 border collies - smaller;
1 Pomeranian - smaller; and
1 Old English sheepdog - much bigger

ALL of those dogs had to have regular shots.

EACH year the vet would send us a card notifying us that it is time to renew our dogs' shots.

EACH time when our dog would get his or her shots, we had a receipt from the vet confirming that our dogs are current on shots.

The mysterious answer of Delaware County to Barbara O'Sullivan's FOIL request may mean that:

1) Ozzie does not have shots; or
2) the Delaware County chose not to get confirmation of his shots from the vet - which is bad; or
3) that Ozzie does not belong to Delaware County, and that's why Delaware County does not have records of his shots.

So - when you see "Officer Ozzie", take cover. 

He may be rabid.

Because, Delaware County has no records of his shots - and it is too much of a gamble with your life to assume that he has shots, in case he decides to go after you.