Former Delaware County (NY) Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie was an impostor - and had a history of more violence than what was so far reported

If you think you are looking at the same woman on both pictures, you are mistaken.

On the left is the mugshot of Barbara O'Sullivan, of Delhi, New York, against whom Delaware County Sheriff's Department, NY, fabricated criminal charges that recently resulted in a dismissal because the local judge falsified the arrest warrant.

The right picture is taken of Pacer.gov, and is the picture of Kiley Smith, of Deposit, New York, from a civil rights lawsuit and describes a woman beat up by an ALLEGED police officer from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department.  

The uniting factor is not only the striking similarities between how these two women look.

It is also that both of them were brought to court, both on false charges, both after violent assaults by the same ALLEGED Deputy Sheriff (at that time) of Delaware County Derek Bowie, nephew of Delaware County District Attorney investigator Jeff Bowie.

Kiley Smith is, according to her lawsuit, Derek Bowie's former girlfriend and former high school classmate.

I wrote A LOT of blogs about Derek Bowie, you can word-search his name in the search window on the right of this blog to see them all.

Apparently, I missed the main stuff which was reported to me only today.

On January 16, 2013, according to the lawsuit of Kylie Smith, removed by Delaware County from the Broome County Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Derek Bowie beat Ms. Smith up, including bruises and bone fractures, and subjected her to a false arrest and false criminal charges for trespass that were later dismissed.

This is what Kylie Smith alleges has happened to her at the hands of Derek Bowie on January 16, 2013.

Kylie Smith filed her lawsuit against Derek Bowie in May of 2014, according to the case's docket report.

This is what reportedly happened to Kylie Smith's look-alike Barbara O'Sullivan at Derek Smith's hands on September 5, 2014, and on September 18, 2014, after Kylie Smith's lawsuit was filed, and because of Delaware County Sheriff's Department's "unofficial" press release of criminal charges fabricated by Derek Bowie against Barbara and her daughter Alecia - criminal proceedings against both were terminated in their favor in February of 2016, see here and here.

Doesn't matter who to lash against, right?

Barbara O'Sullivan happened to look like Kylie Smith - and, without knowing it, suffered for it.

Barbara O'Sullivan also filed a lawsuit against Derek Bowie, in Delaware County Supreme Court.

In that lawsuit, the law firm that also represents the County in the Kylie Smith lawsuit, the Frank Miller law firm, has the audacity to ask the court, at this time, for sanctions against Barbara O'Sullivan for alleged non-compliance with discovery - while the firm itself did not disclose to the court, Judge John Lambert, while representing Derek Bowie as a Sheriff's Deputy, what the firm knows through the Kylie Smith lawsuit since at least August 14, 2015 - that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Sheriff's Deputy at the time of his vehicular assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, or at the time of the alleged dog bite - about that fabrication (Bowie did not have a bite, just a bruise, and likely a self-inflicted one), see my blog here.

Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Sheriff's Deputy because Delaware County Sheriff has a residency requirements for Deputy Sheriffs, and, according to deposition of Derek Bowie, he resided in Broome County from 2006 to at least the date of the deposition on April 14, 2015.

Nor did Frank Miller law firm disclosed to court in Barbara O'Sullivan's case that in Kylie Smith lawsuit Frank Miller's firm got out of representation in a similar lawsuit against Derek Bowie, likely because of a conflict of interest:

while continuing to represent the other Delaware County Defendants:

The information that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Delaware County Deputy Sheriff was relevant to:

1) Legitimacy of arrest of Barbara O'Sullivan and Alecia Bracci on September 18, 2014 by Derek Bowie;

2) Legitimacy of arrest of Alecia Bracci on September 5, 2014 on September 5, 2014 by Derek Bowie;

3) testimony of Derek Bowie in Barbara O'Sullivan's felony hearing in September of 2014;

4) testimony of Derek Bowie in front of the grand jury some time in the fall of 2014 upon which the indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan was issued;

5) testimony of Derek Bowie in front of the trial jury in Alecia Bracci's trial - it's good that the jury acquitted her, but the prosecutor did know that, and knowingly prosecuted her based on clearly perjured testimony of Derek Bowie that he was a legitimate Delaware County Deputy Sheriff at the time of Alecia Bracci's arrest in September of 2014.

Alecia Bracci was, fortunately, acquitted of charges fabricated by Derek Bowie, after a 1.5 year's ordeal, after her face was plastered, through an unofficial press-release by Delaware County employing Derek Bowie and his uncle Jeff Bowie, after people posted nasty things on Facebook about her and her mother based on that fabricated press release.

Barbara O'Sullivan, fortunately, obtained through a FOIL request testimony of Judge Gumo in front of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct that helped find out that the arrest warrant that Judge Gumo has allegedly issued in Barbara's case was not legitimate.

But, "fortunately" should not have been the word in this situation.

Richard Northrup, John Hubbard, Sean Becker, Frank Miller and other attorneys from Frank Miller's law firm that participated in civil rights lawsuit against Derek Bowie by Kylie Smith, filed in May of 2014, had an affirmative duty to report to three court involved (Delaware County Court for Barbara O'Sullivan, Delhi Town Court for Barbara O'Sullivan and Alecia Bracci and Delaware County Supreme Court for Barbara O'Sullivan in the civil lawsuit against Derek Bowie), that Derek Bowie is NOT a legitimate police officer.

Since he was not a legitimate police officer, he could not possibly be represented at the County expense.

Since he was not a legitimate police officer, and confirmed under oath during deposition in the civil rights lawsuit on April 14, 2015, that was taken within walking distance from Delaware County Court, Delaware Supreme Court and Delhi Town Court, at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY, Delaware County had to:

(1) immediately require Derek Bowie to disgorge (return) the monies paid to him while he did not satisfy residence requirements and was not a legitimate police officer;

(2) immediately fire Derek Bowie for lying;

(3) immediately fire Derek Bowie as a violent man out of control - with a purple belt in karate, according to his testimony at the deposition;

(4) notify all attorneys, all criminal defendants and all judges who ever handled proceedings where Derek Bowie signed statements or testified claiming he is a legitimate police officer, because all of those criminal cases are now subject to be vacated because arrests by Derek Bowie are illegitimate.

At least after April 14, 2015, the day of the deposition, these prosecutors knew that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate police officer - and still proceeded relying upon his perjured testimony that he is, and planning (Richard Northrup and John Hubbard) and actually soliciting (Sean Becker) such perjured testimony under oath.

Here are our "heroes":

• Richard Northrup who obtained the indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan in the fall of 2014 which was based on legitimacy of Derek Bowie's presence on her property, and did not notify her that the legitimacy of Derek Bowie, and of his presence on Barbara's property, went up in smoke since Derek Bowie, from 2006 to at least April 14, 2015 (date of his testimony at the deposition) resided in Broome County;  Richard Northrup the fraudster is now a judge;
• John Hubbard who obtained and prosecuted charges against Alecia Bracci and handled the felony hearing of Barbara O'Sullivan, and who prosecuted Barbara O'Sullivan's case from January 1, 2016 to its dismissal at the end of February of 2016, right before the scheduled trial, for reasons unrelated to illegitimacy of Derek Bowie;  John Hubbard the fraudster is now running for the position of the District Attorney - to serve people of Delaware County the same way he did before, covering up for violent criminals like Derek Bowie because of employment of his uncle Jeff Bowie with the District Attorney's office;
• Sean Becker (the new addition to the Delaware County District Attorney's office) who prosecuted Alecia Bracci on resisting an allegedly lawful arrest charges, put Derek Bowie on the stand before the trial jury and had him testify that he was a legitimate police officer at the time of Alecia Bracci's arrest in September of 2014.

I have questions.

Now that we know that Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Delaware County Sheriff, at least from November 1, 2009 to April 14, 2015 (the date he started employment with Delaware County Sheriff's Department based on false representation that he lives in Delaware County to at least the date of the deposition), what will be done by Delaware County to rectify - at least somewhat - the situation?

1)  Will Derek Bowie be made to return salary and benefits illegally obtained from Delaware County?

2) Will Derek Bowie be made to return Workers Compensation he illegally obtained from the State of New York for "injury on the job" after he falsely reported a dog bite while all he had was, according to medical documents, a bruise, and, very possibly, judging by videos released in discovery, a self-inflicted bruise?

3)  Will Derek Bowie be made to reimburse the Delaware County taxpayers for all fees and expenses that cost the County to prosecute Barbara O'Sullivan, Alecia Bracci and all other criminal defendants on Derek Bowie's false written and oral statements in criminal proceedings from November 1, 2009 to at least April 14, 2015?

4)  Will Derek Bowie be made to reimburse the Delaware County taxpayers for the cost of litigation in two lawsuits, by Barbara O'Sullivan and by Kylie Smith, that were the direct result of his false employment with Delaware County Sheriff's Department and his violent outbursts on the job?

One reader reported to me recently that Derek Bowie was quietly let go from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department at the end of December (!) of 2015 -  I wonder, what made the Delaware County wait from April to December before firing him?  

The desire of certain County and court officials to have fabricated charges against Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter stick no matter what?

But, when you are thinking about voting or not voting for John Hubbard in the upcoming elections, think about this:

John Hubbard allowed a violent felon to be FALSELY employed - at taxpayers' expense - in the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, without disclosure to opposing counsel in litigation, in order to be able to win illegitimately brought criminal cases.

John Hubbard knew, from civil rights litigation, that when Derek Bowie was assaulting Barbara O'Sullivan on September 5, 2014 with his police vehicle, instead of Barbara's face

he saw the face of his girlfriend who was suing him at the time for assault and violation of her constitutional rights:

But, John Hubbard did not care to tell Barbara O'Sullivan about that - or to protect Delaware County residents and visitors from Derek Bowie, a violent felon on the loose who lashes out at women because they look like his former girlfriends who sued him.

Think about it.

Derek Bowie was NOT prosecuted for vehicular assault upon Barbara O'Sullivan.

Derek Bowie was NOT prosecuted for assault, with grave injuries, upon Kylie Smith, including after she was already under his "arrest" - which, of course, was illegal because his employment was illegal and based on his false statement of residency.

The assault on Kylie Smith, according to court papers, occurred in Derek Bowie's apartment, at his place of residence - IN BROOME COUNTY.

A trial is planned in Kylie Smith's case in December of 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Be there.

Write to John Hubbard, the Delaware County Acting DA.

Demand criminal prosecution of Derek Bowie who, despite committing at least two violent felonies, two violent assaults, one using a police vehicle and amounting to an attempted murder, of two helpless women - one his former girlfriend and another a disabled and retired corrections officer - he is still walking the streets, and walking the streets WITH A GUN, and with authority vested with him, as a police officer to arrest people.

This is the face of Derek Bowie from the website of Delaware County Sheriff's Department - note that the Delaware County Sheriff's Department still lists him in old reports as "DS" - Deputy Sheriff, in full knowledge that it is not so, as a misrepresentation to the public, to prevent massive cases from being vacated, and from being sued by more people.

But, this is not the real face of "DS" Derek Bowie:

THIS is his real face: 

*   *    *

So, how safe is life in Delaware County nowadays - with an additional position of a prosecutor and an additional position of a judge?

You can judge for yourself.

One reader gave me a tip that Derek Bowie was let go from Delaware County since December of 2015 (not fired, to protect his reputation, and not criminally prosecuted).

Another reader notified me that Derek Bowie is now employed by the Deposit Village Police Department.

Yet a third reader gave me a tip as to this lawsuit.

All readers wanted me to report these events, and I consider it newsworthy, and I do.

But - why wasn't this lawsuit, that was pending in federal court since 2014, and is about the issue of utmost public concern, police brutality in Delaware County, was not considered newsworthy by the local newspapers.

The Walton Reporter in Walton, NY?

The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY?

Why should an issue of SUCH public concern for Delaware County, NY be reported out of South Carolina?

Because in Delaware County, New York, people are afraid to report it?  

Even what is in court papers, in public access?

So, people of Delaware - and Broome - Counties, be VERY afraid.

Because Derek Bowie, in a police uniform, at your expense, is riding a police vehicle, while being armed with a baton, a taser, a gun, a pepper spray and having a purple belt in karate (according to the deposition), and has the power to stop you and assault you at any time, day or night, on the road or by bursting into your home.

And, believe me, he will be getting bolder by the day - because he was not disciplined and not criminally prosecuted.

He already assaulted two helpless women that the Delaware County Acting DA John Hubbard refuses to protect as victims of Derek Bowie's violent crimes because Derek Bowie's uncle Jeff Bowie works in the Delaware County District Attorney's office as an investigator - and, upon a tip of yet another of my readers, works together with Derek Bowie on some cases, NOW.

Be VERY afraid - you know why?

Because you do not know how people who have ever stepped on Derek Bowie's little toe, look.

Because after Derek Bowie was sued by this woman

he attempted to first assault and murder with a police vehicle the suing woman's look-alike

and then tried to fabricate claims that her dog must be euthanized, and she and her daughter should be criminally charged and go to jail or prison.

How do you know if you are not a look-alike of Derek Bowie's perceived enemy?

And that you are not on Derek Bowie's demented look-alike hit-list?

 *   *   *

There is a wealth of information filed in Kiley Smith's lawsuit about the dirty dealings in Delaware County (NY) local government that taxpayers and voters have a right to know.

I will gradually start analyzing and publishing that information - it is well over 500 pages to read.

For more about Derek Bowie's hit-list of look-alikes, lawsuits and efforts at cover-up of Derek Bowie's violent propensities by his governmental employers -


Stay tuned.

On the discipline of Judge Olu Stevens of Kentucky

I wrote on this blog that an African American judge out of the State of Kentucky, Judge Olu Stevens, was targeted for discipline for doing his job - for striking panels of all-white jurors in cases of African American defendants where a 100% white jury does not reflect the racial composition of the community, and where statistically, African Americans are disproportionately appear as criminal defendants and are disproportionately convicted of crimes, as compared to their presence in the population of the State of Kentucky.

Judge Stevens is also targeted for discipline because he allegedly discussed the criminal case - after its jurisdictional conclusion for all purposes - and criticized the prosecutor who insisted on picking all-white juries as racist.

Judge Stevens' criticism of the prosecutor, a public officer, on issue of grave public concern, racism in the criminal justice system, was clearly speech with content protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Yesterday, with regret, I wrote on this blog that for some personal reasons I am not aware of, Judge Olu Stevens has reportedly agreed to a paid suspension while his disciplinary case is pending.

Since Judge Stevens' disciplinary case is still pending, I would like to point out that the federal court handling constitutional civil rights cases out of the State of Kentucky, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, already decided a case on point - whether discipline of an officer of the court (an attorney) is constitutional for criticism of a public official.

In 2012, in its decision in the case called Berry v Schmitt, the 6th Circuit ruled that discipline, or even a threat of discipline, of an attorney for criticizing conduct of a public agency, the Legislative Ethics Commission for the State of Kentucky, is unconstitutional as violating the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The full decision in Berry v Schmitt can be viewed here.

In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, a mandatory authority on constitutional issues for the State of Kentucky, has ruled as follows:

In that case, as the decision goes on, the lawyer criticized a "quasi-judicial" entity:

This is the letter for which the attorney was warned he will be sanctioned if he persists in his similar criticisms - the letter criticized the Commission's actions in convening behind closed doors to review fund-raising conduct of a legislator, excluding the public, excluding the complainant, but for a brief moment, but including the subject of the complaint.

  By the way, in New York State, disciplinary proceedings against public officials are conducted in the very same mode as was criticized by the Kentucky attorney - even more so, because the public and the complainant are completely excluded from the disciplinary process.

The "problem" with the feisty Kentucky attorney John M. Berry, Jr., who has been a Kentucky State Senator himself, was that he not only criticized the way Kentucky State Committee on Legislative Ethics operated, but also went public with his criticism:

Attorney Berry was no shrinking violet before his criticism of the Commission either, nor was he an outsider not knowledgeable of the ways of the Kentucky State Legislature.

When attorney Berry was a Kentucky State Senator (see the list of current Kentucky State Senators where Senator Berry is not included), he reportedly opposed what was called a "Succession Amendment", a proposed change to the Kentucky State Constitution by which the State Governor would be allowed to succeed himself.

To be fair and for purposes of full disclosure, there was, in my opinion, a murky episode of questionable ethics of Senator Berry himself when, during his public opposition to the succession of the Governor by himself (while the Governor was Senator Berry's personal friend), Senator Berry appeared to speak in front of a Rotary Club about the proposed Succession Amendment, and, for the sake of "fairness" and presentation of "all sides of the debate", reportedly spoke about the advantages of the Succession Amendment, while maintaining that he is still its opponent.

Nevertheless, despite former Senator Berry's argument for his friend the Governor while pretending to oppose the Succession Amendment, the Kentucky voters did defeat the Succession Amendment in 1981 - and that defeat may have hurt Senator Berry's friend the Governor's chances to become U.S. President.

Friendship or no friendship, Senator Berry has possibly "fell from grace" of the Kentucky establishment and acquired powerful enemies by his opposition, open or fake, of the Succession Amendment since those far-away times. 

Former Senator Berry, a white man, was represented in his federal civil rights lawsuit - for free, I presume - by the Kentucky chapter of ACLU.

I wonder where the Kentucky chapter of the ACLU is when an African American judge Olu Stevens is targeted for discipline, on the exact same issue as was already decided by the mandatory constitutional authority for the State of Kentucky, against the State of Kentucky, in John M. Berry Jr.'s case, 4 years ago:

The lack of expressed position on behalf of the Kentucky chapter of ACLU as to the investigation of Judge Olu Stevens is even more alarming, as in former Senator Berry's case there was only a letter of warning, not real disciplinary proceedings which Kentucky ACLU considered worthy and warranted to defend on behalf of the white attorney Berry.

In the case of African American judge Olu Stevens, a real discipline, and now a real (no doubt, forced) "temporary" suspension during pending disciplinary proceedings that can very well result in Judge Stevens' removal from the bench, the way things are going and the way the racist "criminal justice" system is against Judge Stevens for doing what's right and what had to be done long time ago - cleaning the court system of institutional racism.

Suspension of Judge Stevens, even a temporary suspension, means, for criminal defendants, that an honest judge who was courageously protecting them from racist jury-picking by the State prosecutor, is no longer there to protect them.

Judge Stevens' suspension also sends a message to the people of the State of Kentucky that it is what Judge Stevens did was wrong by exposing racism of state prosecutor Tom Wine, and not what Tom Wine did by picking white-only juries for African American criminal defendants in a criminal justice system where African Americans are already disproportionately targeted.   

I wonder why Judge Stevens' plight is not worthy enough for Kentucky ACLU to look at.

Of course, after seeing the picture from the front page of Kentucky ACLU, one starts to understand the lack of position in defense of an African-American judge whose constitutional rights are violated because of his constitutionally protected speech on issues of public concern.

This is what interests Kentucky ACLU:

Helping an African American judge fight unconstitutional disciplinary proceedings and restore to the bench a jurist who was cleaning the Kentucky State criminal justice system of racism, obviously doesn't interest the Kentucky ACLU as a priority of any kind.

By the way, it is interesting to see the concurring opinion in the Berry v Schmitt case where Kentucky ACLU did feel they have to intervene:

In essence, the concurrence says - yes, I concur because the law is on the plaintiff's side, but the controversy is old and unlikely.

I bet, had the case not been litigated by a former state Senator and not by ACLU, sanctions would have been imposed for litigating an "old and unlikely" controversy.

ACLU did a good job in the Berry v Schmitt case, by setting an important 1st Amendment precedent in attorney disciplinary cases.

Yet, ACLU somehow does not want to make one step further and apply its victory towards helping a judge who is, similarly as Mr. Berry, but with a lot more vigor and with a lot more consequences up to date (forced suspsension) pursued for protected speech about issues of grave public concern.

I note an activist with a rainbow on his or her shirt in the Kentucky ACLU's front picture:

Yet, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage last year, it is not an act of courage to support the gay rights movement any more.

Defending a judge who went against the nearly all-white judicial establishment in the state, is not mainstream, and does require quite a bit of courage.

I guess, Kentucky ACLU has yet to find that courage to defend Judge Olu Stevens.

#JudgeOluStevens who is suspended for fighting racism in the criminal justice system needs even more public support now

On April 1, 2016, I ran a blog about an African American judge in Kentucky who was targeted for discipline for doing his job - for dismissing all-white jury panels picked by a white prosecutor as not reflecting the cross-section of the community, and as constitutionally invalid for trial of non-white (African American) criminal defendants.

Actually, Judge Olu Stevens was right.

Yet, he was nevertheless targeted for discipline.

I regret to inform my readers that reportedly Judge Stevens agreed to a paid suspension.

I do not know what has driven him to make such a decision, possibly waiving his major constitutional rights in this case, but it is what it is.

Nevertheless, supporters of Judge Stevens are rallying around him to fight racial profiling in judicial disciplinary proceedings, as well as to fight racial inequality in how criminal justice is dispensed against white and African American criminal defendants.

Judge Stevens was the first African American judge among the all-white trial judges at the criminal trial court level when he was elected, and that is in the entire state of Kentucky.

Now there are three African American judges, two with Judge Stevens suspended.

I continue to maintain a position that Judge Olu Stevens is entitled to public support and recognition for his courageous and independent discharge of his constitutional duties, and not discipline.

A message to case-fixing judges by a federal court - it pays to go to church, you'll get a more lenient criminal sentence if you do

I recently wrote about a judge from the state of Louisiana, Judge Best (don't laugh, real name), who fixed a court case for a convicted sex offender, specifically, reduced his probation in an ex parte hearing, without notifying the prosecution, because the judge personally knew the sex offender from the judge's church's choir.

I also recently wrote a blog arguing that it is unacceptable, in ANY setting, for the government to consider church involvement as a mitigating factor to determine a measure of government-imposed discipline, or to provide a government-issued license, of any kind.

The church is separated from state - period.

The government may not discriminate - to give favors or disfavors - for participation in church activities or lack thereof.

Yet, that is exactly the kind of favor, deviation of criminal sentencing guidelines, that the convicted felon, former PA judge Joseph C. Waters, asked from the sentencing court - and received.

Waters' attorneys asked for a downward deviation because of Waters' alleged "good character" - supported by 190 letters of character.

Even though the sentencing guidelines enacted by the U.S. Congress - which Waters' attorneys acknowledged - do not allow deviation based on the criminal defendant's "good character".  Only criminal history, or lack thereof, may be considered by the sentencing court.

Here is what Waters' plea agreement was - according to Waters' own "Sentencing Memorandum":

The court could reject, and should have rejected the negotiated plea agreement because it did not comply with the federal sentencing guidelines, it was too lenient.

Waters argued in his memorandum - as a devote Catholic and a man of "good character", no less - that several bribes that he received had to be calculated as one for purposes of leniency and downward deviation in the sentencing guidelines.

Then, Waters' asserted that, as a man of "good character" who has "temporarily lost his moral compass", a good family man and because of his COMMITMENT TO CHURCH, he should be given a downward deviation in criminal sentencing.

Here is what Waters pled guilty to:

Both of these crimes are felonies.

The crime charged under 18 U.S.C. 1341 was punishable by

1. not more than $1,000,000 in fine and 
2. not more than 30 YEARS in federal prison - or both.

Waters pled guilty to having committed that crime.

The crime under 18 U.S.C. 1343 another count that Waters pled guilty to, provides for an identical punishment - either up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS in fine or up to 30 YEARS in federal prison.

Yet, here is Waters' Sentencing Memorandum in its full glory and

here is a portion of Waters' argument to get a more lenient criminal sentence because he goes to mass every day:

The convicted felon, a judge who wielded tremendous power, who has been a 2nd-generation police officer and retired as a police captain, who was an attorney and officer of the court practicing in state and federal courts, who has been a judge for many years, and thus knew what he was doing was a crime, and his knowledge must INCREASE his sentence, not DECREASE it - that man "attends daily mass", and thus, should be (and was) given a sentence that was more lenient than the federal sentencing guidelines required?

Here is what Waters was sentenced to:

 Incarceration for 2 years - out of possible 30 years.

In a prison close to home, so that "friends and family" could visit more easily - think about indigent criminal defendants whose young children have to travel across the country to see them.

Judge Waters' family and friends are WEALTHY individuals who could well afford travel to anywhere in the country.

There was no basis whatsoever for such deference to a corrupt judge.

After Waters is released from prison - that will happen in two years since his commitment, in 2017 if not earlier (for good behavior), Waters will be supervised for 3 years, under the following conditions:

These are "general conditions" of Waters' supervision.

and here are the fine and special conditions of supervision:

So, a corrupt judge received:

A fine of $5,500 out of possible ONE MILLION dollars;
A term of incarceration of 2 years out of possible 30 years,

a permission to serve his prison term close to family and friends, so that they could visit often, and lenient conditions of supervision for 3 years.

That's all.

And, as a factor, the sentencing court that gave a corrupt judge a lenient sentence, used the judge's claim that he is "committed to church" and goes to mass every day.

Here is the full docket of Waters' criminal case, including the names of the judge and prosecutors who agreed to this "downward deviation" based on Waters' active churchgoing.

So, now precedents are being set all over this great country.

If you want to molest a child - just sing in the church choir where your criminal court's judge attends and sing sweetly, and the judge (Judge BEST) will give you a break.

If you want to fix a court case, go to mass every day, and then the sentencing court (like Judge Juan Sanchez, his picture is below so that the country would know its "heroes"), will give you a break.

Going to church apparently pays, big time - to get criminals a break.

The more important the criminal - the bigger the break.

A mere local garden variety sex offender gets an ex parte reduction in probation for singing sweetly in the judge's church choir.

A wealthy corrupt judge convicted, on admission, of receiving multiple bribes, (by the way, see the full 12-page criminal charges against Waters here), gets 

• 1/15, or 6.7% of the allowed maximum sentence, 
• a fine that constitutes 0.55% of the allowed maximum fine
• a prison close to home so that his influential and wealthy family members and friends could save some money on travel visiting him

What is NOT included into judge Waters' sentence - despite recitations of multiple bribes in multiple cases in his own Sentencing Memorandum -  is forfeiture of bribes and restitution of damages to victims - 

• opponents in civil litigation where cases were fixed, 
• victims of crimes where criminal cases were fixed.

So, the corrupt judge was NOT ordered to returned cash bribes and gifts he received.

And, there is no indication that victims of the judge's behavior received any restitution or remedy.

I will run, time pertmitting, additional blogs about other "mitigation" factors that corrupt judge Waters pointed out to the criminal sentencing court, and the court accepted it by granting Waters the lenient sentence he was asking for.

Yet, as to the "devote churchgoer" issue, specifically, I would like to highlight and stress what the federal sentencing court did in Waters' case.

In a cynical, shameless and self-serving way, the federal court gave a message to other corrupt judges who commit corruption and are as yet not caught - going to church pays.

Who knows, maybe, some time down the road the sentencing judge himself will be caught, one cannot be too careful not to prepare for such an occasion.

Like by creating a precedent for a fellow judge who was actually court in multiple cases of corruption and case-fixing.

Go to church, you idiots, when engaged in corruption - you will do less time.