Delaware County: pet projects, pass-through grants, robbing children in foster care and compensation of foster parents

When a child is removed to foster care in the State of New York, there are several sources of support for the child:

1) compensation paid for the child's board and care directly to foster parent;

2) support obtained from parents, if they are alive, reachable by support petition and have ability to pay;

3) the child's SSI payments through Social Security, if available.

I had some individuals come to me in Delaware County, NY  when I was practicing last year and tell me that Delaware County Social Services is misusing foster children's SSI payments that must be used only for the children's care.

The allegation was that the Delaware County puts such monies in the general fund and uses it for its own needs, not for the child's, while at the same time suing parents for support.

I was also told that the Social Security administration was notified and was conducting an investigation.

I am not aware how that alleged investigation turned out, but misuse of federal funds by the County is a concern, especially in view of the fact that the County funnels millions of dollars, including state and federal aid into its pet satellite business - Delaware Opportunities Inc. (and the two affiliate corporations, see audit report posted by Delaware Opportunities, Inc.), while prosecuting two women from Deposit for being down on their luck and applying for food stamps.

By the way, Delaware Opportunities Inc. had a grant "passed through" from the Town of Deposit for "community development" - for $14,657 in 2014.  

A "pass through" grant, by the way, is a grant for which the non-profit corporation employing 279 people in 2014, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., must APPLY to the pass-through authority.

Here, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., had to apply to the Town of Deposit to give Delaware Opportunities, Inc. a grant of $14,657 for "community development" benefiting the Town of Deposit residents.

Therefore, the Town of Deposit residents, including Tammy Stanton and MacKenzie Stanton, are entitled to know (1) why the grant funds were given to this non-profit and not to needy residents directly; and (2) how Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is benefiting "community development" of the Town of Deposit - other than, possibly, receiving some kick-backs to the Town council people, of course.

By the way, I asked in the FOIL request with Delaware County for the list of employees of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. working on county-funded projects - we will see if those lists will be released, and if they are, how many relatives of the local county and town government officials are working in that non-profit.

And, I also filed another FOIL request today verifying whether the Delaware County District Attorney's office has a contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services, similar to what Otsego County DA's office has with Otsego County DSS, for additional compensation in exchange for prosecution of DSS-targeted criminal cases.

What kind of community development a non-profit corporation handled FOR the Town of Deposit that is located within 40 minutes' drive away over the mountains that could not be given directly to the Deposit residents, so that Tammy Stanton and McKenzie Stanton would not have to apply for food stamps, I am exploring through separate FOIL and FOIA requests.

As to Delaware County and foster parents, I sought information about county-set rates of compensation for foster parents.

Since the former DSS Commissioner Moon announced in the press a couple of years ago that at any given moment there are more than 100 children in foster care in Delaware County, county-set rates of compensation of foster parents are a financial concern for taxpayers.

I will report the response to the FOIL requests in this blog.

Stay tuned.

A FOIL request was filed with Delaware County for cell phone numbers and bills, emails of county employees and for other important information

Yesterday, I filed two FOIL requests with Delaware County, New York.

This is the first one, I will post the second one in a separate blog.

In view of the revealed fact that the alleged Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie was never a legitimate police officer in Delaware County - because of how he hired and because he never lived in Delaware County during his employment, as was required by the conditions of employment, I made an inquiry as to the residency of the currently employed Deputy Sheriffs and of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, who also has a residency requirement.

I also asked for lists of employees with salaries, salary history, assigned e-mails, assigned cell phone numbers, and I asked for the latest cell phone bills for each of the County employee who enjoys having a cell phone issued by the County.

I also asked for statistics, if any, of relatives employed in the County, and for all written policies the county has.

In the deposition of Derek Bowie he referred to certain written policies and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, yet, each time I ask for written policies, I am given a response that there aren't any.

Here is another try.

I will report on this blog as to Delaware County responses to this FOIL request.

And, I remind the Delaware County officials who may be reading this blog, of what U.S. Congressmen stated in their letter 2 days ago to the U.S. Comptroller in asking for an investigation into non-enforcement of Freedom of Information Act (a similar statute to FOIL under which I made this request):

I couldn't have said it better.

Delaware County insurance policy for this year - exclusions, exclusions to exclusions, and the cost of Derek Bowie and other discharged officers in raised premium

I recently asked the Delaware County for its liability insurance policy.

First, I was given nothing in response to my FOIL request.

When I asked, why, I was explained that they are waiting for a new insurance policy, so I asked for both old and new.

Several of days ago, I received both - but they appear to be limited liability policies covering only law enforcement personnel, while I asked for an insurance policy covering all Delaware County employees.

While I will address the issue on an administrative appeal for denial of my FOIL request, here are the old and the new insurance policies:

Here is the the "old" policy for the previous year.

Here is the renewed policy, for this year, until January 1, 2017.

There are interesting exclusions in the policy.

As to the new insurance policy, you can see a $3,623.40 hike as compared to the previous  one, and the significant event in the previous year (2015) was the deposition of Derek Bowie in the lawsuit by Kylie Smith.  Derek Bowie resigned or was discharged from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that year.

Significantly, while the insurance company agrees to an obligation to defend against claims of personal injury and property damage by employees of the Delaware County law enforcement, the policy does not cover compensation of damages for personal injury and property damage, intentional acts, unjust enrichment by the County officials, defamation, violation of constitutional rights and any injury caused by vehicles, all in all for 20 types of exclusions.

Yet, the county taxpayers are currently paying, through insurance, for the legal defense of Derek Bowie's shenannigans in two lawsuits - one federal, and one in state court, and that is, possibly, the reason for the raised insurance premiums and extensive exclusions in the new policy.

In other words, the policy does not cover compensation for about anything that Derek Bowie did to his two suing victims - Barbara O'Sullivan and Kylie Smith.

As I mentioned above, there are 20 types of exclusions from the insurance coverage in the policy, and I encourage my readers to read the policy in full, here.

Some exclusions and "exclusions to exclusions" are interesting, some are good for the citizens and some are very clearly bad.

For example, there is an "exclusion to exclusion" that, even though there is no coverage for injuries caused by County vehicles, there is coverage for injuries caused by police vehicles during chase in order to apprehend a criminal suspect.

So, I understand that both the injured criminal suspect, the officers involved in the chase and the possible innocent victims of such a chase (motorists or pedestrians) can receive compensation from insurance within the policy limits.

On the other hand, there is an exclusion for failure to provide or negligent provision of medical help.

That means that the habitual failure of the Delaware County Sheriff's department to provide medical help to inmates and pretrial detainees in the Delaware County jail is not covered by insurance.

That means that the compensation for such failures in case a lawsuit happens, and it is waiting to happen, will come directly from the coffers of Delaware County, without any possibility of recovery from insurance, and will be turned against taxpayers through raised property taxes.

That's even more reason to demand accountability of the County and to demand that the County pays attention to detainees and inmates' medical needs - failure to provide for such needs can be costly for the County taxpayers.

There is an "exclusion to exclusion" for property seized by the County.  While property in custody of the County other than property seized by the County, is not covered by insurance, the property seized by the County, is.

This means, if the County damages or loses property it seizes during arrests, at least insurance is available to compensate the damage.

All in all, it means that employees of Delaware County will be provided legal defense at the expense of insurance if they do something wrong, but as to damages - they are on their own, they will have to pay out of pocket as to intentional acts.

One other important issue.

It appears that despite being busted by New York State Comptroller for not submitting its contracts to public bidding, Delaware County continues to do the same.

I am currently researching documents of the Delaware County's tumor - the Delaware Opportunities, Inc., to show how the taxpayers' money are sucked out, at the threat of foreclosure on the taxpayers' homes, and are funneled, under claims of "serving lofty causes" no less, into a pet business of Delaware County officials.

Any contracts made by the County without bidding are suspect.

Contracts with the liability insurance company fall into the same category.

Since the premiums are so high, and insurance contract is a financial service based on which insurance company offers a better quote for the same coverage, rather than a "personal service", insurance contracts should be subject to public bidding.

This insurance policy wasn't.

I am verifying that in a FOIL request I filed with the County.

I will post my yesterday's FOIL requests in a separate blog.

Stay tuned. 

Access to records law gets attention of the House and the Senate

Yesterday, several U.S. Senators and House Representatives reportedly requested the U.S. Comptroller General to start an investigation of how citizen's requests for access to records under Freedom of Information Act (that's federal statute, New York has a state counterpart - FOIL, or Public Officers Law 87).

Their letter reportedly says, among other things, the following:

"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a vital tool that protects one of the cornerstones of our Nation: the American public's right to know what its government is up to."

The Congressmen obviously did not ask the opinion of some Delaware County officials about the value of access-to-records laws (such as "don't get your nose into our business, etc.") before writing the letter.

This letter.

It will definitely help not only for federal, but also for state public officials to read that letter.

Because it applies to state records, and state access-to-records laws, too.

And, of course, there are not only FOIA and FOIL among access-to-records laws, the scope of these laws is much broader, and all of those laws help people figure out what the government is up to.

I am currently preparing a book specifically on access to records in a certain narrow area of law where knowledge about access to records laws can help a lot of people who are, let's say, far from being privileged members of society.

I cannot promise the date of publication, as it gets delayed by my appeals of the disciplinary case (which now has a likelihood to head towards the U.S. Supreme Court), and I write in two languages at the same time (Russian and English, the books will not be 100% identical), but I do promise that 

• it will be this year, that 
• it will be affordable, that 
• it will cite to free and readily available information sources and 
• that it will be both in e-version and in print;
• there is a possibility of a Spanish translation the year after the year of publication; and
• there is a possibility of an audio version in Russian and in English.

And, of course, I promise thorough research and valuable information in the book as to how to access records in that narrow area of law (which will be applicable in wider settings, too, since these laws have a very wide area of application).

The value of access-to-records laws where litigation is pending, going on or threatened, is that such access-to-records efforts may be done as a leverage against the government, outside of court proceedings, and thus outside of control of courts that are often biased in government's favor.

The publication date approaches, but is still away.

I am vigorously working on the book and I promise I will make the publication date known on the blog.

I will post some interesting blogs tomorrow commenting on public documents obtained through access to records laws and otherwise freely obtained on the Internet.

Stay tuned.

The Oklahoma legislation is going to fix what didn't need to be fixed, but was undermined by a judicial decision - the forcible sodomy statute

I wrote yesterday about five judges who made life unsafe and dangerous in Oklahoma by a unanimous 2-page decision interpreting the Oklahoma criminal forcible sodomy law as not including the situations when the victim is intoxicated or unconscious.

The statute, in fact, does have in it an element of lack of consent when the person's mind is unsound (that includes, for any reasonable mind, temporary unsoundness through intoxication or unconsciousness).

The 5 judges, as I wrote in my yesterday's blog, are all very "accomplished", they are all portrayed in their biographies as brilliant lawyers, scholars and jurists.

In other words, they are definitely not dumb and they certainly can read.

And if, after they read the statute that includes a provision for "unsoundness of mind", they still ruled - unanimously - that intoxication or unconsciousness of the victim is not included into that statute, one needs to look for answers for that decision deeper - and I hope that the FBI should look into the possible case of corruption, and not necessarily by relatives of the defendant.

There may be some high-ranking perv somewhere, caught for the same thing, who needed protection - and got it.

In any event, the Oklahoma Legislature reacted to this collective act of judicial unsoundness of minds (or corruption) by publicly announcing that they will fix the perceived gap in the criminal forcible sodomy laws.

The sad part about it is that - it didn't need fixing, and more taxpayer money will be poured into the hole, simply because some supposedly "brilliant" public servants would not do their jobs properly. 

 

By ruling that forcible sodomy laws do not apply to intoxicated or unconscious victims, Oklahoma was turned into a dangerous place for residents and visitors

In a disturbing ruling, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declined to "enlarge the statute" for forcible sodomy, and declined to apply the forcible sodomy statute to victims who are intoxicated or unconscious.

Here is the decision.

Here is the statute:

The court claimed that none of the 5 factors enumerated in the statute are applicable when the victim is intoxicated or unconscious.

It happens rarely, but my personal opinion here is that the ruling is incorrect, and not just on the emotional level.

Subsection (B)(2) clearly includes into the crime of forcible sodomy a "sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime".

Both or either intoxication and unconsciousness can be argued to be temporary unsoundness of mind. 

What was created in Oklahoma is a dangerous precedent encouraging rapists to get their victims drunk in order to escape criminal liability.

And that's definitely not the legislative purpose of the statute.

Oklahoma has become a dangerous state.  With just one 2-page decision by these five judges:

Here are the judges who made the decision.

Judge Robert L. Hudson:

 Judge Clancy Smith:

Judge Gary L. Lumpkin:

Judge Arlene Johnson:

Judge David B. Lewis:

All of these 5 people unanimously concurred in ruling that intoxication or unconsciousness does not fall under temporary unsoundness of mind preventing consent to sodomy - that's oral or anal sex without consent.

Unanimously.

I understand the concept of judicial restraint and unwillingness to legislate from the bench.

Yet, here this concept was completely uncalled for.

These 5 people left residents and visitors of Oklahoma unsafe to sexual assaults if they are in a helpless condition.

These 5 people also gave an opportunity for really sick crimes to be committed - because such an approach does not take into consideration as to who rendered the person intoxicated or unconscious.

These 5 judges put together a defense for really sick individuals to first lace the drink or get a person drunk, or beat the person unconscious - and THEN rape him or her.

The sick birds on the street are no thinking - "we've got a free ride" out of prison.

Think about it - with those shining biographies.

Those careers.

A high school.

A college.

A law school.

Career as a lawyer.

Career as a judge.

FIVE PEOPLE, all educated as lawyers and judges - could not READ and understand that "unsound of mind" applies to unconsciousness or intoxication.

Unanimously they could not read that?

Or, another, more sinister explanation may be that they know there is some pervert in their ranks who is afraid for the statute to be - soon - applied to him and her, and they unanimously protect that pervert by their decision?

It is not very often that I think prosecution in a criminal case is right.

Here - at least as a matter of law, without going into the case's facts - it is.

The prosecutor stated that the court's decision is "insane, dangerous and offensive".    I couldn't agree more.

Tim Buckley's email: no documents regarding Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire and no known investigation

The e-mail of Tim Buckley regarding the report about the potential investigation of the house fire at Barbara O'Sullivan's house was forwarded to me today.

As I described in my previous blog here, Tim Buckley is the public official in charge of patrol in the Delaware County (NY) Sheriff's Department.

Here is his e-mail to Barbara O'Sullivan:

The e-mail looks apologetic.

And, there is no record anywhere that the matter was investigated by anyone.

At least, the victims' written statements were never taken by anyone, even though there appears to be abundance of witnesses, friends of friends, and relatives of firefighters offering opinions on the Internet as to what "really happened".

A fire like that, likely an arson by explosion with an intent to kill two people, and under circumstances some public officials may be involved in that plot to kill, MUST be investigated, and investigated thoroughly.

Just shows how safe residents of Delaware County really are - you step out of line by criticizing the government, and all hell will break lose over your head - complete with smear campaigns against you, your friends and reporters who dare to cover your stories, fabrication of criminal cases, tasering and deaths of dogs, and even burning your houses from under you.