Some judges just love Drug Courts. For a reason.

In Tennessee, a male judge reportedly presided over Drug Court.

And befriended a female probationer.

And had sexual relations with her.

And had her introduce the judge to her own drug supplier, after which the judge started to use the probationer's drug supplier to supply the judge himself with drugs, to feed his addiction.

And the judge tried to fix cases for the probationer/girlfriend, without disclosure of the sexual relations with the probationer to any parties involved.

And the judge lied to other judges misrepresenting to them that the probationer/supplier of drugs is a good moral person.

And did not disclose that the probationer in question ran a drug ring of suppliers.

The name of the judge was Richard Baumgartner.

And he was charged and convicted by the feds for the crime of "misprision of felony" - non-reporting of commission of drug felonies, where a big part in the conviction was that the judge concealed and misrepresented to other judges the probationer's role in a drug ring.

This is former judge Baumgartner's story, told in the prosecutor's petition in opposition to Baumgartner's petition for a writ of certiorari - which was denied:

So, whenever any judge expresses a particular interest, love and promotion of Drug Court, beware.

The judge's love of that particular court may have more than public interest in mind.

The lofty causes and dirty hands of child protective services

I've just put in another blog post in my "Protect from CPS" blog, more on federal financial incentives for CPS to sell children to their friends out of foster care, for federal money.

It is available here.

The stubborn D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals added to the death toll of occupational - and attorney - regulation in the United States

In July of 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated as unconstitutional the setup where Amtrak, a for-profit corporation was given by Congress in 2008 a joint authority with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to issue “metrics
and standards” addressing the performance and scheduling of passenger railroad services.

The D.C. declared unconstitutional Amtrak's regulation of the railroad industry, on the basis that the U.S. Congress may not delegate a governmental function to a for-profit corporation.  

"Because Amtrak must "be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation," 49 U.S.C. § 24301(a)(2), the fact that the President has appointed the bulk of its Board does nothing to exonerate its management from its fiduciary duty to maximize company profits."

And that purpose to maximize profits may run afoul of the governmental interest to promote the best interests of the public in such regulation.

On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, saying that the status of Amtrak as a for-profit corporation, does not preclude it from being ALSO appointed as a regulator of an industry.

On remand, the stubborn D.C. appellate court struck at Amtrak for the second time.

On April 29, 2016, the D.C. court invalidated the arrangement as unconstitutional once again, now on due process grounds.

The question that the D.C. court resolved was now, after the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal on governmental status grounds, this:

"Conceding Amtrak’s governmental status, the operators—
represented by the Association of American Railroads—ask:
Does it violate due process for an entity to make law when,

economically speaking, it has skin in the game?" 

The freight railroads, competitors of Amtrak, argued that the statute in question 

"is unconstitutional because it (1) vests rulemaking
authority in the hands of interested private parties, and (2)
empowers Amtrak with power to enhance its commercial
position relative to other market participants".

Ok, so the argument was that "the PRIIA “violates the due process rights of regulated third parties” by “[v]esting the coercive power of the government in interested private parties.”

The D.C. Court provided a great fairness analysis of the issue:

And even greater is the conclusion:  

giving a self-interested entity regulatory authority over its competitors violates due process.

The D.C. Court cited to the a U.S. Supreme Court case, Carter v Carter Coal Co., which "invalidated a delegation that empowered one set of competitors to regulate a rival set".

This is yet another illustration that the U.S. Supreme Court does not adhere to its own precedents and creates a patchwork of precedents that contradict one another, hurting rather than helping litigants and undermining the whole concept of predictability of application of the law, which is the main principle of the rule of law.

In analyzing the Carter case, the D.C. court found:

The court then referenced a law review article on self-interest in private-pubic partnerships, 

That law review article itself cited as one of the cases the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners controversy (the law review was written in 2004) 

The controversy in the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners culminated, 11 years after the law review was written, in February of 2015, in a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking immunity of self-interested market players in occupational regulation as to antitrust liability.

Here is the conclusion of the D.C. Court based on Carter v Carter Coal (a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have forgotten):

I wholeheartedly agree.

Due process is violated when a self-interested entity is entrusted with the power to regulate the business of a competitor.

So, what now about the disciplinary boards of professionals regulating their own competitors?

Dentists regulating dentists?

Doctors regulating doctors?

Plumbers regulating plumbers?

Lawyers regulating lawyers?

It appears that there is a strong case in support of a notion that such regulation and discipline imposed as a result of such regulation, discipline affecting people's right to earn a living, is:

• a violation of due process;
• an "intolerable interference with personal liberty and private property", and
• "transgresses the very nature of governmental function".

Thank you, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, for putting yet another nail into the closing coffin of competitor-run regulation of professions in the United States.

Delaware County's use of force and non-compliance with that use of force by Derek Bowie and Delaware County Sheriff's Department in Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's cases - Part II

Here is the use of force policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (State of New York).

The policy was submitted to the federal court in Kylie Smith's federal lawsuit against Derek Bowie, but Delaware County claimed in responses to my multiple FOIL requests that it has no written policies.

Well, that was a lie, and I wonder how many more lies as to some "secret policies" I, and other FOIL inquirers, were offered by Delaware County in responses to our FOIL requests.

Here are the obligations of Derek Bowie and his supervisors, those obligations had to be followed in Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's case - and never were.

 So.

Derek Bowie and Delaware County Sheriff's Department had to do the following after he used force on: 

1. Kylie Smith on January 16, 2013, 
2. on Alecia Bracci on September 5, 2014, 
3. on Barbara O'Sullivan on September 5, 2014, and then again 
4. on Barbara O'Sullivan on September 18, 2014.

 First, Derek Bowie had to undergo "yearly training" as to the use of force - which is FOILable, but was not disclosed by Delaware County in response to my FOIL requests.

Then, the use of force shall be "consistent with the training" - and, therefore, policies regarding training must be made known to the public, which Delaware County Sheriff's Department did not do either.

Specific cases and statutes must be complied with when using force - Article 35 of the Penal Law, "Graham v Connor".

The officer's actions, under Graham v Connor must be objectively reasonable to satisfy the 4th Amendment test.

Running a police vehicle into a witness of police misconduct to smash a tablet with which she was videotaping police misconduct, is not a "reasonable use of force" (Barbara O'Sullivan's case).

Nor is it a reasonable behavior when a police officer's is beating up, fracturing ribs, sitting on fractured ribs and is trying to kill the officer's former girlfriend with the help of his present girlfriend (Kylie Smith's case).

So, Graham v Connor is already out the door.

Also, according to the policy, 



Derek Bowie did not do that in either Barbara O'Sullivan or Kylie Smith's case.

He did not "evaluate the need for medical attention or treatment" for either of these women.

And, even though it was responsibility of Derek Bowie to "arrange for medical treatment", Derek Bowie made no effort to do so.

In Kylie Smith's case, Kylie Smith had to go to the hospital herself, and to have her injuries documented without Derek Bowie "arranging" for it.

Derek Bowie was also required to, by policy, to make pictures of his victims' injuries.

He did not do that either.

Derek Bowie was supposed to report immediately to his supervisors about the use of force, and to submit reports to his supervisors in accordance with the required content.

As far as I know, none of that was done, and I will follow up with another FOIL request, as to both cases.

And, as to the supervisors, they had to (1) go to the site of each use of force - which was not done.

They had to either dispatch the investigator to investigate the case "on site", or to video record that with the "dashcam camera" - which was not done either.

NONE of the procedures prescribed by the "use of force" policy were followed in BOTH of Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a pattern.

Of cover up.

Delaware County Undersheriff Craig Dumond lies under oath in Derek Bowie's case

Here is the affidavit of Craig Dumond submitted in Kylie Smith's federal civil rights case.

It is sworn August 12, 2015.

Here is what it says, on page 2:

There are no "pattern of complaints" suggesting that the training of police officers as to the use of force is inadequate?

Two lawsuits against the same officer, by look-alike women both assaulted by that officer, and filed one after the other in the same year, are not a pattern of complaints?

But see specifically the last paragraph of the affidavit.

Here, under oath, Undersheriff Craig Dumond states that "other than the present litigation", Undersheriff Dumond is "not aware of any other time Defendant Bowie has been accused of using excessive force during an arrest".

Oh, no?

He wasn't accused by Barbara O'Sullivan in the lawsuit filed in October of 2014?

That same lawsuit where every pleading is copied to Undersheriff Dumond?

I think, as an Undersheriff, Craig Dumond, even with the 2nd Circuit's permission to specifically hire dumb police candidates, cannot hide behind his government-permitted low IQ - because his perjury is very obvious.

And very obviously not prosecuted by the Delaware County Acting District Attorney John Hubbard who needs support of local police officers as voters in his upcoming election.

Personal interest comes first.

Right, Mr. Hubbard?

Use of force policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, Part I - apparently, it exists

Each time I would ask the Delaware County (NY), through FOIL requests, for their written policies, they would deny me the request claiming that there are "no records answering my request", or, in other words, there are no such written policies.

The reason for denial was because "policies" can be used against the County in civil rights litigation.

Well, Delaware County IS embroiled now in civil rights litigation because of its alleged "Deputy Sheriff" Derek Bowie whose only credential for employment in Delaware County Sheriff's Department were:

1. not his graduation from a police academy;
2. not passing the civil service test;
3. not being in the civil service registry; 
4. not having a deputy sheriff's certification from the Criminal Justice Division, and certainly
5. not being a resident of Delaware County (Derek Bowie was a resident of Broome County at the time of his employment as a Deputy Sheriff in Delaware County).

All FIVE requirements were foregone when Derek Bowie was hired, he did not even have to file an application for admission listing his credentials - he was simply INVITED to be employed as a Deputy Sheriff's in Delaware County, no credentials needed.

Derek Bowie's only "credential" that got him hired - illegally - as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff - was that Derek Bowie had blood ties to people who already work in Delaware County local government, such as Jeff Bowie, investigator for the Delaware County District Attorney, who similarly had no credentials and was hired outside of civil service registry, without passing a civil service test and continued to be employed with an expired deputy sheriff certification.

Well, the Delaware County can always claim, of course, that it had a right to hire dumb brutes as their Deputy Sheriff to prevent "turnover" - the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at least upheld the government's power to hire, specifically, dumb police officers and reject those who have IQ higher than the necessary low level to prevent that "turnover".

See that decision here.

The 2nd Circuit did not go as far as claiming that the government has a right to hire people who are not only dumb, but with a tendency to violence against women and animals.

Which Derek Bowie appears to be - based on this.

Here is the affidavit of one of Derek Bowie's alleged victims, his former girlfriend Kylie Smith who is suing him and Delaware County for hiring him and failure to supervise him despite his violent tendencies.

And here are portions from the affidavit:

Derek Bowie has a purple belt in karate - he testified about that at his deposition in this civil rights case.

He was much taller and heavier than Kylie Smith, also according to his own deposition.

According to Kylie Smith, Derek Bowie

(1) told her to leave - she started to, then
(2) asked her to stay and answer a question - she answered, then started to leave again,
(3) then stopped her from leaving,
(4) kneed her in the stomach - causing bruising,
(5) then grabbed her arms - causing bruising;
(6) slammed her body onto the hallway floor, causing her head to hit the stairs, causing bruising AND BONE FRACTURES confirmed by x-rays; then while Derek Bowie ALREADY BROKE Kylie Smith's ribs, he continued to SIT on those broken ribs - which could cause Kylie Smith's immediate DEATH if those ribs would pierce her lungs or her heart, not that Derek Bowie cared.  All he cared for is to sit on Kylie Smith, his former girlfriend, and to handcuff her with the help of his current girlfriend Jessica Valentino.

Delaware County submitted to the court a policy regarding use of force.

The policy was not followed - in either Kylie Smith case or Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

I will follow the policy step by step, what it required, and how it was not complied with, in further blogs.

In this blog I wanted to emphasize just what a dangerous game Delaware County is playing with YOUR money, dear taxpayers of Delaware County, by allowing non-credentialed dumb brutes like Derek Bowie to be on the loose.

Derek Bowie is gone from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, but those who condoned and covered up his behavior are still there, as well as in the Delaware County DA's office.

They need to be ousted.

My next blog will be about confirmed perjury of Undersheriff Craig Dumond in Derek Bowie's case and why Craig Dumond is not prosecuted for perjury.

Did Derek Bowie deliberately try to kill Kylie Smith?

I've read the affidavit of Kylie Smith submitted to the court where she says that she had confirmed rib fractures from when Derek Bowie slammed her on the floor, and that Derek Bowie THEN sat on her.

Derek Bowie, at his deposition, admitted under oath not only to sitting on Kylie Smith, after he brought her down (and broke her ribs, according to her affidavit), but also to shifting his weight upon her in order to overpower her better - broken ribs and all. 

When Derek Bowie sat on Kylie Smith, he must have both heard - by cries of pain - and felt (by sitting on fractured bones) that Kylie Smith's ribs were fractured.

Continuing to sit on Kylie Smith and shifting his position could very well cause Kylie Smith's death, if a sharp fractured piece of her rib would penetrate her heart or lungs.


Not to mention that such behavior is sadistic - and confirms that Derek Bowie should not be allowed to be anywhere near the police force, while he was quietly shifted from one police department to another and is now toiling, according to my information, in the police department of the Village of Deposit.

Here is the list of complications that can result from a rib fracture:

Yet, there is no indication, despite the requirements of Delaware County Sheriff's policy on use of force by its police officers, not revealed through responses to my many FOIL requests on the subject over many years, but submitted to the court, that Derek Bowie inquired about Kylie Smith's injuries or attempted to arrange for provision of medical help to Kylie Smith. 

Instead of organizing for medical help for Kylie Smith, Derek Bowie only attempted to aggravate Kylie Smith's injury, from what I see in the court documents so far submitted, and very likely tried to cause her death by shifting his weight upon her when her ribs were broken when he sank his karate-trained knees into the woman's spine.

She is "lucky" he only broke her ribs, not the spinal column.

Did Derek Bowie deliberately and intentionally mean to kill Kylie Smith by first fracturing her ribs and then sitting and shifting his weight on them?

Why nobody is investigating that incident as an attempted murder?

I will analyze the policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department on the use of force - and blatant disregard of that policy by the Sheriff's Department, Derek Bowie and his supervisors in both cases, of Kylie Smith and of Barbara O'Sullivan, in a separate blog.

Stay tuned.

And, people living or passing through Deposit area - be very afraid if this man approaches you, in or out of police uniform.

The picture below was voluntarily put on Facebook in public access by Derek Bowie and/or his mother.  Note that Derek Bowie also has a German shepherd which can be as dangerous as its master, or more.

He is a dangerous and violent sadist, and the local government "has his back 100%".