I wrote on this blog that a judge of New York State Court of Appeals Eugene Pigott claimed at the swearing-in proceeding of the new Chief Judge Janet DiFiore on February 8, 2016 that the court gets to "pick" its cases.
I also wrote that such policy was in violation of New York State Constitution and statutes establishing "as of right" appeals to the New York State Court of Appeals.
I described 4 appeals "as of right", filed on behalf of myself or my husband, that were dismissed unlawfully by the New York State Court of Appeals as if they are discretionary between 2011 and 2016, including one by Janet DiFiore personally, after I testified before New York Senate asking to investigate and prosecute DiFiore criminally for corruption instead of elevating her to the position of New York Chief Judge.
Yet, with all of the dismissals of "as of right appeals", yesterday, Janet DiFiore suddenly saw the light and admitted an appeal "as of right" to be heard by the court, and even authored the decision of the court and reversed the decision in the court below.
In that decision, she acknowledges that the appeal was "as of right":
"Respondents — PERB (and its Chairman), GOER, and the Racing Board — appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601 (a)".
So, Janet DiFiore recognizes that appeals "as of right" to her court exist - with one small exception.
Such an appeal must be filed by those who she has connections with and for whom she is willing to risk her career to fix a court case.
The appeal "as of right" in question that DiFiore fixed for the gaming industry was filed by an administrative board connected with the gaming industry, the industry with which DiFiore, her husband and her benefactor Cuomo who recently nominated her to her position as Chief Judge - have connections.
So, hallelujah! The law works - for people with connections.
We will see how the same precedent will play out if used in favor of somebody as disfavored and hated by DiFiore as I am.
I will cover the case DiFiore fixed yesterday in more detail in the next blog.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Yet another sexual predator in a black robe - now in Arkansas was allowed to run amok because attorneys were too afraid to report his crimes
An Arkansas judge, Joseph Boeckmann, was caught having thousands of pictures of nude criminal defendants to whom the judge gave more lenient sentences, allegedly in exchange for sex.
The judge ordered defendants to do "community service" - at his home.
By first paddling their butts, having sex with them and taking nude photos of them.
Over 4,500 nude photos, to be exact.
The discipline?
Resignation.
Since the judge resigned and was not taken off the bench, most likely, he will preserve his pension.
There is an indication that the judge may be charged for involuntary sexual conduct with defendants - but not "inconvenienced in any way", even when he skipped his court date.
And, the sexual predator remains a licensed attorney with no record of public discipline.
It took not one day and, most likely, not one year to acquire over 4,500 nude pictures of defendants.
There are other people always present in the courtroom - prosecutors, defense attorneys, guards, stenographers, clerks.
They must have seen - many times - that the judge is handing written notes with his telephone number to defendants.
When a judge instructs a defendant "to strip naked and bend over, handcuffed, inside an Arkansas courtroom while he snapped photographs, up close", many people must have seen that - plus, there are security cameras in the court buildings.
Why as this judge allowed to snap not one, not two, but 4,500 nude pictures of young men and coerce them into sex in exchange for lenient sentences?
Nobody was interested to report the judge - in years?
Or, people were deadly afraid to report, for fear of losing their livelihoods?
What kind of country have we become?
Now, since attorney Otto Joseph Boeckmann is still licensed, take your child to him for his representation and protection.
Or write to local prosecutors to have him locked him up.
Whichever you deem more appropriate.
The judge ordered defendants to do "community service" - at his home.
By first paddling their butts, having sex with them and taking nude photos of them.
Over 4,500 nude photos, to be exact.
The discipline?
Resignation.
Since the judge resigned and was not taken off the bench, most likely, he will preserve his pension.
There is an indication that the judge may be charged for involuntary sexual conduct with defendants - but not "inconvenienced in any way", even when he skipped his court date.
And, the sexual predator remains a licensed attorney with no record of public discipline.
It took not one day and, most likely, not one year to acquire over 4,500 nude pictures of defendants.
There are other people always present in the courtroom - prosecutors, defense attorneys, guards, stenographers, clerks.
They must have seen - many times - that the judge is handing written notes with his telephone number to defendants.
When a judge instructs a defendant "to strip naked and bend over, handcuffed, inside an Arkansas courtroom while he snapped photographs, up close", many people must have seen that - plus, there are security cameras in the court buildings.
Why as this judge allowed to snap not one, not two, but 4,500 nude pictures of young men and coerce them into sex in exchange for lenient sentences?
Nobody was interested to report the judge - in years?
Or, people were deadly afraid to report, for fear of losing their livelihoods?
What kind of country have we become?
Now, since attorney Otto Joseph Boeckmann is still licensed, take your child to him for his representation and protection.
Or write to local prosecutors to have him locked him up.
Whichever you deem more appropriate.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Otsego County DSS has a brand spanking new policy: assignment of counsel at a pre-filing stage of a child protective proceeding without a court order. Otsego County DSS changed New York Family Court Act - without having any authority to do that, simply to dupe the parent out of her rights
Ok, here is a little bit of law about what is going on with Barbara O'Sullivan's grandchild.
All actions of Social Services in such a case are governed by Article 10 of the Family Court Act.
Family Court Act allows a temporary removal of the child on consent of parent, Section 1021.
There is no consent of Alecia Bracci for removal of her child.
Of course, when no child neglect petition is filed, a court can issue a pre-filing temporary order of removal - if there are grounds for it, Family Court Act 1022.
There are no grounds for removal of the child in this case, and it is very obvious that no judge will sign such an order, especially that all judges in the area are involved in this controversy one way or another.
An attorney can be assigned to a parent in child neglect proceedings in New York only if the child is removed upon a court order, Family Court Act 1022-A, not when social services are trying to coerce the parent to remove the child "on consent".
Otsego County DSS worker was trying to coerce Alecia Bracci to "talk" to the social worker without an attorney, Alecia insisted she will only speak with an attorney present, and that she does not have funds for an attorney.
The social worker immediately offered to Alecia to "have an attorney appointed", and to "bring paperwork" to apply for an attorney.
Yet, the DSS worker knew that before a child neglect petition is filed, an attorney cannot be assigned, unless there is a court order.
There is no court order under FCA 1022 at this time.
There is also a procedure for an "emergency removal" under Section 1024 of the Family Court Act.
The emergency removal is not warranted because (1) there is enough time to apply for a court order, which was not done by DSS of Otsego County (where the baby is now), and (2) because there are no grounds for the emergency removal.
Moreover, there is a specific provision in the Family Court Act 1024 when a hospital seizes the child on request of social services, Family Court Act 1024 (d) and (e):
==
d) Where the physician keeping a child in his custody pending action by the local department of social services or appropriate police authorities does so in his capacity as a member of the staff of a hospital or similar institution, he shall notify the person in charge of the institution, or his designated agent, who shall then become responsible for the further care of such child.
(e) Any physician keeping a child in his custody pursuant to this section shall have the right to keep such child in his custody until such time as the custody of the child has been transferred to the appropriate police authorities or the social services official of the city or county in which the physician maintains his place of business.
If the social services official receives custody of a child pursuant to the provisions of this section, he shall promptly inform the parent or other person responsible for such child's care and the family court of his action.
==
At this time, here is what we have:
1) social services did not formally "receive custody of the child" under Family Court Act 1024 (e), because they did not notify the parent of that removal;
2) there is no court order of removal under FCA 1022,
3) there is no consent for removal of the child by the parent under FCA 1021, and
There is a seizure of the child by the hospital, complete with a lock on the child's foot:
So, at this time Basset Hospital is violating Alecia Bracci's constitutional rights and is facing a major lawsuit in the future, as well as the Otsego and Delaware County Departments of Social Services and individuals who personally participated in violation of Alecia Bracci's rights.
Moreover, when the Otsego County DSS was trying to coerce the mother to "just talk" to them and were telling the mother that the hospital will not release the child unless she talks to social services, DSS knew that they had no authority to coerce the mother into any kind of talking, because such procedure is not part of the Family Court Act.
Parents of newborns in Otsego and Delaware County, especially those who sued the Counties or County officials or who have run-ins with any county officials - be aware of how the Counties can use child protective proceedings to violate your parental rights and to retaliate against you for your criticism of governmental misconduct.
All actions of Social Services in such a case are governed by Article 10 of the Family Court Act.
Family Court Act allows a temporary removal of the child on consent of parent, Section 1021.
There is no consent of Alecia Bracci for removal of her child.
Of course, when no child neglect petition is filed, a court can issue a pre-filing temporary order of removal - if there are grounds for it, Family Court Act 1022.
There are no grounds for removal of the child in this case, and it is very obvious that no judge will sign such an order, especially that all judges in the area are involved in this controversy one way or another.
An attorney can be assigned to a parent in child neglect proceedings in New York only if the child is removed upon a court order, Family Court Act 1022-A, not when social services are trying to coerce the parent to remove the child "on consent".
Otsego County DSS worker was trying to coerce Alecia Bracci to "talk" to the social worker without an attorney, Alecia insisted she will only speak with an attorney present, and that she does not have funds for an attorney.
The social worker immediately offered to Alecia to "have an attorney appointed", and to "bring paperwork" to apply for an attorney.
Yet, the DSS worker knew that before a child neglect petition is filed, an attorney cannot be assigned, unless there is a court order.
There is no court order under FCA 1022 at this time.
There is also a procedure for an "emergency removal" under Section 1024 of the Family Court Act.
The emergency removal is not warranted because (1) there is enough time to apply for a court order, which was not done by DSS of Otsego County (where the baby is now), and (2) because there are no grounds for the emergency removal.
Moreover, there is a specific provision in the Family Court Act 1024 when a hospital seizes the child on request of social services, Family Court Act 1024 (d) and (e):
==
d) Where the physician keeping a child in his custody pending action by the local department of social services or appropriate police authorities does so in his capacity as a member of the staff of a hospital or similar institution, he shall notify the person in charge of the institution, or his designated agent, who shall then become responsible for the further care of such child.
(e) Any physician keeping a child in his custody pursuant to this section shall have the right to keep such child in his custody until such time as the custody of the child has been transferred to the appropriate police authorities or the social services official of the city or county in which the physician maintains his place of business.
If the social services official receives custody of a child pursuant to the provisions of this section, he shall promptly inform the parent or other person responsible for such child's care and the family court of his action.
==
At this time, here is what we have:
1) social services did not formally "receive custody of the child" under Family Court Act 1024 (e), because they did not notify the parent of that removal;
2) there is no court order of removal under FCA 1022,
3) there is no consent for removal of the child by the parent under FCA 1021, and
There is a seizure of the child by the hospital, complete with a lock on the child's foot:
So, at this time Basset Hospital is violating Alecia Bracci's constitutional rights and is facing a major lawsuit in the future, as well as the Otsego and Delaware County Departments of Social Services and individuals who personally participated in violation of Alecia Bracci's rights.
Moreover, when the Otsego County DSS was trying to coerce the mother to "just talk" to them and were telling the mother that the hospital will not release the child unless she talks to social services, DSS knew that they had no authority to coerce the mother into any kind of talking, because such procedure is not part of the Family Court Act.
Parents of newborns in Otsego and Delaware County, especially those who sued the Counties or County officials or who have run-ins with any county officials - be aware of how the Counties can use child protective proceedings to violate your parental rights and to retaliate against you for your criticism of governmental misconduct.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Will attorney Richard Harlem be now prosecuted for a federal crime of fraud, for fraudulently adding a party to a lawsuit - like a Jersey attorney was convicted and sentenced?
In November of 2015 it came out that Richard Harlem's representations to several courts for 8.5 years that David Mokay was suing my husband in the Mokay saga were false.
As said David Mokay in a sworn affidavit.
Since David Mokay never testified in any proceedings where he was allegedly a Plaintiff, over 8.5 years, never submitted any affidavits, and since Richard Harlem fought tooth and claw to prevent David Mokay from having to answer interrogatories under oath, to prevent my husband and myself as my husband's attorney from seeing the original of the retainer agreement, and to prevent our contact with David Mokay, it is clear that David Mokay is telling the truth.
The feds just obtained a criminal conviction and sentencing for 2 years in federal prison against an attorney who falsely added 100 parties to asbestos lawsuits.
Richard Harlem falsely added "just one" party to a lawsuit - which changes only the number of criminal counts.
My question is - when will Richard Harlem be investigated, prosecuted and locked up by the feds?
Richard Harlem's father, the retired Supreme Court judge, died in 2012 and cannot protect Harlem now, and his political connections may be wary of protecting the obvious fraudster, especially in view of the looming shadow of Preet Bharara who already obtained convictions of the two heads of New York Legislative chambers, Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and is now after the New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Richard Harlem's longtime tenant New York State Senator Seward may be wary to offer help to Richard Harlem in view of what happened to Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos.
And, the recent tendency is to discipline judges for disobeying the law - not so good for sons of judges like Richard Harlem, is it?
So - my question is, when will Richard Harlem be prosecuted by the feds?
As said David Mokay in a sworn affidavit.
Since David Mokay never testified in any proceedings where he was allegedly a Plaintiff, over 8.5 years, never submitted any affidavits, and since Richard Harlem fought tooth and claw to prevent David Mokay from having to answer interrogatories under oath, to prevent my husband and myself as my husband's attorney from seeing the original of the retainer agreement, and to prevent our contact with David Mokay, it is clear that David Mokay is telling the truth.
The feds just obtained a criminal conviction and sentencing for 2 years in federal prison against an attorney who falsely added 100 parties to asbestos lawsuits.
Richard Harlem falsely added "just one" party to a lawsuit - which changes only the number of criminal counts.
My question is - when will Richard Harlem be investigated, prosecuted and locked up by the feds?
Richard Harlem's father, the retired Supreme Court judge, died in 2012 and cannot protect Harlem now, and his political connections may be wary of protecting the obvious fraudster, especially in view of the looming shadow of Preet Bharara who already obtained convictions of the two heads of New York Legislative chambers, Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and is now after the New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Richard Harlem's longtime tenant New York State Senator Seward may be wary to offer help to Richard Harlem in view of what happened to Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos.
And, the recent tendency is to discipline judges for disobeying the law - not so good for sons of judges like Richard Harlem, is it?
So - my question is, when will Richard Harlem be prosecuted by the feds?
Will attorneys Mary Gasparini, Monica Duffy and Andrew Ayers go to federal prison for falsifying court records?
I am talking about two disciplinary attorneys who handled my case in New York Appellate Division 3rd and 4th Judicial Department, and about the Assistant Solicitor General of New York State Andrew Ayers.
The trio claimed to several courts, falsely, but successfully, that I did not attend a deposition and caused a default of my two clients by not answering a default motion.
The claim brought about my suspension from the practice of law.
Available court documents submitted to the court showed that the deposition and motion in question occurred in 2008 when I was not admitted to the bar.
Therefore, not only I was not required to attend the deposition or oppose the motion AS AN ATTORNEY, on behalf of client, but I was forbidden by criminal law to do that.
Later on, attorney Mary Gasparini submitted to the court fabricated transcripts and attempted to criminally prosecute me when audio tapes of the transcribed proceedings showing that the transcripts she submitted to the court were fabricated ended up online, for the entire wide world to hear.
It has been recently reported that an attorney was sentenced to 2 years in federal prison for falsifying court records.
I am sure Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who is chasing corrupt New York "big fish", can find in his busy schedule some time to prosecute these three people.
I will file a complaint, and will follow up with it, as I will follow up with my previous complaint with Preet Bharara, about corruption of Governor Cuomo and Judge Leslie Stein.
Because in federal law, unlike in New York State law, the attorney general has an obligation to turn complaints of citizens into investigations of the grand juries and may be compelled by court to do that if he refuses.
The trio claimed to several courts, falsely, but successfully, that I did not attend a deposition and caused a default of my two clients by not answering a default motion.
The claim brought about my suspension from the practice of law.
Available court documents submitted to the court showed that the deposition and motion in question occurred in 2008 when I was not admitted to the bar.
Therefore, not only I was not required to attend the deposition or oppose the motion AS AN ATTORNEY, on behalf of client, but I was forbidden by criminal law to do that.
Later on, attorney Mary Gasparini submitted to the court fabricated transcripts and attempted to criminally prosecute me when audio tapes of the transcribed proceedings showing that the transcripts she submitted to the court were fabricated ended up online, for the entire wide world to hear.
It has been recently reported that an attorney was sentenced to 2 years in federal prison for falsifying court records.
I am sure Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who is chasing corrupt New York "big fish", can find in his busy schedule some time to prosecute these three people.
I will file a complaint, and will follow up with it, as I will follow up with my previous complaint with Preet Bharara, about corruption of Governor Cuomo and Judge Leslie Stein.
Because in federal law, unlike in New York State law, the attorney general has an obligation to turn complaints of citizens into investigations of the grand juries and may be compelled by court to do that if he refuses.
Alabama follows Wyoming - and a new trend in judicial discipline is born, taking state judges off the bench, from low to high rank, for not following precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court
In an interesting move, Alabama suspended its Chief Judge Roy Moore for defying the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding constitutionality of the gay marriage.
In that move, Alabama is following the example of the State of Wyoming where the judicial disciplinary board took off the bench Magistrate Judge Ruth Neely for doing the same as Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore did - defying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding constitutionality of gay marriage.
With the only exception that in Wyoming a low-ranking judge was taken off the bench, while in Alabama they dared to suspend and start removal proceedings against the Chief State judge - for defying a U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Meanwhile, I have a long list of judges in New York state and federal court defying a long list of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, as I am sure, is happening in other states.
Those precedents they defy are not about gay marriage.
They are about retaliation for contents of protected speech, right to work and due process.
Since the tendency started, I suggest constitutional referendums in New York and other states replacing lawyer- and judge-controlled disciplinary boards for judicial discipline by citizen panels composed of citizens without any professional, social or familial ties to the legal profession or the judiciary.
Such panels can, for free, without any budgets, start reviewing non-compliance of the state judiciaries, with mandatory precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court on important civil rights issues.
I am sure people will be enthusiastic about the topic and no additional infusions from the budget will be needed for such an endeavor.
Which state will be the first?
I will surely ask the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct to revise some of their decisions not to discipline certain judges, in view of the encouraging examples of judicial disciplinary boards in Wyoming and Alabama.
Way to go!
In that move, Alabama is following the example of the State of Wyoming where the judicial disciplinary board took off the bench Magistrate Judge Ruth Neely for doing the same as Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore did - defying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding constitutionality of gay marriage.
With the only exception that in Wyoming a low-ranking judge was taken off the bench, while in Alabama they dared to suspend and start removal proceedings against the Chief State judge - for defying a U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Meanwhile, I have a long list of judges in New York state and federal court defying a long list of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, as I am sure, is happening in other states.
Those precedents they defy are not about gay marriage.
They are about retaliation for contents of protected speech, right to work and due process.
Since the tendency started, I suggest constitutional referendums in New York and other states replacing lawyer- and judge-controlled disciplinary boards for judicial discipline by citizen panels composed of citizens without any professional, social or familial ties to the legal profession or the judiciary.
Such panels can, for free, without any budgets, start reviewing non-compliance of the state judiciaries, with mandatory precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court on important civil rights issues.
I am sure people will be enthusiastic about the topic and no additional infusions from the budget will be needed for such an endeavor.
Which state will be the first?
I will surely ask the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct to revise some of their decisions not to discipline certain judges, in view of the encouraging examples of judicial disciplinary boards in Wyoming and Alabama.
Way to go!
Friday, May 6, 2016
Wyoming is not Kentucky - not at all
In Kentucky, they praise and support a clerk refusing to issue state licenses to gay couples, in defiance of court orders. And even some presidential candidates got a couple of seconds in the spotlight by holding hands with the (in)famous Kim Davis.
And, Kentucky even changes rules removing clerk's names from marriage licenses to accommodate Kim Davis' requests to honor the clerks' religious beliefs in doing their service to their constituents, both religious and not.
In Wyoming, on the other hand, they removed a judge from the bench who refused to marry gay couples because of her religious beliefs.
Wyoming is surely not Kentucky.
And, the territories allowing bigotry of public officials, at least in some areas, is rapidly shrinking.
I wonder when punishing people for free speech by public officials will be deemed bigotry as atrocious as denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
I hope it will happen on my lifetime.
One can always hope.
And, Kentucky even changes rules removing clerk's names from marriage licenses to accommodate Kim Davis' requests to honor the clerks' religious beliefs in doing their service to their constituents, both religious and not.
In Wyoming, on the other hand, they removed a judge from the bench who refused to marry gay couples because of her religious beliefs.
Wyoming is surely not Kentucky.
And, the territories allowing bigotry of public officials, at least in some areas, is rapidly shrinking.
I wonder when punishing people for free speech by public officials will be deemed bigotry as atrocious as denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
I hope it will happen on my lifetime.
One can always hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)