The story of forced retirement of Madison County Judge Biaggio DiStefano because he disobeyed a direct order of Judge Robert C Mulvey to violate the law and decide criminal cases the way Mulvey wanted him to

Judicial independence is valued in this country to the point that judges gave themselves a self-gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt act in order (allegedly) to protect that judicial independence.

Yet, a judge, a Madison County (NY) judge Biaggio DiStefano was taken off criminal cases in 2013 and then forced into early retirement in 2015 because he disobeyed unlawful directives of the then-administrative judge Robert C. Mulvey from 2012 as to how to decide criminal cases.

Judge Mulvey actually has a history of protecting certain judges - but, obviously, not others.

While Judge Mulvey, as I will describe below, was very quick to boot Judge DiStefano off all criminal cases for disobeying Mulvey's unlawful whims, certain judges he kept on cases despite obvious misconduct.

This is a letter of May 3, 2011 sent to me by Judge Robert C. Mulvey, then-Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District:

By that time, Mulvey was aware of Becker's shenannigans which I described in multiple complaints to Mulvey - and Mulvey turned a deaf ear to those complaints.

Judge Mulvey did not consider that a threat of a lawsuit against a judge, as well as the actual lawsuit against a judge is a basis of disqualification of that same judge.

In North Carolina, as I wrote earlier on this blog, FAILURE to disqualify himself under such circumstances resulted in discipline against the judge, 7 years before Judge Mulvey expressed this opinion.

But, New York is not North Carolina, and Mulvey, by that time, refused for over 2 years to protect me from harassment by Judge Carl F. Becker - to whom he has sent a copy of the letter, thus announcing to him his policy and practically sanctioning further abuse.

So, I sued - Carl Becker sanctioned me immediately after the lawsuit - and my law license was suspended for making motions to recuse Becker, while Mulvey denied me protection.

And, Mulvey, a subordinate to Chief Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, who recused from my husband's case back in 2007, failed to recuse himself when I and my husband sued him, too - for his own unconstitutional policies and misconduct, and for failure to protect me, my clients and family members from retaliation and for condoning and practically encouraging misconduct of Carl Becker.

Mulvey and Becker escaped the lawsuits by claims of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, so issues against Becker and against Mulvey were never reviewed on the merits.

Even though my federal lawsuit against Mulvey and Becker was dismissed by judge Mae D'Agostino on January 9, 2013, only more than 3 years after that date, in 2016, did I learn, through a Freedom of Information Request, quite accidentally, that Mae D'Agostino is the "Chairperson" of a shadowy organization "New York State-Federal Judicial Council" where Mae D'Agostino teamed up behind closed doors with New York State judges, possibly, with the very same judges who appeared in that court as defendants.

At this time, Mae D'Agostino is stalling my Freedom of Information Act request for lists of members of the organization she chairs.

The stalling clearly suggests that there are things to hide, and it is very likely that Mulvey participated,  through this shadowy organization, in fixing his own federal lawsuit, too.

But - if an administrative judge in New York, like Mulvey, "simply" assigns a judge to a case, does the administrative judge control actions of the assigned judge, or expects a certain outcome from that judge?

The law says "no" - theoretically.

And, the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, answering that question on January 29, 2015 in "Kilmer v Moseman", also told me "no":

The Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, judges Garry, Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, did not consider as a disqualifying factor where a husband assigns a judge to the case where his wife acts as a private attorney for a party - and where sanctions are requested against that wife for frivolous and fraudulent conduct.

And, under the circumstances where the actual judge assigned is close to retirement, and where the husband in question controls lucrative post-retirement assignments - or lack thereof - to retired judges.

The court found no appearance of impropriety in such an arrangement, 

• skipping completely the central husband-and-wife issue, 
• skipping completely the central issue of whether an administrative assigning judge can control the case and behavior of the presiding judge, 

and concentrating instead only on the fact that: 

• "remote";
• "speculative";
• "possible or contingent" financial interests cannot be a basis of disqualification of the judge.

The judge in question, Judge Kevin Dowd, the judge with mental problems who raves about building urinals at law schools in his honor at child custody proceedings - I wrote a lot about Judge Dowd on this blog, just put keywords "Kevin Dowd" in the search window on the right if you want to see and read all blogs about this anti-semitic, anti-women and pro-status judge's shenannigans - that judge actually claimed when I first raised the issue of his disqualification that he is independent from the power of the administrative judge who assigned him - that was judge Robert Mulvey, subordinate of Judge Michael Coccoma, husband of an attorney representing a party in that case.

Dowd entered a decision refusing to disqualify himself on June 17, 2013.

Saying that he is independent from influence and control of the assigning judge Robert C. Mulvey, subordinate of Judge Michael V. Coccoma.

Yet, in April of 2013, two months before Judge Dowd's decision, a County judge from Madison County, New York, Judge Biaggio DiStefano, now forced into retirement by the situation I am going to describe here, went public about Judge Mulvey's efforts to do exactly what the 3rd Department said in Kilmer v Moseman is not happening, influence of administrative assigning judges over presiding judges as to how the case will be decided by the presiding judge.

Judge DiStefano went public as to Mulvey's efforts to:

1) fix court cases the way he wants them;

2) directives to presiding judges to rule the way Mulvey wants them to rule in a particular CLASS of cases, based on "in chambers" directive by Mulvey regarding all cases in a certain class - in violation of the law, without presence of the parties and without regard to facts and circumstances of such cases, and

3) retaliation against judges who insisted on their independence in how they rule in particular cases, and who insisted to their adherence to statutory law, by taking them off the class of cases where they showed that independence and restricting their activities to Family Court only, in violation of the will of voters that elected such judges.

Here is what happened, as reported in the press.

Judge Biaggio DiStefano was at the time of dispute with Mulvey an elected Madison County Judge.

A County Judge in New York is elected for 10 years to preside primarily over the criminal felony court.

The controversy with Mulvey was about the so-called "judicial diversion" program - the famous "drug court" which was the baby of Carl Becker (that's why Mulvey supported him so much and denied me protection, as well as for other reasons I will describe in a separate blog).

Judicial diversion program in New York is governed by statute, Penal Law 216.05.

I will go through the relevant portions of the text of the statute with comments.  

S 216.05 Judicial diversion program; court procedures.
    1.  At  any  time  after the arraignment of an eligible defendant, but
  prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or the commencement of trial, the
  court at the request of the eligible defendant, may order an alcohol and
  substance  abuse  evaluation.  

Procedurally, the above paragraph means the following:

1) the statute fixes the time when an "eligible" criminal defendant  (eligibility is defined by Penal Law 216.00, has multiple exceptions and thus requires the review and determination of eligibility by the presiding judge in criminal court in each particular case) may make a request for the court to CONSIDER that defendant for judicial diversion program;

So, such a request cannot be made, for example, once the trial began.

And, the statute indicates, by the words "may order" that the court does not have to consider the defendant's request, it is within the court's discretion to do so.

In other words, the court can deny the criminal defendant's request to consider him for judicial diversion program, and the court's decision can only be appealed after conviction of the defendant (if the defendant did not waive his right to appeal, let's say, in a plea), and the standard of review on appeal will be then "abuse of discretion" - an extremely deferential standard, abuse of discretion by trial court is usually never found by the appellate court.

So, once again, the procedure is like this:

1) after being charged with "qualifying" felonies through an indictment or Superior Court information (a written waiver of the indictment by the defendant);

2) the defendant is brought (is arraigned) before the criminal court, the County Court;

3) within the statutory restricted period of time, it is then the defendant's choice to ask - or not to ask - the criminal court to consider the defendant for judicial diversion program;

4) after such a request is made, and if the request is timely under the statute, it is then the criminal court choice whether to even consider the defendant's request;

5) if the criminal court decides to consider the defendant's request, he signs the necessary waivers of privacy and is referred to a drug and alcohol evaluation to evaluate the defendant's eligibility for judicial diversion program.

Then, as the statute goes, the defendant can change his or her mind at any time and withdraw from the evaluation:

"An  eligible  defendant  may  decline  to participate  in  such  an  evaluation  at  any time."

Yet, if the defendant signs all necessary papers and goes through the evaluation, the following will happen:

"    2.   Upon  receipt  of  the  completed  alcohol  and  substance  abuse evaluation report, the court shall provide a copy of the report to the eligible defendant and the prosecutor."

So, in continuation of listing of procedural steps towards judicial diversion program:

6) the drug and alcohol evaluation is conducted;

7) the report from the evaluation is provided to the court;

8) the court provides the report to the defendant and to the prosecutor.

After the report is received, the statute provides,

"   3.  (a) Upon receipt of the evaluation report either party may request  a hearing on the issue of whether the eligible defendant  should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment pursuant to this article."

So, 

9) either the defendant or the prosecutor may (that's a choice, not an obligation) make a motion for a hearing;

10) as with any motion, the motion is brought before the court, for the court's consideration, and may be granted or denied;

11)  if the court grants the motion, then the court will hold an evidentiary hearing: 

  "At such a proceeding, which shall be held as soon as practicable so as to facilitate early intervention in the event that the defendant is found to need alcohol or substance abuse treatment,  the court may consider oral and written arguments, may take testimony from witnesses offered by either party, and may consider any relevant evidence ...";

12) after the hearing or without the hearing, treatment, as a sentence, alternative to incarceration, may be offered to the defendant, either by court order or agreement between the parties:

    "4. When an authorized court determines, pursuant to paragraph  (b)  of subdivision three of this section, that an eligible defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment, or when the parties and the court agree to an eligible defendant's participation in alcohol or substance abuse treatment, an eligible defendant may be allowed to participate in the judicial diversion program offered by this article."

13) the defendant must then enter a guilty plea, or the court must determine, based on certain factors, or by agreement between the parties, that the defendant may enter judicial diversion program without a plea of guilty;

14) then, the court must issue a securing order (bail) for the pendency of the treatment/ judicial diversion program.

14 steps.

The criminal court (County Court) must go through 14 procedural steps before the defendant is actually placed into the judicial diversion program, the so-called "drug court".

These 14 steps are very case-specific, require a request and a consent to such a participation by the defendant, an evaluation and a review of many issues by the criminal court, and many of such issues are discretionary for the criminal court to review and decide - and the criminal court's determinations not to put a certain defendant into the judicial diversion program is subject only to the appellate review, review by the appellate court - IF the defendant makes a choice to appeal after the end of the criminal proceedings before the criminal court.

In 2013, Robert C. Mulvey was not an appellate judge over Madison County Judge Biaggio DiStefano.

Robert C. Mulvey was the assigning judge for Judge DiStefano, who, as the 3rd Department claimed, has no control over the presiding judge.

Apparently, Robert C. Mulvey did not think so.

Because, the then-Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District of the State of New York, Robert C. Mulvey, held a meeting between:

1. Himself, Judge Robert C. Mulvey;
2. Madison County Judge Biaggio DiStefano, 
3. Madison County and Family Judge Dennis K. McDermott, elected at that point for the period of 2012-2021, and 
4. Madison County Acting Supreme Court Justice in charge of the County Drug Court, judge Donald Cerio, who is actually a New York Court of Claims judge appointed by the New York State Governor to serve from 2008 to 2017

So, Judge Donald Cerio is an UNELECTED judge, appointed by the Governor to the NYS Court of Claims (where lawsuits against the State of New York are brought), and who is also assigned by an administrative order of the New York State Court Administration to be an "Acting Supreme Court Justice".

On the other hand, Judge Biaggio DiStefano was the judge who was ELECTED by the voters of Madison County to preside over criminal felony cases.

The very cases where it was the direct job of Judge Biaggio DiStefano to consider - in his discretion, and on a timely request from eligible criminal defendants, and after the 14 above procedural steps - whether to put criminal defendants into drug court or not.

It was Judge DiStefano's choice, on a case-by-case basis, based on the record of specific cases, on requests from specific defendants.

Judge Mulvey and Cerio disagreed with judge DiStefano's statutory authority to make discretionary decisions about judicial diversion on a case by case basis and following the procedure required by statute.

Reportedly,  "[t]he story starts last May [that is, May of 2012 - T.N.] during a meeting among DiStefano, McDermott, Mulvey and acting Supreme Court Judge Donald Cerio, in which they were discussing the judicial diversion court.  DiStefano remembers Cerio noting that perhaps county court judges were forwarding too few cases to the diversion program, which Cerio heads up."

So, there was a meeting among 4 judges:

1) administrative/assigning judge;

2) appointed judge who handled drug court; and

3) two elected judges of criminal courts who are authorized by statute to make judicial diversion decisions.

The ONLY reason for such a meeting is to INFLUENCE the two criminal court judges in how they should decide criminal cases in the future.

That was NONE of Judge Mulvey's business and NONE of Judge Cerio's business.

Statistics of how many cases are referred to drug court and policy considerations may not play any part where:

1) it is the defendant's choice to even ask for drug court instead of fighting for his fundamental constitutional rights at trial;

2) it is for the criminal court judge to decide whether to refer such a defendant, if s/he asks, to such a court - and the judge's INDEPENDENT decision must be reviewable not by the judge of the drug court and not by the assigning administrative judge - but only by the appellate court, on appeal, after the criminal case ENDS, not before it begins, and only if the criminal defendant actually appeals the case and did not waive the right to appeal through a plea bargain.

But, the law was obviously not an obstacle for Judge Mulvey or Judge Cerio.

So, Judge Cerio expressed an opinion that the two criminal court judges, in the exercise of their independent opinion and discretion, refer "too few" cases for Judge Cerio to play with.

Why Judge Cerio was asking for more work, and why Judge Mulvey was so bent on helping the unlawful efforts of Judge Cerio is the point to be investigated for appropriate authorities, but it is clear that Judge Cerio's and Judge Mulvey's pressure upon Judge McDermott and Judge DiStefano was unlawful.

And Judge DiStefano said so, while Judge McDermott, the former member of Attorney's "Committee for Professional Standards", didn't object to such an unlawful scheme and pressure upon himself seeking a secret agreement from him as to how he will decide future criminal cases.  

Here is what was the point of objections of Judge DiStefano, according to his interview to the press:

"DiStefano said that at the time, he was interpreting the law as he understood it and it is his legal opinion that some cases are not appropriate for the program. An example he cited was someone charged with manufacturing methamphetamine, who did not have a drug problem, would get judicial diversion.

DiStefano said, at the time, he disagreed with how some cases were being handled."

It is amazing that Judge DiStefano, obviously out of "deference" to his administrative boss, Judge Mulvey, even considered it necessary to express his legal opinion to substantiate his future discretionary decisions to the administrative judge who, by law, is not allowed any control over such decisions.

And - remember? - Mulvey has a very strong policy to keep judges assigned even when they are sued, see letter above.

That is - as I understand now - if they are loyal to Mulvey's directives during secret meetings as to how cases are to be decided.

Reportedly, at that seminal meeting in May of 2012, and over Judge DiStefano's objection to illegality of such a decision, "it was decided by Mulvey that Cerio would determine which cases would qualify for judicial diversion".

So, there will be no rotation of judges, no assignment to criminal cases of judges who were elected by Madison County voters to preside over criminal felony cases in that County, to whom the voters entrusted decision of such cases.

Administrative Judge Mulvey, instead: 

• disenfranchised Madison County voters, 
• cancelled the applicable statute enacted by the State Legislature (after working for several years as a "Legislative Counsel" for New York Senator James Seward), so Judge Mulvey knows more than anybody else about separation of powers;
•  and ruled, without any authority for such a ruling, that from then on the unelected judge Donald Cerio who was interested in increasing statistics in his drug court, (possibly in preparation for a plea to either reappoint him, promote him to a higher court or elect him to an elected judicial position his term is ending in 2017), to handle all determinations of eligibility to drug diversion.

After Judge DiStefano's objections and Judge Mulvey's directive to give to unelected Judge Cerio who handled drug court and wanted more people to come to drug court, authority to decide eligibility for that drug court, the following events happened.

Judge DiStefano, loyal to his judicial oath of office to uphold the law and not the whims of administrative judges, reportedly

1. directed the clerk of the court to transfer cases unlawfully grabbed by Judge Cerio into drug court while skipping the 14 required procedural steps described above, back into his criminal court where such cases belonged;
2. told some defense attorneys that cases of their clients are not eligible for diversion - which was subject only and exclusively to appellate review of Judge DiStefano's discretionary decision, and not to intervention by an administrative judge;
3. wrote to a defense attorney explaining that Judge Cerio's acceptance of a case to the drug court would be a violation of the law - since Judge Cerio was not a criminal court judge, and such cases were placed in drug court skipping the 14 steps required by statute, and approval of the criminal court, Judge DiStefano was exactly right on that.

But, one thing is to be right on the law, and another is when your boss, a Chief Administrative Judge of the large judicial district and a buddy of a New York State Senator does not give a rat's ass about the law, but wants his whim to be satisfied instead.

What Judge DiStefano did was the cardinal sin in New York judicial system - he put the law above the desires of his "betters", his superiors.

Retaliation from Mulvey followed immediately, Mulvey wrote a secret letter to Judge DiStefano (I will try to get a copy through a FOIL request, but I cannot guarantee I will get it), here is what were, reportedly, some of the contents of that letter:

And, Mulvey removed Judge DiStefano from presiding over criminal cases.

I understand that that humiliating restriction was not lifted, and in 2015 Judge DiStefano was forced into an early retirement - for being loyal to his oath of office, upholding the law and resisting unlawful usurpation of his authority and influence of court administration upon his independence as a judge.

In 2013, when Judge DiStefano was removed from the case, he stated to the press:

"When I was elected, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the State of New York. I did not take an oath to uphold the wishes of the office of court administration."

At the time of his decision to retire, Judge DiStefano reportedly told the press:

So - the honest judge is was ousted, and Judge Dennis McDermott, the judge who was a part of the disciplinary committee on "professional standards", but who sold his oath of office in order to keep afloat and not to damage his own reputation by contradicting his administrative boss, Judge Mulvey - remains on the bench.

By the way, Judge Mulvey is regularly sued in federal court.

And, each time he is sued, he gets a dismissal based on absolute judicial immunity.

And the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is declare to have been introduced - even though it is glaringly unconstitutional, allowing judge to break their constitutional oath of office the moment they take it - to allegedly protect judicial independence.

Judge Mulvey.

Granted absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts time after time by federal courts to protect judicial independence.

Judge Mulvey, who took an elected criminal court judge off criminal cases because that criminal court judge opposed Judge Mulvey's unlawful interference into Judge DiStefano's judicial independence.

So, we know that Judge DiStefano was forced into an early retirement in 2015.

And, we know that the judge who bowed low to Judge Mulvey and agreed to condone violation of the law, remained on the bench.

You know what happened to Mulvey, possibly in reward for his case-fixing, and very likely not only in this particular situation?

Mulvey was promoted.

In February of 2016 Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed Mulvey to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.

And, in his new position, Mulvey, following his own tradition, already participated in fixing yet another case, a case where he participated in the court below (a direct disqualification) as an assigning judge - and where he had social and political connections with the attorney in whose favor he ruled, in complete disregard of the record and the law.

About that - in a separate blog.

Stay tuned.

#FraudsterAttorneyWoodruffCarroll "lacks a filter" - and continues to stalk and harass the clients who fired him with pleas for false affidavits

I wrote the day before yesterday and yesterday (morning) about the criminal efforts of attorney out of Syracuse, New York, #WoodruffCarroll, to have clients who fired him for misconduct to sign fraudulent affidavits against me and a settlement agreement that they do not want - they want to proceed to trial.

Yesterday night I received yet another call from a witness stating to me that Mr. Carroll continues to stalk and harass people who fired him for misconduct, and continues to solicit false affidavits from him - as well as continues to lie to them.

The witness (one of Mr. Carroll's now former clients, though he refuses to withdraw from the case despite having been fired) told me the following:

1) even though the day before yesterday, Mr. Carroll left their residence with the words that he will come back the next day, he was told not to come because he is not welcome, he is fired, they will not be at home and the door will be locked - so the plaintiffs in the Argro v Osborne case (against Chenango County CPS) did not expect him to actually come back, trespass on their property and harass them again;  after all, Mr. Carroll is an attorney with 32 years of experience and must know better than to repeatedly break the law;

2) nevertheless, the door to the residence was locked;

3) nevertheless, yesterday, in the morning and afternoon, there were knocks on their door, which they did not answer;

4) by the evening, the knocks stopped;

5) after waiting for a couple of hours after the last knock, and seeing no cars parked around the house, the besieged plaintiffs opened the door; 

6) as soon as the plaintiffs opened the door, Mr. Carroll materialized and helped himself into their residence despite the plaintiffs' protests;

7) Mr. Carroll came with three "brown envelopes" containing, each, a settlement agreement and a draft of an affidavit against me - both documents that the plaintiffs refused to sign the previous day, even for $100,000 offered by Mr. Carroll in exchange of signing those documents with pleas that otherwise he will lose his law license;

8) Mr. Carroll added to that plea yesterday another plea - that if they do not sign, Mr. Carroll's sick sister will get sicker.  Plaintiffs reportedly firmly told Mr. Carroll that if his sister is sick, signing false affidavits won't make her better.  Of course, an attorney's sister's sickness has nothing to do with the case, nor should the attorney notify his sick sister of what is happening in every litigation he is handling.

9) Also, Mr. Carroll claimed to plaintiffs that if they do not sign what he brought, and if he does not present the signed documents to the court until May 31, 2016, plaintiff's lawsuit against Chenango County CPS litigated since 2012, will be dismissed.

That was a lie.

In fact, the deadline of May 31, 2016 was set by the court for other purposes, of which Mr. Carroll was supposed to tell his clients, but instead decided - as he often does - to lie to them.

Here is why the May 31, 2016 deadline (docket 14) was set by the court:

The order clearly directs Mr. Carroll not to do one thing, that he was requesting (filing a cross-motion) and instead to do two other things:

1) "notify the Court immediately" "if in fact the case is not settled" - that was on May 17, 2016, Mr. Carroll did not notify the court until now, I checked on Pacer;  Mr. Carroll told the plaintiffs that he is holding back notification of the court about the settlement hoping that they will change their minds;

2) file a stipulation of settlement by May 31, 2016 - and if that is not done by that date, "the Court will schedule a trial", not dismiss a case.

Of course, it may be that Mr. Carroll does not know how to try a case - or that the defendants, in whose real employ Mr. Carroll appears to be - pay him handsomely to keep the case from reaching the trial, and are now upset that he screwed up, causing him to camp out 80 miles away from his home and office in Syracuse, NY, on two consecutive days so far.

In fact, Mr. Carroll told the plaintiffs that he will come again today to try to coerce them "to change their minds", and will continue to come every day! until they "change their minds" - until May 31, 2016.

Apparently, Mr. Carroll is not afraid of being arrested for:

1) stalking;
2) trespass - two times now;
3) tampering with a witness;
4) burglary - two counts now (in New York, burglary is "breaking and entering into the residence at night in order to commit a crime within",  Mr. Carroll entered plaintiffs' residence without their consent on two consecutive nights with an obvious intent to commit a crime within of solicitation of perjury, fraud and fraud upon the court).

I got interested as to why Mr. Carroll feel himself to be so immune from prosecution - what kind of connections he has to be so obnoxious and brazen.

Here is what I found.

In 2013 Mr. Carroll ran for office - for a legislative seat in Onondaga County, New York, 17th district.

Mr. Carroll ran on a Republican ticket.  Other two prominent republicans in that area are: (1) the famous in his misconduct Judge James Tormey and (2) Judge Tormey's friend and law school classmate, the local District Attorney William Fitzpatrick who only turned in a judge-pedophile when that particular judge refused to buy William Fitzpatrick off, I wrote about that on my blog.

During his election campaign, local newspapers disclosed some interesting information about Mr. Carroll:

So, Mr. Carroll is from a "local Republican party", and was endorsed to run by the local Republican party - the party where the local District Attorney and the Chief Administrative judge overseeing the entire 5th Judicial District are only members.

It is interesting that Mr. Carroll's incompetence as a civil rights attorney came through information in his election campaign, too.

In his election campaign, his two area of specialty in litigation are announced as:

• products liability, and
• bankruptcy - not civil rights litigation.

In an attorney review on the Internet, Mr. Carroll is also portrayed as an immigration attorney:

On the website of his law firm Carroll & Carroll, P.C. Mr. Carroll is portrayed as a securities attorney.

• securities
• immigration
• products liability
• bankruptcy

Not civil rights litigation.  So, when Mr. Carroll announced to plaintiffs that he had vast experience in civil rights litigation (while at this time he is deathly afraid to proceed to trial and engages in criminal conduct to remain on the case and not to proceed to trial), and when he claimed a $500/hr legal fee as a pre-eminent expert in the field of civil rights litigation, that was obviously, also a lie.

Information disclosed during Mr. Carroll's election campaign also reflects interesting "community experience":

Climbers Access Coalition - Mr. Carroll is a mountain climber, or at least he was a mountain climber in his youth.

His portray on his election campaign Facebook page shows him as quite chubby - I doubt he climbs mountains now.

And here's "Woody"'s family, as described in his election campaign:

Mr. Carroll's listed family members are:

Sister Nancy Carroll Butler, a Baptist Minister who, according to her own disclosure, has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - it is in her name that Mr. Carroll begged plaintiffs yesterday to sign false affidavits against me, so that he would not lose his law license.

I wonder whether Minister Carroll Butler even knows of her brother's pleas on her behalf, but somehow I highly doubt a minister would approve commission of a crime in her name.

Sister Jennifer Carroll Archie, a securities lawyer at the mammoth law firm Latham Watkins that recently embraced the former Chief Judge of the State of New York Jonathan Lippman.

I wonder whether the fact that the judiciary is bending over backwards for "Woody" Carroll no matter what crimes he commits is because of his prominent sister, a partner of Latham Watkins in Washington, D.C. and allegedly one of the "nation's top data protection attorneys".

Doctor of clinical psychology Susanne Carroll Duffy (not Archie, the "seminars by the sea" website cited in the family information on "Woody" gives his sister's correct last name),

 a clinical psychologist out of Eastport Maine obviously working together with social services to treat traumatized children by playing with them - possibly, that's why CPS was so comfortable giving the job of killing the lawsuit to a brother of a child abuse therapist? 

It is highly unlikely that loving brother "Woody" Carroll would be willing to damage sister's thriving "traumatized child therapy by playing in the sandbox" business 

by going aggressively after CPS in another state and thus jeopardizing lucrative referrals of children to his sister in her home state of Maine.

By the way, THIS was shown at one of the "by the sea" seminars of "Woody"'s psychologist sister as a THERAPY point for children, for the story to be told in a sandbox.

Apparently, not only "Woody" has problems with ... let's say, adequately perceiving reality.

I would not allow my child near this woman - this YouTube video can traumatize rather than help by showing a large bird struggling in the water, and then appearing from the water with a large piece of red-looking piece, it's apparently fish that the eagle is going to kill or feed to his children while still alive.

Children will not be sleeping after this "therapeutic session" and will need Dr Duffy's, or her shrink colleagues', services for life.

Great "play therapy".  One really needs to be a licensed Doctor of Psychology and a certified play therapist ("certified" is a good word though) to invent this crap.

The last family member described in "Woody" Carroll's election campaign is, I understand, 

brother Jonathan Carroll, a "semi-retired businessman" and a "former owner" of Boxer Craft, Inc.

Jon Carroll, as of today, still lists himself on his LinkedIn profile as "founder" of Boxer Craft Inc., a large clothing manufacturer

 - and a  consultant in a global management consulting firm McKinney and Company. 

So - nobody puts Woody in the corner, Woody the brother of:

• a Baptist Minister;
• a Latham Watkins law partner, employing and serving many powerful people of this country (LW is reportedly the "highest grossing law firm in the world");
• a "traumatized children" therapist,  who must necessarily have good connections with CPS for her business to thrive, and of
• a millionaire corporate businessman who can finance election campaigns of many judges and their relatives - or their opponents, if his little brother's little feelings are hurt by those judges or their relatives.

Quite a bouquet of family members to keep judges in check and prevent them from disciplining "Woody" no matter what he does.

Actually, during that election campaign of 2013, it was mentioned in a newspaper - politely - that "Woody" "lacks a filter".

Once again, Carroll, a lawyer, an officer of the court, a "community server" in "rescue missions" and a member of an "international evangelic friendship" religion, a religion that is reportedly preaching that every person is in need of salvation, offered this kind of soothing words of "salvation" in a community where "tensions :

causing people to choose his opponent in elections:

But - "roughing up" the poor "to get 'em motivated" rings a bell.

That's what "Woody" is doing with the indigent plaintiffs - what with his $500/hr rates for doing nothing and for committing fraud and fraud upon the court, what with his harassment, trespassing and continues coercion of plaintiffs, where:

1) all of the three plaintiffs are not wealthy;

2) two of the three plaintiffs are elderly; and

3) one of the three plaintiffs is extremely elderly and disabled.

I guess, "Woody" remembers to mention his disabled sister who would allegedly suffer if plaintiffs do not sign false affidavits against me which are meant to save "Woody" from attorney disciplinary action, criminal prosecution and a lawsuit for fraud and fraud upon the court.

Yet, "Woody" does not seem to care that one of the people he is subjecting to the extreme stress of being made a hostage in her own house is an elderly and disabled individual who he is supposed to help, not hurt.

I will report whether "Woody" will barge again today into the house of his victims who already fired him for misconduct, and on consecutive days.

Stay tuned. 

#FraudsterAttorneyWoodruffCarroll offers a court witness $100,000 for a false affidavit against me to save his law license

I wrote yesterday morning about attorney Woodruff Carroll, of Syracuse, NY who, when caught in lying to the court, tried to coerce his clients to make further false affidavits - and threatened to come to their house, while they told them not to come, to obtain those false affidavits.

Then, he threatened to withdraw from the civil rights case that he was trying to kill, obviously paid by defendants social services.

Just how much he may have been paid by social services, was revealed yesterday night.

According to a witness, Mr. Carroll arrived yesterday to the plaintiffs' residence with two documents - a settlement agreement that they told them ahead of time they did not want to sign and want to proceed to trial, and a long drafted affidavit on their behalf against me.

The drafted affidavit against me, among other things, stated that plaintiffs did not send their retainer agreement with me to Mr. Carroll.

The circumstances of why Mr. Carroll wants that particular issue denied are described in my yesterday's blog, but, briefly, he asked the court to strip me of my fees for 3.5 years of litigation because allegedly I did not have a written retainer agreement, after (according to one of the plaintiffs) asking her to send that same retainer agreement to him, and after she sent that retainer agreement to him.

Lying to the court is a crime.

Lying to federal court is a federal crime.

Mr. Carroll, who is practicing law since 1984, that is, for 32 years so far, certainly knows that.

So, when I filed a motion to vacate the order of the court stripping me, on Mr. Carroll's request, of my legal fees for 3.5 years of litigation, and for sanctions for fraud against Mr. Carroll, Mr. Carroll became desperate.

Since I relied upon the statement to me of one of the plaintiffs in reporting to the court that my retainer agreement was sent to Mr. Carroll, at Mr. Carroll's request, before Mr. Carroll claimed to the court under oath that there is no such retainer agreement, Mr. Carroll had only three options of dealing with it:

1) admit the truth and ask for leniency for his misconduct; or

2) deny misconduct and plead the 5th, or

3) commit a further crime and providing further false statements to the court to save his sorry hide.

According to the statement of a witness, Mr. Carroll chose option # 3.

Mr. Carroll, in front of two witnesses, tried to solicit yesterday night a false affidavit from his client claiming that the retainer agreement was never sent to him, and accusing me of lying.

Mr. Carroll knew that what he was doing was wrong and criminal.

He begged plaintiffs to sign those affidavits "to save his law license" (his words, reportedly), and offered them $100,000 in exchange for signing those false affidavits.

Yes, according to two witnesses to whom I talked personally yesterday, attorney Woodruff Carroll, of Syracuse, NY, offered $100,000 to tamper with a witness in a federal court proceeding.

He did not bring that money with him, mind, he only said that if they sign that affidavit against me - which he knew to be false - he will get them $100,000.

Let's remember that before that time, Mr. Carroll told them that the poor Chenango County and its social workers are dictated by their insurance company that they cannot pay more than $30,000.

Imagine how much Carroll was offered to kill a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Chenango County Department of Social Services if he was offering $100,000, 3 times more than the recovery offered to plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.

In view of suddenly increased numbers, and a clear statement that $100,000 will be paid for signing the false affidavit and signing the settlement agreement plaintiffs did not want to sign - and I doubt Carroll was offering that out of his own pocket - a criminal investigation is in order as to whether defendants and their attorney Erin Donnelly, of Levine, Gouldin and Thompson were in collusion with Carroll on that offer to bribe a witness in order to continue to defraud a federal court, avoid attorney discipline and criminal prosecution for prior fraud and prevent the case from going to trial.

Mr. Carroll knew that my former clients were not wealthy.

Mr. Carroll knew that my former clients need money very much.

Mr. Carroll was trying to coerce them to sign the false affidavit by stating that I will otherwise take their home, sue them for millions of dollars and put them to jail.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll, for a good idea - of course, I will be doing all of the above against you and not against my honorable former clients.

They declined to sign the false affidavit, called me and reported the bribe solicitation by Mr. Carroll.

I am honored and humbled with that amount of trust.

When your former clients, even after your suspension, have faith in you not to harm them, rather than in their present attorney - that is something.

The witnesses also told me that Mr. Carroll was so upset and excited he was "ready to be tied".

Mr. Carroll also refused to take the word "fired" at its face value, and insisted that he will not withdraw from the case, even when plaintiffs told him he was fired, and told him they would be better of on their own (without any legal training) than with him.

Well, Mr. Carroll also hardly has any legal training, having been admitted to the bar after a "clerkship", not a law school.

Mr. Carroll also promised plaintiffs that he will return again, today, to have them sign the same papers.

The plaintiffs told him that he is fired, he is not welcome and that they will not be home and the door will be locked.

Mr. Carroll claims he is still coming.

What can I say.

The story gets more and more bizarre.

It is the first time I have an actual confirmation from a witness that somebody offered a witness money - $100,000 in this case - to file a false affidavit against me.

I am sure such rigging was occurring in other setting, for money or other quid-pro-quo, but there witnesses simply did not come forward.

Now I have proof of at least one such case.

I will continue reporting on how this bizarre situation develops.

Apparently, only exposure can help in such cases.

Stay tuned.