NDNY Magistrate David Peebles continues to pretend he is still a magistrate, and continues to engage in misconduct after his term as a magistrate expires

I continue to publish a story as to how the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, faced with my motion to recuse and vacate its previous unlawful decision to strip me of 3.5 years worth of my work as an attorney in a civil rights case, started to engage in ex parte communications with parties about me and to manipulate the court docket.

I wrote about the court's efforts to issue a secret illegal order of suspension against me and efforts of the new attorney for the Plaintiffs, in collusion with the attorney for the Defendants, to then strip me of my legal fees, you can look up those blog posts by entering the word "Argro" in the search box on the right in this blog.

As of 3/3/2016, as the docket shows, the Plaintiffs were forced by the court to use the services of the attorney who they fired for fraud and to settle a multi-million dollar lawsuit for an amount, if prior position of the Defendants is any guide, lower than the deductible in Defendants' liability insurance policy.

By the way, since the Defendants were settling for the amount they had to pay out of pocket anyway (lower than the $50,000 deductible under the Chenango County liability insurance policy that I obtained through FOIL recently), and since they were settling a case which was alleging intentional misconduct which is not allowed to be covered by insurance under New York law, settlements in the case could not be obtained without direct authorization of parties.

Yet, at all settlement conferences after the court - allegedly - suspended me (there is no public order of suspension available on Pacer.gov) the court required personal appearances only of the three plaintiffs, for whom appearance in Syracuse from Chenango County where they live, was a financial burden, and is a huge personal burden for one of the Plaintiffs who is a wheelchair-bound severely disabled 89-year-old woman - but not of defendants.

No appearances of the Defendants at such conferences was required by the court, so it is apparent that the court was in collusion with the Defendants to coerce Plaintiffs into a settlement.

Actually, in the pleading I belatedly received from the Plaintiffs then-fired attorney Woodruff Carroll on June 9, 2016 (while my response to that pleading was due in court on June 6, 2016), Carroll admits that it was the magistrate (now former magistrate who nevertheless continues to "serve" as magistrate) David Peebles who "urged" parties to settle.

So, the court did not want to try the case, possibly in collusion with the defendants, and, since I was directed by the plaintiffs to try the case, I was suspended through a secret order, stripped of my legal fee for 3.5 years of litigation, the court refused to allow Plaintiffs to even fire their own counsel for fraud, and the court openly put pressure upon three indigent civil rights plaintiffs to forego the jury trial that they wanted (and could receive a multi-million dollar verdict) and agree to a settlement lower than the $50,000 deductible in Defendants' insurance policy.

Misconduct against the indigent plaintiffs in the Argro case is just one aspect of the saga that is currently unfolding.

Other serious aspects are:

• manipulating the docket with claims that certain entries were made before they were actually made;
• delays in docket entries of filings that arrived by regular mail;
• shameless admitted ex parte communications as to me, including ex parte motions, ex parte orders and ex parte hearings; and
• sealing the transcripts of such ex parte hearings against me.

Yesterday night, after 5 p.m., I downloaded the docket report of the Argro case which I last downloaded on June 8, 2016 - and as of June 8, 2016 it did not contain any information after June 3, 2016, the last entry as of June 8, 2016 was of June 2, 2016.

On June 10, 2016, there appeared several entries in the docket, including a belated acknowledgement that I filed (and the court received, I have a delivery confirmation) an Affirmation in Reply declaring a default on my motion to vacate, recuse and for sanctions.

The docket also contains an interesting entry - without a docket number - as to what has allegedly transpired in court on June 3, 2016, an appearance not noticed to me.

On June 3, 2016 the court did the following:

1) reviewed an ex parte (as to me) motion to withdraw of Plaintiffs attorney Woodruff Carroll who was fired on May 20, 2016 for fraud and for offering Plaintiffs $100,000 in exchange for a settlement and for filing a false affidavit against me;

2) reviewed an ex parte motion, Docket 124, for an anti-filing injunction and to strip me of a future opportunity to file for attorney fees against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) if Plaintiffs prevail in litigation.

The motion was ex parte on many levels.

The motion was never served upon me, which is confirmed in the certificate of service of Defendants' counsel Erin Donnelly who served - by e-mail - Plaintiffs' attorney Woodruff Carroll AND HERSELF, Docket 125.

The initial scheduling order, with deadlines to respond to the motion within 4 days of filing, over the Memorial day weekend, was never served upon me by the court.

The subsequent scheduling order of June 2, 2016, moving the review date of the ex parte motion to the next day, June 3, 2016, from the initial ex parte scheduling date of June 15, 2016, with personal appearances, was never served upon me.

I learnt about the ex parte scheduling order of June 2, 2016 (but not about the text entry of June 3, 2016 which did not appear in the docket until the end of this week) by downloading the docket report, at my own expense, from Pacer on June 4, 2016, after the hearing/oral argument on the ex parte motion already occurred.

Yesterday, after downloading the docket report, I learnt that 

• the ex parte motion, Docket 124 asking for remedies against me by name;
• which was never served upon me, Docket 125;
• which was scheduled by an ex parte scheduling order on May 27, 2016 for a hearing on June 15, 2016 before Judge Norman Mordue, and
• which was rescheduled on June 2, 2016 by another ex parte scheduling order to be heard with personal appearances of Plaintiffs and attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants, but not me, for the next day, June 3, 2016;
• was actually heard without my presence or notice to me by David Peebles, a former magistrate whose term expired on May 21, 2016; and
• the transcript of those ex parte communications was sealed by David Peebles.

That is not all that David Peebles did though.

He also issued yet another ex parte order manipulating the motion to recuse him, vacate the previous illegal order of the court stripping me of legal fees, and for sanctions against attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants for fraud.

Here is what David Peebles did as to the motion that was scheduled to be heard in front of Judge Mordue and not in front of David Peebles at all.

On May 13, 2016 I filed a motion to vacate, recuse and for sanctions against attorneys Woodruff Carroll and Erin Donnelly for fraud.

My motion, received by the court on 5/13/2016, was only entered on 5/17/2016, after I blogged about the court's manipulation of the docket.

The court issued a scheduling order on that motion - the only one that I received by regular mail from the court.

The scheduling order set the following deadlines:

1. Response deadline for Plaintiffs and Defendants - 5/31/2016
2. My reply to response 6/6/2016.
3. Motion hearing set for 6/15/2016

Plaintiffs and Defendants defaulted on the deadline to oppose the motion on 5/31/2016.  The docket now shows some filings made on that date, but I received a filing from the Plaintiffs by regular mail only on June 8, 2016, 2 days after my response to that pleading was supposed to be already filed in New York (and I do not have a right to file by e-filing, so I have to do it by mail and add time for mailing it in).

And, I received nothing from the Defendants, so whatever the Defendants filed on May 31, 2016 (as the docket shows, I did not download the Defendants' filings), was never served upon me - kind of a "sewer service".

When a deadline to oppose a motion is missed, all factual issues are waived and parties who failed to oppose are deemed in default of the motion, which has to be granted to the moving party by default if the motion is meritorious.

There is no question that my motion is meritorious.  It is based on clear precedent, statutory law and indisputable evidence.

So, by my deadline, 6/6/2016, having received nothing from either of the parties, I filed an Affirmation in Reply and a Memorandum of Law declaring a default on the motion.

Yet, without notice to me, 3 days prior David Peebles (who pretends to be a magistrate while his term expired by May 21, 2016 and for whom a public order of reappointment was not published up to this day) forgave the default of both Plaintiffs and Defendants on the motion and gave Plaintiffs and Defendants, based on their ex parte request without notice to me, additional time to oppose my motion filed on May 13, 2016 - until June 17, 2016.

June 17, 2016 is 2 days after the motion hearing set for that motion for June 15, 2016.

No deadline was set for me to reply to that belated opposition, so I am not allowed to file a reply.

There is no explanation in the docket as to the reason for such a blatant violation of the court's own rules of motion practice in order to help parties survive the default on my motion and block me from replying to the parties new and belated opposition.

Local court rules, as well as Federal Procedure, does not allow pleadings beyond the reply.  Usually, non-moving party do not get the benefit of responding to a reply, because the reply is the last filed pleadings on a motion.

Here, David Peebles changed that, behind my back, at an ex parte in-person hearing of ex parte motions scheduled in an ex parte manner - and sealed the transcript containing the ex parte communications of the parties and counsel regarding rescheduling my motion, or discussions of the ex parte motion filed, but not served upon me by the Defendants.

This entire circus - including my secret suspension allegedly of November 18, 2016 (there is no public order of suspension) unfolded after I filed on November 16, 2016 a motion to recuse the court in another case, based on massive documentary evidence of the court's misconduct - and that motion is still unresolved,  but, as a result of that motion:

• I am - secretly, allegedly - suspended;
• I am removed from a case against social services I litigated since the summer of 2012 that was scheduled for trial as of, "coincidentally", November 13, 2015;
• the court and the parties' counsel do not bother to serve me with motions or scheduling orders directly relating to my rights, hold in-person hearings regarding my rights behind my back without notice to me and seal contents of transcripts of such hearings, the misconduct is shameless and quite blatant, it is reflected in the docket, as if ex parte communications are now legitimate - at least as to me

I will continue to cover the story of the court's misconduct - I am holding my breath as to what the court will be deciding about me based on its ex parte communications on June 3, 2016.

Of course, such a decision will be blatantly illegal, but illegality did not stop NDNY court so far in regards to making decisions about me or my husband.

Stay tuned.

Donors to Catholic churches in New York contribute to the church's lobbying efforts to deny a remedy to victims of sex crimes

Several years ago I filed a lawsuit on behalf of a victim of sexual abuse (that occurred when the victim was a minor) against the perpetrator of such abuse.

The perpetrator immediately opposed the lawsuit claiming that the lawsuit is precluded by the statute of limitations.

Of course, the same perpetrator was threatening to kill the victim if she would complain about the abuse, and did it exactly for the duration of the statute of limitations that exists in New York for such crimes and civil lawsuits.

Of course, in civil court, a perpetrator who would preclude the victim, by threats, from filing such a lawsuit, would be equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations.

But that is - in a fair court.

In the court where it was happening, the perpetrator was protected by a local powerful judge, and the victim was afraid to proceed with the lawsuit.

The statute of limitations in sex crimes is a big problem.

When sex abuse against children occurs, it takes courage for the victim to come forward and testify.

In many states, there are no statutes of limitations in sex crimes, and, I would say, that should be the law in all jurisdictions.

In March of 2016 there was a march in New York in support of a legislative bill in New York to:

(1) repeal the 5-year statute of limitations (which limits filing of lawsuits by the victim until 5 years after reaching the age of majority, which is 18 + 5 = 23 years of age in New York); 

(2) give the previously time-barred victims a 1-year window to file their lawsuits.

You know what organization actually put millions of dollars into lobbying in opposition to the bill?

Catholic church.

I do not see Governor Cuomo though issuing any executive orders prohibiting to pour public money into the coffers of various organizations owned and operated by Catholic Church - like he recently did in support of a foreign country, the State of Israel (for which he had no authority whatsoever, as it was a matter of federal national foreign policy).

Churches are public charities receiving tax exemptions from the IRS on the condition that they will not engage in politics.

Catholic Church in New York clearly engaged in politics, attempting to prevent introduction of a certain law that has a potential to bankrupt the church and expose many priests to civil lawsuits, and, possibly, criminal prosecutions, which are currently time-barred.

Here is the text of New York Child Victims Act.

So far, according to the New York Senate's website, the bill is still in the "Committee" - for 3 years, since 2013 when it was introduced.

And the reason why is because it has been stalled by the Catholic Church's lobbying efforts.

When you go to church next time and are expected to donate, please, think what you are donating for.

Because your money has been used so far for lobbying efforts to deny victims of sex abuse - including victims of the clergy, including child victims - a right to a remedy.

Once again on contempt of court - a federal judge from Ohio #DanPolster plays God with his power

Yesterday, on June 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a case where a former prosecutor, after becoming a judge, refused to recuse from a case where he was a prosecutor and pursued death penalty (by conduct of his subordinates involving fraud upon the court and eliciting perjury) and rejected several habeas corpus petitions and reinstated the death penalty of a criminal defendant.

The name of the case is Williams v Pennsylvania, the name of the judge (now former Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania) is Ronald Castillo, and I will post a separate blog, or several separate blog about that case, it deserves a detailed issue-by-issue review.

The court relied, among other cases, upon the case In re Murchison, decided in 1955, that is, 61 years ago, where a judge acted in a contempt of court proceedings as prosecutor, judge and jury - accusing individuals of contempt of court, presiding over their contempt proceedings and sentencing them.

Such behavior, where the judge is both the accuser and the adjudicator, was ruled to be a due process violation.

The day before yesterday, on June 8, 2015, a federal district court in Ohio, a federal district judge Dan Polster did exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court just reversed the case for - and what the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re Murchison ruled to be a due process violation.

Judge Dan Polster:

1) started a contempt proceeding against an attorney John V. McDermott - who is not listed as the attorney of record in the case, I checked on Pacer.gov - for allegedly not appearing at court proceedings; and
2) has all intent to presiding over them as a judge - in violation of attorney McDermott's due process rights.

Once again, Attorney McDermott is not listed as attorney of record in the case where the bench warrant was issued.

Here is the letter Attorney McDermott sent to the judge that was filed yesterday.

In the letter, attorney McDermott indicates that he:

1) is not attorney of record in the case;
2) is not admitted in the state or federal court in Ohio; and thus
3) is not subject to jurisdiction of the court;
4) will not drop everything in New Jersey where he works and fly to Ohio at the last minute because the court simply wanted him to be there.

The letter was filed, according to the docket report, yesterday, on June 9, 2016.

On June 7, 2016 Judge Dan Polster granted Defendant Gary McDermott motion to dismiss the case against him.

At the same time, Judge Dan Polster was very upset that Defendant Gary McDermott did not appear at the case management conference held on the same date.

It is apparent that presence of defendant whose case was going to be dismissed was not needed, and the judge's ire about that was simply raw - and unreasonable - exercise of power.

Yet, the judge questioned Gary McDermott who told him not to appear at the case management conference on the day when the lawsuit against him was dismissed by Judge Polster.

According to Judge Polster's order issued the next day, on June 8, 2016, Gary McDermott stated under oath that "attorney John McDermott" advised him not to appear at the case management conference.

Attorney John McDermott was not, once again, attorney of record in that case, nor was he admitted to practice law in the state of Ohio, or in the Northern District Court for the District of Ohio - as attorney McDermott explained to Judge Polster, without waiving lack of personal jurisdiction, in his letter of June 9, 2016.

Judge Polster never had jurisdiction over attorney McDermott, and his order to appear was blatantly illegal.

Non-appearance of Gary McDermott on the date of the case management conference, June 7, 2016, did not make any difference and did not cause any prejudice to anybody because the same judge dismissed the lawsuit against Gary McDermott on the date of the case management conference.

It was clear that there was no point to order appearances in any show cause proceedings, and especially to do that in person, and to order an appearance of a person who was never an attorney of record, not admitted in that court as an attorney and lives and works in another state.

Judge Polster had even less grounds to order such an appearance the next day.  He must have been aware that a busy attorney such as John McDermott could not simply drop everything he was doing in his large law practice and fly to Ohio on a one-day notice that was never served upon him personally or by mail.

Since John McDermott was not attorney of record in that case, he was not subject to electronic notifications.

There is no indication in the docket that attorney McDermott was even served with the order to appear.

It was a matter of courtesy by attorney McDermott - and, probably, a wrong move - to send any letters to the judge acknowledging that he knows about the order issued the previous day, with which John McDermott was never served.

Such a courtesy cost John McDermott dearly - Judge Polster issued a bench warrant when John McDermott, naturally, did not appear on June 9, 2016 at the "Order to Show Cause" hearing.

Moreover, Judge Polster, reportedly, said on Wednesday, that is, on June 8, 2016, before John McDermott's ordered appearance in court on June 9, 2016, that McDermott "will be arrested and he will sit for a good while until I see him," according to the transcript. "If he doesn't like that he can go to the Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court." 

So, 

1. not only Judge Polster had no jurisdiction over John McDermott and had no authority to order him to appear in federal court in Ohio, especially the next day from the order;
2. not only the order was never served upon John McDermott;
3. not only Judge Polster had no right to preside over the contempt proceeding that he initiated as an accuser - as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in In Re Murchison in 1955 and in Williams v Pennsylvania as of June 9, 2016, but
4. Judge Polster certainly had no right to pre-judge that case by saying that he will first put John McDermott in jail, keep him there "for a good while" and only then review whether John McDermott should have been put in jail in the first place.

This as a very clear case of judicial misconduct.

Attorney John McDermott claimed he will file a complaint against Judge Polster because of it.

Yet, I doubt very much that the complaint will be reviewed, because the judge's misconduct is related to a court proceeding, and such complaints against federal judges are dismissed without review.

But, since a prominent member of legal community John McDermott is the victim of egregious judicial misconduct here, I wonder if he and his friends would pull some weight and have rules of judicial discipline in federal courts revised.

Because in this country only the law of connections work - for good or for bad.

I will continue to cover this story.

Stay tuned.

Judge Persky was just re-elected for another 6-year term - running unopposed

I've just posted a blog about two nightmare judges in New York - Richard Northrup and Kevin Dowd - who were elected while running unopposed.

Yet another nightmare like that just happened in California where Judge Aaron Persky, the one who gave a 6-month sentence to the Stanford rapist Turner Block, was just re-elected to a 6-year term.

As the report says, the voters "did not get to oust" the judge because her ran unopposed.

And that is, despite an international outcry to oust Judge Persky, an online petition that has gathered hundreds of thousands of votes to oust him and members of legislature calling upon him to resign and pledging to oust him if he doesn't.

It is clear that Persky is not resigning - he adamantly continued his election campaign and was re-elected unopposed.

By the way, the Stanford rapist case is not the first time when Persky made a decision favoring rapists.

In a civil trial alleging sexual assault by a group of De Anza College baseball players sued for allegations of gang rape, Persky derailed the case, which resulted in dismissal of the lawsuit against two of the defendants and private settlement against others, by admitting into evidence IRRELEVANT Facebook pictures of victims in revealing clothes made 6 months after assault.

It is apparent that the judge, same as in the Stanford rapist's case, sends a message that the victims were themselves to blame.  You dressed scantily - don't complain when you are gang-raped, that's the message.

Same as in the Stanford case - you went to a party and got drunk, don't be surprised that you found yourself raped behind a dumpster, and your rapist will get a rehab-length of incarceration only because a longer term will be too hard for his tender sensibilities.

Great message from a judge to the public.

And - he was just re-elected for 6 more years.

The public can expect the same kind of rulings from him in the future.

I wonder whether Persky will be removed or even disciplined for abusing his discretion in the courtroom and using it to humiliate and demean victims of sexual assault - we'll see.

Judge Richard Northrup of Delaware County, NY, re-enters - as a judge - a case from which he was recused as a prosecutor, for purposes of choosing a judge

I was advised that Richard Northrup, after recusing as a prosecutor from a case where I was a defense attorney before my suspension, filed an ex parte affirmation with the court as a prosecutor requesting transfer of the case to another court (which he at that point had no right to do), but he did not stop at that.

Northrup then became a judge, re-entered the case where he was a - recused - prosecutor and engaged in ex parte communications with judges in local justice courts (several of them) offering to preside over a case of my former client, proceeding without me pro se.

After one judge recused, Northrup offered the case to another judge.

Then, somehow Judge Rosa got involved and, also based on an ex parte communications with judges and prosecutors, sent the case to yet another judge, without vacating Northrup's sending the case to a different court.

So, now the case has been sent to two different courts - to one by Judge Norhtrup, the former prosecutor in the case, and another by Judge Rosa, who is also full of conflicts of interest in that particular case.

The case involves not only ex parte communications of ALL judges who so far were involved in that case, and those are:

1. Yvonne Pagillo, of Walton Village Court;
2. Douglas Card, of Deposit Town Court;
3. Joseph Cawley, Chief Administrative Judge of Criminal Courts in the 6th Judicial District;
4. Robert Mulvey, at that time Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District;
5. Michael Coccoma, Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York;
6. Richard Northrup, Delaware County Court judge (and former recused prosecutor);
7. J. Neal Phelby, Deposit Town Court;
8. Gary Rosa, Delaware County Court judge;
9. Michael T. O'Brien, Hancock Town court judge;
10. Herbert Buckley, Hancock Village court judge.

10 judges.  From the top administrative level to the justice court level.

On a traffic ticket case.

All engaged in ex parte communications with the prosecutors in fixing the case.

And that is not just me talking about it - I have documentary evidence regarding such ex parte communications.

Apparently, the rule of ex parte communication does not exist any more.

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct repeatedly tossed my documented complaints against judges who engaged in ex parte communications.

So, judges now believe that ex parte communications with the prosecution in Delaware County cases is the new law.

Defense counsel and litigants - beware.

By the way, JUST YESTERDAY the U.S. Supreme Court JUST reversed a case, Williams v Pennsylvania, where a former prosecutor who sought a death penalty then re-entered the case AS A JUDGE and decided against the death penalty defendant FOUR habeas corpus petitions, and that is, in a case where the judge's own behavior (or that of his subordinates) in concealing exculpatory evidence and eliciting perjury from a witness on several material issues, not just one, was at stake.

I will provide a more detailed analysis of Williams v Pennsylvania in a separate blog, believe me, the case is bad.

It has been held a violation of due process where a former accuser, a prosecutor reappears in the case as a judge and makes adverse determinations against the defendant.

That is even more of a misconduct where the former prosecutor recused from the case because of an ex parte communication with one judge (Yvonne Pagillo), then made an ex parte motion to recuse before another judge (Robert Mulvey), after he was disqualified, made another ex parte application in writing to yet another judge (Joseph Cawley asking without any authority to transfer the case), then re-entered the case as a judge and engaged in ex parte communications with at least three more judges - 

1. Douglas Card;
2. J. Neal Felby and
3. Michael O'Brien

Northrup, apparently, was very much interested in fixing the case, even after his recusal as a prosecutor.  

Defense attorneys and litigants - be aware of yet another proof of Northrup's dishonesty.

By the way, Northrup's decision assigning Judge O'Brien was never even sent to the defendant.  And, of course, Northrup's communications with other judges were never provided to the defendant (with Judges Card, Felby and O'Brien), nor to me as the defendant's counsel before my suspension (with Judges Mulvey and Cawley).

Remember - Northrup ran for the judicial seat unopposed, so the only vote that he needed to be elected was his own.

Litigants are saddled with Northrup for 10 years, Northrup just started - and so far has outdone even his predecessor and buddy Carl Becker in misconduct.

There is another in-famous local judge who was also elected without any opposition, the mentally unstable antisemitic Judge Kevin Dowd from Chenango County Supreme Court who: 

• raves about law schools building urinals in his honor during child custody proceedings, 
• holds ex parte trials to which he instructs court personnel not to allow public access, misleading the public that the trial is not being held;
• admits evidence by boxes without looking at it - if it comes from a "connected" attorney;
• blocks access to that evidence when his decisions are appealed;
• gives away evidence during the pendency of appeal precluding the appeal from being perfected;
• employes as court reporters Facebook friends of his long-time female law clerk to whom he has, apparently, tender feelings (Dowd reacted very personally to a motion to recuse involving her clear misconduct);
• allows antisemitic court personnel to engaged in violent revenge against Jewish litigants who dared to complain against them;
• throws Jewish litigants out of the courthouse for making motions to recuse him - after granting such motions, and claims that any motion to recuse is a disruption of court proceedings which entitle him to use armed court security against the moving parties.

Litigants are saddled with Dowd until 2026, according to NYS Unified Court System's website - unless Dowd retires earlier.

It is very clear that whether a judge should or should not be elected, should not depend on just one vote - the judge's own.

Yet, that's what happened in Northrup's and Dowd's case.

I do not know what the solution should be - but when a judge is running unopposed, I believe that rules requiring a minimum of a certain, and high, percentage of votes from the population of the District should be introduced, otherwise the judge is elected simply by himself, his friends, family, relatives and colleagues, and by those who paid for his election campaign and expect favorable decisions from him as a result.

For a story about yet another dishonest judge elected unopposed, from another state - stay tuned.

The $368,332 "Moon Boon" of Delaware County DSS to Delaware County prosecutors - 4 times fatter than the $91,457 "Muehl Boon" to Otsego County prosecutors

I wrote on this blog previously about the Otsego County (NY) District Attorney John Muehl's contract with the Otsego County DSS for $91,457 to prosecute the poor.

Guess what, the present Delaware County (NY) Judge Richard Northrup - Delaware County District Attorney in 2014 - had a 4-times sweeter deal with the then Delaware County DSS Commissioner (now former) William Moon.

The contract of Delaware County DSS with the Delaware County District Attorney, signed in 2014 by William Moon and Richard Northrup, is for over $368,000, for the same purpose - to pay for investigators to investigate and prosecute social services fraud.

The interesting thing is that Otsego County has a population of 60,636 (in 2015) with a population density of 61 people per square mile (a reduction of population of 2.6% since 2010).

"The median income for a household in the county was $33,444, and the median income for a family was $41,110. Males had a median income of $29,988 versus $22,609 for females. The per capita income for the county was $16,806."

Delaware County has a population of 46,722 (in 2013) - actually, the population has dwindled since then, as evidence by the fact that a maternity hospital announced this year it is closing, and the community pool in Delhi, NY, the County seat, is not going forward.

The population density is 33 people per square mile.

"The median income for a household in the county was $32,461, and the median income for a family was $39,695. Males had a median income of $27,732 versus $22,262 for females. The per capita income for the county was $17,357."

Average per capita income in both counties is about the same - around $17,000 a year.

$17,000 is around 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

Since the majority of populations in the two counties are poor, that entitles residents in both counties to a number of subsidies from the government, see the schedule here.

Of course, there is a possibility that people apply where they are not eligible - but, since population in both Counties is also not quiet advanced in education, it is for those reviewing the application to reject and explain that to people, not to prosecute the admittedly poor population for being poor - but not eligible for help.

Yet, the approach in both counties is that public money needs to be poured into paying extra to the District Attorney's office for prosecutions on behalf of DSS, practically hiring the elected county official to provide his investigators to work for pay for certain class of cases - to recover federal money, by the way.

And, Otsego County DA got paid 4 times less than the Delaware County DA by the respective Social Services Departments.

Over $91,000 paid to Otsego County DA Muehl, out of the pockets of the poor-on-the-average Otsego County taxpayers - to prosecute the poor more vigorously.   And to take resources away from prosecuting rampant corruption in Otsego County government.

In Delaware County, with less population and less population density, but the same levels of eligibility to government subsidies as in Otsego County, the levels of fraud in the use of government subsidies must be statistically lower.

If population in Delaware County is 30% lower than in Otsego County, then the numbers of fraud should be statistically lower by about the same levels.

So, the contract to bribe the District Attorney's office into dedicating its limited personnel to prosecute the poor and not other crimes in the county should be 30% less - around $60,000.

Right?

Wrong.

The contract to bribe Dick (oops, Judge) Northrup into prosecuting the poor - and not the rampant corruption in the Delaware County and its Department of Social Services - was $368,332, according to release of records I obtained from Delaware County on a FOIL request last week.

That is 4 times higher than the bribe of Otsego County DSS to Otsego County DA, and 6 times higher than what than what that amount would have been if compared with Otsego County contract and pro-rated by comparative population levels.

Now you have the answer why Dick (Judge) Northrup did not prosecute corruption in Delaware County government.

Now you have the answer why members of Delaware County government wanted Dick Northrup on the bench so badly - and put him there.

Now you have the answer why Dick Northrup chose not to prosecute his investigator Jeff Bowie's nephew Derek Bowie for two assaults and one attempted murder.

Jeff Bowie was a cash cow.  

The contract was not a flat-rate contract, but "services-based".  So, Dick Northrup had to earn his keep.

And, by the way, the contract for $368,332 for "services" of DA's investigator to work for DSS was signed after the press raised in 2013 the issue why DSS investigators were employed in the DA's office in the first place.

So, instead of laying off DSS investigators working out of the DA's office, DA Northrup signed a contract with DSS to provide paid investigations to the DSS.

Of course, when you are providing paid services to somebody, you have an incentive to overlook any transgressions - such as: crimes - in those who pay you.

One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one, right?

So, Northrup provide paid services to DSS, to the tune of $368,332 of taxpayers' money - and that's only in 2014.

And, when I called the DA's office in 2014 asking to prosecute then-judge Carl Becker (friend of Bill Moon) and the Republican Election Board Chairman Bill Campbell for forgery of public records and fraud, it is now more clear why such a request was rejected.

One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one.

Of course, the DA's office investigators must investigate all reported crimes - and not because somebody pays them extra to investigate some reported crime and not to investigate others.

But, that's not how it happens in Delaware - and Otsego - Counties.

And, Northrup got his reward for his corruption - a judgeship, with his salary immediately perked up, several months into his election.

When you are told that Dick Northrup is not an "Honorable", don't believe it.

It's a job title, nothing else.

Nothing can make a corrupt public official honorable.

But, the question is - will the Delaware County Judge Northrup and the Delaware County former DSS Commissioner Moon be investigated and prosecuted for corruption for this contract?

I doubt that.

After all, John Hubbard is the one who refused to prosecute Carl Becker - without disclosing that Carl Becker was his law partner, and John Hubbard and Dick Northrup did not disclose that fact for 13 years that Becker was on the bench, while appearing in front of him and obtaining thousands of criminal convictions - where all of defendants can now claim convictions were improper and seek their reversals, simply because John Hubbard's involvement with Carl Becker was not disclosed, and that will come at a price to Delaware County taxpayers.

But - corruption pays in Delaware County and in the State of New York.

Honor doesn't.

A California Judge who was censured for having sex with two women in chambers just got re-elected

I wrote in this blog about a California judge Scott Steiner who was censured for having sex in chambers with two women, see my blogs from 2014 here and here.

One woman was an attorney practicing in front of the judge, and the other was the judge's former intern - and the judge, after having sex with her, advocated on her behalf with the local District Attorney's office for her employment.

Guess what - Judge Steiner just got re-elected, in a contested election.

Meaning, the voters support and condone such judicial behavior.

So - judges, have sex in chambers with your interns and pay back for sex with jobs in high places.  

The public approves.