Who was #JudgeJosephBoeckmann betting with to take sexually suggestive pictures of a criminal defendant?

Last month, I wrote on this blog about a judge in the State of Arkansas, #JudgeJoseph Boeckmann who, reportedly, gave lenient sentences to young males in his criminal court in exchange for "community service", community service being posing for the judge taking pictures of the defendants' butts, legs spread - sometimes with clothes, sometimes without.

Here is the "hero" Judge Boeckmann:

Now, reports come out that Judge Boeckmann also forged court records reflecting his sentences in such cases.

While there are reports about a disciplinary investigation against Judge Boeckmann, I did not see reports in the press as yet that Judge Boeckmann was criminally charged - for abuse of office, as well as for forging court documents.

And, the lingering and unsettling question is - many people HAD to know what Judge Boeckmann was doing.

Court personnel, probation HAD to know that Judge Boeckmann was forging court papers.

Moreover, Judge Boeckmann reportedly was not just taking pictures of defendants for his own personal pleasure - but was doing that as "bets with friends".

I wonder - will Judge Boeckmann AND his enablers be investigated, both in court and the "betting" friends?

And, who are the betting friends of Judge Boeckman?

Leniency/corruption in regards to discipline and criminal prosecution of drunk driving judges in New York continues - the case of #JudgeTimothyJCooper

I wrote on this blog about some high-ranking New York state judges who drove drunk, attempted to use their position to get out of criminal charges, got lenient plea bargains because of who they were, and remained on the bench, see my blogs about:

• Albany County Family Court Judge Gerard Maney - who drove drunk and tried to intimidate the arresting police officer with his status as a judge to get out of criminal charges; 

Judge Maney was only censured by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and remains an attorney with "no record of public discipline" - and a judge:

Note that the drunk judge Maney presided during his drunk driving criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings, and continues to preside over this day over:

• Juvenile Drug Court, and
• Family Treatment Court - you know, substance abuse, alcoholics and domestic violence caused by drinking.

A perfect choice for a judge for both of these courts.

Judge Maney will be (dis)gracing litigants with his "service" until at least 2021.

The next celebrity drunk judge in New York who escaped proper discipline is:

• Judge Carl F. Landicino;

Judge Landicino is also an attorney who has "no record of public discipline", despite public discipline (super-light though it was, just censure) from the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct;

The next "hero" is attorney and iciaicia Astacio - not disciplined at all.

• Judge Leticia Astacio, of the Rochester City court was charged with a DWI on the way to court, where she was supposed to hear DWI cases - she is still on the bench, and not disciplined.

Attorney Leticia Astacio has no record of public discipline.

I also wrote on this blog about the unwritten policy of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct (which is transparent from the Commission's actions) disciplining - if at all - predominantly local justice court judges, and not touching judges starting with county level, Supreme Court level and especially Appellate court level.

True to the policy, the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct recently took off the bench Judge Timothy J. Cooper, a justice of the Evans Town Court in Erie County, with a stipulation that he will neither seek nor accept a judicial office, and that if he breaks the terms of the stipulation, the judicial disciplinary proceeding will resume and go a hearing before a referee.

Here is judge Cooper:

I guess, New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct needs to be prodded in the rear end to commence such a proceeding before a referee because Judge Cooper did violate the terms of the Stipulation - or the Stipulation was deliberately not worded precisely in order to allow Judge Cooper to retain his position of - guess who? - a Magistrate judge in the Niagara County Family Court, which he remains, according to the court's website, until this day:

Now the Commission took off ONE bench out of TWO Judge Timothy Cooper (without mentioning that Justice Cooper of the Town of Evans court is also a Niagara Family Court magistrate).

Not only the discipline of Judge Cooper was crooked, his criminal prosecution and conviction was even more crooked.

Let's see what Judge Cooper did, what he was charged with, and what he was convicted of.

The snippets below is from the NYS Commission's publication regarding proceedings against judge Timothy J. Cooper.

Let's remember - Judge Cooper drank before driving four 12-ounce(large) beers and a one half-ounce shot of whiskey.

His alcohol content should have been quite high if Judge Cooper could not control himself from veering into a LONELY car coming his way in the opposite lane.

There was just ONE car coming his way because otherwise, when Judge Cooper struck it and when it has spun, flipped and stopped across the highway, there could have been additional accidents if there were more cars on the road at that time.

So, attorney, Niagara Family Court magistrate and Town of Evans justice Timothy Cooper was driving drunk, veered into oncoming traffic despite seeing that there is a vehicle coming his way in the opposite lane, hit that vehicle and caused the other vehicle to "spin, flip on its side, and come to rest blocking the northbound lane of the roadway".

It is sheer luck that the person in that vehicle was not killed and that there were no more accidents.

Where a vehicle is blocking the roadway across, it could very well be that more vehicles could ram into it, not having time to stop.

The injured person sustained "a cut on the side of his head" - not to mention the stress of the near-death experience.

Judge Cooper:

1) admitted to using alcohol - four 12-ounce beers and 1 half-ounce shot of whiskey;

2) refused a breathalyzer test;

3) failed the field sobriety tests;

4) had glassy eyes, slurred speech, and "smelled of alcohol" ("smelled of alcohol" was bad police work, the police should verify that the breath, and not the clothes, smells of alcohol).

In my practice and my husband's practice as criminal defense attorneys in New York,

1) refusal to take a breathalyzer test leads to an automatic suspension of a driver's license;

2) arrest for driving while intoxicated after causing a car accident with injuries, and with an admission to the amount of alcohol Judge Cooper admitted "consuming" leads to charges for

Here is what Judge Cooper was charged with:

1. 
   VTL 1192(3) - a misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (up to 1 year in the local jail if convicted, 3 years probation and a mandatory ignition interlock device on all vehicles in the family);  the next DWI after a misdemeanor DWI conviction is automatically a felony, and conviction of an attorney for a felony in New York causes automatic disbarment as of the date of conviction;
2. VTL 1194(1)(b) - refusal of a chemical test, which should lead to a 1-year suspension of the driver's license in the case of a first refusal;
3. VTL 1128(a) - failure to keep right.

Judge Cooper was definitely undercharged.

He was not charged for an aggravated DWI (after having caused a car accident with injuries), and the police did not insist on having his blood drawn after he refused a breathalyzer test - which could lead to a felony-DWI charges.

By the way, two days ago the New York State Senate voted to enact a law that would make it mandatory for the police to check breath, urine and blood of DWI suspects in cases of car accidents that caused death or serious bodily injury.

In my experience as a defense attorney, New York police force defendants to have their blood drawn even without car accidents.

New York law, 1194(2)(a), presumes consent to drawing blood given by all motorists in exchange for driving privileges in the state.

In this case, after Judge Cooper refused the breathalyzer test, but admitted that he drank 4 12-ounce beers and one 1/2 ounce shot of whiskey before veering into ongoing traffic and causing an accident with injuries, it was the most logical thing to do - to check Judge Cooper's alcohol level by having his blood drawn, to ensure safety of other people on the road and protect them from drunk drivers like Judge Cooper.

That was not done.

What occurred next is no less bizarre.

According to NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, the drunk driving occurred on April 23, 2014, and criminal prosecution of Judge Cooper which was initially started in Lewiston Town Court.

In May of 2014 the prosecution was transferred to the North Tonawanda City Court because both of the judges of the original court recused.

The presiding judge in the new court was Judge William R. Lewis.

Apparently, Judge Cooper opted for a non-jury trial by Judge Lewis, and was not disappointed.

According to press reports, Judge Lewis convicted Judge Cooper of a reduced charge of driving while ability impaired and sentenced him to - guess what?

1. fines and surcharges totaling $615;
2. suspension of Judge Cooper's driver's license for whopping 90 days; and, imagine
3. a conditional discharge.

No jail time.

No probation.

No ignition interlock device.

No court-ordered treatment.

Nothing.

The question is - how did a misdemeanor DWI in a context of causing a car accident with an injury turn into a VIOLATION (not a crime) driving while ability impaired?

How did the refusal to take a breathalyzer test disappear - without a plea bargain, after a jury trial?

Judge Lewis definitely overstepped his bounds in convicting a DWI misdemeanor-charged judge for an ability-impaired violation only and in dropping the chemical test refusal charges.

I wonder how much Judge Lewis was paid by Judge Cooper to do what Judge Lewis did.

Since Judge Lewis considered an early retirement immediately after the "conviction" of Judge Cooper for an "ability impaired" violation, Judge Lewis appears to have been paid enough.

Here is the attorney registration of the "hero", Judge Lewis who saved his colleague from a lot of "inconveniences" that a defendant in Judge Cooper's position usually faces.

Once again, what happened in how Judge Cooper was charged and prosecuted, usually does not happen to a regular DWI defendant.

A regular DWI defendant who caused a car accident with injuries does not usually get a reduction of charges to an AI, and especially after a trial.

A DWI defendant in this position usually gets a plea of probation, and, in exchange of not being sent to jail, has to go through 3 years of visits to probation officer, counseling, substance abuse treatment and COSTLY ignition interlock devices for ALL vehicles that the defendant's family is using.

Moreover, probation supervision usually involves a 10 pm to 6 am curfew, prohibition on having alcohol in the house, prohibition of visiting alcohol-serving establishments, and consent to random warrantless searches of defendant's residence.

I know many people who went to jail or prison on violation of probation simply because a probation officer, during a random search, found a bottle of beer in their fridge that defendants claimed belonged to their spouse.

I know many people who went to jail because they did not come to see their probation officer on time, even when claimed they were tied up in traffic or were sick and needed to visit a doctor on the day of scheduled probation appointment.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, the next DWI charge after a misdemeanor DWI conviction is a felony in New York - a mandatory felony, and conviction of a felony in New York of an attorney leads to an automatic disbarment.

Judge Cooper is not on probation.

Judge Cooper is not undergoing alcoholism-related treatment.

Judge Cooper and his family do not pay for and do not experience the inconvenience of ignition interlock devices.

And, motorists are not protected from Judge Cooper who, having been given an understanding of his impunity and invincibility because of his connections in the government, is going to do it again - he is a drunk-driving time bomb.

And, I do not see big campaigns in the press or social media like the one to oust judge Aaron Persky who gave a super-lenient sentence (but still some jail time) to the Stanford rapist.

Here, judge William R. Lewis allowed a super-drunk judge an ability to regain his license within 90 days instead of a year's suspension plus 3 years probation plus counseling and treatment plus ignition interlock devices.

Judge Lewis opted not to protect the public from his fellow drunk judge, and is quickly retiring after his decision.

And, the Commission removed Judge Cooper from his position in Evans Town Court, but apparently forgot to remove him as a Niagara Family Court magistrate where he is paid SEVEN times more than in his position as Evans Town Court judge, compare:

And, the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has worded the Stipulation of removal of Judge Cooper in such a way that Judge Cooper only pledged that he will not "seek" or "accept" new judicial positions, but said nothing about being taken off his current position as a support magistrate?

So, Judge Cooper was removed from the bench - kind of, in one place - but allowed to remain on his bench as a Niagara Family Court Support Magistrate?

That is called judicial discipline nowadays in New York?

Don't you think that something stinks?  Very much?

This is what this judge reportedly caused:

We should more of the same from attorney and support magistrate Timothy J. Cooper since he escaped without proper discipline or proper punishment.

And we should expect ourselves and our children and loved ones to be inside that smashed car - because it is WE THE PEOPLE who allow judges to escape accountability and punishment for their crimes, and it is WE THE PEOPLE who, through our inaction, allow such drunk driving judges to remain on our roads.

FTC and DOJ joint letter regarding statutory definitions of the practice of law confesses that the regulation of the legal profession is a sham

On June 10, 2016 the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice have issued a joint letter to the North Carolina legislature regarding the upcoming legislative bill that proposes to exempt interactive legal document preparation websites from the definition of the practice of law.

Here is the letter.

The letter is, let's say, interesting.

It asks the legislators to EXEMPT certain activities from the DEFINITION of the practice of law or unauthorized practice of law because - gasp! - the practice of law is NOT CLEARLY DEFINED.

Now, if something is not clearly defined, there is NO definition, and thus there can be NO regulation of the practice of law (which is not clearly defined) and NO prosecution for unauthorized practice of law (which is not clearly defined) and NO exemptions from what is not clearly defined - because there is nothing to exempt anything from.

That would be pure logic, wouldn't it?

By the way, FTC has been mulling on my complaint against New York State for its antitrust activities in regulation of the practice of law for over a year, but now gives birth to this masterpiece?

So, now FTC and DOJ recommends, in an official letter, to a state legislature that, to close the "justice gap" (access to court by litigants who cannot afford an attorney), document self-prep websites should be LEGISLATIVELY permitted so that the honorable legal profession wouldn't prosecute such justice-gap-closing and consumer-helping businesses for taking the bread out of attorneys' mouths.

What is also extremely interesting is that FTC and DOJ in its letter seems to separate the concept of "legal services" with the "practice of law":

"Overbroad scope-of-practice and unauthorized-practice-of-law policies can
restrict competition between licensed attorneys and non-attorney providers of
legal services, increasing the prices consumers must pay for legal services, and
reducing consumers’ choices."

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "attorney providers of legal services" in the American jurisprudence.

Instead, legal services are automatically equated with practice of law and, if done by unlicensed providers, are equated to the committing the crime of unauthorized practice of law.

So, FTC and DOJ is urging state legislatures to erode the concept of the "practice of law" even further.

Since that concept is not clearly defined anyway, it becomes increasingly clear that:

1) regulation of the legal profession creates and aggravates the "justice gap", for the benefit of attorneys and is harming consumers of LEGAL SERVICES;

2) what constitutes the practice of law is not clearly defined, thus undermining both the administrative regulation of the practice of law, and criminal prosecution of unauthorized practice of law;

3) separation of the terms "practice of law" and "legal services" BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and official promotion of competition between "licensed attorneys and non-attorney providers of legal services" further shows just how bad people are hurting BY regulation of the practice of law that prevents people from getting an affordable provider of legal services (which, for FTC and DOJ, is not the same as, exclusively, a licensed attorney).

What is unsettling though is that the federal government does not require the state legislatures to dismantle what constitutes illegal (and anticompetitive) regulation of the legal profession to help consumers of LEGAL SERVICES (which is not the same as the practice of law, according to FTC and DOJ), but instead humbly "recommends" to provide a "Band-Aid to cover the bullet hole" and to allow people who cannot afford a licensed attorney to at least be able to use document self-prep websites.

Yet, people who cannot afford an attorney, most likely, have a low literacy level and may have a problem with the self-prep websites, too, or no or poor Internet access and no literacy as to how to use the Internet.

So, why people who cannot afford an attorney should scramble either on their own, or with the help of document-prep websites, but cannot hire a "non-attorney provider of legal services" of their own choice who they trust?

And why FTC and DOJ, after all but confessing that regulation of the practice of law is a sham to protect the turf of the legal establishment, still continues to help protect it, instead of posing an ultimatum, according to its own logic:

1) Either you bring your attorney regulation in compliance with federal antitrust laws, in accordance with North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC (as of February 2015) and FTC Guidelines to Staff (as of October 2015) - or you STOP regulation of the legal profession as hurting consumers, creating and contributing to the justice gap;

2) Either you CLEARLY DEFINE what constitutes the practice of law, on a legislative level, and without participation of market players IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (remember what percentage of state legislators in any state are licensed attorneys?) - or you deregulate, because otherwise your regulation, including criminal UPL laws, is nothing other than helping the legal establishment protect their markets at the expense of consumers, in violation of federal CRIMINAL and civil antitrust laws.

So, my question is - the letter, while confessing a lot, is not doing much other than confessing a lot.

When will FTC and DOJ finally start doing their jobs and pursue elimination regulation of what is not defined, of the "practice of law" as unlawful and as a practice that hurts consumers, creates and contributes to the justice gap, only to enrich the market players?

And, by the way, the FTC and DOJ letter of June 10, 2016 somehow advises to state legislatures to actually regulate the document self-prep websites, too, for "consumer protection" purposes - and advise the state governments to use a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court precedent on permissible content-based restrictions on commercial speech.

Yet, the recommended 1980 U.S. Supreme Court precedent was effectively overruled in June of 2015 in Reed v Town of Gilbert, now requiring of the government to satisfy the "strict scrutiny test" (which the U.S. Supreme Court did not require in 1980).

So, why are FTC and DOJ recommending to use a precedent that was overruled a year prior to the date of their letter recommendation?

Are the FTC and DOJ trying to actually help state governments keep the corpse of attorney regulation alive for a little more, under the false pretensions of legality?

How foster care/adoption pipeline works in Delaware County under the guise of fighting drugs

On June 15, 2016 Walton Reporter, of Delaware County, New York, published an "ongoing story" - how the heroic police officers of Delaware County continue to wage war on drugs.

Facebook comments to the article were predominantly:

1) lauding the heroic police officers;
2) badmouthing the presumed-innocent defendants; and
3) expressing that the baby that one of the defendants is very obviously carrying should be taken away from her by Social Services;
4) expressing that they are glad that the two "scumbags" are "off the streets" and "off the taxpayer's pay".

Yet, there are glaring discrepancies in the story that beg questions.

First, the couple, man and woman, were arrested based, allegedly, on a "sealed indictment".

Indictments are sealed so that the defendants would not flee.

But, despite the necessity to keep mum about the planned arrest, the police tipped of the Walton Reporter's journalist Lillian Browne who, according to comments on Facebook, arrived at the arrest scene at the same time or earlier than the police.

I wonder whether any officers from the Sheriff's department will be disciplined for creating unfair pre-trial publicity and potentially contaminating the jury pool for both defendants in this case?

I guess, subpoenaing Facebook comments against the defendants, as well as "likes" of such comments can be fun for purposes of picking the jury in this case.

Next, possession of controlled substances (which is what the charges allegedly are) is a non-violent crime.

Why then the two defendants have to be publicly arrested, with reporters called to the arrest scene?

Why do they have to be taken out of their homes in the middle of the day without proper clothing?

Why the male has to be taken out of his own home shirtless?  So that everyone would see his bare chest and judge him because he has tattoos?

And, tell me, please, why an 8-months pregnant woman (people who know her stated on FB she has 3 weeks to delivery of her child) has to be taken out of her home barefoot 3 weeks before giving birth to a child, on a non-violent crime?

The arrest could not wait?

The pregnant mother was about to flee?

From Walton, NY?

Once again, she would flee being on the verge of delivery and while her partner had a child still at school?

Seriously?

Then, what does the K-9 handler John Demeo (the fat guy on her right) doing arresting her?  Why is he Ozzi-less in these pictures?  Where is the dog?  If the dog is doing the drug search, why the handler is away from the dog?

The Ozzi-less picture of John Demeo on the job just proves Ozzi is a pet Delaware County taxpayers are paying for.

But, if John Demeo makes Ozzi-less arrests, who is handling #OzziTheK9 without shots while John Demeo is handling the arrest?

Are Delaware County taxpayers paying for yet another Ozzi-handler?

As to dragging the pregnant mother barefoot through dirt and stones - look at the posture of her foot, here:

She is afraid to step on a stone.  They didn't have time to let her put her shoes on, after arresting her in her own residence?  What was the urgency for that?

And, look at the stones and dirt the two police officers wearing boots are taking the barefooted pregnant near-delivery criminal defendant.

Who is presumed innocent, by the way.

So - why would a public arrest, with reporters, of two parents of a soon-to-be born unborn child, be needed?

Why is it so urgent?

Why should both future parents be publicly humiliated?

Why should the arrest be hailed as "war on drugs"?

I will tell you why.

When both future parents are "safely" in jail, Social Services will not have much difficulty grabbing the child into foster care when the child is born, right out of the maternity hospital, and that is THE ONLY reason why an arrest of a woman who is 3 weeks away from delivery, for a non-violent crime, is made.

And, please, consider that, with no proof of residency of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, and no proof of legitimacy of ANY of the Delaware County Deputies, both the alleged indictment and the execution of the alleged arrest warrant are patently illegal.

As to the concern that NOW these two people are taken off the taxpayers pay (hinting at welfare, probably), that is a patent misunderstanding of what is going to be happening.

Because if the woman was on Medicaid or private insurance, then Medicaid or her private insurance had to pay for her birth and after-birth care.

Now that she is a detainee of Delaware County jail, Delaware County taxpayers will have to pay for her delivery and post-delivery expenses.

Moreover, if Delaware County does not provide adequate care to the woman - and I've got many calls and visits to inmates and pre-trial detainees in Delaware County jail and many arguments in court dealing with inadequate care or lack of any medical care - then the Delaware County taxpayers will have to pay damages if she chooses to sue the County.

And, of course, a pregnant woman must have:

• good nutrition;
• lots of fresh air;
• adequate exercise;
• a comfortable place to sit and lay down on - frequently.

All of that is patently lacking in Delaware County jail, which feeds detainees bland food barely adequate to survive, where fresh air and adequate exercise for a pregnant woman is not available, and where the jail routinely denies even extra pillows for invalids with chronic back pain and after back surgeries.

As to "war on drugs", there are several places in Delhi, NY, where the Sheriff's Department is located, where drugs are freely exchanged for money, in large quantities, and the Sheriff's Department actually stopped patrolling the exchange areas, which can only lead to an inference that there is an agreement to not look that way - I wonder whether the agreement is in exchange for a donation, no doubt towards K-9 Ozzie's upkeep, or a little more incentive.

It is interesting that all the most corrupt officers have shown up at the arrest scene.

The K-9 handler John Demeo who has bought a 1-year-old untrained imported pup for $7,000 and claims to be supporting the dog with donations from individuals whose identity the Delaware County refuses to disclose.

Delaware County Under-Sheriff Craig Dumond who initiated the idea of the County having horseback police for "crown control" in a ghost County - in order to board the horses at his and his wife's private farm.

And, the arrest operation is run like a bad "Men-in-Black" copycat movie:

1) with people dragged out of their residence barefoot or shirtless;
2) reporters are immediately present to catch that and publish;
3) the whole thing is portrayed as a war on drugs;
4) the most problematic officers, from the point of view of corruption, are present and are handling the "war on drugs";
5) an officer is coming out of a residence in sunglasses, mimicking a "man in black" and apparently posing for the picture in the newspaper.

Who goes into a residence to arrest a criminal wearing sunglasses?  Isn't it a safety concern?  And, isn't it a competency concern if a cop does that?

Look at the cop.  A hero.  A macho.  A man in black, sunglasses and all.  Dragging out of the residence a shirtless man, as if there was no time to let him get dressed, in his own home where his clothes are, no doubt,  stored.

I mean, how stupid can one be?

How depraved, to arrest a woman who can give birth right then and there because of mere stress?

How dishonorable, to drag a woman on the verge of delivery without footwear into the dirty street?

That's our "honorable" Delaware County police.

And, I can just bet that the woman's baby is coveted by somebody in Delaware County where CPS works as an adoption pipeline paid for by federal taxpayer money, where foster parents - in practically every case of child neglect involving foster care that I worked on, and I worked on these cases in Delaware County (as a defense attorney) for years - are members of the local governments or are connected to people working in the government, or in Social Services.

And, information about identity of foster parents is routinely denied by Delaware County in response to FOIL requests - for "privacy" concerns.  Which is, in reality, a concern that people may put two and two together and see that babies and young children are snatched by Delaware County CPS and given to "their own" for fostering and then adoption, while CPS also files neglect petitions, imposes upon parents "services" from the "pet" projects of Delaware County officials, and fights in court (until last year, before their own former attorney of 27 years as a judge) against reuniting of children with their parents.

By the way, Delaware County recently disclosed to me that attorneys employed by Delaware County Department of Social Services are not prohibited from having private adoption practice on the side either.

Former Judge Carl F. Becker (who presided over the cases of his own client the DSS from 2002 to July of 2015) did have such a practice while representing Delaware County DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench.

So, the much-publicized (in a stupid way) arrests are simply gravy for Delaware County CPS and for all satellite non-profits and private practices feeding off CPS, as well as for those who stand to foster and then, possibly, adopt the now-yet-unborn child.

Now, as soon as the child is born, the child will be snatched and put into foster care.

With these payment rates in Delaware County (per response to my FOIL request), the foster parent will be paid $476.70 per month plus reimbursement for diapers, and with a chance to adopt the baby in the future and qualify for more subsidies.

So, please, don't tell me this arrest, the way it was timed and handled, was necessary at this time and against these defendants.

The only reason why it would be necessary is to take the baby away at birth, because both parents are in jail.

If at least one of the parents would be home, the process of baby-snatching would not have been that easy.

So, is it really "war on drugs" and a "job well done" by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department?

Hardly.

Delaware County Sheriff's Department would have better served the community if it would patrol Delhi, NY where people coming to certain locations in good cars blatantly exchange suitcases in the open.

THOSE are the real drug dealers.

But, it is easier (and, probably, safer), to arrest a pregnant woman and drag her barefoot through the streets of her hometown flanked by fully armed police officers with the pre-arranged photo-reporters snap-shooting her face.

Not only will this arrest force Delaware County taxpayers to pay for birth and after-birth care of the mother, not only will force Delaware County taxpayers to pay through their noses for the care of the baby in foster care, but it is downright cruel to the mother who will be denied breastfeeding of her baby - because somebody in the local government needs to adopt her baby. 

And, remember, with legitimacy of both the Acting DA and with of every single police officer in Delaware County not proven by records, both arrestees can also sue for illegal arrest and false imprisonment - with taxpayers having to pay for defense in that lawsuit, too.

Nothing surprising in Delaware County.

Just a war.

But definitely not on drugs.

On taxpayers and parents, rather.

==

An update:  after this blog was published today, the pregnant mother was reportedly released on her own recognizance after arraignment in the Delaware County Court. 

The Acting DA Hubbard (who recognized he reads this blog) has yet an election to win.

Can a recused prosecutor fire a special prosecutor appointed in his stead to derail an invesigation by special prosecutor of people the recused prosecutor had ties to?

The South Carolina is to decide whether the special prosecutor appointed in the stead of a recused prosecutor had a right to activate the special grand jury proceedings (which the recused Attorney General did not want to do) and whether the recused Attorney General had the power to fire the special prosecutor for continuing the investigation in which the Attorney General had a conflict of interest to prosecute.

The case appears to be a no-brainer.

It is apparent that if a public official recuses from a case because of a conflict of interest, he recuses from it ultimately and completely, with no rights to influence the investigation and prosecution by any means - including by removal of an "inconvenient" special prosecutor (AG Wilson calls the special prosecutor an "upstart").

But, with a lot of corruption investigation appear to be going on at the moment, and a lot of judges being prosecutors, institutional interests may influence resolution of the case.

I will continue to cover this story.

Stay tuned.

White male Judge Rob Bare jumped into bashing the female attorney handcuffed by white male Judge Hafen

I wrote on this blog about a judge who handcuffed an attorney for arguing against detention of an indigent criminal defendant.

After an uproar in the social media and after the "handcuffing judge", Judge Hafen, was ousted by voters, the defendant who was sent to jail because the judge was pissed that the public defender did not stop defending her client when she was told to - was released by another judge, Judge Rob Bare.

The defendant was released pending appeal of Judge Hafen's decision.

Prosecutors who had the audacity to oppose the release, were claiming, by the way, that the handcuffed public defender was "interrupting" the judge after he has already made his decision - which is, first, not true according to the available transcript, and, second, the judge should not have made his decision before allowing the public defender to make the record.

Even Judge Rob Bare who released the defendant stated that "[a] lot of meaningful things were covered that, respectfully, a lawyer could potentially weigh in on,” Bare said. “But even if the lawyer chose not to weigh in, it troubles me that a judge would speak directly to a now-unrepresented client in this regard.”

So, Judge Bare implied that the handcuffed attorney should have said even more than she already did.

Yet, Judge Bare blamed THE ATTORNEY and not Judge Hafen who ordered the attorney not to speak and handcuffed her when she did, so how was the attorney supposed to "weigh in" if she was handcuffed even for arguing as much as she already did?

There are interesting coincidences between two judges, Judge Hafen who handcuffed attorney Bakhtary, and judge Rob Bare, who released the defendant (no doubt, under the pressure of the storm of disapproval by the social media), but still continued to blame the handcuffed attorney, now for not arguing more than she did when she was handcuffed by Judge Bare's fellow judge Hafen.

Same as Judge Hafen, Judge Bare is a white male.

In his official court biography Judge Bare was quoted as saying:

"I give every ounce of my energy, every day.  I am proud to be a judge.  Respectfully, consideration of judicial ethics is very important to me.  Please know that integrity and professionalism are everything to me.”

Moreover, Judge Bare is one of the judges enforcing attorney discipline in the State of Nevada.

How appropriate and ethical was it for the judge to blame the female attorney who was already handcuffed for making an argument on behalf of her indigent client, to blame her for not making MORE argument, but, not to make any disapproving statement regarding behavior of the fellow male white judge who handcuffed her for doing her job?

And this is the man who enforces attorney discipline in the State of Nevada?

Ohio federal Judge Dan Polster vs. New Jersey attorney John McDermott standoff: 5th Amendment implications

I've just blogged about the continued standoff between the Ohio federal judge Dan Polster and the New Jersey attorney John McDermott.

I would like to separately emphasized one of the most important aspects of this standoff:

the compelled self-incrimination that Judge Polster is requiring of John McDermott.

John McDermott is not admitted in Ohio state courts, or in Judge Polster's federal court.

Judge Polster, as an accuser, is accusing John McDermott of giving improper legal advice to his brother, specifically, not to appear at a case management conference in that court.

If that was true, for John McDermott that would have constituted a criminal offense of unauthorized practice of law.

So, when Judge Polster is absolutely requiring that John McDermott come and answer charges against him charging him practically not only with contempt of court, but with engaging in the crime of unauthorized practice of law, and Judge Polster issued an order punishing John McDermott with $500/day fines until he comes to the court and waives his right to remain silent on the issue protected by the 5th Amendment, there is a whole additional level of illegality there.

Once again, I wonder whether Judge Polster will be disciplined for his actions against John McDermott, because he appears to be completely lacking the necessary temperament, knowledge, competence or integrity of a judge.