A new way to deal with people documenting police misconduct - do not take body cam with you, disable the witness's camera and kill the witness. The case of #KorrynGaines

I wrote on this blog about various ways in which the government prosecutes those who record the police, document governmental misconduct, engage in civil disobedience, protesting unconstitional laws and actions of the government, and seek access to public records.

As part of that report, I mentioned two murders that occurred of those who documented governmental misconduct, of Sunny Shue in 2010 and Adam Rupeka in 2016 (see blogs here and here), whistleblowers of governmental misconduct - judicial and police misconduct in Sunny Shue's case and police misconduct in Adam Rupeka's case.

There are no efforts to even investigate those murders.

I also wrote about several attempts at murder of my friend Barbara O'Sullivan:

first, Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie tried to run her over while she was videotaping his mishandling of Barbara's daughter - yet, he was not able to either kill Barbara or destroy the tablet with the video evidence in it. 

Derek Bowie is the local "blue blood" since his uncle Jeff Bowie is a longtime investigator for the Delaware County District Attorney's Office, NY, and where many other relatives of Derek Bowie are or were longtime employees of the Delaware County - so nobody prosecuted him, and instead he started a criminal prosecution of Barbara and her daughter, and was allowed to remain on the case and arrest both Barbara and her daughter on charges he fabricated.

Then, Derek Bowie came to Barbara's house at night a week after his first murder attempt, arrested Barbara and her daughter on fabricated warrants (fabrication of the warrant of arrest is confirmed through testimony of Delhi Town Court judge Richard Gumo), attempted to kill her dog, took the dog out of the house and searched the now empty house for the tablet with video evidence of his misconduct.

Only the tablet was hidden well, and Bowie did not find it.

Then, Barbara was put in jail and I, as her attorney at that time at the beginning of the criminal proceedings, was not allowed to see her unless I would allow to search my attorney file - and I, naturally, refused to submit my privileged attorney file to the search as a condition of seeing my client in jail.  I guess, they wanted that tablet or what was in it that badly.


The case against Barbara, which the District Attorney's office disgracefully pursued for the benefit of the nephew of their long-time employee, while doing nothing to prosecute Derek Bowie for attempted murder of Barbara - was dismissed.

The case against her daughter was doggedly prosecuted by the District Attorney's office employing Derek Bowie's uncle, until a jury trial which Barbara's daughter stoically withstood while being nearly 7 months pregnant - and was acquitted by the jury.

At the time of Derek Bowie's testimony at Barbara's daughter's trial, Derek Bowie was no longer employed by Delaware County, the DA knew, through a lawsuit against Derek Bowie by his girlfriend that Derek Bowie was never a legitimate Deputy Sheriff in Delaware County since he did not satisfy residency credentials, but the DA's office elicited perjury from Derek Bowie stating that he was a legitimate Deputy Sheriff anyway.

Both charges against Barbara and Alecia were brought by Derek Bowie and were illegal since Derek Bowie was not a legitimate Deputy Sheriff - which did not prevent the DA's office, the DA Richard Northrup (now Delaware County judge) and the now Acting District Attorney John Hubbard, to pursue those illegitimate charges.

Moreover, the DA's office engaged in fabrication of evidence during proceedings, brought the felony case against Barbara to the point of trial and agreed to the dismissal only when faced with evidence that the arrest warrant against Barbara which was the basis of the felony charges was fabricated by Delhi Town Court Judge Richard Gumo's personnel and was never signed by the judge himself, as required by law.

After the dismissal, Barbara's dog was killed under circumstances suggesting intentional killing, and then Barbara's house was blown up and burnt down by a burning projectile thrown into her pregnant daughter's room in the middle of the night, her daughter was not at home and thus survived unscathed, Barbara was able to save herself and managed to save two out of three dogs who were in the house at the time of the fire, but one dog (a 2nd dog) was killed.  

Derek Bowie was quietly let go from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, and is now toiling as a police officer, as far as I know, for the village of Deposit, operating together with his uncle Jeff Bowie. 

The Delaware County Acting District Attorney is aware of the two murder attempts on Barbara O'Sullivan, and one murder attempt on her pregnant daughter, but refuse to investigate that and to prosecute Derek Bowie for the first murder attempt - the vehicular assault upon Barbara O'Sullivan.

Instead, the Delaware County continues to spend taxpayer money to defend Bowie in two lawsuits by two lookalike women - Barbara and Bowie's former girlfriend who was also assaulted by Bowie, beaten up and suffered serious injuries at his hands and refuses to prosecute Derek Bowie.

So, the first murder attempt upon Barbara O'Sullivan sought to destroy video evidence of police misconduct on her tablet.

The second murder attempt burnt down Barbara's house and effectively destroyed the tablet.

Delaware County Acting DA Hubbard who is running for the office of the Delaware County District Attorney this coming November, so far refused to investigate the arson of Barbara's house and the attempted murder of Barbara, her daughter and her then-unborn grandchild.

That is the account of what is happening to people who document police misconduct in New York.

Other parts of the country are, as we know, no different.

As an example, recently as yesterday, now in the state of Maryland, the armed police came to the residence of a black African American 23-year-old mother of two #KorrynGaines, in order to serve upon her an arrest warrant based on a traffic ticket, and without carrying on them the required body cameras, engaged in an armed standoff with Korryn Gaines, went so far as asked Facebook to disable her Facebook and Instagram accounts where she was posting video evidence of standoff - and shot her dead.

#KorrynGaines in Baltimore.

A beautiful young woman, a mother of two young children, a 1-year-old and a 5-year old, is dead because she did not want to come to court to appear on fabricated charges stemming from a traffic stop because she did not have a license plate on her car and because her car did not have a required emission test.

And because she videotaped the armed police standoff and could testify against the police as a witness.

Please, don't tell me that the investigation is not yet complete, and it will be fairly investigated. 

Because you may be assured that there will be no fairness from the moment when the police started an armed standoff with a 23-year old black woman and her 5-year old child without wearing their required body cameras and asking Facebook to shut off her ability to share her own videos of what was going on.

And then they shot her dead (and they wounded her son).

Of course, who wants to be charged with murder based on a video-recording - as the white officer Michael T. Slager was in South Carolina last year for shooting and killing an African American Walter Scott.

Better eliminate the possibility of such videos being created - along with the witnesses who can create them.

By the way, Korryn Gaines son who the police wounded was taught by Korryn Gaines to record the police - which is clearly reflected in the video posted by Gaines and that was available to the police before the armed standoff.  I guess, the 5-year-old boy was also a dangerous person whose life was forfeit because he was taught how to record the police.

The police preferred to rather risk the boy's life and fire into the house where he was with his mother, back off their "service of an arrest warrant" to appear in court on fabricated charges.

Since recently a strange epidemic of deaths in jail of young black women arrested after traffic stops, see here and here, and an epidemic of police killing of black people in general and of black women specifically, it was understandable that Korryn Gaines was prepared for an armed resistance to the police force trying to serve an arrest warrant to her based on a fabricated ticket.

Korryn Gaines had a reason to believe she had worse risk of death in jail than in armed resistance because in jail she would be more helpless than in her own home and with a legally issued weapon near her.

And the traffic ticket was, in the first place, because of her 1st Amendment stance on the issue of constitutionality of driver licenses, in which her ideas were only slightly, but not entirely, different, from the U.S. Supreme Court's - that the right to travel is a fundamental right not to be infringed upon unreasonably by the government.

Here is what #KorrynGaines was stopped, issued a ticket, issued an arrest warrant, SWAT-teamed - and shot dead for:

"After being told she would be arrested if she did not produce a driver's license, Gaines gave one to police. The vehicle was listed as hers, but police found no record of license plates, and the car had not undergone a required emissions check."

She had a driver's license - so nobody can claim she was driving without knowing how to do that or authority to drive, and that she was a hazard on the road, but she did not have license plates on her car and her car was not checked for the level of emissions.

That's all.

That's what she was shot dead for.

The police now is reported to say allegedly that:

"The 23-year-old mother was armed with a shotgun, and police say she threatened to kill an officer if he didn’t leave her alone, causing the officer to open fire. She shot back, police say, and was killed in a second round of fire by officers. Her son was shot during the exchange, but police said they do not know if he was shot by Gaines or by an officer. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and the officers have not yet been identified publicly."

Of course, the police can now say anything they want.

They shot one witness and wounded - and deadly scared - another, a 5-year-old.

There are no other witnesses.

The police did not wear body cameras, as they were supposed to.

The police caused the alternative source of evidence - Korryn Gaines' own videos - to be disabled.

So, at this time whatever the officers are going to say will be forever tainted by their efforts, from the very beginning, not to create their own evidence of the standoff and to prevent the only adult non-police witness of what occurred - first by disabling her social media account, and then by shooting her dead.

23-year-old African American mother #KorrynGaines expressed the same ideas through civil disobedience - carrying a cardboard "plate" instead of a license plate on her vehicle which reportedly said:

"Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel will be held criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right or freedom" on the back and "Free Traveler" on the front.

Korryn Gaines was

• stopped by the police for having the signs instead of license plates,
• given a traffic ticket for it,
• did not appear in court,
• an arrest warrant was issued to bring her to court,
• then a SWAT team came to her house to serve her with an arrest warrant on the traffic ticket,
• she opposed such a manner of service by arming herself with a lawfully issued gun, refusing to surrender, and telling her 5-year-old son who was with her that the police is going to kill them, which the boy repeated on tape.

Korryn Gaines was also trying to document the standoff by taking videos by her cell phone and posting them on her Facebook page.

Despite policy to wear body cameras, the police was not wearing such cameras at the time of serving the arrest warrant and standoff.

And, the police asked Facebook to "temporarily" deactivate accounts of Korryn Gaines so that she would not be able to present to the world the evidence of what the police is doing to her - without their required body cameras.

As a result, Gaines is shot dead.  Her son is shot, but expected to recover.

And we are all the worse off for it, because now we know that Apple invented an application that can block recording of the police, but that Facebook and Instagram can block you from sharing the evidence of police misconduct that may save your life or be used in the future to hold police officers committing misconduct accountable.

We all the worse for the secrecy of court recording, (it's a misdemeanor in New York to record court proceedings), for the secrecy of police misconduct (access to disciplinary records of law enforcement officers is not allowed in New York and many other states).

And those pesky body cameras seem to be fragile pieces of equipment - they either malfunction, or are shut off or police officers forget to take them with them, or to switch them on.

Anything to prevent recording of what you do to your own people.

By the way, those police officers in the SWAT-team who were outside Korryn Gaines' residence, reportedly had body cameras - only those who were in direct contact with her and were shooting at her and her child, did not have body cameras.

Which suggests that the decision not to record what was happening between the police and Korryn Gaines was deliberate - and, coupled with the extraordinary request to Facebook to block Korryn Gaines from reporting to the people what was happening to her, too - smacks of misconduct.

Now we have an "honest" investigation by those who killed the woman, with body cameras off.

Very honest.


#SayHerName #KorrynGaines
#SayHisName #SunnyShue
#SayHisName #Adam Rupeka

#SayTheirNames

#JudgeShirleyKornreich's decision protects the turf of her family members from (assumed) out-of-state competition, or an essay on the "brave" and "responsible" legal journalism by Joel Stashenko, of the New York Law Journal - Part I

Two days ago the New York Law Journal, Joel Stashenko, published an article about  judicial decision where a Manhattan judge, #JudgeShirleyWernerKornreich, dismissed a court case because it was filed by an out of state attorney. 

The New York Law Journal's commentary of the case was sterile and "professional" and did not go into Judge Kornreich's personal background, nor did it try to uncover any personal reasons for Judge Kornreich's interpretation of New York Judiciary Law 470 requiring, since April 2016, a physical office within the State of New York as a condition of being able to practice law in New York, after being admitted and licensed -  while not requiring such an office from in-state attorneys.

Here is the registration information of attorney Barry Goldin:

From this registration information containing only attorney Goldin's office address, Judge Kornreich assumed, without any evidence presented in her decision, that attorney Barry Goldin:

1) Lives in Pennsylvania;
2) Does not live in New York (people may have two homes, in two different states, and share their time between them); and
3) is subject to the reach of Judiciary Law 470.

Yet, Judiciary Law 470 applies only to attorneys who reside in adjoining states, not to those who have offices in adjoining states, and there is nothing in Judge Kornreich's decision referencing any proof that attorney Barry Goldin resides in the State of Pennsylvania.

He might reside in PA, for all I know - what I am saying is that Judge Kornreich dismissed a case filed by attorney Goldin, on behalf of one corporate entity, against another corporate entity, two years ago, on the basis of a statute that is applicable to non-resident attorneys, without referring to proof that attorney Goldin actually resides in the State of Pennsylvania, and not simply has an office in that state.

In her decision, Judge Kornreich indicated that Barry Goldin, in his registration information, did not mention his New York office address.

Yet, following Judge Kornreich's logic of assuming residence of an attorney from his office address, had Barry Goldin posted his New York office address as his primary registration address, his residence will be presumed in New York, and that would take him out of the reach of Judiciary Law 470.

In other words, Judge Kornreich was not seeking logic, evidence, or lawfulness for her decision.

Her decision is even more bizarre that she specifically dismissed the case because it was filed - in 2014 - by a "non-resident" attorney (of which she provided no proof in her decision) residing in an adjoining state (of which she provided no proof in her decision either) who, in 2014 did not have to have a physical address in New York as a matter of law, because in 2011 Judiciary Law 470 was struck by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York as unconstitutional, and that decision was not overturned on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit until April of 2016.

Between September 2011 and April 2016 Judiciary Law 470 was deemed unconstitutional based on an order of a federal court, and attorney Barry Goldin, even if he was an attorney residing in the State of Pennsylvania, of which Judge Kornreich mentions no proof whatsoever in her decision, attorney Barry Goldin did not have to have an office in New York in 2014, when he filed the case, or up until April 2016, when he prosecuted the case.

Because from September 7, 2011 to April 22, 2016 Judiciary Law 470 was struck as unconstitutional, Attorney Barry Goldin, even if he was a resident of an adjoining state (for which there is no reference in Judge Kornreich's decision) did not have to comply with Judiciary Law 470 when he filed the case - and that is the only reason why Judge Kornreich dismissed it in 2016 - because it was filed in 2014 by an attorney not complying, at that time, in 2014, with Judiciary Law 470.

Was it difficult for Joel Stashenko, of the New York Law Journal, to pull from Pacer.gov the applicable decisions in Schoenefeld - from 2011 and from 2016, read Judiciary Law 470 (free online access), consult attorney information of Barry Goldin (free online access, no information about Barry Goldin's residential address in his New York State registration) - and make a determination that something is drastically wrong with how Judge Kornreich decided the case?

After all, it is indisputable - from the texts of the three decisions:

1. by the NDNY court in September of 2011;
2. by the 2nd Circuit in April of 2016; and
3. by Judge Kornreich in July of 2016 dismissing the case because Barry Goldin did not comply with Judiciary Law 470 in 2014 when it was unconstitutional based on the NDNY decision -

that Judge Kornreich's decision was wrong, for the following reasons:

1) Judge Kornreich assumed residence of an attorney (a) out of state and (b) in an adjoining state, in violation of Judiciary Law 470, without referring to any evidence of that supposed fact, and assumed it, without any basis for it, from his office address; if a person has an office in China does not mean he lives there, and Judiciary Law, including the reversal of the 2nd Circuit do not require attorneys to reside where their office is - so there was no reason to assume from an office an attorney's residential address;  thus, Judge Kornreich did not establish in her decision that Judiciary Law 470 applied to Attorney Goldin even if it was valid in 2014 when attorney Goldin filed the case;

2) The reversal of the 2nd Circuit in 2016 of the decision of the federal court in 2011 striking Judiciary Law 470 as unconstitutional could not create a "notice in arrears" for the past conduct of attorney Barry Goldin in 2014, which was completely legal in 2014, even if attorney Goldin resided at the time of filing in Pennsylvania, because in 2014, based on NDNY decision, Judiciary Law 470 was unconstitutional, and attorney Goldin relied upon that decision in his actions. 

The reversal of that case in 2016 did not change the fact that, at the time of filing of the case by attorney Goldin, Judiciary Law 470 was deemed unconstitutional, and actions of attorney Goldin, even if he resided at that time in the "adjoining" state of Pennsylvania - for which, once again, Judge Kornreich referenced no proof in her decision - were completely legal.

In other words, Judge Kornreich dismissed a court case based on

• completely legal actions of an attorney,
• based on a certain statute, on the grounds that the statute applied in 2014,
• while there was proof in the record that the statute did not apply in 2014
• because it was deemed unconstitutional at that time, and thus governing the attorney's actions, and
• without any proof that the statute, even after its constitutionality as a matter of law was restored, applied to that particular attorney.

An extraordinary combination of errors, errors that were easily visible simply from the date (2014) of filing of the case, as compared to the constitutionality status of Judiciary Law 470 at the time of filing, and presence (or absence) of reference to any proof that would make Judiciary Law 470 applicable to attorney Goldin as an attorney RESIDING in an "adjoining" state (not having an office there).

Did Joel Stashenko, an experienced legal journalist, point out these egregious errors of Judge Kornreich made in Judge Kornreich's decision?

He did not even have to discover it from comparison of the dates - Judge Kornreich actually mentions in her decision that attorney Goldin RAISED the issue of inapplicability of Judiciary Law 470 to him in 2014 at the time of filing:

I must note that, in raising his defense, attorney Goldin made an error of referring to the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals made in 2015 in answer to the 2nd Circuit's certified question.

Yet, the decision made by the New York State Court of Appeals did not change the legal status of Judiciary Law 470 as unconstitutional, because the New York State Court of Appeals does not have authority to vacate or reverse the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York made in 2011, and an answer to the certified question of the 2nd Circuit during the pendency of appeal from the NDNY decision - at the time when the 2nd Circuit did not apply any stay upon the enforcement of the NDNY decision - did not have any legal force or relevancy as to constitutional validity of Judiciary Law 470 at the time the case was filed, July of 2014, the time which defined lawfulness of the actions of attorney Goldin, by what was lawful at that time, and not 2 years later.

Nevertheless, attorney Goldin, who was practically accused by defendants in the case and the defendant's attorney Jeffrey Korn of criminal conduct - unauthorized practice of law - for the period of 2 years, did raise the question that the time of filing, and up until the reversal, for those entire 2 years, his conduct was actually legal, based on a decision of federal court.

Judge Kornreich rejected that argument as being "without merit" - without an explanation as to why it is so.

Joel Stashenko did not mention in his article the obvious errors of Judge Kornreich.

#JoelStashenko did not mention that the motion made by attorney Jeffrey Korn, of Wilkie, Farr & Gallacher, LLP on behalf of defendants, to dismiss because the filing in 2014 was deficient, because in 2014, at the time of filing, attorney Barry Goldin did not comply with Judiciary Law 470 (then struck as unconstitutional by a federal court) - was frivolous and, if Judge Kornreich had a scintilla of integrity (I do not doubt her competence) - she would have denied the motion with sanctions and attorney fees against the defendants and against attorney Jeffrey Korn personally.

By the way, since attorney Korn's residential address was similarly not mentioned in Judge Kornreich's decision, there is no way to see whether attorney Korn had a right to make that motion to dismiss.  Who knows, maybe he resides in the "adjoining state" of New Jersey and only claims he works in Wilkie, Farr & Gallacher, LLP in New York City on the site of NYS Court Administration while his law firm's website does not list him among their attorneys (I printed out the name of attorneys of Wilkie, Farr & Gallacher, LLP, saved the printout and am providing a link to that saved printout - if the law firm decides to change the information after this publication). 

Many people do commute from NJ to NY, after all.

Judge Kornreich made no attempt to look into attorney Korn's residential status, even though his name is not even listed among attorneys of the law firm where he is officially registered - assuming once again that he is a resident of the State of New York - without no basis for such an assumption in the record.

In fact, since registration of all attorneys requires only providing, in the attorney's public registration information, an office address and not the attorney's residential address, there is no way to tell from attorney's registration - for the judge, for the attorney's own client (unless the attorney works out of a home office), or for attorney's opposing party and their attorneys, whether the attorney in question is or is not an out of state attorney subject to requirements of Judiciary Law 470.

So, what are judges going to do now, in the wake of Judge Kornreich's decision - require each and every attorney litigating in a New York courtroom disclosure of his residential address as a pre-condition of allowing him to file court papers?

It seems as a logical outcome of judge Kornreich's decision - which Joel Stashenko, of New York Law Journal also did not write about.

As Joel Stashenko did not write about Judge Kornreich's personal financial interest in her decision, requiring from an attorney, in order to satisfy an "office" requirement:

• not a "rent-a-desk" in somebody else's office, as her own court, a different judge, held in 1989 as satisfying Judiciary Law 470 - see that case mentioned in the NDNY decision of 2011,

• not just an office allowing service of process upon the attorney - as the 2nd Circuit's decision interpreted Judiciary Law 470;
• but a functioning office, listed on the attorney's letterhead, registration and with the attorney's actual presence - with many cases, not just one - in the state.

Neither the statute itself, Judiciary Law 470, nor the 2nd Circuit declaring the statute constitutional, went that far.

In fact, the defendants in the constitutional challenge upon Judiciary Law 470, the State of New York and New York Attorney General actually claimed that the "rent-a-desk" situation and "of counsel" status of an attorney will satisfy Judiciary Law 470, see an excerpt from the plaintiff's memorandum of law quoting the State of New York's argument on the subject:

Yet, what was enough for the State of New York and was used by the State of New York to obtain a reversal from the 2nd Circuit, was not enough for Judge Kornreich relying on the 2nd Circuit's reversal.

Why?

Why did Judge Kornreich disregarded all the applicable law that she should have considered?

Why did Judge Kornreich granted blatantly frivolous motion to dismiss instead of denying it with sanctions against defendants and their attorney?

Well.

Judge Shirley Kornreich's income, and income of her adult daughter depended on her decision.

Judge Shirley Kornreich's husband Edward S. Kornreich is a Manhattan attorney.

Judge Shirley Kornreich's daughter Mollie Melissa Kornreich is a Manhattan litigation attorney.

By the way, Judge Kornreich's husband specializes, as his contribution to "thought leadership", in "anti-kickback" laws. 

And, the FBI investigation probed into Judge Shirley Kornreich helping out her husband and his law firm by dismissing a case related to the case where the husband's law firm represented the defendant - creating an advantage for her husband in litigation.

Of course, Judge Kornreich feigned lack of knowledge that her husband's law firm was involved in a related case and said that "she would never" had she known - but there is no indication that Judge Kornreich vacated her order of dismissal and recused from that case. 

Would you believe for a split second that Judge Kornreich did not know that her husband's law firm represented a party in a related case?  Not likely - and especially not likely that judges in related cases habitually talk to one another and habitually look at the progress of related cases.

And, to claim that judges do not have "pillow talks" with their spouses, especially attorney spouses, and do not discuss cases with them - is to live in a dream world.

Considering the above circumstances, Judge Kornreich's husband's specialization in "anti-kickback laws", as his contribution to "thought leadership", appears especially poetic.

And, Judge Shirley Kornreich's son-in-law Matthew David Podolsky is a also Manhattan attorney - or, he at least pretends to be a Manhattan attorney, since, same as attorney Jeffrey Korn whom Judge Shirley Kornreich unlawfully favored in dismissing the lawsuit filed by attorney Goldin, Judge Kornreich's son-in-law is not listed as working at the firm he claims through his registration he works for:

Judge Kornreich's decision created favorable conditions for her own husband, eliminating competition for him in New York and in Manhattan - which helped Konriech herself financially, since spouses live off combined income.

Judge Kornreich's decision created favorable conditions for her own daughter, a Manhattan attorney, and the daughter's law firm, and for the claimed Manhattan law firm of her son-in-law.

Actually, Judge Kornreich's son-in-law, while claiming he works in private employment, surfaced at Preet Bharara's U.S. Attorney General's office, prosecuting "sexual exploitation and enticement of minors and receipt of child pornography and alleged illegal attempts to export high-grade carbon fiber to China. 

Since there is only one attorney Matthew Podolsky registered in the State of New York,

it is unquestionable that it is Judge Shirley Kornreich's son-in-law who, in violation of attorney registration rules, is registered as employed in a private Manhattan law firm, while in reality works for more than a year as a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's office - the very office that "coincidentally" handles high-ranking corruption and just obtained convictions of the two (now former) heads of the New York State Legislature - Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver and the Majority Leader of the Senate Dean Skelos.

Attorney registration rules require attorneys to update information about their employment within 30 days of changes occurring. Obviously, that law is not applicable to the newly-minted federal prosecutor and son-in-law-of-a-judge Matthew Podolsky.  After all he is prosecuting violations of the law of others, and he is related to the judge, the regulator of the legal profession - so he should not bother with complying with the law himself.

Great hedging by Judge Shirly Kornriech, isn't it? - both in employment of her daughter at an influential law firm that "owes" the judge (see below), and in specialization of her husband in kickback laws, and employment of her son-in-law in the office prosecuting high-ranking state officials for corruption.

So that an FBI investigation that targeted her in 2004, as described below, would never happen again.

Why didn't Judge Kornreich disqualify herself from the case in view of the appearance of impropriety and her obvious conflict of interest - which Joel Stashenko of New York Law Journal also did not write about when writing about this case?

Because involving herself in giving favors to friends through her job is usual behavior for Judge Kornreich.

Because Judge Kornreich was already the target of an FBI investigation based on her favoritism and conflicts of interest.

When caught, she admitted that she may have missed her conflict in owning stocks while presiding over cases of companies whose stock she owned, in 11 cases, without specifying the cases:

The FBI probe was regarding possible case-fixing for friends:

Reportedly, Judge Kornreich got rid of the stock that presented a conflict only when she became the target of the FBI investigation.

Another point of the FBI investigation was because Judge Kornreich reportedly refused to recuse from a foreclosure case where she had a conflict of interest.

So, to escape accountability - as a judge, as an attorney and criminal accountability, when caught red-handed, Kornreich sold the stock which was a source of a conflict of interest, and claimed that "she would never" intentionally have a conflict of interest.

Instead of being taken off the bench, charged with a felony case-fixing (theft of honest services of a judge, wire fraud, mail fraud if case fixing was handled over the phone and mail), incarcerated and disbarred, Judge Kornreich continued on the bench - garnering the following "accolade" of reviews in her post-FBI-investigation activities:

Here are Judge Kornreich's ratings and ratings criteria:

Reviews

Kesha case - comment

Please, note that there are only two praising comments, one calling any criticism of Judge Kornreich as coming from "grumbling by sore losers" - I wonder why those "sore losers" would be upset if Judge Kornreich would fix cases for her friends by using her official position - but otherwise the reviews are consistent throughout the years post-dating the FBI investigation and pre-dating Judge Kornreich's decision regarding attorney Barry Goldin.

I will, of course, conduct an additional investigation of the party defendants and their attorneys in the case where Judge Kornreich held that an out-of-state attorney (without proof that the attorney resided out of state) must maintain a physical working office in-state handling more than one case, which does not reflect the state law or the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit validating that state statutory law.

By the way, after the dust settled from that FBI investigation back in 2004, resulting in nothing and leaving Judge Shirley Kornreich standing - not disbarred, not taken off the bench, not criminally prosecuted or incarcerated - Judge Kornreich apparently considered that a sign of approval and encouragement to do more of the same.  

And, Judge Kornreich got handsomely reimbursed for her troubles.   and got reimbursed by her troubles with the FBI from at least one prominent law firm she benefited - and thus became the target of the FBI investigation.

I do not know whether Judge Kornreich got a monetary "incentive" from the law firms and parties she was favoring, but Judge Kornreich certainly got employment for her daughter Mollie Melissa Kornreich exactly at the law firm for which Judge Kornreich arranged a $1 million dollar settlement while associating with partners of that firm through a charity and holding ex parte meetings with members of that firm at the firms' office ostensibly as a Board member of that charity.  

Judge Kornreich then proudly announced her daughter's employment at that firm in New York Times in 2013:

It would have been stupid for the bride not to keep her last name - after all, her name would be sending a message to any judge she is appearing in front of to provide her a special treatment, as a daughter of a colleague, judge Shirley Kornreich.

Mollie Melissa Kornreich is still employed now at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the law firm for which her mother the judge arranged earlier a $1 mln settlement under circumstances suggesting ex parte communications and conflicts of interest which became the subject of an FBI investigation.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is one of those influential law firms that hire former high-ranking judges and relatives of judges to drum up business and protect themselves from attorney discipline - I showed how the "live shield" tactic operates here.

As the apparent part of those tactics, Skadden hired the retired New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye (who died last year), and now has as its employee Judge Kornreich's daughter Mollie Melissa Kornreich, only the hiring of Mollie Melissa Kornreich

definitely looks like a payback for the $1 mln settlement Judge Kornreich arranged for the firm under the circumstances suggesting appearance of impropriety and for her resulting troubles with the FBI.

A perfect quid pro quo from the firm that created a "live shield" for itself, after being exposed to the FBI investigation, by employing the former Chief Judge Judith Kaye - and now employing Judge Kornreich's daughter.

With Judge Kornreich's apparent arrogance, her tendency to get her hand into the cookie jar, and the prior history of being caught with her hand in that cookie jar, nothing appears impossible.

And, of course, the "brave" and "responsible" law journalist Joel Stashenko of the New York Law Journal prefers to pristinely report of how a judge decided a case, without any analysis whether the decision was right or wrong, and without any investigative work of the judge's personal motivations to make the grossly, outrageously unlawful decision.

Why ruffle any feathers when judicial corruption is screaming in your face?

I will continue to provide more details of this story in further blogs.

Stay tuned.

The 2nd Circuit refuses to release records of the State-Federal Judicial Council under Freedom of Information Act claiming exemption of the "judiciary" under FOIA, while the D.C. Circuit grants access to records of complaints against immigration judges to the American Immigration Lawyers Association

I wrote on this blog about my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding records reflecting membership, structure, agenda, meeting schedule and other available records of the so-called New York State-Federal Judicial Council, a shadow secret organization where state and federal judges, and some select attorneys, meet behind closed doors, and do that under circumstances where state judges may be defendants appearing in front of federal judges - members of the Council, see my blog here.

Initially, both judges D'Agostino (the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York) and Katzman (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit) simply ignored my FOIA request.

I repeated it after President Obama signed into law at the end of June, 2016 the FOIA's presumption of access to records.

Today I received a response from a "Circuit Executive" of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit denying my FOIA request - in the court's  alleged "discretion", claiming that information I am seeking is exempt from FOIA, because "the judiciary" is allegedly not subject to FOIA.

Yet, I was not asking for information regarding judicial acts of "the judiciary", but instead regarding administrative activities of a body where members are appointed by the Chief Judge of the 2nd Circuit. 

Moreover, the "Circuit Executive"'s webpage indicates that the office of the Circuit Executive handles administrative activities of the 2nd Circuit.

Such a statement is an admission that not all activities of the 2nd Circuit are judicial activities.

Administrative activities are definitely subject to FOIL, same as administrative activities of, let's say, New York State Court Administration are subject to the state Freedom of Information Law.  In fact, I obtained the only document I could regarding the New York State-Federal Judicial Council through a FOIL request to the New York State Court Administration.

Simply because members of that body are judges, does not mean that records of that body are concealed from public review, and that is especially so that FOIA exempts information only about federal judiciary, while the body is a mixed body, and thus information about state judges who are members of that council is definitely discoverable. 

State judges have no official place in the federal judiciary - they are neither appointed as magistrates, nor nominated by the President, nor confirmed by the Senate.  Thus, state judges' - and attorneys' - participation in such "councils" certainly does not fall within exemptions from FOIA.

Administrative activities of any governmental body, including the court, are subject to FOIA, and FOIA has, since June of 2016, a presumption of disclosure.

As an illustration as to how "inapplicable" FOIA is to "the judiciary", I provide the July 29, 2016 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding information sought by the American Immigration Lawyers Association regarding names of immigration judges against whom complaints were filed.

These two decisions - one from the 2nd Circuit, and the other from the D.C. Circuit, on the same subject of access to records regarding non-judicial activities of judges, are only one day apart.

Here is also an article about the lawsuit to get access to records of complaints against immigration judges.  (As a side note, in New York, for example, complaints against judges are deep secret and are not recoverable under FOIL on "privacy" grounds.  Apparently, not so under the federal Freedom of Information Act.  As a matter of public concern and ability to review performance of their high-powered public officials, such information must be available to the public - and the D.C. Circuit's decision of July 29, 2016 is a huge step in that direction.

As far as denial of my FOIA request is concerned, judges are judges, whether they work in the actual court, or for and administrative agency, such as the Board of Immigration, and information sought by the American Immigration Lawyers Association is not related to the judicial decisions, same as my information was not seeking court records.

The D.C. Circuit's precedent is fully applicable to the denial of FOIA request on July 28, 2016 (one day prior) by the 2nd Circuit.

Please, note that the 2nd Circuit did not say it does not have the records I was seeking - only that it will not give the records to me, in the court's alleged "discretion".

Apparently, the information I am seeking is too sensitive for judges of the 2nd Circuit to be disclosed - all the more reason for me to try to get it.

I will certainly appeal the denial of my FOIA request, and if my appeal is denied, am contemplating a court action to compel production of records I seek.