Two powerful women accused of misconduct, two criminal cases, two diametrically opposite outcomes in Pennsylvania and Tennessee - the cases of #PennsylvaniaAttorneyGeneralKathleenKane and of the #TennesseeJudgeAmandaSammons

Recently, Pennsylvania's elected public official, its State Attorney General investigated, uncovered and was set to prosecute inappropriate behavior amongst the local "ole' boys club", judges, up to the highest echelon, and prosecutors.

Of course, Pennsylvania is the state where the judiciary was very recently shaken by scandal and that continued to be shaken by scandal as Kathleen Kane investigated.

Of course, Kathleen Kane was also, as the State Attorney General, attorney representing the State judges when they are sued as defendants in civil rights actions, making investigation and prosecution by Kathleen Kane of those judges decidedly awkward and ridden by conflict of interest.  But - that conflict of interest was imposed upon Kathleen Kane by local statute.

The conflict of interest of the local judges was all of their own doing.

Pennsylvania is the state where:

• judges were recently caught in selling kids for kickbacks into a juvenile prison - for years - and attorneys were afraid to report such misconduct, so the feds had to step in, clean the mess and convict the judges; attorneys who could have kids protected long time before, were silent, in fear of attorney discipline used against them as a retaliatory tool for criticizing or reporting judicial misconduct - as it happens both in Pennsylvania, and across the country, with 98% of disciplinary boards, populated by licensed attorneys who are also regulated by the judiciary, finding against attorney whistleblowers criticizing judges;
• The former Chief Judge Ronald Castille was caught in a U.S. Supreme Court case this past June in ruling in a death penalty, 4 TIMES, against the condemned prisoner against whom Ronald Castille as a prosecutor personally sought the death penalty, and whose subordinate prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from the defense and elicited perjury - several times - from the prosecution's chief witness.  In other words, Castille was caught trying to finish, as a judge, the case he started as a prosecutor, and kill of (literally) the man against whom Castille knew he obtained the death penalty by fraud.  Castille remains undisciplined, as a judge, and as an attorney - even though there is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct in Pennsylvania, as far as I know;
• One of the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Michael Eakin, presided over the disciplinary case of the prosecutor investigating and prosecuting him, Kathleen Kane - and suspended her before recusing and then quickly "retiring" BECAUSE of what she uncovered, with a judicial disciplinary proceeding pending against him.  Michael Eakin did not recuse also from appointing a member of the Judicial Conduct Board investigating his own "Porngate" disciplinary case who worked for Eakin's judicial retention campaign.  After his "retirement", the judicial disciplinary proceeding stopped, but no attorney disciplinary proceeding was brought against Michael Eakin for abusing his position and a judge and retaliating against his own investigator and prosecutor in the "Porngate" email scandal.

This is what Kathleen Kane's spokesman said about why it was so important to get the system rid of those who use time in their taxpayer jobs to trade sexually explicit e-mails:

Instead, the judiciary preferred to restore its "honor and integrity" in the time-honored way in this country - by silencing the critic,Kathleen Kane, an elected public official who was trying to do her job in investigating and prosecuting misconduct in the state judiciary and amongst prosecutors, the breeding pool of the state judiciary.

Kathleen Kane was:

• charged with crimes during the Porngate investigation and while judges were trying to keep e-mails from the public;
• pressured to resign - and when she refused;
• her law license was suspended by those very people who she was investigating;
• and then pressured to resign again - and when she did not;
• a Senate hearing was held to take her off her office because her law license was suspended - and when the Senate could not depose her;
• was put on trial by a judge who was apparently assigned to have Kane convicted by any means, and who, through a pre-trial motion hearing blocked her from even mentioning the Porngate in her defense - which was the whole reason why she was charged in the first place, then
• was convicted based on testimony of interested witnesses;
• kept out on bail before sentencing on conditions that she will not reveal what she knows of governmental misconduct she uncovered; and then
• sentenced to prison and verbally disgraced in the courtroom by the very judge who knowingly - and unlawfully - blocked Kane from introducing exculpatory evidence at her trial,
• had Kane handcuffed in the courtroom, and
• released her on bail pending appeal likely with conditions attached - if Kane releases anything else that the "ole' boys club" does not want her to release - she will go right to prison.

So, for all the world to see, an elected public official who dared to investigate and prosecute judges - and who has actually uncovered judicial and prosecutorial misconduct that resulted in several "retirements" - was subjected to an extraordinary measures of repressions, publicly, by the judiciary, under the guise of the use of "legal process".

At Kane's sentencing, the crooked #judgeWendyDemchik-Alloy who brought Kane's conviction about by blocking her legitimate defense and thus who allowed the jury to convict Kane on testimony of interested witnesses who Kane could not impeach, hd the audacity to tell Kane this:

Only the retaliation and revenge was against Kane, and was what Demchik-Alloy blocked from introduction at trial, thus rigging the legal process and bringing about the conviction.

It is even more disgusting that a female judge did that to a female state prosecutor who was trying to eradicate sexist misconduct in office of male public officials.

Kathleen Kane is a woman of an enormous courage.

Because she was doing her job for the public that elected her, she was stripped of her law license, her position, her liberty if she loses her appeals - and she is supposed to appeal to the same crooked people who she investigated and who arranged to silence her with a rigged criminal case - and her family was split up over that.

She refused to back up or step down up until she was convicted - based on evidence from interested witnesses who the presiding judge prohibited to impeach with available evidence that would have had the jury not believe a word of what those witnesses were saying.

NONE of the "ole' boys club" who were caught by Kathleen Kane in the "Porngate" scandal received ANY discipline - judicial or attorney discipline.

Kathleen Kane's case shows that attorney discipline and judicial discipline exist not to protect the public but to punish - viciously - people who try to clean up the system using legal means, such as getting elected and lawfully acting as an investigator and prosecutor.

Kathleen Kane's case is a case of intimidation against all attorneys to not even try to report judicial and prosecutorial misconduct - OR ELSE.

And that happened in the state of Pennsylvania, where attorneys were already so intimidated by discipline that they did not report selling kids to a private juvenile prison for kickbacks for years.  Apparently, attorneys in Pennsylvania were not sufficiently intimidated.

After Kathleen Kane's case, they are, so litigants in Pennsylvania should not expect their attorneys to ever criticize a judge, "step out of line" or, God forbid, make a motion to recuse - for fear of losing their licenses, livelihoods or, possibly, even liberty.

At nearly the same time as Kathleen Kane was persecuted for doing her job in investigating and prosecuting judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in her state, in the sunny Tennessee, a judge, Amanda Sammons, was caught in committing misconduct and was actually indicted for official misconduct in a state criminal proceeding - something that never happened in Pennsylvania, even in the Kids for Cash scandal the feds had to prosecute, and even then, they did not prosecute for the actual violation of kids' rights, only for accepting bribes.

Judge Amanda Sammons' misconduct was very obviously not a mistake.

When the judge, a former career prosecutor, clearly instructed the Sheriff to RAISE charges of a woman who was stopped with children not wearing seatbelts, up to charges that required a showing of serious bodily injury in the children, the Sheriff's office had to report the judge and hire its own attorney to defend its position.

Judge Sammons was also indicted for bringing unwarranted contempt proceedings against an attorney and a party in  divorce proceeding, and for lying under oath to try and explain-away her misconduct afterward.

Judge Sammons was temporarily suspended pending the criminal proceeding.

A jury trial was set and a jury picked.

The "senior judge" presiding over the case then dismissed two out of four counts of the indictment before the jury heard the case.

The judge tossed out the charges in connection to the illegal contempt proceedings instituted by Judge Sammons - and lying under oath about it.

Then, after the jury heard the testimony of prosecution's witnesses. 

At the end of testimony, Amanda Sammons, through her attorney, made a motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency of People's case based on a defense that she was supposed to present through her testimony to the jury - but never presented.

Had such a motion been brought in any other criminal case, it would have been denied, and the defense counsel laughed out of the courtroom.

Because, one cannot bring a motion on legal insufficiency of People's case based on an affirmative defense in the defendant's case - before that affirmative defense was ever presented.

Yet, the #SeniorJudge Paul Summers

GRANTED the motion and dismissed the remaining counts against #JudgeAmandaSammons, proving once again that judges across the United States, and including the State of Tennessee, are very much above the law.

The reasoning for dismissal by Judge Summers of criminal charges against Judge Sammons is extraordinarily dishonest:

Judge Summers acted as an advocate for Judge Sammons and a substitute for the jury at the same time when he said that "[t]he defense of honest mistake of fact is alive and well in the state of Tennessee".

That "defense of honest mistake of fact" is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, to be presented through TESTIMONY of the criminal defendant.

Any criminal defense attorney would tell you that it is extremely dangerous to put a criminal defendant on the stand to give such testimony - and expose herself to prosecution's cross examination and impeachment.

Judge Amanda Sammons had an obvious reason to be afraid to give that testimony - she already testified under oath before, and her testimony could be used by the prosecution to impeach her.

The jury could very well convict her, rejecting any "honest mistake" defense, because credibility of witnesses in presenting that affirmative defense is for the JURY, not he judge.

Judge Paul Summers, who, like Judge Amanda Sammons, is a former career prosecutor who previously served as an Attorney General of the State of Tennessee and a District Attorney, knew very well what he was doing.

As he knew that the jury may very well reject any claims of "honest mistakes" by Judge Sammons not only because she was, for years, a prosecutor before coming to the bench and knew the charging process and who does what in that process to the last t, but also because Judge Sammons's testimony about her alleged "honest mistake" could be rebutted by testimony of the Sheriff's Office witnesses who could testify that she was insistent on her alleged mistake even when it was pointed out to her.

Moreover, Judge Sammons' potential testimony of "honest mistake" could be rebutted by the evidence that she, according to a federal lawsuit, also tried to remove children from the mother stopped with a seatbelt violation only, while no petition was filed by DSS.

So, Judge Sammons acted not only as a prosecutor in trumping up the criminal charges, but acted as a DSS prosecutor to remove the children on a never-filed DSS petition.

No mistake there.

So - Judge Summers, knowing what a disaster awaits Judge Sammons if she takes the stand with her "honest mistake testimony", rescued her, usurped the role of the jury, acted as an advocate for Judge Sammons and dismissed charges against her as if her testimony already happened and as if her affirmative defense of "honest mistake" was already presented.

The judge claimed that "no reasonable jury" could possibly NOT believe Judge Sammons on her affirmative defense that she never presented - an extraordinary act of official misconduct for Judge Summers.

So, now, the questions.

Will the state of Tennessee remove Judge Paul Summers from the bench from his act of official misconduct - saving a criminal defendant the necessity to testify on an affirmative defense and ruling instead of the jury as if such a testimony already happened and was believed by the jury - could not possibly NOT be believed?

And, will the feds now file charges against Amanda Sammons AND judge Paul Summers?

There is no double jeopardy between state and federal criminal proceedings, and it is very obvious that states, where judges regulate attorneys, and where judges help judges out of criminal proceedings and quash attorneys who try to prosecute judges for even the most egregious acts of misconduct - states has no ability to clean up the system, they have an ability only to perpetuate it.

Of course, with the recent circus where the FBI claimed it read 650,000 e-mails in 9 days in order to come to the quick rescue of a presidential candidate whose own counsel is "prosecuting" the case - we will not have hope of any luck with the feds either...

What remains?

State Constitutional Amendments for:

1. repealing immunities of any kind for CIVIL lawsuits against public officials for their misconduct in office;
2. pressure on the legislature, or another Constitutional amendment to allow people direct contact with the grand juries, and submission of complaints directly to the grand juries for misconduct of public officials - because prosecutors, whose licenses and livelihoods are regulated by judges, will be ever afraid to do that.

In Tennessee they did - but it did not go very far, with a judge rigging the jury trial.

And, I do not see reports that the Tennessee prosecutors either appealed the dismissal of the case against Judge Sammons, or that they complained against Judge Paul Summers for his outrageous misconduct in the criminal trial.

So, in Pennsylvania, a criminal case was rigged to obtain a conviction of a prosecutor who had the audacity to do her job and investigate and prosecute judges and prosecutors, while in Tennessee a criminal case was rigged to obtain a dismissal of conviction of a judge who committed egregious misconduct.

Business as usual.

A complaint was filed with the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission requesting to take Judge Richard Gumo of Delhi Town Court of the bench

I have just filed a complaint against Judge Richard Gumo of Delhi Town Court requesting to take him off the bench because of his continued misconduct in rubber stamping and allowing his court clerk to rubber-stamp warrants (and, possibly, other court documents), as well as for lying to attorneys and to the Delaware County Court under oath, and for having people put in jail and criminally prosecuted in based on arrest warrants that he knew to be false.

I attached to the complaint the following documents:

1) Gumo's testimony in front of NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct on September 18, 2014;
2) Gumo's testimony in front of Delaware County Court on February 24, 2016 when he was caught by attorney Joseph Ermeti about

• the time when he left to New York City to testify in front of the Judicial Conduct Commission,
• that he has a disability that prevents him from signing his own warrants - which is the requirement of Criminal Procedure Law;
• as to the day when he stamped the warrant;
• as to the fact that he himself stamped the warrant, and not his court clerk Cathy Fletcher;

3) the Commission's Determination of Gumo's prior misconduct, made in December of 2014;

4) the transcript of a felony hearing that I personally handled in front of Gumo on behalf of Barbara O'Sullivan, when Gumo failed to disclose to me that he or his clerk stamped Barbara's arrest warrant, making it illegal - that would have resulted in my immediate motion to dismiss, and would have saved Barbara 1.5 years of criminal litigation, and would have saved the Delaware County costs of the grand jury proceedings, of jailing Barbara and of prosecuting Barbara;

5) Judge Lambert's ruling that the warrant is invalid because of Gumo's misconduct;

6) Acting DA John Hubbard's request to dismiss the indictment because of the pre-trial ruling that no evidence derived from the illegal arrest warrant may be used at trial; and

7) Judge Lambert's dismissal of Barbara O'Sullivan's case on February 25, 2016 - see items 5), 6) and 7) published in my earlier blog here.

Since Gumo continues, according to witnesses, to rubber-stamp or allow his court clerk Cathy Fletcher to rubber stamp warrants, I do not know how he will wiggle out of this one.

The question that remains is - why Acting Delaware County DA John Hubbard did not prosecute Judge Gumo for perjury and did not investigate him for official misconduct?

Because Acting DA Hubbard benefits from Judge Gumo's misconduct by drumming up convictions that allowed him to run for the office of the District Attorney and claim to voters that he is "tough on crime"?

New York #JudgeJohnFLambert continues to commit misconduct by trying to fix a case of a well-connected violent criminal, and cover up misconduct of their attorneys

On September 5 of 2014 Delaware County fake deputy Sheriff (and nephew of Delaware County District Attorney's Office investigator Jeff Bowie) Derek Bowie attempted to crash a tablet in the hands of the local resident (and critic of governmental and judicial misconduct) Barbara O'Sullivan, by intentionally backing a police car back into her.

Barbara suffered injuries to her hands, but survived.

Her tablet - and evidence on it, survived, too.

Derek Bowie was not taken off the case by the Delaware County Sheriff and was allowed to file criminal complaints against Barbara and her daughter Alecia, for "resisting arrest" - even though no arrest from a criminal court was issued at the time when Bowie intentionally backed the car into Barbara.

Without disclosure until January of 2016, John Hubbard who prosecuted both criminal cases, against Barbara and Alecia - and who is running unopposed for the position of Delaware County District Attorney in this year's elections - was the former law partner of the judge who Barbara O'Sullivan criticized and sued, and who retaliated by taking custody of her grandchild without disclosure of his own disqualifying conflicts of interests that came out after he recused from the case without vacating his orders.

Derek Bowie was sued by a his former girlfriend for assault and physical injuries - and the girlfriend looked surprisingly like Barbara, raising issues whether Derek Bowie saw one woman when assaulting the other, and raising issues as to Derek Bowie's mental health.

After Barbara sued Bowie in Delaware County Supreme Court, Delaware County let Derek Bowie go, but provided to him legal representation in that lawsuit at the County taxpayers' expense, he is represented in that lawsuit by the Frank Miller law firm - they found no law firm closer to represent the County, so the hourly rate of that law firm that is paid by the County's insurance company - which raises premiums for the local taxpayers - includes travel to each conference of Judge Lambert (and Judge Lambert loves to schedule conferences)

In the lawsuit of Derek Bowie's girlfriend in federal court, it was revealed that Derek Bowie did not satisfy:

1. Education requirement;
2. Civil service test; or
3. Residency requirement (he lived in Broome County at the time of events, and could not legitimately claim that he was a Delaware County Deputy Sheriff).

to be employed as a Deputy Sheriff in Delaware County - so, Delaware County had no right to hire him, or provide a free attorney for him in the O'Sullivan v Bowie lawsuit.

In Barbara O'Sullivan's lawsuit, the Delaware County Supreme Court personnel, or the County Clerk's office, whichever of them are putting information about the case into the system, misrepresented the essence of the lawsuit by showing in the system that Barbara sued Derek Bowie in his official capacity, as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff.

Barbara O'Sullivan did not sue "Derek Bowie, Delaware County Sheriff".

Barbara O'Sullivan represented herself in that lawsuit, with a designation of SRL/Pro Se, and the same designation should have been given to Derek Bowie before Frank Miller's firm stepped in - Derek Bowie SRL/Pro Se, not Derek Bowie DC Sheriff (especially that Derek Bowie has never been the Delaware County Sheriff, and his employment as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff was illegal).

Barbara O'Sullivan sued Derek Bowie, individually, for assault, bodily injury and injury to property.

And in that lawsuit, Derek Bowie defaulted after being served by the civil division of Delaware County Sheriff's Department, his own employer.

And Judge Lambert unlawfully helped Derek Bowie to:

1. undo the default;
2. dismiss Barbara O'Sullivan meritorious lawsuit; and
3. now pressures Barbara O'Sullivan to save Derek Bowie's and his attorney's asses for continuing with a frivolous counter-claim against Barbara O'Sullivan which they don't know what to do with after the criminal case upon which the counter-claim was based was dismissed and sealed - guess by whom? - by Judge John F. Lambert.  The pressure is for Barbara O'Sullivan to "stipulate" (agree) to discontinuance of the counter-claim - instead of dismissing that counter-claim as FRIVOLOUS, with sanctions imposed upon both Derek Bowie and his attorneys, which is Judge Lambert "discretion" and duty to do.

THE FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BY FRANK MILLER'S LAW FIRM and THE UNLAWFUL GRANTING OF IT BY JUDGE JOHN LAMBERT

In any civil case in New York a litigant has 21 days since the day of personal service to file and serve an Answer to the lawsuit.

Failure to do that constitutes a default, which courts usually refuse to vacate in thousands of credit card debt and even foreclosure cases - causing defaulting parties to lose their homes, simply because they did not file their answers within 21 days.

Not so with Derek Bowie.

In Derek Bowie's case, after Derek Bowie defaulted, a motion was filed, at the expense of Delaware County taxpayers, by Frank Miller's law firm on behalf of Derek Bowie, on October 27, 2014, FRIVOLOUSLY claiming that

• because Derek Bowie's employer the Delaware County Sheriff (the one that served Derek Bowie with the lawsuit in exchange for payment from Barbara to its Civil Service Division) was not notified of the lawsuit, the default must be vacated.

The motion was frivolous because:

Derek Bowie was sued in his individual capacity, for intentional torts, and was not subject to reimbursement by the County. 

Had Derek Bowie been sued for negligence, Barbara would have had to first file a Notice of Claim against the County - which she di not do. 

Frank Miller's law firm conceded the point that no Notice of Claim had to be filed in the case, by not moving not only to reopen the default but to dismiss the case for failure to file a Notice of Claim as a condition precedent to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was proper, against an individual defendant, the individual defendant defaulted, all that the court was authorized to do was determine damages against Bowie on Barbara's behalf.

Yet, Frank Miller's law firm filed a frivolous motion where it at the same time:

1) conceded the point that no Notice of Claim had to be filed - and that constitutes the official notice to the employer; and

2) claimed that the default must be vacated because of the lack of notice to the employer.

Frank Miller's motion was even more frivolous that it was filed against a pro se, unrepresented party without a law degree.

Not only Judge Lambert did not sanction Derek Bowie and the Frank Miller law firm for frivolous conduct, but he granted the frivolous motion to vacate the default, and the following string of appearances ensued:

THE FRIVOLOUS CONTERCLAIM BY DEREK BOWIE/FRANK MILLER'S FIRM -

FOR HIS ALLEGED INJURY OBTAINED DURING HIS TRESPASS, BURGLARY AND SECOND ASSAULT ON BARBARA O'SULLIVAN ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

After Derek Bowie, through Frank Miller's law firm, filed and obtained a victory from Judge John F. Lambert on his frivolous motion to vacate Derek Bowie's clear and irreversible default, they filed, on behalf of Derek Bowie, a counter-claim.

That was done in the fall of 2014.

The counter-claim was for the alleged injury that Derek Bowie allegedly suffered from a dog when Derek Bowie, after he tried to crash the tablet in Barbara's hands with a police car,

• was not immediately fired or put on desk duty;
• was allowed to continue to
•  came to arrest Barbara O'Sullivan using his own fabricated the false arrest warrant

Derek Bowie's counter-claim was frivolous also because days after the alleged ferocious dog attack on him he was testifying in Barbara O'Sullivan's felony hearing in Delhi Town Court, with a Band-Aid only on his hand, and while in uniform, with a Taser and a gun on his side.  Since I personally cross-examined him, I can testify to it in court.

Moreover, I made a FOIL request to the Delaware County verifying his sick days, or desk duty days - there were none.

• If Bowie was able to handle a car, a taser and a gun within two days after the alleged attack, he was not seriously injured.
• Since he was not legally hired, he was not a lawful Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy, and had no right to be on Barbara's property in the pitch-dark night of September 18, 2014 when he attempted her arrest on
• fabricated charges;
• on a rubber-stamped false warrant, and;
• Since Derek Bowie was not a lawful deputy Sheriff, and was disqualified to file criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan in his official capacity because of his prior assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, the criminal charges were void to begin with;
• Since the arrest warrant was not legal (as Judge Lambert ruled in February of 2016, dismissing Barbara's criminal felony case), under New York law, Barbara had a right to resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force if necessary - and there is evidence in the case that she made sure that the dog would not come out, and that the dog came out by accident;
• It was Derek Bowie who obtained the arrest warrant rubber-stamped by Delhi Town Court clerk Kathy Fletcher and not signed by the Delhi Town Judge Richard Gumo who, on the day the warrant was "signed" (rubber-stamped) was far away from Delhi, New York, testifying as to his prior misconduct in front of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Judge Lambert was well aware of Judge Gumo's perjury - and illegality of the warrant - because Judge Lambert himself dismissed Barbara's criminal case after ruling that Judge Gumo lied under oath, the warrant was illegal, and that was after Judge Lambert was provided the transcript of Judge Gumo's testimony on the day of the rubber-stamped arrest warrant in the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Since Derek Bowie had no legal right to be on Barbara's property in the middle of the night, his acts, and acts of his companions, were acts of trespass, assault, burglary, and violation of Barbara's 4th Amendment and due process - for which Barbara still has time out of the 3 year statute of limitations that expires only on September 18, 2017, to sue Bowie in federal court.

Derek Bowie came onto Barbara's property - as evidenced by the dash-cam video that was provided to Barbara by the DA's office - to kill her dog (he says on video before they approached the house, simply hearing the dog bark inside the house, that it is "one dead dog").

That is criminal mischief, destruction of property, so Derek Bowie came onto Barbara's property as a trespasser, in the middle of the night, with intent to commit a crime - and then, there is reason to believe that he broke into the house, after the dog, Barbara and her daughter Alecia were all carted away - to look for the tablet.

THE FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO DISMISS BARBARA'S LAWSUIT AGAINST BOWIE

Judge Lambert dismissed Barbara's criminal case in February of 2016, and sealed evidence in those criminal proceedings.

With the dismissal and the sealing, Frank Miller's law firm had to withdraw the counter-claim, which became frivolous, and because they could no longer seek in discovery evidence from a sealed case, which is what they were doing at that time.

That was NOT what they did.

Instead, in March of 2016 - see the list of appearances in O'Sullivan v Bowie above - Frank Miller's law firm filed yet another frivolous motion - to compel discovery, including discovery from the sealed dismissed case, or dismiss the lawsuit against Derek Bowie.

In April of 2016, Barbara's house, with all documents prepared for the lawsuit and discovery, burnt down, and there are reasons to believe that the arsonist was Derek Bowie - while the local police, Derek Bowie's prior employer and the employer of multiple members of his family, or the local Acting District Attorney John Hubbard who still employs Derek Bowie's uncle, refused to investigate.

Instead of denying the motion, with sanctions against Bowie and his lawyers, on September 9, 2016, Judge Lambert granted the motion, dismissing Barbara's claim against Bowie.

So, now we have - a decision of Judge Lambert in February of 2016 in Barbara's case dismissing the criminal case and sealing evidence in that case, and the decision of Judge Lambert dismissing Barbara's civil lawsuit for failure to comply with discovery on a counter-claim based on that sealed case.

Great - crooked - job, Judge Lambert.

But, now Judge Lambert had the little problem of Derek Bowie's counter-claim still out hanging there.

So, Judge Lambert called a conference which happened, as far as I know, on October 28, 2016 where Lambert's court attorney Mark Oursler tried to get Barbara O'Sullivan to "stipulate" to the dismissal of the counter-claim.

Derek Bowie's alleged attorney Chris Militello who was present at the October 28, 2016 conference - and, likely, tried to audio-record it, causing the security officer to grab his phone and

and who should have come with his client - as Judge Lambert always requires for court conferences - could not locate Derek Bowie to "authorize" him to proceed with the stipulation.

Chris Militello did not try to withdraw the frivolous counter-claim. Chris Militello also did not know what the purpose of the conference was.

Derek Bowie testified in Alecia Bracci's criminal trial (resulting in acquittal) in February of 2016 in Delhi Town Court, that he was never even contacted by his alleged attorneys, the Frank Miller law firm.

Mark Oursler, Judge Lambert's Court attorney claimed that Frank Miller represents Derek Bowie as a private law firm representing a private party, not as a law firm hired by an insurance company to represent a public official.

Yet, Judge Lambert reopened Derek Bowie's default as a private party because his attorneys argued there was no notice upon his employer - which presupposes that Delaware County is being sued.

And, the court system lists the defendant in O'Sullivan v Bowie as the Delaware County (Derek Bowie, the DC Sheriff) - while the judge's law clerk claims it is against a private party.

What a mess!

By the way, the Delaware County, in an answer to a FOIL request, claimed that the Frank Miller law firm was hired by Delaware County for Derek Bowie.

Mark Oursler, and Judge Lambert, appears either not to know the case at all (which I doubt, since he handled not only the civil case, but also the dismissed and sealed criminal case underlying Bowie's counterclaim).

Or, Mark Oursler and Judge Lambert is shamelessly advocating for Derek Bowie - and that is especially so that Mark Oursler claimed to Barbara O'Sullivan in the conference of October 28, 2016 that it is Judge Lambert who "seeks" and "expects" a stipulation on the counter-claim from the parties.

Talking like that to a pro se non-lawyer party is inducing that party into a settlement and giving her an impression that if a judge "expects" something, it is an order from the court, and she must obey and stipulate.

Yet, Barbara O'Sullivan do not have to stipulate to a damned thing.

It is upon Derek Bowie's part to prosecute  or not prosecute the frivolous claim, and Barbara O'Sullivan is entitled to a jury trial in that case, can hire an attorney for that trial, can resoundingly win that trial, and apply for attorney fees for frivolous conduct against Derek Bowie - and that is what Mark Oursler and Judge Lambert are trying to save Bowie from.

The string of events in O'Sullivan v Bowie is simply too much of a coincidence to think that Lambert just erred - made "good faith mistakes" - instead of intentionally trying to help Bowie.

As to Frank Miller's law firm - litigants, beware.

These lawyers are unscrupulous, and have some high protection allowing them to file strings of frivolous pleadings from judges, as O'Sullivan v Bowie case clearly shows.

If you are on the other side of them, be prepared to fight frivolous pleadings.

If you are represented by them, be aware that at some point the "luck" with judges may run out, and an impartial judge may actually apply the law and sanction the lawyers - and their client, and make the client pay the opposing counsel legal fees, for frivolous conduct.

Barbara can, infact, insist on dismissal of the counter-claim as frivolous, with sanctions against Bowie and his lawyers.

And, I cannot wait to see the federal lawsuit she files against Derek Bowie.  It is a slam-dunk case for her, with all the documentary evidence available - from

• Judge Lambert's adjudication of Judge Gumo's illegal arrest to
• Derek Bowie's deposition in the lawsuit by his girlfriend to
• Judge Gumo's deposition in front of NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct, to the whole sorry record of O'Sullivan v Bowie, lamely fixed by Judge Lambert.

As to Judge Lambert, as I said above, he needs to be criminally prosecuted and taken off the bench for his shenanigans.  Let's see if that happens.

Maybe, it will - who knows.

At this very time, the State of Tennessee, for example, does prosecute a judge for official misconduct on the bench.  New York may wake up and do that next to Tennessee.  The world is changing fast.

When a male judge and a male court attorney for the judge bend over backwards, violating every applicable law in the book, to protect a former County police officer who does THIS to one woman (picture submitted by Derek Bowie's girlfriend in the federal case against Derek Bowie)



and continues to commit violence to another - lookalike - woman - and, upon my information, remains a police officer in Deposit, NY, armed and dangerous, and on the streets - that really, really, really stinks.

 

New York discriminates in occupational licensing against non-residents - and not only against non-resident attorneys

I wrote on this blog earlier about discrimination by the State of New York against non-resident attorneys - which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowed and endorsed.


The pretext for such discrimination is that the "residential attorneys" can be served at their home address.

Yet, that "advantage" goes out the door since "residential attorneys" in New York who happily work out of a P.O. Box, are not required to publish their home address, and thus require an investigator to first verify their "home address" before such service.

In any event, with attorney licensing, non-resident attorneys are at least allowed to apply for law licenses in New York and are actually issued licenses - even though they are not allowed, after the 2nd Circuit decision, to practice without a "physical office" in the State of New York.

New York State Department of State went even further with discrimination.

It requires residency in New York as a condition to even apply for a professional license:

Such a condition flat-out blocks non-residents from having practicing regulated professions licensed by New York Department of State, and that is a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution and of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

When you press on "Learn More" link in the upper right corner of the page 

of the professions licensed in this discriminatory way by the NYS Department of State, the link leads you to a blank page.  I tried it several times.

Yet, the list of at least some occupations where NYS Department of State requires a New York state residency in order to issue an occupational license, is provided on the website of NYS Department of State here:

NYS Department of State warns on this page that licenses of

• Real Estate Brokers;
• Real Estate "salespersons"; and
• "Appearance Enhancement Licensees":
• Cosmetologists;
• Nail "specialists";
• Specialists in "esthetics" - whatever that is;
• Specialists in "natural hair styling" - that would be, must likely, African American hair braiding discriminated against across the United States and subject to several federal lawsuits in other states;
• see reports about such lawsuits in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Utah
• Waxing "specialists" and businesses;
• Barber Operators and businesses -

The above additional professions are also prohibited by NYS Department of State to non-residents of the State of New York.

It is interesting that NYS Department of State does not allow search for suspended or revoked licenses - as, for example, an attorney database allows to looks at suspensions and disbarments.

In a way, then NYS Department treats people who never had a license equally with those whose license was suspended or revoked - unlike NYS Court of Appeals that approved, two days ago, a differential treatment of unauthorized practice of law (which does not appear in the actual UPL statute) between paralegals who never had a law license, and paralegals whose license was suspended or disbarred - while paralegals are not a regulated profession in New York and a law license is not required to work as a paralegal.

Of course, there is absolutely no rational basis as to why only residents of the State of New York are allowed to work in New York in these 30 occupations:

1. Alarm Installers;
2. Apartment Sharing Agents;
3. Apartment Information Vendor;
4. Armored Car Guards;
5. Armored Car Carrier;
6. Athlete Agents;
7. Bail Enforcement Agents;
8. "Bedding", whatever that is;
9. Central Dispatch Facilities - which can be virtual and done on the Internet from any location within the U.S.;
10. Document Destruction Contractor;
11. Document Destruction Contractor Branch Office;
12. Hearing Aid Dispenser;
13. Hearing Aid Dispenser Business;
14. Home Inspection;
15. Private Investigator;
16. Real Estate Appraiser;
17. Notary Public;
18. Proprietary Employer of Security Guards;
19. Security Guard;
20. Telemarketing business;
21. Ticket Reseller;
22. Ticket Reseller Branch Office;
23. Watch Guard and Patrol Agency;
24. Real Estate "salespersons"; and
25. Cosmetologists;
26. Nail "specialists";
27. Specialists in "esthetics" - whatever that is;
28. Specialists in "natural hair styling"
29. Waxing "specialists" and businesses;
30. Barber Operators and businesses

Discrimination against out-of-staters does nothing to protect consumers of services in these professions, shrinks the numbers of service providers, allows resident providers to raise price on services while providing no variety that would have existed if non-residents would be allowed to compete with resident licensees.

In other words, such non-resident-blocking policy of New York Department of State is designed (and likely, by the market players within these licensed professions who usually populate licensing boards) only for anticompetitive purposes of quashing competition and maintaining high prices for the consumer.

Is New York waiting for a federal lawsuit on privileges and immunities grounds?  A lawsuit for which New York taxpayers will have to pay?

I will continue to cover the topic of the wrong uses of occupational licensing, including New York's discrimination against non-residents in allowing to earn a living in regulated professions.

Stay tuned.

New York Court of Appeals now requires a law license to work as a paralegal - but only from suspended and disbarred attorneys

In an extraordinary move, yesterday the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed denial of reinstatement to a disbarred attorney for engaging in PARALEGAL services.

New York does not regulate paralegals, and anyone with or without law degree and with or without a law license can work as a paralegal in New York.

Now - with one exception, for suspended and disbarred attorneys.

My husband has raised that exact issue in federal court in Neroni v Zayas, challenging constitutionality of New York criminal statutes for unauthorized practice of law on equal protection grounds, as applied to people who have never had a law license, as opposed to people don't have a law license because they lost it.

Criminal law must be clear, send a STATUTORY notice by their text (not through a judicial interpretation) and treat all people equally.

Unauthorized practice of law statutes in New York do not mention a distinction in treatment of "lay" (never licensed) individuals, as opposed to suspended or disbarred attorneys.

Thus, the 2nd Department that denied reinstatement to attorney Joel Brandes legislated from the bench expanding the reach of a UPL statute to cover paralegal activities, and the New York State Court of Appeals endorsed and supported that illegal activity.

I also recently wrote about a Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dowd who ruled that an attorney in New York (Richard Harlem, son of a judge) may lawfully charge for services of his unlicensed paralegal in drafting legal pleadings - the exact same thing as what Joel Brandes was branded for as UPL - as for "legal services", without any problem, and called my claim that it is UPL ridiculous.

Now, at the highest state court level, New York State Court of Appeals amended the UPL statutes by interpretation and claimed that it was not even an "abuse of discretion" for the 2nd Department to deem a completely legal activity as a crime, and to deny reinstatement to an attorney because of that imagined "crime".

I wonder whether attorney Brandes will go to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing this clearly unlawful and unconstitutional decision.

I am sure an equal protection challenge can be now filed by any suspended or disbarred attorney contesting this ruling, and I will eagerly follow and cover such filings.

It is extraordinarily "disingenuous" (that is the "learned" word used in the court documents for "stupid") and obnoxious for the court to require a law license from a disbarred attorney to do the work that other people do without any law licenses.

But, what can one expect from a court headed by a corrupt prosecutor...

When honest prosecutors are fired for doing their jobs and nobody dares to prosecute prosecutors who commit crimes

Meet Jeffrey Domachowski, a New York attorney with 21 years of experience, according to his registration information.

The registration information of attorney Domachowski is not current though - attorney Domachowski is no longer employed at the Cayuga County District Attorney's office.

According to Attorney Domachowski's Notice of Claim filed against the Cayuga County, Cayuga County District Attorney Jon A. Budelmann

fired Jeffrey Domachowski in July of 2016 for being faithful to his duty as an attorney and an honest prosecutor - for turning over to criminal defense attorneys the so-called "Brady material", in violation of what Jeffrey Domachowski claims is Jon Budelmann's order (and, obviously, policy) of non-disclosure.

Now, while non-disclosure of Brady material is a routine occurrence - and thus policy - of prosecutors in New York, that same non-disclosure led to termination and disbarment of North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong.

There is no question that Jon Budelmann, an attorney with 23 years of experience

knew about his Brady obligations to disclose any evidence that tends to either exonerate the defendant, or diminish his guilt.

In cases where Budelmann, according to his former subordinate, former Assistant District Attorney Domachowski, ordered his subordinates not to disclose such evidence, at least one of the criminal defendants could have been convicted for 23 more years than his case warranted.

That is fraud upon the court and the party, a crime under Judiciary Law 487, and a disbarring offense - yet, DA Jon Budelmann remains very much in office, and with "no record of public discipline" - apparently, when a prosecutor repeatedly commits crimes, urges his personnel to commit crimes and fires his personnel for refusing to commit crimes - that is not a serious enough disciplinary violation for the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee to pursue.

DA Budelmann may or may not be reachable with a civil rights lawsuit by criminal defendants for failing to disclose the Brady material - because such nondisclosure would necessarily involve fabrication of higher-than-warranted charges.  Yet, the court will look very closely whether such fabrication is attributed to the investigative stage of DA Budelmann's job or to the prosecutorial side - and it is very likely that DA Budelmann will escape such a lawsuit with absolute prosecutorial immunity.

He cannot invoke prosecutorial immunity though in a retaliation lawsuit of an employee suing for retaliation.

DA Budelmann's "wisdoms" posted on his Facebook page are, of course, completely opposite to the policies he reportedly practices in his office.

Here are some of them.

First of all, Budelmann appears to be completely undeterred by the serious allegations of misconduct, continuing to post (see October 24 and October 19 of 2016 postings) his happy pictures on Facebook, with comments of thanks for "striving to make our community drug free".

Does Budelmann do that - and then some.

DA Budelmann also assigns much value to integrity - integrity for him is allegedly "doing the right thing even when no one is watching".  

I wonder how far that claim will go with the jury against Jeffrey Domachowski's testimony.

DA Budelmann also assigns great value to being kind.  He was very kind to criminal defendants whose charges he trumped up by, as Domachowski said, illegally withholding Brady material that could put those defendants in prison for years and DECADES longer than the cases warranted.

Budelmann was very kind, indeed, in treating Domachowski, too, by firing him for doing his job - against illegal orders of his Chief.

Jon Budelmann also points out to us that we must always strive to do our best.

If hiding Brady material in 15 criminal cases and firing an attorney for opposing his criminal activity is Budelmann's best, then he is a good candidate for impeachment - in addition to criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

DA Budelmann also believes in doing "as much good as you can, as long as you can, any way you can, wherever you can, for anyone you can, until you no longer can".

In this case, Budelmann's "do-goodness" got so far that the best thing to do with Budelmann is to make sure that he "no longer can" do good in his understanding.  

Budelmann likes to pose with the local Republican Committee and with local politicians.

 These pictures provide an idea of why a person with such a criminal policy which was reported to defense attorneys long time ago, still remains in public office - nondisclosure of Brady material, later disclosure, is based on documentary evidence, making investigation quite simple, if anybody wants to honestly do it.

And, Jon Budelmann made several postings on his Facebook page that he stole from the mouth of his own future sentencing judge (hopefully):

For a withholder of Brady material, pandering about subverters of the U.S. Constitution is rich, isn't it?

I will continue to cover this story, as well as the peculiar blindness of criminal and disciplinary authorities as to Jon Budelmann's transgressions - despite the fact that a Notice of Claim was filed which is required by law to be sworn, and an affidavit from a witness with personal knowledge is all that is needed to start a criminal proceeding.

The problem is - who will prosecute the prosecutor.

And when a prosecutor who knowingly and arrogantly breaks the law, and remains unreachable by attorney discipline or by criminal laws, such a setup does not inspire respect to the criminal justice system - or to prosecutors.

I also wonder whether attorney Jeffrey Domachowski has filed a criminal complaint with the Cayuga County Sheriff and the Auburn, NY local police to commence criminal proceedings against Budelmann, or he is afraid to lose not only his job, but also his license if he does that.

Budelmann has not only an adorable pug, 

but also, apparently, influential friends in the local government.

Not that it should mean a fig in a country governed by the rule of law.

Right?