#JudgeClancyJayne and his #BigRig. #BreakfastWithAJudge "events" are targeted with a judicial disciplinary complaint in Arizona

Rules of judicial conduct as to ex parte communications are identical across the United States.

A judge must be impartial.

A judge must not communicate with a party or attorney on one side of the litigation without presence or approval of attorney and/or party from the other side.

A judge must not accept presents of any kind from a party or attorney representing a party in litigation, to avoid appearance of impropriety.

A judge must avoid appearance of impropriety of any kind, in order to guarantee to litigants not only justice, but also appearance of justice - which is a requirement of due process, according to 2 U.S. Supreme court decisions -

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. (2009) that dealt with contributions with judicial election campaign of a judge who decided a case in favor of a major contributor, and
Williams v Pennsylvania (2016), voiding a judicial decision where the judge participated both as a prosecutor and as a judge.

Yet, since enforcement of rules against conflicts of interest of judges is loose if at all existent, and since judges invented for themselves

immunity from civil lawsuit and
are given authority to regulate the livelihood of attorneys who may want to report and prosecute them,

judges do not really care about any rules of disqualification or conflicts of interest, and engage in behavior that smacks of abuse of office and corruption to the high heaven.

And, only when the judge is finally voted out of office by the public, state disciplinary authorities finally decide to investigate and prosecute judges for egregious conflicts of interest - while, of course, such a prosecution will be thwarted before trial by the judge's resignation/retirement, and no attorney disciplinary proceedings follow.

This scenario happens all over the country, over and over again.

Yet, the fact that disciplinary proceedings are even brought because of certain conflict-of-interest behaviors, is in and of itself valuable for further exposing of public corruption and further investigation of other judges, not yet voted out of office, who remain engaging in that same behavior that was subject of a disciplinary complaint against an outgoing judge.

With that in mind, it is interesting to review the disciplinary complaint recently filed in the State of Arizona against a voted-out-of-office #JudgeClancyJayne 

who was reportedly a head judge of Desert Ridge District Court since 2008, for 8 years.

Here is some information from Judge Clancy Jayne's Twitter account:

In April of 2016, Judge Jayne reportedly received a "Super Nova Award" for blood and plasma donations:

Even if such blood and plasma donations were undertaken by Judge Jayne to fend of a disciplinary investigation, the donations in and of itself have an absolute value for those patients whose lives he may have saved.

Yet, Judge Jayne claims that donating blood is his lifetime habit

If that is true, Judge Jayne did something good in his life.

We can also see from Judge Jayne's tweets that he is fond of having breakfasts with public officials and attorneys:

And as to allegations in the currently pending ethical complaint that Judge Jayne invited people to his "Breakfast with the Judge" and "Big Rig" events sponsoring him, solicited information about "booking agents" for some speakers at such events, and advertised ticket sales for "Breakfast with the Judge" events - here is admission posted by Judge Jayne himself on his own Twitter account:

It was not THAT Bill Gates, it is this Bill Gates whose presence, endorsement and, likely, donation at "Breakfast with the Judge" Judge Jayne was soliciting:

Well, at least, Judge Jayne honestly put "Breakfast with a Judge" and the concept of "Big Rig" back to back.

Judge Jayne advertised his "Breakfasts with Judges" also through his Facebook page:

Here are a couple more of advertisements by Judge Jayne of Breakfasts with Judge Jayne - for a fee or a contribution to his re-election campaign:

Here is some information from Judge Jayne's own LinkedIn profile:

It appears from Judge Jayne's profile information that he lacks elementary literacy:  he describes his experience as the former State LegEslator, and claims he serves on Board of Directors of several "None Profite" groups.

Illiteracy in a judge who, since 2008, presided over people's cases and decided people's fates, is a big problem already.

And, it is not that I am just nit-picking on a couple of "slips of the finger", inadvertent misprints.  Reportedly, Judge Jayne was known even in his before-judgeship days in the State Legislature for his "poor spelling and grammar".  In other words, Judge Jayne is illiterate, and has been known to be illiterate for a long time.

But illiteracy appears the least of problems of litigants in the State of Arizona with Judge Jayne.

Judge Jayne, from what is alleged in the disciplinary complaint, lacks the very basic understanding of what human decency and integrity is.

Of course, judges in this country, and in the State of Arizona, have a "presumption of integrity" - even with self-given immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts on the bench - and with that paradox, judges lose the sense of reality as to what is proper and what is not, and consider anything that a judge does to be "presumed proper".

In 2011, Judge Jayne was disciplined for "numerous" ex parte communications:

It did not help.  Judge Jayne still continued to advertise that he spoke to parties without presence of their counsel or the opposing counsel, on his Facebook page:

Judge Jayne has an entire blog dedicated to his misconduct, and was accused by the blogger back in 2012 of using his personal email to engage in an ex parte communication with a litigant.

And, the same blog, in the same 2012, reported that the Commission for Judicial Conduct of the State of Arizona started investigations of Judge Jayne's unethical behavior in the judicial campaign back then.

The complaint back in 2012 raises the issue of "Breakfasts with Judges" as violating Rules 1.2, 3.1(C) and 4.2(A)(3) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.

According to the blog, Judge Jayne already received a "warning letter" regarding his participation in "Breakfast with Judges" in 2012 or prior to that time.

And, in 2012 Judge Jayne received a "fourth informal sanction" from state judicial disciplinary authorities - for continuing to advertise as his BUSINESS presiding over wedding ceremonies as a justice of the peace, and featuring his corporate sponsors on his website.

Here is the official order of reprimand only - despite the fact that Judge Jayne received previous reprimands on the same subject, and continued with the same conduct anyway.

The reprimand did not help, Judge Jayne continued to advertise his wedding officiating business through his Facebook account:

Apparently, since other than "the fourth very last warning", no real discipline of any kind was imposed on Judge Jayne, he continued in his merry way. 

Remember, the Maricopa County Attorney Bill Gates publicly thanked Judge Jayne for the invitation to speak at one of the "Breakfasts with Judges" instead of reporting him for misconduct.

And, in 2013, Judge Jayne was publicly reprimanded by State judiciary discipline authorities - again, without taking him off the bench - for allowing a non-attorney sponsor of the judge's election campaign to represented his granddaughter in a court case.  Judge Jayne should have recused from that case, but he did not, allowed a non-attorney to represent his granddaughter (which he would not have allowed to anybody else) and presided over the case.

The order of reprimand mentions that Judge Jayne received "legal education" on "that same issue", which indicates that his misconduct was willful and arrogant, but only a reprimand followed.

Judge Jayne is not an attorney, and that prompted a defense attorney to state in advertisement of his legal services, that electing non-attorneys to judicial office is the same as selecting a surgeon on a popularity contest.

While I do not claim that judges should be attorneys, judges should be able to understand the law and apply it - and for that they need to be able to be at least literate (which Judge Jayne is not) and at least understand the substance of reprimands and remedial education - which he also, apparently, does or will not understand.

Qualifications for a justice of the peace in Arizona does include "English literacy" - a qualification that Judge Jayne obviously does not have, which did not preclude him from becoming a judge, and being a judge, for years, despite multiple sanctions.

The disciplinary authorities simply did not have the heart to take him off the bench - or, his sponsors applied some pressure on his behalf.

On November 3, 2016, the Arizona State Commission for Judicial Conduct announced yet another disciplinary proceeding against Judge Clancy Jayne.

Reportedly, there is a 74-page of public comments incorporated with the disciplinary complaint - which yet was not published by the Arizona State Judicial Conduct Commission.

What can I say.

An illiterate person gets into the legislature, then on the bench, and rules left and right for his friends, while everybody is afraid to take him off the bench - which should have been done a long time ago.

Multiple disciplinary proceedings were brought, with toothless results.

Multiple "remedial education" was ordered, which the judge disregarded - seeing that nothing will be done to him anyway, so why bother?

The problem is that all the while this obviously corrupt judge continued to decide cases - and who knows how many cases he rigged?

Judge Jayne was unique in how outspokenly he advertised his wedding officiating business in a black robe, sold tickets to his "Breakfast with a Judge" "events", solicited donations and then ruled for the donors.

While other judges may be more "refined", less outspoken and would not show the corruption - with the necessity to solicit private funding for judicial elections, such corruption is ever present in the American courtroom.

And, Judge Jayne is not alone in wining and dining - for a fee - with attorneys, creating a great potential for ex parte communications and case-fixing.

There are other, literate, refined, sophisticated judges and attorneys, doing the same.

I will continue to cover the topic how judges in this country are being wined and dined, and how the sale of justice then follows.

Stay tuned.

1. 
   

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.