A leak from Delaware County (NY) Department of Social Services tells a story of a single honest attorney within DSS Department. And that was not #AmyMerklen, the #ActingCountyAttorneyofDelawareCounty and an applicant for the permanent position of County Attorney

I've read that #AmyMerklen, the now-DSS attorney, has been recently elevated to the position of an Acting County Attorney of Delaware County, New York, when Porter Kirkwood, after his unsuccessful run for a judicial seat, and after reports appeared of an FBI investigation into financial activities of Delaware County (NY), its former Commissioner of Social Services William Moon (who Porter Kirkwood represented for years), and the pet non-profits used by Moon and other local government officials to funnel taxpayer money through it for unnecessary services - where Kirkwood worked, reportedly, as an errand boy.

Moreover, in an interview to Walton Reporter, Amy Merklen reportedly claimed that she has made an application for the position of the County Attorney, along with "other candidates", undisclosed to us the taxpayers.

As a homeowner in Delaware County, and a taxpayer whose money pays Amy Merklen's salary, I am concerned that Amy Merklen is the Acting County Attorney, or that she is going to be chosen (which is what likely will happen) as a permanent County Attorney.

Ms. Merklen was frequently my opponent in litigation in child abuse and neglect cases where I represented parents, and I know well her competence and shortcomings.

I would consider Ms. Merklen a sturdy yes-woman, abiding, for purposes of her own job security and, as it shows now, future career, to any bidding of her supervisors or her powerful "clients", even if the bidding is completely illegal.

For example, when Delaware County Department of Social Services fabricated a child neglect case, personally, against me and my husband, within 10 days after I filed my first motion to recuse Commissioner Moon's friend and counsel of 27 years Judge Carl F. Becker from presiding over child neglect and abuse cases where Commissioner Moon acted as a petitioner and his personnel (people who Judge Becker also knew personally and represented for years), because Judge Becker, contrary to the rules of judicial ethics, never announced his prior representation of the party whose credibility determination he was making in a bench trial, and never offered, as he was required by rules of judicial ethics, the parties an opportunity to object and make a motion to recuse.

The case was since dismissed.

When I made that motion, by the way, other attorneys in the case gave me "round eyes" and whispered to me outside of courtroom that "everybody knows it, but nobody challenges it".

The fabricated retaliative child neglect case that traumatized my child and tried to taint me and my husband, as well as to put us in jail and take our law licenses (that was in the fall of 2009, my husband's law license was taken on pretextual reasons nevertheless, in 2011, and mine was suspended for sanctions imposed by the same judge for motions to recuse, in 2015).

Recently, I received a leak from the Delaware County DSS, from a person who, while not willing to have me disclose that person's identity due to job security issues and fear of retaliation, could no longer keep silent about corruption going on in Delaware County.

With amazement, I have learnt that there WAS actually an attorney within the Delaware County DSS, and its legal department no less, an attorney who, risking that attorney's  (I will not say whether it was a man or a woman) own position, license and livelihood,  has actually stood up to the crew who brewed the fabricated and politically motivated child neglect case against me and my husband.

The attorney, reportedly, confronted Porter Kirkwood who agreed to bring the fabricated case against us and accused him of cooking politically motivated cases for his friends Moon and Becker.

Reportedly, the attorney was immediately fired, sued or threatened to sue the Delaware County, and the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

The person who reported this to me is still working for Delaware County and, of course, I will not disclose that person's identity.

What I will do though, is to add a 4th attorney to the tally of those who I know suffered from criticism of corruption within the county, and its judiciary, in addition to:

1) David Roosa;
2) Frederick Neroni; and myself,
3) Tatiana Neroni
4) XYZ.

What is important today is that that one honest attorney was not Amy Merklen. 

Amy Merklen, as a true battle horse, chose not to oppose her boss's command to prosecute a fabricated case.  She looked apologetic to me when she appeared at depositions that we called for, including a deposition of Commissioner Moon - who told me point blank, and in the presence of Amy Merklen (and I have a transcript of what he said) that "nothing would have happened had you opened THAT DOOR".

What was meant was that by not opening "that door", the door to our HOME LAW OFFICE where confidential files of our clients were kept and did not allow the social services and the police "to just look" - to conduct a warrantless search.

Interestingly enough, even though Moon and Kirkwood brought fabricated child neglect proceedings against my husband and myself (since dismissed, but first diligently prosecuted by Porter Kirkwood, and by Amy Merklen who appeared as our opposing counsel at depositions), Moon, Kirkwood or Merklen did not seek or were unable to obtain a court order or a warrant to search our home law office.

So Moon, Kirkwood and Merklen knew when he was talking about bringing a child neglect proceeding against two local attorneys, opponents of the local police, prosecution and DSS in litigation, in retaliation for not "opening THAT DOOR" and not allowing to search confidential files in the home law office, that what they were doing was completely illegal - but still continued to do that.

And that branded the image of Merklen as an attorney for me.

As did the fact that Merklen never brought HER OWN motion to recuse Judge Becker for violating the rule of judicial ethics, and never pointed out that there is an appearance of impropriety, and thus a question as to the legal validity to Becker's child neglect and abuse adjudications, that Becker presided, without announcement of his prior lifetime representation of the Department, over cases of child neglect brought by the Department and Merklen, and made credibility determination of his own former clients who he knew personally.

In 2017, the Walton Reporter reported that Amy Merklen has worked for Delaware County "for a decade".

That indicates that she worked in Delaware County since 2007, and did not represent the Delaware County DSS at the time Becker was still an attorney - Becker first ascended the bench, likely illegally, since no competent evidence of his election exists, in 2002, 5 years before Amy Merklen came to work for the Delaware County.

Yet, Amy Merklen could not possibly not know that Becker WAS the DSS former attorney while appearing in front of Becker and quietly accepting biased rulings of the judge in favor of her "client" as a given.

Amy Merklen has been admitted to practice law in 1999.

Yet, her years prior to coming to the Delaware County, from 1999 to 2007, are a mystery.

Here is how Walton Reporter describes Amy Merklen's career as an attorney:

There is nothing said about her experience from 1999 to 2007, from admission to the bar until she came to work for Delaware County.

Moreover, Amy Merklen herself, in her own LinkedIn account, also does not disclose her prior employment, misrepresenting into the bargain that she is working in "Albany, New York area", not in Delhi, New York.

Yet, I found a public document dating back to 2005 where Amy Merklen was listed as an attorney for the New York State Department of Health, and the case was dealing with professional discipline of a New York State Doctor Kevin M. Downs, M.D., then of the Women's Health Center in Plattsburgh, New York.

Amy Merklen's address at that time was:

I am going to FOIL the New York State Department of Health for the dates of employment of Amy Merklen, her position with the government, and her salary, since the information available on Seethroughny.net without FOILing dates back only to 2008, when Amy Merklen was already employed by Delaware County.

Yet, the information immediately available about her salary is that Amy Merklen's salary grew from $75,769 in 2012 to $89,280 in 2016 (I am going to FOIL the Delaware County about her salary in 2007 through 2011 and will publish that information once I receive the response).

Once I receive information about Amy Merklen's salary in the New York State Department of Health and about her salary from some time in 2007 (in February of 2007 Merklen was still working in the NYS Department of Health, disciplinary board, according to this public document) to 2012 in Delaware County, the picture will be clearer whether Amy Merklen came to Delaware County as a promotion or as a demotion, and if it was a demotion, then it will be interesting to know the reasons.

I did get public documents on the Internet indicating that Amy Merklen was employed with the New York State Department of Health at least as far back as in 2001, and she worked here.

Attorney Anthony Benigno, Esq. who worked with Amy Merklen at the NYS Department of Health's disciplinary board (see him listed as an attorney of record in a disciplinary case of the NYS DOH in 2002), is still working in the Department of Health -

apparently, working as an attorney in Albany, for the State of New York, is a lucrative position, and a position of power over physicians that people are unlikely to voluntarily cease to just go work for a Department of Social Services in a rural county 89 miles away from Albany, up in the mountains.

And, Anthony M. Benigno has reportedly earned more in 2008 working as an attorney for the disciplinary board of the Department of Health than Amy Merklen got in 2016 from Delaware County $89,280, after working for the County for 10 years)

As to Amy Merklen's competence as an Acting County Attorney, and a candidate for the permanent position of a County Attorney, which paid Porter Kirkwood $125,825 in 2016, an increase of nearly 41% in her salary (compare with her own salary prior to her advancement to the position of the Acting County Attorney of $89,280).

Was worth being a yes-woman and do illegal biddings of her bosses, wasn't it?

There may have been two more reasons to conceal her prior employment with the disciplinary board of the New York State Department of Health.

The first of the two reasons is that prosecution of disciplinary cases against doctors in administrative proceedings in the NYS Department of Health do not an equivalent of litigation experience, because:

• in administrative proceedings, rules of evidence are inapplicable;
• the standard of proof is not preponderance of COMPETENT evidence (no hearsay), but "substantial evidence", which, as my law professor in insurance/administrative law said, is "anything which is not absolutely, positively, screamingly insane".

As to the specific context of disciplinary proceedings regarding doctors, medical education is so expensive and all-consuming, the loss of medical license constitutes such a devastation of the doctor's entire life, and of the life of his family, that most likely, Merklen did not even have to prosecute cases - doctors, like attorneys in most disciplinary proceedings, simply caved in and agreed to any "lesser charges" and to at least some punishment, only not to lose their licenses.

Additionally, with the disciplinary "board" that consisted from competitors of doctors subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary judge being the employee of the prosecuting Department of Health, Merklen did not have a true adversary proceedings either.

Possibly, one of the reasons why Merklen conceals her prior employment in interviews and on her LinkedIn account is to conceal the fact that Delaware County hired an attorney for a position with a heavy litigation load, who had no litigation experience, and I wonder what strings were pulled to get Merklen her position in Delaware County legal department in the first place.

So, not only Amy Merklen did not have true litigation experience in a truly adversarial court proceedings before coming to the Delaware County, but she had a vast intimidation experience as a "civil prosecutor" before coming to Delaware County, intimidating doctors into settlements by the idea of loss of livelihood the very same way as she is was intimidating parents into "deals" with social services, with the help of a biased judge, former attorney for her own DSS Department, with the idea of loss of their children first to foster care, then to adoption out of foster care. 

What is most suspicious is, with a potential for bribes in such disciplinary proceedings, where Merklen held in her hands the fates and livelihoods of millionaire physicians, I doubt that anybody voluntarily leaves such positions, something is fishy in why Merklen left and went to work in the middle of nowhere.

As to competence of Amy Merklen as a trial, litigation attorney, I can judge from my own experience as her opponent in litigation (often a successful opponent, even in front of a biased judge).

While litigating against Amy Merklen, I have learnt that, for example, she has a short fuse.

When Amy Merklen feels cornered with legal arguments, she does not compose herself (in my experience), but instead explodes into your face - which is a problem only for her, because an opposing counsel who is not afraid of her temper tantrums, can use her anger against herself, since a person in anger is less attentive to detail.

Next, Amy Merklen, either from being overworked (even though I don't know why, there are only 47,000 people in Delaware County, mostly old, and an ever-shrinking number of children, shrinking to the point that a school in the area has closed recently for lack of children, and two maternity hospitals in the area recently closed, also for lack of babies born), or from whatever reasons, does an extremely sloppy job in her pleadings, and I mean - not only in the child neglect and/or abuse petitions, but also in opposition to motions.

That may be the direct result that between 2007 and 2015, when Becker was on the bench, Merklen did not have to knock herself out too much, and knew that Becker would always take her side, no matter what.

Yet, even that did not always work.  Which brings me to several more lapses in competence of Amy Merklen in litigation: 

1. lack of knowledge in the area of expert evidence,
2. lack of knowledge of evidentiary rules, and
3. a complete loss as to what to do if she does not have her way when the opponent is firm on the client's rights.

For example, Amy Merklen can call an expert witness without fully researching what her opponent can do with the medical evidence Merklen is seeking to introduce.

In one of the cases I litigated, Merklen called a medical witness and introduced, over my objection, medical evidence into the case, but I was able to actually have Becker (who hated me with a passion) be forced to dismiss a case of child abuse based on what Merklen's own expert said on cross-examination.  Becker turned purple when he himself saw what was coming, jumped into the fray with his own, additional examination, meant to helped Merklen, but only made matters worse.  The physician who was obviously not a professional bought witness, honestly answered questions, and as a result Merklen could not meet her standard of proof for child abuse.

Next, Merklen frequently does what other DSS attorneys also do in child neglect or abuse proceedings - calls the parent to testify against himself, claiming that, since criminal charges were never filed (yet) against the parent, no 5th Amendment issues exist.  While that is a lie, which I will expose, among other tricks of Social Services, in my coming book about DSS, judges often fall for that lie and allow such examination.

What Merklen does not take into consideration though - possibly, because parents are usually represented not by private counsel, but by assigned attorneys who are afraid to vigorously litigate the matter not to lose the judge's favor and not to lose future lucrative assignments at $75 an hour (including for the time driving to and from court and sitting in the waiting room), and because Merklen expects bias in her favor from the judge, as it has always been the case with Becker, that same Department's own prior counsel of 27 years - is that calling your opponent to testify against himself is a double-edged sword.

In New York, the law:

1) does not allow to impeach your own witness; and
2) does allow the opponent to cross-examine any witness using leading questions.

What it does is that a respondent parent who Merklen calls to testify can say absolutely anything under oath, and Merklen will be unable to impeach her own witness, that's number one.

Number two is that Merklen gives to her opponent a gift of being able to cross-examine his own client and ask his own client leading questions, an opportunity that an attorney for a parent never usually gets unless his opponent calls his client to testify.

So, instead of having the parent testifying against himself, which is the easy way for Merklen to win a case that she did not prepare for trial, hoping for a biased judge, a corrupt assigned attorney and trembling parents who will eventually fold to threats of removing their children and adopting them out of foster care, and agree to some kind of a "deal" with admission of "guilt", which will trigger "services" from the DSS - and secure money in the budget for the DSS Department at the next meeting with the voters - Merklen may get shot in the foot and have the parent testify completely against what Merklen planned for him.

I had such a situation when Merklen called my client to testify against himself, and when I started to lead him with questions on cross-examination.

Merklen jumped up, all red (as I said, she has a short fuse and cannot control herself in the courtroom) and practically shouted, "objection, leading".

I have a funny feeling that Becker had a problem of some kind with her, too (or with women attorneys in general), because at that point he told her, with an obvious pleasure, that it was cross-examination, and leading questions on cross-examination are allowed by evidentiary rules in New York.

I also came to realize during litigation that, since discovery and motions are nearly never done by assigned attorneys in child neglect and abuse cases, Merklen usually does not know how to handle them, and tries to strong-arm the court by claims that "we always do that this way" (in our neck of woods, I might add).

With some judges it works, with others - not always so.

As I recall, Judge Brian Burns once refused to cave into Merklen's tactics when she, and her "client" (a social worker) claimed that they "always" require parents to submit to alcohol and drug ("CDC") evaluations and to mental health evaluations as a condition to see their children held in foster care (without regard, by the way, whether mental health issues or alcohol and drug issues are even raised in their Petition), and that they "always" require parents to sign "contracts" to allow "parent aides" from DSS's pet non-profit "Delaware Opportunities" to supervise visitation with children held in foster care, and thus for DSS to funnel money towards Delaware Opportunity for that important task - as a condition of seeing the children at all.

Judge Burns, without pronouncing, of course, that such "practices" and "policies" are unconstitutional (I believe, they are, and are waiting for their challengers in court), put Merklen in her place and allowed visitation with children in foster care without any such conditions, because those conditions are not to be found anywhere in the governing statute.

I also had complaints (both as an attorney, and as a blogger) about actions of social services of Delaware County about pregnant women's and their babies' health jeopardized by Merklen-led and advised DSS Department, where:

1. First, a pregnant mother would be either told to walk into a remote location carrying heavy stuff, contrary to advice of her physician, nearly at the time of her confinement, as a condition DSS put on seeing her other children at all - and thus the pregnant mother is being deliberately put into a position of a Hobson choice whether to risk her own and her baby's life, having a risk to go into labor in that remote location without medical help, and during cold weather, or to see her other children;
2. then, after jeopardizing the baby's life, the same DSS is trying to snatch that baby once it was born claiming that the mother "derivatively neglected" the baby who has just come out of her womb, while the mother is healthy and the baby is healthy, so what the h*ll is that neglect, nobody knows, and the DSS, which did not give a damn whether the baby will drop on his head and die in a cold and dirty field a mere month prior, is, of course, a safer solution for the baby now than the baby's own mother; and
3. the baby then is snatched off the mother's breast and stopped from getting the milk to strengthen the immune system, and
4. the DSS would keep the baby away from the mother, and from her breast milk, now claiming that the baby's immune system is weak, and the mother presents an infection risk;
5. I also had a report that DSS made reckless claims to a pregnant mother that they will snatch her baby once it is born no matter what, driving the mother to giving birth out of hospital, to prevent such snatching.
6. I also had a report of a pregnant mother who allegedly lost her early pregnancy in the Delaware County jail, without any medical assistance, and while the Delaware County would not even recognize that happened, after she was brought into jail for "obstruction" of an assault by DSS and police, in the middle of cold New York winter, on her home in the middle of the night in order to "see how children are fairing", during which assault both the mother and at least one of the children were tasered - and the mother, likely as a result of having been tasered, has lost her pregnancy, which the Delaware County reportedly refused to document or provide medical care for.

This is the Department of Social Services of the Delaware County, New York led and advised by Amy Merklen.

Protectors of children.

Amy Merklen should be proud of herself. 

She is a true heir to the "legacy" of the now-resigned and running former Delaware County Attorneys Richard Spinney, Porter Kirkwood and Carl F. Becker (who is also a judge resigned after 13 years pitching victories in social services cases to Merklen, Kirkwood, Moon and Co. and "clearing the field" of any critics of their corrupt actions, in order to secure funds coming to their pet non-profits, relatives and friends).

But, to me as a homeowner in Delaware County and a taxpayer paying her salary,

• her possible demotion, or questionable motives to come to work for a nondescript remote rural county DSS Department from her posh State government position in Albany;  
• her interesting efforts to conceal her prior place of employment;
• her short fuse;
• her lack of competence in litigation,
• her proven lack of integrity;
• and the abysmally cruel and unconstitutional things that social workers do under her advice and care to parents in Delaware County, including parents of soon-to-be born and newborn babies, in order to get their grubby hands on federal funds financing foster care and adoption out of foster care,

are not good characteristics for a permanent position of a County Attorney, and whoever is reading my blog from the Delaware County can consider it as a public letter of opposition against appointment of Amy Merklen as a County Attorney, and against her current appointment as an Acting County Attorney.

Moreover, with the current corruption mess, and the FBI investigation of dirty dealings in Delaware County, which Amy Merklen, as part of the legal department, was necessarily aware of for 10 years and kept mum about it, there is a need to hire for the position of a Delaware County Attorney somebody who is:

1. not an insider;
2. not somebody who knew of and covered up as an attorney dirty dealings of officials in Delaware County, but
3. somebody entirely new and not "connected" with anybody in the clans or government of New York State, Delaware County or other counties, or any other townships, and
4. not related to anybody so "connected" by blood, marriage, "relationship", friendship, work, study or any other close connection.

I would certainly prefer such a non-insider, for the position of a County Attorney, whose main obligation is to advise the County:

1) how to handle taxpayer money (our family's money included), and 

2) how to not violate the law, so that taxpayer money (also including our family's money as taxpayers) would not further be expended in litigation against the County,

an attorney with more competence, more integrity and more backbone than Amy Merklen has to advise her staff as to what is legal and what is definitely not.

Will the 9th Circuit #JudgeMichelleTFriedland be impeached, criminally prosecuted and disbarred for trying to elicit out of the President's counsel top-clearance information she was not permitted to know, to be heard by the entire world on the Internet?

When listening yesterday to the oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit of the motion to stay the countrywide Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) of Judge James Robart out of the U.S. District Court of the District of Washington, I was completely floored by not just the bias, but an assault upon the U.S. government’s position by the female judge Michelle T. Friedland,

which was completely inappropriate.

The judge did not allow the President’s counsel to speak, asked him multiple irrelevant questions, and shamelessly threw lifelines of argument to the States’ counsel.

For example, Judge Friedland kept asking the President’s counsel whether he has provided evidence that the 7 countries affected by the President’s Executive Order are dangerous to “justify” the Executive Order.

While asking that question, Judge Friedland knew very well that:

·       She did not have clearance on national security issues that the president has;

·       That the counsel for president who was arguing the case in court, most likely, also did not have national security clearance;

·       That other judges and other counsel present did not have such clearance, and, most importantly,

·       That the oral argument was broadcast to the entire world on the Internet, meaning that any disclosures about the President’s considerations about national security will be picked up by all who was not lazy to listen – people from around the world who, most certainly, had no clearance, and no business, to be privy of top-secret national security considerations of the United States.

Judge Michelle Friedland also knew the applicable law, including constitutional, statutory provisions and precedential law, clearly indicating that discretionary executive orders of the President of the United States regarding non-citizens located outside of the United States, as to whether to let them into the country or not, is discretionary and non-reviewable by the court, as long as it has rational basis on its face.

In other words, Judge Michelle Friedland, as well as other judges, knew that courts in the country has always refused to second-guess considerations of the executive branch on issues of national security – as well as considerations of state and federal executive branches on any other issues.

For example, federal courts repeatedly and routinely defeat challenges to constitutionality of a variety of state and federal regulations, claiming that courts do not get to look behind the face of the regulation, if ANY rational basis can be found to justify the regulation – where the rational basis found by the court to justify the regulation would not necessarily be the same as the government has ACTUALLY used to justify it when enacting/promulgating the regulation.

Yet, Judge Friedland somehow wanted to know about the specific evidence and specific factors that motivated the President of the United States to issue a facially neutral Executive Order that does not discriminate against Muslims on its face – because,

·       first, it does not contain words “Muslim” or “Islam”; and

·       second, is directed from people of any faith or no faith coming from the 7 designated countries;

·       third, is not directed at people coming from the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries; and

·       fourth, is directed at people coming from the same countries that were the subject of previous travel restrictions by the former president Obama’s administration in 2015 and 2016.

Judge Friedland literally made the President’s counsel stammer when she asked him about the specific evidence and factors that the President relied upon when issuing the Executive Order.

While I did not envy President’s counsel’s predicament, facing an obviously biased and irate judge, very energetically acting as an advocate for his opponent, he had a duty to his client, a duty he did not carry out very well – because of his obvious personal fear of the judge, and because his own livelihood depended on the judge who regulated and controlled it.

The proper answer to such verbal assaults by the judge would be:

1)     to the question – do you REALLY think, counsel, that President’s power to issue Executive Orders in this case is unreviewable by this court (especially with the tone asked, the question sounded like a threat) – Yes, Your Honor, based on existing precedents I really believe so.

2)     To the question – what evidence and factors did the President use in issuing the Executive Order – the proper answer would have been:

a.      “Your Honor, that evidence and those factors are subject to top clearance that neither I, nor my opponent, nor this court, nor the people listening to this oral argument on the Internet, have”; and

b.     “I object to the inquiry into deliberations behind the Executive Order that is neutral and has rational basis on its face”.

Instead, the President’s counsel, in order to get at least something from the court, started to mumble, offer concessions of all kinds, including concessions that can further affect the appeal, and the case below.

It was notable for me that Judge Friedland was concentrated about two questions:

1)     Evidence and factors upon which the President of the United States based his Executive Order – which was beyond her authority of review under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and beyond her, the court’s, the counsel’s and the Internet audience’s clearance;

2)     Helping out the States with the obvious problem of standing, and advocating for the “proprietor standing” of States as “owner” of state universities that allegedly “suffer” – without evidence that universities actually did suffer – from their faculty and students “being stranded abroad”, once again, without evidence as to how many of “students and faculty” of state universities in the States of Washington and Minnesota were “stranded abroad” because of the Executive Order, and how it affected the universities in question.

Because of Judge Friedland’s shameless advocacy on behalf of the Attorneys Feneral of the States of Washington and Minnesota, I really wonder how the assignment process of judges in the 9^th Circuit was handled that landed, out of 44 judges of the court, Judge Friedland, a judge with a personal history suggesting conflicts of interest and personal involvement in issues litigated (I will describe Judge Friedland personal history that makes her partisan advocacy in this case on behalf of the States highly questionable), at the top of the panel assigned to decide this case.

With Judge Friedland actively plowing the President's case into the ground, with complete disregard of the law, and the 86-year-old judge Canby following in her footsteps, I would not be surprised that "the court" will decide against the President.

Yet, the President can, after that, request an en banc hearing (by the entire 44-judge court), and, likely, can go further to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would replace counsel to argue the case with somebody more formidable than the mumbling counsel that handled the hearing before Judge Friedland.

In the end, the discussion yesterday before Judge Friedland and her two colleagues narrowed down to whether the scope of Judge Robart’s TRO should be also narrowed down to just people who have never been in the country before – which made no sense at all.

The clear question was – why the States factually dropped, at the clear suggestion of Judge Friedland, the frivolous “parens patriae” (3rd party) standing and grabbed the lifeline thrown to them by Judge Friedland (a university professor herself, and daughter of two university professors), emphasizing the “proprietary” standing as “proprietors” of State Universities – while providing no evidence whatsoever as to how many people allegedly stranded beyond the U.S. borders were actually “students and faculty” of state universities of the State of Washington and Minnesota, and Judge Friedland did not grill them on lack of that evidence?

Because the claim that the States had standing on behalf of unnamed 3^rd parties within the state asserting their alleged “constitutional” right to hypothetically be able to travel within those 90 days that the Executive Order was effective was clearly frivolous:

·       As a claim on behalf of 3^rd parties;

·       A claim by states challenging an exclusive area of discretionary federal decisions; and

·       A claim regarding hypothetical, speculative plans for travel.

And because the presiding judge Friedland desperately wanted the States to win?

To be cast by the media and the arranged crowds of protestors as "the hero", "the savior of the country", "showing" to the President that he is not "above the law", "the law" being what the judge says, not what the law really is?

It was obvious that the attorneys general for the States of Washington and Minnesota were actively inventing new constitutional rights – simply to spite the new president in any way and to gain publicity for themselves for purposes of their own future careers – and that Judge Friedland was actively helping those State Attorneys General to do that, in complete disregard of applicable Article III constitutional restrictions on her own power, statutes and precedent that Judge Friedland promised to honor at her recent confirmation hearing back in 2014.

As to Judge Friedland's "credos" announced in her questionnaire and confirmation hearing when she "ascended" to the federal bench in 2014, and how clearly she violated her oath of office, as well as to her personal background that required her, in my personal opinion, to recuse from this case, I will run a separate blog article.

At this time, my question is - will Judge Friedland be impeached for vigorously trying to get out of President's counsel "evidence" and "factors" of how the President arrived at his Executive Order, even though those "factors" and that "evidence" clearly involved top-clearance that the judge did not have, and while the judge clearly knew that the oral argument was broadcast to the entire world on the Internet?

Of course, #JudgeMichelleTFriedland did not become the "youngest female judge on the federal bench", and skipped the district court bench for her merits, having been appointed by President Obama immediately to the appellate court federal bench (same as Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's current Supreme Court nominee, by the way) - she most certainly has powerful connections in the government.

But, there are lines that nobody, including judges, should be allowed to cross - and exposing or attempting to use her power in order to expose top-clearance national security considerations - is one of those lines.

As it was cautiously mentioned by a prominent law professor Jonathan Turley in his blog:

"Friedland particularly pressed the Administration on its basis for picking these seven countries: a line of inquiry that many judges would view problematic if the court is viewed as second guessing such national security determinations."

"Problematic".  An understatement of the century.

#ImpeachJudgeMichelleFriedland.

A new FOIL request was filed with Delaware County, New York, regarding experimental juvenile sex offender treatment of children in foster care authorized by the County

In a videotaped statement to voters (available here) the just-resigned Delaware County Attorney (NY) Porter Kirkwood made statements about the experimental treatment by Delaware County of "juvenile sex offenders" in its custody/foster care.

Kirkwood told the voters in the fall of 2015 in his fail run for a judicial seat that he invited the allegedly best authority in New York, a Dr. Hamill, to treat "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care in Delaware County, that Dr. Hamill came to Delaware County, designed an experimental program of treatment of "juvenile sex offenders" and actually subjected children kept in foster care in Delaware County to experimental sex offender treatment, which was allegedly a "boon" to Delaware County taxpayers, first, because children remained, for treatment purposes, in Delaware County and were not sent someplace else, and second, because, as compared to a $250,000 price tag per child per year to send children away to an outside facility, Delaware County paid a meager $56,000 per child per year for Dr. Hamill's program.

I already verified, through the Delaware County's answer to my FOIL request, that the County did not ask for any permissions from state authorities to subject children in foster care to the sex offender treatment - which is always "experimental", as such treatment has never been scientifically validated or standardized, and has been pronounced "extraordinarily invasive", inappropriate and inapplicable for rehabilitation of even adult sex offenders by the 2nd Circuit in 2013.

After I published the FOIL response by Delaware County, with my commentary, somebody close to Delaware County tried to threaten me with a defamation lawsuit, accusing me of "spreading dangerous misinformation", without any specifics though, as to what was the "misinformation" part, and of not understanding who is the decision-maker in foster care.

Well, who is the decision-maker in foster care is a no-brainer, it is the Delaware County in whose custody children in foster care are placed by the Family court (and, at the time Kirkwood was discussing, the judge placing children into the care of Delaware County, and Kirkwood as the legal adviser of Delaware County, was Carl Becker, Kirkwood and Delaware County Commission for Social Services William Moon's personal friend, who represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for 27 years before coming, likely illegally, to the bench, since there is no record Becker was a legally elected judge in 2002).

And, the same Porter Kirkwood and the same Delaware County are also PROSECUTING juvenile sex offenders, making "decision-making in foster care", subjecting children to "sex offender treatment", mired in irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

It is interesting that, when reports started to circulate about an FBI investigation of Commissioner Moon and his interesting activities in the Delaware County Department of Social Services, Porter Kirkwood quickly resigned.

Today, I filed a FOIL/FOIA (state and federal) access to records request to Delaware County asking for more information about the juvenile sex offender "treatment" program run by Kirkwood.

I am also filing access to records requests with other agencies that may have records about such programs - I will not say with which agencies I am filing records requests until I get answers - just to verify how much Delaware County is lying in response to FOIL/FOIA requests.

Here is the FOIL request.  In an additional FOIL/FOIA request I asked for the age range of children subjected to such "treatment".

In separate articles I am currently preparing, I will describe in specific detail what such "treatment" programs entail - what kind of sexual abuse of children Kirkwood authorized at taxpayers' expense.

It is the spread of TRUTHFUL information that Delaware County is fearing as "dangerous".

But it will be published.

Because taxpayers of Delaware County must know what kind of atrocities to children in foster care their money was used to buy - to be able to demand to hold perpetrators accountable.

#PorterKirkwood who ran from the position of Delaware County Attorney, surfaced in the Administrative Office of the 6th Judicial District in Binghamton

I wrote recently about the former Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood's failure to timely update his attorney registration - the Porter Kirkwood who resigned, as part of several other resignations of high-ranking Delaware County officials during, reportedly, an FBI investigation as to the interesting activities of the County's Department of Social Services and its former chief William Moon (under the "legal guidance" of Porter Kirkwood, who boasted in 2015 of saving the county money by allowing illegal experimentation on children to be done within the County, and not farmed out to "outside facilities")

On January 27, 2017 Kirkwood was still listed as employed with the County.

Today, the New York attorney registration website shows that Kirkwood is now employed with the Judicial Administrative Office of the 6th Judicial District.

Kirkwood will now be helping the Chief Administrative Judge Molly Fitzgerald

to fix court cases from up above by assigning the "right" judges to the "right" cases.  Judge Fitzgerald has a history of deciding cases based on either her emotions, or the "political winds".  Now the meter of that political wind will be an even more corrupt public official, Kirkwood.  Good choice, the 6th Judicial District.

When one corrupt source of income dried up and the smell of a federal prison became closer, Kirkwood found another source of power and income to feed his corrupt habits.

And, it is reasonable to expect now that Kirkwood, after his failed run for the seat of the Delaware County Family Court Judge, will get some back up from the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District to run for the Supreme Court of New York State, and then advance to the appellate bench.

After all, this is the usual path to the bench in the State of New York - brownnosing authorities, corruption, more corruption and more brownnosing.

Just be aware who is assigning judges to your cases now in all courts in the 6th Judicial District.

Yet, I hope that running under the wing of a high-ranking judge will not protect Kirkwood from a federal investigation.

As I said before, I will make sure appropriate authorities are aware of Kirkwood's little activities.

Delaware County, New York, ranked the 10th worst place to own a home in by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

According to the ranking of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ranking the 50 worst places to own a home, Delaware County, New York, takes the honorary 10th worst place to own a home in the United States.

While one cannot control natural disasters, such as flooding, the question is - why only the Arctic Alaska rivals Delaware County, New York, in the cost for home heating and cooling?

I can attest that even the cooling costs in South Carolina are several times less than in the poor rural area of Delhi, New York.

The report was also quoted in one of the minutes of a local township in Delaware County in 2016, adding the following information:

"The mean household income is 30% lower than the state median household income.  Further, demographic projections by Cornell University show a decline of population of 43% for the age group 0 to 60 and an increase of 21% for ages 60 to 85".

And, despite declining population, and because of the high heating and cooling costs, as well as because more and more properties are bought up by New York City and New York State, in order to freeze development of those lands and to keep the water it drinks out of this "Watershed area" clean without running the cost of filtering it - Delaware County keeps increasing its County and school budgets.

But, when the state buys up land, it takes that land off tax rolls, increasing the burden on those homeowners who do not have exemptions and must pay taxes.

These homeowners in Delaware County, New York, are liable for their County taxes at the threat of foreclosure of their homes - and that is in addition to the County official's rampantly stealing from the County taxpayers by:

1. putting out millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money out without bidding, likely to friends and family members;
2. having no accounting for inventory bought with taxpayer money (according to Delaware County's answer to my FOIL request);
3. using taxpayer-bought cars as personal vehicles;
4. likely, using taxpayer-paid for cell phones, for personal use, otherwise there is no need for a county with a population of 47,000 people to have a monthly cell phone bill on 321 pages;
5. having multiple pet non-profits "founded" by local government officials and their relatives and friends through which local budgetary money is funneled;
6. creating full-time jobs, with benefits, for friends - where friends either do not have to come to work, or where work is unnecessary for the County business.

So, apparently, the household owners in Delaware County, wealthy and not-so-wealthy, are supporting on their backs the opportunity for New York City to drink its water unfiltered, and the opportunity for Delaware County "elite" family clans to not work, but to live well.

I say, New York City should start paying back to homeowners of Delaware County for the restrictions in development of the area that amounts to an extra tax upon homeowners that make Delaware County so unattractive and costly in terms of home ownership.

And, the FBI should finally clean up corruption in Delaware County, if nobody else dares to.

Village taxes in Delhi, NY are not enforceable, based on response to my FOIL request - so, why pay them?

I wrote recently about my 2 FOIL requests to the Village of Delhi, New York, regarding:

1) the contract that, according to the Village code enforcement officer Tom Little, "went out to bidding" regarding demolition of the burnt out building in Delhi, NY, Main Street (as reported on January 18, 2017 by the Walton Reporter);

and regarding

2) records showing efforts of the Village of Delhi, NY to enforce delinquent taxes - according to the personal promise of the Village mayor given to people present at the meeting of the Village Board in the fall of 2014 (I was present at the meeting and spoke to the mayor myself at that time).

I've got the responses to my FOIL requests.

1) The Village of Delhi, NY alleged in its response that it did not bid out the contract to demolition of the building on Main Street.  The only available document that the Village of Delhi sent me on the subject was a permit to demolish the building by owner, and, allegedly, it is the owner who has contracted out the demolition.

2) The Village of Delhi was unable to provide me any records indicating that the Village of Delhi, NY, as its mayor promised in 2014, engaged in any steps whatsoever to enforce delinquencies on the village taxes.

At the public meeting at the fall of 2014, the Village of Delhi indicated that the village lawyers was concerned WHETHER the village tax code is enforceable in court at all, and that the Village of Delhi will soon try and check it out in a "test" court case against one of many tax delinquents, many of whom do not pay taxes for years.

That was in the fall of 2014.  In winter of 2017, that is, 2.5 years later, the Village of Delhi, NY provided me with the following list of tax delinquents:

For the period of 2013-2015:

and for the year 2016:

Despite my clearly worded request, specifically, for records of enforcement of delinquent taxes, as promised by the Village of Delhi, NY mayor, the village was unable to provide such public records - meaning that no enforcement action was filed, and that the Village of Delhi mayor simply deceived the residents and taxpayers of the village by making a promise that he was never going to fulfil.

Yet, there are people and businesses in the village of Delhi, NY who, according to the records, do not pay village taxes for years.

For example, Richard and Janet Babcock, of 20 Park Place in Delhi, New York, according to records provided by the Village of Delhi in accordance with my FOIL request, did not pay village taxes since 2013:

Yet, the Village of Delhi undertook no efforts whatsoever to enforce the tax delinquency in court, and simply assesses a "penalty".

My question then, as a longtime village taxpayer - WHY do we have to pay taxes in the village of Delhi, if there is no enforcement mechanism for the taxes, and if those who do not pay those taxes, are not taken to court for that?

Maybe, there is no need to pay these village taxes at all? 

#JudgeJamesRobart's "Magic Square", the rule of the crowd, or once again on independence of the judiciary

In the beginning was the Word.

And the word was of judges.

And the judges decided without any reliance on any laws - just because they believed whatever they say was the law, and because they were saying in accord with what was blasting out of TVs and what was chanted by crowds in the streets.

Trump is bad.

Whatever Trump is doing is bad.

Judges - stop what Trump is doing, all of it, because it is bad, because it is being done by Trump, who is bad.

And judges did.  Without any reliance on any rule of law.

In Washington.

And in Massachusetts.

And in Virginia.

And in California.

And in New York.

And then, in Massachusetts, there was a change of judge from Judge Alisson Burroughs to Judge Nathaniel Gordon, and a change of ruling.

The new assigned judge in the federal court in Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel Gordon, ruled not based on the red rag with the words "Donald Trump" on it, but based on the law.

Judge Nathaniel Gordon of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the first judge out of a number of judges who were presiding over similar cases so far, analyzed the law, and said in his decision that there was no legal basis to stop Donald Trump, the president of the U.S., to do what he was doing with his Executive Order on immigration, without regard whether crowds in the street liked it or not.

And THAT was independence of the judiciary and a dispassionate decision based on the law.

But, that was not what the crowd wanted.

So, Judge James Robart, out of another federal court, in Seattle, Washington, cancelled what Judge Gordon said and, in a decision that had no analysis that Judge Gordon's decision said, ruled - no, Trump must be stopped, period.  My judicial word is law. 

This is the ENTIRE amount of "legal analysis" by Judge Robart, making no analysis of the underlying substantive law whatsoever.

And this is what Judge Robart ordered:

Of course, what judge Robart did, ruling that his order has nationwide application, was illegal and the best way to describe, why, is to draw a square, let's call it "Judge Robart's Magic Square".

Not only Judge Robart forgot about such trifles as "standing to sue" or elementary explanation why he things that plaintiffs have a chance of "prevailing on the merits" when:

1) they have no standing, and even if they had, then,
2) as Judge Gordon ruled in his decision, the applicable test for resolving the problem will be the "rational basis test", which plaintiffs will fail (resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit, possibly with sanctions and attorney fees against those who filed it).

Judge Robart, in his chase of the red rag with Donald Trump on it and in his zeal to appeal to the crowds in the street and in the media, did not even care to consider that, as the "Magic Square" of jurisdictions about shows, Judge Robart was never:

• nominated by the president;
• or confirmed by the U.S. Congress

to preside over cases in federal court in Massachusetts, or in the 1st Circuit, and for that reason, he could not possibly have the power to cancel the decision of Judge Gordon in Massachusetts, which he did, spreading his decision to "all the country", without exceptions for Massachusetts.

So, thanks to Judge Robart's extraordinary preference of a place in the limelight to the rule of law, there is now a mess - at least in the state of Massachusetts, where AT THE SAME TIME, there are two judicial orders, from two judges, applicable to the situation - Judge Gordon's, denying TRO to plaintiffs and allowing President Trump's Executive Order to be applied within the State of Massachusetts, and Judge Robart's, out of Washington, illegally cancelling Judge Gordon's decision and imposing the TRO, without any explanation, legal analysis or legal basis.

President Trump filed a notice of appeal of Judge Robart's decision, and, while the appeal was being prepared, filed an emergency motion to stay Judge Robart's TRO, correctly stating that Judge Robart hugely overstepped his authority in second-guessing discretionary decisions of the U.S. President on national security issues, ruling in favor of parties without standing, and, among other things, had no authority whatsoever to overrule Judge Gordon, whose decision was first-in-time before Judge Robart's.

Under the circumstances, the 9th Circuit had not choice but to agree with President Trump - if the rule of law was to be applied.  After all - see the Magic Square above - the 9th Circuit also had no power to overrule Judge Gordon's decision.

But, the 9th Circuit so far denied President Trump's emergency motion for a stay.

So, the case will have to be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But those who want to say once again that President Trump has to somehow respect the judge who did THAT (see above), only because crowds in the street and in the media chanted loud enough - and do that by breaking every rule in the book and by not even QUOTING the law he relied upon - should go back and read the definition of what the rule of law is.

It is the rule of WRITTEN law, actually, and the written law is what the People's representatives put into law, and it is not for the judge to MAKE the law.

Judge's word is NOT the law if it does not FOLLOW the law.

And, "independence" of the judiciary does not mean independence FROM the law.