If you want to get employed in Cooperstown, NY, you'd better be an illegal alien - and share the fruits of your labor with the local establsihment, or else

The village of Cooperstown, NY, without a public vote, suddenly announced itself a "sanctuary" municipality - which cannot be done without a public meeting and a public notice and discussion.  No discussion has been held, according to a press account, so the legality of that decision is questionable.

Of course, it is a "lost in the woods" municipality, so, supposedly, why would it even consider announcing itself a "sanctuary" for illegal aliens?

The answer can be not further than the luxury lakeside resort located in Cooperstown, NY, the Otesaga Hotel,

which needs to fill in its jobs, and illegal aliens, of course, is the cheapest possible solution to clean hotel rooms and do maintenance, wash dishes and laundry and work as line cooks and waiters.

This lakeside resort, "coincidentally", is well-known for holding conferences for state and federal judges and prosecutors, see e.g.:

here - a "Prosecutor's Training Institute" could not possibly train prosecutors without inviting a Judge of the Court of Appeals to talk about something completely unrelated to the topic of the discussion, and to do that in Cooperstown, where the only place to accommodate a mass of people is Otesaga Resort Hotel:

and here, an annual conference of federal bankruptcy judges was to be held here in 2015

and in 2016

and here, a lawyer from a large law firm announces a "speaking engagement" in Otesaga, to happen tomorrow:

Moreover, Cooperstown, as far as I know, is the home of the Chief Administrative Judge for Upstate New York Michael Coccoma, so he can be on hand in any of these events, enjoying free golfing, tennis and "networking", especially in view of the fact that he is close to mandatory retirement and will need a law firm to pick him up after that.

So, when judges need to get drunk and play golf on the lake, federal laws they are sworn to protect may be disregarded.

It is apparent that this pronouncement of a "sanctuary village" has anything to do with caring about anybody's human rights.

It's the bottom line for the hotel and keeping drunk lakeside binges affordable for judges.

Just visit the hotel's restaurant and see for yourself how many immigrants are employed in the hotel.

Given the "sanctuary village" status the village of Cooperstown now has, right before the start of the Otesaga resort season, consider how many of them may likely be illegal alien, taking jobs right out of the hands of American citizens and legal aliens in this economically depressed area.

Lawful resident and citizen parents appearing in Otsego County Family Court to whom judges try to impute income or order to find a job in that neck of woods, or go to jail for contempt of court, should point out to the judges the employment preference the village of Cooperstown just implicitly announced for illegal aliens - obviously, catering for employment preferences of its three major employers:

• the court system;
• the Baseball Hall of Fame, and
• the Otesaga Resort hotel.

Once can also recall with what vigor the local notorious District Attorney (and drunk) John Muehl pursues people for trying to make at least some kind of a living - having signed a private contract to persecute, ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, by the way,  paying his office over $91,000 to wage a war on poor parents and parents of special needs children trying to make ends meet.

One would wonder what would happen to that contract, will the DA's office and the Village of Cooperstown now turn down this kind of money to prosecute federal fraud - or they snub the federal government only in enforcement of immigration law for some interesting reason, not other federal laws?

Obviously, the distinction is that the poor parent was earning money for herself on Etsy, without "sharing" the fruits of her labor with any of the rich local employers, that's why DA Muehl undertook to prosecute her, for money.

Had she been an illegal alien, she would have been welcome to Cooperstown with open arms - because then the local rich employers could exploit her cheap labor.

With such "preferences", of course, legal residents and citizens in this area has a zilch of a chance to get employment.

So, when you come to Cooperstown, NY, remember how filthy their local politics is.

They just jumped on the nationwide bandwagon to snub at the new President in order to keep robbing legal residents and citizens of their jobs and get rich off illegal alien labor.

Why is the U.S. still behind Russia in court transparency and video reporting of court proceedings?

Yesterday, blogger Ruslan Sokolovskiy who was on trial for catching Pokemons in a Russian Orthodox church on his own phone, recording himself doing it and posting the recordings, with his comments, on YouTube - was sentenced to 3.5 years conditional discharge, with some hours of "mandatory labor" and supervision.

There is no question that the conviction and sentence for "insulting the feelings of the believers" is marasmatic and completely out of touch with the realities of the XXIrst century, as well as against the own Constitution of Russian Federation and against the European Convention as to the freedom of speech and expression.

But, what has struck me when reviewing materials from that proceeding is not the obvious stupidity and illegality of the criminal prosecution, conviction and sentencing of Sokolovsky, but the transparency of criminal proceedings unmatched in the U.S.

Imagine the reality of being able to watch, from anywhere in the world:

1. testimony of factual witnesses:
• of the defendant;

• of prosecution's witnesses:
• Ilya Fomintsev, a Russian Orthodox believer;

• Elena Lapina, a Russian Orthodox believer;

• of a secret witness, with hidden identity and changed voice - but video and sound recording is still allowed;

• of defendant's witnesses:
• Elena Sannikova, a Russian Orthodox believer and a former political prisoner;

1. testimony, including cross-examination, of expert witnesses:
• for the prosecution:
• linguistic expert Marina Borisovna Voroshilova (this witness requested the court to prohibit videorecording, only sound recording was allowed, over defense's objection, I would note here that TWO defense attorneys were allowed to voice objections AND the defendant personally; such objections by both an attorney and a represented party, would not be allowed in a US court, which is a shame, as it adds a unique perspective of the client);

• sociologist Dmitriy Sergeevich Popov:

• expert on religions Alexey Nikolaevich Starostin, who also asked for the court's protection as to videotaping - but not as to audiotaping:

• a forensic psychologist (a police officer) Kirill Vitalyevich Zlokazov who, like prosecution's expert witnesses Voroshilova and Starostin, asked the court not to allow videotaping of their testimony, but audio taping was still allowed - of course, neutrality of this "expert" witness is in big question because he is also a police officer, a Major in the police force:

• for the defense:
• linguistic expert Anna Mikhailovna Plotnikova who did not try to hide her face from videotaping:

• religion expert Zoya Elifeevna Chernyshkova who did not conceal her face, see a member of the public directly photographing her during testimony on a tablet;

1. defendant's mother;

1. the "last word" of the defendant;

1. the reading of the verdict by the judge,

including the reading (mumbling, rather, as in a bad sermon) portions of expertise of the 6 videoclips that blogger Sokolovskiy has put on YouTube:

It is very clear that in the town of Ekaterinburg where the court proceedings were taking place, Judge Ekaterina Sheponiak

did not care that she was recorded when presiding over proceedings and reading the verdict.

She did not care even that she is being videotaped while reading out the following bizarre portion of the verdict:

"attributing to Jesus Christ of images ... from the bestiary of Japanese mythology", whatever that means.

That is a crime, ladies and gentlemen, that a 22-year-old young man is convicted of in Russia, by a secular court.

Yet, one cannot deny to Judge Sheponiak that she MOSTLY (with the exception of several witnesses for the prosecution) allowed both videotaping and audiotaping of court proceedings, and even where she did not allow videotaping, she allowed audiotaping for all witnesses.

Moreover, it is obvious that video- and audiotaping in court proceedings in Russia are routine, since all other participants in that court also did not react to smartphones being used in the courtroom to take pictures and videos of witnesses during testimony.

Here, a man walked up to witness pulpit during testimony, pointed a phone at witnesses, both for prosecution



and for the defense



and either took a photo or recorded a video.  Nobody stirred, and the testimony continued.

Not so in the U.S., New York courts specifically.

Despite a longtime pledge of the previous Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to bring cameras into the courtroom because, as he said, it is anachronistic to prohibit the public on the outside of the courtroom to see what is happening inside the courtroom in open court proceedings where public is allowed to be present without restrictions.

While leaving his position into retirement in December of 2015, Lippman reportedly "gave judges more discretion" to allow videotaping of court proceedings.

Yet, Lippman neither did, nor could abolish criminal law, Civil Rights Law 52, which makes it a crime of misdemeanor to "broadcast" from the courtroom.  In fact, I was personally sanctioned and ordered to pay attorney fees for New York court system, on request of the civil rights fighter New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's "assistant AG", for requesting a federal court to deem Civil Rights Law 52 unconstitutional, just at the time when Lippman was sermonizing about allowing cameras into the courtroom.

Nor did he abolish the court rule prohibiting audio recording anywhere in the courtHOUSE, whether inside or outside of the courtROOM where proceedings are taking place,

and that rule, exception for parties in litigation notwithstanding, was recently used, after Lippman's retirement, to deny an immigrant, Jewish criminal defendant, his right to be present and give testimony in a grand jury proceedings.

At the same time, New York court system was involved in the scandal of videotaping confidential meetings between attorneys and their clients in the courthouse, and repeatedly destroyed security videos when asked for it through FOIL requests.

Yet, absence of independent recording, both audio and video, of court proceedings, leads to rampant fraud in cooking up court transcripts, both in New York and in other states of the United States.

So, yes, Russia appears to be sinking back into Middle Ages by criminally prosecuting people for catching pokemons in a church and "offending feelings of believers" by questioning existence of Jesus Christ - in other words, Russia has swung from cruel persecutions of religion, killing priests, monks and nuns, ransacking churches, taking children away from believers, and that continued into my own adult life, to the point that I still remember I was afraid to marry in church and was mocked for calling my first child Vera /'faith' in Russian/ to now merging with religion as if it is part of the state, in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

What was going on in Sokolovskiy's trial cannot be called by any other word than "bizarre".

Yet, Russia appears to be sinking into the Middle Ages with more court transparency than courts in the U.S. have despite their claimed democracy, fairness and striving for "excellence".

A complete bizarre episode, from the point of view of transparency, occurred several days ago in a Manhattan courtroom where Judge Joan Kenney

moved proceedings into her cloakroom to escape the press from "humiliating her", because she, according to her own words, is "thinking out loud".

So, not only there is a prohibition to audio- and video-record anywhere in the courthouse, but now a New York judge introduced a de facto prohibition to even be PRESENT at a public court proceeding:

• she did not invite the public and the press into her cloakroom;
• she made it clear that she removes proceedings into her cloakroom because she wants to exclude witnesses from the public and the press.

Of course, the way #JudgeJoanKenney looks

and the way she acts, without even considering her "thinking out loud", one must wonder whether alcoholism and mental illness is involved.

The court system already reacted to press reports about "unusual" behavior of Judge Kenney by removing proceedings into her dressing room to exclude the press, by demoting her - a rare occurrence, I must add.

Yet, despite repeated recommendations that she is not qualified for her job, she is not removed from the bench, but keeps being re-appointed, and now, "demoted" to City Court, as if litigants in that court are second-rate individuals and can be given a third-rate judge with some apparent problems upstairs and with her temperament.

Cameras in the courtroom would have cured New York and other states - and federal - court system of a lot of such judges.

But, alas, we are not Russia.

Even if we do not prosecute for catching Pokemons in churches.

NY Chief Judge DiFiore to the press (when she still was a Westchester County DA): DO YOU KNOW that my husband knows all U.S. Supreme Court Justices by their first names and has their direct lines?

In 2008, there were several civil rights lawsuits filed against the Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who has now become the Chief Judge of the State of New York.

Since these lawsuits provide unique information about this public servant, I am sure, the public will be interested to see these materials.

I already blogged today about the lawsuit against DiFiore's alleged participation in corruption and voter fraud in connection with her elections for her position as the Westchester County DA, which she used to protect or, alternatively, target different individuals, and used as a stepping stone to her current position.

The voter fraud lawsuit involved statements that the plaintiff, Giulio Cavallo, after DiFiore's threats and threats by Senator D'Amato on her behalf, stopped publishing in local newspaper, "The Guardian".  Cavallo's lawsuit also alleged that DiFiore claimed that "The Guardian"'s owner is part of Albanian organized crime and that she will "fix him" when the time comes - the desire to "fix" him came "coincidentally" after his newspaper published an article exposing her corruption.

"The Guardian"'s owner's lawsuit gives more insight into DiFiore's threats.

Here are the parties to the lawsuit:

In 2007 "The Westchester Guardian" committed the ultimate faux pas: it criticized several powerful public officials, including DiFiore and DiFiore's current predecessor (once removed, Jonathan Lippman "served" after Kaye) in her present position, the NY Chief Court Judge Judith Kaye:

Of course, criticizing Judith Kaye was a death wish, because:

1) Chief Judge Kaye was very sensitive to criticism.  In fact, Chief Judge Kaye was so sensitive to criticism of judges and of herself and "her" court that in 1997, shortly after conviction and incarceration in federal prison of the previous Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, friend of Chief Judge Kaye

(Kaye, according to his book "After the Madness", wrote consoling notes to Wachtler and had Bellacosa deliver them to Wachtler in prison),

Kaye published two "law review articles", citing one another, together with Wachtler's other longtime friend Joe Bellacosa

(who also wrote to Wachtler in prison that Bellacosa read a sermon to a group of parishioners about those who condemned Jesus Christ as a prisoner and thus should go to hell).

Those two law review articles, under the guise of some elaborate language tried to bash criticism and lawyer-critics of judges, I blogged about Bellacosa's article here, and here is Kaye's article where she calls judicial independence a "crown jewel" and asks the "legal community" to protect that "crown jewel" from criticism.

2) In 2007, when the publication was made, Kaye's felon friend Sol Wachtler was reinstated as an attorney, despite his felony conviction and his history of violence, sexual misconduct with a minor and mental instability, which added a "sensitive issue" to any criticism of Kaye or her surroundings.

Kaye, of course, retired in 2008, when the lawsuit was filed, yet, her connections and influence remained alive.

3) The article criticized DiFiore and her husband Dennis Glazer and made allegations of election fraud and corruption against both of them:

The lawsuit indicates that Kaye read the article criticizing her and for some reason shared her "concerns" about the criticism with DiFiore, a mere County DA.

DiFiore, in her position as a County DA of the County where the newspaper was located, and especially with her husband who was wealthy and well connected, had pressure powers of her own. 

And DiFiore, according to the lawsuit, did not miss the chance used her power to intimidate the newspaper.

Here is the "offending" article by Richard Blassberg:

And here is the article in larger font:

"Last Monday afternoon, New York State’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye appeared on National Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer Show. Mr. Lehrer, not generally known to be unprepared with subject matter, squandered an excellent opportunity to bring some meaningful dialogue regarding New York State’s failing court system to his listeners, unless, of course, it was his intention to give the Judge a ‘PR Freebee.’

For openers, his willingness to permit the Chief Judge of the State, while making reference to the enormous number of pro se litigants in the Matrimonial Part of Supreme Court, to get away with, saying, “I never understand those  Latin phrases,” as she was uncertain whether she meant to say pro se, or pro bono, without some expression of surprise, was both scary and disappointing. Her admission was scary, and his failure to recognize and pursue her ineptness was most disappointing. Lehrer’s ‘marshmallow treatment’ of her was reminiscent of Archie Bunker addressing his letter to Richard Nixon with “Dear Mister President, Your Honor, Sir:”

It was evident from the outset that Judith Kaye was not prepared to have a meaningful discussion of the dreadful condition of New York State’s Unified Court System, and Brian Lehrer was either unwilling, or unprepared, to hold her feet to the fire. Shame on them both! To listen to her reassurances one has to wonder where she has been for the last 14 years? Clearly, former Governor Cuomo’s decision to appoint Kaye, a woman with no prior judicial credentials, whose legal career had been spent in corporate law, was a badly failed experiment.

Kaye’s remarks, intended to convey the impression that the judiciary, particularly the Matrimonial and Criminal Parts of Supreme Court, are in essentially good shape could not be further from the truth, as many Westchester residents are well aware. It is common knowledge that numerous Supreme Court Justices purchased their nominations through political power-brokers. One such case recently exposed in Brooklyn, involved a complaint by a judge’s wife that she paid $200,000 to secure his nomination.

Here in Westchester, The Guardian has been exposing for several months the role of Giulio Cavallo, Larry Schwartz, and others, in the sale of judicial nominations, for as much as $15,000, and more. And, of course, the practice is not limited to judges. It’s well known in political circles that Giulio Cavallo is furious with DA Janet DiFiore’s spouse, attorney Dennis Glazer, for reneging on his promise to pay Cavallo $30,000 for the Independence Party’s cross-endorsement of Janet for DA against Tony Castro in 2005.

One wonders how Kaye can accept the fact that her Chief Administrative Judge, Jonathan Lippman, a Democrat, to ensure his election to State Supreme Court, a 14-year position, schemed with then-Westchester County Court Judge Joseph Alessandro, who had been found “Unqualified,” by the State Commission on Judicial Credentials, to cross-endorse each other, thus underhandedly guaranteeing their election two years ago? Judge Alessandro, when last seen in Westchester, was the subject of a suit by Barbara Battista, his former campaign treasurer, for having allegedly defrauded her out of more than $250,000.

Judge Kaye certainly cannot deny knowledge of the shameless enterprise that has been flourishing on her watch in the Matrimonial Part of Westchester Supreme Court, involving certain judges and matrimonial attorneys, and law guardians. The complaints were so numerous, many litigants having gone to federal authorities, that Kaye was compelled, in June of last year, to instruct Judge Francis Nicolai to remove the four sitting judges in the Matrimonial Part, and replace them with others, the so-called “Historic Rotation.” No, Judge Kaye, despite her remarks to Brian Lehrer, to the contrary, is only too well aware of the scandalous scheme by which the ‘monied spouse’ in divorce after divorce, invariably gets control of the marital assets, and custody of the children, by employing the services of the unscrupulous clique of lawyers, law guardians, and mental health professionals, who use Temporary Orders of Protection, perjury, and outright fraud to achieve control.

Too many of the easy questions put to Kaye by Lehrer were answered with expressions such as ”I hope that.” She would prefer to appear unknowing, rather than engage in open discussion of the serious day-today realities citizens encounter in our State Courts. Her responses to questions regarding Family Court were most discouraging in light of what has been happening to Jing Kelly and her infant son Tristram for more than four years at the hands of New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter. Listening to Kaye’s uninformed responses, it is little wonder that a bigoted creature like Schechter has been able to keep this ChineseAmerican mother and her six-year-old son apart for four years, in total defiance of both the order and mandamus of the Appellate Division, First Department.

It doesn’t do the People of New York State one bit of good to have a politician the like of Judith Kaye as our Chief Judge. It’s one thing not to know pro se from pro bono, but it’s quite another to be totally out of touch with what is going on in our courts. And, furthermore, to speak in meaningless and irrelevant terms simply serves to further undermine public confidence in our judicial system. Worse yet, we must continue to labor under her lack of initiative and leadership for two more years thanks to Governor Spitzer’s reappointment of her."

Yikes, that stings.  For a top judge of a large state that sets itself as a "trailblaizer of human rights" to not know the difference between Pro Se and Pro Bono, and that being the least of her lapses in knowledge is kind of ... humiliating.  But well deserved.

The article also described DiFiore's and her husband's alleged corruption to elect her as DA:

DiFiore could not let that stand, of course. 

So, what did she do?

Let's go to the lawsuit by Selim Zherka, the owner of The Westchester Guardian.

DiFiore, likely, asked Zherka to call her on her cell phone to avoid a lawsuit for acting in her capacity as a DA.  I wonder if now-Chief Judge DiFiore kept her cell phone number mentioned in the lawsuit, 914-224-7238?

DiFiore, the District Attorney of a large county, is calling the press, uses four-letter language, calls publications stupid and demands that the owner of the newspaper to call her on her cell phone.

Looks like an abuse of power and a command to me by a DA, doesn't it?

But, let's go further.

Selim Zherka obeyed DiFIore's command and reportedly called her on her cell phone.

Look at the wonderful conversation between the District Attorney of a county where:

• DiFiore lives;
• Governor Andrew Cuomo lives, and
• Former President Bill Clinton and his wife State Senator, then State Secretary and now former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton lives:

A very informative first phrase for DA DiFiore.

1) Personal contact with Judge Kaye and representation of Judge Kaye in DiFiore's capacity as a DAm, which means that Judge Kaye asked DiFiore to use her authority as DA to intimidate the press.  "She read the part in the article".  How does DiFiore know?  That means that Judge Kaye contacted DiFiore and DiFiore is acting on Judge Kaye's behalf.  Since DiFiore was at that time a DA and could not privately practice law, she could not possibly represent Judge Kaye as an attorney, and could only represent her as a District Attorney, on a criminal complaint.  What kind of criminal complaint did Judge Kaye file, or what kind of favor did she call upon DiFiore to call the press on her behalf to intimidate them for criticizing judge Kaye?

2) "what you did is personal! You don't go after family.  That is a no no".

So, what DiFiore said, when she still was a DA is that nobody can criticize her family, the family of a high-ranking public official, even in connection with allegations of public corruption.  If it was a "no-no" then, imagine what kind of "no-no" it has become when DiFiore got to head the entire New York Court system - and then ruled for her own husband's agency and appointed him to chair a "Constitutional Convention" Commission, as a wedding anniversary present no less.

So, I can fairly surmise that, since I not only criticized "family", which is for DiFiore an ultimate no-no, before DiFiore was appointed New York Chief Judge, but asked that that "family", and DiFiore herself be criminally investigated and disbarred, DiFiore's decision in my disciplinary case, refusing to recuse and refusing hear my as-of-right constitutional appeal (twice, here and here), was undoubtedly personal.

Which does not jibe with her pledge to "serve fairly", uphold the "rule of law", and her attempts to project an impression of a fair judge, an impression of "excellence", and an impression of a great and wise leader of a great and fair court system, seeking to - what a joke for a DA who was seeking wrongful convictions no matter what! - prevent wrongful convictions.

By the way, everything in the article about Chief Judge Kaye being out of touch with reality can be repeated, with additions, about Chief Judge DiFiore.

3) "My husband is one of the most respected attorneys in the country.  He knows every U.S. Supreme Court justice on a first name basis, and has their direct lines.  He is in front of these people all the time.  What you did is not right".

What is that supposed to mean?

It is an interesting concept that a public prosecutor is claiming that, because her close relative is a "respective attorney", and knows some high-standing public officials, he is beyond criticism.

In fact, DiFiore, as the DA, may have to PROSECUTE her own husband based on these allegations, and, since she is disqualified to do that and a special prosecutor would be required, does not have any say in the matter.

And, another interesting revelation is that attorney Glazer, while appearing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, was on first name basis with all of its judges and "had their direct lines", which may be interesting for his opponents to know, as it directly involves an appearance of case-fixing and ex parte communications.

Thus, DiFiore, in order to flex her own and her husband's muscles, implicated in case-fixing and ex parte communications, all U.S. Supreme Court justices who were appointed before 2008, and those are all of the present SCOTUS judges but Kagan, Sotomayor and Gorsuch, 8 of them:

• Stephen Breyer;
• Anthony Kennedy;
• Ruth Ginsburg;
• the late Antonin Scalia;
• Clarence Thomas;
• David Souter (retired in 2009);
• Chief Judge Roberts.

4) DiFiore is telling the OWNER of the newspaper "what you did is not right", even though he was not the journalist who wrote the article, and is clearly intimidating the press, using her own and her husband's political connections, and hinting that he will not be able to find any justice anywhere, up to the very top court of the country given her husband's personal connections to judges of that court.

The remaining dialogue is no less interesting.

This is a then-public prosecutor and the present Chief Judge of the New York Court System.

She will not give help to somebody who criticized her family if she sees them bleeding in the street.  Great morals. 

Moreover, she

• "fucken hate[s]" the critic,
• threatens that the journalist who has written an article critical of her and her husband "will get [the owner of the newspaper] into a lot of trouble, is "going to cause a lot of problems" for the owner of the newspaper,
• claims that "no one in this county likes him", obviously by "no one" meaning "no one that matters", the politically connected people, including, very likely, Governor Cuomo and the Clintons, and,
• ta-da, the apotheosis of stupidity - DiFiore demanded that the owner of the newspaper should fire the journalist and "find another writer".

But even that is not all yet.

Apparently, people have a lot to say about DiFiore's "very good friend" Domenic Procopio (his picture says, for example, that he is not only a friend of DiFiore, but may very likely be a good friend of various bottles),

the City of New Rochelle's Chairperson of the Civil Service Committee (who also has several other interesting memberships)

and especially about illegal breaks that the county, and the District Attorney, were supposedly giving him:

DiFiore then demanded a "complete retraction" of the article about herself and her husband:

Moreover, Zherka, intimidated by DiFiore's threats, promised to never allow another article about DiFiore or her husband to be published by his newspaper - apparently, despite the fact that DiFiore was a prominent public figure, and her family was supposed to be in the spotlight because of her job.

And you know what happened?

Remember that D'Amato threatened Cavallo, as described in Cavallo's lawsuit against DiFiore that Cavallo must make peace with DiFiore, "or else", because D'Amato's wife works for a very powerful federal judge?

That judge, "coincidentally", toiled in the same court where Zherka's lawsuit was litigated.

And that, as well as her husband's personal connections to the U.S. Supreme Court, obviously, helped.

A lot.

Here is a summary judgment on the merits from the court employing Amato's wife's, dismissing Zherka's lawsuit against DiFiore.

You know why?

Because Zherka was only "temporarily muted" and did not suffer any "immediate injuries", stress from intimidation from the DA and having to make a coerced promise not to write about her any more, obviously, does not count:

DiFiore allegedly did not intimidate Zherka as a DA, but as a "private citizen":

Of course, while claiming that DiFiore was acting only as a "private citizen", the employer-of-Amato's wife- court first recognized that DiFiore COULD be threatening prosecution as a DA - for purposes of a lawsuit against Westchester County:

So, Amato's wife's employer dismissed a valid - and solid - case against DiFiore as a DA abusing her power because she was allegedly intimidating the press as a private individual, with all muscle flexing, claiming that the journalist will get into a lot of trouble, the newspaper will get into a lot of trouble, demanding to fire the journalist, parading her husband's personal connections to the U.S. Supreme Court.

DiFiore was right - her husband knows a person or two in the court system.

But, while DiFiore's and her husband's connections got this lawsuit dismissed, it is still committed to public records, and serves us, members of the public, as a reminder:

DiFiore's oaths, reports, pledges, or "initiatives", or DiFiore herself as a public official material are, in her own words

The public's right to know about the health of federal judges before they drop into a vegetative state. The case of Judge Patricia Minaldi and her boy-toy Justin Gray

Recently, I wrote about a federal judge, the "wet-brained" judge Patricia Minaldi who, after a DWI conviction, was:

• allowed to proceed with cases;
• continued to drink herself to delirium and incompetence;
• was sued by her own magistrate judge for being mentally incompetent after the magistrate who "coincidentally" had the power of attorney to handle Judge Minaldi's affairs (why would that be necessary?) reportedly figured out that Judge Minaldi's 30-year-junior live-in boy-toy Justin Gray 

was fleecing her for tens of thousands of dollars (allegedly over $64,000 when he was stopped, in the course of several months).

Only then, Judge Minaldi was:

• taken off cases; and
• swiftly put into a rehab.

But, when details of the lawsuit for mental incompetence filed against her by her own magistrate became known, Judge Minaldi was yanked out of rehab by her superiors and apparently made to publicly claim that she did not go to the rehab voluntarily, but that it is her boy toy who has cruelly "dumped" her at he rehab.

First, if Judge Minaldi was ordered by the court system to go into the rehab, but it took a boy toy to "dump" her there, the boy toy deserves a medal, doesn't he?

That was a good thing, not a bad thing, that somebody actually made Judge Minaldi comply with the order of her superiors to go into the rehab.

Second, if Judge Minaldi did not obey the order to go into the rehab, but was involuntarily "dumped" there, she is not at all so competent to proceed on the bench.

Third, if you are a competent person and a federal judge, how can anybody drive you as a sack of potatoes to a location and "dump" you there?

If Judge Minaldi could be handled as an inanimate object, how can it be that her condition did not affect court cases where she - allegedly - presided - while having her magistrate "handle" her affairs through a power of attorney?

Did that magistrate also sign Judge Minaldi's orders, with the same power of attorney?

Yet, the lawsuit by the magistrate against the judge in state court was sealed, the boy toy was criminally charged, and Judge Minaldi quickly came out of the rehab and made a statement that her "wet-brained" condition did not affect cases.

And, of course, attorneys of record in Judge Minaldi's cases will, likely, be seezed by the fear of having their licenses revoked if they peep anything against all of this garbage happening in a publicly financed court system.

Whenever judges are involved, apparently, crimes are hush-hushed, disciplinary violations are denied or downplayed, and especially judicial disability is downplayed.

I already wrote about the example of New York's former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler who is still praised, now, as a "luminary", for lying to the federal court about his mental health condition, and thus "saving" the New York court system from a flood of motions to vacate - the same flood that should be happening now in Judge Minaldi's court.

In Judge Minaldi's case, even when she committed a crime of drunk driving, the police investigation was extremely evasive.

She was reportedly not given a sobriety test, not issued an open alcohol container citation, and was not charged with a felony.

Now, she is dragged by the court system out of rehab, which was obviously badly needed for her, in order to prop her up to the point of her being able to see that she is good to go and to deny her obvious and already publicized alcohol psychosis diagnosis.

Yet, trying to conceal a medical condition and trying to continue to function when a person, especially a federal judge, cannot be functioning, is not doing Judge Minaldi any good healthwise.

And, it is obviously not doing the public any good.

Medical and mental health records and medications of public officials in whose hands are life-changing decisions of a lot of people, should be public.

We have a right to know about the health of a federal judge the same way as we have a right to know about the health of this country's President.

We have a right to know whether our judges are competent and coherent before they deteriorate to the point when they:

• start stalking people like former NY Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, dressed as a Texan private eye,
• get wandering around in cars on highways and then get lost in the woods like federal judge in Pennsylvania Edwin Kosyk;
• get dumped as a sack of potatoes at a rehab, and fleeced of her money, by live-in 3-decades-younger boy-toys.

The U.S. Congress should do its job and issue federal legislation:

1) making medical and mental records, as well as medication records of the federal judiciary public records, easily obtainable by the public;

2) impose term limits on federal judiciary;

3) make all federal judges undergo mandatory annual health checkups, publishing the results.

If that happens, I wonder how many more judges will run off the bench claiming that they now urgently need to spend time with family or write memoirs.