Why the IDV (integrated domestic violence) courts in New York are blatantly unconstitutional

Both the Federal and the State Constitutions (of all states in the United States) have embedded into them a concept of the so-called separation of powers, with courts not possessing authority of legislative or executive branch.

Yet, courts in New York - as well as across the United States - unconstitutionally legislate in a variety of ways.

Of course, such "legislating from the bench" is always portrayed as being for the good of the people in general and of certain groups of "victims" in particular.

This is exactly the way New York state court system has unconstitutionally created a system of "courts, but not courts" - a variety of "helping courts", such as 

• drug courts, including separate "opioid courts";
• "family treatment courts", and 

- the latest invention -

the so-called "Integrated Domestic Violence Courts".

Here is how the New York Court Administration describes these courts on its website:

Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Courts

What is an Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court?

IDV Courts are specialized Supreme Court Parts developed to better serve families in crisis. Our current court structure often requires domestic violence victims and their families to appear in multiple courts (in front of multiple judges) to address their criminal, family, matrimonial and other legal problems. IDV Courts, by contrast, are dedicated to the idea of "One family-One judge," allowing a single judge to hear related cases involving domestic violence victims and their families. The goal of the court is to change the way the justice system treats families and children by promoting more informed judicial decision-making, creating consistency in orders of protection and reducing court appearances, as well as providing enhanced services to victims and ensuring defendant accountability. 

What cases are included in the IDV Court?

Related criminal, matrimonial and family court cases filed in the same county which involve a single family may be eligible for the IDV Court. Allegations of criminal domestic violence form the threshold requirement for entry into the IDV part, with related cases in at least two of the three areas of law. Although the cases will be heard in the IDV Court part, each case will retain its individual integrity and will not be consolidated with each other.

How do IDV Courts operate?

The goal of the IDV Court is centered around the coordination of related domestic violence cases, victim safety, defendant accountability and addressing the needs of families affected by domestic violence. IDV Courts are unlike Drug Courts where the focus is on rehabilitation of the criminal defendant. In IDV Courts, judicial monitoring of offenders is a cornerstone of the IDV Court and there is a Compliance Part component to the IDV Court to address the issue of defendant accountability. In addition, IDV Courts also assist families in accessing community services and resources in a coordinated team manner.

How will the transfer of cases into the IDV Court part occur?

An administrative order is issued identifying eligible cases that can be transferred to the IDV Court part. Cases that are eligible for the IDV Court are identified through the contributing courts, along with the cooperation of attorneys, law enforcement, victim advocates, and other community service providers. The ultimate determination as to whether the cases will be transferred to the IDV Court is made by the IDV Court Judge who issues the Transfer Order that is sent to the originating courts, counsel or parties.

Now, why are these courts unconstitutional - and blatantly so?

Well, first of all, they are not provided for by the New York Constitution, or New York legislature.

Second, there is no legislatively set procedure governing operation of these courts.  They are fly-by-night courts formed at the whim of judges and going by whatever "rules" judges create on the go.

Yet, the LIMITED authority of the judicial branch is only to:

• Adjudicate (decide) cases brought in front of courts created by the legislature by parties,
• following legislatively set procedures (rules),
• and in accordance with substantive laws also created by the legislature.

That's it.

The judicial branch is not authorized to create:

• separate courts;
• separate rules for them.

Third, what else is a huge "no-no" for courts is the so-called "pre-judgment" of the case.

And, treating the supposed plaintiffs (or prosecution's complaining witnesses in criminal proceedings) as "victims" and holding courts to "help" them  - before they are actually determined to be victims by the FINAL decision of the respective cases (civil or criminal) - is unconstitutional.

Now, the fourth problem in operaton of such courts is that they - deliberately, on purpose - break JURISDICTIONAL barriers that they are not allowed to break, creating a procedural mess for all cases involved.

The legislature created specific rules of "consolidation" (merging) of court cases.

Here is what the New York Court administration says about consolidating of Family Court, criminal court and Supreme Court cases which are marked "eligible" for the "Integrated Domestic Violence" (IDV) "Courts":

What cases are included in the IDV Court?

Related criminal, matrimonial and family court cases filed in the same county which involve a single family may be eligible for the IDV Court. Allegations of criminal domestic violence form the threshold requirement for entry into the IDV part, with related cases in at least two of the three areas of law. Although the cases will be heard in the IDV Court part, each case will retain its individual integrity and will not be consolidated with each other.

Once again:

"Although the cases will be heard in the IDV Court part, each case will retain its individual integrity and will not be consolidated with each other. "

Of course, no explanation is given as to how, in practice, such cases will be merged, but not merged.

And, there is a reason for this vagueness.

As I mentioned above, in New York there are strict, legislatively set, rules of consolidation of court cases.

1. A criminal case may never be consolidated with a civil case - from Family Court or from the Suprem Court (the lower general jurisdiction court in the State of New York is called "Supreme Court").
2. A Family Court domestic violence case (Article 8 of the Family Court Act) may never be consolidated with a Supreme Court divorce case.

And, finally, there may not be a "one family - one judge" case (even if consolidation of criminal and civil cases were allowed) when:

1.  there is a combination of a Family Court domestic violence (Article 8) case and a justice court criminal misdemeanor case - because the local Family/County/Surrogate's court judge who is supposed to decide the Family Court case as a TRIAL jurisdiction must serve as an APPELLATE jurisdiction for misdemeanor criminal cases out of local justice courts - and the same judge serving as both a trial and an appellate judge in the same case is unconstituional, the New York State Court of Appeals has confirmed it in a specific precedent on this issue in 2017,  OR WHEN
2. a certain Family Court judge was simply not appointed by the New York Chief Administrative Judge as an "Acting Supreme Court Justice", in other words, a Family Court judge under such circumstances has no authority to hear issues from a divorce case out of a Supreme Court; and
3. If the Family Court judge IS also an Acting Supreme Court justice, he/she may not supersede (cancel) the supposedly existing "random assignment system" assigning judges to court cases, which is operated by the respective Judicial Administrative District.  And, if the judge seeks the so-called "consistency" across these three types of courts, he may just as well direct it to the assigning administrative judge, and not create his own "rules" bypassing assignments.

And, if the domestic violence criminal case is a felony, it may only be adjudicated through an indictment of the grand jury, while a felony case in New York usually starts in a justice court.

So, putting together an initial stage of a felony case out of a justice court that did not yet go through an indictment process adds an additional jurisdictional violation.

So, the supposed "problem" -

What is an Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court?

IDV Courts are specialized Supreme Court Parts developed to better serve families in crisis. Our current court structure often requires domestic violence victims and their families to appear in multiple courts (in front of multiple judges) to address their criminal, family, matrimonial and other legal problems. IDV Courts, by contrast, are dedicated to the idea of "One family-One judge," allowing a single judge to hear related cases involving domestic violence victims and their families. The goal of the court is to change the way the justice system treats families and children by promoting more informed judicial decision-making, creating consistency in orders of protection and reducing court appearances, as well as providing enhanced services to victims and ensuring defendant accountability. 

that "Our current court structure often requires domestic violence victims and their families to appear in multiple courts (in front of multiple judges) to address their criminal, family, matrimonial and other legal problems"

may not be resolved administratively by the state Court administration, but must be resolved only legislatively.

4. Moreover, there is a HUGE problem with the difference in the factfinders:

• The Family Court domestic violence case is decided exclusively by a judge (a bench trial);
• In the Supreme Court divorce case some issues may be decided by a jury (grounds for divorce) and the rest of it - by the judge; and
• the criminal case, by the State and Federal Constitution, is decided STRICTLY by the jury - unless the defendant waives his right to a jury trial in writing, 
• in the Supreme Court tort (assault, battery) case the factfinder is also the jury - unless the case is decided by a summary judgment is facts are not in dispute by parties.

5.  Since Family Court domestic violence and Supreme Court divorce and tort cases are considered "civil" cases, they may be decided without a trial at all - by a motion for a "summary judgment".

No summary judgments are allowed in criminal cases, which must be proven by the prosecution to the jury - beyond a reasonable doubt.

6.  There are completely different rules of discovery in civil and criminal cases in New York.

While in criminal court there was - with much theatrics - introduced a so-called "discovery reform", it still did not change the core difference between a civil and a criminal case: availability in civil cases of a 

• LIBERAL (wide) discovery, not a strictly restricted one to certain enumerated positions, and
• most especially - of availability in civil, but not in criminal, cases of the right to FORCE the opponent to answer, under oath, questions asked by a party OUT OF COURT, orally (a deposition) or in writing (an interrogatory, a notice to admit).

7.  Moreover, Family Court domestic violence cases and Supreme Court divorce cases are SEALED - while criminal cases and Supreme Court civil "tort" (assault, battery) cases are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Not to mention that

8.  In criminal cases the defendant has a right to remain silent THROUGHOUT the proceeding, including an appeal from a "guilty" verdict and a sentence, which respondents in Family Court and civil defendants in the Supreme Court do not have, so an "IDV judge" may not force a criminal defendant to talk about his case for any reason whatsoever, defeating the purpose of the "court".

Which means that the only way IDV courts can exist is by forcing criminal defendants to plead guilty in order to "enter" such an "IDV court" - in exchange for some promise of leniency, usually a false promise, just to lure people into a setting where judges can submit such people as captive patients to judges' friends - "providers of services", under the threat of contempt of court.

9.  And, PARTIES in Family Court, Supreme Court and criminal court are different.

• In Supreme Court parties are ONLY the divorcing spouses (their children may be assigned a separate attorney, but they are not mentioned in the court case as separate parties);
• In the Family Court parties to a domestic violence case may be people restricted to categories defined by Article 8 of the Family Court Act;
• In a Supreme Court tort (assault, battery) case there is no restriction on who may be the plaintiff and who the plaintiff may sue as defendant in terms of a family relationship
• In a criminal case the plaintiff is "The People of the State of New York" against the defendant, and the complaining witness of the prosecution (the ALLEGED victim of domestic violence) is not a party in the proceedings at all, 

so, an IDV "court" may not 

1. pre-judge a specific case making an alleged victim a true victim as a matter of law, and make decisions based on such a determination; or
2. make the alleged victim a party in a proceeding where the alleged victim is not a party.

and, last, but not least,

10.  In a Supreme Court divorce case, while issues of domestic violence may be raised if one of the divorcing parties insists on, instead of a "no-fault" divorce (the majority of divorce cases nowadays in New York and an easy adjudication of the grounds), a "cruel and inhuman treatment" - which is not the same, as a matter of New York law, as what is considered "domestic violence" in the Family Court Act, Article 8, THERE IS NO REMEDY provided under the law to the victim of such violence - even if a judge finds that a spouse was, indeed, subjected to "cruel or inhuman treatment".

NO REMEDY means NO REMEDY - a transfer to an IDV "court" may not create such a remedy when the law does not provide for one.

In divorce cases parties often try to claim that the court must take into account domestic violence in dividing property among spouses - but, the law does not allow to take domestic violence into account when dividing property, the issue of domestic violence is irrelevant to the issues of equitable distribution, as a matter of law.

And nearly the same in custody of children.  Violence of one partner against the other, if done outside of the presense, view and/or hearing of children may - and often is - ignored by New York courts in awarding custody of children.

So, as it was shown above, domestic violence cases with issues raised in Family Court, Supreme Court (divorce and tort cases) may not legally be merged with one another, and with criminal cases.

And, hearing them in an IDV "part", by "one family - one judge", actually VIOLATES the law, and constitutional rights of the accused - instead of "helping victims", who, as it was mentioned above, are not "victims" at all before the case has gone through 

•  full discovery, 
• full trial (a jury trial in the criminal and a part of the divorce case), and
• a final verdict is obtained - making the IDV "court" unnecessary.

So, if a case is "identified" as an IDV case and people are forced into an IDV court by an "administrative order", they try to challenge the whole idea of IDV court's existence in federal court, as a violation of multiple constitutional rights:

1.  right to remain silent and for a jury trial - in criminal cases;
2. right to due process, not to have their cases pre-judged by calling complaining wintesses/parties as "victims" before the final decision in the court case;
3. right to an impartial judicial review;
4. right to by tried by a real court, not an administratively created tribunal, like an "IDV court", not set by the State Constitution or legislature;

When saying that 

Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Courts

What is an Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court?

IDV Courts are specialized Supreme Court Parts developed to better serve families in crisis. Our current court structure often requires domestic violence victims and their families to appear in multiple courts (in front of multiple judges) to address their criminal, family, matrimonial and other legal problems. IDV Courts, by contrast, are dedicated to the idea of "One family-One judge," allowing a single judge to hear related cases involving domestic violence victims and their families. The goal of the court is to change the way the justice system treats families and children by promoting more informed judicial decision-making, creating consistency in orders of protection and reducing court appearances, as well as providing enhanced services to victims and ensuring defendant accountability. 

the creators of the illegal system of the IDV "Courts" know full well that they have NO RIGHT at all to destroy jurisdictional barriers between civil and criminal, Family Court, Supreme Court (divorce and tort) and criminal cases.

Moreover, as one MAJOR problem - creators of such a system know that, if a court does not have jurisdiction over a case (and there is no such thing as an IDV court in New York state laws, so there IS no jurisdiction in IDV courts or "parts"), constitutionally, a person may not legally give consent to such non-existing jurisdiction.

Making all decisions out of such an IDV "Court" void - not void-ABLE, but void, as in ZERO, NULLITY, ZILCH, NOT EXISTING AT ALL.

Which, in turn, makes creation of such courts and financing them with taxpayer money - a huge waste of taxpayer money, on top of being a gross miscarriage of justice.

Once again, you simply may not legally review/try together these vastly different - jurisdictionally, too - cases:

## Issue New York State Family Court New York State Justice Courts New York State County courts New York State Supreme Court . Nature of proceedings Civil Criminal Criminal Civil – Tort (a lawsuit for assault, battery) Civil - DIvorce 1. Purpose of proceedings against domestic violence perpetrators Order of protection Jail time up to a year per episode of DV that is charged as a crime and/or fine and/or restitution Jail time over a year (according to the letter-grade of the charge) and/or fine and/or restitution Monetary compensation/ Damages for the plaintiff, injunctive relief (order of protection) Divorce, Equitable distribution, Custody of children, no remedy for domestic violence other than the divorce 2. Who is the factfinder Judge Jury Jury Jury Jury – grounds for divorce, the rest – judge

So, there are grounds to ask a federal court for a declaratory judgment declaring IDV "Courts" in New York what they very obviously are - unconstitutional.

To the poor corrupt New York State Senator James Seward who will finally not run for re-election in 2020 - NO SYMPATHY!

It has been just published that the corrupt Senator James Seward, of Oneonta, New York, who has controlled the area, including fixing court cases, for 17 TERMS, for 34 YEARS!!! - is not running for re-election in 2020 - supposedly, because of an illness, cancer.

Now, we are supposed to feel sympathy for a person because of his illness?

Right?

But, the only feeling I have is disgust.

Disgust that this corrupt criminal don is getting off the seat from which he wielded so much of his corrupt power and did so much evil to so many people only after 34 years of reigning his corrupt power and only when he is no longer physically and mentally capable to continue to drag his feet to the Capitol, no matter how many people in support personnel he has.


TERM LIMITS!


Nobody should "serve" 17 FREAKING TERMS in the legislature, writing laws for relatives, friends and "friendly businesses", appointing his own lawyers as judges, renting his offices from lawyers who then had the reign of court because - who can challenge a Senator's landlord, really?  For any reason.


I am talking about you, corrupt attorney Richard Harlem, of Oneonta, New York, who have been renting a building for "district office" to the no-less corrupt Senator Seward - for decades!


What is Harlem going to do now that his "benefactor" is resigning from power?


Get another criminal don to serve?


And, once again, I will develop sympathy to public servants resigning from "service" only if they:

1. truly serve, in full compliance with their constitutional oath of office, and
2. not consider their "public service" post as a title of nobility, and entitlement, and a family business, and
3. when they have TERM LIMITS, and are not "forced" to "not run for re-election" because they can no longer physically and/or mentally capable to do so.

Here is the "retiring" Sen. Seward's statement:

"I have decided not to seek reelection in 2020 and will retire from the senate when my current term, my 17th, expires at the end of the year.  While I have responded well to cancer treatments, my physicians have advised me that treatments will continue for the foreseeable future limiting my ability to maintain the rigorous schedule needed to campaign for re-election.  This is the right decision for my health, my family, and the people of the 51^st Senate District.

 

“I want to stress that this decision is in no way related to majority or minority standing in the senate.  I have effectively served under both scenarios and have always fought for the best interests of my constituents no matter the party in power - which is exactly what I will continue to do for the remainder of my term.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to serve in the state senate and sincerely thank the voters for their support and confidence.  The sacred trust bestowed in me by those I have had the privilege to represent has always been foremost on my mind. 

“My family and I also want to offer our sincere thanks to the great many well-wishers for the cards, prayers, and positive messages we have received over the past few months during my cancer treatment.  The encouraging sentiments mean a great deal.

“Throughout my time in the state senate I have focused on improving the lives of those I represent – advancing legislation, securing state grants for key community needs, and working directly with constituents in need of help.  I have been blessed to work with many great individuals both at the Capitol and at home and will cherish those strong partnerships. 

“There will be plenty of time to reminisce about the accomplishments, but there is still work ahead.  As I wrap up my senate career, I will continue to focus on the issues and concerns people express to me every day and I look forward to a few additional success stories."

“My commitment to our region will continue and I look forward to further service in the future.”

Among the usual lies about the "privilege" of "effectively" "serving" the "sacred trust" of the constituents in their "best interests" - an alarming statement at the end, 

“My commitment to our region will continue and I look forward to further service in the future.”

He promises his corrupt friends that his influence is not going to end until his death.

The gall!

SO - NO SYMPATHY TO THE CORRUPT NEW YORK SENATOR JAMES SEWARD!

SYMPATHY IS OWED TO HIS VICTIMS!

TERM LIMITS AND ABOLITION OF LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY!

As to your cancer, Senator Seward, there is a good saying in American English.

Karma is a bitch.

As upstate New York bleeds population, judges invent new ways of feeding their non-profits with business. Judge Brian Burns and his new additional grab-and-treat court.

Here is a full text by the Oneonta "Daily Star"'s staff writer about a yet another "treatment" court opened by the corrupt Judge Brian Burns, the Otsego County court judge .


"Otsego County has launched a specialized court that addresses the unique challenges presented by opioid addiction.

It was created as part of the statewide effort by the state Unified Court System to address these issues, according to a media release from the state Unified Court System.

The new Opioid Court is an outgrowth of the county's already existing Drug Treatment Court, improving the treatment court model by focusing on early intervention and treatment, Otsego County Court Judge Brian Burns said. The new court's first session was Dec. 13, he said. 

According to the release, the court will accept both felony and misdemeanor cases from the Otsego County Court and any town or village court in the county. The court will also accept referrals from local attorneys, police agencies, first responders, probation officers and any other agencies working with at-risk opioid users, according to the release.

Traditional treatment court typically involves someone pleading guilty and being sentenced in treatment court, a process that can take weeks, Burns said.

"For someone with an opioid substance use disorder, they may not have weeks," Burns said. "We put the prosecution on hold and do everything we can to intervene and provide access to treatment immediately."

Burns said while he doesn't believe anyone has died waiting to get into treatment court, several drug court participants have died of overdoses while they're in the program. With the new court, treatment isn't conditional on the legal process happening first, he said.

"We don't want someone to overdose and die because of a slow legal process," Burns said.

Participants are immediately assessed for their needs, which includes a level of care determination, transportation to a treatment facility, housing assistance when they're discharged, employment assistance and help addressing mental health issues. Participants are subject to drug testing, a curfew and they also do community service, Burns said.

While overall, fewer people are dying of overdoses, it doesn't mean the crisis is over, he said.

"We still have people dying from opioid overdoses both in this county and across the state every day," Burns said. "The advantage of the opioid intervention court is it allows us to focus immediately on getting people into treatment."

The court is focused on opioids because of the highly lethal nature of heroin and fentanyl, Burns said. The court is modeled after others around the state, typically in more urban areas, Burns said. It could potentially expand and address other substance abuse issues. For now, things are being taken one step at a time, he said.

"Substance abuse disorders in general are more effectively addressed through a public health system, not the criminal justice system," Burns said. "This opioid intervention court is much closer to a public health response than a criminal justice response, so I think it would be effective if applied for people who suffer from any substance abuse disorder."

Shweta Karikehalli, staff writer, can be reached at skarikehalli@thedailystar.com or 607-441-7221. Follow her @DS_ShwetaK on Twitter."

Nice, nice, nice.

Very kind words said by the judge.

Now, why is it that I do not believe a single one of them?

Not even looking at this crook's very honest looking face?

Here are some comments under the article posted on Facebook:

And, the input of the former Treatment court co-ordinator Leo Giovagnoli who was finally pushed out of that court because of politics, does not add anything positive to my already dismal opinion of the proponent of this "court", judge Brian Burns.

Judge Burns has the dubious notoriety of having sent a teenager to jail because his father dared to demonstrate in front of his house.

Who has hired a federal judge's own law firm to defend himself - instead of the New York Attorney General, who usually defends judges in such federal cases at taxpayers' expense - in order to have the judge (David Peebles) give Burns a break and stretch judicial immunity beyond the breaking point.

As a result of hiring the judge's own former law partner, Burns WAS actually given immunity in a criminal proceeding where there was ANOTHER judge, and where Burns was very clearly the complaining witness and not a judge.

I have written a whole chapter in my 2018 book 

about Judge Burns' ties to the "service provider" industry, about making "treatment courts" - and Family Court - his own private business, for himself and members of "providers' association", a business funded by us, the taxpayers.

You are welcome to read it.

But, also consider the demographics of the Otsego County.

It already did not boast a boost of population, and now it is, as other upstate New York counties, is heavily bleeding population.

Less population - more taxpayer money paid for new "undertakings", like this new "court".

If, as the judge says, one person has died "while in the program" - in their treatment court, maybe, you need to fix the old one, not create a brand new one.

And, Judge Burns, as a member of the Board of Directors of association providing services court-ordered by such a "court" (by judge Burns himself) is uniquely Disqualified from presiding over the old one (treatment court) and from creating an additional one.

My question, too, is, will Judge Burns now be creating a separate court - with taxpayer money - for every different drug to which people are addicted?

An alcohol court?
An opioid court?
A pot court?
etc.?

When will it end?

Note, too, how the judge is using the failure of his own court - a person died of an overdose while in the "program" - to his own advantage and to push for stripping people Burns wants "to help", or, rather, to make them into captive patients for members of his "providers' association" of more constitutional rights:

"With the new court, treatment isn't conditional on the legal process happening first, he said."

What the f**k, excuse my exquisite French, does THAT mean?

In a new COURT, treatment is not conditional on "the legal process happening first"?

Meaning, Burns can now court-order and put under the criminal contempt of court powers, anybody WITHOUT first determining whether he has JURISDICTION over the person? Whether the person has committed any WRONGDOING (courts do not adjudicate anything but wrongdoing - as Judge Burns must know).

Now Judge Burns can just grab-and-treat?

Or, rather, give lucrative business to his provider friends/members of his nonprofit who are suffering from bleeding population?

But, the grab-and-treat approach has nothing to do with law, does it, Judge Burns?

Will Judge Gary Rosa (NY, Delaware County) be taken off the bench after his profound fiasco in a juvenile case?

I have patiently followed the scandal (one of many) in Delaware County, New York concerning a fight between the County Commissioner of Social Services and the County attorney who represented the Commissioner in court, as a petitioner in a juvenile delinquency (criminal proceedings for teens in Family Court) case.

As always, the bold and courageous local press, thumping on Trump lately all the time as allegedly acting against the U.S. Constitution (while regularly turning a blind eye to corruption in the local government, and especially the judiciary), have missed the main point in the squabble.

The incompetence of Judge Gary Rosa who could have ended the conflict in one decision - saving 

• much heartache and physical injury for the teen, 
• the position for Commissioner Dana Scudderi-Hunter and 
• tens of thousands of dollars for Delaware County taxpayers, including my husband and myself.

But - no.

Being a coward that he is, he did not do what he was supposed to, as a judge.

The point is that BOTH the Commissioner of Social Services (Dana Scudderi-Hunter) and the County Attorney (Amy Merklen) had IRRECONCILABLE conflicts of interest in that juvenile case and could not possibly be part of that (sealed, by the way) proceeding.

Why?

Well, that much was out in the open.

The teen in question was in foster care of the Commissioner.

So, the Commissioner could not possibly - as a person in the position of a parent of the teen, his legal guardian - PROSECUTE that same teen in a juvenile quasi-criminal proceeding.

It was, of course, County Attorney Amy Merklen's job to so advise the Commissioner - but she did not.  Which is malpractice and incompetence in itself, and it is Merklen who should have been booted along with Dana Scuderi-Hunter.

Instead, Merklen came into conflict with her own client, took in litigation the position of the County Supervisors who pays her salary but had no right to know anything that is going on in a juvenile proceeding.

The position of the County was to save money - which may not be an issue in litigation at all, and, which resulted in the opposite, in grossly wasting tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars.

Merklen also took the position the County's probation office against the position of her own client.

When the client, the Commissioner, did not cave in, Merklen complained about the position of her own client in litigation (in a SEALED juvenile case) to the County Board, which is a violation of the teen's privacy, and made sure that her own client has lost a job.

Mind that Amy Merklen MUST be disbarred for what she did - but she never will be.

Why?

Because remember Porter Kirkwood, Merklen's predecessor as County Attorney?  

The crook who constantly engaged in ex parte communications with his predecessor as Deputy County Attorney - Judge Carl Becker?

The crook who boasted in his own judicial election campaign that he allowed illegal mental health experimentation on teenagers in his foster care?

Porter Kirkwood is now a law clerk for a judge in the attorney licensing court, the 3rd Department (unless "his" judge Molly Fitzgerald has left him behind - his registration still shows that he is in Binghamton, in the court assigning judges to cases across the judicial district -

while she has been transferred to the 3rd Department long time ago), 

and he will never allow disbarment of "his own", of another local loyal crook.

But, my question remains - WHY didn't Judge Rosa end this whole thing with one decision, a SUA SPONTE (on the court's own motion) decision, seeing very plainly in front of him a legal guardian of a child prosecuting, in a quasi-criminal proceeding, her own ward?

Why didn't he disqualify the Delaware County Commissioner Dana Scudderi-Hunter because of her irreconcilable conflict of interest?

Why didn't he dismiss the proceeding as being void since it has been filed by a person with an irreconcilable conflict of interest, and thus, disqualified from filing such petitions?

And, why NOBODY, not one of the multiple attorneys handling this case from all sides - has pointed that out, in any of the multiple court and administrative hearings relevant to the case?

And why NO JOURNALIST covering this whole story raised this issue?

So, why did Judge Rosa continue to adjudicate a void proceeding?

Costing the actual physical and mental harm to the teenager in question, a job to the Commissioner and tens of thousands of dollars WASTED of taxpayers' (including my husband's and my own) money?

Will you re-elect this incompetent twit to the bench again?

Will you keep him rule over your lives for the remainder of his term?

Or will you do something to get him off the bench?