More on disinformation of voters as the government's condition to practice law and to become a judge in New York and in the US

A lot is being said lately about "disinformation", "misinformation" etc.

The current US President even created a Disinformation Governance Board - conspicuously, 

• during midterm elections to Congress campaign, 
• when Democrats' disastrous policies on many matters are driving the country's economy off the cliff, 
• when Democrats have a reasonable fear to lose their majority in the House, and
• when there is a possibility that social media giants will not be able to control information going to voters about political candidates in leftist lockstep - like it happened in 2020 (because of a rich "bad boy" Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter).

Little does an average New York State voter knows though that disinformation/misinformation of voters is and has long been the main LICENSING REQUIRMENT of all New York State attorneys.

Here is proof.

This was the state of things in 1880:

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

This is the state of things in 2018 (a NY attorney "temporarily" suspended for criticism of a judge in 2018 - and remains suspended until now):

"As to charges 4 to 6, respondent accused the court of blatant political bias and corruption and disparaged his adversaries. As the Referee found, "[n]either the Code nor the Rules 'obligates,' much less permits, a lawyer to chastise a judge for what the lawyer speculates is corrupt political behavior on that judge's part in presiding over a matter or to effectively threaten the judge that he would be investigated by the Office of Judicial Conduct and the Department of Justice unless he reversed his opinion. Yet Respondent did so repeatedly."

(And, before this case, there were many more cases providing for the same: the lawyer may not exercise his client's 1st and 14th Amendment right to criticize a judge to obtain federal constitutional right of impartial judicial review, it is a "hanging offense" and a professional suicide for a lawyer, notwithstanding that ensuring that their clients' constitutional rights are observed by the government may be the lawyer's professional duty - as Justice Sharwood stated in 1880).

And, criticizing judicial bias and corruption is a hanging offense for a lawyer in New York notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has, without authority, granted absolute immunity for MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT CONFUDCT IN OFFICE to themselves and to all American judges in 1978.

Where there is immunity from lawsuit for corruption, there will be rampant corruption, and there is.  Remember the phrase - "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

But, the most knowledgeable witnesses, expert and factual witnesses, of this corruption and/or incompetence of judges, lawyers, are gagged by the convenient self-serving rule of their regulators, judges, requiring lawyers, as the main condition of keeping their licenses and livelihood, TO NOT INFORM VOTERS OF LACK OF QUALIFICATION OR INTEGRITY OF JUDGES AND JUDICIAL CANDIDATES:

Of course, this little rule is completely unlawful from many points.

1.  The rule is unconstitutional

The rule violates the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution (which the creators of this rule, New York judges, have sworn to uphold, each and every one of them).

The rule is a very obvious PRIOR RESTRAINT OF POLITICAL SPEECH aimed at information flow to voters regarding certain political candidates, based on the content of that information.

Such prior restraints on speech are PRESUMPTIVELY unconstitutional (according to a long string of US Supreme Court precedents).  Of course, that same US Supreme Court refuses, as a matter of policy, for half a century at least, to address unconstitutional discipline of lawyers based on this rule.

In United States v Alvarez, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that even false statements may be constitutionally protected, and that this margin of error is necessary for the democracy to exist.

Yet, in the above quoted disciplinary rules created by New York judges for New York lawyers the ability of lawyers to practice their profession is CONDITIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT on LYING BY OMISSION to voters, NOT INFORMING THE VOTERS of what the lawyer may witness of judicial misconduct and misconduct of judicial candidates.   

It is obvious from the Matter of Giorgini quoted above (decision made in 2018, 6 years after and in defiance of Alvarez, 2012) that New York courts are interpreting this rule in their own favor and consider ANY criticism of a judge by a lawyer as "false" and punishable by professional death.

2. The rule is made as a matter of self-interest of the regulator

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a profession regulated by its own members without outside neutral regulator, may be violating federal civil and criminal antitrust laws.

That is a cherry on the cake that the American judiciary would not want to see or apply to its own rule over American attorneys.

It is very obvious that NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL, elected or appointed to represent and act in the best interests of the people and drawing a salary funded by taxpayers, may act IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST.

Yet, the rule above is exactly that.

The New York judiciary has legislated (in violation of federal and state requirement for separation of powers) that people may only represent other people in court on a condition that they will keep mum about misconduct of judges and other attorneys (who may become judges in the future).

This is behavior of organized crime, it is obviously illegal.

Note that for some interesting reason the rule does not prohibit lawyers to criticize any other members of the government or candidates for political offices - other than their own regulators, judges.

3. Parallel system of adjudication of what is a false statement against a judge or judicial candidate

How can it even be proven that a lawyer has made a supposedly false statement of fact against a judge or judicial candidate?

Of course, if laws would be followed, then the judge or judicial candidate must SUE the lawyer for defamation.

You know how far this lawsuit will get?

Not very far, for sure.

Because, for over half a century already, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that political figures suing for defamation have an elevated burden of proof.

They must prove NOT ONLY that the statement was false, but that ALSO it was made with a deliberate malice - an impossible standard to meet in cases of political criticism.

So, if judges or judicial candidates SUE lawyers participating in political process and giving to voters negative information about judges and judicial candidates that they have acquired (like Justice Sharwood said back in 1880) by constant attendance in court and by observing that same misconduct every day - they get nothing.

Their case gets dismissed.

Even if the case DOES NOT get dismissed, judges who sue for defamation will expose themselves to discovery, depositions under oath, a trial in front of jury, with embarrassing cross-examination in open court.

NOPE.  Judges do not want to be treated equally with any other person claiming that he/she was defamed.

And, judges do not want to be subjected to THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, the court system - knowing very well how it works.

Instead, judges in the State of New York (and across the country, too) invented for themselves a "separate court system" where rules of defamation and the 1st Amendment does not apply.

They will simply "rule" without any cross-examinations or discovery that whatever the lawyer said in criticism of a judge is bad (not necessarily false) because the lawyer IS NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE A JUDGE for "political bias or corruption" - see Matter of Giorgini again.

==

Moreover, the judiciary has lobbied an dragged into the New York State Constitution and the New York State legislation a requirement that only those people CAN BECOME JUDGES who were "IN GOOD STANDING"/LICENSED by judges for a certain number of years.

Given that the main condition of being "in good standing" with judges is lack of criticism of those same judges for misconduct in office, political bias and corruption - when a judicial candidate tells voters that he/she has "practiced law" for so many years - that means automatically that he/she DID NOT CRITICIZE JUDGES, his/her own regulators, for misconduct that lawyer may know of, for that same number of years.

Also, when a lawyer publicly PRAISES a judge during the judge's re-election campaign, or praises a lawyer trying to become a judge during an election campaign - that may mean only that the lawyer is trying to get his place under the sun cozied up, and to protect himself and his clients from future potential judicial wrath.

Nothing to do with the actual supposed good qualities of the judicial candidate.

Look how the leftists' darling John Oliver (he is not an attorney, and he is a leftist, so he is safe from such "disciplinary rules") criticized judicial elections back 7 years ago.

Holding aside Oliver's political bias (nearly all supposedly bad judges in the video were Republicans) and lack of knowledge of the law (his discussion regarding Alabama Supreme Court judge Roy More and his stance that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause - they are not - and thus not Supreme law of the land), he makes many valid points about, let's say

• perceived obligation of judges to rule in a certain way to get re-elected;
• judges hitting on lawyers for money to run their re-election campaigns, or attorneys hitting other lawyers for money to get elected as judges and then "work off" the money given - we know only about the most scandalous and egregious schemes that become public;
• irrelevant virtue-signalling by judges to voters etc.

THE MAIN PROBLEM with judicial elections and the quality of judges that we receive though, is:

• that we allow our state Constitutions and state laws to restrict us in who we elect as judges only to the member of the legal profession that is gagged by the judicial mafia into NOT INFORMING voters of the negative qualities of judicial candidates;
• that we allow the judiciary to regulate lawyers, shooting ourselves in the foot and depriving ourselves, both as information as voters, and of independent representation in court.

The overhaul should be systemic - if we want justice and fairness in the courtroom.

Voters should not be restricted to judicial candidates with a badge of approval by judges - you only enter our brotherhood if you can prove you didn't criticize us for 10 years, this is ridiculous and mafia-like.

And, voters should not believe one word a licensed attorney says in praise of a judge or judicial candidate.

Knowing that this praise is extorted under the gun - praise me, fund my re-election campaign, or lose your profession.

Whenever you see the government trying to "help" voters to "fight disinformation" - know that the government is the exact opposite thing.

Informed voters are a danger to the well-established and well-entrenched "brethren" of different kind "serving the people" at the people's expense and, very often, to our detriment.

Let's at least LEARN and get to KNOW what is happening.

You can't start thinking about how to fix the problem without first realizing what the problem is.

And the problem is - voters in judicial elections in New York and throughout the US are duped, by attorneys' silence and by attorneys' praise under the gun or in expectations of future favorable rulings from that judge.

DO NOT ELECT LAWYERS (controlled by judges) INTO LEGISLATURES.

TALK TO YOUR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to repeal restrictions that a judge may only be a lawyer, and a lawyer "in good standing" with judges for a ## of years.

CAMPAIGN to repeal such provisions from your state Constitutions, as a restriction on your right to choose members of your own government.

And, short-term, while these laws are not repealed yet, of course, DO NOT BELIEVE MEMBERS OF THE MAFIA PRAISING THE MAFIA IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE MAFIA.

Seek out your own information, talk to people who appeared in front of judges, who hired that lawyer, look through forums, there is a lot of information available.

Yes, I may have written about it before, but I will write about it again, and again, and again, until people understand what is going on and start campaigning to change it.

We need justice in our courtrooms, not mafia.

Separation of powers? Nah. Meet CONFLATION of power - and stupidity. A Family Court arrest warrant of a specified person, signed by an unknown judge, executed by an unknown officer, for an unspecified violation

Yesterday, New York State Delaware County Sheriff's Office has posted the following on Facebook:

Does anything seem wrong to you in what is described here?

Because if it doesn't, it most definitely should.

Remember why we have separation of government powers into 3 branches?

I don't believe they teach that in schools clearly enough.

It is because those "Founding Fathers" of ours DISTRUSTED integrity of the government and believed that, if the government is not constantly checked upon, the merged executive, legislative and judicial powers will become tyrannical.

The only thing is - their concept of separation of powers was incredibly naive and unworkable.

Why?

If the three branches, when/if merged, become an omnipowerful tyranny, why would they be entrusted to "check and balance" on one another?

Because instead of checks and balances - as we see again, and again, and again - we see that same MERGER of these three branches of power, producing tyranny.

Their separation exists only on paper.

Now, let's see again why what Delaware County Sheriff posted is Exhibit A of what I have just said about merger of power and tyranny.

Otsego County Family Court issues an ARREST WARRANT.

For an UNSPECIFIED violation of the Family Court Act.

And, the Delaware County Sheriff obliged and arrested a man whose name they publish, John P. Blackburn, of Kortright, NY, based on that arrest warrant.

Now, what is wrong about that?

Everything is wrong about that.

First, Family Court does NOT have jurisdiction over CRIMINAL proceedings, and, thus, should not be allowed to issue ARREST WARRANTS.

Arrest warrants are exclusively a feature of a criminal proceeding.

If the New York State Legislature gave this power to Family Court judges (and it did), and the Family Court judges, instead of declaring it unconstitutional, use that power, and the Sheriff, instead of refusing to obey an unconstitutional Arrest warrant, goes ahead and arrests a person based on it - AND PUBLISHES HIS NAME IN THE PAPER, damaging his reputation and likely jeopardizing his job, his business relationships etc. - that is, ladies and gentlemen, a MERGER of powers, which results in TYRANNY, in its classical sense.

Lawlessness.

Second, what kind of crap it is when a person's reputation is PUBLICLY damaged for an arrest for an "UNSPECIFIED" violation of something?

If you publish his name, do the next thing and disclose to the public, WHY, WHAT FOR.

If it is a secret (proceedings in Family Court are private), then, the arrest, is TWICE unlawful - because an arrest can be made only in a PUBLIC, criminal, proceeding.

You publicize the person's name - you publicize the charge, no way around it.

Because privacy of Family Court proceedings were supposed to protect litigants/parties in such proceedings, not judges and not the police catering for such judges.

In this case, the Judge's name who signed the warrant is - UNKNOWN, the officer's name who arrested the person based on that warrant is _ UNKNOWN, but the person's name (who is the ONLY person whose privacy the Family Court Act must protect) is publicized.

We don't know what he did wrong, but people don't get arrested for nothing, is the common line of thinking - isn't it?

So, the GOVERNMENT officials who DID WRONG by issuing and executing this arrest warrant are protected, but the person whose privacy that same Family Court Act is supposed to protect - is exposed.  Everything is topsy-turvy.

Is this what we pay these idiots in the government, all 3 branches, for?

I wonder when people start suing counties for such unlawful actions, and when County Attorneys will take their heads from where they are stuck now to figure out what kind of liability such "arrest warrants" put the County and its taxpayers into.

I will try to get a copy of that arrest warrant through a FOIL request and let my readers know who was the judge who signed it and who was the officer who executed it.  And what exactly the arrest warrant was for.

And THREE.

This announcement practically ACKNOWLEDGES what the government denies and lies to the public about.

Family Court proceedings ARE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS in their nature.

This arrest warrant is definitely not for "CIVIL" contempt of court (the only "civil" proceeding where arrests are allowed).

Because in civil contempts of court the purpose of the arrest is COERCION, not PUNISHMENT FOR A VIOLATION of anything.

Here, the arrest warrant was - as announced by the Sheriff's Office - "for unspecified VIOLATION of the Family Court Act", thus, a punishment, thus, a criminal proceeding.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long ago stated that the government's claim that a certain proceeding is "civil" in nature is not the end of story, the proceeding may still be challenged and declared criminal in nature if certain factors are present.

Later on, the U.S. Supreme Court has simplified the analysis whether a proceeding is civil or criminal in nature and provided a very simple rule:

if civil goals of the proceedings are THE ONLY goals of the proceedings - it is a civil proceeding.

if civil goal of the proceedings are NOT the only goals of the proceedings, and the proceeding ALSO has a purpose of retribution or deterrence (punishment) - they are CRIMINAL proceedings.

With all consequences of a criminal proceeding - requiring constitutional/procedural protections of a criminal proceeding.

And that is the big secret that Delaware County Sheriff has let out in his - stupidly, unlawfully - faithful following of an illegal court order that the Sheriff has proudly and publicly announced on Facebook.

Family Court proceedings are CRIMINAL proceedings in their nature - and, thus, this particular arrestee is entitled to procedural protections in a criminal proceeding - which undoubtedly he will not be given.

This is how tyranny works.

News from Appellate Division 3rd Department on the unlawful salary of Gov Kathy Hochul, conflicted representation of NY AG Letitia James, incompetent unlawful behavior of NYS Comptroller and other exciting topics

Yesterday New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Department has issued a very interesting decision.

That can lead to stripping the current and former Governor and Lt Governor of the State of New York of a good chunk of their salaries, as unconstitutionally received.

Here is the decision in full.

The decision leads one to raise interesting questions.

First, State Comptroller took an oath of office to uphold the State Constitution.

The NYS Legislature's sweetheart declaration raising salaries of Gov. Cuomo and Lt Gov. Hochul mid-term THREE TIMES was contrary to the text of the New York State Constitution (a separate issue is what New Yorkers are paying, through their collective noses, to NYS Legislature's legal department that allowed this declaration to go through).

A trick question - what has prevented the Chief financial officer of the State of New York to "just say no" and refuse to obey an obviously unconstitutional order of the State Legislature?

His career was more important than his oath of office, obviously.

Second, note WHO represents the defendant who illegally paid out salary increases knowing they are unconstitutional (any accountant would have been fired for THAT, not for disobeying that unlawful order.)

It is the pre-eminent NY AG Letitia James who portrays herself on social media and in leftstream media that she is defender of New Yorker's rights and enforcer of the law (while OPPOSING New Yorker's civil rights lawsuits in court, see Pacer.gov).

Here she also defend one violator of the law, a high-ranking violator, too.

And three - TA-DA, and note that this comes from the court that is also an ATTORNEY LICENSING/REGULATING authority in that same area.

The interesting conundrum is that, by the licensing rules of the App Div 3rd, Letitia James should have been stripped of her law license a long time ago for representing people with conflicting, often, opposing, interests, in the same litigation.

Yet, App Div 3 calmly state in the decision that Letitia James may do just that.

Why?

Because EVERY SINGLE JUDGE of the App Div 3 is ALSO Letitia James client - and she will vigorously defend them if they themselves are sued for some unconstitutional behavior.

Reducing both the value of the oath of office that every single one of these "public servants" give - and the licensing rules of attorney ethics, exactly to 0.

Graft wins - every single time.

3 times is a charm? 2 judges in a row in Delaware County, NY (and bosom friends, too) ran from the bench mid-term. Will the 3rd member of the team be as "lucky"?

In 2015, Delaware County/Family/Surrogate's Court judge Carl F. Becker, just 2.5 years into his 2nd, much coveted, term, suddenly "retired".

While chased by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, the State Comptroller and the FBI.

Witnesses report that what chased him from the bench was so bad that Becker would sneak out for lunch, withdraw cash at a Bank of Delhi ATM, cross the street to the Shire Pub and drink his lunch.  Often.

I imagine how sad it is for the now-Delaware County public defender Joe Ermeti who has taken off his candidacy for the County Judge seat in 2012 to "allow his party to win" (that's what he said in an interview when he announced his candidacy in 2021) - when "his party's" candidate so ingloriously folded in just 2.5 years' time.

Next.

In November of 2015 Becker's bosom friend Richard Northrup became the judge.

In October of 2021 though, 6 years into his 1st, much-coveted, term, Northrup runs from the bench, too.  

From a $210,000 a year salary and tremendous power.

The only thing that usually gets them off is an imminent and likely threat of a criminal prosecution, and such a threat arises for judges only when they did something really, really, really bad. and only when the feds are chasing them.

Because otherwise - who would be chasing Judge Northrup?  

His bosom friend DA John Hubbard who refused to criminally prosecute for forgery, solicitation of forgery, filing false instrument and a number of other crimes - his former law partner Carl Becker when Becker forged the certificate of election for his 1st term, filing it, with forged signatures, 9 years after election when all proof of election was gone - and only after being challenged in a motion as being not a judge, but an impostor? 

I personally spoke to Hubbard about the charges, and all he could bleat was - "why do you need that, Tanya"? 

Now Becker's former law partner John Hubbard is running for the same position (defense attorney Andrew Van Buren runs, too, but is unlikely to win, given the powerful support of the local establishment Hubbard is getting in these elections).  

Hubbard is part and parcel of the same team and, no doubt, had a finger in the same shenanigans that likely drove his two predecessors off the bench.  I am personally aware of some of them.

And, the eternal self-pushover-"for the party" Joe Ermeti has, once again, first announced his candidacy for the judicial elections in 2022, and once again took his candidacy off to let now John Hubbard go forward.  

When he let Becker win in 2012 (and did a couple of other things, I will write about them in further articles of this series), he's got his current Delaware County Public Defender's position.

When he stepped aside for John Hubbard, he, reportedly, was offered a deal to get John Hubbard's position as the District Attorney (we will see if reports are true shortly).

I wonder for how long Joe Ermeti's "sacrifice"-for-candy will last this time, for how long Hubbard will be able to keep on the bench once he grabs it.

I have a funny feeling the FBI file on Hubbard is as long as for his previous loved bosses and mentors...

We will wait and see, won't we?

On judicial elections in Delaware County, New York. Part I - Voter information on candidates, or lack thereof

At this time, as I see from the local press in Delaware County, New York, a judicial election campaign is raging in the county, for the coveted judicial seat of the Family/County/Surrogate's court judge (with an appendage of an Acting Supreme Court Justice), a position gaining 

• a good salary (see salary of the just-resigned Judge Richard D. Northrup Jr in 2020);

• an absolute power over the local people - their family integrity, right to custody of children, right to property, right to liberty - 

and, on top of that, a judicially given 

• absolute judicial immunity in civil lawsuits for crimes in office.

So, the fight at this time in Delaware County is for a job almost too good to be true - and 

• especially in a county larger than many European countries, consisting of rural mountain wooded roads and with hardly any people (44,308 people in the entire county by the 2020 census) - an ideal place for safe and effective criminal trafficking of any kind (people, guns, drugs - you name it), and for profiting from that trafficking; and
• especially when the alternative, being in private business, is very sad - the local law school has declared a couple of years ago that rural attorneys have no paying clients, are starving and are "eating a lot of spaghettis" to survive.

Moreover, not discussed by candidates for such positions are some extremely interesting provisions of the Family Court Act (and a person running for the County Judge seat will also occupy the Family Court judge seat in Delaware County - as well as the Surrogate's Court judge seat).

For example, that ALL EXPENSES of the Family Court judge - including his "non-judicial personnel", are put on the County taxpayers, and the County Board may grant or deny the judge permission to give to his friends and relatives various lucrative jobs.

And, the judge can have any and all such lucrative jobs - if THE COUNTY GIVES HIM THE FINANCES.

Which means - Family Court judges in New York are put, by the legislators, quite literally, into the local County Board's pockets.

While County Boards might not withhold salaries of the Family Court judge and his minimum personnel, they can control what kind of additional, "auxiliary", jobs the judge can give out to whoever he/she likes.

And that is a very significant leverage over the judge, virtually destroying the judge's impartiality.

Voters should be aware of that - and should talk to their legislative representatives to end this legitimized corruption.

==

When you shop for a service provider, you can get online or word of mouth reviews on that provider and make your choice.

When you are making a very significant decision as to who to vote into the office of a County/Family/Surrogate's court judge - who you are vesting with the power to take you children away, temporarily or forever, to put you in jail, up to a lifetime, to take your property away - you have virtually no information other than gleeful blabbering of the candidates who, like car salespeople, are giving you the nonsense about their years of "faithful and honorable service" and that they never hurt a fly in their lives.

For all that matters, candidates describing themselves to voters (as well as their political party supporting them) are people who cannot exist in real life - they are always flawless and beyond reproach.

Now, the most likely witnesses of negative character features of such candidates would be local practicing attorneys.

After all, as a Pennsylvania judge has stated in the year 1880, 142 years ago, 

"“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. 

They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. 

They are in constant attendance on the courts. 

Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. 

To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” 

Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

But, much water has flown under various bridges over the last 142 years.

And, now what Judge Sharwood considered "a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system" is, instead, the standard of the legal profession throughout the United States, including the State of New York.

Since now all attorneys in the United States - and in the State of New York - are licensed BY JUDGES, those same people whom, by Judge Sharwood's account, an attorney "may consider it his duty to attack and expose".

And, judges controlling attorneys through their licenses, not being complete idiots, invented the first rule of "attorney ethics" - prohibiting attorneys to, using their rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, criticize JUDGES OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES.

Of course, the rule is not exactly that - the rule is prohibiting attorneys to "make false statements" about judges or judicial candidates.

But, the 1st Amendment protects such criticism, even if statements are false - which licensing judges do not care about, "canceling" attorneys left and right for such criticism.

Moreover, the judiciary has created several court or quasi-court systems - one for the poor, the other for the wealthy, a completely different system dealing with their own misconduct, and a system insulated from any laws usually used in civil or criminal proceedings, including form the U.S. Constitution where judges may take livelihood and licenses of attorneys for such criticism.

And where judges are interpreting criticism of attorneys of judges always as being false.  Naturally.

An attorney in Indiana counted, for example, in Pennsylvania, the percentage when judges considered criticism of themselves by attorneys as false and warranting discipline.  The percentage was 98%, nearly 100%!

And the result of this gagging of attorneys was - the Kids for Cash scandal, when attorneys knew for years that certain judges were packing children away to juvenile prisons in exchange for kickbacks, so that the private management of those prisons would get enough money to run prisons from the county - and kept silent.  Which resulted in a lot of grief for the children and 1 suicide of a child.

But, until now this scheme continues to exist throughout the country and in the State of New York, and will exist unless voters call upon their legislative representative to change it.  Which requires time, not enough time to prevent voting in Delaware County in 2020 to go according to the usual scheme, where attorneys are gagged and prohibited to give voters negative (even though truthful) information about judges and judicial candidates.

There is a reason why there was an ancient Roman rule prohibiting anybody to sit in judgment of their own cases.

And, there is a reason why regulator of any state licenses should be neutral impartial and have no self-interest in the regulation.

Not in the world of the judiciary and attorneys regulated by the judiciary.

As I said above, the first and main rule that the state regulator (judiciary) invented in regulation of licenses of attorneys (the main and best witnesses of judicial misconduct as per Justice Shawrood as of 1880) was to gag that criticism of themselves by severe punishment of often lifetime prohibition to practice the lawyer's profession if he/she dares to EDUCATE VOTERS about negative features of a judge or judicial candidate.

In other words, judges in the US (and in New York) use their regulatory authority in a self-serving manner, for about a century now in the United States, and the main purpose of attorney regulation is to GAG WITNESSES OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and prevent them from educating voters as to who they are putting on the bench.

Moreover, specifically in New York, voters are RESTRICTED in who they want to put on what bench.

For example, in village courts judges - who rule over property and over criminal matters, having authority to issue arrest warrants and sentence people for up to 1 year in jail (per count, meaning - if there are several counts running consecutively, the village court judge may sentence a person for many years in jail) - do not have to have ANY education, at all.  Nor a law degree, nor a law license.

Likely this aberration exists because positions of village justices do not pay much and thus are not so lucrative for the judicial/attorney mafia.

But not so in Family Court, County Court, Surrogate's Court and Supreme Court, where salaries are already over $200,000 a year, with benefits and A LOT of additional perks.

There the judicial lobby has got their way a long time ago by RESTRICTING VOTERS' CHOICE by putting that restriction INTO THE STATE CONSTITUTION, where only those who kept their heads low, did not criticize judicial misconduct for 5 years (Constitution) and 10 years (the Family Court Act) may become Family Court judges.

It is a kind of a carrot-and-stick scheme for attorneys/witnesses of judicial misconduct.

Criticize - and be banned from your chosen profession.

Stay mum about judicial misconduct - and you may be rewarded by permission to become one of the regulators yourself, one of the judges.

An honorable profession, indeed.

So, dear voters, the most likely and most knowledgeable witnesses of misconduct of candidates for judicial office, local practicing attorneys, are effectively gagged by these rules and will not tell you, what they know of the potential negative features of any candidates.

Which means - you need to amass this information on your own to inform your voting decisions.

By connecting the dots, seeking this information from different sources, not believing a word that is coming at the "meet-and-greet" meetings of candidates, by asking those candidates inconvenient and tough questions and seeing their reactions.

And bearing in mind that the reaction of candidates will not be the same as it will be if they become judges - it will be dampened by their desire to appease voters and get the prize - the judgeship.

When you next time see those same people if they get their wish, they will not longer desire to appease you as a voter, but instead they will have an absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office (Stump v Sparkman, US Supreme Court case) to do with you and your property, child, family ANYTHING THEY WANT.

Think before giving such an enormous power to people, no matter how hard they are trying to praise themselves to you.

Be very much on the alert as to insincerity, dishonesty, however small, snapping and irritation - because on the bench these features will grow manifold and may destroy your life.

And, if your voting decisions did not affect the outcome of elections, at least inform yourself as to what you can expect in the future from such judges.  

Informed often means well-armed to protect yourself.

As to some information I am ready to share with you about the particular candidates for the Delaware County (NY) judicial elections this year, stay tuned for next blogs on this topic.

Will we see the Otsego County Board, former judge Michael Coccoma and his wife, former Otsego County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, in federal prison? Like we saw the New York Senate leader Dean Skelos and his son?

In 2018 a federal jury found guilty the former leader of the New York Senate DEAN SKELOS, a Republican, and his son for a scheme of corruption where, among other things, the son was given a no-show lucrative job as a favor to the Senator/Head of Senate father.

(The former leader of the New York Assembly, SHELDON SILVER, a Democrat, was also convicted for corruption, by a separate, also federal, jury, at about the same time - the same article mentions it).

What is interesting is that the New York supposedly "free" and "independent" press, as well as "professional" prosecutors and the no less "professional" State Attorney General did not notice ongoing schemes of corruption going on under their noses for years and decades.

Or, rather, preferred not to notice them.

What is even more interesting that, as I have started a new series of articles about corruption in judicial elections in the Tri-County area (Delaware, Chenango, Otsego) of the State of New York in 2021 and 2022, I have READILY - READILY found evidence of the same scheme as the one for which SKELOS and SON were convicted by the federal jury, evidence in public access - that the "free and independent" local press does not dare to touch.

So, let's begin from the very beginning.

Last year Otsego County (NY) Supreme Court Justice Michael V. Coccoma (who was also the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge administering the entire state court system outside of New York City, a tremendous power) - retired.  

I do not know Judge Coccoma's date of birth, so it is difficult for me to say whether he has or has not reached 70 when he decided to retire - which is the mandatory age of retirement for judges in New York.  In other words, I do not know whether Judge Coccoma really retired or was booted - as TWO judges in Delaware County, one another's bosom friend and one successing the other, were - Judge Carl F. Becker in the summer of 2015, mid-term, and then his successor Judge Richard D. Northrup, Jr., in 2021, also mid-term.

The local newspaper, The Daily Star, ran an article about Michael Coccoma's announcement of retirement.

It is an insight into the quality of The Daily Star journalism though as to what it DID NOT report in connection with Michael Coccoma's retirement - despite information being in open public access.

Notably, at the same time with his retirement, Michael Coccoma's wife, Ellen Coccoma, was booted from her position as Otsego County Attorney and was replaced with another person, Denise Hollis.

The local press published a story about a meeting in December of the Otsego County Board where the then-County Attorney (wife of the just-retired Michael Coccoma) Ellen Coccoma announced that "she will not seek re-appointment".  Which may very well indicate that she was, too, booted, as having lost her value for the Board - the support of a powerful public figure, a judge and a Chief Administrative judge for all courts outside of New York City.

Why I think it is more likely that Ellen Coccoma was booted and did not simply voluntarily left her position as the Otsego County Attorney that she has held for decades?

There are several indicators reflected in public records that she was booted as no longer needed by Otsego County where her salary was a perpetual bribe to her husband, a powerful local and statewide judge.

First, SeethroughNY.net, a watchdog listing salaries and pensions of New York public employees, shows that Ellen Coccoma is not drawing a retirement as a retired public employee, while Michael Coccoma does.

Second, the New York Unified Court system shows Ellen Coccoma and her husband Michael Coccoma are now practicing law 104 miles away from one another, after having "served" in government roles in the same city, Cooperstown, for decades.

Michael Coccoma (notably) was not accepted in any law firms as an honorary special counsel or partner, as it usually happens with retired judges.

That suggests to me that he either 

• has no value to people as a professional practicing attorney (I understand that, having reversed a Coccoma's decision before I even finished law school, as a paralegal in my husband's law office who did that appeal) or 
• was booted from his job other than "retired" - judging by his year of admission to the bar, 1979, and his year of retirement, 2021, he was not likely to have reached 70 at the time of retirement, nor did he announce that he is retiring due to having reached the mandatory age of retirement for judges.

Michael Coccoma is now practicing law solo far away from Otsego County, in Saratoga Springs, next to the horse race track, while his wife remained practicing law in Oneonta, NY, Otsego County.

I highly doubt that either the elderly Michael Coccoma 

(year of admission - 1979, so he is about 69 years old now),

or the elderly Ellen Coccoma 

(the year her law license was obtained is 1982, the earliest people obtain law licenses is 25-26 years of age - graduate from high school at 18, bachelor's degree, pre-requisite to law school admission - at 22, 3 years of law school, bar exam and next year - admission to the bar, so that makes Ellen Coccoma about 66 years of age at this time)

would make a 4-hour roundtrip every day on a snowy night highway

to have the happiness of living with one another.

Especially knowing Michael Coccoma's propensity of employing in close confidential positions and publicly "helping" in a significant way young and pretty female court employees such a sacrifice for one another between this couple is highly unlikely.

So - on Michael Coccoma's retirement he has most likely SPLIT from his wife Ellen Coccoma, thus signaling to Otsego County officials that she is of no value to him any longer 

since he does not have to pretend any more that he is a married guy and a family man (even though the entire world knew, again, how he was playing around with pretty female court employees).

While Ellen Coccoma looked like this - probably, 30 years ago, and now, judging by her year of admission to the bar (1982), is no less than 66 years old.

Now, if your husband retires, splits from you and moves to live and practice law 105 miles away from you, you do not have to do the same if YOU did not reach the age of retirement in public service and if YOU want to continue practicing law.

And there are no age restrictions to be a County Attorney in the State of New York.

Had Ellen Coccoma been a valued professional for the Otsego County, who was hired on her merits and who provided valuable services for her high salary at the expense of County homeowners/property tax slaves, her retirement at from the position as Otsego County Attorney at the same time as her husband retired makes absolutely no sense.

She would have a professional value of her own - and a job of her own.

But that was not, apparently, what was true.

Several months after Michael Coccoma "retired", his wife Ellen Coccoma 

• left the position of the Otsego County Attorney, 
• did not move away together with her husband to Saratoga Springs, NY to happily or unhappily gamble on the horse race track, but instead'
• remained in Otsego County where she 
• continued to practice law, like she did before for years in the law firm Hinman, Howard & Kattel - only now full time and without the benefit of additional salary and the power of the Otsego County Attorney. 

Of course, it is illegal for a full-time public official, especially a highly paid (by taxpayers) and highly powerful public official, to work on the side during his taxpayer-paid time - and Ellen Coccoma worked for Hinman, Howard and Kattel for years while being the full-time Otsego County Attorney anyway, stealing taxpayer money and time. 

And, the Otsego County Board knew what Ellen Coccoma was doing - for years, since I have publicized the fact of her working on private cases in court and at depositions during taxpayer-paid time as an Otsego County Attorney about 9 years ago, publicly, in a blog and in public court papers.

Nobody gave a fig about it - at the time.

But suddenly, the $95,587 a year that Ellen Coccoma stole per year from the Otsego County taxpayers

started to bother the Otsego County Board, and Ellen Coccoma was forced to announce that "she will not seek reappointment" after her husband's abrupt middle-of-the-year "retirement".

By the way, the "courageous" local press never wrote about this obvious corruption with employment of Ellen Coccoma, and did not write now about the interesting situation with loss of County employment of Ellen Coccoma now, which suggests that her PRIOR County employment was nothing less than a perpetual bribe to Judge Coccoma.

No judge-husband - no job now.  Simple.

Will the FBI investigate what did Michael Coccoma have to do in return for that expensive (for taxpayers) annual favor to him in the shape of a lucrative no-show, but powerful job for his wife?

Will we see Ellen Coccoma, Michael Coccoma and whoever was brokering and approving the bribe in orange jumpsuits and behind federal bars?

Time will show.

What is sure though is that NY AG will never touch this case with a 10-foot pole.

Because this is not how things are "done" in the State of New York.

It is usual the fed's job to weed out corruption of high-ranking (presumed honorable, with an oath to maintain the U.S. Constituiton, highly educated, highly paid) public officials in the State of New York.

But it does happen.

Chief Judge of New York State Sol Watchler did do time in a federal prison.

Both heads of the New York State Legislature, Dean Skelos (head of Senate, a Republican) and Sheldon Silver (head of Assembly, a Democrat) were convicted by a federal jury of crimes of corruption.

Ellen Coccoma and even Michael Coccoma are of a rank lower than these guys - and a fair game now for the FBI since they are a couple of FORMERS now.

On Otsego County Supreme Court Justice Brian D. Burns, Otsego County Family Court Judge Michael Getman and other thieves

 In March 2021, while still being a sitting judge of the Otsego County (NY) Family Court, Judge Brian D. Burns published a book "Co-parenting FROM YOUR CHILD's PROSPECTIVE".

So, the judge deems himself the voice not of justice, mind, but of one of the parties in a court proceeding, children - who are in such proceedings necessarily represented by their own attorneys.

Apparently, it is not enough for Judge Burns to appoint those attorneys.  He openly admits he is actually a child advocate and not a fair adjudicator.

Here are snapshots of his book, its official description and identification information on Amazon.com - and a couple of reviews, mine as a verified purchaser of the book and somebody else's, without a name - since that person is obviously afraid of Judge Burns' retaliation.

In my review I am relying on my own documentary investigation of Judge Brian D. Burns' misconduct described in my prior blog articles regarding Anthony Pacherille Jr and Sr's cases:

November 9, 2015, Part 1 -  The Anthony Pacherille story, Part 1 - for judge Brian Burns of Otsego County Court, NY, justice is for sale

November 11, 2015, Part 2 - The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 2. Judge Burns strikes back against the child because the child's father asked him for compassion

November 13, 2015 - the author's law license is quickly suspended (I doubt that it happened without request of Judge Brian D. Burns :).

November 18, 2015, Part 3 - The Anthony Pacherille's story, Part 3 - after the sentencing: thin skin, long arms, the sense of entitlement and the complete lack of integrity of Judge Brian Burns of Otsego County

November 18, 2015, Part 4 - The Anthony Pacherille story: Part 4 - freedom to protest in front of a public official's home

November 21, 2015, Part 5 - The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 5: Judge Burns hires a law firm with ties to the presiding magistrate judge in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit

I also described Judge Burns' monetary exchanges with the now-Otsego County Family Court Judge Michael Getman in my book published on Amazon.com.  The book quotes, based on review of documents of Dewar foundation and of A.O. Fox Hospital available in free public access, that Michael Getman (President of Dewar) gave regular LARGE donations to the non-profit A.O. Fox Hospital where Burns was on board.  And that is what is available in public access.  One can only guess what else Getman did to get Burns' favor, considering Getman's EXTENSIVE experience in defrauding that same non-profit together with his judge-father Frank Getman.

Shenanigans of the now-Judge Michael Getman and of his thief father Judge Frank Getman are described in a press release of the New York State Attorney General dated June 11, 1999.

At the end of the article I will post the full text of the release here, in case Getman would pull it from that site.

You see that in the press release the New York State Attorney General mentions that the millions of dollars in the Dewar foundation cannot possibly continue to be entrusted to these two theives, judge-father and his attorney-son 

(same as it happened to another thieving couple, also from Oneonta, and also consisting of a thief judge-father and a thief attorney-son - who also were never punished and kept their law licenses, that is Robert and Richard Harlems, so thievery of judges together with their sons from non-profits or from clients is a time-honored tradition in Otsego County) 

But, you know the money of which non-profit did Michael Getman use to buy Brian Burns' favor and get his current judicial position?

Of that very same Dewar foundation that NY AG stated in 1999 he cannot be entrusted with.

Since Michael Getman was son-of-a-judge, neither he, nor his thief father suffered any repercussions for their theivery, neither lost their law licenses, and Michael Getman was elevated first to Chief Otsego County Assistant District Attorney, Michael Getman perceived his impunity to prosecution for his crimes as a carte blanche to continue to engage in even more corruption with the help of the millions of dollars in the bank account of the Dewar Foundation.

He used that nonprofit to grease his way into a judgeship by buying favors of the "child advocate" (Anthony Pacherille Jr. will disagree) Judge Brian D. Burns to plow his way over the old women of the Otsego County Republican Committee who consider Judge Burns' "choice of a successor" as a directive to obey (I rely on creditable witness accounts after conversations last year with those old women regarding that directive).

As it appears, residents of Otsego County, New York, are lifelong masochists - since they continue to step on the same rake, over, and over, and over, and over again, electing one thief after another to judge over their liberty, property and family integrity.

Can I say - you deserve what you have?  You wouldn't have it if you didn't like it?  Since you are keep repeating and electing as judges thieves out of the same thieving families for years and decades?

---

State Files Suit To Oust Directors Of Dewar Foundation

Chief Judge Kaye has presented a sound proposal for meeting a critical challenge to the court system.

Attorney General Spitzer today announced a lawsuit against the board of directors of a private foundation in Oneonta for mismanaging the organization's assets. Those actions led to the loss of more than $1.5 million.

Spitzer's Charities Bureau filed the suit today in Manhattan Supreme Court against three directors of the Dewar Foundation — President Frank W. Getman, his son Michael and Nancy Lynch. The complaint seeks monetary damages from the defendants and their removal from the Board.

"It is the responsibility of my office to protect the assets of charities which are created to do good deeds in our communities," said Spitzer. "Because these individuals acted irresponsibly, they do not deserve, nor can they be trusted to oversee the millions of dollars still left in the care of this Foundation."

The civil suit alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the Foundation because as directors they mismanaged the Foundation's assets or allowed them to be mismanaged in a way that harmed the not-for-profit corporation.

The A.G.'s action primarily concerns a decision in 1993 by Frank Getman to make an imprudent loan to a risky start-up mineral water business in California — Wheeler Springs Resorts.

Without any knowledge or approval from the Board, Frank Getman invested $1.5 million of the Foundation's assets in the company, along with $100,000 of his own money.

The loan entitled Getman to a number of personal benefits including a position on Wheeler's Board of Directors, $10,000 in annual director fees, and common stock and warrants.

After just a few payments, the company defaulted on the loan in November 1993. The loan, plus accrued interest, remain unpaid.

The State alleges that directors Michael Getman and Nancy Lynch breached their fiduciary duties when they failed to oversee the Foundation's financial activities and instead, allowed Frank Getman to make most of the Board's decisions.

They also failed to evaluate or question any of his investments, even after learning about the risky loan.

In addition, Frank and Michael Getman improperly collected rent money totaling more than $50,000 from the Foundation. The Dewar Foundation rented office space from the Getmans which subjected the Foundation to penalty under federal tax laws.

The Attorney General also seeks the appointment of a receiver who would be in charge of the Board while it re-organizes.

The Dewar Foundation was incorporated in 1947 and is well known in the Oneonta area as the legacy of Jessie Smith Dewar, a local resident who inherited a fortune amassed by her father from early stock investments in a company that was the predecessor to IBM.

The Foundation makes grants to a variety of local charitable organizations such as A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital and the SUNY College at Oneonta Foundation.

In 1997, the Foundation reported having assets with a fair market value in excess of $13 million and the distribution of grants totaling $564,800.

The investigation was handled by Assistant Attorney General Tynia Richard of Spitzer's Charities Bureau under the supervision of Section Chief Robert Pigott."