On the murder conviction ## 1, 2, and 3 of Peter Wlasiuk in Chenango County Court - the stepping stone of Supreme Court Justice Joseph A. McBride's judicial election - were the indictments valid due to familial connections of DA McBride and his employees?

In 2002, my husband Frederick J. Neroni, then a criminal defense attorney, represented a criminal defendant, Peter Wlasiuk, in a murder case prosecuted by District Attorney Joseph A. McBride who is now a Supreme Court Justice in the Chenango County Supreme Court.

Wlasiuk was convicted then, conviction # 1.  His conviction was then overturned by the 3rd Department because of misconduct of DA McBride who, among other things, were chastised by the 3rd Department for maligning defense counsel - my husband - depriving Wlasiuk of a fair trial.  That reversal was in 2006.

DA McBride reindicted Wlasiuk for the 2nd time, tried and had him convicted again, conviction # 2.  That conviction was, again, overturned by the 3rd Department in 2011 - now based on ineffective assistance of counsel (not my husband).

DA McBride did not rest easy with that second reversal.  He sought and obtained, according to filings in federal court by Wlasiuk, a special permission from the 6th Judicial District's Chief Adminsitrative Judge Robert C. Mulvey for a 3rd indictment, had Wlasiuk indicted - and this time the conviction stuck and was not overturned in 2016 - despite glaring improprieties of DA McBride and his office.

What I am going to write about here - with documents I recently obtained from Pacer.gov - for some reason unknown to me did not receive so far any public scrutiny.  I am rectifying it here.

There is a set jurisdictional rule in New York State Penal Law - the presence of an unauthorized or disqualified person in the grand jury room in violation of CPL 190.25(3) renders the proceeding jurisdictionally defective under CPL 210.35(5); dismissal of the indictment is required where the violation impairs the integrity of the proceeding and creates the possibility of prejudice, with certain categories (such as presence during deliberations or participation) treated as inherently impairing.

The dismissal is not automatic, but it may be raised at any time - since it goes to subject matter jurisdiction of the court.  

Based on what I recently learnt, DA McBride was disqualified from being in the grand jury in the Wlasiuk case, from being the legal advisor of that grand jury, and from prosecuting the case - three consecutive times, relentlessly.  

There are two reasons for that:

(1) the first defense counsel in the case, Peter McBride, was DA McBride's close blood relative, brother (based on obituary) or uncle (based on some witness reports);  moreover, Peter McBride had a charging lien on Wlasiuk's home for his legal services.  It is after Wlasiuk fired Peter McBride and hired my husband for the first trial, that DA Joseph A. McBride was so upset for his blood relative's loss of an opportunity for improper further financial gain that he jeopadized the conviction by openly maligning my husband in open court - the stated reason for reversal by the 3rd Department.

(2) Stephen Dunshee, the 1st ADA for DA McBride, who was then Family Court Magistrate in Chenango County, and is likely retired at this time, judging by his attorney registration information:

was, according to filings of Wlasiuk in federal court, a blood relative of the victim at the time of trials - AND was, according to Wlasiuk's filings, attorney representing the victim's mother in civil proceedings against Wlasiuk seeking to take away his property and his children.

Moreover, during the 3rd murder trial, Stephen Dunshee, according to Wlasiuk's filings in federal court, was actively influencing DA McBride by coming into the courtroom and whispering into his ear.

The full Wlasiuk's petition for habeas corpus can be read here.

The amended petition with a full description of the conflict with Dunshee is available here, and I additionally publish the snapshots about involvement of Dunshee in the murder trial as stated by Wlasiuk in federal court here:

Of course, the petition was denied by NDNY federal court - because its granting would upset reputations and careers of McBride's, and Dunshee's, and the 3rd Department's judges, and the Court of Appeals' judges who turned a blind eye on this travesty.

Notably, the exhibits supporting Wlasiuk's petition in federal court - transcripts of PUBLIC trials - have been sealed, secret and unavailable for me to download on Pacer.gov:

Somehow the toothless local press pretended not to see this glaring conflict.

I hope that Dunshee and Joseph McBride get finally investigated and disbarred for this.  Peter McBride is obviously beyond human discipline - but is before a higher court now.

Wlasiuk is continuing to be in prison.

Meanwhile, McBride, after having used this case, where his blood relative was the first defense counsel and where his the alleged victim's blood relative was his 1st ADA and influenced the 3rd trial - is enjoying all the privileges of a Supreme Court Justice without any discipline on record.

New York State's token attempts to eliminate qualified immunity: a shameful deception of the electorate

New York State introduced a bill to eliminate qualified immunity - the judicially created (unlawful legislation under Article III of the U.S.. Constitution) doctrine de facto reducing the Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution to unenforceable garbage.

The concept that NYS even undertakes such a feat is per se sad.  The federal Civil Rights Act was enacted by the U.S. Congress in order to bypass supposedly biased state court in a supposedly more "real people-friendly" federal court.

Not a chance.

Under this trick and that, federal courts created such a quagmire out of the Civil Rights Act that it has become more complex than any other type of litigation - contrary to its clear legislative intent:  because constitutional rights violated by the government are usually rights of vulnerable individuals, including indigent and illiterate, litigating these claims must be beyond simple, geared to pro se litigants.

Instead, pro se litigants, especially the poor ones, are tied by that same Congress to a 3-strikes-and-you-are-out-without-a-right-to-appeal thing-y allowing federal courts to act as a de facto advocate and representative of government defendants without any need for the government defendants to even appear.

Recently, such a principle was used by the recently (sadly, only partially) reversed NDNY Magistrate Miroslav Lovric who created a mile-long "report and recommendation" as to why, before service of the Complaint of a pro se litigant upon the government defendants, the complaint should be - and was - dismissed, WITHOUT a right to appeal.

For most lawyers who never practiced federal civil rights litigation, their brains will curdle by reading this "report".  Yet, a professional lawyer and judge Magistrate Lovric 

held a poor disabled person, likely of low literacy, to the standard of professional civil rights litigator - while Magistrate Lovric literally appeared on behalf of government defendants by SUA SPONTE (on the court's own motion) recommending dismissal of the case - because the poor person of obviously limited literacy:

see the complaint;

see the poor disabled person's application:

was (predictably) unable to navigate the judge-created (illegally created - remember that pesky U.S. Constitution giving the right to legislate, including to change statutes, only to the U.S. Congress?) labyrinth of precedents in the place of a clear and plain statute, the Civil Rights Act.

I wrote about the "3 strikes and you are out" statute, openly discriminating against the poor, the disabled, the illiterate victims of government's constitutional violations, analyzing this statute in detail 12 years ago here.  Nothing changed since then, as Magistrate Lovric's "report and recommendation" in Campbell v Broome County shows.

So - is it a lofty cause that New York State is attempting to eliminate at least one federal court invention barring victims of government's constitutional violations to receive any remedy from the court, as was contemplated by the U.S. Congress in the Civil Rights Act?  The so-called "qualified immunity"?  

It could be a good thing - had it been an honest attempt to eliminate it.

The way the bill has been drafted, it is not.

First of all, the bill expressly addresses only ELECTED public officials.  

That means that in the overwhelming majority of situations where the qualified immunity is used - hurting victims of constitutional violations by the government - including actions of social workers (unlawfully removing children in exchange for federal grants) or police officers using excessive, including lethal, force - New York State bill is inapplicable.

The next 9-day-wonder of the bill: that NYS AG - now an ardent DEFENDER of constitutional violators AGAINST their victims in every single civil rights action filed against a state public official - may now bring civil rights actions on behalf of the victims.

Representing parties on both side of the aisle, as far as I checked, was attorney misconduct.

The saddest part about it is that the bill is paraded as a real effort on behalf of the people.

What it is though - is empty promises to the electorate.

It at the same time 

(1) recognizes that qualified immunity - and federal courts that created it - is an increasing human rights problem of a constitutional dimension requiring legislators' attention;

and

(2) provides an insulting no-solution addressing exactly the officials who are not usually the problem in qualified immunity cases.

It is - very simply - a deception of the electorate.  Given who is usually suffering from qualified immunity - the poor, the illiterate, the disabled - a cruel and cynical deception.

The new lawsuit undermining the business of Coalition of Watershed Towns, of the Watershed Agricultural Council and of local municipalities in Delaware County, NY's plans to host solar and battery storage facilities

A lawsuit has been filed by Riverkeeper, Inc. against New York City's Department of Environmental Protection that can, if resolved in Riverkeeper, Inc.'s favor, together with the recent decision of Albany County Supreme Court annulling certain DEC regulation regarding watersheds, will reshape how local municipalities may or may not host solar and battery storage facilities on conservation easements (see here also an extremely interesting transcript in the Albany case).

By this publication I am making the text of the Riverkeeper's lawsuit available to the public.  You can click on the interlinked documents, they will take you right to the official site of the New York State Court system, NYSCEF, the document will open and you will be able to read it.

1. Summons
2. Notice of Petition
3. Petition
4. Exhibit A - Affirmation of Riverkeeper's member Kathleen Nolan;
5. Exhibit B - New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement, January 21, 1997;
6. Exhibit C - list of New York City owned properties in the Catskills Watershed;
7. Exhibit D - 2010 Side Agreement;
8. Exhibit E - 2010 Water Supply Permit;
9. Exhibit F - Fourth Supplement Side Agreement;
10. Exhibit G - Amended Model Conservation Easement;
11. Exhibit H - Notice of Material Breach;
12. Request for Judicial Intervention (to assign a judge to the case)

This newly filed lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Queens County challenges a December 2025 agreement that could significantly reshape how New York City protects its upstate drinking water supply.

The case, brought by Riverkeeper, Inc., is styled as a hybrid CPLR Article 78 proceeding, breach of contract action, and declaratory judgment claim against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

At the center of the lawsuit is the “Fourth Supplemental Side Agreement”, executed on December 16, 2025, between DEP and several watershed stakeholders.

According to the petition, the agreement fundamentally alters long-standing watershed protections by:

• Modifying approximately 1,403 conservation easements

• Covering more than 96,000 acres of protected land

• Representing roughly 9% of the Catskill watershed that supplies drinking water to millions of New Yorkers

Riverkeeper alleges that the agreement introduces, for the first time, development uses on lands that were previously required to remain permanently undeveloped. These include:

• Utility and transmission infrastructure

• Renewable energy facilities

• New road construction

• Commercial extraction of sand, stone, and gravel

The petition also claims that the agreement alters the purpose of conservation easements, shifting them from strict water-quality protection toward a framework that incorporates economic development considerations.

In addition, the agreement allegedly restricts future land acquisition for conservation, particularly in lower-priority watershed areas, thereby limiting expansion of protected lands.

Riverkeeper advances two primary legal theories:

1. SEQRA violation

The lawsuit asserts that DEP entered into the agreement without conducting any environmental review, including:

• No Environmental Assessment Form

• No determination of significance

• No Environmental Impact Statement

Under SEQRA, such review must occur before an agency undertakes an action with potential environmental consequences.

2. Breach of contract

Riverkeeper also alleges that the agreement violates binding commitments made in:

• The 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

• Subsequent watershed agreements and the 2010 Water Supply Permit framework

Those agreements require that lands acquired for watershed protection be maintained “in perpetuity in an undeveloped state” to safeguard water quality.

The petition asks the court to:

• Vacate the 2025 Side Agreement in its entirety

• Declare it void and unenforceable

• Require DEP to comply with SEQRA before taking similar action in the future

Why this case matters

This litigation goes directly to the foundation of New York City’s watershed protection system, which has operated for decades without filtration by relying on:

• Land acquisition

• Conservation easements

• Intergovernmental agreements

The lawsuit frames the 2025 agreement as a system-level shift—from strict land preservation toward a model that permits development within previously protected areas.

If successful, the case could:

• Reinforce strict limits on modifying conservation easements

• Expand SEQRA scrutiny over negotiated regulatory agreements

• Constrain how agencies balance environmental protection against economic development in watershed regions

Riverkeeper’s lawsuit challenges the legality of a major policy shift in watershed governance, arguing that DEP cannot relax decades-old land protections or rewrite conservation rules—particularly without environmental review—through a negotiated side agreement.

The aftermath of this lawsuit - if decided in favor of Riverkeeper - can be massive.

Local municipalities in the watershed, such as the Town of Hamden, NY, are already proceeding full speed into hosting of lithium-ion storage facilities presenting high environmental contamination and fire hazards.

If decided in favor of Riverkeeper - these plans can be abruptly halted, as they should be.

And, the kicker in the case is that it was brought in Queens County Supreme Court, far away from the local corruption, including court corruption.

So - let's see what happens.

Delaware County (NY) District Attorney's Office: let's generate business off traffic tickets - together with non-lawyer judges

The local press in Delaware County (NY) recently reported how excited Delaware County DA Smith is about the growing revenue from the so-called traffic ticket diversion program.

I have just asked the New York State Police and the 3rd Department's Attorney Grievance Committee to look into this glorious program - from the point of view of ticket-fixing, public corruption, ethical violation and undermining judicial independence by the DA's Office - in order to generate revenue for the County and for the local townships.

You can read the full complaint here.  8 pages with full analysis of the "program" and statistical graphs.

Delaware County (NY) Public Defender's Office: harvesting confidential information from one set of clients to help the other set of clients - with the help of a New York State grant

That is what Delaware County Public Defender Joe Ermeti publicly announced he is intending to do - as reported by The Reporter (Walton NY):

I have filed a complaint with attorney disciplinary authorities against Ermeti and County Attorney Merklen for allowing this client information harvesting for future adverse use - using a state grant for it no less.

You can read the complaint here.

So now - ANY poor person in need of an attorney in Family Court in Delaware County (PD Office only handles indigent defendants) should consider publicly announced INTENTIONS of the PD Office in such representations.

Their representation are not what the court assigns them to be - not for the benefit of the client.

Their representation is to harvest information under the guise of a trusting attorney-client relationship in order to use it against the client in the future.

That is, effectively - undermining court orders of assignment, potential contempt of court, and exposing the County for multiple, multiple malpractice and civil rights lawsuits by such Family Court clients.

But we already know that Amy Merklen and her "officers" and employees breed litigation against the County, non-stop, at taxpayer expense, and this is just one new example of it.

The real face of NYS Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker

Next time you decide whether to vote for this guy to re-elect him to judicial office:

 

have this image in your mind's eye:

This is blood.  Real blood.  Of a 78-year-old immobilized man, a litigant, who Justice Baker cannot stop retaliating against because (1) he bested Judge Baker in court when Judge Baker was an Assistant District Attorney in Chemung County; (2) we sued Judge Baker for misconduct.

My husband has fragile veins.  They ruptured twice in three days so far.  Judge Baker was notified, with a repeated request for a disability accommodation.  He turned a deaf ear.

Today, the vein ruptured again.  I came running to my husband's yelling for help to see the picture of a pool of blood around my husband's foot, with the blood squirting.

I (63 and 3-strokes' survivor and a long-COVID survivor, so I am not as agile as I was at 15) dropped on the floor and have spent 15 frantic minutes on the floor clamping upon the wound as much as I could while my husband was calling 911.

Coincidentally, we had a technician that came to work on our car waiting for me outside.  When I finally took the blood squirting under control and came out running to meet the ambulance, my arms were elbow-deep in blood.  

It is very apparent that my husband cannot travel - and that is on top of his complete inability to sit at all, or stand for prolonged periods of time - because it causes him hip-pain (fused joint) and ruptured veins.

I have been litigating in New York courts for many years as an attorney - and so was my husband.  The usual approach of judges is the immediate grant of requests to make motions on submitted basis on such circumstances - or to appear by phone.  Out of sheer humanity.

That is not the case here.

Judge Baker DELIBERATELY put several MUNDANE motions - "extend time" by defaulting defendants, motion to dismiss (on the pleadings).  These do not require evidentiary hearings.  Defaulting defendants are not entitled to hearings on motions to extend time to answer.

And nevertheless - NO, NO, NO and NO.  "Justice Baker" is completely deaf to our requests not to drag us 1,700 miles on a roundtrip that will require us to pay for medical transportation for my husband in order to oppose a motion to extend time by defaulting defendants.

That is a matter of principle for Judge Baker - to show us who is boss.  The law and humanity be damned.

Judge Baker declared a war on two invalids - my husband and myself - first, because my husband bested Judge Baker when he was a mere ADA in Chemung County's District Attorney's office, and, second, because we sued Judge Baker for manufacturing evidence for opponents.

And for that - all bets are off now.  Baker is bent on revenge, casting to the winds all tenets of human decency and all pledges he made to the public when running for the judicial office.

Notably, Baker ran for judicial office on self-advertisement of serving the disabled:

He serves the disabled all right after he got to become the King of the Hill.

My husband, with fragile veins, could just as well bleed to death - like he had a close call today - by being dragged 1700 miles roundtrip to the courthouse for mundane motions because Judge Baker is bent on revenge.

Justice Baker is currently ignoring any and all ADA accommodation requests to allow appearances on mundane motions (extend time by our governmental defaulting opponents) - requests that he routinely grants sua sponte without any disability to governmental counseled parties.

My question is - how much do law firms for those counseled parties donated to his election campaigns?  Who of his relatives do they employ? How many trips or wine-and-dine opportunities did they fund for this judge?

Once again - just think about WHAT "Justice" Baker is adamantly, stubbornly and insistently doing to a disabled individual.

That is Tennessee v Lane revisited.

That is the real face of Judge Baker - and of the NYS Judicial System who enables Judge Baker.

Remember that at your voting booth.

New York State Court system is adamantly ADA-non-compliant

Just 22 years ago, not that far away, already in this millenium and century, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide a case - do States get to claim immunity for actions of their courts in violation of federal Americans with Disabilities Act?

Does the State of Tennessee get to be sued for money damages after its judge punished a paraplegic for refusal to crawl up the courthouse stairs in order to attend a court hearing?  The paraplegic George Lane was actually incarcerated for contempt of court for such a refusal.

Fast-forward to the State of New York system.

Here is my FOIL/1st Amendment request to the NYS Office of Court Administration and to the 6th Judicial District, made specifically for this blog.

And here is the court system's response to it.

The do not have ADA-compliant policies.

They do not have ADA-trained judges.

Furthermore, according to answers by the State's and 6th Judicial District's ADA Coordinators, they adamantly claim the system's entitlement to a dual system of appeals of denials of ADA accommodation requests: based on identity of the violator:

(1) if the violator is non-judicial - you get a free administrative appeal by email;

(2) if the violator is a judge - you must forfeit your privacy by splurging your medical information openly into the record, because the system claims that your only appellate path to contest denial to you of ADA accommodations is through costly, burdensome (and usually affirmed) appeals.

Note that the District Executive and ADA Co-ordinator directs me to send my ADA accommodation request either by regular mail - in a way not creating a record on appeal - or by email to non-judicial personnel, exposing my confidential medical information to unknown individuals without any guarantee of confidentiality of those medical records.

Note also that the District Executive hints at "ex parte communications", strongly implying that whatever I am filing with the judge as an ADA accommodation request - again, confidential medical records or information - will not be kept confidential, because the court system, by delegating the handling of the ADA accommodation requests to untrained judicial personnel, revamped not only the appellate process, but also stripped such requests of confidentiality required by federal law.  

Ex parte communications are not allowed - therefore, privacy required by federal law for such requests - is also not allowed in New York courts.

Look at further sermonizing on the same topic by the State ADA Co-ordinator - also an attorney, like the District ADA Co-ordinator.  

They did not even dig up a medical professional to handle medical issues here.

The State Co-Ordinator sings the same song as the District Executive: submit your private information to non-judicial personnel with no pledge of confidentiality or send it to the judge's chambers by regular mail without creating a record.  Or, as implied, just go ahead and file it in open access on NYSCEF, waiving privacy, so that your opposing counsel and parties would be able to mock and harass you some more - without any attempt by courts to control them.

Of course, this dual system is also adamantly non-compliant with the federal statute, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that pre-empts (makes unenforceable) inconsistent state law. 

But - who cares, right, NYS judges, when might is right?  

Or, rather, who cares until a disabled litigant sues the State of New York - like George Lane did Tennessee - and wins?

Know that you are not without recourse.

Know that you can sue and pursue your right against the State of New York in court.

Know that in Tennessee v Lane, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the States are not immune for lawsuits where state judges are discriminating against disabled litigants, barring or burdening their access to courts.

Challenge disability discrimination in the courtroom.

Sue for that.

And - most importantly, vote ADA-violating judges out of office and insist, through federal lawsuits if necessary, that NYS Court Administration comply with the ADA.