So, today many Americans battle against inviting to the country what they fear as crowds of wild and violent Syrians.
"In July 1797, Congressman Harrison Gray Otis of Massachusetts sounded the alarm on immigration in what became known as the “Wild Irish” speech, warning that while he had nothing against “honest and industrious” immigrants, the country could not afford to “invite hordes of wild Irishmen”: “The mass of vicious and disorganizing characters who could not live peaceably at home, and who, after unfurling the standard of rebellion in their own countries, might come hither to revolutionize ours.”3
7 Annals of Cong., 430 (1797)."
Slack, Charles (2015-03-03). Liberty's First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech (Kindle Locations 108-112). Grove/Atlantic, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
And, along with "wild Irishmen", there were also "wild Italians", and "wild Jews", and wild - anybody who did not fit into the WASP standard.
In this country of immigrants, let's remember the "Wild Irish" speech.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin: selling out her judicial integrity to buy back into good graces of her peers - at the expense of an indigent civil rights plaintiff and his attorney
As a disclaimer, I never litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and have no plans to do so.
I do not have personal knowledge of participants in this story. I formed any opinions expressed in this blog as to SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin by reading court documents.
Here is an article in The New York Times of December 15, 2015 where the reporter asserts that a woman reported domestic abuse by her husband, then recanted, criminal charges against her husband were allegedly dropped because of her alleged recantation, her husband nevertheless sued the police, and SDNY Judge Shira Sheindlin (1) granted against the civil rights plaintiff a summary judgment and (2) ordered the indigent civil rights plaintiff and his attorney to pay $19,075 in legal fees to New York City.
I am very interested in the topic of chilling civil rights litigation through sanctions and attorney fees, so I pulled court records of the case from Pacer.gov to form my own opinion as to what occurred.
As it often happened, what occurred was not as it was described in the mainstream press.
First, any law school student knows that a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment cannot engage in credibility determinations and claim that she does or does not believe affidavits of witnesses presented to her.
By doing this, a judge usurps the role of a jury, and in a federal civil rights case, that right is guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Shira Scheindlin was sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its 7th Amendment, not to violate it.
New York City and its police department made a motion for a summary judgment supported by inadmissible hearsay statements of plaintiff's wife (not a party in the proceeding) presented through affidavits of other people.
Such statements are not only inadmissible as hearsay, but the wife:
Yet, Judge Shira Scheindlin, who was admitted to practice law 39 years ago, in the far-away 1976,
in reviewing a motion for a summary judgment where she has no right whatsoever to assess the evidence submitted for credibility, rejected as "incredible" the sworn affidavit of the wife obtained with the help of a certified court interpreter and, instead, believed affidavits referencing to the wife's alleged hearsay statements which she denies making and claims that she was never provided an interpreter while those to whom she spoke did not understand Spanish and she does not speak or understand English.
What happened, in fact, was as follows:
A plaintiff brought a civil rights action.
The defendants brought a motion for a summary judgment, supported by inadmissible hearsay.
Under such circumstances, defendants did not meet their burden of proof, and plaintiff did not even have a necessity to oppose the motion.
Yet, the plaintiff did oppose the motion and provided an affidavit from the very witness whose inadmissible hearsay statements the defendants provided to the court on their motion for a summary judgment, denying that she ever made those inadmissible hearsay statements.
The judge, instead of denying the motion for a summary judgment to defendants, sanctioning defendants for frivolous conduct and granting the reverse summary judgment to plaintiff because plaintiff presented the only admissible competent evidence in the case, engaged in assessing credibility of the evidence provided by plaintiff and defendant, which a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment has no authority to do, decided credibility issues against plaintiff's witness, against plaintiff and against plaintiff's attorney, granted the summary judgment to the defendants and slapped the indigent plaintiff and his young civil rights attorney with $19,075.00 legal fees of defendants.
Why Judge Shira Scheindlin acted contrary to the law and contrary to her duty in those proceedings (Jimenez v New York City)?
A likely answer can be found in Judge Scheindlin's prior, very recent, history.
Here is some information about the judge.
It was also reported that the judge is something of a control freak, running her clerks to tears and, let's say, extremely unreceptive of criticism:
she "has a reputation has a holy terror. She works her clerks like dogs, berates them frequently, and sometimes even makes them cry. Don’t pee on her robe and tell her it’s raining!"
Judge Scheindlin's clerks, government employees, are reportedly required to work 11-hour workdays plus 6 hours every weekend, which amounts to a 61-hour week, which, I am sure, is a violation of labor laws.
Judge Scheindlin is reportedly such a control freak that she prohibits her clerks from eating their lunch outside of her chambers.
I wonder if Judge Scheindlin controls the length of her clerks' restroom breaks as she controls their eating and leisure time.
Judge Scheindlin was also portrayed in the press as a judge who frequently ruled against the New York City police department:
In the Jimenez case Judge Scheindlin, while unlawfully assessing credibility of Mrs. Jimenez, as opposed to alleged hearsay statements of the same Mrs. Jimenez presented by the police, which Mrs. Jimenez denied, stated that there is no reason to believe that the police would lie in concert with hospital personnel (from a hospital who failed to provide an interpreter to Mrs. Jimenez and thus may have engaged in medical malpractice for which the statute of limitations did not yet run).
Judge Scheindlin's role, presiding on a motion for a summary judgment, was not to "take" or not to "take Mrs. Jimenez' statements as true".
Judge Scheindlin's role was to verify whether, on the basis of admissible and competent evidence, triable issues of fact were presented in the case.
There were no triable issues of fact, and the motion for a summary judgment should have been granted to Mr. Jimenez (the plaintiff), because he provided an affidavit of a witness, and the opposing party provided only inadmissible hearsay.
In the alternative, Judge Scheindlin had to note that parties' stories differ, triable material issues of fact were raised on the record, and the summary judgment should have been then denied and the case should have proceeded to trial.
Yet, Judge Scheindlin engaged in credibility determination between admissible evidence (plaintiff's) and inadmissible evidence (defendant's) and inadmissible evidence provided on behalf of NYPD - won.
The "alleged conspiracy" of fabrication of documents obtained without an interpreter, to Judge Scheindlin, was "too fantastic to be credible".
Yet, Judge Scheindlin was not at all as naive as an unborn babe and is very well aware of the potential and tendency of police witnesses for perjured testimony and cover-ups, and she had several points of personal disqualification that she has failed to disclose in the record, as she was required by law.
For example, in 1998 Judge Scheindlin did not allow introduction of an elaborate lying scheme of police officers who tried to blame strangulation of a victim upon a mysterious "black stranger".
And, Judge Scheindlin is far from being impartial as to ability of medical personnel to lie, having a husband, Dr. Stanley Friedman (note the difference in last names preventing research on issues of disqualification), professor of pharmacology in SUNY-Downstate Medical Center, MD/PhD Program Director at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and reportedly, in the past the Dean of that entire Medical Center.
As to misconduct of NYPD that Shira Scheindlin refused to believe on a motion for a summary judgment, despite a sworn affidavit provided to her, as recently as in May of 2013 the "New Yorker" claimed that:
"The primary outlet for Scheindlin’s judicial creativity has been an enduring battle she has fought with the N.Y.P.D."
In the same article, the "New Yorker" stated that:
"A federal judge since 1994, she has been hearing lawsuits against the police for more than a decade. In decision after decision, she has found that cops have lied, discriminated against people of color, and violated the rights of citizens."
Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez are Mexicans, immigrants, and Mrs. Jimenez does not speak English, which would be the prime targets of discrimination and lying behavior of both the police and the medical personnel who did not provide services of interpreter while attempting to provide treatment, and thus may have committed an act of malpractice.
Additionally, Judge Scheindlin is Jewish.
She willingly discloses that her daughter is "a political consultant and pollster in Israel".
The hospital that did not provide an interpreter to a medical patient who did not speak or understand English, was the Mount Sinai Hospital.
Last, but not least, in October of 2013 Judge Scheindlin was taken off a case by the federal appelalte 2nd Circuit court because of the legal advice to sue in an additional case, and to sue - guess who - the NYPD that Judge Scheindlin gave, on record, to a civil rights plaintiff.
The sua sponte removal of Judge Scheindlin by the 2nd Circuit in the middle of the trial was unprecedented.
Even more unprecedented was Judge Scheindlin motion to vacate the order of reassignment that she presented through an attorney and that was versed as a motion to vacate OR as a petition as a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae), which was a complete procedural faux-pas.
Judge Scheindlin did not have a right to give any party a legal advice to sue their opponent in litigation or anybody else.
She still did.
Judge Scheindlin had no authority whatsoever to make motions to vacate the order of reassignment of another judge, because she was not a party and has no procedural right to make such a motion.
She still did.
Her motion, of course, was denied by the 2nd Circuit.
I will provide the decision of the 2nd Circuit in a separate blog, it is long, but it is worth publication, with comments, in full.
After being removed from a case where she advised a party to sue NYPD, Judge Scheindlin certainly should not have ever been assigned to a case involving NYPD.
She still was.
And she ruled for NYPD, disregarding the rules of evidence and usurping the jury's right to decide issues of fact in a trial, not in a motion for a summary judgment.
So, NYPD whose shenanigans came in front of Judge Scheindlin for decades, now cannot have a motivation to lie and act in concert with medical personnel.
Of course, medical personnel cannot possibly have motives for a cover-up.
That's Judge Scheindlin's statement while:
Of course, since Hannah Cohen did not know Spanish, her affidavit was worth absolutely nothing without an affidavit of the actual interpreter - which was not provided - about what Mrs. Jimenez allegedly said, and Judge Scheindlin knew that.
Yet, to rule in favor of an immigrant and against credibility of a Jewish witness Hanna Cohen (even under the circumstances when credibility determinations was not within her authority) was not a self-restriction that a control freak such as Judge Scheindlin could bear.
Judge Scheindlin should never have been assigned to the Jimenez case.
The only likely reason Judge Scheindlin was assigned was for her to restore her reputation after her disgrace of removal from the case Floyd v City of New York in October of 2013, reconfirmed in an order of removal of November 13, 2013 that I quote below:
It must be noted that Judge Scheindlin, after giving legal advice to a party during litigation as to who to sue, was only removed from the case, but not from the bench, even though removing her at that point was very simple, since Judge Scheindlin has been on senior status since 2012. She would simply be told to take full retirement and not assigned new cases.
Had Judge Scheindlin been just directed (as she should be directed now, after her disgraceful performance in the Jimenez case) to just go on full retirement, she wouldn't have suffer any financial loss.
She would have suffered only the loss of power, the loss of her unlawful power to engage in giving legal advice as part of litigation, her unlawful power to deny her clerks, making unlawful and self-serving decisions that a law student would have got an "F" for, to deny her clerks, federal employees, their right to a 41-hour work week and their basic human right not to be hypnotized by their employer while they are munching on lunch.
But, that did not happen.
Judge Scheindlin is still on the bench.
Apparently, our federal court system is very forgiving to misconduct - if it is judicial misconduct, and very unforgiving against indigent civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys, even when they are completely without fault.
Apparently, a federal judge in this country MUST be biased, but she must be biased only in favor of the government.
Had Judge Scheindlin counseled the "right party", the NYPD how to sue a civil rights plaintiff, I can bet she will never have been removed from the case.
Yet, she counseled against NYPD, was removed and disgraced, and her lifetime tenure and, in apparently tried to rescue her reputation with the higher court authorities by selling out her judicial integrity and ruling in favor of NYPD - even if the record and the law was against that ruling.
Apparently, it was acceptable for Judge Scheindlin to have an indigent plaintiff and his young attorney, both people without any political clout, to pay - in reputation and in financial sense - for her trick of rescuing her reputation by ruling in favor of NYPD, even if it was against the law and the record.
It was really worth the 61-hour work week and gulping your lunch under supervision of a control-freak judge to author such opinions...
Poor clerks...
I do not have personal knowledge of participants in this story. I formed any opinions expressed in this blog as to SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin by reading court documents.
Here is an article in The New York Times of December 15, 2015 where the reporter asserts that a woman reported domestic abuse by her husband, then recanted, criminal charges against her husband were allegedly dropped because of her alleged recantation, her husband nevertheless sued the police, and SDNY Judge Shira Sheindlin (1) granted against the civil rights plaintiff a summary judgment and (2) ordered the indigent civil rights plaintiff and his attorney to pay $19,075 in legal fees to New York City.
I am very interested in the topic of chilling civil rights litigation through sanctions and attorney fees, so I pulled court records of the case from Pacer.gov to form my own opinion as to what occurred.
As it often happened, what occurred was not as it was described in the mainstream press.
First, any law school student knows that a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment cannot engage in credibility determinations and claim that she does or does not believe affidavits of witnesses presented to her.
By doing this, a judge usurps the role of a jury, and in a federal civil rights case, that right is guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Shira Scheindlin was sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its 7th Amendment, not to violate it.
New York City and its police department made a motion for a summary judgment supported by inadmissible hearsay statements of plaintiff's wife (not a party in the proceeding) presented through affidavits of other people.
Such statements are not only inadmissible as hearsay, but the wife:
- denies even making those hearsay statements that NYPD defendants attempted to ascribe to her, since they were recorded in English from her statements Spanish about her diabetic episode, and without the benefit of an interpreter;
- denies that a Spanish interpreter was provided to her and
- stated that people to whom she spoke did not know Spanish, while she did not know, speak or understand English.
Yet, Judge Shira Scheindlin, who was admitted to practice law 39 years ago, in the far-away 1976,
in reviewing a motion for a summary judgment where she has no right whatsoever to assess the evidence submitted for credibility, rejected as "incredible" the sworn affidavit of the wife obtained with the help of a certified court interpreter and, instead, believed affidavits referencing to the wife's alleged hearsay statements which she denies making and claims that she was never provided an interpreter while those to whom she spoke did not understand Spanish and she does not speak or understand English.
What happened, in fact, was as follows:
A plaintiff brought a civil rights action.
The defendants brought a motion for a summary judgment, supported by inadmissible hearsay.
Under such circumstances, defendants did not meet their burden of proof, and plaintiff did not even have a necessity to oppose the motion.
Yet, the plaintiff did oppose the motion and provided an affidavit from the very witness whose inadmissible hearsay statements the defendants provided to the court on their motion for a summary judgment, denying that she ever made those inadmissible hearsay statements.
The judge, instead of denying the motion for a summary judgment to defendants, sanctioning defendants for frivolous conduct and granting the reverse summary judgment to plaintiff because plaintiff presented the only admissible competent evidence in the case, engaged in assessing credibility of the evidence provided by plaintiff and defendant, which a judge deciding a motion for a summary judgment has no authority to do, decided credibility issues against plaintiff's witness, against plaintiff and against plaintiff's attorney, granted the summary judgment to the defendants and slapped the indigent plaintiff and his young civil rights attorney with $19,075.00 legal fees of defendants.
Why Judge Shira Scheindlin acted contrary to the law and contrary to her duty in those proceedings (Jimenez v New York City)?
A likely answer can be found in Judge Scheindlin's prior, very recent, history.
Here is some information about the judge.
It was also reported that the judge is something of a control freak, running her clerks to tears and, let's say, extremely unreceptive of criticism:
she "has a reputation has a holy terror. She works her clerks like dogs, berates them frequently, and sometimes even makes them cry. Don’t pee on her robe and tell her it’s raining!"
Judge Scheindlin's clerks, government employees, are reportedly required to work 11-hour workdays plus 6 hours every weekend, which amounts to a 61-hour week, which, I am sure, is a violation of labor laws.
Judge Scheindlin is reportedly such a control freak that she prohibits her clerks from eating their lunch outside of her chambers.
I wonder if Judge Scheindlin controls the length of her clerks' restroom breaks as she controls their eating and leisure time.
Judge Scheindlin was also portrayed in the press as a judge who frequently ruled against the New York City police department:
In the Jimenez case Judge Scheindlin, while unlawfully assessing credibility of Mrs. Jimenez, as opposed to alleged hearsay statements of the same Mrs. Jimenez presented by the police, which Mrs. Jimenez denied, stated that there is no reason to believe that the police would lie in concert with hospital personnel (from a hospital who failed to provide an interpreter to Mrs. Jimenez and thus may have engaged in medical malpractice for which the statute of limitations did not yet run).
Judge Scheindlin's role was to verify whether, on the basis of admissible and competent evidence, triable issues of fact were presented in the case.
There were no triable issues of fact, and the motion for a summary judgment should have been granted to Mr. Jimenez (the plaintiff), because he provided an affidavit of a witness, and the opposing party provided only inadmissible hearsay.
In the alternative, Judge Scheindlin had to note that parties' stories differ, triable material issues of fact were raised on the record, and the summary judgment should have been then denied and the case should have proceeded to trial.
Yet, Judge Scheindlin engaged in credibility determination between admissible evidence (plaintiff's) and inadmissible evidence (defendant's) and inadmissible evidence provided on behalf of NYPD - won.
The "alleged conspiracy" of fabrication of documents obtained without an interpreter, to Judge Scheindlin, was "too fantastic to be credible".
Yet, Judge Scheindlin was not at all as naive as an unborn babe and is very well aware of the potential and tendency of police witnesses for perjured testimony and cover-ups, and she had several points of personal disqualification that she has failed to disclose in the record, as she was required by law.
For example, in 1998 Judge Scheindlin did not allow introduction of an elaborate lying scheme of police officers who tried to blame strangulation of a victim upon a mysterious "black stranger".
And, Judge Scheindlin is far from being impartial as to ability of medical personnel to lie, having a husband, Dr. Stanley Friedman (note the difference in last names preventing research on issues of disqualification), professor of pharmacology in SUNY-Downstate Medical Center, MD/PhD Program Director at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and reportedly, in the past the Dean of that entire Medical Center.
As to misconduct of NYPD that Shira Scheindlin refused to believe on a motion for a summary judgment, despite a sworn affidavit provided to her, as recently as in May of 2013 the "New Yorker" claimed that:
"The primary outlet for Scheindlin’s judicial creativity has been an enduring battle she has fought with the N.Y.P.D."
In the same article, the "New Yorker" stated that:
"A federal judge since 1994, she has been hearing lawsuits against the police for more than a decade. In decision after decision, she has found that cops have lied, discriminated against people of color, and violated the rights of citizens."
Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez are Mexicans, immigrants, and Mrs. Jimenez does not speak English, which would be the prime targets of discrimination and lying behavior of both the police and the medical personnel who did not provide services of interpreter while attempting to provide treatment, and thus may have committed an act of malpractice.
Additionally, Judge Scheindlin is Jewish.
She willingly discloses that her daughter is "a political consultant and pollster in Israel".
The hospital that did not provide an interpreter to a medical patient who did not speak or understand English, was the Mount Sinai Hospital.
Last, but not least, in October of 2013 Judge Scheindlin was taken off a case by the federal appelalte 2nd Circuit court because of the legal advice to sue in an additional case, and to sue - guess who - the NYPD that Judge Scheindlin gave, on record, to a civil rights plaintiff.
The sua sponte removal of Judge Scheindlin by the 2nd Circuit in the middle of the trial was unprecedented.
Even more unprecedented was Judge Scheindlin motion to vacate the order of reassignment that she presented through an attorney and that was versed as a motion to vacate OR as a petition as a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae), which was a complete procedural faux-pas.
Judge Scheindlin did not have a right to give any party a legal advice to sue their opponent in litigation or anybody else.
She still did.
Judge Scheindlin had no authority whatsoever to make motions to vacate the order of reassignment of another judge, because she was not a party and has no procedural right to make such a motion.
She still did.
Her motion, of course, was denied by the 2nd Circuit.
I will provide the decision of the 2nd Circuit in a separate blog, it is long, but it is worth publication, with comments, in full.
After being removed from a case where she advised a party to sue NYPD, Judge Scheindlin certainly should not have ever been assigned to a case involving NYPD.
She still was.
And she ruled for NYPD, disregarding the rules of evidence and usurping the jury's right to decide issues of fact in a trial, not in a motion for a summary judgment.
So, NYPD whose shenanigans came in front of Judge Scheindlin for decades, now cannot have a motivation to lie and act in concert with medical personnel.
Of course, medical personnel cannot possibly have motives for a cover-up.
That's Judge Scheindlin's statement while:
- she believed instead to hearsay statements in the affidavit of "Hannah Cohen, a volunteer advocate with the Mt. Sinai Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Program", a Jewish witness volunteering for a program ran by a Jewish hospital who claimed that she spoke to Mrs. Jimenez through a Spanish interpreter - even though an affidavit from the interpreter herself was not provided;
- the judge herself is Jewish;
- her husband is Jewish and a physician in charge of a medical hospital program, whose privileges or standing in the medical community could very well be affected had Judge Scheindlin allowed the case to proceed to trial, and
- her daughter is a "political consultant and pollster" in Israel.
Of course, since Hannah Cohen did not know Spanish, her affidavit was worth absolutely nothing without an affidavit of the actual interpreter - which was not provided - about what Mrs. Jimenez allegedly said, and Judge Scheindlin knew that.
Yet, to rule in favor of an immigrant and against credibility of a Jewish witness Hanna Cohen (even under the circumstances when credibility determinations was not within her authority) was not a self-restriction that a control freak such as Judge Scheindlin could bear.
Judge Scheindlin should never have been assigned to the Jimenez case.
The only likely reason Judge Scheindlin was assigned was for her to restore her reputation after her disgrace of removal from the case Floyd v City of New York in October of 2013, reconfirmed in an order of removal of November 13, 2013 that I quote below:
It must be noted that Judge Scheindlin, after giving legal advice to a party during litigation as to who to sue, was only removed from the case, but not from the bench, even though removing her at that point was very simple, since Judge Scheindlin has been on senior status since 2012. She would simply be told to take full retirement and not assigned new cases.
Had Judge Scheindlin been just directed (as she should be directed now, after her disgraceful performance in the Jimenez case) to just go on full retirement, she wouldn't have suffer any financial loss.
She would have suffered only the loss of power, the loss of her unlawful power to engage in giving legal advice as part of litigation, her unlawful power to deny her clerks, making unlawful and self-serving decisions that a law student would have got an "F" for, to deny her clerks, federal employees, their right to a 41-hour work week and their basic human right not to be hypnotized by their employer while they are munching on lunch.
But, that did not happen.
Judge Scheindlin is still on the bench.
Apparently, our federal court system is very forgiving to misconduct - if it is judicial misconduct, and very unforgiving against indigent civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys, even when they are completely without fault.
Apparently, a federal judge in this country MUST be biased, but she must be biased only in favor of the government.
Had Judge Scheindlin counseled the "right party", the NYPD how to sue a civil rights plaintiff, I can bet she will never have been removed from the case.
Yet, she counseled against NYPD, was removed and disgraced, and her lifetime tenure and, in apparently tried to rescue her reputation with the higher court authorities by selling out her judicial integrity and ruling in favor of NYPD - even if the record and the law was against that ruling.
Apparently, it was acceptable for Judge Scheindlin to have an indigent plaintiff and his young attorney, both people without any political clout, to pay - in reputation and in financial sense - for her trick of rescuing her reputation by ruling in favor of NYPD, even if it was against the law and the record.
It was really worth the 61-hour work week and gulping your lunch under supervision of a control-freak judge to author such opinions...
Poor clerks...
Lippman's court system stalls announcing automatic disbarment of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos
Under New York Judiciary Law 90(4) a lawyer licensed in New York and convicted of a felony, is automatically disbarred, by operation of law, as of the date of conviction, and an additional disbarment proceeding or order are not needed.
NYS Assembly Speaker (now former) and attorney Sheldon Silver (a close friend since childhood of New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman) was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on November 30, 2015.
NYS Majority Leader (now former) and attorney Dean Skelos was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on December 11, 2015.
As of today, New York State Unified Court system headed by Silver's buddy Jonathan Lippman, lists both Skelos and Silver as licensed attorneys with "no record of public discipline" - a slap in the face to all New Yorkers.
I urge my readers to write to New York State Office of Court Administration, as I will do myself, to demand immediate correction of the record for Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver and reflect their automatic disbarments as of the dates of their convictions.
NYS Assembly Speaker (now former) and attorney Sheldon Silver (a close friend since childhood of New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman) was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on November 30, 2015.
NYS Majority Leader (now former) and attorney Dean Skelos was convicted of a felony involving fraud and corruption on December 11, 2015.
As of today, New York State Unified Court system headed by Silver's buddy Jonathan Lippman, lists both Skelos and Silver as licensed attorneys with "no record of public discipline" - a slap in the face to all New Yorkers.
I urge my readers to write to New York State Office of Court Administration, as I will do myself, to demand immediate correction of the record for Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver and reflect their automatic disbarments as of the dates of their convictions.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Marjorie Miller, the (conflicted) revolutionary of Delaware County, New York, and other members of the board of Delaware Opportunities, Inc.
In the documents provided by the New York State Comptroller's office in answer to my FOIL request, there was an interview report of the then member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors Marjorie Miller, as well as interview reports of other people referencing Marjorie Miller.
Marjorie Miller was listed as one of the members of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors who is also on the board of directors of Delaware County's largest no-bid contractor the Delaware Opportunities (a non-profit corporation), which is a conflict of interest, and which was not disclosed by Ms. Miller.
I have personally researched, as part of a court case, Ms. Miller's incestous relationship, along with other local public officials, with Delaware Opportunities.
Ms. Miller has been also reported in 2013 in some controversy in her own town of Middletown in allegedly sneaking in a new town law bypassing the necessary steps as to introduction of that law, see her video-interview here.
Against this background, it was interesting to see Ms. Miller described by other Delaware County officials and employees interviewed by the office of the New York State Comptroller as a "troublemaker" and rubble-rouser.
Here is the full interview report of Marjorie Miller provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's Office:
What can I say...
The report reflects, among other problems:
Marjorie Miller was voted out of the office of Middletown Town Supervisor in this past election for the term starting 2016, but at this time, she still remains Middletown Town Supervisor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors.
Here is the current list of the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities that I obtained just now from the Corporation's website:
The May 2015 audit of the New York State Comptroller mentioned conflicts of interest of FOUR Delaware County Supervisors
Out of the four, three remain on the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., moreover, Delaware County Supervisor Wayne Marshfield is the corporation's Teasurer and Delaware County Supervisor Tina Mole is the corporation's vice-president.
Here is information for all current members of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. Board of Directors (at least, what I could find on the Internet):
No. 1. Frank Bachler - a local farmer who was awarded "a senior citizen of the year" award of 2013 by Delaware County Office of the Aging;
No. 2 Edward DuVal - died on August 22, 2015, but 4 months after his death is still listed as member of the Board of Directors.
Edward DuVal was, according to his obituary, an employee of the NYS Department of Corrections for 22 years.
Edward DuVal's greatest reported accomplishment, according to his obituary, was that for 30 years he was a recoverING (not recoverED) alcoholic. That was a great person to appoint to handle public funds (Delaware Opportunities is the largest no-bid contractor of the Delaware County).
No. 3 Arthur Edel - a Colchester Town Justice who handles evictions of tenants sponsored by Delaware Opportunities Inc. where he sits on the Board of Directors.
No. 4 James Ellis - a SUNY professor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors for the town of Meredith, NY; Delaware County Board of Supervisors is a legislative body that votes for the budget that funds operations of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., Delaware County's largest no-bid vendor.
No. 5 Thomas Hynes - member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, for the town of Roxbury;
No. 6 Peggy Kearney - president of Senior Club, Fleishmanns, NY; a "collaborative" in projects funded by NYS Department of Transportation
No. 7 Jean Krzyston - Town of Delhi Health Officer and, reportedly, a relative (wife?) to Village of Delhi council member Matthew Krzyston
No. 8 Ann LePinnet - according to her own Facebook profile and according to seethroughny.net, a resident of Walton, NY and a retired (as of 7/1/2010) teacher from Walton Central School
No. 9 Wayne Marshfield - a Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 10 Steve McKeegan - SUNY Delhi professor of applied technologies, and, upon information and belief, brother of attorney Bruce McKeegan, law school buddy of NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo and school attorney for Delhi and Andes Central School District involved in misappropriation of school funds, but not disciplined or prosecuted, obviously because of high protection by Cuomo.
No. 11 Marjorie Miller - Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 12 Tina Mole (Vice-President) - Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 13 Shirley Niebanck - a lady reportedly in her 80s;
No. 14 Nancy Olechnowicz - a teacher in Delhi Central School District (Elementary School) (personal knowledge, of a few years back) who, by her reports as a mandatory reporter, may be supplying children into foster care "served" by her corporation Delaware Opportunities Inc.
Here is the scan I took of Nancy Olechnowicz's LinkedIn profile today.
No. 15 Thomas Schimmerling - a local attorney in Delhi, NY who was was reported at a Village of Delhi meeting of the Board of Supervisors where I was present as a non-payer of over $14,000 in back taxes in the village of Delhi for over 8 years, using the loophole in the Delhi Village law that does not allow enforcement of delinquent taxes against non-payers' properties.
Such a dishonest man who fails to pay over $14,000 for 8 years into public coffers of a poor town where he lives, is really a good candidate to sit on a Board of Director of a non-profit handling millions of dollars in public funds.
Had that amount been in federal taxes, Schimmerling would be sitting in federal prison by this time and long disbarred.
Under the corrupt system of non-prosecution of "blue blood" attorneys who provide financial benefits to government officials, Schimmerling sits, but on a board of directors of a non-profit corporation, helping a local judge, four county supervisors and the relative of a councilman of the Village of Delhi engage in activities in violation of federal civil and criminal Sherman Act.
He can be trusted with that task for sure.
No. 16 Jeff Staples (Secretary) - a pastor of the First Baptist Church in Delhi, NY. I guess, the Christian faith allows the Reverend to record all the self-dealings of local public officials at the expense of the poor county taxpayers.
What a nest of corruption...
Marjorie Miller was listed as one of the members of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors who is also on the board of directors of Delaware County's largest no-bid contractor the Delaware Opportunities (a non-profit corporation), which is a conflict of interest, and which was not disclosed by Ms. Miller.
I have personally researched, as part of a court case, Ms. Miller's incestous relationship, along with other local public officials, with Delaware Opportunities.
Ms. Miller has been also reported in 2013 in some controversy in her own town of Middletown in allegedly sneaking in a new town law bypassing the necessary steps as to introduction of that law, see her video-interview here.
Against this background, it was interesting to see Ms. Miller described by other Delaware County officials and employees interviewed by the office of the New York State Comptroller as a "troublemaker" and rubble-rouser.
Here is the full interview report of Marjorie Miller provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's Office:
What can I say...
The report reflects, among other problems:
- in-fighting in the Board of Supervisors,
- branding members of the Board who complain about improper procedures or not following proper procedures as "trouble-making",
- obtaining "services" from friends of members of the board at inflated rates without public bidding;
- awarding contracts to friends of members of the board;
- encouraging members of the board to approve budget proposals without reading them,
- removing members of the board from legislative duties (which is not possible under the law) when they start to voice concerns about improper actions of the Board and its members
Marjorie Miller was voted out of the office of Middletown Town Supervisor in this past election for the term starting 2016, but at this time, she still remains Middletown Town Supervisor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors.
Here is the current list of the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities that I obtained just now from the Corporation's website:
The May 2015 audit of the New York State Comptroller mentioned conflicts of interest of FOUR Delaware County Supervisors
- Samuel Rowe
- Wayne Marshfield
- Tina Mole, and
- Marjorie Miller
Out of the four, three remain on the Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., moreover, Delaware County Supervisor Wayne Marshfield is the corporation's Teasurer and Delaware County Supervisor Tina Mole is the corporation's vice-president.
Here is information for all current members of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. Board of Directors (at least, what I could find on the Internet):
No. 1. Frank Bachler - a local farmer who was awarded "a senior citizen of the year" award of 2013 by Delaware County Office of the Aging;
No. 2 Edward DuVal - died on August 22, 2015, but 4 months after his death is still listed as member of the Board of Directors.
Edward DuVal was, according to his obituary, an employee of the NYS Department of Corrections for 22 years.
Edward DuVal's greatest reported accomplishment, according to his obituary, was that for 30 years he was a recoverING (not recoverED) alcoholic. That was a great person to appoint to handle public funds (Delaware Opportunities is the largest no-bid contractor of the Delaware County).
No. 3 Arthur Edel - a Colchester Town Justice who handles evictions of tenants sponsored by Delaware Opportunities Inc. where he sits on the Board of Directors.
No. 4 James Ellis - a SUNY professor and member of Delaware County Board of Supervisors for the town of Meredith, NY; Delaware County Board of Supervisors is a legislative body that votes for the budget that funds operations of Delaware Opportunities, Inc., Delaware County's largest no-bid vendor.
No. 5 Thomas Hynes - member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, for the town of Roxbury;
No. 6 Peggy Kearney - president of Senior Club, Fleishmanns, NY; a "collaborative" in projects funded by NYS Department of Transportation
No. 7 Jean Krzyston - Town of Delhi Health Officer and, reportedly, a relative (wife?) to Village of Delhi council member Matthew Krzyston
No. 8 Ann LePinnet - according to her own Facebook profile and according to seethroughny.net, a resident of Walton, NY and a retired (as of 7/1/2010) teacher from Walton Central School
No. 9 Wayne Marshfield - a Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 10 Steve McKeegan - SUNY Delhi professor of applied technologies, and, upon information and belief, brother of attorney Bruce McKeegan, law school buddy of NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo and school attorney for Delhi and Andes Central School District involved in misappropriation of school funds, but not disciplined or prosecuted, obviously because of high protection by Cuomo.
No. 11 Marjorie Miller - Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 12 Tina Mole (Vice-President) - Delaware County Supervisor;
No. 13 Shirley Niebanck - a lady reportedly in her 80s;
No. 14 Nancy Olechnowicz - a teacher in Delhi Central School District (Elementary School) (personal knowledge, of a few years back) who, by her reports as a mandatory reporter, may be supplying children into foster care "served" by her corporation Delaware Opportunities Inc.
Here is the scan I took of Nancy Olechnowicz's LinkedIn profile today.
No. 15 Thomas Schimmerling - a local attorney in Delhi, NY who was was reported at a Village of Delhi meeting of the Board of Supervisors where I was present as a non-payer of over $14,000 in back taxes in the village of Delhi for over 8 years, using the loophole in the Delhi Village law that does not allow enforcement of delinquent taxes against non-payers' properties.
Such a dishonest man who fails to pay over $14,000 for 8 years into public coffers of a poor town where he lives, is really a good candidate to sit on a Board of Director of a non-profit handling millions of dollars in public funds.
Had that amount been in federal taxes, Schimmerling would be sitting in federal prison by this time and long disbarred.
Under the corrupt system of non-prosecution of "blue blood" attorneys who provide financial benefits to government officials, Schimmerling sits, but on a board of directors of a non-profit corporation, helping a local judge, four county supervisors and the relative of a councilman of the Village of Delhi engage in activities in violation of federal civil and criminal Sherman Act.
He can be trusted with that task for sure.
No. 16 Jeff Staples (Secretary) - a pastor of the First Baptist Church in Delhi, NY. I guess, the Christian faith allows the Reverend to record all the self-dealings of local public officials at the expense of the poor county taxpayers.
What a nest of corruption...
A FOIL request was filed with the New York State Office of Court Administration regarding the "Legal Hand" program
I posted a blog yesterday about the "Legal Hand" program that is part of a partnership between the "Center for Court Innovation" and the New York State Court Administration and that is reportedly financed through a 1 million dollar donation from an "anonymous donor".
Additionally, I found a report today indicating that the "anonymous" donor is an anonymous "private" benefactor.
When a representative of a program identifies an allegedly "anonymous" donor as a "private" benefactor, that means that the identity of the "benefactor" is known by the program organizer, it is simply not released to the public.
Yet, since the program is run by a partnership with a public entity, New York State Unified Court System, the partnership does not have a right to withhold from the public the identity of this private do-gooder, as well as information about who works in the partnership, what are their salaries, contracts of the partnership, founding documents of the partnership, financial documents of the partnership.
And, of course, documents pertaining to financing of the partnership, are also public records subject to Freedom of Information Law.
With that in mind, today I filed a Freedom of Information request with the New York State Court Administration, as follows:
Additionally, I found a report today indicating that the "anonymous" donor is an anonymous "private" benefactor.
When a representative of a program identifies an allegedly "anonymous" donor as a "private" benefactor, that means that the identity of the "benefactor" is known by the program organizer, it is simply not released to the public.
Yet, since the program is run by a partnership with a public entity, New York State Unified Court System, the partnership does not have a right to withhold from the public the identity of this private do-gooder, as well as information about who works in the partnership, what are their salaries, contracts of the partnership, founding documents of the partnership, financial documents of the partnership.
And, of course, documents pertaining to financing of the partnership, are also public records subject to Freedom of Information Law.
With that in mind, today I filed a Freedom of Information request with the New York State Court Administration, as follows:
I am looking forward to see who was the "private benefactor" who financed a partnership formed by the New York State Unified Court system, and will publish responses by the NYS Court Administration as to this FOIL inquiry.
Stay tuned.
FOIL disclosures received from the New York State Comptroller's Office regarding Delaware County no-bid contracts
I received a massive disclosure from the New York State Comptroller's Office regarding the audit conducted by that office this year, report released in May 2015.
I was forced to file a FOIL request with the NYS Comptroller's office because Delaware County kept stalling my FOILs filed directly with it by claiming that I did not reasonably described the records that I needed while I described the contracts I need to see as those that the Delaware County provided for audit by the NYS Comptroller's office, which is an exhaustive description of what I wanted to see.
Now that I received disclosures from NYS Comptroller's office, I see why I was stalled by Delaware County.
The disclosures contain reports of interviews with various Delaware County officials, those who remain in office at this time (such as County Attorney Porter Kirkwood) and who resigned (such as former Commissioner of Social Services William Moon).
Interview reports disclose a lot of information that was not disclosed to the public in the final audit report of the Comptroller's office pertaining to names of County officials involved in unreported conflict-of-interest situations, improprieties with contracts and conjured-up explanations for no-bidding of millions of dollars worth in contracts.
I am reviewing the disclosures and will start publishing them, with comments, as soon as I fully review and digest them, and do the needed additional research on some information I discovered in the disclosed documents.
Stay tuned.
I was forced to file a FOIL request with the NYS Comptroller's office because Delaware County kept stalling my FOILs filed directly with it by claiming that I did not reasonably described the records that I needed while I described the contracts I need to see as those that the Delaware County provided for audit by the NYS Comptroller's office, which is an exhaustive description of what I wanted to see.
Now that I received disclosures from NYS Comptroller's office, I see why I was stalled by Delaware County.
The disclosures contain reports of interviews with various Delaware County officials, those who remain in office at this time (such as County Attorney Porter Kirkwood) and who resigned (such as former Commissioner of Social Services William Moon).
Interview reports disclose a lot of information that was not disclosed to the public in the final audit report of the Comptroller's office pertaining to names of County officials involved in unreported conflict-of-interest situations, improprieties with contracts and conjured-up explanations for no-bidding of millions of dollars worth in contracts.
I am reviewing the disclosures and will start publishing them, with comments, as soon as I fully review and digest them, and do the needed additional research on some information I discovered in the disclosed documents.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Unauthorized practice of law and "public-private partnerships" with Unified New York Court System, all with approval of New York Chief Judge Lippman and Chief Administrative Judge Marks
An anonymous donor paid 1 million dollars to finance the crime of unauthorized practice of law in New York City.
New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Mark are condoning and encouraging the crime of unauthorized practice of law and hope it will spread.
Good gracious.
Why the practices described in the article about "Legal Hand" operations is likely criminal?
Well, because, according to Judiciary Law 90(2)(b), the following behavior is unauthorized practice of law:
And, because I was put through hell when my husband was disbarred and the State of New York asked me whether he works in my law office in ANY capacity, even as a secretary.
Well, in offices of "Legal Hand", there is only one attorney on-site and 40 "volunteers" who "screen out" cases and make sure that they do not go to court.
First of all, that is NOT a public service, and screening out cases so that they DO NOT reach the court, may not be in the interests of the indigent clients who come to such organizations.
Second, New York law does not allow non-lawyers to give legal advice, even when the Chief Administrative Judge and the Chief Judge of the State of New York sit there beaming and approve and encourage behavior that is pronounced as criminal by statutory law.
Third, every client who comes to this "Legal Hand" is committing a crime of criminal solicitation and aiding and abetting of unauthorized practice of law, if UPL laws are to be applied equally to all New Yorkers.
Of course, by introducing such operations and claiming that it is a step forward in helping New Yorkers obtain "affordable" legal advice - albeit through what is now criminal behavior in New York - New York acknowledges that regulation of the legal profession is what prevents New Yorkers from obtaining free or affordable legal advice in the first place.
After all, the 40 "volunteers" per office of the "Legal Hand" are not attorneys. They are "like" nurse practitioners who "prepare" clients to see a doctor. Only a similar graded scheme as exists in New York for practicing medicine does not exist in New York for practicing law.
The strictures of the criminal law and attorney are easily avoided though - when you have available an "anonymous donor" who is willing to finance an operation that is otherwise criminal in New York, and approval of top state court officials.
And, as to anonymity of the donor, I am making a Freedom of Information request to end that anonymity. Why?
Because "Legal Hand" is a program of a "public-private" partnership of the so-called Center of Court Innovation with - guess! - The Unified New York State Court System!
Here it is, zoomed in:
A public/private partnership between a non-profit and New York Court System?
And what kind of business organization is this so-called "Center for Court Innovation" if it is not listed in the database of corporations of the New York State Department of State? I checked, right now. I also checked on Guidestar.org listing all non-profits in America. It's not there either.
What is a partnership between the court system with an unknown private entity that does not appear to be registered as a non-profit, and thus, does not appear to be abiding by any laws governing non-profits in the state of New York and in the United States?
There may not be anonymous "donors" of partnerships with the state government, so this "anonymous donor" thingy definitely is subject to Freedom of Information Law of the State of New York.
Nor is it clear who and on what grounds authorized such a "partnership" between an unknown private entity and New York Unified Court System.
Moreover, when this Center runs its declared "court-based" programs, in partnership with the actual court system, judges who preside over cases in the program are - who are they? Business partners?
So, Judge Lippman and Judge Marks, beaming in the picture introducing a "program" of this "public-private" partnership financed by a 1 million dollar donation of an "anonymous donor" are at the top of this business partnership?
Nice!
Under such circumstances, judges are not neutral adjudicators, and validity of their adjudications is questionable.
I will try to get the particulars of this "public-private" partnership and will report the answer to my FOIL request on this blog.
Stay tuned.
New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Mark are condoning and encouraging the crime of unauthorized practice of law and hope it will spread.
Good gracious.
Why the practices described in the article about "Legal Hand" operations is likely criminal?
Well, because, according to Judiciary Law 90(2)(b), the following behavior is unauthorized practice of law:
And, because I was put through hell when my husband was disbarred and the State of New York asked me whether he works in my law office in ANY capacity, even as a secretary.
Well, in offices of "Legal Hand", there is only one attorney on-site and 40 "volunteers" who "screen out" cases and make sure that they do not go to court.
First of all, that is NOT a public service, and screening out cases so that they DO NOT reach the court, may not be in the interests of the indigent clients who come to such organizations.
Second, New York law does not allow non-lawyers to give legal advice, even when the Chief Administrative Judge and the Chief Judge of the State of New York sit there beaming and approve and encourage behavior that is pronounced as criminal by statutory law.
Third, every client who comes to this "Legal Hand" is committing a crime of criminal solicitation and aiding and abetting of unauthorized practice of law, if UPL laws are to be applied equally to all New Yorkers.
Of course, by introducing such operations and claiming that it is a step forward in helping New Yorkers obtain "affordable" legal advice - albeit through what is now criminal behavior in New York - New York acknowledges that regulation of the legal profession is what prevents New Yorkers from obtaining free or affordable legal advice in the first place.
After all, the 40 "volunteers" per office of the "Legal Hand" are not attorneys. They are "like" nurse practitioners who "prepare" clients to see a doctor. Only a similar graded scheme as exists in New York for practicing medicine does not exist in New York for practicing law.
The strictures of the criminal law and attorney are easily avoided though - when you have available an "anonymous donor" who is willing to finance an operation that is otherwise criminal in New York, and approval of top state court officials.
And, as to anonymity of the donor, I am making a Freedom of Information request to end that anonymity. Why?
Because "Legal Hand" is a program of a "public-private" partnership of the so-called Center of Court Innovation with - guess! - The Unified New York State Court System!
Here it is, zoomed in:
A public/private partnership between a non-profit and New York Court System?
And what kind of business organization is this so-called "Center for Court Innovation" if it is not listed in the database of corporations of the New York State Department of State? I checked, right now. I also checked on Guidestar.org listing all non-profits in America. It's not there either.
What is a partnership between the court system with an unknown private entity that does not appear to be registered as a non-profit, and thus, does not appear to be abiding by any laws governing non-profits in the state of New York and in the United States?
There may not be anonymous "donors" of partnerships with the state government, so this "anonymous donor" thingy definitely is subject to Freedom of Information Law of the State of New York.
Nor is it clear who and on what grounds authorized such a "partnership" between an unknown private entity and New York Unified Court System.
Moreover, when this Center runs its declared "court-based" programs, in partnership with the actual court system, judges who preside over cases in the program are - who are they? Business partners?
So, Judge Lippman and Judge Marks, beaming in the picture introducing a "program" of this "public-private" partnership financed by a 1 million dollar donation of an "anonymous donor" are at the top of this business partnership?
Nice!
Under such circumstances, judges are not neutral adjudicators, and validity of their adjudications is questionable.
I will try to get the particulars of this "public-private" partnership and will report the answer to my FOIL request on this blog.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)