Congratulations, Barbara O'Sullivan, on the dismissal of fabricated criminal charges against you!!!!!

I have written a lot on this blog about fabrication of criminal charges against my friend Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci.

We are three women out of Delaware County who happened to criticize and sue the now-quickly-retired-before-the-end-of-his-term Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker.

The case in federal court, Bracci v Becker, filed in December of 2011, was dismissed only on the grounds of "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts", leaving the question whether such malicious and corrupt acts occurred or not, open.

After we had the audacity to sue the high-and-mighty Judge Becker in Delaware County Supreme Court and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Bracci v Becker, Case No. 1:11-cv-1473), the following happened to us:

Becker got himself assigned to all of my cases, sanctioned me in several of them, sent the charges to the disciplinary committee, and I was eventually suspended without a hearing based on his retaliative sanctions because I dared to make motions to recuse him to secure an impartial judge for my clients.

I was also criminally charged for discussing my disciplinary case, including my plans to call Carl Becker to testify - charges were quietly dismissed on May 11, 2015, but my law license was nevertheless suspended on November 13, 2015, just in time to prevent me from helping Barbara in her criminal case - God forbid I would fly over and handle the trial for my friend, no, Becker and the crew couldn't have that.

Barbara's daughter Alecia Bracci was prosecuted on fabricated criminal charges, courageously went all the way to a jury trial - and was acquitted by the jury.

Criminal charges were also fabricated against Barbara, which were finally dismissed yesterday on a pretext that the magistrate who signed her arrest warrant, judge Gumo, did not actually sign that warrant and lied under oath about it.  Judge Lambert caustically said in his order granting Barbara's pro se motion (that Lambert initially denied without much reasoning) that Gumo was either "confused or disingenious" when he testified.

I must note that for the previous trial date (adjourned because Barbara changed her counsel from one attorney who did no trial preparation to, unfortunately, another attorney who did not appear to do much trial preparation either, but who took the money while being afraid of doing the job properly), Becker was seen around the courthouse, obviously anticipating Barbara being led away in shackles.

Yet, Becker, reportedly, was not seen anywhere near the hearing of February 24, 2016 (I will only be able to provide an order from that hearing in this blog that led to the dismissal of charges, and will reserve my analysis of what occurred there until I get access to the transcript of that hearing).   

Apparently, Becker may have realized that the case goes where it was supposed to be in the first place - down the drain, and that nobody wanted to put their career on the line for a has-been like him anymore.

I must also note that, after I was squeezed out of Barbara's case at the level of the lower (Judge Gumo's) court, because the nepotism-infested Delaware County Sheriff's Department (I will dedicate a separate blog to nepotism in Delaware County employment that affected this case) did not allow me even to visit her in Delaware County jail without my attorney files being searched, which I refused to allow, and because I had to leave the State of New York for fear of physical retaliation against me and further fabricated criminal charges brought against me, Barbara had two attorneys.

In fact, it came out on February 24, 2016 as a result of Gumo's perjurous testimony that Gumo knew at the time when I was handling a felony hearing for Barbara on September 22, 2014, two days before the Delaware County Sheriff's Department blocked my access to Barbara unless I allow to search my attorney file, that charges are based on a defective warrant - his own.  

Not only Gumo did not tell me or the prosecutor about it (maybe, the prosecutor knew, but I definitely did not), but Gumo, despite his earlier promise to the Commission of Judicial Conduct that he has made only FOUR days prior to that date, Gumo did not record our conference during the felony hearing proceedings and denied my motion made on legal insufficiency of charges and jurisdictional grounds, without reading it - he said as much on record.  

BECAUSE there were too many case citations in that motion for Gumo's little head to digest.  It was easier to deny it, conceal his own misconduct and subject Barbara to 1.5 years more of harassment, including incarceration.  

I will dedicate a separate blog to Barbara's felony hearing and Gumo's misconduct there.

After I was squeezed out of the case, Barbara first represented herself in the County Court, and then had two attorneys representing her.  

Yet, her dismissal was based on materials in the omnibus motion that she has made pro se before she hired the first attorney who represented her in the County Court, and based on materials from the Judicial Conduct Commission that she obtained on her own through a Freedom of Information Law request, while her second attorney was on a vacation (before her jury trial) on the Bahamas and out of her reach.

So, congratulations, Barbara!

This is your victory, and a big one.  To beat the entire corrupt machine of criminal "justice" where several corrupt judges and prosecutors were bent on locking you up for up to 7 years in prison, required unmatched courage.

Many criminal defendants, even strong (at least outwardly) men, fold when prosecutors threaten them - like they threatened you - and agree to some kind of a plea bargain in order to avoid a long prison sentence.

You courageously held out, even though you were threatened with a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison and a D felony conviction if you went to trial.

You were intimidated with cross-examination about THIS blog - where you were not an author (I will run a separate blog with an analysis of how stupid and unethical it was of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard) to intimidate you in this particular way.

You were offered a misdemeanor with only a fine and no jail time - so that you could "escape" prison time.

You held out.

Even though you loved your daughter to death and did not want to go away from her for 7 years.

Even though you loved your only granddaughter to death and did not want to lose out on even more years of her growing up than what Becker maliciously caused you, in retaliation for reporting him for misconduct in the murder jury trial of People v Glenford Hull.

You held you, you dug yourself for information when your own attorney refused to file the necessary motions to recuse and disqualify the presiding judge and prosecutor for bias (judge) and conflicts of interest (prosecutor), and to dismiss the indictment because the disqualified prosecutor was present in the grand jury.

I wrote about all of that on this blog.

It broke my heart to not be able to help you even with verbal advice after my license was suspended, because to do that would have been a crime for me.  

At that time, more than at any other time, it showed to me that attorney licensing is NOT meant to protect legal consumers from bad attorneys, it is meant to defend judges from criticism and actually deprive criminal defendants and civil rights plaintiffs of good, courageous and independent legal advice.

It should not be a crime to share knowledge and expertise in order to help a person beat dirty, politically tainted, fabricated criminal charges.  But it is, and this "protection" of you as a legal consumer, which is what my suspension is supposed to be, did not allow me to actually help you in the last months before your trial.

You held out, you stood up to intimidation and refused plea offers, and did your own investigation and documentary discovery, as much as you could.

And you won.

Here are the orders of the assigned judge John F. Lambert from the February 24, 2015 hearing, the letter of the Acting Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard asking Judge Lambert to drop the criminal charges against you with prejudice, and the order of dismissal of your criminal charges.

 

It was sad that, after prosecuting you for a year and a half for a D felony, John Hubbard did not read the file attentively enough to get it through his head that there was never a SEARCH warrant issued, applied or even pretended in your case, and that all the 9 yards was about the ARREST warrant that was used as a pretext 

Congratulations!  The dismissal will not give back the time you would have used other than by preparing for criminal defense or for a possibility of 7 years in prison.

The dismissal will not give you back the health you've lost in this battle, will not reimburse you, your daughter or your granddaughter for the stress you all underwent in this horrible ordeal, orchestrated by one man, and his cronies, just because the man could not take fair criticism from women.

But, at least, your dismissal can show to people that it is do-able to overcome the corruption in Delaware County and make corrupt and dirty public officials, including prosecutors and judges, to, at least through a pretext through designating one victim (Judge Richard Gumo of Delhi Town Court) amongst themselves, maybe, not the dirtiest of all, no matter how bad his misconduct was, but to distance away from prosecuting your case.

I will give a full analysis of what , who and how fabricated evidence and lied, abused their power or failed to deliver on their duty, and about the price to Barbara, her daughter Alecia, granddaughter and their pets in this whole ordeal, in further blogs.

The important thing is - this courageous woman, same as her daughter Alecia shortly before her, showed that there is a way to beat corruption in Delaware County.

The judge and prosecutor were afraid to proceed to trial against Barbara O'Sullivan, were afraid a reversal of this extremely dirty case on appeal - right after Lambert was reversed in the Norman Michaels case I blogged about earlier - and quietly dropped the charges.

I will dedicate a separate blog to misconduct of Richard Gumo, how far it went and what long-ranging consequences it may have for criminal cases Gumo has handled.  There is a clear possibility that Gumo would be taken off the bench.   I was told there is a likelihood that Gumo was, once again, referred for his misconduct to the Commission for Judicial Conduct, that won't be as lenient to him, I think, as it was recently, because he engaged in misconduct right after his testimony before the Commission pledging he wouldn't do it again.

I will talk about it in the days to come.

Today, I congratulate Barbara O'Sullivan.  For her courage.  For her commitment to not fold and not yield to powerful public officials engaged in misconduct against her, for years and years, simply because she told the truth about misconduct of a dirty judge.

You made them afraid, Barbara.

You showed people that honest people can also win their cases, even when railroaded, even when prosecutors and judges are beyond biased and corrupt.

Congratulations!

I suggest an offer of a collective gift from the U.S. taxpayers to the Malaysian government - our judges

As reported by The New York Times yesterday, a Malaysian judge upheld the ban of the government on using the word "Clean" on yellow T-Shirts.

The ban was imposed by the Malaysian prime minister who was publicly accused of corruption (people were protesting against corruption of the Prime Minister in creating a $700 mln "trust fund" funded from an undisclosed source where the Prime Minister is a board member - and where $620 million were hastily "returned" because that money was allegedly "not used", $80 mln obviously was used).

I have been writing on this blog for 2 years about corruption in the government of this country, and especially in its judiciary, the subject that mass media avoids at all costs.

I also wrote on this blog that New York state government attempted to silence me for my blogs exposing judicial and prosecutorial corruption by bringing criminal charges against me (since dismissed) for publishing evidence of such corruption in this blog.

I am not the only one victim of judicial retaliation in this country.

Far from it.

I recently published a list of attorneys who I know about who were disciplined for criticizing the government/judiciary.

Social media (but not mass media) is full of accounts of judicial retaliation.

It is futile to sue, because federal judges (all of them attorneys licensed by state governments and thus dependent for their continued judgeships on the good graces of such governments) gutted civil rights litigation against state governments by inventing numerous "abstentions", "deferences", "immunities", "comities" as bars to civil rights litigation, and by increasingly imposing sanctions upon civil rights attorneys and plaintiffs for bringing civil rights lawsuits against state governments.

I wrote about that tendency on this blog numerous times, and, once again, I refer readers to a law review article on the subject of such sanctions as a chill on civil rights litigation.

I also wrote recently about tricks used by all three branches of the New York State government, as a fine example of collusion instead of "checks and balances", where the Legislature created, the district attorneys are called to enforce and the judiciary to adjudicate two crimes:

(1) to publish a "false and grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding", and
2) to create a very accurate report of a court proceeding through videotaping.

To have both of these crimes on the books is, in effect, to create a monopoly for the court and court reporters for creation of "accurate reports of court proceedings", and, when such reports are cooked, as I have shown by posting audio recordings of a court conference which clearly did not coincide with the transcript of the same conference, the challenger will be criminally charged.  I was.

In my case, I at least had an audio recording as proof of misconduct, and the "only" thing the government could do to me is attempt to put me in jail (they tried) or take my law license (they succeeded in that).

When it is your word against the word of court personnel, you know you are doomed, because court personnel, for purposes of job security, did not report even sexual assaults of various judges on court personnel, or the use by a judge of a penis pump during court proceedings for years - during trials.  I wrote about it on this blog.

By the way, I have on my blogroll on the right a blog by LegalSchnauzer.  

One of the authors of that blog, Roger Shuler, did jail time, 5 months in jail to be exact, in the State of Alabama for blog posts on issues of public concern protected by the 1st Amendment.

Now, a federal judge indicated that an arrest of a person who is trying to preserve evidence of a police misconduct by videotaping it (this is the only way to help the police accountable, because otherwise they will mount a "blue wall of silence" and lie on the stand about one another) - is not in violation of the 1st Amendment.

The decision was made by a judge of the U.S. District Court by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the judge is an attorney licensed by the state of Pennsylvania, and you know what the state of Pennsylvania does to attorneys, even public officials, who dare to go against the flow of the establishment.  

Recall the Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane whose law license was suspended, and she was criminally charged, after she exposed prosecutorial and judicial corruption in the state, an ongoing "porngate".

Recall that very recently, a federal judge Matthew Brann, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, slapped a Pennsylvania civil rights attorney Donald Ross with nearly $116,000 in sanctions, thus putting a further chill on civil rights litigation and preparing the grounds for a possible disciplinary action against such a civil rights attorney, a real help by Pennsylvania state licensee Matthew Brann to the State of Pennsylvania, which can be reasonably reviewed as a corrupt act by Judge Brann to help the government that holds Judge Brann's own livelihood in their collective hands.

Recall that before that, that same federal judge who slapped civil rights attorney Donald Ross with sanctions, denied admission to practice in federal court to yet another civil rights attorney (and recent candidate for Congress) Andy Ostrowski - for criticism of the judiciary.  

In 2014, after civil rights attorney publicly criticized Judge Brann on the Internet,   Judge Brann retaliated and conditioned Andy Ostrowski's admission in state court by his admission by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court (the one that suspended the law license of Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kathleen Kane for doing her job in investigating judicial and prosecutorial misconduct).  There is no statutory requirement in federal law to condition admission in federal court by a state law license, as there is no requirement for state approval of any other federal employment or business.  Yet, Judge Brann did what the state court that holds in its hands Judge Brann's own law license, judgeship and livelihood, wanted.

And, finally, recall that Pennsylvania is the proud home of the "Kids for Cash" scandal, where attorneys were afraid to speak up about criminal conduct of judges because (1) they were not allowed to videotape, obviously, and (2) they were afraid of retaliation and sanctioned for such reporting into silence.

So, in the state where videotaping of public officials should be super-protected in view of all the misconduct of the government and retaliation against reporters is a subject of very public scandals, ongoing for years, a federal judge Mark Kearney, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, protects the Pennsylvania police by allowing it to arrest those who videotape their misconduct to create the only record that can prevent the police from lying under oath as to what occurred.

Welcome to Malaysia, ladies and gentlemen.

Or, on the other hand, maybe there is a simple solution of the problem.

We might consider giving a generous gift of our wonderfully trained judiciary to the Malaysian government.  To help the Malaysian government further chase yellow T-shirts in a blessedly warm climate.  As far away from us as possible.

Taxpayer-paid cell phone numbers and e-mails of some (291), but not all, employees of Otsego County, New York

On September 8, 2015 I filed a Freedom of Information request with the Otsego County, New York, asking, among other things, e-mails and cell-phone numbers assigned (and paid-for) by the County to its employees.  All of them.

My FOIL was triggered by this announcement on the County's website (which is still very much there).

I promised to my readers that I will try hard to obtain the cell phone numbers of phones that taxpayers pay to provide to County employees - and I succeeded, partially at this time.

FOIL requires the County to provide the records within 5 business days.

I made my FOIL request on September 8, 2015, a Tuesday, by e-mail, which was instantly received by the County, so there were no excuses for any delays.

5 business days were up within a week, by September 15, 2015 another Tuesday.

Yet, initially I was told by Otsego County that they are taking their sweet time to do a "legal review" of my request - which does not constitute legal grounds for the delay.

The County Attorney who was supposed to conduct the "legal review" is Ellen Coccoma:

Ellen Coccoma is the wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, Ellen Coccoma, who holds two jobs (that I know of) - as a full-time County Attorney, and as a "special counsel" for a large Binghamton law firm Hinman, Howard and Kattel, LLP (for that reason, I asked for Ellen Coccoma's own time-sheets for certain dates, which I still did not get.

I understand, Ellen Coccoma was too busy in her multiple jobs to conduct a 5-second research on the Internet, on the website of the Committee for Open Government, to find the Committee's advisory opinion of June 5, 2007, providing, among other things, that "the telephone numbers and email addresses assigned to public employees clearly relate to the performance of their duties and, therefore, there is nothing “personal” or intimate about them".

After much additional correspondence with Otsego County that I did not have to engage had Otsego County complied with the Freedom of Information Law as they were supposed to, the Otsego County sent me SOME information about "assigned" (not necessarily cell phone numbers) of its officers and employees, and some e-mail addresses of its officers and employees while keeping them secret on their website.

Providing "assigned" phone numbers, without indicating that they are assigned cell phone numbers, as I requested, is not an appropriate response to my FOIL request.

It appears that the phone number provided to me of, let's say, Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, (607) 432-7568, is his cell phone number, since it does not coincide with his office number listed on the Otsego County website, (607) 547-4249, but, since the Otsego County did not state in so many words that the assigned phone numbers disclosed are cell phone numbers, there is no clarity about that.  

The first 3 digits appear of many disclosed phone numbers (published below) appear to be of local cell phone numbers, but I did not ask in my FOIL to make me guess or speculate, I asked disclosure of assigned CELL phone numbers, and I did not get a statement that the disclosed numbers are CELL phone numbers, making disclosure incomplete.

Otsego County also stated that "disclosure of cell phone numbers and email addresses of law enforcement personnel and emergency services personnel is denied pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 87, subd. 2".

Please, note, that while I asked the records to be provided to me to my e-mail address in a scanned format, not utilizing any paper, the records were sent to me in printed format, against my wishes, and the County is attempting to charge me $2.75.  

Yet, the County was supposed to provide to me scanned copies of the 11 pages it sent me for free, which is exceedingly clear from the advisory opinion of the New York State Committee for the Open Government of September 4, 2012, also available after a 15-second word-search on the FOIL advisory opinion index.

Moreover, as a veteran of e-filing with federal courts, I know that any information that exists on a computer, and cell phone and e-mail assignments are obviously kept by Otsego County in a computer file and not in a leather-bound hand-scribbled volume, such computer files (any files) can be easily printed into a pdf file and attached to an e-mail - so no scanning and no printing is even required to produce a CRISP pdf print and satisfying my FOIL request the way it was made, requesting an attachment of requested records by e-mail.

Moreover, even if Otsego County was decided between scanning and printing, its decision to print and not to scan, as I requested, is even more suspect that Otsego County happily announced on its own website an ongoing sale of "surplus" equipment:

I read buyers' feedback to Otsego County and printed it - 8 pages of it.

In those feedbacks, Otsego County is praised for selling, individually and as LOTS, printers, SCANNERS, monitors and other valuable equipment - for peanuts.

I preserved those feedbacks - by paperlessly printing them into a PDF file, and will run a separate blog analyzing the types of equipment and prices for which it was sold to happy e-bay buyers whose names remain "private", even though equipment belonging to taxpayers must be sold at PUBLIC auctions, with names of people who bought it being PUBLIC, to preclude self-dealing of Otsego County officers and employees and giving themselves taxpayer-funded equipment for free or nearly for free.

I will also turn the feedbacks into the respective agencies with authorities to investigate to verify the identities of the happy buyers of equipment from Otsego County.

It is clearly a big question why FOIL requests that could be easily and effortlessly satisfied by a printout to a PDF file and by sending it (for free) to an e-mail address (as I requested), Otsego County, after a 5-months' "legal review" by its County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, (1) blocked records pertaining to Ellen Coccoma herself, and (2) wasted postage and paper on a FOIL request that could be satisfied without postage and paper.

As to denial of some cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses, here is yet another opinion of the Committee for the Open Government, dated June 29, 1994 and issued by the Executive Director of the Committee Robert Freeman, states that Freedom of Information Law creates a presumption of access to the records, unless records fall into one of the exceptions provided for in Public Officers Law 87(2)(a) through (g).  Finding it also required only the time to type "basis for denial" into the search window of the FOIL advisory opinions index on the website of the New York State Commission for the Open Government.

The Otsego County Records Officer Carol McGovern, who New York law allows to be held personally responsible for attorney fees if sued for withholding records that must be released, pointed (obviously, after a "legal review" by Ellen Coccoma) only at the root section and subsection, Public Officers Law 87(2) as a basis for denial, but not at the exact subsection which she used to deny me access to cell phone numbers and e-mails of "law enforcement and emergency personnel".

Here is Public Officers Law 87, subd. 2 - in its entirety:

 2. Each agency shall, in accordance with  its  published  rules,  make
  available  for  public  inspection  and copying all records, except that
  such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:
    (a) are specifically exempted from  disclosure  by  state  or  federal
  statute;
    (b)  if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
  privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of  section  eighty-nine
  of this article;
    (c)  if  disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or
  collective bargaining negotiations;
    (d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency  by  a  commercial
  enterprise  or  derived  from  information  obtained  from  a commercial
  enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to  the
  competitive position of the subject enterprise;
    (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed,
  would:
    i.   interfere   with   law  enforcement  investigations  or  judicial
  proceedings;

    ii. deprive a  person  of  a  right  to  a  fair  trial  or  impartial
  adjudication;
    iii.   identify   a   confidential  source  or  disclose  confidential
  information relating to a criminal investigation; or
    iv. reveal criminal investigative  techniques  or  procedures,  except
  routine techniques and procedures;
    (f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person;
    (g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
    i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
    ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
    iii. final agency policy or determinations;
    iv.  external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by
  the comptroller and the federal government; or
    (h) are examination questions or answers which are requested prior  to
  the final administration of such questions.
    (i)  if  disclosed,  would  jeopardize the capacity of an agency or an
  entity that has shared information  with  an  agency  to  guarantee  the
  security  of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing
  both electronic information systems and infrastructures; or
    * (j) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under  authority of section eleven hundred eleven-a of
  the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed December 1, 2014
    * (k) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under  authority of section eleven hundred eleven-b of
  the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed December 1, 2014
    * (l) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  produced  by a bus lane photo device prepared under authority of
  section eleven hundred eleven-c of the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed September 20, 2015
    * (m) are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or  other  recorded
  images  prepared  under the authority of section eleven hundred eighty-b
  of the vehicle and traffic law.
    * NB Repealed August 30, 2018
    

==

So, which one of the exceptions listed in subsection 2 - none of which applies - did Otsego County mean?  Nobody knows, because Otsego County denied me access to cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of law enforcement and emergency personnel without any explanation whatsoever as to which subsection of Subdivision 2 is the basis for the denial, and that is not a valid reason for the denial of my presumed right of access.

I do not know also which employees Otsego County chose to group under "law enforcement and emergency" personnel, which is yet another problem.  Their names may be the point of disclosure in a lawsuit.

Here are lists of cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of Otsego County employees (still not disclosed on the Otsego County website) that I did receive.  I publish it as a matter of my public service as a citizen journalist to the public of Otsego County and beyond.  Area code is (607), I presume.  I publish the records as I received them.  I will try to verify with the County what are the first three digits of cell phone numbers on the top of pages where they are not indicated.  

The first name on the list is Theresa Lombardo, and her phone number is 4262, the first 3 digits not provided, and the same for phone numbers of people listed underneath her, up until the "Public Health Director cell phone".    

I will have to file an administrative FOIL appeal for that information.

Now, if the "assigned phone numbers" are assigned cell phone numbers, as I requested in my FOIL request, Otsego County pays for cell phones of its 291 officers and employees, some of them attorneys with a private practice on the side, such as:

• Michael Getman;

• Ellen Coccoma, 

- and that is only what I spotted now, without in-depth analysis.

Please, note that Michael Getman, the "Chief Assistant District Attorney" of Otsego County does not mention that in his official attorney registration, but mentions his private business.

Please, note that Ellen Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York, does not mention in her official attorney registration that she is a full-time employee of Otsego County, but that she is an attorney for Hinman, Howard & Kattel, LLP.

Apparently, for these "public servants", their private businesses are more important than their government-paid jobs.

Illustratively, after 5 months instead of 5 days (as provided by law) of "legal review", Ellen Coccoma did not provide me copies of HER OWN time-sheets that I requested for certain dates.  I wonder what was there so damaging to her that she is defying the law and abusing her position as Otsego County attorney to deny me my FOIL request.

As to cell phones for 291 Otsego County employees, as a citizen, I wonder - whether to pay for cell phones of such a number of employees is a necessary expense for a small and poor rural county where people cannot afford county taxes to the point that there is an ongoing foreclosure crisis and controversy.  

People are losing homes to pay for cell phones of OVER 291 County employees (remember, the 291 presumably cell phone numbers are not a complete list of cell phone numbers Otsego County pays for, cell phones of "law enforcement" and "emergency" personnel were not disclosed).

I wonder what kind of cell phones are assigned to those officers and employees ("smart" or "dumb", the brands), which cell phone operator or operators is/are used, which cell phone plans are used, how much data on those cell phones, whether there are overages on the data plans on the county-assigned cell phones.

Recently, the New York State Comptroller's audit found out that Delaware County Social Services did not track use county-assigned vehicles by county officers and employees.

I wonder if Otsego County tracks the use of county-assigned cell phones and whether they are used for purposes that has nothing to do with County business, for officers and employees' own personal or private business matters.

And, here is the list of e-mail addresses (those that Otsego County disclosed to me, with the exception of e-mail addresses of "law enforcement" and "emergency personnel", what that is):

If any numbers or names are not clear from the scanned copy, please, e-mail me at tatiana.neroni@gmail.com, I will clarify if it is more visible on my paper copy.

On importance of quality criminal defense and funds for the indigent criminal defendants

This story is gruesome, and a lot of what allegedly happened in that story, happened only reportedly or allegedly, because no proof of it was or was allowed to be presented to the criminal court.

A stepfather who happened to be a billionaire allegedly disclosed to a psychological counselor in Arizona that he allegedly sexually abused his stepdaughter.

The counselor, being a mandatory reporter required by criminal law to report even a suspicion of sexual abuse of children on the threat of criminal prosecution (against the counselor) for non-reporting, reported what the stepfather said to authorities.

Criminal felony proceedings were brought against the stepfather in the State of Wisconsin.

In the criminal charges, the stepfather was accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old child about 20 times.

Yet, Johnson was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, 4 months in jail only, with the so-called Huber privileges, meaning that he could be released as early as after 60 days' incarceration for good behavior.

Johnson was also ordered to pay a fine of $6,000 which, for a billionaire, of course, was not a burden or problem to pay.

There was a lot of indignation in the mainstream and social media as to how did this happen and how the billionaire was allowed to escape the charges.

Yet, in this particular situation, where no foul play is apparent, the only thing that is apparent is - lack of available proof on the one hand, and good criminal defense work and availability of funds for such works in several states, on the other.

The key was that the alleged victim fought against efforts to make her testify at the trial, and to turn over records of her own counseling sessions, which the defense required to use as potential impeachment evidence to attack truthfulness of her accusations. 

The defense team did its job, and the prosecution could not do anything without the key evidence, but agree to the plea bargain that the defendant agreed upon, under the circumstances, simply to stop the publicity circus.  It is a slap on the wrist - IF those crimes were, indeed, committed, for which we do not have proof.  Mr. Johnson will not even have to register as a sex offender...

Yet, a bitter aftertaste of this case remains because the same arguments that were considered favorably for this particular criminal defendant, whose family reportedly generously donated to various Republican PACs, likely would not have been considered as favorably by various courts in various states had the defendant not been a billionaire, and had his family not have the political clout it has and had his family not been such a generous donors to various election campaigns.

I do not have enough facts and cannot speculate whether the stepdaughter's disappearance to North Carolina and refusal to come to trial to testify, was caused by intimidation or payoff. 

Also, usually witnesses do not have enough funds, as the girl had, to legal advice and would not have funds to mount a legal defense against a subpoena to trial to testify, seeking reportedly to dismiss the action.


Once again, as an expert in criminal defense, I realize that the prosecution could not get a felony conviction at a trial (or any conviction) under the circumstances and opted for a misdemeanor plea, which was accepted by the court, but the court rejected a maximum jail recommendation by the prosecutor of 9 months and imposed 4 months with a possibility of early release after 60 days. 
 
Yet, had the family of the defendant not been super rich and influential, the scenario could have been very different, and I am not talking about bribes or promises of bribes, I am talking about a possible unwillingness of judges to displease an influential and rich family, thus harming their own careers in the future.

And, of course, an indigent criminal defendant who usually would be assigned an overworked and underpaid assigned counsel, not necessarily a good one, and no funds for experts, investigators or litigation spanning several states, would most likely plead to a much higher charge, a sex offense, and that is whether the allegations against him/her are truthful or not, simply not to risk the maximum sentencing after trial.

Just another example of what money and clout can do when they are available to fight a criminal proceeding.

This has happened in a country with jails overfilled where 95% or more of inmates are convicted on plea bargains (often coerced, and based on bluff or fabricated evidence) and being used by for - profit prisons as slave labor.
 
An example of what a good and well-funded criminal defense can do.

When such a disparity in prosecution and defense of serious crimes exists, where only the cost of criminal defense, and not the merits of the cases, define whether a person will or will not be convicted of a serious crime, especially a sexual crime against a child, and where inmates are predominantly those who pled guilty and inmates are used by for-profit prisons for slave labor, I wonder what we as taxpayers fund in funding law enforcement and prosecution of crimes.

Without a well-funded criminal defense for the indigent, prosecution of crimes appears to be just a measure of social control of the poor, and provision of slave labor to the for-profit prison industry. 

The bashing of civil rights attorneys continues

It has been reported that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has just sanctioned a civil rights attorney for filing and litigating a civil rights lawsuit against a corporation and a labor union.

The sanctions have definite 1st and 14th Amendment implications, as well as put a further chill upon ability of individuals to find a civil rights attorney who would agree to represent them in federal court, something that Rule 11 was not meant to do, and something that the U.S. Senate Democrats were recently cautioning about.

The fees that the civil rights attorney was ordered to pay are hefty, over $115,000.

The judge who imposed the sanctions is the same judge who bashed civil rights attorney Andy Ostrowski for criticizing federal judges and refused to allow him to practice law in federal court on that basis, so apparently this judge has a certain bend to punish civil rights attorneys.

I downloaded materials from that case from Pacer and will provide analysis of the case later on.

One thing I can state right away though.

The court that imposed sanctions did not apply the required strict scrutiny test before imposing sanctions for contents of a civil rights attorney's protected speech, which, in my opinion as an expert, makes sanctions unconstitutional and void.

Senate Democrats were urged by their leader to Vote no to changes to Rule 11 because there were concerns that Rule 11, as changed, will be disproportionately used against civil rights attorney, as it happened before.

I do not know whether Senate Democrats are aware of it or not, but Rule 11, and its shadows, 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the alleged "inherent power of the court" are already used to disproportionately sanction civil rights attorneys and thus chill civil rights litigation and deprive indigent civil rights plaintiffs of an ability to find a civil rights attorney who would agree to represent them, given the threat of sanctions such as imposed upon attorney Donald P. Russo in the elderly electrician Ernest Keister's civil rights case of age discrimination.

The case No. is 4:13-cv-118-MWB in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylavnia.

As I said above, I will post analysis of the case as soon as I have an opportunity to review the records I just downloaded from Pacer.gov.

Stay tuned.

Albany Law School professors - "all good Americans are saddened" at #AntoninScalia's death, while #AntoninScalia's court hurt America

While Albany Law School is not involved in a clear clash of opinions on whether to mourn #AntoninScalia, as the Georgetown School of Law is, there is a "silent clash" eminently present.

Albany Law School advertised on its front web-page achievement of its faculty.

Among those achievements, ALS advertised, at the same time, the "influential" legal blog of its professor Vin Bonventre

and the recent book of its professor Stephen Gottlieb.

In his recent blog post, Professor Bonventre states this:

Obviously, not all decent people with any sense of humanity think that way, many decent people with any sense of humanity think the opposite way.

Professor Bonventre also stated this:

Apparently, all Americans who are not saddened by the news of #AntoninScalia, are "bad Americans", whatever that means.

"Good Americans" and "bad Americans".  What exactly is this "influential" law professor teaching?  Religion?  Oh now, he is teaching this:

Judicial process!  Legal Profession!  Criminal Law! Criminal procedure!

And, with all that, this good Professor is claiming that all "good Americans" "are saddened" (he checked, obviously) with the passing of a person who claimed that it is ok to execute an innocent - and who rejected requests to overturn death sentences for 30 years based on that belief, thus murdering how many people?

On the other hand, Professor Gottlieb, of the same Albany Law School, who teaches these courses:

shortly before the death of #AntoninScalia published his book "Unfit For Democracy: The Roberts Court and the Breakdown of American Politics" which ALS is also proud of.

The book is available on Amazon.com.

Here is what the foreword to the book says:

 Once again: Roberts and #AntoninScalia's court, in professor Gottlieb's view:

• have hurt ordinary Americans economically, politically and in the criminal process;
• damaged the historic American melting pot;
• increased the risk of anti-democratic paramilitaries, and
• clouded the democratic future.

 Now, all "good Americans" are and really must be saddened on the passing of one of the most conservative judge of that court that was making the above happen.

Right, Professor Bonventre?




 

Albany Law School is planning to offer programs aimed at non-lawyers, bracing up for likely sagging enrollment and potential deregulation of the legal profession

In the past 10 years, Albany Law School has changed its presidents about 4 times.  Apparently, presidents do not live up to the enrollment goals.

Albany Law School is a private law school with a per-year estimated costs each student would invest into his or her education, close to $60,000 PER YEAR:

Under the guidance of its newest president, Professor Ouelette, the school is about to start offering education to "non-JD students" (as in "JD = Juris Doctor", a degree qualifying graduates to sit for the bar examination and obtain a license to practice law).

The declared intent of such "non-JD" programs is "that we would like to make available to a broader audience what we believe is a high-quality and incredibly valuable legal education," Haynes said. "We want to make it so that non-lawyers and non-JD students can get a quality legal education."


Why did it happen so that ALS was inspired to bring legal education into broader masses just when the legal profession is suffering a push for deregulation, losing paying clients not only to bad economy, but also to legal information portals such as Nolo and LegalZoom, and when law school enrollments are ever dwindling?

It was a marketing move to survive, not a move to educate masses out of generosity of ALS faculty's kind hearts.

I would love to be able to fast-forward time about 10-15 years into the future and see how ALS and legal licensing will fare then.  It is not a betting game and I do not want to make predictions, but it appears that the legal profession is coming towards deregulation faster and faster.