Attorney misconduct of the Florida Bar in prosecuting attorney misconduct - what else is new

I've just submitted (two days ago) a motion for rehearing of my constitutional appeal as of right in my disciplinary case, the last step before going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I will publish the entire motion and comment on it in a separate blog, today or tomorrow.

One of the prominent issues in my case was misconduct of New York State disciplinary authority in prosecuting me for alleged attorney misconduct - where New York State disciplinary authorities actually refused to prosecute themselves for multiple disciplinary violations and dismissed complaints against themselves.

A similar situation of misconduct is currently unfolding in Florida.

There, an attorney who was consulted about a disciplinary case by the subjects of the disciplinary investigation and prosecution, then switched sides and ghost-wrote an affidavit for the prosecutors, while reportedly making false claims in that affidavit into the bargain.

The lawyers - same as I did in my case - requested dismissal of the disciplinary proceedings based on prosecutorial misconduct, because it goes without saying that an attorney misconduct proceeding cannot be prosecuted with the help of attorney misconduct.

Here, attorney misconduct was apparent.

1) There was a conflict of interest in the attorney initially contacted about representing the defense side to switch to the prosecution side;

2) There was misconduct of the prosecution side to accept such help and allow the former defense attorney in the same case to ghost-write a pleading for the prosecution;

3) There is misconduct on the side of the former defense attorney and the disciplinary prosecutors to submit such a pleading to the court, and to submit a false affidavit to the court.

Definitely, means by which the government acts, matter.

And definitely, the attorneys who were and still are subjects of investigation and prosecution in Florida, irrespective of whether they actually did or did not do anything wrong, were deprived of their due process right of an impartial prosecutor, and to have elementary honesty in proceedings.

A disciplinary prosecutor should be squeaky clean and practice what he preaches, first and foremost.

Shouldn't he?

A new U.S. Supreme Court 1st Amendment case - factual mistake in sanctioning an employee for protected conduct is not a defense in a civil rights lawsuit

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an interesting opinion where it protected, in a majority opinion, the right of governmental employees not to be punished for conduct protected by the 1st Amendment. 

Here is the opinion in full.

The case is decidedly weird, on many levels.

The gist of it is that a police officer was demoted because somebody saw him (and reported him to his supervisor) standing with a sign supporting a certain official in his election campaign and talking to that person's campaign workers.

The supervisor perceived that reported conduct of the police officer as participating in a political activity - which is not allowed to police officers and other government employees.

It was actually a misunderstanding.  The police officer held a sign he was bringing home to his bed-ridden disabled mother at her request, he did not support the campaign of that individual personally.

The big fight was that the officer was demoted and sued for discrimination on 1st Amendment grounds, among other grounds.

The dissent said that, since it was a misunderstanding and the officer did not ACTUALLY engage in political conduct, 1st Amendment cannot be invoked in his lawsuit.  In the opinion of the dissent, what was done to the police officer (demoting from investigator to patrol) was "callous, but not unconstitutional".

Whether the 1st Amendment could or could not be invoked by the officer in a discrimination lawsuit made a difference between whether the officer's civil rights case would be dismissed or allowed to proceed.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and allowed the officer's case to proceed, stating that factual mistake is no defense.  If the officer's employer believed that the officer is demoted because of his participation in a political campaign, that was activity protected by the 1st Amendment, and the lawsuit could proceed.

The issue though is not that simple.

In fact, if the officer's employer believed that the officer did participate in a political campaign, and did that openly, so that his holding of the sign while talking to the campaign workers of a certain political candidate could send a message to the public that the local police endorses that political candidate, and where such political activity was prohibited as a condition of employment, the government was justified to demote or fire the officer, 1st Amendment or no 1st Amendment.

Such firing would definitely have met the required strict scrutiny test, because on the other side of the balancing test as to whether the 1st Amendment rights were violated and whether such a demotion or even firing would be permissible under the 1st Amendment, is the requirement of government neutrality and non-endorsement by the government of political candidates, to preserve integrity of democratic elections.

So, I am afraid, we did not see the last of that case, it can return to the U.S. Supreme Court after its round through the lower courts on remand, and, of course, I will report it if it does return.

Stay tuned.

On the other hand - why keep people waiting. Here it is: a firefighter's wife spits fire - and that fire is pure hearsay

Just received a threat from a firefighter's wife.

She is very transparently hinting to me that if my home in Delhi, NY is on fire, she will hide her firefighter husband's keys so that he wouldn't be available to extinguish it.

I have no doubt about that.

The attempted arson in our home was already ignored by the local police and the DA's office.

The firefighter's wife was not an eyewitness, but who nevertheless believes her husband's statements and calls me and the victim, Barbara, a liar, and accuses her of the death of a dog, and accuses her of starting the fire.

Obviously that is the theory of Delhi FD.

One criminal indictment against Barbara dismissed, they are immediately putting together another, with the help of the noble brave dog-pitying firefighter husband.

Which does not explain why the firefighter husband came home to his wife crying about the dead dog, instead of calling the warden (as he was supposed to) to come and collect the dog's body.

Which does not explain why Barbara was blocked from going back into the house to save that dog, and she did tell them that the dog is in.

She could only do so much.  There were three dogs in the house at the time the fire started.

The first one came out with her.

She went back into the burning building for other dogs.

She took her time - while the fire was raging in the house - to get the second dog out.  He was scared and confused and would not go.

She saved him.

She could not save the third one, she told the firefighters about the 3rd dog, and she was not allowed back into the house, nor did the firefighters do anything to extinguish the fire.

Since the firefighter's wife falsely claimed to me that I allegedly locked my blog for comments (I never did, and comments posted today by the firefighter "Archer" are the proof), I am publishing her fiery messages to me in full.

Apparently, she did that under her real name, and she can be called as a witness in any court proceedings that may ensue.

And, apparently, she or somebody in her family have a problem with my husband, and specifically about divorces my husband has handled, so I wonder whether my husband was on the other side of a divorce of the fire-spitting firefighter's wife or her friend or family member.

And the spitfire person, Sharon Reichert-Morgan, who toils in the Social Services Department of Delaware County, forgot to mention that my "slumlording" husband rented, until 2 months ago, an apartment approved for several years, for different tenants, by Sharon Riechert-Morgan's own employer, Delaware County, as the cleanest living quarters available in Delhi, NY.

And that the contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services ended only because the tenant is not longer there and the new tenants do not need public assistance.

Anyway, here is the spitfire comments that I was claimed to block from posting on my blog - in full:

I asked Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan these two questions, given her fiery speech:

Here is what she answered:

So - a worker supported by my taxes is threatening me to "correct the untruths" of my blog because Sharon Rienhart-Morgan, a social services department employee, believes her firefighter husband more than she does my friend - and victim in the case - Barbara O'Sullivan.

And, if I do not "correct the untruths", she is threatening me to withhold his husband's protection as a firefighter, and with a smear campaign.

Well, the smear campaign I will endure.  Not the first time.

The threat I will forward to Ms. Sharon Rienhart-Morgan's supervisors, with a request to fire her.

And, I will forward her threat to the Delhi Fire Department, Village Police, DA's office and the County Attorney with an indication that if ANYTHING AT ALL happens to my residence in Delhi, New York, I will know where to look for a culprit.

By the way, I did a little research on the Internet about the name of Sharon Riechert-Morgan's husband - since Barbara was denied any names of who was on site.

Here is the baby registry of Sharon Riecher and Josh Morgan, so Josh Morgan was allegedly on Barbara's property at the time of the fire.

Sharon Riechert-Morgan is also, "coincidentally", an employee of Delaware County (an entity much criticized by me on the blog) and specifically an employee of Delaware County Department of Social Services (an entity much criticized and sued by me and opposed in child neglect and abuse lawsuits by me and my husband).

Here is the fire-spitting firefighter's wife's picture:

Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) is also an employee of Delaware County since 2005, and a full-time employee, too:

Which does not prevent Sharon Riechert(-Morgan) to have a business on the side:

That little double-dipping makes me thinking - as a taxpayer in Delaware County - does Sharon Riechert-Morgan do her independent consulting on taxpayer-paid time?

By the way, as we speak, Sharon Reichert-Morgan keeps going on Messenger.

Here are her new spit-outs:

Since the smear campaign against Barbara already started, here are some answers.

No, Barbara did not have money problems.

She is retired and disabled from the NYS Department of Corrections and well cared for by the State of New York.  She had no motive to burn her own house.

I don't know whether Barbara was making any mortgage payments.  In fact, if she would be making any mortgage payments, I would be extremely surprised.

Why?  

Those curious why might check out Barbara O'Sullivan's name in Delaware County Courthouse.

I represented Barbara on a motion to vacate foreclosure on her house - and was successful, because the foreclosing bank did not have standing to sue.  The foreclosure was vacated and the house returned back to Barbara.  In 2010.

Whoever is pretending that they still have a claim on that house (now former house) had no such claim, as of 2010 when the foreclosure was vacated, by Judge Eugene Peckham.  

Check it out, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan, because what you are spewing about Barbara is ... well... not a little lie, but a big lie.  Like a bad lie.  Like a very bad lie.

And - why a firefighter's wife and an employee of the Department of Social Services interested in Barbara's mortgage payments, unless she is part of the team preparing to frame Barbara for something more?

And, Mrs. Sharon Riechert-Morgan being an employee of the County who persecuted Barbara on false criminal charges (just dismissed) and that lied to Barbara about legitimacy of its alleged Deputy Sheriff, and that is funding the legal defense of Derek Bowie at this time....  Well, makes her an interested witness, doesn't it?

And, as I said above,  Barbara saved two dogs out of three, plus herself, out of a raging fire, a fire that melted her cars - not bad considering that whoever wanted to ignite the house did that in the middle of the night, when the residents were supposed to be asleep.

Taking one dog out - and herself - required opening the door.

Getting back into the house for the 2nd dog - required opening the door.

If Barbara would let the 2nd dog burn to death, she would have been accused now of killing two dogs.

She saved two, now she is accused of killing the third.  By a person who was not on site, but who believes her husband "smelling of sweat and fire". 

Barbara got lucky.  She wasn't asleep.  And that's why she and two dogs (out of three) survived.

And, had Barbara planned to put fire to her house, she would have saved the family heirlooms that perished in the fire.

I understand that those who planned this were upset that Barbara got out unscathed.  Bad for them.  Good for Barbara.

And - there is no statute of limitations for attempted murder, the second one against Barbara since Derek Bowie's in September of 2014.

So, before piling it all up on Barbara - instead of providing an incident report - Delaware County should get to think how to train their employees.  

Or how to hire people of better caliber.  In terms of intellect and integrity.

Oh, and by the way - it was just reported to me that Sharon Riechert-Morgan is the former girlfriend of Judge Yvonne Pagillo's policeman son Richard Pagillo.  Where Yvonne Pagillo and Richard Pagillo spread rumors starting in 2013 that I was disbarred - I never was.

And that Sharon Riechert-Morgan, the paragon of morality, has three children by three different men and only the youngest kid is with her husband, who - my source indicated to me - was divorced and got his kid living with his ex-wife, so it is very likely that a man gets together with a woman who is a social services worker to help the man get his kid back.

So much for three kids "waiting for THEIR" father, Sharon.

Just a little bit of untruth ruins it all, right?

Coyotes Wait with Archers in the bushes

Periodically, I get comments on my blog.

Very rarely (happened only twice over 2+ years of existence of this blog) I get negative comments.

Both sets of negative comments were given by anonymous commentators - which says a lot about veracity of those commentators.

Both anonymous commentators made negative comments from Google+ accounts that were especially created to make the comment - because they had no profile views at the time comments were made.

Both anonymous commentators chose threatening nicknames.

The first named himself "Coyote Waits", the second - an "Archer".

My policy is not to delete negative comments, but to comment on them and to blog about them, see my blogs about "Coyote Waits"' comments here and here.

Which is what I do with the "Archer"'s comments.

Here is Archer's comments made today on this blog:

With my replies:

Here is Archer's profile views as of today - the 1 view registered is mine. 

 It is good - and interesting - that somebody from Delhi FD even engaging in conversations and comments about the fire.

Because that fire, unlike other fires that Delhi FD extinguished, is not reported ANYWHERE.

And, when the victim asked for an official fire report today, in order to present it where she needed to present it, she was told today, 3 days after the fire, that Tim Buckley of Delaware County Sheriff's Department is still preparing the report.

She called the EMS to speak to the EMS guy who talked to her at the site of the fire, and the EMS told her that the report will not come until 2 to 3 weeks later.

They are comparing notes and trying to concoct a plausible story of an "accidental" fire.

While there are many witnesses stating that the fire department did not take the water hoses out, and did not even go up the long driveway until the house was "fully gone".

And, the house as not even "fully gone" when one of the victims saw it - already without a fire.

When she saw it the next time, there was less of a house, apparently, either somebody gutted it thoroughly, or somebody additionally burnt it, while both victims were kept away by FD.

And, up to today, there is no report in the local press, police blotter, FD blotter about the fire, nobody appears to know anything about anything - but Archer, of course.

He knows everything and shoots at me from the bushes, conveniently covering himself with anonymity.

FD did not take the water hose out.

FD did not even call the dog warden to take away the corpse of the dog that remained on site - which is what a person from the local Humane Society claimed FD are immediately doing in such cases.  She was outraged at this neglect.

Nobody talked to the victims.

Nobody took their written statements.

No efforts to save the house.

No efforts to report the fire.

No efforts to even issue an incident report.

No efforts to report the fire in the local news.

Had I not reported it, the local government would have pretended it did not happen at all.

The victim was promised to be called by Tim Buckley today, with the report.

Tim Buckley did not call.

So - if Tim Buckley issues a report dated today or earlier, know that it is backdated or otherwise forged.

It did not exist today.

What the victims received was this letter from Delhi EMS services:

 

It is obvious that EMS did not even get the name of Barbara's daughter - who was present on site when FD boys were still there.

And - as Barbara was told - the EMS "report" will come only in 2-3 weeks.  

The letter does not say much at all.  It says that the house was "completely destroyed by fire".  That much we already know.

It says nothing about anybody's efforts to extinguish the fire, whether anybody was hurt or if any efforts were undertaken to investigate causes of the fire.

FD boys actually told one of the victims that the fire as intense as melted two vehicles and instantly burned a house started because (1) an electrical problem or (2) the sewer got up in flames.

While one of the victims heard a distinctive sound of window breaking before she went into that room and saw a mattress on fire with something burning on top of it - something that nobody wants to investigate.

I will continue reporting on this case, especially that, according to some experts consulted about the case, there is an indication that it is an arson through explosion and that a certain explosive device was used against the victim's house, and especially that the local press and government  does not believe this fire, especially under the circumstances of the case, is newsworthy.

And, Archer is welcome to make comments - but I ask him to make them under his own name.  

I even invite him to a video conference call on Hangouts that can be streamed to my readers here.

I wonder if the brave Archer will agree to come out of the bushes and participate in a conference - with victims and with experts - sharing his knowledge about the case.

I am sure that his supervisors will tell him to shut up and not speak another word though. 

Or, maybe, Archer actually is a supervisor of the Fire Department.

Who got pissed that his brave men got caught.

I am not sure if these brave men will be brave enough to show their real faces on a video chat recorded by a journalist and streamed live to the public.

It does not require courage to deny protection to a woman, or to forge documents, or even to say nasty things anonymously.

It does require courage - the courage they do not have - to engage in public debate, in real time, on video, live.

The brave Coyote Wait didn't come out of the bushes either, but who knows?

Let's wait if Archer surfaces again and agrees to do a live-streamed video-chat.

Stay tuned.

The latest discriminatory ruling of the 2nd Circuit regarding the legal profession hurts consumers of legal services

I wrote several blogs today about the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that reinstated the discriminatory New York "physical office" requirement for out-of-state attorneys only.

While the lawsuit was brought by an out of state attorney who was subjected to that discrimination, one BIG necessary party - New York consumers of legal services - was not included into the lawsuit and were not asked their opinion on it, so a challenge to constitutionality of the same Judiciary Law 470 can be made from a consumer standpoint.

Because the decision in Schoenefeld v Scheiderman by the U.S. Court of Appeals (see my blog about it here, with a link to the decision) will raise the costs of legal services for New Yorkers at the time when majority of New Yorkers already cannot afford such services.

It will happen, because of Schoenefeld v Schneiderman decision in the following way:

1) It will be more expensive for out of state attorneys (at lest 20,000 attorneys) to practice law in New York, so they can either stop practicing or raise their prices to justify office costs.  If out of state attorneys charge the same prices as in-state attorneys, they will themselves be getting less because of higher office costs, at least as compared with those resident attorneys who do not have physical offices.

2) Additional prices may force out of state attorneys to stop practicing law in New York, instead preferring jurisdictions with friendlier "virtual office" rules and their own home states.

For people litigating in New York courts (and that's predominantly New York residents) that will mean less attorneys.

When there are less service providers, the remaining service providers may raise prices, and that's exactly what New Yorkers may see soon after Schoenefeld v Schneiderman - the raise of in-state prices for legal services.

Let's recall that the declared purpose of attorney regulation in the first place is protection of the consumer.

Thus, all statutes pertaining to such regulation, must be related to that primary goal.

I did not notice any analysis in Schoenefeld v Schneiderman as to how New York "physical office" requirement to out-of-state attorneys will benefit the consumers.

Apparently, the Attorney General who represented the State of New York on the side of discrimination, did not care about protecting interests of consumers, New York taxpayers who elected him, either. 

But - because the ruling in Schoenefeld v Schneiderman was not made on behalf of consumers, it is arguably not enforceable against consumers, even though the State of New York was supposed to represent interests of consumers in that lawsuit.

Had the State of New York been interested in helping consumers, instead of creating and promoting competitive advantage for in-state attorneys, the State of New York would at least provide a coherent explanation of why the consumers would benefit from raised prices and reduced number of service providers which would be the inevitable result of the ruling that the State of New York sought.

Also, since New York State Attorney General is also a "market player" in regulating the legal services market, he cannot be deemed a proper representatives of consumer interests in such a lawsuit - according to North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC of February 25, 2015 and FTC Guidelines to Staff of October 13, 2015.

Therefore, in my opinion, constitutionality of Judiciary Law 470 continues to be open to a constitutionality/antitrust lawsuit from consumers of legal services in New York.

Schoenefeld v Schneiderman only highlights once again that the declaration that attorney regulation is done for the benefit of consumers of legal services is just a smoke-screen designed - designed badly, with the design crumbling - to hide the fact that the entire idea of attorney regulation is nothing than a plan of a powerful guild protecting its own turf that does not give a rat's ass about consumers of legal services.


W

2nd Circuit judges who discriminated against out-of-state attorneys licensed in New York either owed New York State a favor or had no litigation experience before coming to the bench

I posted a blog today about the case Schoenefeld v Schneiderman, where two 2nd Circuit judges reversed the decision of the district court and reinstated discrimination by the State of New York against out-of-state attorneys.

Appears that they did that because the State of New York is extremely lenient in allowing them to violate their own registration obligation in New York as attorneys, as a quid pro quo - an exchange of a favorable ruling for a lack of discipline against these judges who would not obey attorney registration rules in New York.

The majority opinion in Schoenefeld v Schneiderman of April 22, 2016 was written by two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit:

Reena Raggi and Susan Carney.

Judge Susan L. Carney, according to the website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, is not licensed in New York State and, according to other sources, has graduated from the Harvard School of Law.

Judge Carney is reportedly married to journalist Lincoln Caplan who, quite "coincidentally", joined the editorial board of New York Times right around the time of his wife's nomination.

At the time of nomination, Susan Carney reportedly had "mediocre" ABA ratings, reportedly because of her "remarkable dearth of litigation experience".

So, this judge with "remarkable dearth of litigation experience" - who nevertheless was put on one of the highest benches in the country - decided to discriminate against out-of-state attorneys licensed in New York while having, apparently, no clue as to what litigation experience is and what burden she is imposing by requiring of a busy out-of-state attorney to channel his or her litigation through a physical office in New York, practically forcing that attorney to move into New York in order to maintain a law practice there.

Judge Reena Raggi of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals appointed in 2002 has the following attorney registration in New York:

The attorney registration rules in New York, which are to be enforceable against every attorney licensed in New York, dictate that whenever an attorney changes her employment, she must change her official registration information within 30 days.

Judge Reena Raggi assumed office in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on October 4, 2002.

She had to re-register in New York, listing her changed place of employment, by November 3, 2002, within 30 days of "assuming office".

14 years later  Judge Raggi still has her registration listing her as a judge of the Eastern District of New York, a BAD violation of attorney registration rules.

THIS is the judge who decided that discrimination of out-of-state attorneys licensed in New York is proper?

Because New York State does not enforce, as it should have, rules of registration that are equal for all attorneys - against the Judge, because the judge will then rule FOR the State of New York?

So, Judge Carney's nomination is promoted by New York Times despite mediocre ratings and no litigation experience because her husband joined the newspaper's editorial board at the time of her supposed nomination.  And she got nominated.

Judge Raggi gets favors from New York in terms of non-enforcement of attorney discipline against her for failure to re-register for 14 years that is punishable for any other attorneys registered in New York - and Judge Raggi rules for the State of New York in return.

Nice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unlawfully pick their cases for full opinions, and boy do they pick...

I wrote a lot on this blog about courts, state and federal, exercising "discretion" (discrimination among cases) that they do not have by law.

That the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit routinely, as a matter of policy, discriminates against civil rights appellants by putting their cases on a "fast-and-sloppy" track for non-precedential "summary orders", for negligent non-review by old judges who rubber stamp the lower court's decisions - whatever they are - by rubber-stamped phrases:

• "we assume parties' familiarity with procedural history of the case", and
• "we affirm on substantially the same grounds as the well-reasoned and thoughtful decision of the district court".

That is happening in the 2nd Circuit despite the fact that there is no distinction in statutory law allowing the 2nd Circuit to "pick" cases for full opinions (that require much more work) as opposed to summary orders that require no work at all.

And, the 2nd Circuit charges litigants who are provided with an "opinion" the same fee as litigants slapped with "summary orders" - so the "summary order" litigants, most of them civil rights appellants, are forced by the 2nd Circuit to finance the "opinion" litigants.

That discrimination being bad enough, look at what cases the 2nd Circuit gets to "pick" for a full opinion while tossing civil rights cases:

1) a civil rights case of an out-of-state attorney licensed in New York - but only in order to restore discrimination against out-of state attorneys in order to protect business of in-state attorneys in New York;

the two judges who did that are themselves "resident" attorneys licensed in New York (I will run a separate blog about that, there are interesting issues regarding these judges' attorney registrations in New York), so the personal interest is apparent; and

in view of the fact that a federal judge, even though appointed for life, can CHOOSE at any time to leave the bench and go practice law - 

as, for example, Judge Shira Scheindlin of SDNY is going to do this week - 

it is pointless to make a claim that federal judges are not prone to decisions based on self-interest when they make discriminatory and turf-protective rulings about the legal profession.

2) The case of Tom Brady - it was really important for the 2nd Circuit (as opposed to civil rights appeal) to restore a suspension of a NFL player, really really important for the court to throw extensive resources on reviewing and resolving that case, all civil rights appellants be damned with their rubber stamped one-two page "summary orders" issued by octogenarian judges who never read the record.

Not only the 2nd Circuit "picks" cases for their opinions - but it picks it in a blatant self-serving manner, and only to either serve the judges' own personal interest or to gain publicity in a scandalous sport-related case.

A lot of justice there.