Elections2020. Delaware County, NY, race for District attorney, John Hubbard - a dishonest person, a lousy and dishonest prosecutor, a woman-hater and a racist

I know Delaware County DA (and the current contender for re-election for that position) John Hubbard professionally, I litigated against him in criminal court for several years.

NOT ONCE during all those times when the DA's office litigated before Judge Carl Becker in the County Court did the DA's office or John Hubbard personally disclosed that John Hubbard was Judge Becker's law partner before he came to the bench.  He only disclosed it when Judge Becker "retired" (or rather ran from the bench mid-2nd coveted term chased by 1. the FBI, 2. the New  York State financial comptroller and 3. The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct), then-DA Dick Northrup ran for his place and Hubbard was elevated to the DA's position and than ran in elections for DA.

Only then he coughed up that he was a law partner of Judge Becker.

Which is a disgrace.

How many criminal cases - financed by county taxpayers - did Hubbard undermine by this conflict of interest, how many convicted defendants now can come back and make motions to undo their convictions because of this conflict of interest?

I can also tell you that Hubbard is a women-hater and a racist, and that's based on my personal interaction with him, and generally a lousy slime.

When I came to Hubbard, as other attorneys did, in a town court to discuss a criminal case of a female client, a criminal defendant, all he was concentrated on discussing was her sex life - and you know why?

Because she had several multiracial (African American) children.

Hubbard unashamedly said about her that she was "sleeping with blacks, as if there are no white men here", and laughed off my indignation.

Remember, that was a criminal case that had absolutely nothing to do with my client's sex life.  Not that Hubbard cared. 

He was practically fixated on the issue, and raised it each time I came to him for conferences of that case, and that was several times during that litigation.

By the way, later on I have learnt that there was an additional reason for Hubbard's discussion s in such conferences - he was taking time and bluffing.

He knew that his main witness disappeared, did not notify the court, did not tell me, and kept trying to get a conviction, to have my client plead guilty.

The case was later dismissed because Hubbard was not ready for trial - in fact, several of my former clients' criminal cases were so dismissed.  Hubbard is sloppy and not knowledgeable as a lawyer.

He just "sleeps with the right people" to get ahead.

He also spends time badmouthing criminal defense attorneys to criminal defendants.

My husband and I had numerous clients come to hire us for criminal cases specifically because Hubbard tried to say dirty things about us to them.  They explained their reasoning this way:  if a prosecutor is mad at a criminal defense attorney, he must have lost cases to that criminal defense attorney.

I publicly thanked Hubbard many times for advertising for our law firm and for bringing us business.  He got furious each time - but stupidly continued to badmouth us - and to bring us more business.

This says that he does not have a good temperament as a public official - not that anything good can be expected from somebody whom dishonest slime Carl Becker chose as his law partner.

It is laughable that you would "protest for racial justice", "demand accountability" about events happening somewhere in another state and about public officials in another state and keep saddling yourself with corrupt racists in your own local government.

You recently protested against police brutality.

Yet, you do not protest when YOUR OWN police officers taser pregnant women and then put them in jail so that their miscarriage and other injuries cannot be documented.

You do not protest when your local police officers taser, ram with cars people videotaping them, obtain false arrest warrants to get whistleblowers out of the house in order to find and destroy evidence of police misconduct, they burn houses of whistleblowers - including pregnant women.

This is all happening and has been happening on Hubbard's watch.

And you know whom he investigated and prosecuted?

The victims, and covered up for the perpetrators, because some of them were related to employees of the District attorney's office.

You want that insect to be a guardian of your law and order in the area?  You deserve him - and all that he represents and that will be coming at you.

WTF is going on with RBG's death and burial?

 Will there be an open casket when Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to lie in repose in the US Supreme Court building?

Or will she just be snuck away and quickly buried in a private ceremony so we do not really know when she died and what was buried there?

Too many coincidences.

She supposedly suddenly dies of pancreatic metastatic cancer, which means that she should have been bedridden for days and months and many people were supposed to know that but did not come forward and did not report it to the American people.

Not her 4 law clerks, not the chief judge Roberts.

they're all liars and they should they should all be put to trial for this.

Instead she supposedly dies coincidentally on the day early voting started in some states, on a big Jewish holiday that makes her supposedly a Jewish saint, and with supposedly a queenly dying wish that has put the country into further turmoil if that is possible, so that people are threatening to burn everything if her dying wish is not satisfied.

We the American people are entitled to know what the hell is going on.

What a farce and slap in the face of our fallen soldiers to have Ruth Bader Ginsburg (or any other your Supreme Court justices or senators) buried in the national Arlington cemetery

 Don't you think that this is very crass and disrespectful to all fallen our soldiers to have deceased justices of the US Supreme Court be buried in the national Arlington cemetery?

Working like kings and queens in the US Supreme Court, a very privileged uncomfortable position, does not come close to be compared to the hardships and sacrifice of military service and giving you life for your country, literally.

That's a travesty and a farce, and that should stop.

Some preliminary thoughts about President Trump's list of nominees to the US Supreme Court

 Started to research the list of nominees of President Donald Trump to the US Supreme Court.

This post has been dictated, I'm trying to edit out errors, please bear with me.

Very very very very depressing, and not for reasons Democrats claim.

 I have watched the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, I understand the political situation and I understand the need of putting a judge through quickly and as smoothly as possible under the circumstances through the confirmation process.

And yet.

For all that Donald Trump claims that his anti-establishment, the nominees are establishment on very many levels - upper government echelon, private schools and what is most disturbing clerkships in the US Supreme Court.

I will not be revealing details that I found, it is premature at this time.

I am planning an article about this where it will be published fully with detailed analysis.

What I can tell at this time is that certain candidates and the history of their legal career give to a disinterested public observer an impression that the US Supreme Court is operated as a private quid pro quo venture, a closed order where cases are taken before the US Supreme Court are taken exclusively on the basis of personal connections, not merit.

And the recently sainted (as a person of Jewish faith who has died during the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah and thus has become a Jewish saint called tzaddik) late judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was complicit in it.

Once again not one candidate with a prior criminal defense experience, and let's remember that these judges literally decide people's life or death, specifically death because they are deciding last minute appeals from death penalties, federal and state.

In that unfortunately president Donald Trump cannot be distinguished from any other president before him including the Democrat's dears Barack Obama and Bill Clinton who both similarly put on the court exclusively judges with prosecutorial mentality.

The only Justice on the US Supreme Court who was not a prosecutor before coming to the US Supreme Court was actually the just departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Now the eight remaining justices are all former prosecutors, appointed to the court by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

So for all the fights over the US Supreme Court seats between the two major parties in the United States what we the people get is, uniformly, former prosecutors with inbred notion that they can do absolutely anything including malicious and corrupt conduct in office with impunity because they are immune.

Unfortunately, president Donald Trump is following in this trend and adding people with the same mentality.

People who get appointed there by all presidents are, first, licensed attorneys - which means that the federal judges are controlled by state governments, state courts from which they take and review appeals, such a conflict of interest is not good. There is no requirement in the US Constitution that your Supreme Court judges justices must be state-licensed attorneys, or attorneys at all.

Number two is that they're all former prosecutors with the respective accusatory mentality, presumption of guilt in their minds, and long years of "enjoying" the illegally given by the US Supreme Court to themselves and to prosecutors absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct embedded into their minds as a matter of entitlement.

That means that after having enjoyed a lifetime of immunity for their own malicious and corrupt conduct in office there is no way in hell that these people are going to shoot themselves in the foot and declare their own actions unconstitutional.

If we the People think that partial qualified immunity to the police given by the same US Supreme Court illegally is bad, how bad is the self-given entitlement by judges and prosecutors to do absolutely anything including corruption and crimes in a court proceeding and be absolutely immune for it to the victims of their behavior.

Number three they're mostly graduates from private including Ivy league schools and members of the American blue blood, practically hereditary top government establishment.

As such they have absolutely no real life experience of ordinary Americans and no care or concern about the plight or rights of ordinary people.

And number four, a lot of them are former clerks to the US Supreme Court justices which indicates that they were previously bound by the courts illegal code of silence to the clerks, and personal loyalty to the judges not the Constitution and the American people, and moreover that they complied with this illegal code, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make their brilliant and financially beneficial legal careers.

It is very sad.

And we the People should put pressure on our Representatives in the US Congress to put an end to this travesty, change jurisdiction term limits and makeup of the Court.

It is our court, existing on our money and that should be serving for our benefit, not a private quid pro quo personal venture of the American new hereditary royalty.

On the continued inbreeding in the Otsego County Court (New York). People v Shelly Ann Young.

I have left the state of New York 5 years ago, but news do come to me from the local upstate court system from time to time.

And sometimes these news are just too funny - or tragic - depends on what role you play in this or that court case.

And what is very UNfunny, let's say, is the cowardly local press who takes upon itself to bravely thump on Trump every day, but pretends it does not see misconduct and corruption of local public officials, right under the noses of the editorial staff and writers of the God-blessed "The Daily Star", of Oneonta, New York.

Today that blessed media source has published a story about a woman, a criminal defendant in a sexual child abuse case (she is 37 and was accused of sex with a 15 year old boy).

Here:

https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/judge-woman-accused-of-sex-abuse-is-avoiding-court/article_20460d8a-5168-5005-b22d-b1307e6cb65f.html

The story went that the woman did not show up in court for her arraignment (the first court appearance in a criminal case).

Of course, that information appeared to be false, since immediately somebody posted a comment on Facebook under this article that it was not true, that it was a mix up of court dates by lawyers, and that she will appear in court coming Monday.

But the whole cherry on the cake was in WHO the presiding judge in that case was and who were those attorneys who mixed up the court date - and how bad the charges were - and why this case required this particular judge and this particular assigned criminal defense attorney.

1. The attorney - a public defender, mind, so the criminal defendant is poor and cannot afford an attorney. Mind also that there are a lot of assistant public defenders in that Otsego County Public Defender's office, but who was chosen to represent the woman in this case?

Mike Trosset.

2. Who is the presiding judge in the case? John Lambert. 

And who is John Lambert to Mike Trosset? Former law partner.

And John Lambert appoints his former law partner Mike Trosset to represent a criminal defendant in a child sexual abuse felony case.  How cute.

3. Now, let's go further.  Who is the prosecutor in the case?

John Muehl.  And who is judge John Lambert to John Muehl?  Former employee in the District attorney's office, another former part-time prosecutor, along with the private law practice with Mike Trosset as a partner.

Already a big happy family.

And how does Judge John Lambert like to decide criminal cases?

Certainly not in open court.

Through "conferences" in the back room behind the courtroom, where he sits with John Muehl (his former employer) and probation department officers and police officers (witnesses for the prosecution), and very often he sits there for periods of time alone with the prosecutor and his witnesses, communicating with them ex parte (without the opposing counsel or the defendant).

And, Judge John Lambert calls in attorneys one by one to that back room - without their clients, mind, even though criminal defendants, especially in the County Court (where FELONIES are charged) have a right to be present at every significant stage of a criminal procedure - so it is a constitutional violation, not that Judge John Lambert cares about such trifles.

But in case of Mike Trosset as an assigned criminal defense attorney (and Judge John Lambert's former law partner) even that constitutional violation looks like a joke - because Mike Trosset, John Lambert and John Muehl are all buddies and will find how to sell out a criminal defendant anyway, back room or no back room.

So, if a defendant in such a situation even did run for sure - who would blame her for not wanting to subject herself to this incestous dog-and-pony show?

Because - you know WHY Judge John Lambert assigned his buddy (former law partner Mike Trosset) to represent a criminal defendant in a child sex abuse case prosecuted by his former employer John Muehl?

Because most likely (judging by the dates published in the article) John Muehl has neglected his duties, and the case was supposed missed - if, of course, the defendant would be represented by an honest criminal defense attorney who knew his job, and not by a judge's and prosecutor's buddy.

Just my follow their tricksters' hands for a moment.

The article says that the Otsego County Sheriff's Department has arrested the defendant back in February of this year.  That is 7 (seven) months ago.

By criminal procedure law of the State of New York, CPL 30.30, John Muehl had 6 (six) months from the date of the arrest to bring the defendant to trial in the County Court - and do it only after an indictment of the grand jury.

There is not a word about the indictment in the article, and the County Court prosecutes felonies only - or misdemeanors IF they are bundled with felonies.

Did they coerce the defendant to forgo the indictment? Don't know.

But if they did not and if the defendant IS being prosecuted on an indictment, John Muehl may have blown by the date when he must bring the defendant to a JURY trial (not to an arraignment) by 1 whole month.

That is, unless the defense counsel WAIVES the time limits and the DISMISSAL of the case, which can be dismissed with double jeopardy attaching because of John Muehl's neglect to prosecute it on time, so that it can NEVER be charged and prosecuted again - and only a judge's buddy can sell his client in such a way.  Hence, here comes Mike Trosset assigned by John Lambert.

Note, too, that the judge (John Lambert, former law partner of assigned public defender Mike Trosset and former employee of prosecutor John Muehl) claimed that it is the defendant who is to blame for not showing up in court, not his buddies for the mix-up of court dates.

And they pretend that everything goes like it should and everybody around them do not see the outrageous conflicts of interest and misconduct going on - or these 3 buddies just know that nobody will dare to raise their voices against this farce of "court proceedings".

You think that Judge John Lambert, public defender Mike Trosset and prosecutor John Muehl do not know of the existence of CPL 30.30 - and that the case needs to be dismissed for violation of New York speedy trial statute?

That his former employer John Muehl-the-drunk has blown a sexual child abuse case, a felony?

Of course they know, that's the very basics of criminal law, and they have been practicing that law for decades.

If I were the defendant I would sue the hell out of Mike Trosset if he does not make that motion to dismiss under CPL 30.30.

===

And that is not the only dog-and-pony-show news from the Otsego County Court that I have received lately.

I also have received some news about yet another inbreeding with the upcoming judicial elections for a position in the same court and preparing an article on that one, too - so, stay tuned. 

Otsego County, New York, and its courts, are an endless source of stories about government corruption.

 

 

A US Supreme Court precedent was created that may toss the majority of immigration lawsuits by the left

 The US Supreme Court has just created a precedent that may help Trump and his immigration policy and put an end to the endless permanent injunctions put on his executive decisions in immigration policy by District Court judges.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/scotus-ruling-forces-soros-groups-to-make-anti-prostitution-pledge-to-get-u-s-aids-funding/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members&utm_content=20200819172846

The US Supreme Court has ruled, as it should have, that the US Constitution is not applied to foreign citizens located outside of the United States.

Here go all the lawsuits brought by the leftists on behalf of foreigners who only want to come to the United States, but are located outside of it.

The essence of the case is that foreign combatting HIV AIDS tuberculosis and malaria globally with the help  of US taxpayer money can only receive that money if they condemn child trafficking and prostitution.

They don't want to and still want to get our money, and they had the gall to sue in a US court, asserting unconditional receipt of US taxpayer money, during the pandemic that is hurting Americans, as a matter of their right.

They got their way with corrupt judges in NY federal district court and in the 2nd circuit, the courts that usually toss all civil rights lawsuits of American citizens.

But, they got rightly choked in the US Supreme Court.

"In a blow to George Soros’ leftwing initiatives, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign affiliates of his Open Society Foundations (OSF) are not protected by the Constitution and therefore must abide by a congressionally mandated anti-prostitution pledge to receive federal funding.

 Under a 2003 law called United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars to combat AIDS globally and a chunk of the cash flows into OSF coffers. 

Under the measure organizations that receive American taxpayer dollars to fight HIV/AIDS abroad must adopt policies opposing sex trafficking and prostitution. 

Leftist groups legally challenged the rule years ago, claiming that it violated their First Amendment right to free speech. 

In 2013 the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the policy requirement infringed on the American groups’ constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The decision only applies to American organizations however, so an OSF affiliate called Alliance for Open Society International, which is handsomely funded by Uncle Sam, has engaged in litigation for more than a decade and a half to obtain the same exemption. 

The Soros group sued for permanent injunctive relief and a New York District Court ruled in its favor before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court recently reversed the appellate court decision, determining that foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that get federal dollars to combat HIV/AIDS abroad are not protected under the Constitution. 

“In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” according to the ruling, written for the majority by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

 Because the foreign Soros groups possess no First Amendment rights, applying the anti-prostitution policy requirement is not unconstitutional, the decision further points out, stating that under American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the Constitution.

Congress included the important policy in its landmark measure to combat HIV/AIDS globally because it determined that prostitution and sex trafficking are additional causes and factors in the spread of the deadly virus.

 Federal lawmakers also wrote in their legislation, which has helped save 17 million lives, that prostitution and sex trafficking are degrading to women and children.

 “No funds made available to carry out this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” the law states.

 Leftist groups receiving federal funds assert that condemning prostitution and sex trafficking interferes with their efforts to help those with HIV/AIDS because it creates a stigma. 

The government’s anti-prostitution pledge “falsely casts sex workers as part of the problem rather than acknowledging their important role in developing and implementing successful HIV/AIDS-prevention strategies,” according to an OSF publication released years ago.

The recent Supreme Court ruling was a “blow to free speech and public health,” according to a statement issued by Soros’ OSF. 

It quotes OSF President Patrick Gaspard saying that “the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech.”

 He continues. 

“The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. 

Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy.”

 The statement claims that research has repeatedly found that moral rejection and criminalization of sex work creates an environment where sex workers are more vulnerable to violence and abuse and consequently at greater risk of contracting HIV. 

“These issues are heightened in the context of COVID-19, when sex workers face financial devastation that further contributes to these disproportionate health and safety risks,” the OSF writes, circling back to blast the Supreme Court ruling because it “will prohibit critical organizations from providing services and support to sex workers who are too often left out of—or are antagonized by—government responses to the pandemic.”

Protectors of sex abusers in high places - up to the U.S. Supreme Court

I guess, New York has disregarded this precedent - meant, of course, to protect the sex abusers (priests) when it has put into place the same statutes and prosectued Harvey Weinstein and others under it.

"Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law."

 I wonder if the US Supreme Court justices who decided this one were personally involved with the Catholic church - or specific Catholic priests.

Scalia certainly was.