Assigned counsel for the rich and powerful and their expensive champion, attorney James Gleason of Binghamton, New York

On 10/28/2013 my husband Frederick J. Neroni sued several defendants, among them attorneys Ellen L. Coccoma, Otsego County Attorney, special counsel to a large and powerful law firm Hinman, Howard and Kattel, LLP,  former disciplinary investigator and prosecutor who was a member of the Professional Conduct Committee for the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department who refused to investigate and prosecute politically connected attorneys whom Mr. Neroni turned into the Professional Conduct Committee and who instead prosecuted investigated and started the prosecution of Mr. Neroni, which ultimately resulted in his disbarment.  

The sticky part was that Ellen Coccoma's husband Michael Coccoma recused from Mr. Neroni's case in 2007 that led to his disbarment, Mokay v. Mokay, which is not finalized and adjourned without a date at the request of the plaintiffs and at Mr. Neroni's objection to this day. 

While her husband recused from that case, Ellen Coccoma did not recuse from investigating and prosecuting the same case, but who am I to question propriety of actions of the blue bloods of the State of New York.

Ms. Coccoma is the spouse of the powerful Deputy Chief administrative judge of New York State Courts and the chief administrative judge of upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma who, by the rules created by the New York State Court administration, gets to decide which of the retired judges get lucrative well-paid positions of judicial hearing officers post-retirement.

Mr. Neroni sued Ms. Coccoma and the law firm where she worked as special counsel on two grounds:

(1) Mr. Neroni had a standing as a taxpayer and landowner in Otsego County.  

Mr. Neroni did not like the fact that Ms. Coccoma, a full-time county employee, a County Attorney earning reportedly $74,702.00 a year, is also employed as a special counsel in HHK and represents private client on Otsego county time funded, in part, by Mr. Neroni as a taxpayer.  

That was a claim against Ms. Coccoma as the Otsego County official, based on taxpayer standing of waste of public funds - a state claim under supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court.

(2) Mr. Neroni did not like the fact that: 

• in 2010 Ms. Coccoma, Mr. Neroni's investigator and prosecutor, who had access to Mr. Neroni's allegedly existing records in the Committee (to which Mr. Neroni could not get access before his disciplinary proceedings commenced, during those disciplinary proceedings and after his disciplinary proceedings, and up to now), now represents private clients and makes claims of impropriety against Mr. Neroni as a former corporate officer, in other words, 
• that Ms. Coccoma is using or may use for private gain information obtained against Mr. Neroni through her investigative or prosecutorial activities in the Committee.  

Mr. Neroni was suing Ms. Coccoma for violation of his due process rights and deprivation of the honest services of a neutral and impartial investigator and prosecutor.  

Only a portion of this claim was targeting Ms. Coccoma's conduct when she was part of the Committee.  

Most of the claim was targeting Ms. Coccoma's private conduct when she left the Committee, but still held confidential information from Mr. Neroni's record which she was about to use for her personal gain in a proceeding for a private client.  

That was a federal claim for violation of federal civil rights by a private actor who is using the delegated power of the state and engages in acts with other state actors in order to deprive Mr. Neroni of his constitutional rights to due process of law and to be free from unreasonable seizures (court-ordered depositions).

(3) Mr. Neroni did not like the fact that on November 8, 2011 Ms. Coccoma, instead of notifying the Delaware County Supreme Court, the Hon. John F. Lambert, of the death of her client which resulted in these three consequences:

      (a) the court has temporarily lost jurisdiction over the proceedings (jurisdiction abated, CPLR 1015);

     (b) Ellen Coccoma and her firm HHK lost authority to represent the deceased client;

     (c ) Ellen Coccoma and her firm HHK lost authority to represent the deceased client's children who were acting in litigation on a power of attorney from their father, and powers of attorney become invalid when the person who gives them dies;

• made a motion to that same court to compel appearance of Mr. Neroni at a deposition, 
• argued that motion, 
• obtained a void court order to compel such a deposition, 
• aggressively tried to enforce the order, and 
• revealed that her client died only when, after repeated efforts of opposing counsel to bring her dead client to a deposition, the opposing counsel warned Ms. Coccoma that her client will be brought to that cross-deposition by a motion to the court to compel her client's appearance.

Only then, in April of 2012, Ms. Coccoma disclosed to the opposing counsel the fact, but not the date of death of her client.

Mr. Neroni, naturally, was not happy with this fraud and fraud upon the court, and especially with the fact that 

• Ms. Coccoma manipulated the court, during the court's absence of jurisdiction and when her own and her law firm's authority to represent the deceased client and his children stopped, and 
• unlawfully caused the court to compel violation of Mr. Neroni's due process and 4th Amendment rights - his appearance at a court-ordered deposition without his consent.

Mr. Neroni was also not happy that Ms. Coccoma 

• further moved to substitute the legal representative of her deceased client, but did not claim, as it was required by law to restore jurisdiction of the court, that causes of action in the original lawsuit survived her deceased client's death, and 
• adamantly relied upon the void decision of Judge Lambert made without the judge's knowledge of the death of Ms. Coccoma's client, as on the "law of the case", and that Ms. Coccoma
• won that motion in front of judge Kevin M. Dowd, a judge who is, upon information and belief, close to retirement, and thus has a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, because if he would please Ellen Coccoma, he can look at a blessing from Ellen Coccoma's husband to be appointed as a judicial hearing officer, a financially lucrative position.

In New York, private attorneys are still considered " officers of the court"  and, unlike private pro se parties, are delegated by the state its police power in issuing witness subpoenas.  

Ms. Coccoma was enforcing against Mr. Neroni such a subpoena issued by her before the death of her client, but was enforcing it, obviously illegally, after the death of her client and after her own authority ceased, without notification of either Mr. Neroni or the court.

The third claim was a private claim against a private attorney who, acting on a delegated state power to issue subpoenas, under the color of state law, and jointly with several other state actors (a judicial hearing officer of the court, the presiding judge of the court, her own husband, a high-ranking judge), violated Mr. Neroni's constitutional rights.

Now - didn't Mr. Neroni have a point that what Ms. Coccoma and HHK did was in fact a violation of his constitutional rights?


Of course, the presiding judge Gary L. Sharpe did not share Mr. Neroni's opinion, and made so far intricate and unique mistakes in favor of Ms. Coccoma and her co-defendants.

In the lawsuit, HHK was representing itself through its partner James Gleason.

It is the representation of Ellen Coccoma which was tricky and sticky.

On the one hand, Ellen Coccoma was supposedly a competent counsel who could handle self-representation.

On the other hand, HHK could represent Ellen Coccoma, as well as itself.

Neither of these options suited Ellen Coccoma.

Ellen Coccoma did not want to represent herself and did not want to pay for her legal representation.

Ellen Coccoma came up with three options as to how to do it, and I am saying that based only on public records which I retrieved from a public website Pacer.gov.   

I do not know how much telephone activity happened and at what levels to help smooth Ms. Coccoma's way to a free representation by New York State Attorney General.   

This we may never know, because the lawsuit was dismissed and I do not see any eagerness in any state or federal agencies to investigate Ms. Coccoma, her husband or other powerful player in this sordid story.

In New York, as I have written in this blog before, according to repeated announcements of NY Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, over 80% of litigants cannot afford legal representation.

In New York, as in other states, the legal profession has a monopoly for representation in court, and practicing without a license has recently become a felony, thanks to the voting of multiple attorneys-Senators (I checked, voting in NY Legislature is public record) who blatantly disregarded the conflicts of interest involved in such a voting.

I get reports from indigent people who get denied assigned counsel by judges on different grounds, such as that they got a tax refund - and judge would not hear that the tax refund already went to satisfy other obligation, such as a mortgage or arrears in child support, so people remain without counsel.

It is against this background that Ellen Coccoma, 

• a private attorney, 
• a County Attorney who, when sued as a County attorney, was entitled only to representation by an attorney hired by the County insurance carrier, but not by the NYS Attorney General;
• a special counsel for HHK, 
• the wife of an influential judge, 
• president of Otsego County Bar Association, 
• former member of a disciplinary body, where for 5 years she investigated and prosecuted attorney misconduct and unethical behavior, 

decided to get free legal representation at the expense of New York taxpayers, including those who themselves get denied assigned counsel because of tax refunds, as I described above...

I do not know the sequence of which avenues Ms. Coccoma explored to get to that result, to create for herself a "class of one", an assigned class for the rich and powerful entitled to free legal representation at the expense of taxpayers.

Yet, I know that suddenly Mr. Neroni received a letter from Ms. Coccoma's liability insurance carrier notifying Ms. Coccoma that she is ineligible to receive legal representation at the expense of the insurance company.

But not until the case was dismissed by Judge Sharpe and HHK applied for legal fees did it become obvious to what extent Ms. Coccoma's law firm went in order to help her obtain taxpayer-funded legal representation.

Now, I would like to remind the readers that HHK represented in the action Neroni v. Coccoma, 3:13-cv-1340-GLS-DEP only itself, HHK.  Below you can see a snippet picture from the docket report of the case indicating just that.

James Gleason stepped into the representation of HHK, and only HHK, on 12/02/2013, as Docket 27 of the case demonstrates below.

Yet, according to Mr. Gleason's own submissions to the court in Docket 63, application for attorney's fees, Mr. Gleason has engaged in a vigorous campaign on behalf of Ellen Coccoma since 11/05/13 to broker free legal representation for Ellen Coccoma, and charged his client (and is trying to shift that fee to a pro se civil rights plaintiff at this time) $ 4, 985.50 in legal fees for that campaign.


As a disclaimer, I made this calculation based on the fee list of Mr. Gleason, and where Mr. Gleason commingled different activities with activities to support free representation for Ms. Coccoma by the New York State Attorney General and did not provide a breakdown as to how much time was expended on each of the commingled activities, I assigned the entire value of the claimed commingled activities to Mr. Gleason's campaign to support free representation of Ms. Coccoma by the NYS Attorney General's office at taxpayer expense.

Nowhere does it appear that Mr. Gleason offered his colleague and employee his own pro bono services or services of his law firm.  After all, Ms. Coccoma was representing her client on behalf of HHK.

And I remind the readers once against that, throughout this entire campaign on behalf of Ellen Coccoma and to the end of this litigation, Mr. Gleason never appeared on behalf of Ellen Coccoma as an attorney and, thus, had no right to claim one penny in legal fees for his advocacy on her behalf.

Yet, since Mr. Gleason proudly announces that he advises state and federal judges on "joint issues" through a "State-Federal Judicial Council", he can count on support and understanding from both state and federal judges to rescue him from any ethical pits he throws himself and his law firm into.

The existence and operation of this "Council" is even more interesting in the context where state judges are sued in federal court...  Really, "joint issues" may arise...

But back to the story...

This is the relevant timeline of the Neroni v. Coccoma litigation and a summary of Mr. Gleason's legal fees Mr. Gleason found possible to put on his client (his own firm HHK) and to claim against a pro se plaintiff in a civil rights litigation - legal fees generated in the advocacy of taxpayer-backed free representation of a politically connected attorney Mr. Gleason did not represent:

Event	Date	Attorney fee charged by Attorney James Gleason to his client (own law firm – Hinman, Howard and Kattel, LLP [“HHK”]) and claimed against the Plaintiff
Lawsuit Neroni v. Coccoma et al. was filed	10/28/2013
Summons issued for Ellen Coccoma	10/29/2013
Summons issued for HHK	10/29/2013
Summons issued for Eugene Peckham	10/29/2013
Summons issued for LGT	10/29/2013
Gleason's initial contact with Ellen Coccoma about the lawsuit	11/5/2013	$           737.50
Gleason's initial contact with New York State Attorney General about the lawsuit	11/6/2013	$           737.50
Gleason's e-mail exchange with Ellen Coccoma about indemnification	11/7/2013	$           206.50
Gleason's follow-up with Ellen Coccoma regarding letter requesting defense/indemnification under the Public Officers Law to the Attorney General's Albany Office	11/8/2013	$           118.00
Telephone conference between Gleason and Kevin Hickey of NYS AG about free representation of Ellen Coccoma by NYS AG	11/13/2013	$           354.00
Notice of Appearance of Hiscock & Barclay on behalf of Levine, Gouldin and Thompson, LLP and Margaret Fowler, the law firm and a law partner of Eugene Peckham, former Acting Supreme Court justice and the hearing officer in Delaware County Supreme Court at the time of representation of clients in a case where Eugene Peckham previously presided as a judge	11/18/2013
Discussion with Kevin Hickey of Ellen Coccoma's status for free representation by NYS AG's office	11/19/2013	$        1,003.00
Exchange of e-mails "with counsel" regarding status of representation for Ellen Coccoma and Eugene Peckham	11/22/2013	$           177.00
Notice of Appearance of New York State Attorney General on behalf of State Defendants with the exception of Ellen Coccoma and Eugene E. Peckham	11/28/2013
Initial appearance of Attorney James Gleason (HHK) on behalf of HHK only, not on behalf of either Ellen Coccoma or Eugene Peckham	12/02/2013
Gleason’s discussion with NYS AG’s office of the status of representation of Ellen Coccoma	12/2/2013	$        1,327.50
Refusal letter from Ellen Coccoma's insurance carrier	12/4/2013
Gleason's telephone conference with NYS AG regarding status of representation of Ellen Coccoma by NYS AG	12/9/2013	$              88.50
Personal service of the summons upon Ellen Coccoma	12/10/2013
Gleason's follow-up e-mail to NYSAG regarding Ellen Coccoma's request for indemnification/defense under the Public Officers Law	12/16/2013	$              59.00
Gleason's exchange of e-mails regarding NYS AG's agreement to represent Ellen Coccoma and Eugene Peckham	12/17/2013	$           177.00
Notice of Appearance of NYS AG on behalf of Ellen Coccoma, Eugene Peckham	12/18/2013
TOTAL CHARGED BY ATTORNEY GLEASON TO HIS CLIENT (AND OWN LAW FIRM) HHK AND CLAIMED AGAINST A PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS PLAINTIFF FOR ADVOCACY REGARDING TAXPAYER BACKED FREE REPRESENTATION OF ELLEN COCCOMA AND EUGENE PECKHAM (BOTH NON-CLIENTS)		$    4,985.50

Below are snippet pictures from Mr. Gleason's own statements of fees to the court in Neroni v. Coccoma, 3:13-cv-1340-GLS-DEP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Docket 63-1, pages 7 to 12.

Please, note that Mr. Gleason values his advocacy for taxpayer-backed free legal representation of a politically connected attorney who was not his client, at $295/hr.  

On November 5, 2013, a week after the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Gleason calls Ms. Coccoma for the first time about this litigation (at least, that is what he claims in his list of legal fees).

On November 6, 2013 Mr. Gleason, a busy attorney, starts researching disciplinary rules for the benefit of Ellen Coccoma whom he does not represent in the action.  Well, at that time Mr. Gleason did not step into representation of HHK either, he only did it on December 2, 2013, in a month's time.

On November 7, 2013, the relentless Mr. Gleason exchanges e-mails with Ms. Coccoma pertaining her " eligibility for indemnification under the Public Officers Law and even has a telephone conference with Jeffrey Devorin of the New York State Attorney General's office in Albany.

On November 8, 2013 Mr. Gleason follows up with Ellen Coccoma regarding her request to the New York State Attorney General to represent her for free.

On November 13, 2013, Mr. Gleason has a telephone conference with the New York State Attorney General's office on the same subject, and accurately bills all of the above to his client (and law firm) HHK, even though he did not step into representation of HHK in the federal action yet, and did not (and never did in the future) step into representation of Ellen Coccoma in that lawsuit.

Mr. Gleason continues to discuss the same issue of Ellen Coccoma's free representation at taxpayers' expense with the NYS Attorney General's office on November 19, 2013.

On November 22, 2013 Mr. Gleason exchanges e-mails on the same subject of representation of Ellen Coccoma, and now adds to it the issue of taxpayer backed representation of Eugene Peckham, retired Acting Supreme Court Justice out of Broome County who is a law partner in another large and influential local law firm, Levine, Gouldin and Thompson, also a defendant in the Neroni v. Coccoma action who also sought - and gained - free representation by New York State Attorney General when sued for actions as a private attorney.

On November 26, 2013 Mr. Gleason holds yet another conference with the New York State Attorney General's office regarding representation of Ellen Coccoma by that office.

On December 2, 2013 Mr. Gleason prepares a waiver of service on behalf of Ellen Coccoma whom he does not represent and finally files his Notice of Appearance with the court on behalf of HHK only, not on behalf of Ellen Coccoma.

 On or about December 4, 2013 Ms. Coccoma receives a rejection letter from her insurance carrier refusing to represent her because she was charged in litigation with intentional misconduct.

Mr. Gleason's campaign on behalf of Ms. Coccoma to get her taxpayer backed representation by the Attorney General's office continues.

On December 9, 2013 Mr. Gleason holds yet another telephone conference with the Attorney General's office on the same subject of legal representation of Ellen Coccoma.

On December 10, 2013 Ms. Coccoma was personally served with the summons to appear in the action, and her appearance was set at 20 days after the service, as a matter of law, to December 31, 2013.

On December 10, 2013 Mr. Gleason holds yet another telephone conference with Ms. Coccoma about "status"and deposition of Mr. Neroni where Mr. Neroni, instead of appearing, served Ms. Coccoma with the summons.  Thus, Mr. Gleason learns that Ms. Coccoma was served and has only 20 days to appear in the action.

On December 16, 2013 Mr. Gleason sends a follow-up email to the NYS Attorney General's office to once again verify the status of Ellen Coccoma's representation by the NYS AG.

On December 18, 2013 Mr. Gleason's efforts to get taxpayer backed representation of Ellen Coccoma by the NYS Attorney General's office were finally crowned with success, and the NYS AG appeared on behalf of Ms. Coccoma and on behalf of Eugene Peckham in Neroni v. Coccoma litigation.

Now, some math.

According to the site Seethroughny.net collecting information from public sources about salaries and pensions of public officials in New York at the state, county and municipal levels,  

• In 2013 Ellen Coccoma had a salary of $74,702.00 as a full-time Otsego County employee, a County Attorney, and an unknown amount paid to her as HHK special counsel;
• In 2013 Ellen Coccoma's husband Michael V. Coccoma had a salary of $ 175.592 as the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York

The total income of the Coccomas, without counting Ellen Coccoma's income from HHK and sources other than their public office salaries, such as investments, rentals, if any, etc., in 2013 was $250,294.

This couple would be hardly eligible for assigned counsel in any court in the State of New York, and they knew it.

Mr. Gleason also knew better than to advocate for taxpayer backed representation of Ellen Coccoma, and Ellen Coccoma was not even his client, but he vigorously fought to get that freebie for Ellen Coccoma - and he won.   

Good job, Mr. Gleason, Judge Coccoma must be very pleased with your efforts.

According to the same site, seethroughny.net, Eugene Peckham's judicial pension, without any other sources of income and without his income as a judicial hearing officer and his income as a law partner in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson, was in 2013  $78,337.   

Private attorney Eugene Peckham is not exactly an indigent party eligible for an assigned counsel either.

New York State gives attorneys a monopoly for representation of third parties in court.

Mr. Gleason does it at $295/hr.  

Over 80% of low income New Yorkers cannot afford legal representation, according to the repeated admissions of NYS Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, which necessitated to create a whole Task Force to help this crisis.

Yet, an attorney who portrays himself on his law firm's website as a beacon of propriety and even as an advisor to state and federal judges, advocates, at $295/hr, to have a rich and powerful attorney be represented at taxpayers' expense by the New York State Attorney General.

Mr. Gleason did what he did vigorously, persistently, without any authority since he did not represent Ellen Coccoma, but he arrogantly tries to claim to a federal court (which apparently he " advises on joint state-federal issues" through his State-Federal Judicial Council), fees as if they were incurred in bona fide representation of HHK, and tries to put the payment of those fees on a pro se civil rights litigant.

Now, let's forget that the pro se litigant here holds a J.D.  What if he didn't?  What if he was an indigent and illiterate pro se party?  Would he had a chance against Mr. Gleason?  Does he have a chance now, given Mr. Gleason's incestous  relationship with the state and federal court system?

If the claimed protection of the public by the legal protection is in all actuality claimed only to preserve the professions' privileged position and exorbitant fees claimed whether a certain attorney, like Mr. Gleason in this situation, is or is not entitled to those fees, it is time to end that monopoly and deregulate the market of legal services.

To say that the public is protected by blocking lay individuals from court representation and by installing a monopoly for the practice of law for the likes of Mr. Gleason, Ms. Coccoma, Mr. Peckham and people supporting them in their endeavors to get taxpayer-backed freebies for the wealthy and powerful, is to be a hypocrite of the highest order.

Nothing like dismissing a lawsuit against yourself - who else has such power? Or rather who can abuse their power in such an extraordinary way?

Just received an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in response to my letter request to transfer the case to another court, because the NDNY is actually the court I am suing in Neroni v. Peebles, 3:14-cv-584, which had, among others, the following claims and purposes:

(1) to verify membership of its judges who participated in any decisions which personally affected me, in a secret-membership organization the American Inns of Court, 

(2) to verify what perks its judges received from attorneys in that secret-membership organization;

(3) who are the secret attorney members who sponsor judges in that secret-membership organization and

(4) to verify why the Northern District of New York conducted an ex parte investigation against me while handling my cases.  

By the way, point (4) that I described earlier is the most often read post in this blog, the statistics about the readership is automatic, I don't participate in these calculations.

It must be frivolous if thousands of people read my blog.

I recently amended the complaint in the action in view of the statement of New York State Attorney General that my disciplinary case (filed in January of 2013) is related to my husband's post-disbarment so-far successful federal case Neroni v. Zayas (concluded in July of 2011).  

My question posed by the lawsuit - who wined and dined my judges - is answered by Judge Suddaby, of Northern District of New York - I do not have a right to even ask that question, and it is frivolous for me to do so.

Judge Suddaby dismissed my federal lawsuit (after I have spent a month and over $2,000.00 on service of waivers alone) and before any defendants appeared in the action.

But think about it - isn't it awesome for a court to dismiss a lawsuit against itself and its own judges, sued in their individual capacities, for misconduct outside of any court proceedings?  Before defendants even appeared in the action?  While slapping against me the label of frivolousness?

Judges, you can wine and dine at attorneys' expense and enjoy your secret meetings with influential attorneys with your peace of mind undisturbed.   You can accept perks from those attorneys undisturbed.  The troublemaker's lawsuit was dismissed.  


The mistakes judges sued for misconduct make become more and more bizarre...

But messages Judge Suddaby has sent by his sua sponte dismissal of the action against his own court and its judges, in response to my letter request to transfer the case to a court which will not be disqualified to hear the case, and before appearance of defendants are loud and clear:  

(1) it is at presently a taboo in the American society to question a judge's integrity and to try to verify the judge's out-of-court potential conflicts of interest, even if evidence clearly points at potential violations of constitutional rights of litigants by such out-of court conduct;

(2) that judges will fight tooth and claw to protect their perks and privileges, legal or illegal; and

(3) that in protection of their perks and privileges, legal or illegal, judges will disregard every law in the book, including the U.S. Constitution they were sworn to protect - in order to protect their black-robed brethren.

Hallelujah.

P.S.  I will appeal, of course.

Should federal courts be allowed a holiday on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. day if they purposefully undermine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy?

Everybody knows Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr. is (now) all good and his legacy is all good.   Right?  Of course, when he was alive and led civil disobedience actions, especially those resulting in police violence, he was considered by many a troublemaker and a rebel against then-existing well-settled traditions.

Yet, if at this time, the American society has recognized Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a national hero, to the point of creating a national holiday in his honor, shouldn't the same government which created such a holiday, be honoring the essence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy?

 Why did federal courts start to increasingly, exponentially punish civil rights litigants with sanctions for allegedly "frivolous" constitutional claims right at the same time when Martin Luther King Jr. inspired (1) civil disobedience to unjust laws, and (2) that same civil rights litigation to vindicate violations of individual constitutional rights?

If federal courts have a different opinion as to the goodness of Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr. 's legacy, maybe, federal court employees - and especially judges who shape such policies - should not be allowed not to work on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s day?

The new Albany County Family Court Judge Sue Kushner and her Facebook friends - judicial integrity, huh?

In 2009-2014 I represented a client in a Family Court custody case.  I am writing this blog post by permission of my client who I still represent in Family Court in one of the counties of New York state.


My client's case was heard in multiple counties before I stepped into it in 2009. 

The proceedings went, as far as I know, from Sullivan County to Delaware County to Pennsylvania and Albany County, back to New York and Albany County, back to Pennsylvania, then to North Carolina and New York/ Delaware County.


In December of 2013 I appeared in front of Judge Duggan of Albany County Family Court and specifically asked for an evidentiary hearing on behalf of my client.  Judge Duggan adjourned the case to January of 2014 indicating that another judge will be presiding over the issue.  

Judge Duggan also gave me leave to amend a petition that I filed with the court earlier, for frustration of visitation by my client's opponent.  Judge Duggan at that point us that a new judge will be assigned to the case in January of 2014, without providing details as to why.  Judge Duggan did not recuse from the case, simply adjourned it to January 2014.


We learnt the reason why the case was reassigned to another judge in January of 2014.  Judge Duggan was not re-elected to a new 10-year term, a new judge, judge Sue Kushner, took his place, and Sue Kushner was assigned to the case in January of 2014.


The attorney for the child in the Albany County Family Court was and still is Lisa Heide Gordon, from 2010 to 2014. 


Lisa Heide Gordon is listed on Judge Sue Kushner's personal Facebook page as a friend.


Here is the complete list of Judge Kushner's Facebook friends personally obtained by me from her Facebook page before she removed them - for any reason, such as reading this blog.

Maybe, the readers of this blog will find some other interesting coincidence between this friend list and their court cases in front of this judge.

I found among Judge Kushner's other friends listed on her Facebook page a couple of attorneys working for law firms which engaged in vigorous - sometimes bitter - and not winning - litigation against my clients, including litigation involving political issues and issues of corruption of public officials. 

I wonder where Judge Kushner borrowed her ideas that my rights under Americans with Disabilities Act, or my client's rights to an effective representation by the counsel of her choice should not be respected.

Also, prominent in Judge Kushner's friend list are friends from all levels of Albany City, County and New York State Government.  Additionally, while Judge Kushner decides cases as a single fact-finder, as to domestic violence (possibly, with parallel cases in criminal court), and in child abuse proceedings (where the Albany County District Attorney is a necessary party), I wonder if she discloses that her son Steven Allinger is employed by the Albany County District Attorney's office...

Such "inextricable intertwinement" with executive and legislative branches of the government, as well as friendship with attorneys who appear in front of the judge or who have litigation involving as opponents attorneys (like me) to whom Judge Kushner took a sudden dislike without seeing them, as she did in my case, suggests possibilities of ex parte communications and that some influential hands may put their weight on Judge Kushner's balance of justice.

My client Ms. K., also commenced, pro se, a habeas corpus proceeding in the Albany County Supreme Court sometime in the fall of 2013.  I did not participate in that proceeding and did not consult my client about that proceeding.   Ms. K. was allowed to proceed as a poor person and was assigned a counsel who withdrew, and then was assigned an attorney Nancy E. Stroud.


Nancy E. Stroud is also listed as a Facebook friend of Judge Kushner on Judge Kushner's Facebook page.


I gave both attorneys whose names possibly coincided with names of Judge Kushner's friends on Facebook, Lisa H. Gordon and Nancy E. Stroud, benefit of the doubt and verified their identities, through Ms. K's review of their pictures, their personal Facebook pages with their pictures and names, and through the public Attorney Directory available on the website of the New York State Court Administration.

My benefit of the doubt was wasted, as to both attorneys.

They are the ones, the friends of Judge Kushner, as the pictures that I made out of their Facebook pages, the NYS Attorney Directory and the above pictures from Judge Kushner's Facebook friend list illustrate.

As the snippets above demonstrate, there is only on attorney Lisa H. Gordon of Delmar in the State of New York - and that is Judge Kushner's friend.

There is also only one attorney Nancy E. Stroud in the State of New York, and that is Judge Kushner's other Facebook friend.  

To me and to Ms. K., such "friendship" explains now a lot of mysterious circumstances and gross irregularities about how Judge Kushner handled Ms. K.'s case.

In January of 2014 I got seriously ill and was given a 2-month medical leave, from mid-January, to mid-March.


All courts adjourned proceedings because of my illness based on the medical leave document that I provided.  A two-months adjournment of any court case, including a Family Court case, is not an unheard of occurrence.  In fact, the same Albany County Family Court adjourned the same proceedings numerous times at the request of my client's opponent, sometimes for longer periods of time, and without any proof of illness.


Among the courts which handled proceedings where I had to appear when I got ill, Judge Kushner was the only judge who most aggressively sent me letters requiring my appearances and whose clerk kept calling my office and leaving message on my answering machine requiring me to either appear myself or to "find cover". 

I explained to Judge Kushner numerous times in correspondence that it was impossible for me to find a replacement counsel to appear instead of me in Albany, New York because


(1) I represented my client since 2009 and my knowledge cannot be easily transferred to another counsel, thus, my client will be prejudiced if I am abruptly taken off the case, and all I am asking for is a mere adjournment;


(2) because the case was a pro bono case for me, and has been since 2010, and it was impossible for me to find, especially on a short notice, a counsel to appear in a complex and acrimonious Family Court case pro bono,


(3) that I was given a medical leave for a reason and it is impossible for me to engage in searches for new counsel, so an adjournment was more in order.


Recently, in a civil case, a trial judge, Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dowd adjourned a jury trial twice, over my most vigorous objection, because of illness of a trial counsel (each time, within less than a month before the set trial date).  

In November, 2013 Judge Dowd adjourned a jury trial for about six months.  

In June of 2014, Judge Dowd adjourned the jury trial in the same case without a date.   

Every time it was done over my most vigorous objections.



In Ms. K.'s case in the Albany County Family Court I received no objections from the attorney for the child Lisa H. Gordon or from the pro se father against my request for adjournment of proceedings.

There was no claim or appearance of prejudice by the opponent in the proceeding from any adjournments.


Because Judge Kushner made me face a "choice" - either to come out of my medical leave, which I could not do physically, or find another pro bono attorney for such a complex case, which I could not do either, or be sanctioned for non-appearance, my client graciously released me from the case on consent.   

In other words, for Judge Kushner somehow, the protection of Americans with Disabilities Act requiring to provide me a reasonable accommodation and requiring to provide my client the right of her choice of counsel (myself) did not have any meaning.


To release me from having to make the untenable choice that Judge Kushner made me face, Ms. K. released me from her case in front of Judge Kushner on consent in February of 2014.  I was wondering what made Judge Kushner to so aggressively push to take me off Ms. K's case in the first place... 

As I learnt later, and as documentary evidence may lead a reasonable reader to believe, Judge Kushner could have been "instructed" to do so by her Facebook friends, but back to the story.



Ms. K's mother retained another attorney when I withdrew, because they could not find any other attorney to take the case, like I did, pro bono.  Ms. K had no money, and having to retain a counsel hurt her mother who is disabled and is far from rich.


Ms. K. asked me to talk to her newly retained attorney and give him the benefit of my knowledge since the record of the case was so large and it was not easy to get prepared for a hearing without knowing the details of the case, which I handled for 5 years.


Ms. K's new attorney called me and I gave him as much time as he was asking for.


Ms. K's new attorney told me that by the time of our conversation he already read the record of the case and does not need debriefing, just my "feeling" about the case.



Then, according to Ms. K, her newly retained counsel appeared in front of Judge Kushner, failed to ask for an evidentiary hearing which was required under the circumstances, and failed to insist for an evidentiary hearing, which resulted in an adverse ruling against Ms. K.


Nevertheless, Ms. K. related to me that in the conference room before going into the courtroom, she was present at the exchange between her newly retained counsel and the attorney for the child Lisa H. Gordon who stated interesting things:


(1) that she did not read the 65-page decision of a Pennsylvania court because she allegedly "did not have time for that"; yet, the 65-page decision indicated that during the time when Lisa H. Gordon failed to talk to the child she was representing or make sure about the child's welfare, the child was grossly emotionally abused by the father and stepmother;


(2)  that Ms. K's Amended Petition that was filed by me at the beginning of January 2014 following permission of Judge Duggan in December 2013 (which decision Lisa H. Gordon never opposed in court and never appealed) should have been tossed out - and the petition was about frustration of visitation by the father in the same manner as the finding of frustration of visitation by the father and stepmother by the Pennsylvania court, in a decision that Ms. Gordon had no time to read, even though it was part of the Petition alleging actions of the father contrary to the best interests of Ms. Gordon's minor client;


(3) that Ms.  K's mother, my client and I "sue everybody", and went to elaborate and discuss my family member who is good as opposed to me and my husband who are, according to Ms. Gordon, bad people.

The interesting point is that Ms. Gordon talked to me once on the phone, once at a pre-appearance conference, and no acrimonious words were ever exchanged between us.  So, it is beyond me as to what is the basis of Ms. Gordon's attitude against me, going to the point of attacking my family members in discussions of court proceedings where I long withdrew from the case and did nothing bad to her or her client.   

My husband never appeared for Ms. K. in the Albany County Family Court and never represented her there.  

Somehow, in Lisa H. Gordon's mind, the factors she listed during the conference outweighed her obligation to pursue the best interests of the child and allowed Lisa H. Gordon to not even look at the contents of Ms. K's petition claiming the same kind of frustration of visitation by the father that Lisa H. Gordon refused to see in 2010-2011 and that a Pennsylvania court found in 2012.

At the same time, Lisa H. Gordon was paid for her "services" by the Albany County taxpayers, including me and my husband whom she allowed herself to badmouth, and she was paid specifically for representing the best interests of the child and not to use the court proceedings to spread rumors against her competitors against attorneys who sue judges while her friend Sue Kushner is a judge.


Ms. Gordon did not care that I represented Ms. K. for 4 years pro bono and that I was squeezed out of the case by her friend the judge who used my temporary illness to deprive Ms. K. of effective legal representation.  She badmouthed me anyway, in front of my client, and in front of my client's new attorney, on subjects that had nothing to do with my client's family court litigation, because if my federal lawsuits against judges did have a bearing on my client's case, all adverse findings against my client must be instantly vacated.

Child custody issues may not be decided based on political affiliation of a party, and especially based on civil rights litigation of the party's attorney.



The habeas proceedings where Ms. K. was represented by her assigned counsel, Judge Kushner's other Facebook friend, Nancy E. Stroud, were also mentioned in the Family Court, and Lisa Gordon blamed it on me for not reporting to the court that such proceedings exist.

Of course, how could Lisa Gordon, friend of Judge Kushner, blame it on Nancy Stroud, another friend of judge Kushner who actually represented Ms. K. in these proceedings.

Nancy E. Stroud, in her turn, acted in the Supreme Court habeas proceedings against the best interests of Ms. K., openly violating the rule that an attorney may not give legal consultations to the opponents and teach the opponents how to restrict the rights of her own clients.

That's what Nancy E. Stroud did when, in an e-mail that I have on file, she taught Ms. K's opponent how to file and serve a Notice of Entry of a court order adverse to Ms. K., thus cutting her own client's time to appeal that adverse order.

Nancy E. Stroud knew it was a disciplinary violation, but did it all the same.  After all, who would dare to touch a judge's friend with attorney discipline?



According to Ms. K., neither Nancy E. Stroud, nor Lisa Gordon, nor Judge Kushner have ever disclosed their Facebook friendship in court proceedings.


And my legal opinion is that such a non-disclosure, coupled with actions of the judge and these two attorneys against my former client is a complete shame that should result in most severe discipline against the judge and the attorneys.

Even though - in accordance with unspoken New York "law of connections" - everybody knows that such discipline would never be imposed.  

Due to actions of Judge Kushner and her Facebook friends attorneys Lisa H. Gordon and Nancy E. Stroud, Ms. K. lost the last remnants of her trust in the integrity of judicial proceedings which hands out custody of children to the children's confirmed abusers, refuses to review any proof of such abuse and punishes whistleblowers of such abuse, likely in reliance on recommendations of the judge's Facebook friends which have nothing to do with the law or facts of the case.

Who can blame her?