Alex Kozinski litigation saga: the history of recusals. Recusal # 2, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.

In the previous blog post, I described the commencement of a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a court within the mandatory appellate jurisdiction of the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where Judge Alex Kozinski, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, appeared as a party-objector, along with his wife, attorney Marcy J. Tiffany.

I also described the non-disclosure by Alex Kozinski of the "social relationship" and the ex parte communications with the first presiding judge Dean D. Pregerson at the time he filed his and his wife's objections in a case where Judge Dean D. Pregerson was presiding.

Now did Alex Kozinski - or his attorney wife Marcy Tiffany, for that matter - disclosed the fact and contents of the ex parte communications with Judge Dean D. Pregerson on the issue material to litigation.

Nor did Alex Kozinski - or his attorney wife Marcy Tiffany - or Judge Dean D. Pregerson - disclose at any time during litigation that Judge Dean D. Pregerson's father Harry Pregerson is Alex Kozinski's colleague on the 9th Circuit court for 27 years, and a subordinate for 5 years.  

So much for these ethical "forgetfulness" of the three attorneys, two of them federal judges who serve only "during good behavior".

Once again, at no time did Alex Kozinski make a motion to change venue and transfer litigation from the district court that was subordinate to Alex Kozinski's appellate court - and, apparently, nobody else did, most likely because attorneys and judges, being subject to disciplinary authority of Alex Kozinski in his official capacity, were afraid to upset him.

Which tells us a lot about attorneys' and judges' belief in the integrity of their colleagues.

Judge # 2, Beverly Reid O'Connell, was assigned to the case on November 5, 2013, 7 months after being appointed to that court. Apparently, the case was assigned from a social contact and son of a long-time colleague to a novice on the federal bench who was supposed to take the blame for any possible errors in litigation.

At the time of assignment, her court was hopelessly disqualified from presiding over the case, and picking any "replacement" judge from that same court and with appellate jurisdiction remaining in party objector Kozinski's court was putting a torn band-aid upon a whole in a sinking ship.

Judge O'Connell herself was within the disciplinary authority of Alex Kozinski, a completely disqualifying conflict of interest.

Yet, the novice Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell remained on the case from November 5, 2013 (docket of assignment order # 69) to December 19, 2013 (docket of assignment order # 102).

During her 1 1/2 month's assignment to the case 33 filings were made on the docket - that's a record in a civil case.

Alex Kozinski actively made new filings in the case during Judge O'Connell's assignment and argued his opposition to a motion in front of her.

On December 19, 2013 Judge O'Connell filed an "Order of Recusal".  Here it is.

Irreverent teenagers usually have one word adequately describing a reasonable person's reaction after reading this order.

Duh?

All of that is correct, Judge O'Connell, but didn't you know that BEFORE you were assigned to the case and AT THE TIME of your assignment?  What made it so long for you to step down?

That was not the last recusal in the case.  

Who was assigned next, how inappropriate was the process of assignment, how long the newly assigned Judge # 3 served and how he recused, read on in my next blog post.

Stay tuned.

Alex Kozinski litigation saga: the history of recusals. Recusal # 1, Judge Dean D. Pregerson

On 9/24/2012 a group of lawyers filed a class action on behalf of several named plaintiffs as class representatives in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.

The case was about defects of a all-electrical vehicle, NISSAN LEAF.

The case was assigned Case No. 2:12-cv-08238 and two judges (as is the rule in federal cases):

1. Judge Dean D. Pregerson, and
2. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, who is the author of this wonderful document - an article asserting that the "reality" of civil federal litigation is not trials any more, but settlements and motion practice, and that lawyers had better learn that and conform with that "reality".  A scary assertion by a judge who is sworn to abide by the U.S. Constitution which, in its 7th Amendment, clearly provides for a right to a jury trial in federal breach of contract cases, same as many federal statute provide by their clear texts.

Let's note for now that Judge Dean D. Pregerson was appointed to the seat vacated by judge A. Wallace Tashima who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Let's also note that Judge Dean D. Pregerson, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is the son of judge Harry Pregerson, a 92-year-old judge who still works as part of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  Judge Harry Pregerson is the longest serving judge in the history of the 9th Circuit, having served on the bench of the 9th Circuit since November 2, 1979 (for 36 years this year).

Appointment of a son to a court from which appeals go to the father was completely inappropriate, even though the father was by that time relegated to the "Senior" status.  He still was a judge deciding appellate cases from his son's court, which created a huge appearance of imporpriety.

Yet, at the point of assignment Judge Dean D. Pregerson did not recuse himself, nor did he make any disclosures about his father as the judge of the court to which possible appeals will go.

Yet, on 10/15/2013 things became even more complicated when an objector "appeared" in the action, together with his wife.  I will explain in a separate blog why I put "appeared" in quotation marks and what was inappropriate in the way the objector "appeared" in the action.

The name of the objector was Alex Kozinski, the then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a judge who was working with Judge Pregerson's father as his colleague, by the filing time of the lawsuit, for 27 years, and as his superior - for 5 years.

As to Judge Dean D. Pregerson who presided over the case of Alex Kozinski as a party, Alex Kozinski as a Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had the following authority:

(1) appellate authority to reverse Judge Dean D. Pregerson's cases (not necessarily his own) and thus create a bad record of reversals for the judge;

(2) disciplinary authority.

Judge Kozinski, as the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit and Judge Dean D. Pregerson's employer, could also create difficulties for further employment of Judge Dean D. Pregerson's super-elderly father, should Judge Dean D. Pregerson "err" against Judge Kozinski as a party objector.

In his "objections" filed on 10/15/2013 Alex Kozinski and his wife, attorney Marcy Tiffany, made the following frivolous and sanctionable statements:

Any other lawyer would have been sanctioned for such "arguments" because they were:

(1) uncivilized;

(2) contained accusations of bad faith without grounds for it against an attorney;

(3) were frivolous because they claimed the plaintiffs' counsel had to conduct discovery before considering a settlement, which is not the law.

Neither Alex Kozinski nor his wife Marcy Tiffany were sanctioned for the contents of their frivolous objections by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, son of Alex Kozinski's long time colleague (and subordinate at that time) Judge Harry Pregerson.

On 11/05/2013 Alex Kozinski and his wife Marcy Tiffany filed "Amendment to Objections".

That same day, Judge Dean D. Pregerson recused from the case, starting a long string of recusals in that case.

I must note that Alex Kozinski not only knew that he is proceeding as a party in the court that is subordinate to his court and to him personally as the Chief Judge of the federal appellate court in that jurisdiction, but meant to use his influence as the chief appellate judge for that court from the very beginning.

Even though Alex Kozinski did not put that into his "objections", later on, in a video interview published on YouTube on November 14, 2014, after three judges recused and the action was stayed for mediation, Alex Kozinski then admitted that even before he filed his objections, he wanted to file them because he did not want to allow certain issues to be handled in a certain way in his Circuit. 

Alex Kozinski specifically said in the video interview pertaining to his decision to file an objection - "Not in the 9th Circuit" (watch the video at the bottom of the article; if the video interview is promptly removed because of criticism in this blog, I have a copy).

Knowing his power, knowing that he has disciplinary authority over presiding judges - and attorneys - in a case where he appeared as a party, knowing that both judges and attorneys would be afraid to make a motion to transfer venue, it was the obligation of Alex Kozinski, ethically, to make such a motion for transfer because of appearance of impropriety.

Alex Kozinski did not make such a motion and the case proceeded in the Central California District Court.

What floored me were the actual reasons for Judge Dean D. Pregerson's recusal.

Here is the order of Judge Dean D. Pregerson's self-recusal dated November 5, 2013, more than a year after September 24, 2012 when Judge Pregerson was assigned to the case.

As reasons for his self-recusal, Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote:

       "I have a social relationship with the Objectors. 

        Additionally, I have leased an electric vehicle from

        a different manufacturer and I have discussed

        with Objector Kozinski the attributes of objector's

        vehicle."

So, IN ADDITION to disqualifications because 

(1) Judge Dean D. Pregerson's father Judge Harry Pergerson is a judge on the appellate court where potential appeals from Judge Pergerson's decisions will go; and

(2) that "Objector Kozinski" is his father's administrative superior; and

(3) that "Objector Kozinski" is Judge Dean D. Pregerson's disciplinary authority;

Judge Dean D. Pregerson also:

(4) had a social relationship with both Alex Kozinski and his wife;

(5) leased a vehicle similar to the one that was subject of litigation, albeit from another manufacturer; and

(6) Judge Pregerson discussed with Alex Kozinski the "attributes of his vehicle" - the very vehicle defects of which are the subject of litigation.

Wow.

If a judge had a "social relationship" with the Chief Judge of the appellate court to which appeals from the judge's decisions routinely go, WTF (excuse my French) the judge is even DOING in that court, on any cases?

And, Judge Dean D. Pregerson only thought to disclose this "social relationship" with the Chief Judge of the appellate court only over a year into the litigation?

And the same about discussing with a potential class member attributes of a vehicle, thus obtaining extrajudicial knowledge that a judge may not obtain for any litigation?

And - the most interesting thing is that, when filing his and his wife's Objections (they were filed Pro Se, but in the same docket, Docket 50), Alex Kozinski KNEW that he was in a "social relationship" with the presiding judge, and KNEW that he "discussed the attributes" of his vehicle which is subject of litigation, with that presiding judge.

And said nothing - no disclosure to the opposing counsel at all.

Wow.  Wow.  Wow.  The arrogance of the judicial brethren surpasses any imagination.

Yet, there is more to come in the recusal saga within Alex Kozinski litigation saga.

Stay tuned.

The Alex Kozinski litigation saga: if a judge is a litigant in courts subordinate to him, only one rule applies - that no rules apply to that litigant-judge

Judges can be litigants, too, things happen.

And when judges are litigants, they are at least supposed to have same rules apply to them that they invented for others. 

And to follow laws, including case law, that they invented for others.

Not so for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In 2013 Judge Kozinski was a class member of a class lawsuits pertaining to a technical problem with his car.

Judge Kozinski, as a federal judge, regularly affirms dismissals of federal civil rights lawsuits dismissed before any discovery, on insufficiency of pleadings.

The claimed "insufficiency of pleadings" as to certain issues (such as state of mind of civil rights/governmental defendants regarding conspiracy to violate people's constitutional rights) often results from lack of discovery.  The discovery that federal district courts block. 

And federal appellate courts, such as the 9th Circuit over which Judge Kozinski was the Chief Judge at the time of filing his brief, affirm those dismissals, clearly leaving people who were often victims of egregious constitutional violations, without any remedy, moreover, sanctioned and ordered to pay fines and exorbitant legal fees of governmental offenders.

Discovery does play an important role in litigation.

Yet, discovery, especially non-paper discovery, depositions, is also expensive.

And, there is a rule and policy in both state and federal courts, including courts where Judge Kozinski was a part of for decades, favoring settlements - at any stage of litigation, with or without discovery.

Judge Kozinski did know that when he filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Division (Case No. 2:12-cv-8238-BRO-PJW), a frivolous brief (posted here) accusing the lawyers for the class action where he was a class member and had a vested financial interest in its outcome - of not conducting enough discovery before reaching a settlement. 

Somehow, only a foreign news agency dared to describe Judge Kozinski's misconduct, which tells a lot about freedom of press and integrity of mainstream journalism in the U.S. in covering issues of public concern.

Judge Kozinski's arguments, or rather, personal escapades against the lawyers for the class lawsuits, in that brief are, on top of being frivolous, extremely uncivilized and would have garnered any other party sua sponte (on the court's own motion) sanctions under the "inherent power of the court" and under 28 U.S.C. 1927.  

But that would be from an independent court.

The court where the case was heard, where Alex Kozinski was a litigant, was the court directly subordinate to the court where Alex Kozinski was a Chief Judge, including on issues of judicial discipline.

For that reason apparently, Alex Kozinski was never sanctioned.

Alex Kozinski stepped down as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit on December 5, 2014, well into his litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Region (litigation where Alex Kozinski was a party started in 2012).

Alex Kozinski stepped down as Chief Judge not because of appearance of impropriety due to his official duties as the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, and not because, due to his official duties, he had to delegate his authority as the Chief Judge to Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas to appoint a judge in Alex Kozinski's own case, but because his 7-year "Chief Judgeship" term ran out.

Judge Kozinski's replacement as new Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Judge Sidney Thomas, was "coincidentally" the very same judge to whom Alex Kozinski delegated the authority to assign a judge to his own case after several district judges recused and refused assignments to that case because of an obvious and glaring appearance of impropriety.

"Coincidentally", Judge Thomas's wife is, like Judge Kozinski's, an attorney, Martha Sheehy.

Same as Judge Kozinski's wife, Judge Thomas's wife has a different last name from her husband's, obscuring the connection to her judge-husband.  I was unable as yet to verify through available public sources whether she is or has been practicing in her husband's courts. 

After review of documents from the Alex Kozinski class litigation (to be published in separate blogs, stay tuned), the following sad rules appear - if a litigant is a judge in charge of the court where he is litigating as a party, the following new rules apply:

1/ the case remains in that subordinate court;
2/ the judge-party controls assignment of judges and, through his power to discipline those judges, controls the outcome of his case;
3/ normal rules of court as to e-filing, representation, service, motion practice, settlements and sanctions for misconduct against the judge-party do not apply.

I will provide documentary illustrations of the above mentioned new rules created just for Alex Kozinski and his wife in the blogs to follow.

I have just downloaded materials from Alex Kozinski's litigation and am preparing them for presentation in the next blogs.

Stay tuned.

Human-donkey and women-painted-as-cows porn disseminated by a federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski while presiding over an obscenity trial never led to discipline of judge Alex Kozinski. Why?

In 2008, federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski has come under fire and was the subject of scrutiny by an investigative panel because of series of articles in mainstream media (such as this) and in blogs describing the human-donkey porn video the judge posted (his wife claimed, inadvertently), on the Internet.

Alex Kozinski was ardently defended, in consensually published e-mails, by his wife, a California attorney Marcy Tiffany (interesting how judge's wives have a different name - so that people unfamiliar with the marital situation of the attorney would not see a potential for conflicts of interest).

A prominent attorney found that an image of "a fat man running from a donkey with an erection" is not an image of bestiality and was protecting Alex Kozinski from what the attorney believed (or at least expressed) to be a journalistic faux pas.

That prominent attorney apparently took upon himself something he, upon my research of him, was not qualified for - diagnosing a mental illness.

Bestiality, or zoophilia is described in DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental health disorders, 5th Edition) on page 705 as an "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder" with an assigned code of 302,89 (F65.89).  DSM (previous and current editions) is a reference source I regularly use in cross-examination of experts in court.

Here is the quote from the description of that mental health disorder:

         "... Examples of presentations that can be
              specified using the "other specified" designation
         inculde, but are not limited to, recurrent and intense
         sexual arousal involving ... zoophilia (animals)...
         that has been present for at least 6 months and
         causes marked distress or impairment in social,
         occupational, or other important areas of
         functioning".

Now, all we know is that Judge Kozinski kept on his "family computer" and published on the Internet images from YouTube of a man running away from a donkey with an erection. 

We do not know whether Alex Kozinski was aroused by those pictures, whether that arousal as to donkeys was present for 6 months and whether it caused marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of the judge's functioning.  That was for authorities to verify.

Judge Kozinski's wife, California attorney Marcy J. Tiffany (who was practicing in Judge Kozinski's court and whose livelihood heavily depended, as an attorney and as a wife, on Judge Kozinski keeping his position) ardently and publicly defended her husband, claiming that the images in question were just "funny" and that "sometimes funny has a sexual character".

A man running from an aroused donkey.  Funny.  To an judge-attorney couple.  To the point of keeping the image on the "family computer" and disseminating it to friends on the Internet.

In her e-mail, Marcy J. Tiffany inadvertently advertised the website/blog of an attorney/litigant who, Marcy J. Tiffany claimed, was behind the "smear campaign" against her husband.

The website posted correct analysis of incorrect decisions by the Ninth Circuit.

Marcy J. Tiffany (or her husband under her name) found it to be good grounds to attack the attorney who posted, once again, correct legal analysis of incorrect decisions of HER HUSBAND's appellate court in order to protect her husband who posted on the Internet human-donkey porn while presiding over an obscenity trial.

Very appropriate, nice balance, nice publicity, or rather, anti-publicity, for her husband.

And, a nice appearance of impropriety since the letter allegedly authored by Marcy J. Tiffany could be just as well authored by Judge Kozinski, for all the detail about the attorney who is allegedly "behind" the "smear campaign".

Alex Kozinski reportedly recused from the obscenity trial where he was presiding while having on this computer and sharing with friends human-donkey "funny" porn - but only AFTER the "controversy" was widely publicized.

Alex Kozinski reportedly even asked to investigate himself (see the same blog, but both links in the blog now "coincidentally" lead to empty pages). 

All we know is that after this "self-requested" "investigation", Judge Kozinski was "rebuked, but not formally disciplined", kept his law license, his judgeship and his chief judgeship on the federal appellate court which he himself called, correctly, one of the most powerful courts in the country.

Since Alex Kozinski remained the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit until 2014, for 6 more years after the "investigation", apparently, what he did was not found inappropriate.

And the issue whether the "humorous and witty" Judge Kozinski has a diagnosable mental health disorder which may prevent him from proper functioning as a judge remains outstanding - and very much a public issue.

The issue is not that a person views porn.  For good or for bad, it is legal.

The issue is that that person happens to be a judge who is often imposing his views and judgment on a vast community.

As one of the commentators to the blog with broken links has stated:

There was apparently not only man-donkey porn displayed by Judge Kozinski on the Internet, and kept on his "family computer".

"The issue is that I hold our federal judges to higher standard; a judge who finds it funny to see women painted as farm animals in a sexual position does not instill confidence".

I couldn't have put it better.

Wives of judges as successful litigators in their husbands' courts

It has come to my attention that the wife of an active-status federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski, California attorney Marcy J. Tiffany,  advertises her law firm and herself as "successfully" practicing in courts from which appeals are taken to her husband's court and in her husband's court.

It is illustrious that Judge Alex Kozinski was the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit from 2007 to 2014.

It is also illustrious that the "seasoned litigator" Marcy J. Tiffany successfully litigated before her husband's court, including the time period when her husband was the Chief Judge of that court.

I do not doubt for a second that Ms. Tiffany litigates successfully in her husband's courts and in courts where judges are depending for their reputations and reversal records upon decisions of Ms. Tiffany's husband's court.

Ms. Tiffany's shining example of practicing in courts where such practice raises huge conflict of interest issues, reminds me of another wife of a judge.

That is New York attorney Ellen L. Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma who practices in front of close-to-retirement judges assigned to her cases by her husband or her husband's subordinates, while her husband controls distribution of post-retirement perks, thus holding in front of these judges a stick with a banana tied to it.

Alex Kozinski is being paraded by the cream of the cream of the legal community as "one of America's most prominent jurists". 

Even though allowing his wife and his wife's law firm to "successfully" litigate in his own court does not seem to appear to the legal community, and law professors' community, as impeachable behavior for a federal appellate judge and a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for federal judges.

With the exception that it is not "appropriate" for lawyers and law professors to talk about "such things" as judicial misconduct and what appears as a conflict of interest. 

It is interesting to mention that Judge Michael Coccoma was recently promoted by New York Chief Judge Lippman to become  Statewide Administrative Judge for Fiduciary Matters, that was announced in Judge Lippman's State of the Judiciary address for the year 2015:

 

And that appointment was, by the way, right after a lawsuit for fraud and fraud upon the court against Michael Coccoma AND his wife Ellen Coccoma was dismissed by a federal court, by yet another Chief Judge, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe.

 

"Coincidentally", at the time of litigation and dismissal, Judge Sharpe's son Michael Aaron Sharpe was employed by the New York State Attorney General, the law office representing Michael Coccoma in that lawsuit. 

 

By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed on "absolute judicial immunity grounds", without reaching the merits of the case, so whether Michael Coccoma did or did not commit fraud upon the court remained subject to inquiry by disciplinary authorities.

 

So, what can beginning law students and those who consider career in law discern from this little pattern?

It is good to marry a judge - it is a path to a successful career.

 

When you are a judge, your conflicts of interest will not be even mentioned by the legal community, and you will be relentlessly (and shamelessly) promoted instead of disciplined.

 

But, the question of a disciplinary inquiry and impeachment for both of these "prominent" judges remains open.

 

Will authorities dare to touch them?

 

Integrity of Judge John F. Lambert continues to slide

At this time, the Otsego County Judge John F. Lambert is presiding over two cases: 

• the civil case in the Delaware County Supreme Court of Barbara O'Sullivan against officer Derek Bowie of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (where Judge Lambert regularly rules in favor of Bowie no matter even though the law favors the Pro Se Plaintiff Barbara O'Sullivan), and
• the criminal case in the Delaware County Court of People v. Barbara O'Sullivan brought against Ms. O'Sullivan instead of against Derek Bowie by the employer of Derek Bowie's uncle, the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup.

While Judge Lambert could at least pretend that he did not know of the disqualification of the Delaware County District Attorney before August 24, 2015, after he was served with Richard Northrup sworn admission that Jeffrey J. Bowie is, indeed,

(1) the prosecutor's own employee, and
(2) the main witness's and the alleged victim's uncle,

Judge Lambert cannot pretend lack of knowledge any longer.

Here is the cover letter that accompanied Richard Northrup's verified Answer to Barbara O'Sullivan's Petition for a writ of prohibition in the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department:

After having received a sworn statement by a prosecutor in a case indicating that the prosecutor has the appearance of representing the PRIVATE interests of the Bowie family in a criminal prosecution against Derek Bowie's victim, the allegedly Honorable Judge Lambert had and still has the power to:

(1) recuse from the case;
(2) dismiss the indictment sua sponte (on his own motion) as being brought by a disqualified prosecutor.

Judge Lambert did not do either of those two things.

He staunchly and now knowingly continues to preside over a case that heads for trial and may have a potential of putting an innocent disabled woman and a victim of misconduct of a close relative of the prosecutor's employee in prison for 7 years, and at the time when that same prosecutor refuses to prosecute that same relative for an earlier assault on that same innocent disabled woman.

Unlike often gigantic District Attorney's offices in more populated counties, in Delaware County, the District Attorney's office counts 3 lawyers, two secretaries - and investigator Jeff Bowie.

The entire office is contained in a small "suite" that consists of Richard Northrup's very small study, a room with office equipment outside that study with two desks for the two secretaries, and a 2nd-story loft with two tables for the other two prosecutors, John Hubbard and Marybeth Dumont.

It is an extremely close relationship, office personnel is closely bonded and Richard Northrup depends on investigations of Jeff Bowie in his daily work.

It is apparent that Richard Northrup does not want to upset his valuable employee and, likely, a friend, with a prosecution of his nephew that may end the nephew's career in the police force, brand him as a violent felon and, potentially, send him to prison for many years.

It is apparent that even an appearance that Richard Northrup's discretionary decisions not to prosecute his employee's relative and instead to prosecute that relative's victim are dictated by Richard Northrup's feelings toward his employee and his desire to preserve harmony in his working relationship with that employee, should have immediately disqualified Richard Northrup from the case.

Nor does Judge Lambert, a former recent prosecutor out of Otsego County who, likely, is also in a friendly relationship with Richard Northrup, a prosecutor from an adjoining county, want to undermine his friendly relationship with Richard Northrup over Barbara O'Sullivan.

It is apparent from Ms. O'Sullivan's two cases currently pending in front of Lambert that fairness falls through the cracks in Judge Lambert's courtroom, the rule of law falls through the cracks, and the only thing that matters to both Judge Lambert and Richard Northrup are, apparently, the old boys' ties.

I encourage the public to petition the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to investigate Judge Lambert's behavior in Barbara O'Sullivan's two cases and to have him disciplined for having the two cases to be ruled, instead of the rule of law, by the law of connections, further undermining the already disappearing public trust in the integrity of judiciary in New York State.

If you think that Barbara O'Sullivan's case does not concern you, New Yorkers, it does.

Judge Lambert is young and can remain on the bench for another 30 years or so.

If he continues on the bench, his misconduct will only get worse, while he is getting up on the administrative ladder.

You never know when you may have appear in the future in front of Judge John F. Lambert, in a civil or criminal matter - John Lambert is also an Acting Supreme Court Justice, presiding over a variety of civil cases, and a Family and Surrogate's Court judge assigned to cases in several counties.

So, it is not entirely unlikely that Judge Lambert will at some point be assigned to your case, or cases of your friends and relatives - and, naturally, he will act the way he acts now and will apply to you and your loved ones the same "law of connections" as he is applying to Barbara O'Sullivan.

He needs to be stopped now, before he, and his old boy buddies whom he favors, ruin more lives - possibly, yours included.

Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup confirmed under oath that Derek Bowie's uncle works for his office as an investigator

I now have in my possession two documents that show misconduct of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and of the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup who is currently running for a judge in Delaware County.

Here are the documents.

The first one is an affidavit from the Meredith Town Judge.

The second one is a sworn Answer by Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup to the Petition for a Writ of Prohibition by Barbara O'Sullivan against Judge Lambert of Delaware County.

On page 1 in paragraph 3 of the Answer Richard Northrup admits that he employes Derek Bowie's uncle as an investigator in his office.

On the same page in paragraph 5 Richard Northrup denies that employing the uncle of the alleged victim of Barbara O'Sullivan as to events of September 18, 2014 (who is also a perpetrator of a deadly crime against Barbara O'Sullivan on September 5, 2014 which is "coincidentally" not prosecuted by Richard Northrup's office) disqualified him from prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan.

Richard Northrup explanation of his position is that Derek Bowie's uncle allegedly did not participate in the investigation of Barbara O'Sullivan and that Richard Northrup did not talk to Jeff Bowie about Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

The point though is not whether Richard Northrup had conversations with Jeff Bowie about prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan or not, but whether there was an appearance that Richard Northrup made a decision to prosecute the victim of his employee's nephew instead of his employee's nephew for the benefit of his employee.

Richard Northrup knows rules of disqualification very well.  He regularly steps down from cases where there is even an appearance of impropriety.

Yet, in this case, he sticks to it like glue, being fully aware that his continued prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan looks increasingly political and increasingly self-serving and serving the Bowie clan rather than the People of the State of New York and of the Delaware County.
 

I will remind my readers of the situation with Derek Bowie.

===

1.  On September 5, 2014 Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Bowie commits a crime of vehicular assault and attempted murder of Barbara O'Sullivan on her property, by intentionally smashing Barbara O'Sullivan with an open door of a moving police vehicle while backing up into her.  At the time of assault Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping misconduct of Derek Bowie, and Derek Bowie was trying to smash the tablet in Barbara O'Sullivan's hands, even at the expense of her life.

2.  That same night, Derek Bowie, who obviously did not report the incident with the vehicular assault which left Barbara O'Sullivan injured and shaken, to his authorities. 

Instead, he arrested Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter, and brought her for an "arraignment" to the Meredith Town Court (even though the arrest warrant was from a Family Court on an Article 6, child custody proceeding - and Family Court does not have criminal jurisdiction, and admitted as of August 31, 2014 that it had no jurisdiction even over the custody proceedings).

In Meredith Town Court, according to a sworn statement of Judge Field, Derek Bowie showed an attitude to the judge and adamantly required that Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter be incarcerated despite the judge's order to release her on her own recognizance.  The judge refused to change his order.

At the time of his "strong suggestion" to the judge to jail the daughter, Derek Bowie was already disqualified from handling cases of both mother and daughter because he committed a crime against the mother.

The portion of the audio file with that portion of the arraignment went mysteriously "missing" from the judge's court-assigned laptop, raising questions as to who exactly tampered with evidence to destroy proof of retaliatory behavior of Derek Bowie against the daughter of his victim.

Yet, the Meredith Town Justice, in an extraordinary step, provided an affidavit to the young lady explaining at least that Derek Bowie adamantly insisted on setting the bail for Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter, even after the judge already released the young lady on her own recognizance.   Derek Bowie explained his desire to put Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter in jail, right after he assaulted Barbara O'Sullivan with his vehicle, because, as the judge states in his affidavit, he was planning on September 5, 2014 to bring more charges against Barbara O'Sullivan's daughter.  The judge still released the young lady.

3.  Derek Bowie remained on the team investigating both Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter, he was not taken off duty and was not investigated for his misconduct of September 5, 2014.  Delaware County Sheriff did not even try to talk to Barbara O'Sullivan and verify circumstances of assault by its employee upon her with the of a deadly weapon - a police vehicle. 

4.  On September 18, 2014, Derek Bowie showed up on Barbara O'Sullivan's property, with arrest warrants against her and her daughter on charges that Derek Bowie promised to bring to the Meredith Town Justice on September 5, 2014, right after his assault on Barbara O'Sullivan.

Derek Bowie did file such charges, which he was disqualified to file because he was involved in a crime committed at that same time.

Yet, Derek Bowie did file charges and did obtain arrest warrants of both Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter from the Delhi Town Justice Richard Gumo (recently disciplined for misconduct).  Richard Gumo is a judge who considers it appropriate for himself to host Christmas parties for local public officials and people connected with them.  Richard Gumo had as a guest at such a Christmas party Barbara O'Sullivan's estranged brother Peter Bracci whom Barbara O'Sullivan sued on allegations of wrongful death of her father and fraudulent depletion of her father's Estate.

Issuing the warrants and presiding over cases of Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter under the circumstances looked like a direct favor to Peter Bracci by Judge Gumo - as well as a favor to the District Attorney's office that employed Derek Bowie's uncle.

Moreover, the prosecuted who handled the felony hearing in front of Judge Gumo was John Hubbard who, according to my information from a reliable source, is related by marriage with Barbara O'Sullivan's other estrange, her sister Mary Bracci Hallock who was also a defenant in the wrongful death lawsuit.

John Hubbard personally admitted the relationship to Barbara O'Sullivan, but did not do that at the time he was handling the felony hearing.

The fact that the District Attorney Richard Northrup, the current judicial candidate, picked Derek Bowie as a victim instead of a perpetrator of a violent crime against Barbara O'Sullivan committed earlier than any alleged acts of Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie, and is now prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan practically on behalf of his employee, shows voters in Delaware County what they can expect from Ricahrd Northrup once he gets on the bench as a judge.

It is going to be the law of connections, the law of kissing cousins and local clans, and not the law of the State of New York that Richard Northrup will be applying on the bench.

Don't let Richard Northrup occupy that bench.  It will be a 10+ year disaster for you and will mean destruction of many lives in order to please people with whom Richard Northrup is connected.

And, the question remains as to how a portion of the audio file disappeared from Judge William Field's computer, in the Meredith Town Court.

I believe, an investigation is in order as to how did that happen - did the judge or his employee simply erase a portion of the arraignment file to eliminate the proof of just how "strongly" Derek Bowie "suggested" to put the daughter of the victim of his criminal behavior in jail, in sheer abuse of his power as a police officer. 

Audio recording in justice courts is usually conducted through the judge's laptop equipped with a special recording software.  Normally, only the judge and the clerk of the court must have access to that computer.  There is no explanation as to why a portion, and a specific portion of the audio file disappeared from the judge's computer.  I wonder if any authorities will investigate what happened with the recorded audio file - how it happened and, actually, WHO happened TO that file.

Stay tuned as to how Richard Northrup shamelessly continues to make "discretionary" decisions not to prosecute his employee's nephew for a vehicular assault and attempted murder, but instead to prosecute his employee's nephew's victim in a case fabricated by his employee's nephew against his victim.

It would have cost Derek Bowie his job and career had Richard Northrup prosecuted him for what he did to Barbara O'Sullivan.

Barbara O'Sullivan is a retired and disabled corrections officer, and Richard Northrup does not care a rat's ass as to what will happen to her - all he wanted to do is to protect the relative of his employee from a disaster.

Corruption in Delaware County is such a routine thing that Richard Northrup, apparently, does not even recognize it (or at least pretends not to recognize it) when it is screaming back at him from the mirror.

Yet, for normal reasonable people, Richard Northrup's corrupted prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan is very obvious.

And that corrupted prosecution should prevent Richard Northrup from getting on the bench, should cost him his law license and should get him criminally prosecuted.