"Community services" contracts in Delaware County, NY are automatically renewed by Chairman Eisel for years, and no new contractors are sought

If any of the residents of Delaware County, NY, would refuse to pay County taxes, his or her home will be taken by the County in foreclosure.

Yet, after taking his taxes, the County is engaged in distributing taxpayer money to the same "vendors" of services for 30 years, without any oversight.

Here is yet another example of it, received by me from the NYS Comptroller's office on a FOIL request (Delaware County stalled my FOIL request for the same records).

So - "Cindy ... was not aware of any fraud, misconduct or abuse in her department".  Renewing contracts without bidding and seeking no new vendors is not "fraud, misconduct or abuse" in "Cindy's" mind.  Because if Cindy starts asking questions of proppriety and legality as to what she, Mr. Eisel and County attorney Porter Kirkwood are doing - she will no longer be employed by Delaware County.

The tribal system of contract distribution should end, otherwise your county taxes exacted out of you at the threat of foreclosure on your home, are going to overpriced services of friends and relatives of the Delaware County government.

The tribal 30-year automatic-renewal contract system in Delaware County, NY

I wrote in this blog previously about public documents I received from the NYS Comptroller's office pertaining to its audit of Delaware County and its no-bid contracts.

In the previous blog, the interview of Supervisor Miller revealed certain specific improprieties in contracts:  specifically, that a contract with the coroner was at inflated prices because the coroner was Mr. Eisel's (Board Chairman's) friend, and improprieties regarding contracts about the Treadwell school buildings, for the same reason, because the dealings were with Mr. Eisel's friends.

I did not see anything in the records of audit provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's office indicating that the NYS Comptroller continued its investigation into that direction, but I saw claims that "no abuse or fraud were found" in other departments, after a statement that contracts were not bid to the public, as they were supposed to.

I continue to post public records provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's office.

Here is the report of the interview from the Department for the aging.

So, "the department has many contracts with various agencies in the area".   Yet, there is no disclosure, what kind of "agencies" exist in the area that have contracts with Delaware County, while Supervisor Miller already disclosed in her interview how contracts are being done - through friendship with Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Eisel.

By the way, I did not see anywhere in the report that disclosures by Mr. Eisel were made about contracting the County business to his friends.

The next thing is the lack of bidding.

The explanation is hilarious - yet somehow swallowed by the NYS Comptroller's office.

The declared reasons for not bidding contracts publicly and for striking deals for those contracts with friends behind closed doors at inflated prices, are as follows:

• Delaware County's large size;
• Smallness of population;
• Lack of economic resources;
• County feels fortunate to find (how?) one vendor "within a reasonable geographic distance".

That's why contracts are automatically renewed based on County's "history with that vendor".

Wow.

The County supervisors obviously do not get through their heads that the "small population" and the "lack of economic resources" adds up to a "small population OF not-so-wealthy TAXPAYERS" requiring the County to engage in efforts to save every penny wherever possible, and the only mechanism to do that is through public bidding of contracts.

The interview reflects that Delaware County did not bid out contracts FOR 30 YEARS.  

That means that public contracts were bid before - apparently, before the largest contractor of Delaware County, the Delaware Opportunities, Inc. was established, where supervisors participate as board members (and likely get favors from subcontractors of services).

So, while economists say that competition is good for lowering prices and diversifying services, Delaware County says that a 30-year monopoly of one vendor per type of contract is good for Delaware County taxpayers - because there are not a lot of them and because they are poor.

In fact, because there are not a lot of taxpayers and because they are poor, Delaware County hopes that taxpayers will not have enough clout to sue the County and its supervisors for fraud and abuse that NYS Comptroller's auditors may have been paid not to find - otherwise they could not, in good faith, find "no fraud and abuse" without even pursuing the leads given in those same interviews.

We are not talking pennies here.

We are talking millions of dollars in contracts which are habitually, over the period of 30 years, being awarded to the same vendors, without bidding, in a county with "small population" that "lacks economic resources"!

"Budgeted appropriations" in 2014 alone were 129 million dollars and none of them - none! - were bid to the public!

I bet that the County could get a lot more services for that budget had it bid those appropriations out.

Maybe, then, the County government would have found out that over 30 years things change, new people are born and grow into adulthood or come into the area who can provide new services, new technologies develop, and it is not appropriate to automatically renew contracts given 30 years ago to the same bidder, obviously based on some "friendly" connections to officials within the Delaware County government.

I lived in Delaware County for 17 years.

My husband lived in Delaware County for over 40 years.

Both of us practiced law in the county for a long time, my husband longer than me, and through bits and pieces, through statements of clients, friends and acquaintances and through occasional documents provided in discovery in court cases, we came to the conclusion long time ago that Delaware County government is not a democratic entity - it is a tribal entity.  

Relatives and friends are hired throughout the County, the County does not have an anti-nepotism policy, and I am sure that the no-bid contracting system is as tribal as the County employment policies. 

If you ask that question directly under FOIL - to list all relatives and friends working in the County, you will not get any information, because such information is not "FOIL-able".  

I guess, legislation should be changed to change that.  Because that information directly pertains to issues of public concern, to corruption and waste of taxpayer funds through 30-year no-bid automatically renewed contracts awarding taxpayer money - your money - to the select members of the tribe.  

By the way, Delaware County still stalls me and refuses to show me those "automatically renewable" contracts.

I urge Delaware County taxpayers to demand disclosure of the names of the vendors and to publish those renewable contracts on the County website - and to announce public bidding.

The interesting question, to me, is - why NYS Comptroller did not expand its audit into the 30-year period and why it did not publish the names of the vendors?

Because of "scarce economic resources" of his office, or because his office was properly "motivated" by Delaware County?

No wonder New York is losing people to other states... The level of corruption is simply disgusting.


 

 

Occupational licensing hurts the U.S. economy - opting-out provisions to occupational licensing for individual consumers and their chosen providers are the easiest way to solve the problem

In July of 2015, the U.S. President's Department of the Treasury Office of Economic Policy, together with the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Department of Labor,  published a report regarding the state of occupational licensing in the United States.  

The report paints a very scary picture of what occupational licensing does to the economy of the U.S. and to people's livelihoods.   I encourage my readers to read the report in full, it is quite interesting.

I especially encourage supporters of Bernie Sanders to read this report.   Senator Sanders claims he will create jobs for average Americans if elected president.  I do not know how he will fulfill that promise when over 25% (and, by other sources, over 30%) of the U.S. job force is regulated by state governments, over which the President has no control.

Here is a very illustrative paragraph from the report:

 So, the federal government practically openly acknowledges that occupational licensing of professions by states which is always declared to be done in order to protect consumers of services, but is in reality lobbied by those same professions as a measure to restrict competition and keep prices of services higher than they are worth in a free market, in reality hurts the U.S. economy, hurts people and prevents them from having an ability to properly provide for their families and from obtaining services they need at affordable prices.

I wonder when the federal government will go further than stating the problem and what it will do to address it. 

I already wrote in this blog about my position as a consumer of services that are licensed by the government:  as a competent adult, I have a right of free choice of service providers for my personal use and for the use by my household and family.

If the government wants to give me help in verifying qualifications and quality of work of such providers, I have a right to say to the government - no, thank you, I do not need your help.   

And, the government certainly has no right to punish me with a criminal record for "aiding and abetting" or "soliciting" "unauthorized practice" of a licensed profession because I rejected the government's help.

The opting-out provisions for individual consumers and their chosen providers to occupational licensing may undo this problem of the U.S. economy, and quite easily.   And, such opting-out provisions will not hurt consumers who want occupational licensing to remain in place.  People will simply have a choice - to go with a licensed or with an unlicensed provider, to accept or to reject help in verifying quality of services by the government.

It is very simple.  When you are offered help, you can say - "no, thank you, I'll manage on my own".  Even if the helper is the government.
 

Florida's conflicting "compelling interests": maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and protecting corrupt judges from criticism and discipline

A protestor was arrested on public property with a sign protesting certain actions of the government.

That was a classic 1st Amendment activity that was not subject to any punishment from the government.

Yet, the government wanted to punish the protestor.

The way to do that was to lie to the criminal jury that the protestor was trespassing on private property rather than that he was on public property and, as a taxpayer and co-owner of public property, could not possibly be "trespassing" on it.

But, that the protestor was on private and not public property would have been perjury.

And, to introduce such perjury in court would have been a crime.

And, a criminal defendant who knew he was on public property would have been entitled to point out that crime of perjury by stating to the jury - "I was on public property, and the People's witness is lying", and offer documentary proof, and witness accounts that the location where the protestor was peacefully standing with a sign was public property.

So - what was the government to do to still introduce perjurous testimony and still get the conviction for trespass on public property?

The government needed a corrupt judge.

And the government got two such judges - one who the criminal defendant from introducing the truthful statements that he was standing on public property with the protest sign when arrested, and the second one who added to the corruption of the first by issuing an administrative order threatening to arrest anybody who would stand, again, on public property holding signs accusing the first one of corruption.

Here are the names of the heroes of this story that happened recently in Florida.

The protestor's name is Michale Hoffman, member of a group called "Photography is Not a Crime" (PINAC).

The name of the first corrupt judge is Duval County judge Brent Shore who granted prosecution's "motion in limine" (motion to exclude) truthful testimony of criminal defendant that he was on public property, peacefully holding a protest sign and that his activity is fully protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here is the motion to exclude of the prosecution.

Two public prosecutors, State Attorney Angela B. Corey and her deputy attorney Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez signed this plea to the court to allow perjurous testimony and to block the truth from being heard by the jury.

They requested the court to block the truth because that truth could be "highly prejudicial to the State in the minds of the jury".

Attorneys Corey and Hernandez acknowledged in a sworn statement to the court that the defendant will be seeking to introduce at trial evidence on three issues:

1/  that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment;
2/ that "the property Defendant was located on and trespassed was a public forum" ;
3/ that the Aviation Authority trespass warning violated Florida public records law.

In other words, attorneys Corey and Hernandez asked the judge to prevent the criminal defendant from countering perjurous evidence that attorneys Corey and Hernandez were seeking to introduce at trial to establish "trespassing" to a criminal jury.

The motion could be plainly worded like that:  judge, why wouldn't you allow us to introduce perjury by blocking defendant from introducing the truth - because we will not be able to prove our case if the jury hears the truth.

The judge said - ok, of course, and blocked Michael Hoffman from introducing evidence that he was on public property and that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment. 

Of course, blocking a criminal defendant from effectively confronting a perjurous witness would be a violation of the criminal defendant's due process of law and his 6th Amendment right to effectively confront a perjurous witness.

Even then, the jury was initially deadlocked, and a juror sent a note to the judge asking whether it was illegal to protest on public property.

Judge Shore whose duty was to give all applicable laws to the jury, refused to do his duty and refused to answer that question.

Moreover, after Judge Shore obtained unlawful conviction by:

1. unlawfully refusing to grant a motion to dismiss;
2. unlawfully granting a motion in limine;
3. unlawfully blocking truthful evidence at trial and
4. refusing to do his duty by refusing to give the law to the juror as to whether it was illegal to remain on public property with a protest sign

Judge Shore included into the sentencing of Michale Hoffman a prohibition to participate in 1st Amendment protests, so the very same evidence that was blocked from the jury as "prejudicial" to the prosecution, was used to impose the criminal sentence.

Were judge Shore's actions corrupt?

Clearly appears that way.

Here is Judge Shore's picture, so that you can see our self-complacent and very likely corrupt hero.  

 

And of course, Judge Shore worked in the same office that asked him to allow them to prove their criminal case by perjury while blocking confrontation of the perjurous witness, in violation of the 6th Amendment.

Judge Shore gets $138,000 a year from taxpayers (including Michale Hoffman) for his unlawful activity of drumming up wrongful convictions based on perjury.

Here is the picture of state attorney Angela Corey who obtained from the judge permission to prove a criminal case by perjury.

She is listed as a religious person.  Her religion allows her to solicit perjury and fabricate criminal cases, relying on judge-created absolute prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts during prosecution of criminal cases and the unwritten policy of the Florida Bar of never disciplining criminal prosecutors for attorney misconduct.

Corey apparently has a history with attorney misconduct and perjury.

Attorney professor Alan Dershowitz called for Corey's disbarment in 2013 when she submitted what he called a false affidavit in the famous Zimmerman case.

Corey was also reported to have overcharge people in order to drum up guilty pleas, to obtain 20-year sentences for self-defense in what was called a case fraught with instititutional racism, in charging a 12-year-old child as an adult on a "felony-murder" theory (a theory that he was present as part of the team when another member of the team committed murder).

And, that Corey enhanced without authority her own pension and gave illegal bonuses to her staff - I wonder whether the bonuses were for drumming up wrongful convictions.

Quite a history.

The second attorney who obtained permission to commit perjury under Angela Corey's authority, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez, was not even supposed to prosecute cases at the time she prosecuted Michael Hoffman's case, because she herself was under investigation for "domestic battery", from which her boss Angela Corey recused.  To allow a person under criminal investigation to prosecute crimes is something else.

According to her personal LinkedIn profile, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez graduated from law school in 2013, just 2 years before she tried Michale Hoffman's case:

 
Kathleen Hernandez was admitted to practice law in September of 2014 and had less than a year of experience as a lawyer when she prosecuted Michale Hoffman.

And, with a charge for domestic battery and the history of obtaining permission from the court to prove a criminal case by fabricated evidence - and actually fabricating the case at trial - Kathleen Hernandez has no record of public discipline.

So, this was the "dream team" that drummed up the wrongful conviction of Michale Hoffman by blocking the jury from knowing the relevant evidence and the relevant law.

The "dream team" had a higher protector, Chief administrative judge of Florida's 4th Judicial Circuit judge Mark Mahon.

To quash protests against corruption in Michale Hoffman's case, and in continuation of the circus that the State Attorney Corey started by charging and prosecuting Michale Hoffman for trespassing on public property by peacefully holding a protest sign, Judge Mahon issued two administrative orders, one in March of 2015 and another in July of 2015.

Here is the March 5, 2015 order of Judge Mahon where Judge Mahon defines what is and what is not news media and introduces paid "Media Authorization Cards" and a burdensome procedure to prove that those who want to videotape a public trial (which is allowed by Florida law) are, indeed, "media" in Judge Mahon's understanding.

Here is the order of July 1, 2015.

In his July 1, 2015 order, Judge Mahon clearly brands speech criticizing judges as "unprotected" speech and proclaims his purpose of protecting "integrity" of the judiciary - by arresting critics of judicial corruption.

Really, sometimes you need to give people enough rope to hang themselves.

For a self-important tyrant which is what the majority of judges become with years of impunity for malicious and corrupt acts and no discipline and accountability whatsoever, you only need to give him a forum to make a complete idiot of himself - which is what Judge Mahon did with his July 1, 2015 order.

And, being a "third generation attorney", apparently filled Judge Mahon with a huge sense of entitlement, but did not prevent Judge Mahon from making, once again, a complete idiot of himself in his profusely worded order that had little sense.

Judge Mahon even advertised in his order of July 1, 2015 the youtube videos that he did not want people to see.

Here they are:

Interview with the "main media" posted on YouTube.

This footage includes videotaping of the "main media" attending a press conference of what appears to be the prosecutors where reporters walk right by a person who tells them he is a 15-year fraud investigator and who offers them evidence of corruption in the courthouse.  Actually, one female reporter told the person with evidence of judicial corruption to talk to her manager.  It appears that the reporters had a directive from their managers not to gather certain types of materials for their news coverage.

Also, the footage shows that court security officers allowed reporters with video-cameras to videotape state attorney's press-conference right in front of the courthouse's door, but ordered the person videotaping that conference to leave and requiring him to provide a "press pass".

The security officer who required the video reporter to leave is arrogantly chewing gum, open-mouthed (disgusting!) right into the camera and refuses to reveal his name and badge number as required by law.

 Three other officers who formed a wall before the video reporter gave their names and badge numbers.  The gum-chewing officer gave his name, separately, and badge number, separately, only after being threatened to be turned into Internal Affairs for discipline.

Here is the video of the "secure parking garage" that allegedly posed security concerns.  It is still publicly available on YouTube and not ordered pulled from it.  Had it presented security concerns, it would not have been allowed to stay in the public domain.

By the way, note in the order that representatives of mainstream media were, for some reason, packed in the secure parking area reserved for the State Attorney (prosecution).   So much for the "independent" media coverage.

Please, note also that in his July 1, 2015 order Judge Mahon lumped prosecutors and law enforcement officers together with judges in his reference to the Florida record access statute which made an exemption to the judiciary.

Actually, Judge Mahon should know as a lawyer and a jurist that prosecutors and law enforcement officers are part of an executive branch.

Yet, advocacy of the judge for the prosecutor and law enforcement officers who were insuring that criminal trial will be held on perjurous evidence inside the courthouse, has nothing to do with ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial.
 

Judge Mahon quickly rescinded his order on July 7, 2015, but only after he was sued, see docket report of the federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge Mahon based on the order.

In rescinding the order directing to arrest any person engaged in constitutionally protected activity on public grounds outside the courthouse, Judge Mahon stated that the reason for the unconstitutional July 1, 2015 order (for which he was sued and which was rescinded as soon as he was sued) was to allegedly protect the unnamed defendants' right to a fair trial.  

Yet, if that was the reason, Judge Mahon shouldn't have been swayed by a lawsuit, shouldn't have rescinded the order and should have stood his ground.

In reality, his order was doing the opposite - trying to protect the prosecution's permission received from Judge Shore to an unfair trial based on fabricated evidence against defendant Michale Hoffman, and protests actually enhanced Michale Hoffman's chance to a fair trial.

Moreover, the text of the July 1, 2015 order (above) plainly speaks for itself and has nothing to do with fairness of trial for defendants, but has everything to do with protection of judges and court personnel from criticism for corruption.  

Prohibition to photograph judges and their cars was laughable since the same buildings, vehicles and individuals whose photographing was prohibited could be videotaped and photographed and seen through Google Maps photography, without any restrictions.

And, defendant Michale Hoffman would only benefit by the videotaping, as it would be evidence of judicial, prosecutorial and police corruption.

The bottom line.

Judge Mahon was not publicly disciplined.

Judge Shore was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Corey was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Hernandez was not publicly disciplined.

Michale Hoffman was publicly convicted of a crime of trespass on public property (!!) as a result of corrupt efforts of the four above mentioned "public servants" highly paid by the taxpayers of the State of Florida, and now Mr. Hoffman must fight and pay his way through appellate courts to have the fabricated conviction reversed.

Coincidentally, on April 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of discipline against a Florida attorney who solicited funds for her judicial election campaign.

In affirming the judgment of discipline, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated the following:

"Florida's interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary is compelling".

Here is some additional information from the Florida Bar's website about the case.

So, the same state of Florida whose State Attorney asked Judge Shore and received permission from him to fabricate a criminal case, and who did fabricate a criminal case with Judge Shore's help, had apparently a compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary.

And, in order to maintain that public confidence, Judge Mahon issued an "administrative order" threatening to arrest anyone who would say that a judge is corrupt, even if that statement is made during a peaceful 1st Amendment protest on public property and was based on clear evidence of such corruption.

I wonder whether people in the State of Florida will actually demand and insist on discipline for judges Shore and Mahon and for prosecutors Corey and Hernandez.

"Photography Is Not A Crime" has already held a rally in front of Judge Mahon's courthouse chaning "Judge Mahon has to go", and they are right. 

Because, if these four people, Judges Mahon and Shore, and prosecutors Corey and Hernandez, are not disciplined and if Michale Hoffman's fabricated conviction is not voided without any appeals, the public will have absolutely no reason to have confidence in the integrity of the Florida judiciary - or its legal profession.