Use of force policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, Part I - apparently, it exists

Each time I would ask the Delaware County (NY), through FOIL requests, for their written policies, they would deny me the request claiming that there are "no records answering my request", or, in other words, there are no such written policies.

The reason for denial was because "policies" can be used against the County in civil rights litigation.

Well, Delaware County IS embroiled now in civil rights litigation because of its alleged "Deputy Sheriff" Derek Bowie whose only credential for employment in Delaware County Sheriff's Department were:

1. not his graduation from a police academy;
2. not passing the civil service test;
3. not being in the civil service registry; 
4. not having a deputy sheriff's certification from the Criminal Justice Division, and certainly
5. not being a resident of Delaware County (Derek Bowie was a resident of Broome County at the time of his employment as a Deputy Sheriff in Delaware County).

All FIVE requirements were foregone when Derek Bowie was hired, he did not even have to file an application for admission listing his credentials - he was simply INVITED to be employed as a Deputy Sheriff's in Delaware County, no credentials needed.

Derek Bowie's only "credential" that got him hired - illegally - as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff - was that Derek Bowie had blood ties to people who already work in Delaware County local government, such as Jeff Bowie, investigator for the Delaware County District Attorney, who similarly had no credentials and was hired outside of civil service registry, without passing a civil service test and continued to be employed with an expired deputy sheriff certification.

Well, the Delaware County can always claim, of course, that it had a right to hire dumb brutes as their Deputy Sheriff to prevent "turnover" - the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at least upheld the government's power to hire, specifically, dumb police officers and reject those who have IQ higher than the necessary low level to prevent that "turnover".

See that decision here.

The 2nd Circuit did not go as far as claiming that the government has a right to hire people who are not only dumb, but with a tendency to violence against women and animals.

Which Derek Bowie appears to be - based on this.

Here is the affidavit of one of Derek Bowie's alleged victims, his former girlfriend Kylie Smith who is suing him and Delaware County for hiring him and failure to supervise him despite his violent tendencies.

And here are portions from the affidavit:

Derek Bowie has a purple belt in karate - he testified about that at his deposition in this civil rights case.

He was much taller and heavier than Kylie Smith, also according to his own deposition.

According to Kylie Smith, Derek Bowie

(1) told her to leave - she started to, then
(2) asked her to stay and answer a question - she answered, then started to leave again,
(3) then stopped her from leaving,
(4) kneed her in the stomach - causing bruising,
(5) then grabbed her arms - causing bruising;
(6) slammed her body onto the hallway floor, causing her head to hit the stairs, causing bruising AND BONE FRACTURES confirmed by x-rays; then while Derek Bowie ALREADY BROKE Kylie Smith's ribs, he continued to SIT on those broken ribs - which could cause Kylie Smith's immediate DEATH if those ribs would pierce her lungs or her heart, not that Derek Bowie cared.  All he cared for is to sit on Kylie Smith, his former girlfriend, and to handcuff her with the help of his current girlfriend Jessica Valentino.

Delaware County submitted to the court a policy regarding use of force.

The policy was not followed - in either Kylie Smith case or Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

I will follow the policy step by step, what it required, and how it was not complied with, in further blogs.

In this blog I wanted to emphasize just what a dangerous game Delaware County is playing with YOUR money, dear taxpayers of Delaware County, by allowing non-credentialed dumb brutes like Derek Bowie to be on the loose.

Derek Bowie is gone from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, but those who condoned and covered up his behavior are still there, as well as in the Delaware County DA's office.

They need to be ousted.

My next blog will be about confirmed perjury of Undersheriff Craig Dumond in Derek Bowie's case and why Craig Dumond is not prosecuted for perjury.

Did Derek Bowie deliberately try to kill Kylie Smith?

I've read the affidavit of Kylie Smith submitted to the court where she says that she had confirmed rib fractures from when Derek Bowie slammed her on the floor, and that Derek Bowie THEN sat on her.

Derek Bowie, at his deposition, admitted under oath not only to sitting on Kylie Smith, after he brought her down (and broke her ribs, according to her affidavit), but also to shifting his weight upon her in order to overpower her better - broken ribs and all. 

When Derek Bowie sat on Kylie Smith, he must have both heard - by cries of pain - and felt (by sitting on fractured bones) that Kylie Smith's ribs were fractured.

Continuing to sit on Kylie Smith and shifting his position could very well cause Kylie Smith's death, if a sharp fractured piece of her rib would penetrate her heart or lungs.


Not to mention that such behavior is sadistic - and confirms that Derek Bowie should not be allowed to be anywhere near the police force, while he was quietly shifted from one police department to another and is now toiling, according to my information, in the police department of the Village of Deposit.

Here is the list of complications that can result from a rib fracture:

Yet, there is no indication, despite the requirements of Delaware County Sheriff's policy on use of force by its police officers, not revealed through responses to my many FOIL requests on the subject over many years, but submitted to the court, that Derek Bowie inquired about Kylie Smith's injuries or attempted to arrange for provision of medical help to Kylie Smith. 

Instead of organizing for medical help for Kylie Smith, Derek Bowie only attempted to aggravate Kylie Smith's injury, from what I see in the court documents so far submitted, and very likely tried to cause her death by shifting his weight upon her when her ribs were broken when he sank his karate-trained knees into the woman's spine.

She is "lucky" he only broke her ribs, not the spinal column.

Did Derek Bowie deliberately and intentionally mean to kill Kylie Smith by first fracturing her ribs and then sitting and shifting his weight on them?

Why nobody is investigating that incident as an attempted murder?

I will analyze the policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department on the use of force - and blatant disregard of that policy by the Sheriff's Department, Derek Bowie and his supervisors in both cases, of Kylie Smith and of Barbara O'Sullivan, in a separate blog.

Stay tuned.

And, people living or passing through Deposit area - be very afraid if this man approaches you, in or out of police uniform.

The picture below was voluntarily put on Facebook in public access by Derek Bowie and/or his mother.  Note that Derek Bowie also has a German shepherd which can be as dangerous as its master, or more.

He is a dangerous and violent sadist, and the local government "has his back 100%".

Filed a FOIL request with Delaware Opportunities, Inc.

I just filed a Freedom of Information request with Delaware Opportunities, Inc., a "community action" and "community development" "agency" of Delaware County, see my previous blog about why I consider Delaware Opportunities, Inc., a non-profit corporation, subject to Freedom of Information Law.

Here is the FOIL request:

I will publish any responses of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. to this FOIL request on the blog.

Stay tuned.

Who are 279 people employed in Delaware Opportunities Inc. and its "affiliates"?

After reading the audit of the Delaware County by the New York State Comptroller conducted in 2015 and showing that Delaware County funneled millions of dollars into Delaware Opportunities Inc. "and its affiliates" without public bidding;

and

after reading the audit report of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. indicating that it applied and received "pass-through" grants from Delaware County Department of Social Services, Town of Deposit and Village of Hancock, some of them for "community development", 

and 

after seeing in Delaware Opportunities Inc. the self-characterization that it is a "community action AGENCY"

and

after reading this advisory opinion of the New York State Committee for Open Government, citing to court opinions that "community development corporations", even though having an official status of non-profit corporations, are nevertheless deemed "agencies" within the meaning of Public Officers Law 86(3) and are subject to Freedom of Information Law - 

I decided to FOIL Delaware Opportunities, Inc. for certain records that may be of public interest.

Delaware Opportunities Inc. is, of course, trying to mislead those who come to read the "About Us" section on the website its website that it is not part of the local government (at least for purposes of FOIL) by saying this:

It is called "Delaware Opportunities", putting the name of the county into the name of the corporation, in violation of New York Business Corporations law, sending to people a message that it IS part of the government - because usually when this "corporation" is mentioned by the government (such as social services), social services do not say "Delaware Opportunities, Inc.", they say "Delaware Opportunities", clearly sending a message that it IS a part of the local government.

Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is funded by the government, it involves members of the local government in its Board of Directors, it claims to be a "community action AGENCY" on its tax returns, it performs governmental functions and services, it gets "pass-through" grants from the government for "community development" - and yet they say that they are are an "agency" that is "not a part of local government"?

Well, as the 1993 advisory opinion of the NYS Committee for the Open Government stated, citing to court decisions, it IS part of the local government - at least for purposes of being subject to Freedom of Information Law.

I will file FOIL requests with Delaware Opportunities, Inc. and will let the public know how they will respond.

Because I really want to know who are 279 people employed, as per the latest published tax return, with Delaware Opportunities Inc., and who are people employed with this "community action" and "community development" "agency" now.

And not only that.

Stay tuned.

Crimes are not attorney disciplinary violations in Texas - when such violations are alleged against the attorney representing the attorney disciplinary board

Here there is an interesting blog from attorney Ty Clevenger about corruption in Texas attorney disciplinary board.

Attorney Ty Clevenger turned in the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after Ken Paxton was indicted for felonies, including securities fraud.

Attorney Ty Clevenger's disciplinary complaint against Ken Paxton was dismissed on astounding grounds - that the crimes that Ken Paxton was indicted for did not constitute attorney disciplinary violations.

The establishment is protecting their own to the very bitter end.

And, it is interesting to mention that, by law, the disciplinary body that dismissed the complaint is represented by that same Ken Paxton.

No surprises.

#TheMokaySaga gets more and more bizarre: attorney Richard Harlem now claims under oath his own purported client is lying. And asks the court to make a person who never was a party in the case to sue my husband and accept paid representation from son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem. Wow.

I wrote on this blog extensively about the "Mokay saga", the case litigated by a son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem of Oneonta, NY, an attorney who brazenly stated to several courts during 8.5 years of litigation that he represented a client, David Mokay, on whose behalf he brought the lawsuit - while never calling David Mokay to testify, even at the trial on damages, and while blocking any possibility of direct contact with David Mokay through discovery, interrogatories and depositions.

After the trial on damages was over, after a judgment in favor of David Mokay and other purported plaintiffs in the Mokay case was made, David Mokay came forward and provided an affidavit saying that he never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to represent him in the Mokay case and never sued my husband, Frederick J. Neroni.

The affidavit was provided in November.

The affidavit said that Richard Harlem was confronted by David Mokay that his signature on the alleged retainer agreement from 2007 was a forgery.

 Richard Harlem fought tooth and claw to block us from seeing the original of the retainer agreement, and Judge Becker obliged in allowing us only to see the copy - that could have been that forgery that David Mokay claims it is, made on a copying machine.

Anyway, there is an original affidavit of Richard Harlem's purported client David Mokay.

Richard Harlem claimed to the court under oath that Richard Harlem represents David Mokay in an appellate proceedings started in June of 2015 with filing of a Notice of Appeal, let's remember the date when proceedings where Richard Harlem is making that claim started.

My husband submitted an original affidavit of David Mokay saying that Richard Harlem does not represent him in any proceedings pertaining to the Mokay case - and never did, and that David Mokay never sued in that case.

The ONLY path for an attorney after a client provides such an affidavit to the OPPONENT in litigation is to disqualify himself from the ENTIRE case.

That's not for Richard Harlem.

Richard Harlem instead, without making a motion to withdraw from the case, did the following:

1) claimed to the court that David Mokay (his own client) is lying on the issue that Richard Harlem is not representing him, and never did;

of course, claiming that the attorney's own client is lying REQUIRES that attorney to withdraw - but not for Richard Harlem, Richard Harlem goes on;

2) Richard Harlem provided an affidavit from David Mokay's brother, a co-plaintiff in the Mokay saga on behalf of himself individually and as Executor of the Estate of his father - so the brother had an obvious financial interest in the outcome of the appeal.

Richard Harlem, completely disregarding the screaming impropriety of what he is doing, submitted an affidavit of his client Daniel Mokay.

In that affidavit, Richard Harlem's client Daniel Mokay is accusing of lying and a crime of perjury Richard Harlem's claimed client David Mokay who denied ever having been Richard Harlem's client, and did it under oath.

Daniel Mokay says "I saw David Mokay sign a retainer agreement with Harlem & Harlem".

Wait a minute, Harlem & Harlem was dissolved in 2012 when Richard Harlem's father Robert Harlem died, that was 4 years ago.

Richard Harlem is opposing an appeal in 2016 that was started in 2015, and where a separate retainer agreement is required, for that appellate proceeding, so even if Daniel Mokay were telling the truth - which David Mokay denies under oath - Daniel Mokay's statement would be irrelevant because it is not the same law firm and it is not the same proceeding, and a new retainer agreement, as of 2015, with Harlem & Jervis, would have been needed.

But, Richard Harlem is not to be deterred from his crash course.

Now we have two affidavits from:

1. Richard Harlem's client Daniel Mokay and from 
2. Richard Harlem's purported client (who denies being a client) David Mokay.

Both of affidavits are on the issue of representation of David Mokay by Richard Harlem and his law firms.

David Mokay says Richard Harlem does not represent him, and never did.

Daniel Mokay says David Mokay signed a retainer agreement with Harlem & Harlem - without indicating the date when that event allegedly happened, and Harlem & Harlem is dead, as well as its partner Robert Harlem.  Dead for many years.  And the original retainer was never submitted into the record, only a copy.  And David Mokay claims that copy is a forgery.  He claims it under oath.

One affidavit of the two is the "impeaching affidavit" of one client against the other, purported client, and is submitted (and, I am sure, drafted), by Richard Harlem himself.

Now THAT is one OUTSTANDING conflict of interest.

But, what does Richard Harlem say about the whole mess?

He says this:

1) why does Frederick J. Neroni bring up the issue of the affidavit of David Mokay only 5 months after he received David Mokay's affidavit?  

Note that Richard Harlem does not contest authenticity of David Mokay's signature - because an original affidavit was submittted to the court, where the notary in the state of New York, a person who we do not know, verified David Mokay's identity before he signed it.

Note that my husband's statute of limitations to sue Richard Harlem for fraud and fraud upon the court under New York State law is 6 years, so whether my husband held onto the affidavit for 5 months or for the entire 6 years, or for 100 years, does not change the authenticity of the affidavit.

The next claim of Richard Harlem is - "the issue of my disqualification is not properly before the court, because Mr. Neroni did not make a cross-motion to disqualify".

Mr. Neroni did not make a cross-motion to disqualify.

Yet, Mr. Neroni did raise before the court the issue of Richard Harlem's ongoing fraud for two limited reasons already explained to the court in Mr. Neroni's sworn statement:

1) to prevent the ongoing fraud from continuing; and
2) to mitigate Mr. Neroni's losses for purposes of future lawsuit against Richard Harlem for fraud upon the court, as required by New York State law.

Yet, Richard Harlem asks the court - please, please, please, disregard the fact that:

1) Richard Harlem made a sworn statement that he:

• represents David Mokay;
• is opposing the appeal of the judgment that he obtained on behalf David Mokay;
• the judgment obtained is based on his legal fees against David Mokay for over 8.5 years;

and that

2) David Mokay made a sworn statement, after the judgment on damages was already in, that 

• David Mokay never sued Mr. Neroni,
• that Richard Harlem never represented David Mokay,
• that David Mokay's signature on the copy of the retainer agreement (the original was never submitted to the court) was a forgery;
• that Richard Harlem was confronted by David Mokay about his fraudulent representation and about the forgery, and that
• Richard Harlem proceeded with his fraudulent representation anyway

and that

3) Richard Harlem, to fight the affidavit of his own purported client David Mokay, presented an affidavit from an interested witness, his other client Daniel Mokay, accusing Richard Harlem's purported client David Mokay of lying under oath (crime of perjury); 

and that

4) Richard Harlem asks the court to disregard all this mess, and to allow Richard Harlem to proceed opposing the appeal after his disqualification and misconduct in the case sank to a monumental depth and INDISPUTABLY REQUIRES Richard Harlem's disqualification from the case - and if Richard Harlem would do that, he should be sua sponte forced to do that, by the court.

What Richard Harlem asks the court to do is actually to allow Richard Harlem to MAKE David Mokay accept Richard Harlem's costly representation in an appellate case while David Mokay says that he never hired Richard Harlem, never was a party in that case, and does not want to have anything to do with it.

The court simply does not have authority to make an individual sue anybody.

That's what Richard Harlem asks the court to compel David Mokay to do.

By the way, David Mokay was not noticed with that claim - and that would be a requirement, a personal notice to David Mokay where Richard Harlem, an attorney with an outrageous conflict of interest, accusing David Mokay of a crime of perjury, nevertheless begs the court to make David Mokay to accept paid representation from Richard Harlem in a case where David Mokay claims under oath he was never a party.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

Let's hold our collective breath as to what the 3rd Department will say NOW.

The racist Louisiana court strikes against a black attorney. And a black judge participates in that racist decision. No surprises where a black judge can only get into a Louisiana state court through a federal lawsuit. And no surprises where black judges are disciplined for fighting racism in the court system.

I've just put in a blog about the outrageously unconstitutional, personally motivated, pre-judged and - yes, racist - decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in denying rehearing in the disciplinary case of Christine Mire .

Attorney Mire's only "sin" was that she courageously made a motion to recuse in the face of criminal behavior (doctoring audio tape of a hearing regarding her own non-disclosure of conflicts of interest, a piece regarding disclosure was added to the tape) of a judge, Judge Phyllis Keaty who was since elevated to an appellate court.

Here is attorney Mire.

Attorney Mire DID NOT raise the issue of her race in her disciplinary proceedings, while racism - in my white woman's view - was screaming from the pages of the disciplinary decision against her.

She was trying to be professional.

She was trying not to be identified by the color of her skin, but by what she was doing as a professional, as an attorney.

Apparently, professionalism has nothing to do with how things are done in Louisiana court system - and across the country.

Here is Chief Judge of the court Bernette Johnson (who agreed with Judge Knoll to deny Christine Mire a rehearing without putting in her own opinion):

A wise decision, Judge Johnson.

Support a racist stance of one old white judge 

on behalf of her old white judge-friend 

against a young female black attorney 

- who is right while the judges are wrong (which is the worst sin for any attorney in this country - especially if he/she does not shut up and reports the issue).


After all, see what happened to a Kentucky black judge Olu Stevens when he fought against racism in the Kentucky court system?

Judge Johnson, of all people, must know how alive is racism in Louisiana and how racist the Louisiana court system is: after all, Judge Johnson got her position as Chief Judge, despite obvious seniority, only after a federal lawsuit.

And Judge Johnson must remember the stinging racist comments to articles regarding your election/appointment as the Chief Supreme Court judge made 4 years ago.

These ones:

There was only one voice of reason buried in those racist comments:

Judge "Theriot" is Judge Jeannette Theriot Knoll, obviously.

But, what commentators clearly pointed out is that - people of the state of Louisiana did not vote this black judge in.

She had to be appointed, because she wouldn't have won the elections.

Because she would have been filibustered at the polls by the racist white population of the State of Louisiana?

That's what it is?

And, it appears that, once Judge Johnson overcome racial discrimination against herself, she is now trying hard to retain her position and connections by PARTICIPATING in racial discrimination against attorney Mire, by participating in a completely unconstitutional decision where attorney Mire is right - and that is the whole danger about it.

Judge Johnson knew what race attorney Mire was.

Judge Johnson should have seen from the circumstances of the case how racist the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Mire were.

Even if attorney Mire, based on her professional pride, did not raise that issue, didn't Judge Johnson have to?

Well, she didn't.

Out of self-preservation, obviously.

After all, once again - remember what happened to the black judge Olu Stevens in Kentucky?

Appears that Judge Johnson remembers well.