New Yorkers, if you don't like it, you can all go to Moscow - or can you? New York eases the creation of wrongful convictions while blocking the means to prevent them and make those who cause them accountable

This is Part V of my series of articles dedicated to the fate of the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct - challenged in a lawsuit of the New York State District Attorneys (prosecutors) Association, a lawsuit fixed, as people "in the know" inadvertently blurted out, before it was filed, and stalled by New York Governor Cuomo and the Legislature, defendants in the lawsuit - as was pre-agreed before the lawsuit was filed (not that voters new it when voting for Cuomo and for New York candidates to the Legislature in November of 2018).

The law for creation of the Commission was signed, with much publicity and with "bipartisan support", on August 20, 2018, right before elections into the said Legislature and for the said Governor's office.

The text of the lawsuit is here.

Part I can be read here.

Part II - here.

Part III - here.

Part IV - here.

When we are talking about wrongful convictions, we need to, first and foremost, analyze, whether there are incentives for those investigating and prosecuting crimes to create wrongful convictions, and, if there are, identify and list such incentives - with a view of figuring out how to eliminate them.

And, while Cuomo and the Legislature stalled creation of the Commission - and, thus, are letting so many wrongful convictions go unprevented and those which already happened, unpunished - the New York judiciary "helped" New Yorkers by making wrongful convictions not just possible, but probable and inevitable.

Yesterday, the Chief Judge of the New York State Court system, a career prosecutor Janet DiFiore who was appointed despite overwhelming testimony against her with evidence of her own prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct of her office, issued a decision that will, no doubt, continue to add to the number of wrongful convictions in New York - without giving criminal defendants and their attorneys an ability to prove that the conviction is wrongful.

53 pages explaining why Civil Rights Law 50-a "lawfully" may block a Freedom of Information Request for records documenting misconduct of a police officer, a public employee.

Since the decision is published in an electronic format, it is word-searchable.

Try searching it for words "6th Amendment" and "Confrontation Clause".

You won't find either.

But I, probably, mistakenly, thought that every single police officer and every single judge in the U.S., including the glorious state of New York, are sworn to protect the FEDERAL Constitution, with all its little wee bits, like the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause - one of the main barriers to wrongful convictions.

But, if you search the legislative notes to this statute, how it was introduced, you will find that this particular statute was introduced intentionally and specifically to prevent impeachment of prosecution's witnesses, police officers, by criminal defense attorneys.

In other words, the statute was meant to deliberately interfere with criminal defendants' confrontation rights guaranteed by the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause as the main truth-finding tool at trial.

So, if you do not know about misconduct of police officers - you cannot impeach him, can you?

If you, as a defense attorney, ask a question of a police officer on the stand, before the jury - were you ever disciplined for misconduct - the police officer can "testi-lie" to you, under oath, with full assurance of never being held accountable for that.

Because - he will drum up a conviction for the prosecutor, the prosecutor will advance his career, be re-elected, then will be elected as a judge - so the prosecutor will never prosecute a police officer who helps him, by lies under oath, does not matter, to advance his, prosecutor's career to the top coveted position - the judiciary.

And, what will be a way for you to impeach the officer, prove to the jury that he is lying?

DiFiore said - Civil Rights Law 50-a prohibits disclosure of records of police misconduct in response to Freedom of Information requests by the public (that hires police officers for the public's own protection, pays their salaries and is, thus, the police officers' employer).

DiFiore does not say that Civil Rights Law 50-a is unconstitutional, under the 6th Amendment, because it was meant to violate criminal defendants' confrontation rights and undermine effectiveness of cross-examination in criminal trials.

Not at all.

Do not expect a former career prosecutor who invited only police and prosecutors - and no defense attorneys - to her swearing in ceremony in February of 2016 - to support constitutional provisions protecting criminal defendants (presumed innocent, by the way, at the time of trial).

Can a criminal defendant receive such information about misconduct of police officers who would testify at his trial in any other way?

Not only he can, but the prosecutor must disclose this information.

It is called "Brady material", impeachment evidence of witnesses.

But, do prosecutors usually do that?

Of course, not - they cannot drum convictions otherwise.

And, is there any accountability for prosecutors violating the Brady rule?

Of course, not.

No prosecutor (including DiFiore herself) has ever been disciplined in New York for violation of the Brady rule.

Hence, creation of the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, that people hoped, will address violations such as that - violations paving the way to wrongful convictions.

Which is currently stalled, and we are made to patiently wait until the Legislature guts even he toothless legislation that it created, in order to please prosecutors - who have power to criminally charge legislators and Cuomo, so, there is a lot of (if you don't, I will do that to you) thing-y looming in the air in those negotiations.

But, since you cannot get information about police misconduct under FOIL, and you cannot get it under the Brady rule, you cannot get it, period - and police officers can "testi-lie" happily, knowing that nobody can every catch them by their lying tongue on the stand.

Thus, the jury will think that the police officer - testifying usually in his uniform - is very, very credible, because there is no evidence saying otherwise, such evidence being deliberately, "by law" hidden from the criminal defendant.

Don't you think this is a coincidence in time that Cuomo and Co. stalled appointments to the Commission and "the parties stipulated" to wait until the Legislature "amends" the law regarding the Commission - and that DiFiore issued her decision on Civil Rights Law 50-a at the same time?

There are no coincidences between these guys, everything was long pre-coordinated.

They are LAUGHING at you, New Yorkers.

They are LAUGHING at our efforts to put prosecutorial misconduct under control and obtain accountability for it.

They say - no matter what you try, even when you thing you've succeeded, we will still find ways to dupe you and overpower you, you and your puny federal constitutional rights that we swear to uphold, in a token to get to that position of power - over you.

Under these conditions, wrongful convictions are INEVITABLE, they are actually COVETED by prosecutors, they are their path to glory, to the permanent employment (federal judiciary, preferably), to their permanent, absolute, unaccountable power over the public - people, property and public policy.

No token oaths of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution every prosecutors is laughing at, often into criminal defense attorneys' faces, will offset that powerful incentive to drum up convictions, rightful or wrongful, does not matter.

As a cherry on the cake - consider what the President of New York Court Officers Association Dennis Quirk said to me today in response to my comment about DiFiore's decision about Civil Rights Law 50-a - in a purely professional forum, comments to an article in New York Law Journal, during working time, at about 10 am 

when Dennis Quirk was supposed to be working and earning his exorbitant salary that New York taxpayers pay him through their collective noses:

So, in the opinion of a court employee and the President of the New York State Court Officers Association - who works in a criminal court, by the way, and is supposed to be neutral to criminal defendants (presumed-innocent people) who are subjected to criminal trials in that court - 

if you do not like having New York prosecutors drum up wrongful convictions with the help of an unconstitutional statute, designed to violate criminal defendants' 6th Amendment Confrontation right - you can all "go back to Moscow".

Can you, though?

Isn't it just a little bit brazen for a public officer, during his taxpayer-paid time to browse Facebook and spread bigotry and his views that a constitutionality of a state statute regarding constitutional rights of criminal defendants (and, ultimately, legality of criminal convictions, all criminal convictions in the State of New York) is not up for discussion?

By the way, Dennis Quirk's pro-prosecutorial leanings (despite working in the court system) are well-known.

He was recently sued for slander by a former chief clerk of a New York State court, Michael Pulizotto, for calling Pulizotto a "low-life rat" you know for what?

For being a whistleblower on prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, of course - according to Pulizotto, Quirk called him a "low-life rat" and harassed him over collecting evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct (just like Quirk harassed me online today, until he was caught and quickly erased his bigoted statement - but not before we saved scans).

It is very possible that one of the basis for harassment of Pulizotto by Quirk was envy - Pulizotto was an attorney, and much hire paid as a chief law clerk.

Of course that lawsuit was dropped "to concentrate on the federal lawsuit", this one - where New York State Officers Association was one of defendants, I will dedicate a separate blog article to this lawsuit, it is ongoing, same as the lawsuit of another fired court employee - whistleblower of sexual harassment by a judge Alexis Marquez, I wrote about that lawsuit before on this blog:

For secretly recording (an act perfectly allowed by New York Penal Law) the Staten Island Judge Judith McMahon, the wife of the local district attorney Michael McMahon - who, after stating that she is relinquishing control over criminal courts, to avoid the apparent conflict of interest, kept it.

So, the clerk recorded her, for years, and finally publicized her misconduct.

Neither Judith McMahon nor her husband Michael McMahon lost their law licenses, nor were they disciplined in any way.

They both kept their positions and have "no record of public discipline" as attorneys.

The whistleblower, Michael Pulizotto, who painstakingly collected evidence of misconduct of both of these miscreants before publicizing it, lost his job.

And Dennis Quirk, the longtime President of the Court Officers Association 

decided to kick Michael Pulizotto some more by calling him a "low-life rat" - and thus demonstrating his loyalty to misbehaving judges, in order to preserve his job security.

So, one might say that Dennis Quirk has a systemic hatred to whistleblowers of at least some official misconduct:

• regarding misconduct of police officers ("if you don't like it, move back to Moscow);

• regarding judicial and prosecutorial misconduct ("a low-life rat").

This is how you keep working for the government - and "earning" good money while playing on Facebook, don't you - by keeping your mouth shut and trying to shut down those who do protest judicial misconduct, right?

But, the point is that people of the State of New York cannot possibly expect a decline in wrongful convictions in the state - while there is such a policy towards official misconduct:

• to hide it, the U.S. Constitution requiring its disclosure in criminal proceedings be damned);
• to punish those who expose judicial and prosecutorial misconduct
• by demoting or firing them:
• Bobette Morin - she sued and obtained a $600,000 settlement, albeit paid by taxpayers, not by Judge James Tormey who tormented and demoted her after she refused to spy for him against a political opponent in elections, Tormey was never disciplined, was since re-elected and continues to be the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District of the State of New York;
• Michael Pulizotto, here is his lawsuit, ongoing at this time, here is the docket report of the case as of today;
• Alexis Marquez;  here is her lawsuit against New York court system for cover up of sexual harassment by judges, punishing whistleblowers and scrapping the court system's anti-sexual harassment policy;
• by losing their livelihood completely (through revocation of their law license) - for lawyers-whistleblowers (like Doris Sassower, John Aretakis, Gino Giorgini - all suspended indefinitely for criticism of judicial misconduct).

This is the preliminary statement of the lawsuit of Michael Pulizotto, an attorney and former chief law clerk, against the New York Court system.  Note the statement about chances for a fair trial for criminal defendants.

If this is the opinion of an attorney who has spent many years as a confidential law clerk of a judge, and saw misconduct up close, to the point of starting to record it - for which he lost his job, but the judge and the prosecutor (husband-wife team) did not lose anything, what IS the chance for any New Yorker not to become a victim of a wrongful conviction?

Especially now, when DiFiore has made it safe for police to lie under oath in criminal cases and to drum some more wrongful convictions - while the Legislature and the Governor put a clamp upon creation of the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct?

How about zero chance?

Prosecutors' pre-fixed lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the New York State Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, Part IV. The Legislature and the Governor inadvertently nixed prosecutorial immunity for the Attorney General and his Assistants and to special counsel assigned to prosecute criminal cases.

In this part of the series covering New York prosecutors' lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the New York State Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct, Part IV, I start analysis of issues in the lawsuit that - as people "in the know" told me yesterday - was not planned to proceed until the Legislature, also as "planned", would change (gut?) the law signed in with fanfare on August 20, 2018, at the height of the Governor's and New York lawmakers' election campaigns.

Part I can be read here.

Part II - here.

Part III - here.

The text of the prosecutors' lawsuit is available here.

And, as I have pointed out before, certain valuable information can be blurted out by people out of complacency mixed with lack of proper training in a certain field of knowledge.

Here, attorneys, as I pointed out in my previous blogs, did not advertise on their webpages their training in the necessary (for this lawsuit) fields of:

• constitutional law;
• occupational licensing, and a peculiar subpart of that licensing,
• attorney regulation.

Thus, their blunders.

The first blunder was made in their challenge to the reach of the Commission for prosecutorial conduct based on the law's definition of a "prosecutor" subject to jurisdiction of the Commission.

Here is what the District Attorney's Association said on this issue in their lawsuit.

People usually do not read lengthy Senate bills - like the one challenged here. 

And, if they do read those bills, they may not pay attention to the intricacies and implications of certain blunt statements, like:

 12    2.  "PROSECUTOR"  MEANS  A DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ANY ASSISTANT DISTRICT   13  ATTORNEY OF ANY COUNTY OF THE STATE IN AN ACTION TO EXACT  ANY  CRIMINAL   14  PENALTY, FINE, SANCTION OR FORFEITURE

But - by pointing this distinction in a lawsuit, the poor buggers brought attention to what they may not have wanted to point their finger at (they do not use the word "corruption" in the lawsuit, for sure).

To the exception carved out in the prosecutorial misconduct law by the Legislature and by the Governor who signed that law - FOR THEIR OWN COUNSEL, Attorney General, Assistant Attorneys General and special counsel who may be appointed instead of the Attorney General to represent legislators and the Governor on "sensitive issues", in civil rights lawsuits filed against them.

Isn't it nice?

An Attorney General - a criminal prosecutor in his own right, as well as his assistants and his (and district attorneys' replacement - special counsel) are not within the reach of the Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct.

And, of course, the Attorney General and his Assistants are not within the reach of attorney discipline.  You know why?  Because the Attorney General and his Assistants REPRESENT the blokes in attorney grievance committees when they are sued - either for civil rights violations, or for violations of federal antitrust laws, which happens fairly often in the State of New York.

So, what does this not-so-little loophole allows prosecutors to do?

The Attorney General and his assistants - and special counsel assigned after recusal either of the Attorney General, or of any garden variety county DA -  can drum up wrongful convictions at their total delight, without ever being subject either to attorney discipline (by unspoken policy) or by the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct (by "law").

But, on the other hand, what can the public do with the same statute for their own benefit - against rogue prosecutors?

The stick has two ends, and the other end actually hurts the Attorney General, Assistant Attorneys General and special counsel appointed instead of recused Attorney General or District Attorneys.  And, hurts them badly.  

Not considering the Attorney General and her Assistants, as well as special counsel, as prosecutors - for the benefit of the blokes who made the law exempting them from the reach of the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct presents a curious problem for them in civil lawsuits filed against them.

How can a bloke claim prosecutorial immunity if a statute created for that bloke's benefit by the bloke's powerful client specifically excepts that bloke from the definition of a prosecutor?

If he is not a prosecutor, he should not be covered by prosecutorial immunity.  Right?

That was one favor given to their own counsel by the Legislature and by the Governor.

So many blokes worked so hard on the text of this law.  With law degrees, no less.

And that is what they produced.

By the way, I did not see why the challenge was even in the lawsuit - because there was no pronounced equal protection challenge in the text of the two "causes of action" in the complaint, nor is such a challenge possible.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court whose precedents govern - instead of the U.S. Constitution, as should be in accordance with Article 6 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that all judges and lawyers and lawmakers are sworn to uphold - how constitutional challenges are decided, divide such challenges into levels of "scrutiny", divide rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution into more important and less important.

Equal protection, in its turn, is divided into classes of people - also invented by the U.S. Supreme Court, such classes are not in the U.S. Constitution - more protected classes and less protected classes.

More protected classes (equal protection based on race or nationality) deserve, in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, strict scrutiny, the highest level of the court's scrutiny, and those misers who the court did not include into their list of "protected classes", deserve only "rational review" - meaning, any explanation that is not completely insane (and then some) will prevent a court finding that somebody's equal rights are violated.

And, SCOTUS did not (yet) include prosecutors into a protected class for equal protection purposes.

So, exposing the difference - that only DAs and Assistant DAs, but not the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General and "special counsels", are within the reach of the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, as the law now provides - was shooting from a cannon into the blue sky for no purpose at all other than attract attention to something that corrupt and that stupid.

But - what are you going to do, people?

That's who you voted into office.  That's who you have.  That's what they do.

For the analysis of the next exciting issue in the pre-fixed lawsuit of New York prosecutors against the State of New York, its Governor and its Legislature - stay tuned.

Voters and the wrongfully convicted in the State of New York, you have been duped - prosecutors' lawsuit challenging the New York State Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct was fixed before it was filed, the Commission was never planned to start its work on January 1, 2019, and many people knew it

Yesterday, I have published the 2nd part of my article series about the lawsuit of the DA's Association challenging, on state and federal constitutional grounds, constitutionality of creation of the New York State Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, created to address, under huge public pressure, the disturbing numbers of wrongful convictions in the State of New York.

Here is the text of the lawsuit.

The two parts were housekeeping issues before I started my analysis.

Part I dealt with the identities of two lawyers representing the New York State District Attorneys' Association in the lawsuit.

Part II dealt with the problem with the availability of independent, honest and courageous experts on the topics that the lawsuit raises, and reasons for such a lack of availability.

I also mentioned in Part II that the judge assigned to the lawsuit, David A. Weinstein, was reported as "encouraging" a settlement of the lawsuit and delay of creation of the Commission - while a judge can preside over negotiations between two parties and accept their result, but may not urge/encourage a settlement of a lawsuit heading for a jury trial.

Of course, THIS particular judge - who was formerly an attorney for one of the previous Governors of the State of New York, and who was himself a prosecutor, an Assistant Attorney General, was uniquely disqualified from both presiding over the case and presiding - and "encouraging" - a settlement with his former client, the Legislature who he represented as an Assistant Attorney General.

Same as one of the attorneys was uniquely disqualified from representing the DA's Association in the lawsuit while being a member of the Task Force of the State of New York for prevention of wrongful conviction - or, at least, that is what he advertises on his law firm's website.

Before I delve into the issues of the lawsuit, though, circumstances changed somewhat and insisted that I publish Part III of house-keeping issues - because Governor Cuomo threw a wrench into the appointments to the Commission, and a person who 

• is an insider in the situation,  Jeffrey Descovic, 

• a wrongfully convicted and exonerated individual who has spent 16 years in prison convicted for rape and murder he did not commit, 
• who is now in his 3rd year of Pace Law School, 
• who had pushed for creation of the Commission, 
• was present in the Senate for deliberations and, as I understand, had access to be talking and persuading senators voting for the creation of the Commission, who
• pushed for the Governor signing the Commission into law, and then 
• publicly celebrated the creation of the Commission when the Governor signed it (on the last day such a signing could happen by law, after much theatrical suspense) as his personal achievement 

that Jeffrey Deskovic, when tagged yesterday on my comment that people were actually cheated out of the Commission - said in reply this:

Let me quote again what Jeffrey Deskovic said about the Governor stalling creation of the Commission:

"It's not [people were not cheated out of their Commission].  We already knew that as a practical matter that the commission would not be formed till after the lawsuit was finished, and that nothing would happen with the lawsuit till the chapter amendments are passed".

Figure.

A law student, the future lawyer of American says that it was pre-arranged that:

1.  The Governor will stall creation of the Commission that he has signed into law on the verge of its first day of operation, and that
2.  A lawsuit will be filed by the prosecutors' association to challenge the Commission, AND, most importantly, 
3. that "nothing would happen with the lawsuit till the chapter amendments are passed" - meaning that:

• parties to the lawsuit had a pre-arrangement to enter into a stipulation; and
• the judge who WILL be (at the time of signing the Commission into law) assigned to the case, will approve the settlement - so, the identity of the judge assigned to the case was also, likely, pre-arranged.

In other words, the court case was fixed from the very beginning, and those "in the know" knew that the law signed by Cuomo with much fanfare, and celebrated by Deskovic and his team with no less fanfare, as their "big victory",

posing while receiving awards for, among other things, putting the Commission into being:

modestly positioning himself as a "distinguished speaker" - "myself and other distinguished speakers"

- is nothing but a performance, a sham, to mollify and dupe New York voters into voting Cuomo and other clowns into office for a new term.

And, helpfully, one of Deskovic's comrades Pam Booker inadvertently disclosed the list of people who were "in the know" that the Commission was a sham from the very beginning:

Well, you know who was not "in the know" about all that?

Probably, the majority of the "exonerees" and those who hoped to become "exonerees" and have their convictions overturned.

Who relived their horrors in vain, for the political, financial and career expedience of those "in the know".

And - New York voters.

Because this law was passed with "bipartisan support" right before the elections into the Legislature, and before the elections of the Governor.

And, it would have been very bad, indeed, to anger voters if the Legislatures - either the Democrats, or the Republicans - would filibuster such an important thing as creation of a governmental body to deal with rampant prosecutorial misconduct in the state which already resulted in the record number of wrongful convictions, judging at least by those that were reversed, and people exonerated - and God and prosecutors only know how many more are out there, where they were so cleverly crafted that their victims have no way of undoing them.

It is shameful for the "Democratic" New York to be the runner-up to the death-row-happy Texas in the number of wrongful convictions:

17 convictions overturned in New York just in 2015.

So, voters were angry, justifiably so, and voters had to be appeased.

And, the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation helped appease them by drumming up the "victory" of a Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct (modeled on the Commission for Judicial Conduct - a useless complaint shredder against judges), but even that useless model was fake, which Deskovic knew "as a practical matter", but was in no hurry to stress to the public at the time he celebrated his personal input into creation of the Commission, that it will not come into being on January 1, 2019.

He did not mention it to me personally when he blasted me for criticism of the makeup of the Commission, and when I suggested to wait until my criticism will be substantiated with the Commission's performance starting on January 1, 2019.  Not a peep came from Deskovic that he does not expect the Commission to start working on January 1, 2019 - "after the lawsuit was finished" and that "nothing will happen with the lawsuit" (a fixed court case, imagine, before it was filed) "till chapter amendments were passed".

Talking about frivolous lawsuits and taking up and wasting precious court time at the expense of taxpayers.  And soliciting corruption of a judge - David A. Weinstein, the former Assistant Attorney General and the former attorney for a Governor - who had to be in the loop to make happen what Deskovic said: that

"as a practical matter, … nothing would happen with the lawsuit til chapter amendments are passed".

So, a law student knew about such an arrangement, a plan to file a frivolous lawsuit while how the lawsuit will proceed was prearranged before it was filed - and, instead of publicly reporting misconduct of the parties, especially, attorneys involved - because it is professional misconduct, stayed mum until December 10, 2018, when he complacently dropped to me that, as a person "in the know", he knew this was going to happen all along.

Because his career was likely based on and depended on his timed silence.

His connections with powerful government officials in the State of New York (who were responsible, by the way, for wrongful convictions, so Deskovic had to know that the culprits could not be the solution to the problem they themselves created) - those connections likely depended on his silence.

His future jobs after law school likely depended on his timed silence.   

His speaking engagements across the country that he boasts of on the Internet likely depended on it.  

And, of course, the main button on the main page of his foundation - the DONATE button - likely depended on his timed silence.

So, he casually told me on December 10, 2018 what he knew on August 20, 2018, when, again, with much fanfare,

Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation to Establish Nation's First Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct

Announces Three-Way Agreement on Chapter Amendment

Independent, Publicly Accountable Commission Will Investigate Prosecutorial Misconduct to Address Claims of Malicious Prosecutions, Prevent Wrongful Convictions, and Address Allegations of Wrongdoing

Addresses Complaints of Prosecutorial Misconduct Which Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions, Frequently Impacting People of Color

Here is the law.  

While the Governor's release mentions a "three-way agreement on chapter amendment" - what Deskovic hinted in his yesterday's statement - the text of the law does not contain this agreement.

Nor does it include the text of the "three-way agreement on a chapter amendment to build on New York's comprehensive criminal justice reform efforts" that Cuomo signed at the same time.

Nor is this "three-way agreement" published anywhere else, by the Senate, or by the Governor - or by Deskovic.

And, whichever amendments Deskovic is talking about, the challenge of the DA Associations' lawsuit was definitely not urging to wait for the amendment "to build on New York's comprehensive criminal justice reform efforts".  They wanted to stall creation of the Commission for the Legislature, at their leisure, after the elections, to gut the Commission into even a worse joke than it is now - the way prosecutors wanted it to be, according to their frivolous and pre-fixed lawsuit.

So, what do we have now, dear New Yorkers.

You've been duped.

Again.

Big time.

You've re-elected a lot of people into the Legislature - and re-elected the Governor - possibly, BECAUSE these blokes were so good as passing for you into law, with trumpets, the "first-in-the-nation" toothless tiger modeled on another toothless tiger, but giving you at least some hope that wrongful convictions in New York State will be stemmed, and those who are responsible for them - made accountable.

And you voted.

Boy - you voted.

And, you put Cuomo into that office for a new term, likely because of this sham.

While all along - the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct that many of you were waiting to start its work on January 1, 2019 - was never planned to start its work on that day.

It was just a voter fraud.

And a successful one.

Where people who solicited you trust because "it happened to them" actually got in bed with the devil for their future - and while disregarding "what will happen to you".

Are you surprised?

But - even though the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct is not going to materialize on January 1, 2019, as many people hoped and were duped to believe - it is still well worth it to analyze issues in the lawsuit, prosecutor's blueprint as to how the Commission is going to be gutted.

So - stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen, the analysis is coming.