"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Why Albany County (New York) District Attorney P. David Soares should be removed from office, immediately

One's innermost, most important views are often revealed the best in a critical situation threatening the person's well-being.

Albany DA Soares' point to oppose the new amendments (they are bad, and I oppose them on my own grounds, which I published yesterday) for creation of a Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct is, among others (his letter was not published in full, just mentioned) this:

“That investigation may include hearings attended by the defendant at which the prosecutor, victims, witnesses, and police officers may be compelled to testify about sensitive aspects of the defendant’s ongoing case,” Soares wrote. “These consequences will chill lawful prosecutorial conduct, impair prosecutorial discretion, and interfere with the operation of District Attorneys’ offices.”

So, DA Soares PRESUMES GUILT of the defendant by presuming that complaining witnesses in criminal cases are "victims" - before the conviction by a jury.

So much for the Albany defendants' constitutional, due process, right for an impartial prosecutor.

And, so much for the defendant's right to equal protection of law - with, at the very least, a defendant in a civil case who is entitled, under New York law, to a fullest discovery of all issues, even if the civil case is based on allegations of defendant's criminal behavior, as in, let's say - assault or battery.

Then the defendant has a right to:

  • depose his accuser (not a victim yet, before the final decision of the court) before trial;
  • have the accuser answer, under oath, interrogatories, questions of defendants about the case;
  • have the accuser answer, under oath, Notices to admit, about crucial points of the case;
  • disclose crucial documentary evidence about the case - where discovery laws are "liberally construed" in favor of discovery.
All of that - with much lower stakes than in a criminal case where the worst that the criminal defendant may expect is not the loss of property (as in a civil case), but the loss of liberty.

It is not DA Soares' "fault" - other than aggressive lobbying by prosecutors against the reform of discovery that would at least equalize discovery in civil and criminal cases - that such a law is already on the books.

But, IT IS prosecutor Soares' fault to call complaining witnesses in all criminal cases "victims", ahead of time, before the trial, before the verdict - thus, presuming guild of criminal defendants.

And, for this, people need to demand that Soares must step down as infit for the office of the prosecutor.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Why I think that it is a VERY BAD idea to support amendments to the bill for the Commission on prosecutorial conduct in New York

If you remember, back in the summer of 2018 New York has passed, with much fanfare, the "first in the country" bill on creation of a Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct - to supposedly fight wrongful convictions which New York is a runner-up for in the country.

Of course, the whole idea of creating such a Commission posed a question - is that an admission, then, that the system of attorney discipline in the State of New York would not prosecute rogue prosecutors and that attorney discipline in the state is politically selective and politically motivated?

After the creation of the Commission - in January of 2019 - was created in the summer of 2018 by a legislative act, the Governor who has signed that bill into law has been re-elected.

After he has been re-elected, it was revealed to the public that the Commission, the way it was signed into law, was never meant to be, and the Governor did not sign appointments to it come January 2019.

Instead, in the fall of 2018 the state prosecutor's association - as was pre-agreed by players in this "process" of "creating" this Commission - filed a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the initial bill.

I wrote about that lawsuit extensively here:

And, here are my articles dedicated to the prosecutors' lawsuit challenging the initial bill creating the Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct in New York - and to events and individuals surrounding that bill.

Part I can be read here.  Prosecutors' challenge to the New York State Commission for prosecutorial conduct: shooting themselves, and the attorney regulation, in the foot - in more ways than one. Part I.

Part II - here.  New York prosecutors' lawsuit challenging the new Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, Part II. The dance on landmines by people in blindfolds

Part III - here.  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

Part IV - here.  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.

Part V - here.  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

Part VI - here.  New York prosecutors' lawsuit's main point - DO NOT protect whistleblowers of prosecutorial misconduct. On the right of the Governor and the Legislature to stall the law already on the books

Part VII - here.  Not so funny: New York prosecutors argue violations of constitutional rights. The circus with prosecutors' "separation of powers" argument. 

The sham of Prosecutoricla Conduct Commission in New York, Part 8, one more "good violation" of the "bedrock principle" of separation of powers

Part IX is here.The New York prosecutor's lawsuit - a selective approach to infringments upon prosecutorial discretion. 

Now, the amendments to the bill have passed both chambers of the New York legislature and went to the Governor for signature.

And, sadly, now that the bill - a very bad bill, as I will show further - has hit Cuomo's desk, Jeffrey Deskovic, a 3rd-year Pace Law School student, a soon-to-be lawyer who has been exonerated and paid a large settlement after serving 16 years in prison for rape and murder that he did not commit, and is currently trying to build his future career as a lawyer by capitalizing on his exoneration from a wrongful conviction, while giving CLE lectures to judges, prosecutors and the police - those same people who drum up wrongful convictions, rubbing shoulders with top state public officials and running various shows - has recently posted an appeal to his supporters asking them to support amendments to the Commission for prosecutorial conduct.

The amendments have already passed the New York State Legislature, both the Senate and the Assembly,

and there is no way - not after the amendments gave Cuomo and his friend-in-crime Chief Judge DiFiore a supermajority of appointees on the Commission - that Cuomo will not sign those amendments, so it is just a matter of time, and I do not even understand why Deskovic asked his supporters to call the Governor's office and urge him to sign it.  He will anyway.

But, since Deskovic did issue such a call to his supporters to support these amendments, I actually read them - and am calling upon people to call the Governor and urge him NOT to sign the amendments, at least as a matter of principle - since we know that Cuomo will definitely sign the bill, as an assertion of power and one more act of self-aggrandizing that Cuomo loves so much.

They are very, very, very bad.

Here are several points that I have made to Jeffrey Deskovic - and he has actually answered them, so I will be posting my points, his answers and my responses to those answers, as his answers provide interesting revelations about how and for what real, not declarative, goals, were the amendments passed and the Commission put into being.

Here are my points - why these amendments SHOULD NOT be passed into law.


1. NOT ONE of the members of the new commission (as well as the old commission) is a person independent of the ties with the legal profession and the judiciary, the sources of wrongful convictions. 

2. The Court of Appeals, the authority removing judges, is removed from the bill and Appellate Divisions (that currently have a policy of non-prosecution against bad prosecutors) are inserted instead. That is a recipe for disaster, everything will remain the same. 

3. The number changes - the Governor is given in the new bill twice as many appointments as before, while the majority leaders of both houses now have twice less appointees. The power shifts to the Governor, big time, and we know what kind of Governor New York has and how he has been using his power so far. 

4. There is a discrepancy in requirements to appointees. For prosecutors, they can be former or retired prosecutors, but for criminal defense attorneys - they must be present-time defense attorneys, it is a discrimination. 

5. both criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors must be attorneys "in good standing", thus excluding from the process former criminal defense attorneys who were wrongfully suspended or disbarred for doing too good of a job for their clients, being licensed or not licensed must have no bearing on the experience and ability to hold that public office, 

6. The Chief Judge now may appoint only a professor or dean from an "accredited" (by the ABA, an Illinois corporation with foreign secret membership) law schools - an unreasonable requirement giving improper power for the ABA over review of wrongful convictions. And, 

7. the time when the Commission may start reviewing a case has changed dramatically: it cannot start its review of the case before criminal charges are filed or before the case has been investigated for under a year. That gives prosecutors a year to "properly" fabricate a case and make a wrongful conviction a given. 

All in all, the amendment castrates the bill, cutting out the only potential teeth it could possibly have - the bad bill that it was initially anyway, I wrote about it in my blog.


8. Amendments castrating the bill were made to appease prosecutors who have filed a lawsuit. When else did you see legislation changed because public officials whose misconduct the legislation is trying to address are upset about its effectiveness?


9. 4 appointees from Cuomo and 3 from his friend-in-crime (literally) DiFiore, a former prosecutor = an absolute majority on the Commission of 11.

Imagine how those 7 will rule.

It is a stillborn, and shameful, concession, a waste of public money and a dangerous illusion that wrongful convictions are now going to be addressed.

You, yourself a wrongfully convicted person, suggest to support THAT?


I will publish in separate articles answers to these points by Jeffrey Deskovic and my responses to them.  Jeffrey Deskovic's answers reveal a lot about how this legislation came about, and for what real, different from declarative, reasons, it came about.

Stay tuned.

Friday, February 22, 2019

#TheCrimeToBeNamedMelania. Part 9. How to cheat people out of court representation that costs 17 cents per hour or less.

I wrote in the previous blogs of this series that a Romanian American couple that is being corruptly squeezed out of their prime business real estate in the center of the business district of Oneonta, New York, was cheated by Judge John F. Lambert of her paid-for attorney (to whom she paid, reportedly $16,000 for doing nothing and selling her out at every turn, and remained owing, allegedly, $21,000).

The attorney charged

  • $300 per hour for a partner,
    $250 per hour for an associate, and even
    $100 for a "law clerk" - which is a false statement, since "law clerks" must have law degrees, and the price suggests that it is a secretary/paralegal without any law degree.

Judge Lambert let Melania and Nicolae Pervu's law firm out, for non-payment of fees (even though his usual policy - for non-connected attorneys, of course, is to make them represent the non-paying client for free at trials), let the attorneys abandon their client in the middle of a contempt proceeding, and did not even advise Melania and Nicolae Pervu of their right to an assigned free counsel in such a type of proceeding - just callously telling them instead, reportedly,
  • after their attorney have just proven that they cannot pay, and
  • after the City of Oneonta has just complained that they are supposedly not doing costly "bringing-up-to-code" the place where multiple government agencies have put the poor, after inspections of the pace
that the judge was sure they would be able to find another attorney for themselves.
A pro se individual, or an individual rendered pro se by a crooked judge like Lambert, finds him/herself as a fish out of water - not knowing what to do, or who to ask, especially if he/she does not have the money for a new lawyer, with fees like mentioned above, and especially where their opponent in litigation is the powerful government represented, at taxpayer expense, by attorneys.
Since attorneys grabbed for themselves in the United States, and continue to maintain, with the help of their most powerful group, judges, monopoly on who may represent people in court, 

people in the United States are reduced to a "choice": 

  • represent yourself - and lose because you do not know the law very well, do not know the tricks, do not know the judge and because judges are hostile to pro se parties; or

  • bankrupt yourself and your family and friends on another extortionist lawyer.
But - there is a third and fourth ways.

The third way, a taboo and anathema amongst attorneys to even speak about - is to just allow people to HIRE WHO THEY WANT to represent them in court.

After all, licensing/regulation of a profession is a type of the government's help in marketing for a lawyer.

And, any competent adult should be able to decide his own destiny, for his benefit or detriment, including his choice of his own representative - especially in cases where government is on the other side of a court case.

But, no, as a matter of social control, courts refuse to allow competent people to pick who they want to represent themselves in court.

The name of the case is Turner v ABA (and all 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that fixed the case for themselves by consolidating it from several different circuits and picking their own judge for themselves), 407 F.Supp. 451 (1975).

The fourth way to get representation in court involves NO investment of anyone whatsoever, in fact, it involves a BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC, HUMUNGOUS - savings for us all.

An AI software, Luminance, is being now used by a giant law firm - which means, it is available on the market now - and does what a human being without a license will be put in jail for doing - it looks for and pinpoints "inconsistencies" in documents for lawyers, which means, it uses "the judgement of a lawyer" and gives lawyers - legal advice regarding such inconsistencies. Here is what AI Luminance can do:

Yet another AI legal software, ROSS, is being sold - to lawyers only - for just $123 per month's subscription, a price of a family cell phone plan.

Note that both AI platforms are marketed to lawyers only - which is an unwarranted and an illegal discrimination against pro se nonlawyer litigants, which constitute the majority of litigants in court right now and are suffering from lack of access to specifically the type of services that these AI platforms offer. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever, especially during the ever-deepening justice gap in the country where, according to scholars, the majority of UNRICH (poor and middle class) Americans cannot afford legal services and are forced to forfeit a lot of their claims of violations of their rights. "Neglected in today’s headlines, blogs, and talk radio is a silent shameful crisis inflicting suffering and costing the nation money, legitimacy, and decency. Our justice system has become inaccessible to millions of people who are poor, of modest or even average means. As a result, every day, we violate the “equal justice under law” promise engraved on the front of the grand United States Supreme Court. Americans who cannot afford legal help routinely forfeit basic rights because they cannot afford to enforce them."
Beyond Elite Law: Access to Civil Justice in America (p. xv). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. Note the edition. Cambridge University Press. Note who developed Luminance.
Note the hypocrisy of holding the technology that is desperately needed by the people while at the same time publishing lamentations about people forfeiting their rights because they cannot afford human lawyers. $125 per month is approximately 17 cents per hour. That is the actual cost of legal services now. 17 cents for hour, and even less. Because, for these 17 cents per hour the AI software will do for you a lot more than a human lawyer can ever dream of doing. It will accept your questions asked in a natural language, not in legal terms, translate your questions into legal terms, go, fast, through a zillion of documents, cases, statutes and regulations - and spit out for you a possible solution for your problem, at least, it may show you what the state of the law is on the topic, issue you are interested in and point you into the right direction as to how to argue your case in court. On your own. For free. But empowered by AI - the same way as lawyers already are. What follows from sales of and use of Luminance and Ross in the United States, is: 1. The AI legal technology is already here, available AND AFFORDABLE - for an average American, for the same average American who cannot afford an overpriced (and less efficient than AI) human lawyer. 2. Calling what a machine can do "unauthorized practice of law" is ridiculous. We do not license machines to do professional work, do we? So, if a robot can do a task, and in response to a normal-language input, that task should not be licensed to humans, especially where a crisis of access to justice exists because human professionals have made their services overpriced and ridiculously unaffordable to the majority of Americans. Compare: $300 per hour for Donovan who sold out his clients, did nothing for them than made their situation worse, but charged them $16,000 and claimed they owe him $21,000 more - over a span of 5 months and just several court appearances, no trials, no evidentiary hearings. AS OPPOSED TO 17 CENTS per hour for AI that would work a million times faster than any Donovan ever can, and will certainly not have political interests to sell out the user. The AI is 1765 TIMES cheaper than Donovan, while being million times more efficient and honest than Donovan. My question is - ladies and gentlemen, the American Public, We the People - WHY DO YOU NEED DONOVANS? Why can't you urge, no MANDATE YOUR government, YOUR public servants, to make the antimonopoly service, the Federal Trade Commission (also overpowered by Donovans) to do their job for their very high salaries that they currently draw for nothing, and, 1. QUASH attorney monopoly as violating federal civil and criminal antitrust laws, and/or simply 2. to MAKE companies selling AI software subscriptions, Luminance and Ross, to attorneys only, to sell them to everybody, at the same affordable price - and the attorney monopoly will then die its natural death, as it should have long time ago. 3. Have the government, instead of pouring zillions of dollars into humans reviewing papers and lamenting that there is not enough money left to fund legal representation for Americans, to just switch all courts to AI Ross or Luminance, or any other, better AI software (on a competitive basis, after public bidding), and allow the public to use legal AI assistants in and out of courtroom, free of charge or for a small fee. Access to justice crisis - resolved. Budget crisis for courts - resolved. Caseload crisis for courts - resolved. AI can read through a year-load of cases in, probably, 5 minutes, spitting out prospective decisions based on the law and not on backroom deals of some wining-and-dining players. Affordable representation for the public to address their legal needs and protect their rights - resolved. Why shouldn't We the People inundate the Federal Trade Commission NOW with demands that it take its collective head from where it is now and MAKE Luminance and ROSS sell their products to non-lawyers? The whole country was eagerly discussing a supposed discrimination where a baker refused to make and sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. This is discrimination of a trade, a profession AGAINST ALL OF YOU, WE THE PEOPLE, the employer of the government. Just get off your collective behinds, stop complaining about the high cost of legal services and MAKE YOUR GOVERNMENT DO ITS JOB FOR YOU, FOR YOUR BENEFIT. Consider: 17 cents per hour vs $300 per hour and the justice gap. The bastards.

Monday, February 18, 2019

#TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. Part 8. The jurisdictional defect that made all orders in City of Oneonta v. Pervu void. Do the poor have a right to be treated as actual people in Otsego County and not as a bunch of unnamed and unnumbered stuff to be "removed" into the street?

This is Part 7 of the article series #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania, about the apparent collusion between some local, state court and now federal public officials to ruin the business and undermine the real estate value, for easy takeover, of a prime piece of real estate belonging to a Romanian American couple, Melania and Nicolae Pervu, in the middle of a business district of the City of Oneonta, New York.

Part 3#TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial. Part III. The burden of proof is on the Respondents - when a judge's and a city attorney's wives are involved in the mess. But, of course! - can be read here.

Part 4  - #TheCrimeToBeNamedMelania.  The case of The City of Oneonta v Melania and Nicolae Pervu, Part 4.  How the City of Oneonta tried to stamp out "a Russian crime family" supporting Trump - can be read here. 

Part 5#TheCrimeToBeNamedMelania. Part 5. No immigrant farmer will own prime real estate in the middle of the business district of Oneonta, New York. A special kind of due diligence necessary before buying property in Oneonta, New York and Otsego County - can be read here.

Part 6 #TheCrimeToBeNamedMelania. Part 6. On cross-endorsements of judges. Judge John F. Lambert. When you need only one vote, your own, to be re-elected - can be read here.

Part 7 - #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. Part 7. Who benefits? The interesting tenants at 189 Main Street and the Lambert-Merzig-Delgado connection - can be read here.

This is Section 1001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York, or CPLR 1001.

Because of this rule, dictated by the 14th Amendment (due process requirement of a notice and opportunity to be heard for all affected parties), in all foreclosure actions and actions where an eviction is possible, tenants of a building to be foreclosed on must be:

  • included as named parties into the proceedings;
  • be served in accordance with the law, with the initial lawsuit papers and with all other papers, throughout the proceedings.
Of course, the New York court system deliberately misleads tenants in such proceedings about the meaning of being served, the rights affected and what, if anything, tenants in such proceedings may or should do during those proceedings.

"Do not worry if your name is on the papers. This does not mean that you have to move out. 

The point is, you don’t have to do anything right now."

Why are these pieces of advice from NY courts to tenants in foreclosure proceedings (and any other similar proceedings which may result in eviction of tenants) misleading?

Because when people are included into the lawsuit as necessary parties, they are included to make the adjudication COMPLETE.

And COMPLETE means that the tenants have a right to:

  • intervene into the proceeding even if they are not included as necessary parties;
  • file counter-claims in proceedings (against the plaintiff);
  • file cross-claims in proceedings (against co-defendants).
Because tenants have A RIGHT to do that, they may be precluded from seeking that right in any other court at any other time.

That is called "collateral estoppel", or "claim preclusion".

Now, this is the front page of the petition in City of Oneonta v Pervu.

Note only 2 respondents, Melania Pervu and Nicolae Pervu.

This is page 5 of the same petition.

Note paragraphs 9 and 10.

This is as far as any judge of minimal competence and integrity should have read this petition before tossing it for lack of jurisdiction, for failure to include necessary parties, the tenants of the "approximately 20 rental units that are occupied with either single or multiple tenants", while the City mentioned that there were actually "approximately 40 residential units on floors 2 through 5".

It does not matter whether the City knew or did not know the identities of those tenants - the City had a proactive obligation to verify those identities, as any other Plaintiff has, before filing a lawsuit in court, to verify identities of defendants who are necessary parties in the action.

Tenants of 20 rental units in the middle of a business district on the Main Street of a city are not ghosts, their identities are easily ascertainable.

Moreover, identities of these particular tenants in this particular case were KNOWN by the City of Oneonta - since the City actively sought it out and gave them legal advice HOW TO SUE Melania and Nicolae Pervu - in a court other than where the City, or, rather, husband and wife Merzigs, have filed their petition.

These are excertps from a small claims court case, Calderson v Pervu, litigated in front of Judge Lucy Bernier in Oneonta City Court:

The plaintiffs say there:

"Under the supervision of the Assistant District Attorney Michael F. Getman.
My husband and I spoke to him when we first received the City letter.  We were told we should never have been obliged to pay rent to live in an unsafe place, and that we should not continue to pay until the property was up to code and the order to vacate diminished.  Take that money and put it towards a new apartment and the moving costs".

Witnesses reported to me that Judge Lucy Bernier had the good grace to look shocked when this piece of information was presented to her in court.

So, from the very beginning of the litigation filed by husband and wife Merzigs in the Otsego County Supreme Court, the prosecutor for the City of Oneonta (and the benefactor of many businesses of that city, through the Dewar Foundation, distributing money to businesses he likes), Michael Getman, son of a late judge actually GAVE LEGAL ADVICE to the necessary OPPOSING parties in the Supreme Court litigation, which was a conflict of interest and an ethical violation, as to how to sue the Pervus in another court - while the City "forgot" to include them right in the Supreme Court litigation, AS DEFENDANTS, under the requirements of CPLR 1001.

Because, had they been included as defendants, it would have been clear that the City cannot possibly give legal advice to them, and especially not at the time when the case was still only filed, only at the very beginning, and the City did not prove its case in court yet.

If the tenants had any right to sue the Pervus for rent recovery, they had to do that within the pending litigation, in the Supreme Court, as cross-claims, not outside of that litigation, in another court, and especially not prompted by the ghost legal advice of Michael F. Getman, the city prosecutor.

Under the circumstances, Judge Lucy Bernier had no jurisdiction to review that case, she should have dismissed the claim as having been filed in the wrong court.

Now, my question is - how did it happen that not 1, but 2 judges, Michael V. Coccoma, a judge with 40 years of experience as an attorney

and 24 years of experience as a judge,

 and John F. Lambert, a judge with 20 years of experience as an attorney,

and 10 years of experience as a judge,

both educated in expensive private law schools, both with many years of experience presiding over foreclosure actions, not only accepted a jurisdictionally defective petition, but made multiple orders on it, the final one, of February 5, 2019, by Judge Lambert, being to evict, WITHIN A SPAN OF TWO DAYS, an uncertain number of UNNAMED tenants, into the street, IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER, who were not even included as necessary parties or served with the Petition as the law requires, and never had an opportunity to be present in court and oppose the eviction?

First, Judge Lambert cannot even spell one of the parties' names correctly - making the validity of the order questionable.  The Respondent's name is Nicolae, not Nicolas.

But, also look at the deceptive wording of Judge Lambert's order:

"ORDERED, that the Respondents Melania Pervu and Nicolas Pervu shall immediately cause to be vacated each and every person from all of the residential apartments located on floors 2-5 of the building located at 195 Main Street, Oneonta, New York, and that the vacating of the said premises of all persons shall be accomplished no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 7, 2019".

I already wrote about how wrong it was for Judge Lambert - as far as the Pervus were concerned - to:

  • advise the City, through his law clerk, to file a contempt of court Order to Show Cause, and what documents to support it with;
  • sign the Order to Show Cause that he taught the City how to file;
  • allow the Pervu attorneys to abandon them in the middle of that contempt proceeding;
  • proceed on the merits in that proceeding after the attorneys withdrew, and while 
    • the Pervus, by law, had to have 30 days to replace them (thus, proceedings on the merits had to STOP once the attorneys were released), not to mention that
    • the Pervus, by law, were entitled to a notification from Judge Lambert, that, in contempt proceedings they are entitled to:
      • a free attorney assigned at no charge to them, if they are eligible, and that if they do not have funds for an attorney (and the judge had every reason to expect they do not since he has just released their private attorneys complaining of their inability to pay them), they should apply for a free counsel, to be assigned by Judge Lambert;
      • a separate evidentiary hearing, with testimony of witnesses and the burden of proof on the City of Oneonta, in a contempt proceeding
  • rubber-stamp the order prepared by Kehoe & Merzig (with the stamp of that law firm on the order), attorneys for the City of Oneonta and for U.S. Rep. Antonio Delgado, who was opening an office next door on February 7, 2019 and needed their hotel to be rid of the poor by that date - directing the Pervu to evict their low-income tenants, in the middle of winter, in 2-days' time;
The Pervus, of course had no right to "cause" anybody to be evicted.

A landlord cannot be ordered by a court to barge into suites rented as people's residences and "cause" them "to be evicted".

How were the Pervus supposed to actually do that?  Grab people and their stuff and physically throw them out?

But, a gross injustice was also done by Judge Lambert upon the residents of, possibly, 40 residential units, who never got a chance to speak in court as to what kind of conditions their residences actually were, and whether they should or could have been evicted in 2 days' time or not.

Because being a necessary party means having a right to that same 14th Amendment due process, the notice and opportunity to be heard, to speak in the Supreme Court, in front of Judge Lambert, AGAINST THE EVICTION.

Given, of course, that those people were poor, and the general disdain that Judge Lambert and all local judges have against the poor, it is apparent that for Judge Lambert the poor do not have faces, identities, or rights.

He did not even order THEM to leave their residencies.

Instead, he ordered their LANDLORDS to "cause" them "to be evicted", en masse, as unnamed and unnumbered inanimate objects.  As just that much of garbage, right into the streets, in the middle of winter.

And, Judge Lambert did not even write this order - he simply signed an order written for him by Kehoe & Merzig, attorneys not only for the City of Oneonta, but mainly for the U.S. House Rep. Antonio Delgado (D) who wanted 195 Main evicted by February 7, 2019, so that he could open his luxury business office without having to think about the poor living next door.

So, the court completely merged with the City of Oneonta in this case:

1. the court, prohibited to practice law by the New York State Constitution, required to be neutral and impartial and prohibited to act as a court and as a party in the same case, gave the City legal advice as to how to litigate, how to file a Show Cause order for contempt proceedings and what to include there; and

2.The City wrote orders instead of a judge, with the City attorney's stamp, which the court included into its order.

Judge Lambert was too lazy to even have his clerk RETYPE the order so that it would at least APPEAR as if the order was actually written by a judge - he simply rubber-stamped it the way it was, with a Kehoe & Merzig, PC stamp on the margins.

And, that order said:

"ORDERED, that upon the failure of the Respondents to comply with the provisions of this Order to Vacate, and upon an ex-parte application, a Warrant of Eviction shall issue from this Court to the Otsego County Sheriff to have any remaining persons forthwith removed from residential apartments, located at 195 Main Street".

Now let's recall that a Sheriff is a County law enforcement officer sworn to uphold the law and the U.S. and the State Constitutions.

As such, a County Sheriff must have a minimal training in constitutional law, a requirement for his job, and to understand his own constitutional oath of office.

Note that this order was not ordered served upon the County Sheriff.

Instead, it was served upon its authors, Kehoe & Merzig, and upon the FORMER attorneys of the Pervus.

Not upon the Pervus.
Not upon the tenants to be evicted.
And not upon the Sheriff's Office.

And, by this order, Judge Lambert allows himself to act upon an EX PARTE APPLICATION, whose, the order does not say.  The City of Oneonta's?  The County Sheriff's?

EX PARTE means - without notice to anybody, just between the applicant and the judge.

Such ex parte communications are NOT ALLOWED by law.

And, the Sheriff is ordered by the judge "to have any remaining persons forthwith removed from residential apartments" - without their names or numbers - and such an "eviction warrant" is supposed to be legally valid?

Has Judge Lambert completely lost his mind in order to provide a favor to U.S. Rep. Delgado?

And, look at those who Judge Lambert ordered to serve with this so-called Order of February 5, 2019.

Judge Lambert, again, did not care to remove the stamp Kehoe & Merzig PC from the margins of his order - indicating who actually wrote the order.

Nor did Judge Lambert care to change who the order is to be served upon.

Obviously, Kehoe & Merzig prepared the draft of the order when Ryan T. Donovan was still the Pervus' attorney.

This order the judge needs to serve upon two pro se parties.

Yet, he does not care a fig whether these parties, whom he rendered pro se in the middle of a contempt of court proceedings that he taught the City of Oneonta to bring, and then continued to rule on the merits of contempt proceedings against two pro se parties, without giving them a chance of substitution of counsel or assigning counsel to them for free, or giving them information that they are entitled to such free counsel - whether these two pro se parties are served with this order at all or not.

The order by which Judge Lambert orders them to "cause" people from 40 residential apartments to "be evicted".

Judge Lambert may not have even read that draft.

Since the signature was electronic, it could have been the same law clerk Mark Oursler who taught the City of Oneonta how to file the Contempt motion who signed the order granting it, instead of Judge Lambert.

The case was prejudged before it was filed, so neither Lambert, nor Oursler give a fig about the people who suffered.

They do not give a fig about anybody's "constitutional rights", in fact, they may laugh you in the face if you mention such things.

did not even care to print out the damned order for signing - he received the draft from Merzig by e-mail and signed it or had his law clerk sign it for him electronically, without looking what was in it -  including the law firm stamp and the former attorneys instead of the pro se parties to be served.

Judge Coccoma who has issued the first order in this proceeding allowing it to go forward and shifting the burden of proof to the Pervus, as well as Judge Lambert  and his law clerk Mark Oursler cannot be sued - because judges gave themselves immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, since 1975.

Lambert and Coccoma can only be turned into the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission and the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department - with a request to take the bastards off the bench and disbar them.

Coccoma, Lambert and their law clerks
can be prosecuted criminally, though - the U.S. Attorney can prosecute them under 18 U.S.C. 242, for the crime of violating of civil rights of multiple people, in a gross manner and under the color of law.

As it is appropriate, in my opinion, for the U.S. Attorney to prosecute criminally David Merzig, his client Rep. Antonio Delgado and Judges Coccoma and Lambert, as well as Lambert's law clerk Mark Oursler, for a conspiracy to deprive the Pervus and their tenants of honest services of two judges, under 18 U.S.C. 1346.

I hope that the bastards are charged, convicted and put into federal prison where they belong.

I hope that the tenants file petitions in the Otsego County Supreme Court to intervene into these proceedings, with accompanying motions to recuse Judge Lambert, vacate all orders in the case and dismiss the City's petition as jurisdictionally defective, for failure to include necessary parties, with sanctions against the City of Oneonta's Chairperson of the Board of Public Service Margery Merzig and her husband who brought the petition on her behalf, the City of Oneonta attorney David Merzig.

I also hope that the tenants and the Pervus would file a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, with a demand for a jury trial, for multiple violation of their constitutional rights by the City, County and the Sheriff, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, pro se, if necessary, and ask for waivers of the hefty filing fees, as the court allows for low-income individuals.

These people can be taught only by lawsuits, and only when they are sued in their individual capacity, and hit by such lawsuits right in their own pockets.

They have no conscience and no honor.