"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.

Thursday, April 6, 2023

Dishonesty, incompetence and political agenda wins a top judicial seat in Wisconsin - oh, well

 As you have, probably, noticed, I have ceased to write in this blog - at least, to write often.

And for a reason:  the country has changed too much since I have first started to write here 9 years ago in 2014, and it appears now that we have a firmly established selective political "justice" for every single one of us, which back in 2014 belonged only in the area of attorney disciline which I wrote here about.

Now the sanctity of a law office and the security of the attorney-client privilege was violated for all on the American soil through multiple searches of President Trumps' attorneys' law offices and now, through the indictment of Trump based on forced statements of his attorney under the threat that if he does not cough up some garbage agaisnt Trump, his wife will be jailed - because if it is against Trump, no law may protect him or anybody who dares to represent him.

His attorneys were intimidated, searched, convicted, disbarred, threatened, his own home was searched, now he was indicted - no law is needed.

I have already stated that multiple times over the course of the recent years that the justice system works in a very straightforward way, and for everybody, and if you position one person below the law simply based on his identity - you have just allowed that principle to be applied to yourself, too, and to everybody located within jurisdiction of the United States.

The rule of law works, through separate specific cases, either to support that same rule of FOR EVERYBODY, or to ERODE it - also for EVERYBODY.

If, since the "Russian collusion hoax", the public was TAUGHT by the leftstream media to believe, CONTRARY TO THE LAW, that indictments against Trump's associates, and against Trump himself is EVIDENCE, and that what Trump and his associates needed to do is PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE, that belief tainted jury pools across the country in every single criminal jury trial on the Amerian soil for every single defendant involved.

Now Democrats are working hard on undermining a yet another fundamental constitutional right - to a fair and impartial judicial review, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, by working, in a politically selective way, of course, in two OPPOSITE directions at the same time, on the issue of judicial ethics and judicial misconduct.

They, on the one hand, ardently push in Congress for the establishment of a code of ethical conduct for US Supreme Court justices - and they are right on that, even though they never wanted to notice the gross ethical violations of their now dearly departed Justice Ruth Ginsburg who not only presided over Trump cases while publicly professing her hatred against him, but proactively influenced cases in courts below, conducting secret negotiations with a federal appellate court in Hawaii hearing a Trump case before it even reached her docket.  Democrats keep mum about it, and, moreover, viciously attack those who dare to point that out.

Yet, they, on the other hand, blast President Trump for LEGITIMATELY criticizing the judge presiding over his made-up criminal case for presiding over a case where the judge openly hates the Defendant, and where his closest family members are in the pay of the defendant's orior and current political opponents.

The hypocrisy with the judicial ethics thing-y has hit a new high (or is it a low?) where the leftstream media is now celebrating that a candidate for the seat of a Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice has "won" that race by publicly pledging as to how she will rule on a certain issue regardless of what evidence will be in front of her, "overturning the abortion ban".

Yet, such a claim testifies to the winning candidate's, at the same time, dishonesty and incompetence.

Dishonesty because a judge is elected to the Supreme Court of the State to do appellate work and nothing else, and rule only on the issue in front of her - not use her position of power to promote her own and her party's political agenda.  In fact, she pledged that, if elected, she will do politics in court instead of doing her job - and the public happily elected her.

Incompetence - because, had she read what she so disingenuously (that is a clever legal term replacing the straightfoward word "stupid") called "abortion ban", that SCOTUS decision has actually GAVE THE STATES a right to decide whether they want or do not want to allow abortion, as the power to protect health and safety of their residents is the exclusive power of the states, she would have been pledging to the public to "OVERTURN" a "ban" that DOES NOT EXIST.

The "overturning" pledge is even more scary that the US Supreme Court has given this power where it belongs by the US Constitution, its 10th Amendment - to people, to enact an abortion permission, or ban, through their representatives in state courts.  What the judge pledged - ahead of time - to do is to read into the Wisconsin State Constitution what is not there, in the event the people of the State of Wisconsin DO enact an abortion ban, which, whether the judge and her political party likes it or not, will then become law.

Thus, the winning judicial candidate in Wisconsin was trying to either publicly and bravely slam down an open door, or to claim that she may single-handedly defy the State Constitution under which she received job and power.

The sad part about an unethical and incompetent candidate winning the race for the position of a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice is that (1) now she will get to set for the state the common law and interpretations of state statutory laws; and (2) will regulalte, now appreciate the sad irony, the ethics of behavior of attorneys, admitting or exclulding them from practice - and from the reach of their clients - on her stupid, incompetent and politically tainted agenda.

Of course, now impeachment of the stupid and incompetent justice-elect is rumored to be on the agenda of the State Senate - and, obviously, for a good reason.

So - celebrate it if you can, while you can - maybe the law, common sense and justice will prevail over the "winning" judge who has PLEDGED to violate her oath of office before taking it, for political agenda - and won because of it.

OR try to work to - legally - undo the avalanche of politicizing of the justice system by every possible legal means.

Friday, October 7, 2022

Voters in Delaware County, NY, remember - no lawyer will dare tell you the truth about John Hubbard as a judicial candidate. You need to do your own homework before voting.

New York "ethical rules" forbids lawyers, under the penalty of losing their livelihood, to truthfully inform voters about honesty and competency (or lack thereof) of judicial candidates, read my prior article with evidence here.

A gentle reminder to voters of how judicial candidate John Hubbard has dishonestly got his alleged extraordinary high conviction record as a DA - from his former law partner Judge Becker

This is an article from 2016.

It is very relevant now when judicial candidate John Hubbard, Delaware County DA now, claims in his election campaign to become a County Judge his extremely high conviction rate - without mentioning that that the said conviction rate was obtained 

(1) illegally, without disclosure to defendants and their attorneys that the presiding judge (Becker) was Hubbard's law partner before coming to the bench, and 

(2) from Judge Northrup, Hubbard's former boss/DA.

Coincidentally, both Becker and Northrup ran from their much-craved judicial positions before their terms were up, indicating that they were both booted quietly for undisclosed misconduct - and County judges are very, very rarely booted by the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct, so misconduct must have been really, really bad.

John must be proud by such an association and leadership.

By the way, John does not mention to the public on his Facebook election page that he, together with his then-boss Northrup and in cahoots with his former law partner Judge Becker, bought waivers of liability for himself, judge Becker, the County and its various employees in civil rights lawsuits through plea bargains in criminal cases.

I caught the crew doing that in 2009 in a case of a legally blind client where the crew had the legally blind client sign such a waiver without being told what he was signing.

That was a form waiver my legally blind client has signed (represented at the plea allocution by a previous attorney, who we sued successfully later), so there is a high likelihood John Hubbard, Northrup and Becker have had a zillion of those waivers sold in exchange for plea bargains.

The impartial and honorable ones.

Just know who you are electing.

Thursday, July 21, 2022

Judicial candidate John Hubbard will be absolutely disqualified as a matter of law from the majority of Family Court cases in Delaware County, New York, if elected

 In my previous article, I have shown that the current judicial candidate, Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard who is currently running an election campaign to become Delaware County, NY 3-bench judge (County, Family and Surrogate's Court) may be prohibited as a matter of law to sit on the majority of cases in all courts in Delaware County because of his familial relationships going back 6+ generations in a thinly populated, highly tribal and clannish and very interbred area.

There are more mandatory prohibitions that will preclude Hubbard, as a matter of law, from sitting on a large number, if not the majority of, specifically, Family Court cases, which will necessitate taxpayers of the state of New York to pay judges from other areas to fill in the gaps.

 New York State has a statute, Judiciary Law Section 14, containing ABSOLUTE prohibitions for judges to preside over certain cases.

"A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding 

  • to which he is a party, or 
  • in which he has been attorney or counsel, or 
  • in which he is interested, or 
  • if he is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree.  The degree shall be ascertained by ascending from the judge to the common ancestor, descending to the party, counting a degree for each person in both lines, including the judge and party, and excluding the common ancestor."
New York State Court of Appeals has declared that a judge's recusal is a matter of the judge's practically unlimited "discretion" (choice, whim) IF the judge is not disqualified by Judiciary Law 14.

Disqualification by one of the prohibitions of Judiciary Law 14 gives the judge no choice but to recuse from a case.

Two of such prohibitions are that the judge was an attorney or a party in any "action, claim, motion or proceeding".

John Hubbard does not conceal the fact that he has been a criminal prosecutor in Delaware County for over 20 years.

In fact, he makes it one of his running points - that he has "served people" and was "tough on crime".

Good for him - although this is mostly a lie, you can read my other blogs about Hubbard (this blog allows word-searching) to see evidence of that.

Hubbard's position as a criminal prosecutor for 20+ years in Delaware County though is exactly what makes him uniquely disqualified from sitting on a large number, if not the majority, of Family Court cases, especially the so-called "child protective" cases, and the proof of it is in the text of the applicable law. 

New York State Social Services Law 34-a(2)(b), about the so-called "summary of understanding", says the following:

“The regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall require the multi-year services plan and where appropriate the annual implementation reports, to include a summary of the understanding between the local social services district and the district attorney’s office, which outlines the cooperative procedures to be followed by both parties in investigating incidents of child abuse and maltreatment, consistent with their respective obligations for the investigation or prosecution of such incidents, as otherwise required by law.”

Explanation in a human language:  EVERY SINGLE "child protective" investigation of CPS MUST be accompanied by the investigation by the local police, otherwise Social Services cannot receive financing.

Hubbard as a criminal prosecutor was, by law, legal advisor of the "law enforcement" conducting every single child protective investigation in Delaware County for 20+ years, absolutely disqualifying Hubbard from presiding over such cases - that often last for years and may be still on the court docket.

So, in EVERY SINGLE child protective investigation and/or subsequent administrative or Family Court proceeding by Delaware County CPS done before the date Hubbard is sworn in as a judge Hubbard will have been an "attorney or counsel", a legal advisor of the police who conducted joint investigations together with CPS in EVERY SINGLE child protective case.

Given how small the county's population is, how poor, and how dedicated CPS is to go after members of the same families, in generations, again and again, 20+ years' worth of involvement and disqualification by Hubbard from cases prior to January 1, 2023 means the majority of child protective cases, and all other cases in Family Court.

Next, New York State Family Court Act 254-a Subsection 1 says:

1. The county attorney and the district attorney of a county, and the corporation counsel of the city of New York and the district attorney of any county in such city, may enter into an agreement whereby the district attorney shall present the case in support of the petition in which a designated felony act has been alleged.

Explanation in a human language:  The CPS attorney may agree that the local criminal prosecutor be the attorney of record for the petitioner (County, party petitioner in the proceedings) in cases of child abuse, a "civil" proceeding where allegations are made of parent's conduct that is a felony if brought in criminal court.

A petitioner is a PARTY in a proceeding in Family Court, for juvenile delinquency (Article 3 of the Family Court Act), Persons in Need of Supervision (Article 7), Family Offense (Article 8) and Child Abuse (Article 10).

New York State Family Court Act 254 Subsection (b) says:

"(b) In all cases involving abuse, the corporation counsel of the city of New York and outside the city of New York, the appropriate district attorney shall be a necessary party to the proceeding.

That means that in all child abuse proceedings that happened in Delaware County over the 20+ years when Hubbard was a criminal prosecutor Hubbard was also officially, by law, a party to those child abuse proceedings, which ABSOLUTELY, as a matter of law, disqualifies him from presiding over the same proceedings (often lasting for years) as a judge.

Delaware County voters - when you vote in November, you might be advised to take this into account. 

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Delaware County (NY) judicial candidate John Hubbard MUST PUBLISH for the voters his family tree by consanguinity and affinity up to the 6th degree to determine percentage of cases from which he will be disqualified by law

A County judge in Delaware County also carries out the duties of the Family Court and the Surrogate Court's judge.

The salary of such a judge - based on the published salary of the recently-retired judge Richard D. Northrup, Jr., whose vacated place is now up for elections - is $210,893.

That amount is payable not by the state of New York, but by Delaware County Taxpayers - according to the New York State Family Court Act:

So, when you vote in Delaware County for who is going to be your judge, you need to think how often the judge will be NOT ABLE to discharge his duties because he is going to be prohibited to do that by law, and how often instead Delaware County will have to pay for services of an additional judge.

For the current judicial candidate John Hubbard, such a percentage may be staggering.


New York State has a statute, Judiciary Law Section 14, containing ABSOLUTE prohibitions for judges to preside over certain cases.

"A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding 

  • to which he is a party, or 
  • in which he has been attorney or counsel, or 
  • in which he is interested, or 
  • if he is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree.  The degree shall be ascertained by ascending from the judge to the common ancestor, descending to the party, counting a degree for each person in both lines, including the judge and party, and excluding the common ancestor.  
But no judge of a court of record shall be disqualified in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding in which an insurance company is a party or is interested by reason of his being a policy holder therein.  No judge shall be deemed disqualified from passing upon any litigation before him because of his ownership of shares of stock or other securities of a corporate litigant, provided that the parties, by their attorneys, in writing, or in open court upon the record, waive any claim as to disqualification of the judge."

This article will deal with only one problem with candidacy of John Hubbard (the current District Attorney) for the position of a judge of the County, Family and Surrogate's Court in Delaware County New York, his likely mandatory disqualifications from an overwhelming number of cases because of his multi-generational familial connections in the area.

John Hubbard is currently actively campaigning for the highly-paid  position of a 3-bench (Family Court, County Court, Surrogate's Court) judge, giving away candy and American flags.

Recently, John Hubbard, to bolster his election stance, he has also provided a very peculiar evidence, supposedly in support of his position as the county judge: a picture of the grave of his revolutionary hero relative who has supposedly lived in this same area a couple hundred years prior.

I guess, the blood of the revolutionary hero sings in John Hubbard's veins and this makes him qualified as a judge - by pedigree.

The usual identity politics, nothing new here.

Yet, let us count, based on John Hubbard's own disclosure, how many generations of his ancestors (at the very least, there may have been more before the person buried under the shown grave marker) have lived in the area.

John Hubbard describes David Ellerson as his "5X great-grandfather".  So, it is 6 generations up.

Let us consider that Delaware County (and I lived there for 16 years, and knew, because of my husband's and my own profession, many people in the area) is a rural, woody and mountainous, poor, thinly populated, with scant population movement and, consequently, highly interbred county (the going characterization of the population in the Delaware County is that it is "the land of kissing cousins").

Thus, going 6 generations up and down from John Hubbard in terms of blood relations (consanguinity) and marital relations (affinity) may result in a finding that John Hubbard, whose ancestors, as Hubbard has himself proudly demonstrated with the help of a picture of his revolutionary hero-ancestor's grave marker on his election campaign page - may have an absolutely disqualifying familial relationship through blood or marriages with the absolute majority of the County residents.

Don't you think that Hubbard owes its voters, instead of giving out candy, American flags and posing with his brilliant smile at different old-boy gatherings, to make a disclosure as to how much of their money will be wasted if they elect him - and to PUBLISH his full family tree, up to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity up and down in age.

If he can't do it, even more so he can't be a judge - because taxpayers in the poor rural Delaware County will be then put into an untenable position of wasting their limited resources on a huge Hubbard's judicial salary and benefits, AND for Hubbard presiding over proceedings which may at any point in time may be pronounced VOID (as in: zero, nullity, never happened) because of his absolutely prohibited as a matter of law familial connection to a party in the proceeding.

So, will John Hubbard publish his family tree covering relatives in all disqualifying degrees of consanguinity and affinity?

Or will he continue to bamboozle voters with candy, American flags and his photo-ops?

By the way, the same disqualification problem may exist for the already sitting judge, Gary Rosa, also a multi-generational native of Delaware County - who is also in no hurry to publish his family tree and enlightening parties in front of him about his mandatory disqualifications.

The ONLY way Judiciary Law 14 will be meaningful and have the intended protections for the public is that all judges and judicial candidates are required to publish their family trees to the 6th degrees of consanguinity and affinity - so that the public may readily see where the judge is prohibited by law to preside over a case, making any decisions in such a case void.

Since this is a highly paid and powerful public office, any expenses for putting together such a family tree shall be on the judge or judicial candidate, and the law must be introduced that nobody may be punished for requesting such a family tree or for challenging its authenticity.

For problems with Hubbard's likely or, rather, 100% positive disqualification based on other 3 mandatory bases listed above (being a party, and attorney for the party and having an interest in litigation), I will publish more articles before elections, so stay tuned. 

Sunday, May 1, 2022

Andrew Van Buren, the cowardly, dishonest, alcohol-loving and DESPERATELY GREEDY "breath of fresh air" in Delaware County (NY) judicial elections

In April 2022 a new judicial candidate has announced of his run for the seat of Delaware County (NY) County/Family/Surrogate's court judge, a position that pays $210,000 a year.

Andrew Van Buren.

I have explained in my earlier articles on this blog why you won't hear from currently practicing attorneys anything negative about this judicial candidate.

So, I will oblige - because, after seeing this ridiculously dishonest piece of self-advertising by Andrew Van Buren in The Walton Reporter,

I cannot and will not remain silent.  Voters have a right to know who and what this candidate is.

I know this candidate since 1999, I know him through social settings (he used my husband as his mentor until he switched to become Judge Carl F. Becker's messenger boy), I worked with him on the same cases as an attorney, and I know him as a dishonest and mean drunk who has no place on the bench.

Delaware County has known enough dishonest judges and enough dishonest mean drunks on the bench without Van Buren be added to this cohort.

It is true that Van Buren - same as the other candidate, John Hubbard - has an extensive litigation experience, and has his share of cases that he won, like any lawyer does.

But, a County Court judge in Delaware County is a multibench judge, and his main caseload will be in Family Court where he will rule as a sole fact-finder, without a jury, determining the fate of people's custody to children and in cases where people's custody of children, employment and a vast range of other rights are implicated, child abuse and neglect proceedings.

A Family Court judge has a tremendous power, and must be even-tempered, and not prone to petty vengeance.  That is not who Andrew Van Buren is.

1.  The coward who sells friends for money

"A breath of fresh air" is a phrase Andrew Van Buren likes to use.

He used it characterizing me once, in an interesting setting.

He lived in my husband's home while going to law school.

My husband helped his family member a lot.

My husband was mentoring Van Buren and teaching him trial skills.  Van Buren was calling my husband frequently for - free - consultations, which were always given, just to set a background of relationships with our family.

Van Buren recommended me to the licensing authorities to be admitted for the practice of law.

Then my practice of law started.

I was in the courtroom of Judge Carl F. Becker, it was sometime in 2009.

I was representing a client in a child neglect case.  I have made a motion to recuse Becker from presiding over the case as an attorney who represented the Petitioner for 27 years and will rely on his personal out-of-court knowledge and not the evidence presented, in assessing credibility of his personal friends.

Becker denied the motion, I continued to make objections in court.

Becker told me "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni". 

I stood up and objected against Becker treating me in such a manner and moved to recuse for actual bias against me that will reflect on my client.

Andrew Van Buren was one of attorneys present in these proceedings.

He remained silent, looking into his desk, head down.

After court, he caught up with me outside of the courthouse and told me that 
  • I am "a breath of fresh air", supposedly much needed for the County, and that, 
  • as to my motion to recuse Becker as having represented the local DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench, "everybody knows it, but nobody says it".
To that, Van Buren added - but, "don't burn your bridges, Tanya".

I did not realize at that time that it was a threat, and a threat communicated from Becker.  I still considered Van Buren at that time not just a colleague, but a family friend.

Little did I know that Andrew Van Buren, to survive financially and get assignments in Family Court, has become a messenger boy for that same Judge Carl F. Becker.

In 2011, Andrew Van Buren came to the house of his mentor of many years, my husband, bringing to him a personal threat of criminal prosecution from Judge Becker, a completely bogus threat.  I was present when he voiced that threat to my husband - "if you don't do this and that, I will have you criminally prosecuted."

Note that Becker was not a county DA at that time.  Northrup (Becker's friend) was.  So Becker could not possibly "have" anybody criminally prosecuted, unless his friend Northrup would go along with his request for fabrication.

Note that in 2009, after I have made that motion to recuse Becker, Becker used his other corrupt friend, DSS Commissioner Moon, to fabricate a child neglect case against my husband and myself, trying to hurt our young child and us, prosecuted by a yet another Becker's friend, Porter Kirkwood, who also ran for the judicial position with Becker's endorsement.

So, Becker by that time has ALREADY fabricated a case with the help of another friend, a child neglect case, against us (which may have resulted also in criminal charges had it played out as Becker wanted it to).

We won it - after over a year in litigation.

Even the child's assigned counsel (out of Binghamton) told us that it was "small town politics", and supported us in fighting it.

DSS/Moon has fired a young attorney who rebelled against this fabrication as a political case, later settled and had that attorney move away across the state.

Note that BEFORE that threat, I have asked the current judicial candidate and then Chief ADA John Hubbard to criminally prosecute Becker for being an impostor and not a judge and for forging documents relating to his election in March of 2011.

Hubbard did not tell me that he was Becker's prior law partner who bought Becker's law practice and law office and was put into the ADA position by Becker, but refused to prosecute him.

Note that in May of 2011, Hubbard, instead, threatened my husband "not to burn bridges" (exactly as Van Buren threatened me in 2009, before Becker fabricated a child neglect case against us with his friend Moon).

That was when my husband filed an assigned appeal in People v Carbone, raising the issue of corruption of Becker and Northrup (having a blind man sign, without knowing, a waiver of civil rights litigation against Becker and Northrup for extrajudicial confiscation of his money and car).  My husband did not take that appeal back and was disbarred, based on bogus claims.

Note that at the end of June, 2011, I have SUED Becker in state court on behalf of a 3rd party, my husband and myself.

Andrew Van Buren knew all of that.  Because we told him this information, as a longtime family friend.

I wonder how much of it Van Buren communicated directly to Becker, in exchange for assignments in family and criminal court.

And, knowing all of that, he came into his mentor's home in July of 2011 bearing a threat from Becker that Becker will fabricate a criminal charge against my husband.  Van Buren told us directly that it was Becker's request he was carrying out.

He did not tell the judge that he will not be serving as his messenger boy.

He did not tell the judge that it is illegal to threaten a person who just sued you and whose wife just asked to criminally prosecute you as an impostor, with a yet another fabrication - after Moon's fabrication failed.

He did not tell the judge to bring his threats that had nothing to do with his judicial duties - on his own.

He caved in and worked as a messenger boy for the corrupt judge.

As a contemptible coward that he is.

Because this was his Judas price to get assignments from Becker, at $75 an hour, in criminal and Family Court cases.

But that was not all.

2. Deliberate deception of voters

The next year, in 2012, when Becker ran for re-election, Van Buren, knowing full well, who and what Becker is, wrote THIS:

Knowing that Becker - VICIOUSLY - avenges criticism of his misconduct, Van Buren preferred to DECEIVE Delaware County voters by falsely praising a judge he knew was a criminal.

"In my experience, Judge Becker gives attorneys and litigants, alike, an opportunity to be heard (even when the time for doing so is limited).  His decisions are fair, well-reasoned, and thoroughly researched.  His sentencing decisions reflect the interests of the community and also a measure of compassion for criminal defendants".

Van Buren said that, knowing that Becker was a mean petty drunk who was the most reversed judge, probably, in the Delaware County's history, here is the list of just some of his reversals.

Van Buren knew that Becker shut down attorneys' objections and did not let them make their arguments in court.

He knew that Becker DID NOT research his cases - that's why he was the most-reversed judge.

He knew that Becker's sentencing decisions served the career and financial interests of his own and of his friends Northrup, Moon and (then-County Attorney) Spinney, and nobody else's.

Yet, Van Buren knew that he will not be disciplined for FALSE PRAISE - only for criticism of a judge, no matter how fair.

And - HE LIED TO VOTERS, lied with authority, based on his years of experience appearing in front of Becker.

So, Van Buren IS the one who arranged, through his DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF VOTERS, for saddling the County residents with another term of 10 years of Becker's tyranny (good that the "fair and reasonable" Becker ran from the office in 2015 chased by the FBI, the New York State Commission for judicial conduct and the State Comptroller's office).

3. Disorderly conduct arrest

Van Buren's unruly behavior was reported back in 2002 when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and littering in front of his client's house.

4.  Dishonesty with clients, attorneys and courts and GREED, GREED, GREED again

Greed Case # 1.  Extorting attorney fees from a cancer patient and victim of his client's stone theft

Sometime in the early 2000s, when I have just got married to a Delaware County resident, attorney Frederick J. Neroni, and came to live there, my husband had an interesting case against Andrew Van Buren's client.

The case was well publicized at that time, and I am sure many people who lived in the area at the time would remember it.

A woman (my husband's client) was diagnosed with cancer and came to live in our area, charmed by its peace and tranquility.

Well, Andrew Van Buren's client interfered with that piece and tranquility by starting to steal stones from a historical stone wall on her property.

What was even more atrocious was that Andrew Van Buren moved for a summary judgment against my husband's client, asking the court to award his client's (thief's) attorney fees owed to Van Buren - against the victim of the theft, the property owner and a cancer patient who his client robbed.

I do remember that the presiding judge, I believe, it was Michael V. Coccoma, was so upset about what Van Buren did that he

1/ granted to my husband's client a REVERSE summary judgment ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, when my husband was not even asking for it; and

2/ banned Andrew Van Buren from his courtroom.

I remember how Andrew Van Buren called my husband and left a drunk insulting message on our answering machine about it.

The only reason he did what he did was GREED, he wanted his fee no matter what and no matter who he was going to squeeze that fee from.

Greed Case # 2.   Desperately trying to get paid for representing opponent of Van Buren's own former client in the same case

Children custody trials are emotional, drawn-out, involve a lot of detailed evidence and a lot of witnesses, and courts usually give plenty of time to prepare for such trials - because of all the above.

Imagine the situation.

I have a custody trial for a client scheduled for the next day.

Suddenly I receive a call from Andrew Van Buren telling me that he represents the opponent in that case now.

That was NOT how the law requires attorneys to get substituted.

There was an attorney of record in that case (attorney Zilbert, as far as I remember), substitution of attorneys must be done - by law - through a NOTARIZED consent to change attorneys, which Andrew Van Buren DID NOT obtain from the opposing party and DID NOT file with the court.

Quite recently before that Judge Burns (presiding judge in the custody case) chastised in court attorney Renee Albaugh for claiming to be attorney of record in a divorce case and making motions in that case, while failing to file a proper substitution of attorneys and, thus, not being attorney of record.

So, Andrew Van Buren was NOT an attorney of record in the case at the time he claimed he was representing my client's opponent.

Anyway, I call my client and I notify him that a claim is made that Andrew Van Buren will be representing his opponent at the tomorrow's trial - and he calls me back immediately, quite upset, telling me that Andrew Van Buren was HIS attorney in the SAME case (custody cases take a long time, sometimes years).

I do believe it was greed - Andrew Van Buren charges an arm and a leg for representation at trials, and he needed money, so he pretended that he "forgot" that he is opposing his own former client in the same case where he represented him on the same issue.

Van Buren dishonestly took the case out of greed, hoping that it will slide through, and nobody will remember.

Well, his client did remember, and objected, and I wrote to Andrew Van Buren on my client's behalf.

Here is our e-mail exchange (I've blacked out the names of clients).  

The year was 2013 - after Andrew Van Buren has shown us his true colors as the corrupt Judge Becker's racketeer messenger boy.

What was wrong with Andrew Van Buren asking for an adjournment?

Everything was wrong about it.

First of all, he was not yet an attorney of record in the case - never was, and can't ask the court for anything.

Second, he cannot be an attorney of record for the opponent since he represented my client in the same case before, and can't ask the court for anything that is against my client's best interests.

As I said above, there was plenty of time given by the court for trial preparation, there was PLENTY of work done by me preparing for the trial, work that was already billed, per hour, to my client, and my client very reasonably objected to any adjournment at the 11th hour, especially for the bogus reason that his opponent fired previous attorney and hired HIS OWN INITIAL ATTORNEY, and then, after his attorney's conflict of interest was revealed, claimed an adjournment that she was not otherwise entitled to.

A good trick, wasn't it?

Here is what I wrote to Van Buren on the subject:

And that is when Andrew Van Buren EXPLODED - consider THAT piece for an assessment of this judicial candidate's "judicial temperament":

He was obviously afraid that I will sue him on behalf of his client - which his client had an obvious right to do, and it would not have been a "malicious way to practice law", but his former client's right.

Note that all I asked was for Van Buren to just step aside COMPLETELY and not ask the judge for ANYTHING on behalf of his new client (opponent of his former client in the same litigation), because THAT REQUEST WAS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL - twice, coming from an attorney who was not an official attorney of record, and coming from an attorney who was opposing his own former client.  

Note that I did not threaten Van Buren with any referrals, complaints or lawsuits.

I simply asked him to not ask the judge for any adjournments, since he had no right to represent his own client's opponent in the first place, for any reason.

Note that Van Buren tries to pretend that he cares a lot about Judge Burns "coming from Cooperstown" to preside over the case, only to "have to adjourn it".  

Know what?  He didn't have to adjourn anything, since Van Buren was instantly replaced by another attorney, and the trial did happen.

But, Van Buren just tried to have the case adjourned on false pretenses - possibly, trying to keep a part of the (likely giant) fee that he unlawfully charged his client.

How is that about honesty and temperament of a judicial candidates, dear voters?

And here is what Andrew Van Buren told me when I called him out on his tantrum.


He "always" apologizes "when it is warranted". 

Once again, the summary of the story.

A certain client FIRED Andrew Van Buren and, after other previous attorneys, hired me.

I prepared for trial for my client.

Andrew Van, angry at his client for firing him, designed a costly revenge for his client.

Van Buren allowed his client's opponent to hire him, charged her a trial fee (not less than $10,000, and that is a conservative estimate, as far as I know Van Buren's fees), and tried to derail his former client's trial.

When caught red-handed, he started to accuse the attorney who simply asked him not to act against his own former client, of all kinds of - non-existing - mortal sins and refused to apologize, because I am not worth the apology.

GREED CASE #3 (and that's only what I know of, over a short period of time).  Cika v Kellner

A contractor did a remodeling job in a house.  The homeowner refused to pay.

I sued on behalf of the contractor.  Van Buren represented the homeowner.

Van Buren moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it is subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement.

I opposed the motion and won, so the case was retained by the court.

I filed discovery demands with Van Buren, he did not comply.

The judge (Lambert) called a discovery-pretrial-settlement conference.  My client did not want to settle, and especially when Van Buren's client did not comply with discovery demands.

Before the pre-trial conference, Van Buren told me that his client is not paying him (like he did not pay my client for his work).  At the conference Van Buren started to pressure me into settling the case on terms favorable to his client - and demanded that my client's must pay Van Buren's attorney fees for OPPOSING my client's lawsuit.

I refused.

Van Buren became verbally abusive.

I requested the court attorney (Oursler) handling the conference to put audio recording on (it was in the Grand Jury room where audio recording equipment was installed at that time).  Oursler refused.

Van Buren continued to berate me at the top of his lungs for not settling the case and accusing me and my client of non-existing misconduct.

At the end of the conference I was crying, shaking, my hands were trembling, and I went to a colleague to at least have a witness of my condition after the conference.

I DID turn Andrew Van Buren into attorney discipline for his behavior in this Greed #3 case. 

Being a diligent Becker's student and knowing that by that time Becker has fabricated a child neglect against us (we won a dismissal), a disciplinary case against my husband (he was disbarred) and a disciplinary case against me (still pending at the time), Van Buren decided to fabricate more - with Becker's help.

He complained against me that I FALSELY accused Van Buren of misconduct at the conference, that it was I, and not him, who derailed discovery in the case, and that I was "improperly" refused to settle (and, obviously, to agree that my client must pay Van Buren's attorney fees).

Van Buren claimed that Oursler (who refused to audiotape Van Buren's misconduct) will testify against me as to what was happening in the conference, and that Becker will also come to testify against me on Van Buren's behalf.

That was a year after Van Buren praised Becker during his election campaign to voters and 2 years after he parlayed Becker's threat of (fabricated) criminal prosecution to my husband.

Apparently, Van Buren revealed that he was in a very close friendly relationship with Judge Becker if Becker would agree to come testify on behalf of Van Buren against me.  So much for "I am not beholden to anyone".

In response to Van Buren's fabrication, I pointed out his misbehavior in the conflict of interest Greed #2 case, and THEN Andrew Van Buren LIED EVEN MORE, now to the court - the court never disbarred him for that though (I wonder, why, probably, Becker asked for him).

While Van Buren claimed to me - see e-mail exchange above - that, oops, my mistake, missed conflict of interest, to the Attorney Grievance Committee/Appellate Court Van Buren said something completely different.

He said that he has 

1/ an advance archiving system, PLUS a "court-approved" conflict-checking software!!!

Which only aggravated his misbehavior in the custody case.  The only thing he needed to do was, without stepping into representation of his client, to CHECK his "advanced and court-approved" conflict-checking software and archive to see whether there is a conflict of interest - and say "no" to the prospective client.

By the way, when Van Buren told me that "I am the breath of fresh air" (back in 2009) and berated Becker to me, possibly to get into my confidences ON BECKER's BEHALF, as his messenger boy, to get on the assignment list, at that point Van Buren told me that he actually has 11 disciplinary violations (not shown on his public record though, but that he acknowledged himself).

I wonder what those violations are for.

Here is some of my responses to Van Buren's fabrication after he nearly caused me a heart attack or a stroke trying to get money from my client instead of his own non-paying client (as he usually does - since the stone wall case).

I would like to point out one very important point.  Van Buren did not only try to (knowing that I was under severe stress, when my husband lost his law license due to Becker's and 2 other local sons-of-judges' fabrication, when Becker was after me with sanctions after I sued him for misconduct, when I carried a huge caseload, my husband's and my own, and supported a minor son, who we had to transfer to an out-of-state private school to save him from harassment of Becker's pocket social services department) rattle me to the point of a heart attack - simply to shake money out of my client because his own client did not pay his fees and, thus Van Buren did not want to do discovery or proceed to trial, not being paid.

Van Buren also falsely claimed to the disciplinary authorities that it was I, his victim, who falsely accused him, and he is ready to provide testimony for that of Judge Lambert's court attorney Oursler (never provided), the one who refused to audiotape Van Buren's tantrum, and ready to provide testimony in Van Buren's support of Judge Becker - who was not in that courtroom, but was obviously ready to testify against me no matter in what case.

Moreover, Van Buren tried to claim that it is I who was in need of a "psychological evaluation" - because I did not want to have my client pay for Van Buren's greed, obviously.

It would be a suicide act for Delaware County voters to give this vengeful, greedy and mean drunk who already tried to create fabrications and "diagnose" his opponents as psychos - authority to COURT-ORDER, under the threat of "contempt of court", jail time and fines, psychological evaluations.

He will do it to people out of pure personal revenge.


So, dear Delaware County voters.

I wrote a lot of things criticizing John Hubbard.  I think he is a very bad candidate for a judge, and I stand by my word.

I will post separate articles about John Hubbard's qualifications to become a judge.

Yet, one BIG negative factor John Hubbard definitely lacks, as compared to Van Buren.

GREED to instantly start getting the judicial salary of $210,000 per year.

Andrew Van Buren overcharges the private clients he happens to catch, so private clients are rare - so he resorts to trying to claim attorney fees against his client's opponents, like he did in the stone wall theft case, like he did in Cika v Kellner's case.

Or, he desperately tries to get hired even by his former client's opponents in the same case and hide it hoping that he won't be caught red-handed.

Van Buren otherwise subsists on assigned cases, which pay not much, and only at the end of the case, so he has no cash flow in between, which is bad, especially when you are raising growing children close to college age.

Van Buren's opponent in judicial elections, DA John Hubbard's salary at this time is $201,000.

So, at least one can say about Hubbard that a puny salary increase of 4% cannot be considered as motivated by greed - which is, quite obviously, Van Buren's case.


Do you want a judge who is drunk, mean, vengeful and desperately greedy, with a history of outrageously unethical behavior dictated by greed?

Do you want a judge who would drive a woman to a blood pressure hike behind closed doors, arrange with his buddies not to preserve evidence and then claim that what happened behind those closed doors was exactly the opposite to what his victim claimed?

Just for greed?

Just for personal vengeance? 

Will you feel SAFE with such a judge behind closed doors?

  • Respect for justice;
  • committed to the concept of impartial justice;
  • exudes respect and empathy for his fellow human beings;
  • will hold all in his courtroom to the highest standards of ethics and the law;
  • will make sure that our county court system works first and foremost for us, the people
  • represents people, and represents a breath of fresh air.

These are all arrogant LIES.

Did I also mention that Van Buren is not only mean, and is not only dishonest, and greedy, and vengeful, but is a dishonest, greedy, mean and vengeful DRUNK? 

I have personally smelt alcohol on his breath, at a distance, in court, on many occasions, and I know Andrew Van Buren since 1999, and came to court regularly since that time accompanying my husband first, and then on my own, as an attorney.

Reportedly, he did not stop drinking since we left Delaware County in 2015.  If anything, his drinking has reportedly become worse.

My contacts in the County tell me they see Van Buren, increasingly unkempt, and with increasingly greater number of beer 12-packs.

He looks like a cow chewed him and then spat him out.

A big contrast with the unfailingly clean-cut John Hubbard.

Will you vote for an unethical, dishonest, petty, vengeful, mean drunk with a history disorderly fraudulent conduct who is a danger to women behind the closed doors of unrecorded court conferences - which he will be able to hold aplenty if he becomes a judge?

Would you want to find yourself on the receiving end of a forcible psychological evaluation each time you point out his - inevitable - misconduct?

And note - audio and video recordings are not allowed by court rules in the courthouse.

Van Buren knows it.

And he has a history of using it in his fabrications, and had, as an aid in his fabrications, Judge Becker, the notoriously corrupt judge.  While claiming now to voters that he is "independent", "for the people" and "not beholden to anybody".

As a judge, his fabrications will only become worse and have greater impact upon people.

Do you want such a judge?

Your call.