Daily Archives: August 26, 2011

Judicial Fecklessness; The Long Siege Begins; Hints Of Going International

And now a technical legal point.  Sometimes these technical legal points are important.  To courts and lawyers, anyway.

A guilty plea does not generate all by itself what we lawyers call a “judgment”.  The “judgment of conviction” is not entered until the sentencing.  There was no judgment of conviction in Sephora’s case in Livingston County Court until January 3rd, 2007.

So even though a guilty plea had been entered on October 20, 2006 the proceeding in the Appellate Division to put a stop to all this went on.

I brought another motion for summary disposition in the Appellate Division on November 17th, 2006 and we were scheduled to go argue the matter on November 24th.  Of course the main features of this motion were the statements of Ashley Baker and Todd Gaddy, showing that the entire prosecution of Sephora Davis was a law enforcement sponsored frame up job.  No evidence was offered in opposition.  The opposing papers from Moran’s attorneys were purely rhetorical and formal.  The frame up job was, in legal terms, conceded.  None of the facts being contested, there was nothing to talk about other than “law” and “procedure”.

We had oral argument in the Appellate Division on November 24th and Judge Nancy Smith was clearly the “hot judge” on the four judge panel, meaning that she was the one who knew the most about this particular case on the calendar that day.

All she talked about was Sephora’s guilty plea, and how that gave the court a “real problem, procedurally.”

There was no procedural problem.  You grant prohibition, the prosecution is stopped, everyone goes home.  What was the problem?  What was the alternative?  We’re going to let police and prosecutors rape a girl and then frame her for something she didn’t do and send her to prison on an Alford plea because that’s easier?

The question I wanted to ask Judge Smith, and more or less did ask albeit more politely and formally was:  “Are you out of your fucking mind?”

Judge Hurlbutt expressed misgivings about the plea deadline fiasco.  But it didn’t bother him enough to really think about it or do anything about it.

In the end, the Appellate Division punted in the most disgraceful and truly disgusting display of judicial diffidence and cowardice I had yet seen:

 

Notice how the legally conceded facts about perjury are misrepresented.  Notice how the little rape episode isn’t even mentioned.

Continue reading

15 Comments

Filed under financial crisis, Judicial lying/cheating, Striking lawyers, wrongful convictions

Chronological Summary

I believe it would be helpful to readers to have the facts laid out chronologically, which if course I have done many times over the last four to five years, after I obtained all the relevant evidence.  What follows is a recitation of the facts from a memorandum of law that was filed in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in December of 2009, in support of a motion for “summary reversal” and a “writ of error coram nobis”.  Not all of the exhibits cited in the memorandum are up on this blog yet, and they may never be.  What I’m putting up here is supposed to be the minimum necessary to understand the basic facts of the case.  I am going to hyper link to the posts where some of the documents are up online, but I can only hyper-link to the posts where they appear, not the documents themselves.

I should emphasize that reading the embedded documents is important if you want to have any understanding of this.  In the body of the posts themselves, I am assuming that the reader has read the documents and is familiar with them.  It is particularly important to be completely familiar with the affidavit of Adrian Paige, and the story of how I got that information from him.

It should be noted that the facts as they appear below are not only amply supported by highly reliable documentary proof; they have also never been disputed other than by way of what we attorneys in New York call a “general denial” in the pleadings.  This is insufficient to create an “issue of fact”.  So these are the facts of the case as a matter of law:

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under financial crisis, Judicial lying/cheating, Striking lawyers, wrongful convictions