DA Julie Garcia's malfeasance and NY NOW  

         DA Julie Garcia has monthly meetings with the IDV Judge, varying other Judges, Town Justices, local medical/psychological  professionals, police and emergency room staff and Stop DV staff from Behavioral Health Services North to tell them who the local DV males are, so they can act against them.  This conflicts with the ethical duties of medical/psychological/emergency room personnel.  It also conflicts with the judges and justices duties under:

                         The Code of Judicial Conduct

     Canon 3    A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially

     Canon 3-Section B6 ..A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider communications made to the judge outside of the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

      Judges are required by the Court Administration to attend these meetings.

      Were you a man, Julie, would you like judges, police, medical personnel to treat you as a wife beater who is guilty without trial?

     This would be nice if the man is guilty, but what if a woman’s lying?    Julie allowed Darla Breckenridge to tell the system about a man committing DV, even though Julie knows that Darla Breckenridge was practicing psychology without a license?

               Julie, are you respecting constitutional rights?

***********************************************************************
            DA Julie Garcia's "Duluth DV model" says all men are bad and all women are good.  Julie have you looked at  "50 myths of DV" ?

    Did the "Duluth Model" DV funding blind DA Julia Garcia to honest action?

    Did DA Julie Garcia use common sense in administrating Domestic Violence funds in her office?

    DA  Julie Garcia, we understand that your DV funding grants depend on your faithful adherence to bogus "man-bad/woman-good" theory promulgated by NY NOW and their leader, Marcia Pappas.  Ms. Pappas was right in front of me and took three filled doughnuts; stuffing the first in her mouth whole and taking the other two back to a seat.

     Why doesn't DA Julie Garcia just prosecute this fraud and perjury?   She has the sworn complaint before the Elizabethtown Justice.   DA Julie Garcia, have you checked out this transcript with Marsha's perjury which was faxed to you.   Have you compared Marsha Kameron Finnan's filing under oath with the federal government against what she swore in court.  Is it just man-bad/ - woman-good and damn the evidence?
     NY Penal law about conflicting testimony and frauds.   Does DA Julia Garcia believe it would be difficult to convict using these laws?  I've copied applicable laws below for readers and for DA Julie Garcia.

 
§ 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.
    A  person  is  guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the
  first degree when, knowing that a written instrument  contains  a  false
  statement  or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or
  any  political  subdivision,  public   authority   or   public   benefit
  corporation  of  the state, he offers or presents it to a public office,
  public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with  the
  knowledge  or  belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded
  in or otherwise become a part of the  records  of  such  public  office,
  public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.
    Offering  a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class
  E felony.

§ 210.15 Perjury in the first degree.
    A  person  is  guilty  of  perjury  in the first degree when he swears
  falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and  (b)
  is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made.
    Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.

§ 210.20 Perjury; pleading and proof where inconsistent statements involved.
    Where  a  person  has  made  two  statements  under  oath  which   are
  inconsistent  to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, where
  the  circumstances  are  such  that  each  statement,   if   false,   is
  perjuriously   so,   and  where  each  statement  was  made  within  the
  jurisdiction of this state and within  the  period  of  the  statute  of
  limitations  for  the  crime  charged,  the  inability  of the people to
  establish specifically which of the two statements is the false one does
  not preclude a prosecution for perjury,  and  such  prosecution  may  be
  conducted as follows:

§ 210.30 Perjury; no defense.
    It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that:
    1.  The  defendant  was  not  competent  to  make  the false statement
  alleged; or
    2. The  defendant  mistakenly  believed  the  false  statement  to  be
  immaterial; or
    3.  The  oath was administered or taken in an irregular manner or that
  the authority or jurisdiction of the attesting officer who  administered
  the  oath  was defective, if such defect was excusable under any statute
  or rule of law.