TON VIL!.u:.

\GE JUSI"[rCE
I North
P. O. Box 27 .
Nc:w York 13g56-0027
(607) 8656150

Fa.\:: (607) 865 -D59

PAUL LA.-\LJSER
Vilbgc JusticL"

[{[CHARD GUNiO
Acting Village Jusrke
:\'rA 'y' 7. 20] 2

HON. JUDGE CARL F. BECKER

Judge Ddaware County C()!Jt't

3 Court Street
Delhi, New York 13753
PEOPLE VS. JE:'\.NN!E
Docket -# I0070mW
Dear j udge
Today. lViay 7.. 2012, at ():,S8 1\1\-1. I
a copy of a stay of
by your court 011
.\ 2012 - neither the County Court Clerk or
DcfendtlIlt's nttorney, Mr. Lapine) furnished the \Valton Village COt!lt v\,ith your slay.

f have inspected the County COltrl file and

notlJ

you were r.ot provided the

I. Defendant never
you that the Di:;tricl AltOnl'';)' hau lJruviJ,"d c\jP;';;s
nanles and addresses of all witnesses to be.
ai [rial ciS weU as cc,pies of
supporting depositions of :;amc was made seve1t.!!
before the actual trial;

.., Defendant never

you thut the Court Clerk's daughter had comp;:-tcd with

Defendant's daughter ill muny 4H competitio:1s
were both
Village of
\Valton, and one of
,::hUdrcn Hnd the Cnw1 Clerk's daughter attended
tbe same
s'.:hoo!.

3. The Village Court Clerk was not a witness or prC5tnt

crimim:.i

occurred;

4. The Village Court

Juring the bench tri:d.

daughter

one

'sitnesses -;:,:ho

5. The Defendant was

an ACD and Dc::fc:ndantrequested
adjounlnlents (0
or rejection of SUdl
and ultim:ltcly
insislted on going (0
which
in Dcti:ndunfs conviction.

6. After conviction and priol' (0 this court's

of guilt or innl1l:ci1l.:c.

Defendant c1uin1cd

occurred during triul

the :;;)U;'( held a
dt'tt'rmination
ant)rJing
evcry
claims of \vrong
there
,"'pportuiiity to prov.::
nOlllf1e scintilla of evidence presented by j )di:nJant in support of Dd"cnJunf s
..:laims of wrong doing - it :;hould be
wtcd that LJct,andant was directed l\')
have the tninutes of thal ]lost trial hearing
and funlished to both the
Cl)Urt and the DA .. :Hld to date, Defendant has failed =md
to do :;0;
7. iT SHOULD BE

.\.fSLSn the

Defendant

[sst.!t: this post trial

Defendant raised the
mliluh::; :,!,re
hl ihis appeal:

nr:'i
h; why

in

.-

it lvlorc (han j 20 days

beibre he
tllr
stay application :lC r.iL:dC
to you May 3. 2012 -- as a matter of law
Ume ban'cd (CPL
460.50(4) since the appeal
not
01"
\vithin ]20 GUYS
the
n
"r;"l'll',l"'(ay I"", 'll)\'-' J"'('lll .&." 0 ,,,
D"'1:,,;i:
t
.'r,..tb,:;)ij
..
Tf)
.... ....
J. '-

I!S

'

, ..

..

"'-d ..(lie
iiLO-l
I.
l. J .!.l
tl
and Stibnlittcd ,m order to yuu
::.' 1'"'......-

{'la
1 ,,'-'

atl

good cause

'c..'ell
&

..

1 .
.,!."
,-,U,
.'vu.'J

--"

i ....... '\,.

....

..

.;.J\.IV '--'-l:

do r:ot knO"N ..,f :my

his time to do so;

Odober J!, 20 11

prl.:sented to

ViAS A NO ERA&NSGt THA'1' THE VILLAGE COURT SHOULD! IAVE

!-tECUSED !TSELF FROf\A HE.!t..
THE CASE 8t-':C!\USE '!'HE
COURT'S DAUGHTEK \VAS TESTiFYiNG iN THE l1UAL"
_

1understand your ruling to mean that anytime a

a Wi!neSS In a CrImm;!! proeeemng. t. L":., './ !!!;.tgt:

.'

"..

employee or rebtive
n

_,

, ,

\' ':!(!ge \.l(g

'.:

warden, ViUege Code enforcement officer and theii rdatives) is an eye wirness to a

criminal proceeding and will testilY trial, the Viilagc/i'own Court is obligated on it
"11 t.Il('\o/
. /.! "ll(.
.....
lll"t ",..u to
J'r; .. iic t ;,..,'
"!.J/\I\ <.:lllh
-,I l'
,..,L
LV:' IU 1 :.
) . -..
I\,,"
relationship.
t..

.... A"""

__ .t

. . . . - - ' ,,'6o

l\....

....

Vol

,,' "".'

'

hI.

,.

-_ _ -

.. -

"""'1' ijrPDHr..-'"
r ..... : ....... ;..I

.,