Malone Report..for your review....copied and pasted..judge for yourself.....

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

In the Matter of the Alleged Violations of § 130 of the

Executive Law and sections related thereto.

              -by-                                                                                               COMPLAINT

                                                                                                                    File #: 2010-2399   

                                                                                               

       PHILIP MALONE, notary public,

                                                                 Respondent,

                                       

                                                       

The New York State Department of State (the "Department"),  in this administrative

proceeding instituted pursuant to Article 6 of the Executive Law, alleges the following as and for a complaint against Respondent:

                                            PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1 .        This proceeding is brought pursuant to § 130 of the executive Law to revoke or suspend the notary public commission of the Respondent. The basis for the Department's enforcement proceeding arises out of Respondent's actions in, among other things:

By notarizing numerous (26) signatures on a document affecting elections in the county of Rensselaer, when the purported signatories did not appear before him, did not sign the documents before him, and did not affirm their signatures before him, the Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130;

By notarizing a document entitled "Opportunity to Ballot Petition" in the county of Rensselaer, which . would have enabled Respondent to be a write-in candidate in a county election, and in which he therefore had a direct personal and pecuniary interest, Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130;

By notarizing the petition documents without specifying the venue of the notarial actions, Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130, and violated Executive Law § 13 7;

By refusing to submit a written statement upon request of the Department's investigator, Respondent failed to cooperate with a Departmental . investigation, and thereby committed misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130,

By threatening the Department's investigator with legal action for pursuit of the investigation into multiple complaints involving allegations of notarial misconduct, Respondent not only failed to cooperate with a Departmental investigation, by further committed an action of gross misconduct in violation of' Executive Law § 130.

JURISDICTION

           2.        The Department is a governmental agency charged with the regulation of notaries public and with the enforcement of § 130 of the Executive Law. Specific authority to bring this enforcement proceeding is provided by Executive Law §130. This proceeding is subject to Articles 3 and 4 of the State Administrative Procedure Act and 19 NYCRR Part 400.

    PARTIES

3.         The Department is a governmental agency charged with administration and enforcement of  § 130 of the Executive Law.

4.         At all relevant times hereto, the Respondent PHILIP MALONE ("Respondent”) was commissioned as a Notary Public, under license UID # 01MA6153478, with registered mailing address at 604 Chatham Ct., East Greenbush, NY 12061, and with most recent licensing period ending 10/2/14.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5.         On or about 7/20/10 and 7/21/l0, Respondent notarized twenty-six (26) signatures on a document entitled “Opportunity to Ballot Petition" (the "Petition").

6.      The said Petition was intended to he submitted to the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, to allow an unnamed candidate to be a write-in candidate for election, which unnamed person was revealed during the Department's investigation to he the Respondent himself.

7.         The Respondent's actions in notarizing a document in which he had a vested and/or pecuniary and/or beneficial interest in the outcome, that being, to be permitted to be a candidate for political office, were evidence of misconduct as a notary public.

8.            The signatories to the Petition did not appear before the Respondent to sign the Petition.

9.         The signatories to the Petition did not provide to the Respondent in-person acknowledgements of their signatures to the Respondent.

10.       The Respondent tailed to identify the venue of his notarial act(s) on the Petition.

11.       The failure to indicate the venue of the Respondent's purported notarial act is a violation of Executive Law Section 137, and constitutes misconduct pursuant to Executive Law 130.          

12.       Based upon multiple complaints filed with the Department alleging improper acts on the part of the Respondent in connection with the notarization oh the Petition. the Department conducted an investigation.

13.       During the course of the investigation, the Respondent failed to submit a written statement upon request of the Department's investigator, clear evidence of a failure to cooperate with a Departmental investigation.

14.       During the course of the Department's investigation, the Respondent advised the Department's investigator that he believed the complaints to be politically motivated, and that he would use the same political connections to have the Department's investigation quashed, which constitutes clear evidence of gross misconduct, and of a failure to cooperate with a Departmental investigation.

15.       After commencement of the Departments investigation, the Respondent acknowledged his error to the Rensselaer County Board oh Elections, and requested that due to the "administrative error" on his part, that the Petition be withdrawn, which then happened. 

16.       During the course of the Department's investigation, information was brought to the Department's attention that legal action had been commenced against Respondent for similar notarial misconduct in the prior year, and evidence was submitted regarding an Order to Show Cause entered in Rensselaer County.

17.       Regarding the prior action. Respondent was asked to submit a written statement, which he refused to do; clearly evidence of a failure to cooperate with a Departmental investigation.

18.       The actions of Respondent constitute gross misconduct on the part of a notary public, pursuant to Executive Law Section 130.

BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING, the Respondent is charged with engaging in the following, acts of professional misconduct:

By notarizing numerous (26) signatures on a document affecting elections in the county of Rensselaer, when the purported signatories did not appear before him, did not sign the documents before him, and did not affirm their signatures before him, the Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130;

By notarizing a document entitled "Opportunity to Ballot Petition" in the county of

Rensselaer, which would have enabled Respondent to be a write-in candidate in a county election, and in which he therefore had a direct personal and pecuniary interest, Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130;

By notarizing the Petition documents without specifying the venue of the notarial actions, Respondent committed multiple acts of misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130, and violated Executive Law § 137;

By refusing to submit a written statement upon request of the Department's Investigator, Respondent failed to cooperate with a Departmental investigation, and thereby committed misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130;

By threatening the Department's investigator with legal action for pursuit of the investigation into multiple complaints involving allegations of notarial misconduct, Respondent not only failed to cooperate with a Departmental investigation, by further committed an action of gross misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 130.

WHEREFORE, the Department demands the following relief:

1.         Revocation or suspension of Respondent’s notary public commission;

2.         Such other and further relief as the tribunal deems just and proper.

           

Dated: April 22, 2011

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DIVISION OF LICENSING SERVICES

                                                                                                     By: 

                                                                                                     Linda D. Cleary

                                                                                                     Senior Attorney