The use of unquestionable fraud by prosecutors in order to discipline an attorney - the same fraudulent song by the Disciplinary Committee of 4th Department now

It is universally declared that attorney licensing (and discipline) are designed to protect the public from attorneys who are not fit to practice law.


You be the judge who is not fit to practice law here - I or those attorneys who are prosecuting me.


In January of 2013, with a very curious timing (I just recovered from a pneumonia and I  had several trials scheduled back-to-back) the Committee for Professional Conduct, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, filed a petition to discipline me.


The essence of charges was:

No.	Essense of charge	What the evidence was	What 3rd Department is	What 4th Department is
1.	That I did not attend a deposition for a client and that caused imposition of sanctions upon the client	Deposition happened in 2008; I was admitted to practice law in 2009, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, September of 2008   3rd Department made a motion for a summary judgment (judgment without a trial or hearing), and without providing to the court transcript of that deposition that was on file with the court and clearly showed 2008 as the date of the deposition, exonerating me beyond all doubt	Carries on with the fraudulent charge and opposed my motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct
2.	That I failed to respond to a motion in the same action as the deposition and my failure to respond resulted in a default judgment for my clients	The motion was filed in 2008, I was admitted to practice law only in 2009, after the review date of the motion, What was charged against me was obvious fraud.	3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, December of 2008, WHEN I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND COULD NOT ACT AS AN ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT   Result: same as in Charge No. 1	Same as above
3.	That I was sanctioned by Judge Becker for frivolous conduct three times	Yes, I was – right after I sued Judge Becker for misconduct.     Courts refused to address on the merits the issue whether Judge Becker’s sanctions were an unconstitutional pattern of retaliation   None of my clients were hurt because of my actions   None of my clients complained   In fact, all sanctions were imposed for my zealous representation of clients, and most of them were indigent, one case was a Pro Bono case	The 3rd Department pursued these unconstitutional sanctions as, somehow, violation of attorney disciplinary rules, even though I was sanctioned for actually standing up for my clients against misconduct of a judge in two cases, and fraud of the opposing counsel (coincidentally also an upstate NY judge in a local justice court) in another case	4th Department knows of the constitutional issues  with the charges, but continues with the charges
4.	That I failed to pay the sanctions	Even though the three imposed sanctions were clearly illegal, when I appealed them, I put in a bond back in 2011 for all three sanctions   When one appeal out of three was dismissed on a technicality and two affirmed while the appellate court ignored material parts of the record (I wrote about it elsewhere in the blog), the money went directly where Becker ordered it to go.   Thus, I ceded control over the money for all three sanctions claimed in the disciplinary petition 1.5 years before the petition was brought	The 3rd Department, after being alerted to the problem of their negligent review and prosecution of the case, still continued with the fraudulent charge	The 4th Department continues with the fraudulent charge and opposes my motion against them for frivolous conduct

I removed the case to the federal court, reasonably predicting that I will not get a fair review in the state court where multiple judges have a conflict of interest to review the case

It was remanded back because the 3^rd Department claimed, under the so-called Younger abstention, claiming that the state court is fully able to handle my federal constitutional claims

As soon as the case was remanded from the federal court back to state court, the 3^rd Department’s Committee for Professional Conduct claimed in a motion that I should not be allowed to use the state court to “air my generalized grievances”, or, in other words, to bring my federal constitutional claims, which was in direct contradiction to their own claims by use of which they got the remand.So, the bottom line is:

• 3 charges (deposition, motion and payment of sanctions) were fraudulent, as shown by documentary evidence that prosecutors did not care to read;
• all other charges were based on clear unconstitutional retaliation against me, based on personal vengeance, by a judge who I sued before sanctions were imposed

In other words, the whole disciplinary proceeding was a politically motivated fabrication.


And it still continues.


And I was denied even an oral argument that I requested, the very minimum of procedural due process.


I am asking you - how long do you think should it take to prove, with a transcript of a deposition in hand, that bears a court stamp and a date, that it was held in 2008 while I was admitted to practice law in 2009 and COULD NOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT CLIENTS AT THAT DEPOSITION?  So I COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CHARGED FOR NOT ATTENDING? BECAUSE I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME?


How about one second while you are holding your documents in front of the prosecutor?  Because, if the prosecutor has a shred of integrity left in him or her, he will immediately apologize and withdraw the such impossible charges (if they were brought by mistake).


I cannot prove it since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, one federal and two state courts - and all of them had a right to toss the disciplinary charges on the merits , with sanctions against prosecutors who are engaged in OBVOIUS FRAUD UPON THE COURT and OBVIOUS FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that in September and in December of 2008 I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY and had no obligation (or right) to appear at depositions representing clients or to answer any motions on behalf of any clients.  And, by the way, the disciplinary petition, on its very first page, states that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.


I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that sanctions were paid into escrow in the summer of 2011, long before the Petition was filed, in January of 2013, and it is well documented.


And, 3 courts so far, as well as prosecutors in those courts, pretend they do not know that 3 sanctions in a row (in fact, there were more) imposed by a judge whom I just sued look really suspicious, wouldn't they to any impartial reasonable person?


Remember, all of them were sworn to uphold the federal constitution - but they advance unconstitutional, fraudulent, politically motivated prosecutions without blinking an eye.


Recently, another attorney posed in his blog a question whether disciplinary attorneys are bound by the same rules of conduct that they are enforcing upon others.


Disciplinary proceedings in New York are deemed civil proceedings, so - yes, of course they are so bound.


Yet, they seem to allow themselves not to be bound by those rules - because, at least in my case, they try to prosecute me because I was sanctioned for "frivolous" conduct (where sanctions were imposed by a judge after I sued him), while attorneys freely engage in fraud upon the court and frivolous conduct themselves while prosecuting the action.





PS  The name of the "heroes", disciplinary attorneys who continue to carry the fraudulent torch can be found here, all attorneys and all attorney members of the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee.