THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Criminal proceedings in New York are open to the public. Or are they in the 4th Department when such proceedings will necessarily involve exposure of its own misconduct that the court wants to hide?


This is what I received from my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini today - she commenced a criminal proceeding against me within the civil disciplinary proceeding for allegedly violating a court order that I am not even allowed to reveal (or am I - since proceedings are now criminal and thus open to the public?).  1st year law students and other readers, please note that the caption does not say "People of the State of New York v. Tatiana Neroni, Defendant", as it must say in criminal proceedings in the State of New York.









Criminal proceedings in New York, once again, are open to the public.  Therefore, I am publishing here Mary Gasparini's Notice of Motion and Affirmation as evidence of her misconduct, abuse of power and retaliation against me after I filed a lawsuit against her for fraud upon the court on December 10, 2014 and published the Summons with Notice on this blog, and I am doing it again now.



I will not, as yet, publish the "secret" order of December 17, 2014 that Mary Gasparini claims I violated, even though my legal opinion is that, by pressing criminal charges against me based on alleged violation of that order to which I will and do plead "not guilty", Mary Gasparini shot herself in the foot and made that same order and all other exhibits underlying the charges public, as well as all "contempt proceedings", and that is as a matter of New York State and federal constitutional law.

Apparently, Mary Gasparini seeks to have a summary criminal proceeding against me, and to resolve it in one day, having me locked up for a year.

Yet, there is no such thing as summary criminal proceedings in New York, under the State or U.S. Constitution.

If the State and U.S. Constitution are to be followed, I will have to be charged:

(1) in the jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly committed, and the blog was and is hosted in the State of California;
(2) by the elected criminal prosecutor of the jurisdiction where the alleged crime was allegedly committed, and Mary Gasparini is definitely not that person, I doubt that Mary Gasparini is even admitted to the bar of the State of California;
(3) with all procedural protections provided for criminal defendants under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the state where the alleged crime is being prosecuted, such as:

  •    the right to remain silent throughout the criminal proceedings, which is what I am invoking now as to all elements and circumstances of the charged crimes;
  • the right to a jury trial, pre-trial discovery, bill of particulars, motions and pre-trial hearings.
 That is, among other things.

It is apparent that what Mary Gasparini seeks is:

  • a secret criminal proceeding (no public access or even knowledge to the public);
  •  a criminal proceeding where I have no right to remain silent - since the "proceeding" was brought on a "motion" requiring apparently my answer to that motion, while no answer other than plea "guilty" or "not guilty" ("not guilty" for me) is required in a criminal proceeding.
  • a summary proceeding (no jury trial, no pre-trial discovery)
I do not know what Mary Gasparini knows about criminal law, but here she stepped actually into my realm, since I am a criminal defense attorney with years of trial experience and Mary Gasparini is clearly out of her element judging by the alleged "charges" and the way they were brought.

Judiciary Law 750(a)(3) used by Mary Gasparini is an equivalent of a 2nd degree contempt of court, a Class A misdemeanor under Penal Law 215.50(3), punishable by up to a year in the county jail.

For such crimes, jury trials are required by the New York State Constitution unless the defendant waives that right in writing.

There is no way I will waive my right to a jury trial in a criminal proceedings against me, orally or in writing.

Sometimes a public official needs to just know where to stop, correct her errors and apologize to the victim of her misconduct.  

Mary Gasparini instead, continues to retaliates against the victim and only aggravates her behavior.

A public official does not have authority, as part of her public duties, and at public expense, and in secret from the public, to defend her own stupidity, fraud and incompetence and to retaliate against victims of her own stupidity, fraud and incompetence by bringing illegal criminal proceedings in a civil action.

Time will show who will win.

Stay tuned as to how this mess progresses.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)