My disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini submitted to the Referee a "Proposed Referee's Report" where she falsely made claims that the January 12, 2015 "proceeding" was a "hearing" that was properly noticed to me and where I testified - and attached a transcript with false statements of the stenographer to that effect.
At the same time Gasparini filed criminal charges against me because an audio recording of the January 12, 2015 conference was placed on the Internet showing that the appearance on January 12, 2015 was not a hearing, and I was not called to testify, was not sworn in and did not actually testify, nor does the recording show that I made any stipulations or waivers before the conference of January 12, 2015 began, as the transcript claims I did.
At the same time Gasparini filed criminal charges against me because an audio recording of the January 12, 2015 conference was placed on the Internet showing that the appearance on January 12, 2015 was not a hearing, and I was not called to testify, was not sworn in and did not actually testify, nor does the recording show that I made any stipulations or waivers before the conference of January 12, 2015 began, as the transcript claims I did.
Mary Gasparini also made claims in her "Proposed Referee Report" that on October 23, 2014 there was allegedly a pretrial "hearing".
You be the judge as to whether the October 23, 2014 was a "hearing" or a conference - as Referee Sirkin said himself, and whether any adjourned date from October 23, 2014 was, similarly, a scheduling conference.
The stenographer did not record a major portion of the October 23, 2014 conference, but I do have an audio recording of that conference, and I do have a transcription of that audio file, see below.
Compare how "complete" is the transcript of the October 23, 2014 hearing.
Note that the Referee clearly states in answer to my direct question that what will be happening on the adjourned date is NOT a hearing.
Note that the Referee claims that motions are pending in front of him, which never happens in attorney disciplinary proceedings, referees do not have authority to review and decide motions, that would be an unlawful usurpation of non-delegable authority of an appellate judge - elected to the New York State Supreme court and Appointed by the Governor to the Appellate Division.
Referee Sirkin, a retired Wayne County judge, has no right of serving as a justice of the Appellate Division, even though he undertook to decide motions in the Appellate Division, as the recording clearly demonstrates.
So, attorney Mary Gasparini has urged the Referee to file false report, based on falsified transcript of the January 12, 2015 scheduling conference which, as the recording of the previous pretrial conference of October 23, 2015 shows, was never meant to be a hearing, and, as the recording of the January 12, 2015 conference shows, was actually not a hearing (ordered by the court that the referee should schedule and conduct, but never scheduled or conducted, in defiance of the court order).
Moreover, Mary Gasparini filed criminal charges against me because information about her own and referee's misconduct, as well as an audio recording of the January 12, 2015 conference proving that the transcript of that conference was falsified appeared on the Internet.
Of course, now, when the audio recording of the October 23, 2015 conference has been placed on the Internet, there is even more proof of Gasparini's misconduct, as she attended that conference and clearly heard both my question to the Referee whether the next appearance (that happened on January 12, 2015) is going to be a hearing and the Referee's answer "no".
Conduct of attorney Mary Gasparini in the use of false transcripts and urging the referee to use such false transcripts, and filing criminal charges against me, Gasparini's opponent in litigation who exposed her misconduct, is clearly attorney misconduct warranting disbarment.
Yet, I doubt she will ever be investigated or disciplined for that conduct.
And for that reason, I believe, it is time to call in the feds and make a criminal complaint against Gasparini and the crew. Maybe, Gasparini will enjoy the company of Sheldon Silver, one never knows.
Gasparini's actions, in my legal opinion, clearly falls within the definition of theft of honest services of a public officials, mail and wire fraud.
The extraordinary story of how an attorney in New York is persecuted for taking a stand against judicial misconduct continues.
Stay tuned.
So, attorney Mary Gasparini has urged the Referee to file false report, based on falsified transcript of the January 12, 2015 scheduling conference which, as the recording of the previous pretrial conference of October 23, 2015 shows, was never meant to be a hearing, and, as the recording of the January 12, 2015 conference shows, was actually not a hearing (ordered by the court that the referee should schedule and conduct, but never scheduled or conducted, in defiance of the court order).
Moreover, Mary Gasparini filed criminal charges against me because information about her own and referee's misconduct, as well as an audio recording of the January 12, 2015 conference proving that the transcript of that conference was falsified appeared on the Internet.
Of course, now, when the audio recording of the October 23, 2015 conference has been placed on the Internet, there is even more proof of Gasparini's misconduct, as she attended that conference and clearly heard both my question to the Referee whether the next appearance (that happened on January 12, 2015) is going to be a hearing and the Referee's answer "no".
Conduct of attorney Mary Gasparini in the use of false transcripts and urging the referee to use such false transcripts, and filing criminal charges against me, Gasparini's opponent in litigation who exposed her misconduct, is clearly attorney misconduct warranting disbarment.
Yet, I doubt she will ever be investigated or disciplined for that conduct.
And for that reason, I believe, it is time to call in the feds and make a criminal complaint against Gasparini and the crew. Maybe, Gasparini will enjoy the company of Sheldon Silver, one never knows.
Gasparini's actions, in my legal opinion, clearly falls within the definition of theft of honest services of a public officials, mail and wire fraud.
The extraordinary story of how an attorney in New York is persecuted for taking a stand against judicial misconduct continues.
Stay tuned.
COMPARISON
OF THE AUDIO RECORDING AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT OCCURRED DURING THE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 23, 2014
Audio Recording
|
Transcript
|
General conversation between Stephen R. Sirkin and
attorneys Mary Gasparini & Gregory Huether who arrived there earlier than
I did (I came on time)
|
Here and further below until the transcript starts - not reflected in the
transcript.
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Good morning, folks, good morning.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Good morning
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Good morning, counsel and counsel.
It’s been a slight change of plans. Uh… The original was in the nature of a
kind of a pre-trial conference to see where we were going, that kind of
stuff, and to set dates.
I was notified by the Appellate Division … I don’t
remember exactly when … I think it was
a few days ago, that the Respondent has filed a motion in the Appellate
Division which can only be heard by the Appellate Division, and I’ve got a
call from the Appellate Division telling me that… kind of not to do much until the
Appellate Division has reached the decision on Respondent’s motion.
And I think he gave me kind of a safe date, but I’m not
sure I wrote it down properly. I have
November 20th. Does this
ring a bell to anybody when the Appellate Division hands down decisions? It
could be a few day before November 20th.
|
|
GREGORY HUETHER:
There was an Appellate Division day last week where the court hears
matters. The next one will be in
December, meaning the time when all court members will be in Rochester all
sitting…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Yes.
|
|
GREGORY HUETHER: …they
may review some motions referred to them and make some decisions…
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
November 20th is the decision release date
(repeats distinctly and loudly) November 20th
is the decision release date
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Ahh…
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
The return date, your Honor, is October 28th.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
October 28?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
Yes.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: It’s
the return date on the motion.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
Yes.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: It’s the return date on the motion, but
then they will have to decide the motion.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Yes.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I think you’re entitled to more time.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: In
this matter? You mean…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Yeah… Yes, for example, pending before me is the motion by the
Grievance Committee and the cross-motion by Respondent, and there is no point
in deciding and delivering a written decision to that motion unless the
Appellate Division reaches a decision on the most recent motion.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Okay.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
That’s sort of what I was told.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: Okay.
So, the November 20th date, that’s a Friday, your Honor?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I’m
not sure it’s the right day…
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
That was the decision release date.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Decision release date, November 20th?
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
And it is likely what that date is for, the date the Appellate
Division…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Okay, that’s the decision release date, it should be a few days after
that.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Our next…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: Will
be later. Yes, there is no point
having it on the 20th…
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: And they don’t release decisions until 3
o’clock.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Okay.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
Your Honor, I must then notify your Honor that I have a prior family
commitment, because I have a Thanksgiving family vacation planned since July,
and since July we bought tickets, I’ll be outside of the State of New York
from November 17th to December 4th. And that involves my minor son, and I
promised him since July, and I cannot change that. I request…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: You will be back here when, counsel?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: I will be here on December 4th.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
December 4th?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Yes.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: Of course, it doesn’t make much
difference. I’m not going to interrupt
counsel’s vacation time.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: I wouldn’t expect you to, your Honor.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: Is
December 4th okay, or are you coming back?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: It’s…
I am coming back very late on December 3rd, and December 4th
will be a hardship for me to come here, because there could be flight delays,
I don’t know how it is…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: Is
December 5th okay?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: 5th
is fine.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Your Honor, I respectfully request actually the following… the
following week. During that week that
Ms. Neroni is coming back from her vacation, I am scheduled to speak at two
CLE’s we are having a Committee meeting that week. So that first week of December is also
difficult for …
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I would accommodate both people, both
counsel. How about Monday, December 8?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
That’s for the actual hearing, your Honor, or …?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: No
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: …conference?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
No. The way this will work is,
depending on what my decision says, sort of that handing my decision on the motion
and cross-motion… ahh… and from that decision, if necessary, we’ll set a
hearing date and/or, if necessary, a mitigation date, depending.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Okay.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: …on
how I rule on the motion.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Okay
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: …
and cross-motion. Let’s do it on
December 8. Okay?
|
|
STENOGRAPHER:
Should I be here?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Yes, Sir, you should. Yes. Please. That’s Monday, December 8th,
Syracuse.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: 9 o’clock, your Honor?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I’m
sorry?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: 9 o’clock?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Yes, let’s do it at 9, this way we won’t be so tired… It won’t be long anyway on December 8th.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: The only thing is, can I ask it to be a
little bit later I live in Delhi, NY, I had to leave at about 5:30 to…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I
had to leave at… I don’t know where Delhi is from here… I just don’t know,
but I live probably … not two hours from here, but close.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI:
Ok.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: So
it takes me a while to…
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: So it’s 9 o’clock?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Yes, let’s do it at 9 o’clock. That way you’ll be home sooner. But basically then on the 8th I’ll
be handing down my decision and setting what, if any, hearings are necessary.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Ok.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Okay? Assuming the Appellate Division… Assuming that the case is still
pending as a result of Respondent’s motion.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
And… if…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I
can’t predict.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: If
the Appellate Division has not rendered a decision in response to Ms. Neroni’s
motion, but, say, by the Friday before that …
|
|
STENOGRAPHER (whispering) : do you have a card?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI (whispering): no I don’t
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: … by Friday the 5th?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
They will. If they are not
going to, there is no sense in proceeding, because of the motions directly in
the Appellate Division… And if Respondent prevails…
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: I
am done…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I
am done anyway.
|
|
STENOGRAPHER:
Thanks, do you want a copy of the transcript?
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Uh…
Probably, not.
|
|
STENOGRAPHER: Ok.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Not right now, thank you.
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: Would you like to put any of that on the
record, your Honor?
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: I
am sorry?
|
|
MARY GASPARINI: Would
you like to put any of that on the record as far as our…
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Wasn’t it on the record?
|
|
STENOGRAPHER: What you just said? No.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Oh, I want it on the record.
Absolutely, absolutely, I wasn’t paying attention.
What we are doing here today is… that was… set dates for
pre-trials, trials, hearings. However,
recently the Appellate Division the Respondent has filed a motion in the
Appellate Division and that I really can’t proceed until they rule on
Respondent’s motion.
And they assumed that … apparently the decision date is
November 20th, and I understand both counsel have various and
sundry commitments and I am certainly willing to respect, and I’ll set a date
for the next appearance and I think it’s December 9th, was it? 8th?
|
The record starts.
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Monday, December 8th.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN:
Monday, December 8th.
And depending on how the Appellate Division rules on Respondent’s
motion I’ll have my decision then on the Grievance Committee’s motion and
Respondent’s cross-motion, and depending on how I rule will depend on future
proceedings whether there be no future proceedings, or a hearing, or a
mitigation hearing. If requested. Okay?
|
|
MARY GASPARINI:
Thank you, your Honor.
|
|
REFEREE SIRKIN: Thank
you, folks. Be well. Be safe out
there.
|
|
TATIANA NERONI: Thank you.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment