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.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Beware of the court reporter Debra Garrison. She falsified my court transcript and can falsify yours, too.


Here is the front and the last pages of a transcript of the pre-scheduling conference in my disciplinary proceeding that was held on January 12, 2015, as well as the "Exhibits" page.

 The front page of the transcript shows that court reporter Debra Garrison took the record and calls it mysteriously "proceeding of Tatiana Neroni" instead of a "pre-trial scheduling conference".



The "Exhibits" page shows a "witness" and "witness's" "statements" - instead of a "Direct Examination" and "Cross-Examination", the usual designation of a witness's testimony at hearings.





The next page of the transcript shows that it is allegedly an EBT, that I allegedly made waivers and stipulations in that EBT, was called to testify, was sworn in and testified.



Of course, there was no EBT, no stipulations or waivers, no calling of witnesses, no swearing in of witnesses and no testimony - nor could there be because the Referee made a Decision on liability against me 22 days before that alleged "hearing" (or, in reality, what was noticed as a pre-trial scheduling conference of January 12, 2015):


In the middle of the transcript I tell the Referee that I am aware that the previous stenographer incorrectly claimed that the previous scheduling conference was "a hearing" and that I made stipulations and waivers, and indicate that I make no stipulations and waivers on January 12, 2015.

The Referee confirms - "no waivers".



After hearing that, stenographer Debra Garrison still prepares a transcript where she puts at the top of it that there were waivers, stipulation and that it was a hearing.




Moreover, knowing full well that 
  • I was never called as a witness, that
  • Debra Garrison has never sworn me in and that 
  • I have never testified on January 12, 2015 (nor could I, because the appearance was noticed and scheduled as a pre-trial conference and because the Referee announced his "Decision" up front and later stated that the only further proceedings will be "in mitigation", and that was not yet scheduled)
Debra Garrison provided at the end of the transcript a false certification that I was properly sworn in and testified:






Of course, I will contest this clear falsification under oath.

 But I am publishing this post for the public to beware of this "professional" court reporter.

 She can falsified your court transcripts, ladies and gentlemen, the same way as she falsified mine.
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. UnknownDecember 16, 2015 at 3:09 AM

    She also had my transcripts wrong. A whole paragraph was was missing and refuse to send me the audio recording.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FlynnlegalJanuary 4, 2016 at 3:06 AM

    Nice content.
    I appreciate this post. I like it. This is fully informative and useful blog.
    Thanks for sharing such a great info.
    Court Reporter Fayetteville

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tatiana NeroniJanuary 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM

    You are welcome. This case of cooked transcripts shows that the record of court or administrative proceedings cannot rest on presumption of integrity of certified court reporters. Their sense of who butters their bread can outweigh their coomitment to the truth and the law. A videotape is easier and cheaper to produce, and will reflect the record better. But, New York Civil Rights Law 52 makes it a crime to videotape even public court proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FlynnlegalMarch 16, 2016 at 11:15 PM

    What an information!
    It’s a nice blog.....Thanks for sharing.
    Arkansas Court Reporter

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)