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

Referee Sirkin's harassment of attorney Tatiana Neroni and his lack of either competence or mental capacity to serve as a referee are now confirmed by documentary evidence


On December 4, 2014 Referee Sirkin, by letter, scheduled a pre-trial scheduling conference in my disciplinary proceeding for January 12, 2014.

 On December 8, 2014 my disciplinary court gave the Referee 60 days to hear and report outstanding issues of fact in the hearing that was supposed to be scheduled at the conference on January 12, 2015.

 On February 5, 2015 I received a "Decision" by Referee Sirkin, which I will discuss in detail pertaining to its legality and contents in a separate blogpost.

 What is relevant in that decision now is the date when it was made.

 Here is the last page of the "Decision" with the date:  December 21, 2014.


Yes, the Referee made "a Decision" on liability against me 22 days before the scheduling conference that was supposed to even schedule a hearing that the court ordered the Referee to hold, "take proof" and report.

 Apparently, to this Referee the court-ordered hearing was unnecessary, everything was clear to him without a hearing.

 I kept wondering what makes the Referee withhold his "Decision" from me for so long after January 12, 2015 when he first announced to me its existence in a conference where I appeared by phone.

 When I received the "Decision" finally, and from prosecutor Mary Gasparini, not from Referee Sirkin, I learnt, why.

 Because the pre-trial scheduling conference set for January 12, 2015 was unnecessary under the circumstances where the Referee already made a decision that eliminated the trial (which, of course, he had no right to do - but he did anyway).

 The question is - why the Referee did not send his "Decision" made on December 21, 2014 and why did the Referee did not eliminate the need for a "pre-trial scheduling conference" on January 12, 2015?

 Why did the Referee hint that I was lying to him that the weather in Delaware County on January 12, 2015 prevented me from traveling over the frozen mountain roads from Delhi, NY to Syracuse, NY, despite a letter I faxed to him with a weather advisory for the area?

 Compare (please, note that I was NOT called as a witness, was NOT sworn and was NOT testifying, because the appearance on January 12, 2015 was noticed to me as a pre-trial scheduling conference and was never meant to be a hearing, especially - and without my knowledge - that Referee Sirkin already made a decision that eliminated a hearing 22 days before the scheduling conference, on December 21, 2014):
Mental capacity and perceptive abilities of this Referee are amazing, since he judges what the weather is in the Catskill mountains of Delaware County by what he sees around Rochester or Syracuse, 3.5 hours' drive away from Delaware County.

 The Referee, in his grumbling to me as reflected in the falsified transcript above (falsified because it states I was "testifying") refuses to even acknowledge that I have faxed a weather advisory to the Referee ahead of time to the Grievance Committee where the appearance was scheduled and held:








Now, let's follow the dates.

At no time during the proceedings did Referee Sirkin tell me that he has made his "Decision" on December 21, 2014.

Yet, look how Referee Sirkin reacts to the request by the Disciplinary Prosecutor to admit evidence LONG after Referee Sirkin already granted the prosecution's motion on liability for which the evidence was meant - and it was not meant for introduction at a "pre-trial scheduling conference" either.



Once again, the Notice to Admit was served on December 23, 2014.

 By that time, Referee Sirkin has already made his "Decision" on December 21, 2014 that precluded any further introduction of evidence.

Prosecutor Mary Gasparini who was present at the pre-trial conference on January 12, 2015 in person, and thus had to see the date on the Decision, still pushes before the Referee her argument that the Referee should admit evidence after he made his Decision on liability, even though Mary Gasparini knows that the Notice to Admit was sent to me 2 days after the Decision was made, and was thus invalid - and that I do not know about it because I appear by phone and because nobody told me about the date of the Decision.

Yet, what Mary Gasparini asks of Referee Sirkin, Mary Gasparini gets, no matter what.  Here is what Referee Sirkin answers to Mary Gasparini in response to her request to consider evidence that I allegedly did not timely respond to her Notice to Admit served (without my knowledge) 2 days after Referee Sirkin made his Decision:



Please, note how Mary Gasparini puts her dainty foot into her own mouth by pointing out to Referee Sirkin that "as the court is aware, we've filed a Notice to Admit", so Referee Sirkin MUST know that the Notice of Admit was filed and served 2 days after he made his Decision.

Yet, Referee Sirkin responds to Mary Gasparini's request to consider new evidence after he made his "Decision": "I can do that".

I have a funny feeling that the 4th Department, in co-ordination with the disciplinary committee, has fished out the most incompetent and/or the most mentally incapacitated referee to handle my case, as the Referee does not seem to be aware of dates distances, possible differences in the weather between geographical locations, and lacks elementary perception and judgment abilities.

The Referee also does not seem to understand the authority that the court has given him, and the authority that the court did not give him, and he does not seem to know which rules of procedure do and which do not apply to the attorney disciplinary proceedings.

By the way, Referee Sirkin did not send the Decision to me and apparently wanted me to travel over frozen mountains, risking to kill myself, in order that he would have the pleasure of announcing the 22-day old decision to me in person.

"Coincidentally", in October of 2014 (of course, there was no snow, only rain that day), Referee Sirkin made me appear at a similar scheduling conference that lasted 10 minutes during which he announced that he will not be scheduling anything because of a motion that I filed 2 weeks prior.

It appears that Referee Sirkin had a sadistic pleasure in dragging me in by 9:00 am (which required me to wake up at 5:30) and refusing me a meeting at a later time, only to tell me that the conference is unnecessary.

Note that Referee Sirkin attempted to do the same with the so-called "mitigation hearing":


A Referee is scheduling a mitigation hearing, but he has "a conflict in the afternoon", so the hearing may be only held for a limited time and must start at 9 in the morning, with all the witnesses having to come over frozen mountains from Delaware County to Onondaga County, no shifts in time allowed.

On three occasions Referee Sirkin denied my requests to hold appearances a little later than 9 am, to accommodate how far away I live:


  1. On October 2014 - when Referee Sirkin dragged me into an unnecessary scheduling conference where Referee Sirkin knew ahead of time he will not be scheduling anything and that would last 10 minutes, but would require of me 7 hours' travel roundtrip;
  2. On January 12, 2015 when Referee Sirkin similarly refused to hold the pre-trial conference at a later time in the day, but was unhappy that I could not make it over the frozen mountains only to hear that the pre-scheduling conference was no longer necessary, because Referee Sirkin already made up his mind and made a Decision without any court-ordered hearings, contempt of court be damned, and
  3. When Referee Sirkin was scheduling a mitigation hearing.

It appears that Referee Sirkin considered it his duty to harass me throughout the proceedings and that was the only thing that he did competently.









Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)