Today, I checked the docket once again - the court inserted the motion it did not acknowledge on May 16, 2016 (that the court received, but did not file on May 13, 2016).
Here is how the docket of the case looked on May 16, 2016 for the period between May 6, 2016 and May, 16, 2016 - my motion that the court and parties received on May 13, 2016 (I have confirmation as to the court receiving my motion on May 13, 2016 in the morning, through tracking that I posted here):
Ok, as of the evening of May 16, 2016 the docket shows no motion filed on May 13, 2016.
Here is what the same docket shows today for the period between May 6, 2016 and May 16, 2016:
The motion miraculously appeared, even though my already-filed motion is not discussed during the 5/16/2016 conference, the court and the parties pretended it was not there - until their behavior was exposed in this blog.
But, this is not the end of miraculous events that happened and continue to be happening in this case.
Here is the rest of the docket after the conference of May 16, 2016.
First of all, the docket entry without number as of 5/17/2016 now mentions that a copy of the court scheduling order is now "sent to pro se movant Tatiana Neroni by regular mail".
So, the court does agree that I am a "pro se movant" and that, as such, I cannot be served electronically - which is what the court and the parties have been doing all along since January of 2016, while calling me to conferences, blaming me for not coming (from South Carolina to New York) and stripping me of 3.5 years' worth of legal fees because I did not properly oppose their never-served pleadings and orders.
Second, there is an interesting interaction between the court and the Plaintiffs' new attorney Woodruff Carroll further confirming my claim that Carroll is completely incompetent.
Here is docket 112, the motion scheduling order:
The motion scheduling order set the following deadlines:
Description of procedural step in motion practice
Deadline to file
Response (opposition) to the motion
May 31, 2016;
My reply to response (opposition) to the motion
June 6, 2016
The motion hearing (on papers, without oral argument)
June 15, 2016
Note that, while giving opposing attorneys who received my motion on May 13, 2016, 18 days since the day they received the motion, to respond by electronic filing, the court gives me only 6 days to at the same time, receive the opponent's responses by regular mail and deliver the answer by regular mail to the court, from another state.
Where my opponents were supposed to file and serve their responses on me (by regular mail) by May 31, 2016, I will only receive those pleadings (maybe) by the time I already have to file my responses to those pleadings.
This is the type of discrimination against pro se litigants by federal courts what I described in my currently circulating petition that I filed on May 17, 2016 that I encourage my readers to sign.
Under the current rules of service, where 6 days must be added to serve me and 6 days must be added for my delivery of filings by mail to the court, and 3 days would be a reasonable minimum of time given me to prepare a response, all in all 15 days should be added to May 31, 2016, so June 15, 2016 should be not the review date, but my deadline to file the response, and the review date should be extended accordingly.
But even that is not the main point here - I somehow expected this particular court's ongoing discrimination against me as an attorney-turned-pro se litigant (through the court's unlawful secret suspension), and especially because I criticize the court and as against critics of the court (such as people, like me, filing motions to recuse, and especially criticizing the court in blogs).
What is going on is that new attorney for the Plaintiffs Woodruff Carroll obviously cannot read scheduling orders or comprehend them.
When a scheduling order says "response by", the response deadline is also the deadline for cross-motions.
Mr. Carroll obviously does not know that, with all of his $500/hr fees.
Since Mr. Carroll does not know how to read clear and unambiguous scheduling orders, Mr. Carroll asked the court to set a cross-motion deadline for him - the one that was already set, for May 31, 2016.
Here is Mr. Carroll's letter of May 17, 2016.
In the letter he is complaining that "[n]o date has been fixed for cross-motions in the order".
Well, on that he was wrong - the date of response, May 31, 2016, was a date of cross-motions.
But, as much the court catered for Mr. Carroll because the court found a friendly soul on Mr. Carroll where Mr. Carroll, according to Plaintiff Dara Argro, was trying to inflame the court at a court conference by claiming how bad I am by threatening to sue him for fraud - "the same as she sued this court" - apparently, the court started to realize that Mr. Carroll's involvement, continued fraud and incompetence may ultimately get the court into trouble for handling this case, "handling" me and failing to impose attorney discipline for ongoing fraud in the case, for constantly lying to the court and for allowing an attorney to sell out his indigent clients and coerce them into a settlement they do not want.
So, the court rescinded the implicit deadline for cross-motions, denying Mr. Carroll's letter request to "fix" what was already "fixed":
In the order issued on May 17, 2016, the court appears to be disgruntled with Mr. Carroll's failure to comply with the court order and file a "Stipulation of Dismissal" or a "Status Report" on or before 5/5/2016.
The court told Mr. Carroll on May 17, 2016, the following:
- you informed the court (once again) on May 16, 2016 that the case settled;
- if the case did not settle, notify the court immediately - 3 days later it was not done;
- if the case did settle, file a stipulation of dismissal by May 31, 2016, or the case will proceed to trial.
Before, Mr. Carroll came to the Plaintiffs only once - to have them sign a retainer agreement.
And, before Mr. Carroll did not have time in three days to even notify Plaintiffs that the court cancelled a court appearance, thus causing his indigent clients to make
Plaintiffs did not invite Mr. Carroll to come to their house today.
In fact, Dara told me that she does not want him to come to her house today - or at any time.
Dara told me that she in fact told Mr. Carroll that he is not welcome and that he should not come.
But, Mr. Carroll told Dara that he will come anyway - so he is insisting on committing a crime of criminal trespass into his clients' home in order to coerce them to sign papers they don't want to sign.
By the way, the lawsuit is about Chenango County DSS also coming uninvited, and without a court order or search warrants, to that same house and barging into the same house, and doing searches in the house, including searches of extremely private belongings and locations, causing physical damage to at least one of the Plaintiffs - which Mr. Carroll considered not enough to proceed to trial.
Apparently, since Mr. Carroll has a belief that he himself can barge into his clients' home uninvited because he wants it, it is now understandable why he thought the case was not enough to proceed to trial (even when the court scheduled it to proceed to trial).
So, why does Mr. Carroll want so much to come to Dara's house tonight at 6 p.m.?
Mr. Carroll wants all three Plaintiffs to do the following:
1) have the three Plaintiffs sign the settlement agreement of a multi-million dollar lawsuit for $30,000 - which Plaintiffs do not want to do; remember Mr. Carroll reported to the court several times that the case already settled, and that was a lie, and a motion was filed asking for sanctions against Mr. Carroll because of this lie and many other lies;
2) have the three Plaintiffs sign an affidavit "against you, Mrs. Neroni", as Dara put it, so, I understand, Mr. Carroll is undeterred by the court's prohibition for him to file cross-motions, and still wants to do it - and ask for sanctions against me, because I exposed his raging misconduct in the case.
At the same time as pushing the plaintiffs to sign an affidavit against me, Carroll, according to Dara, was also playing on plaintiffs' friendly feelings towards me and told them that if they do not sign the settlement agreement, I will not be able to get my legal fees.
That is - after opposing ANY legal fees for me on plaintiffs' behalf, after having me stripped of any legal fees for 3.5 years of litigation while using my work to get his own inflated fees for doing nothing, lying to the court and refusing to do proper work for his clients at $500/hr.
So, while arguing to the court that I should not get any legal fees, settlement or no settlement - on behalf of plaintiffs - Carroll tells the plaintiffs that they "must" sign the settlement agreement they do not want to sign in order to help me get my legal fees.
So, Mr. Carroll is urging plaintiffs to sign the puny settlement agreement in a multi-million dollar lawsuit claiming that that will help me get my legal fees, after asking the court - successfully - to deny me all legal fees, and while asking the same plaintiffs to sign an affidavit "against me".
What a mess this man is.
Of course, there is no "must" in signing any settlement agreements, and Mr. Carroll well knows that.
Of course, Mr. Carroll does not represent my interests and does not want to help me. It is simply one more episode of fraud in my future lawsuit against him.
Because soliciting an affidavit from a person where the person must say what that person does not feel (and that's exactly what Mr. Carroll is doing when he is trying to get an affidavit "against me" from three plaintiffs in Argro v Osborne) is three counts of soliciting perjury and fraud.
Three more counts.
Dara told me she does not want to sign the agreement, nor does she want to sign any affidavits against me, and neither do other plaintiffs, and that they want to proceed to trial, which Mr. Carroll refuses to do.
Dara then called me again to inform me that Mr. Carroll talked to her on the phone again and told her that if plaintiffs do not sign the settlement agreement AND the affidavit "against me" today - start trembling right now, it's a horrible thing Mr. Carroll threatned - Mr. Carroll will then - TADA!! - withdraw from the case.
And - guess what - Dara is celebrating Mr. Carroll's withdrawal as we speak.
She said she was happy Mr. Carroll was withdrawing, because now she will be able to get a "real" attorney who would "really" represent her and other plaintiffs - as, she said, I was doing.
Since Mr. Carroll is still threatening to come tonight to Dara and other plaintiffs to coerce her to sign these two documents, I will continue to cover this extraordinary story.
The story is about the lengths to which a federal court and attorneys would go to cut off rights of recovery of victims of CPS misconduct, and to what lengths courts will go to retaliate against an attorney who dared to sue social services - when no other attorney would take such a case, out of fear of retaliation.
By the way, I found a report on the Internet that in 2014, two years ago, the then-57 year old Woodruff Carroll reported a crime committed against him by a 17-year-old girl.
Did he lie about that, too?