On May 13, 2016 I filed a motion to recuse Judge Mordue and David Peebles citing numerous ex parte communications of the court with the parties and counsel about pending motions regarding my right to legal fees for 3.5 years of representation in that civil rights lawsuit (which settled, based on my work, but without paying me, on June 17, 2016).
Plaintiffs new attorney, the delightfully ... disingenuous Woodruff Carroll filed an affidavit with the court on May 31, 2016 (Docket No. 151) where he claimed, under oath, two diametrically opposite things:
1) that the court discussed multiple issues (Mr. Carroll dutifully listed those) at an ex parte in person hearing for which I received no notice; but
2) that there was no ex parte communications and those issues - from a still pending motion that I filed on May 13, 2016 (Docket No. 112) are "resolved" at the hearing.
The transcript of that hearing was then sealed, Docket 144, and the court proceeded happily to engage in more ex parte communications with parties and counsel.
I actually undertook to count the number of times when Judge Norman Mordue and David Peebles engaged in ex parte communications regarding my rights and pending motions.
11 ex parte communications before I filed a motion to recuse BECAUSE of ex parte communications and 17 ex parte communications after I filed that motion to recuse. And the issue whether there were ex parte communications was "resolved", according to attorney Woodruff Carroll, on June 3, 2016, at yet another ex parte communication.
- Ex parte letter motions.
- Ex parte orders.
- The docket shows even an ex parte motion for an anti-filing injunction, to prohibit me to file anything without court's permission - filed by attorney Erin Donnelly of Levene, Gouldin and Thompson of Binghamton, NY, I guess, LGT trains its associates to file motions like that ex parte;
- Ex parte telephone conferences.
- Three ex parte in-person meetings, in January, February and June of 2016.
I was not given notice of any of that.
Go figure, it appears that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has a new rule - ex parte communications are now not only legitimate, but fashionable.
Mr. Carroll also filed a Memorandum of Law with the court where he claimed about 10 times that all my claims of case-fixing and ex parte communications are "crackpot", that's Mr. Carroll's new legal term for "irrefutable documentary evidence of judicial and attorney misconduct".
Of course, when somebody discusses motions against you in an ex parte manner
Apparently, I must accept that laws do not apply to me - because, as Mr. Carroll claimed, I was suspended from the practice of law for suing public officials. That interesting suggestion never appeared in my disciplinary proceedings, or my order of suspension, so it would be interesting to depose Mr. Carroll about his sources of information.
In fact, I argued to the disciplinary court that my disciplinary proceedings are politically motivated.
Now Mr. Carroll, after some ex parte communications with Judge Mordue (who I sued) and David Peebles (who I also sued) reports to me in a Memorandum of Law (Docket 151-1) that the real reason of my suspension, which is not reflected in the record, is because I sued public officials (including, I understand, David Peebles).
And that my motion to recuse - for ex parte communications documented in the record - are "crackpot", and that I have an ability to "turn a traffic ticket into a felony" for myself.
In other words - why did you, stupid Mrs. Neroni insist on the rule of law?
By the way, Mr. Carroll actually calls me "Tatiana", that's the only person, other than his nearly-70 year old client Dara Argro who he calls by their first names in pleadings, others he knows to address respectfully. And, by the way, I did not permit Mr. Carroll to call me by my first name, we never met, never talked on the phone, and the only time I want to meet Mr. Carroll is in court when I will sue him for fraud and fraud upon the court.
What transpires from Mr. Carroll's delightfully disingenuous Memorandum of Law (Docket 151-1) is, had I not engaged in professional activity as a civil rights attorney, I would have had my law license and livelihood intact.
Isn't Mr. Carroll a civil rights attorney himself - at least, he pretends to be that?
Isn't Mr. Carroll supposed to question the government's motives on behalf of his clients?
Now, Mr. Carroll thinks that had I bent over, had you not insist on your stupid rule of law, Mrs. Neroni, you would have been hunky-dory now, just like him.
By the way, Mr. Carroll had the audacity to claim that I did not practice law for a long time - in a case which I litigated for 3.5 years, through several motions to dismiss and summary judgment, and brought to trial, in a case where Mr. Carroll enriched himself using the fruits of my labor, but tries to block me from being paid - at all, and claiming that my former clients have a "vested interest" IN MY SUSPENSION and will be PREJUDICED if my suspension is reversed.
Since you do not want to accept that judges are gods and can do anything on a whim, Mrs. Neroni, since you tried to do SOMETHING to have rampant and pervasive judicial misconduct controlled at least somehow - here are 28 ex parte communications by judges you sued about your rights, Mrs. Neroni, it's the new law for you.
The problem is though, that if such judicial misconduct is happening towards me, a vocal and well trained legal expert, what is happening with pro se parties?