EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"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 cos
t.



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.



“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.

"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.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn is upset - you can tell: he falsely claimed in a court order that I am disbarred

I wrote many times on this blog that I sued Judge Lawrence Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, for misconduct and failure to disclose his participation in out-of-court ex parte communications with attorneys who were opponents or counsel for opponents in my own or my husband's litigation, see, for example, here and here, you can also word-search "Lawrence Kahn" in the search window of the blog on the right.

Today I was "served" by e-mail - while Local Rules of NDNY court require service of non-attorney pro se parties by regular mail - with a decision dismissing my civil rights lawsuit against New York State former Commissioner for Environmental Conservation.

Here is the decision signed by Judge Kahn today.

From the decision I learnt, to my amazement, that I am already disbarred, see p. 14 of the decision:


I went and checked on the website of the New York State Court administration - as well as on Pacer - whether I am really disbarred now.  I only knew about a 2-year suspension (rendered unconstitutional so far by TWO court decisions - in June of 2015 and in June of 2016).

Pacer, as before, has no information about any disciplinary actions against me in federal court.

The state court system displays the following:


Senior Judge Kahn should be seriously upset - or seriously demented - to claim I am now disbarred, without any basis for it.

Judge Kahn also sanctioned me for not appearing at a deposition in New York while being given "proper notice".

Well, "proper notice" means notice by mail - since I was pro se, and that's in accordance with the court's own Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Moreover, I cannot be required by any rules to appear over 100 miles away, and here I was required to appear 850 away.

The court decision also claims that I received a notice of
a "December order" - in 2015, after I was suspended in New York State court and, according to the NDNY, without a public court order, suspended in NDNY, too.  Suspension rendered me a lay pro se party not allowed to file electronically with the court, but not allowed to also be served electronically through ECF, as an attorney. 

Since the "December order", described by Judge Kahn here



was never served upon me by regular mail, I was never on notice of anything contained in that order - so I was not properly given notice of:
  • a requirement to appear at a deposition in another state; 
  • appear at a court conference, even by telephone;
  • a threat of sanctions, or
  • a threat of dismissal of the action for non-appearance at a deposition.

Since I had no notice, I did not have to appear anywhere and could be sanctioned for that in any way, like Judge Kahn did, falsely claiming I am disbarred now.

Judge Kahn claimed, refusing to recuse, that the court did not inject itself as a party in the same proceedings.

Yet, that is abjectly not true, because I provided to judge Kahn a court order of the 2nd Circuit MAKING the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York a party in a related sua sponte anti-filing injunction proceeding against my co-Plaintiff and husband that was commenced, without notice to me as my husband's attorney at the time in the Neroni v Grannis case, in October of 2014, nearly 2 years before the case illegally concluded today, on August 17, 2016.

Judge Kahn apparently attempted to legitimize David Peebles' ex parte communications with the New York State Attorney General's office - accepting ex parte motions, making ex parte orders, imposing upon me sanctions for non-compliance with ex parte orders that were never served upon me, and for non-appearance at depositions across the country where notices were never served upon me and where I could not be made to appear 850 miles away from home.

By the way, you can search the entire decision of Judge Kahn, and you will not find any mentioning that I, as a pro se party, in accordance with rules of civil procedure and court's own Local Rules, must be served by regular mail - with everything, including pleadings and court orders.

Judge Kahn simply ducked this issue, because addressing the issue on the law required him to deny the motion to the New York State Attorney General, while that was not in tune with Judge Kahn's desire to kick me some more.


It is interesting to mention that all judges involved in ex parte communications against me were sued by me in May of 2014 for out-of-court ex parte communications and online investigations against me in a case named Neroni v Peebles.  By the way, NDNY court initially assigned defendant Peebles to preside over the case as a magistrate.

It is also interesting to mention that that lawsuit, dismissed "sua sponte" by the court where all judges were witnesses and the majority of judges were defendants in the action, may be revived soon, since I have a public document indicating that judges of NDNY court, and of the 2nd Circuit may be not only in ex parte communication, but may also be secret members of behind-the-scene organization, New York State-Federal Judicial Council, the purpose of which, according to the only existing document describing that purpose, a law review article by Judge Jack Weinstein, is to "reduce friction" between state and federal authorities - in other words, to fix cases.

So, a case for DEC was fixed by Judge Kahn, no surprises here.

Of course, a civil or criminal litigation may now reveal, based on evidence I already have and which I plan to procure by lawful means, that Judge Kahn and David Peebles were (as I am sure they were and are) witnesses and co-conspirators in a case-fixing scheme with New York State authorities, a lot of careers can be ditched and a lot of heads may roll - and that's exactly why I am repeatedly sanctioned by various courts, law or no law.

Just why wouldn't you shut up, Mrs. Neroni?

I wouldn't, and I will continue to investigate NDNY for politically-motivated case-fixing and for all activities that surround that case-fixing.

Also - did I mention that Judge Kahn sanctioned me, and that was in direct response of making a motion to recuse, a motion that he, as a witness in a related case, had no right to review or decide, and that he, likely, did not read because it was too much for him to read:



I know only one cure for such a disability - impeachment and criminal proceedings, since disciplinary complaints are tossed without investigation and lawsuits are tossed based on self-given absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

Thus, my efforts will be towards criminal investigation of those "honorables" who, at the expense of taxpayers, turned American courts into a tool of retaliation against people, like myself, exposing judicial misconduct.

And, of course, I will report my steps, when appropriate, on this blog.

Stay tuned.








No comments:

Post a Comment