I made a motion to vacate sanctions imposed upon me by the now-"retired" Judge Carl F. Becker who got on the bench in 2002 without evidence he was elected (in 2010 Delaware County Board of Elections could not produce any documents that would prove authenticity of Carl Becker's 2002 elections in response to my FOIL request, and Carl Becker did not file a certificate of elections, as required by law, in 2002, so he was clearly a usurper of public office) and who got on the bench for the second time in 2012 by making false claims to voters in his election campaign.
I made the motion at the end of 2016, because the sanctions imposed in 2011 were rendered unconstitutional and void by the two U.S. Supreme Court precedents decided in June of 2015 and in June of 2016.
I also reminded the presiding judge (at that time I made the motion, Judge Mary Rita Connerton was presiding over the case) that for a judge to disobey a U.S. Supreme Court order is a disciplinary violation that recently resulted in suspension from office until the end of his term of the Chief Judge of the State of Alabama Roy Moore.
When I received a decision on motion, it was not by Judge Connerton, but by Judge Gary Rosa who declined to apply two clear mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court to clear and indisputable facts of the case:
- that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse - in violation of Reed v Town of Gilbert decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 declaring content-based regulation of speech unconstitutional; and
- that sanctions were imposed in 2011 by a judge who commenced, as an accuser, the proceedings for sanctions, and who complained as a complaining witness and victim, of having been allegedly harassed by the contents of the motion to recuse (on behalf of an indigent pro bono client, by the way) - in violation of Williams v Pennsylvania decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, and declaring adjudication of court cases who act both as accusers and adjudicators a violation of due process that renders such decisions void (a nullity, like they never happened).
- that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse;
- that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse after a proceedings for sanctions commenced, as accuser, by the adjudicating the judge himself, and for alleged harassment of the judge that the judge claimed, as a personal offense against himself, in his sua sponte order to show cause that initiated proceedings for sanctions, and in his order imposing sanctions at the end.
I wonder if Judge Rosa, or his law clerk Nancy Deming who no doubt helped research and draft Judge Rosa's decisions in this case, or both of them, are developing some sort of a paranoia in regards to me, and, apparently, after I filed the motion, Judge Rosa confirmed that in his "order of recusal", about that - further in this article.
- Family Court - defense of parents in child neglect and abuse cases, custody litigation;
- criminal courts;
- federal civil rights litigation; and
- the Supreme Court - as a trial AND appellate attorney.
Before, I start commenting on the decision, I must say this: when a judge recuses from a case, he cannot make any "analysis" of that case whatsoever, he simply recuses because he cannot be impartial any longer, so any of his "analyses" is void.
Yet, Judge Rosa managed to violated even that clear rule.
His "order" of self-recusal violated even that simple rule Judge Rosa attempted to influence a judge who would come after him in "analyzing" the case anyway before stating that he is seeing red because of my "baseless personal attacks" - supported by evidentiary proof - and supported by a request for an evidentiary hearing for more proof and more testimony, if Judge Rosa is not impressed with what has been already provided.
Can anybody, please, enlighten me on that?
- an order of self-recusal of a judge is not appealable, and
- an order granting a motion (here - to recuse) is not appealable by the party to whom the order was GRANTED, and, even though Judge Rosa could not bring himself to mention that word in his "order" of self-recusal, he GRANTED my motion to recuse.
That would be frivolous, and such an appeal was subject to sanctions. So, Judge Rosa is giving me a notice that I have a right, under the Family Court Act 1113, to engage in frivolous conduct, to appeal and unappellable court order?
- deciding a second motion out of docket;
- sending a stupid intimidating notice to me not to violate the order of Judge Rosa's self-recusal under the threat of spending 6 months in jail for contempt of court; and
- sending me a no less stupid notice of appeal of an order that was not appealable by me for not one, but for two reasons
Judge Rosa engaged in analysis of the case that he had no right to engage in because he was RECUSING from that case.
Actually, what is my attorney status, was absolutely irrelevant to Judge Rosa's decision to recuse or not to recuse from the case, yet, apparently, for Judge Rosa it was not only relevant, but of paramount importance, even though, had Judge Rosa applied the law to the facts on the motion correctly, he had to rule in my favor and thus UNDO that suspension.
Like Judge Rosa was objective to me before.
In other words, "I SEE RED from Ms Neroni's motion, to the point that I cannot follow mandatory procedure of the U.S. Supreme Court, cannot apply mandatory precedent to indisputable facts".
- block my access to an effective court remedy,
- deny my motion to recuse and
- prevent my reinstatement as an attorney.
There is the law that
- punishing for contents of speech is a violation of the 1st Amendment (Reed v Town of Gilbert, 2015); and that
- court cases decided by judges acting as both accusers and adjudicators are void (Williams v Pennsylvania, 2016) - thus voiding all sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker -
- that I was, indeed, sanctioned in 2011 for contents of my motion to recuse without application of strict scrutiny, and
- that I was, indeed, sanctioned by a judge in 2011 who was both an accuser and an adjudicator in the case (started proceedings sua sponte, claimed personal injury to himself) - which was rendered unconstitutional in 2015 and 2016 by clear U.S. Supreme Court cases.
If he cannot control himself by just criticism and factual documents submitted to him about himself and his law clerk to the point that he cannot apply clear law to clear undisputed facts, he should not be on the bench.
He is a jeopardy to anybody who appears in front of him in the courtroom.
- for me filing a motion to recuse against Becker in 2009 for presiding, without disclosure, over child neglect cases where Becker, in bench trials, decided credibility of his own clients of 27 years, the Delaware County DSS workers (the case where I filed the motion was for a client who was not a friend or family member, just a client); and
- because I turned his own son in for discipline when he gang-assaulted my son in Delaware Academy, hurting my son - and, due to my son's infancy at that point, my son STILL has a right to sue Kirkwood's son, the statute of limitations did not yet expire, so Kirkwood had a conflict of interest then, by bringing and prosecuting a child neglect case against us, causing a rebellion in his own office, at the "Legal Department" of Delaware County, and has a conflict of interest to advise his employer, the administrative judge, to assign any judges to my case now.
- as part of a bunch of top officials in Delaware County who ran from their positions lately, has
- just fled from his position of the County Attorney
- during the pendency of, reportedly, an FBI investigation into the interesting occurrences in Delaware County Social Services Department and the interesting cash flow from the County into pet non-profits, where Kirkwood reportedly "did a lot of legwork" to collect child support for DSS, even though he was allegedly "not compensated for his efforts":
Kirkwood stupidly boasted about such a program in his meeting with the voters - you can see the video of him doing that,
- here (as to the general incompetence of Porter Kirkwood as to sex offender laws in New York),
- here - showing how Kirkwood boasted that his "experimental" program of "treatment" for "juvenile sex offenders" (children) in foster care costs Delaware County taxpayers "only" $56,000 a year;
- here - how Kirkwood boasted about his success in "luring" into engaging in "experimental" sex abuse of children in his care a consummate shopaholic and drunkard #DrRichardHamill, who was caught in lying to the court, to help another famous liar, then criminal prosecutor #PeterTorncello, get a criminal conviction;
- here - discussing the "methods" of "Dr" Hamill;
- and here - pointing out a court case in the 2nd Circuit that ruled application of Dr Hamill's methods even to an adult sex offender unconstitutional.
By the way, as to the attorney who elicited improper testimony of Dr. Hamill and inflamed the jury by improper references to that testimony in summation (the case I quoted about Dr. Hamill above, People v Riback), #Peter Torncello was elevated after his misconduct into a position of attorney for attorney grievance committee, 3rd Department, committed more misconduct in his elevated position
- fraud upon the court in my disciplinary case - Torncello argued contrary to court papers that I had to, and did not appear at a deposition of a client in 2008 when I was only admitted to practice law in 2009, and refused to withdraw that fraudulent claim even when confronted with court records showing that the deposition was held in 2008, that fraudulent charge was withdrawn only after
- a removal of the case to federal court,
- a remand back to 3rd Department and
- a transfer of the case to the 4th Department
- falsifying time sheets -
- the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a neurologist against whom Dr. Hamill improperly testified for prosecutor Peter Torncello (with one dissenting judge, Judge Malone), and after the New York State Court of Appeal reversed the 3rd Department by ruling on appeal that Peter Torncello, as a prosecutor, elicited improper testimony from "Dr. Hamill" and engaged in improper comments to the jury:
By the way, the blog I am currently preparing is spelling out in excruciating detail , based on "scientific research" as to HOW EXACTLY "juvenile sex offenders" are "treated" and experimented upon in such programs - will be even more "sensational", but I am sure that people who did that to the children will feel no shame at all.
And of course, how can I possibly "know anything", being an expert in this field and having researched that subject for 17 years, and how can I possibly "know anything" about Delaware County, after being its opponent in litigation, and suing it for so many years...
I did not receive from the 6th Judicial District (Porter Kirkwood) or from Delaware County Family Court, or from any other source, any assignments of new judges to that still pending motion.
I will publish any such assignments, and any decisions that will be produced by Kirkwood-assigned judges.
And I will publish a detailed analysis of Kirkwood-authorized illegal experimentation on children in foster care, which can be characterized as sexual abuse of children in foster care in Delaware County, New York, by the government, under the guise of "experimental therapy".
The court system in New York appears to be regurgitating and reshuffling in new positions the same people who keep getting caught, but keep getting rescued by the same system - and keep coming back to settle their scores against their critics, in total disregard of the law, again, and again, and again.
As to the recused-with-threats Judge Rosa, what can I say.
Beware of this incompetent coward.