I have asked AI to tell me a story about a greedy judge pig - like Rudyard Kipl8ng would

 And, here we go:

Tatiana Neroni

Tell me a story about a greedy judge pig like Rudyard Kipling would

ChatGPT

Once upon a time, in the bustling town of Squeakville, there lived a rather unusual pig named Judge Snoutworthy. Judge Snoutworthy was not your ordinary pig; he had a penchant for fine treats and luxurious indulgences, much to the chagrin of the townsfolk.

Now, Judge Snoutworthy had earned his nickname not for his judicious ways but for his love of all things extravagant. Instead of dispensing fair justice, he often made decisions based on how many apples or truffles he could receive as bribes. The townspeople, weary of his greed and corruption, decided to teach him a lesson.

One day, a clever little mouse named Matilda devised a plan to expose Judge Snoutworthy for the greedy pig he was. She planted a trail of delectable treats leading to the judge's chambers, knowing full well that his gluttonous nature wouldn't resist the temptation. Sure enough, Judge Snoutworthy followed the trail and found himself locked inside his own chambers with no way out.

As he sat there, surrounded by the enticing treats but unable to reach them, the townsfolk gathered outside, watching and waiting. Hours passed, and Judge Snoutworthy finally realized the error of his ways. He begged for forgiveness and promised to reform his greedy ways.

From that day on, Judge Snoutworthy became known not as the greedy judge pig but as the reformed and wise pig who dispensed fair and just rulings to all the animals of Squeakville. And the townspeople lived happily ever after, knowing that justice had prevailed in the end.

The moral of the story: Greed may lead one astray, but redemption is always possible for those willing to change their ways

Is your own LICENSED New York State attorney, or your LICENSED opposing counsel, AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW in the State of New York?

 A stupid question, right?

Not so fast.

What I say next, I hate to say as a scholar on the issue of constitutionality of ANY attorney regulation, who believes that such regulation is totally and completely constitutional - and who believes that the law I am describing is unconstitutional, too, on many grounds.

What I do say though is that, since the law I am describing here is on the books in the State of New York, and so far has survived constitutional challenges in court and even an attempt to repeal the law through the New York State Legislature, people should be aware of this law to prevent the expense of having their attorney disqualified in the middle of a court proceeding.

It is statutory law in the State of New York, Judiciary Law Section 470, requiring that if an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York lives outside of the State of New York, that attorney MUST maintain a PHYSICAL OFFICE within the State of New York, and not a token office, but a real physical office meant for transacting law business.

As recently as in 2015 and 2016, a constitutional challenge to that law by a New Jersey attorney licensed in New York State was rejected by both the New York State Court of Appeals (Schoenefeld v State, 2015), and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Schoenefeld v Schneiderman, 2016).

The lobby of the (rich suburban New Jersey) non-resident New York-licensed attorneys has then pushed through the New York State Legislature, through both Assembly and Senate, the repeal of Judiciary Law 470.

Yet, apparently, the lobby of the no less rich resident New York-licensed attorneys have gotten to Governor Hochul, and she has nixed (vetoed) the law that passed both the Assembly and the Senate, to the great indignation of the New York State Bar Association.

So, the bona fide physical office law is on the books, and nonresident attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of New York must abide by it.

Not abiding by it is a crime of misdemeanor in New York, unauthorized practice of law (UPL), punishable for one count of either drafting a document, or a court appearance, or filing something in court on behalf of a client while not being in compliance with the office requirement.

The kickers are though that 

(1) New York State official attorney directory does not list whether the attorney is a resident or a non-resident of the State of New York; and

(2) if you FOIL (file a Freedom of Information request with the NYS Court Administration) for the residential address of the attorney - because the office requirement of Judiciary Law 470 was justified by New York State law, CPLR 2103(b)(4), which allows to serve papers upon an attorney's residential address (home) within the State of New York, so a party to a lawsuit is entitled to know that address of the opposing counsel to be able to serve court papers there - such FOILs are routinely denied on a claim that unless you demonstrate "a particular need" for such an address, such an address is private.

So, short of hiring a private investigator to verify whether the attorney lives, or verifying that address by other legal means, you will certainly not learn from the court administration the deep secret - whether attorneys that the court administration itself LICENSES, but BARS from practicing law nevertheless unless they have a BONA FIDE PHYSICAL OFFICE within the State IF they DO NOT RESIDE in the State of New York, are in violation of that rule or not.

In other words, the New York State Court system deliberately prevents consumers from knowing whether the attorney they are hiring or opposing in court (unless the party knows the attorney locally and knows where he or she lives for certain) does or does not have authority (do not confuse it with a license, under Judiciary Law 470 a LICENSED attorney may not have AUTHORITY to practice law in the State of New York) to practice law.

If you hire such an attorney, he or she may not charge you any legal fee - and you may end up losing such an attorney when his or her lack of authority is revealed in court, because, as per CPLR 321(c ) such a lack of authority constitutes a legal "disability" of the lawyer requiring the court to stay (stop) anything the court is doing in a case and force the party who hired such a lawyer to hire somebody else - and that may be impossible in terms of money or other reasons.

If you oppose such an attorney, in addition to forcing the opposing party to replace that attorney with an attorney who has authority to practice law, you will need to deal with the aftermath of what that attorney has so far done against you in court, with agreement of the judge.

My personal opinion - which I do not impose upon anybody else, and this is certainly not a legal advice of any kind - is to stick to the text of the statutory law, CPLR 321(c ) that states:

"Death, removal or disability of attorney.  If an attorney dies, becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, or is removed, suspended or otherwise becomes disabled at any time before judgment, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action against the party for whom he appeared, without leave of the court, until thirty days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party either personally or in such manner as the court directs".

Moreover, in 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals has interpreted CPLR 321(c ) in the case Moray v Koven & Krause Esqs in 2010 by stating that 

(1) the stay imposed by disability of an attorney (including the legal disability) is AUTOMATIC and is imposed by operation of law as of the date of onset of the lawyer's disability, which is important, because imposition of an automatic stay does not require the party to engage in any motions and to ask the court for any permissions - the party simply informs the court of the lawyer's disability and the date of its onset, and the court is STOPPED BY LAW from proceeding any further; and

(2) violation of the rule of stay, CPLR 321(c ) is to be addressed by a motion to vacate - so the Court of Appeals has given parties a direct prompt as to what to do if the court does not want to follow the rule of stay, to file, as of right, a motion to vacate for lack of the court's authority to do so, that would be CPLR 5015(a)(4).

So, if I were (and I am) a litigant in a New York court case, I would be vigilant as to whether the opposing counsel does or does not have AUTHORITY (do not confuse, again, with a license) to practice law in the State of New York, and the first thing to do that is to verify, BY LEGAL MEANS, the home address of such an attorney.

There are additional problems with authority to practice if the opposing counsel is a law firm, since lawfully REGISTERED law firms may still lack AUTHORITY to transact any business in New York, including the business they were created to transact, the practice of law, if they have FAILED TO DO SOMETHING REQUIRED OF THEM BY LAW AFTER THE REGISTRATION.

If you are interested in this topic, stay tuned, I will cover it in one of the next blog articles, so, please, stay tuned.

As always, I will be glad for comments of the public on the issues raised in this article.

Topics of upcoming blog article series on issues of public concern, stay tuned

The topic of this blog is court (and, generally, government) corruption and accountability and attorney independence, especially in representation of the poor.

Recently there was a flood of issues that have come to my attention on these topics that, in my view, are not adequately covered by the media or the watchdogs of the judiciary, so I will have to resume my blogging a little more actively.

I am about to start several series of blog articles on issues of very important public concern, based on brand new evidence, and my readers know that I do diligent research of documents in public access before I make an accusation of corruption or other misconduct of a public official.

So far, even though my blogs have caused several recusals of judges, none of the judges subjected to criticism on this blog ( or anybody else) dared to sue me for defamation, for obvious reasons - truth is an absolute defense, and discovery in such a case is a b*tch that may expose a judge to very, very interesting revelations for the public that may end the judge's career both as a judge and as a lawyer and put the judge behind bars.

The issues I am going to discuss are as listed below.

1.  Did New York criminally collude with the predatory credit card industry in introduction of its Consumer Credit (Un)Fairness Act and how the predatory features of this law are playing out AGAINST the indigent (poor) consumers in court.

2. Is New York's informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to the listed licensed attorneys' presumption of competence?

3. Is the New York State informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to whether the listed licensed attorneys' and the law firms where they practice law have actual legal authority to practice law in the state of New York?  Believe me, documents you will see illustrating this series of articles are hilarious.

I have bumped into this problem by accident, and I do not have resources or time to assess the scope of the problem in New York State court system, but, since courts are apparently not checking whether attorneys and law firms practicing in front of them are actually authorized by New York State law or not to practice, the problem may be very, very widespread.

I will describe in my article series how did I find out the problem, giving people an opportunity to at least look in certain places for certain signs of such, possibly massive, fraud being committed in the New York judicial system on multiple clients and opponents with impunity and without anybody looking into the problem.

I will also describe how judges in the State of New York, while having a death grip on the monopoly to control lawyers (for the judges' own benefit), are in complete dereliction of duties to control whether lawyers appearing in front of them are competent, diligent, honest or even HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW in the State of New York, yes, yes, yes, that, too, I have recent documentary evidence.

4.  The interesting conclusions one may draw from NYS AG Letitia James' bold assertion in a federal appellate court that the main purpose of attorney regulation in New York (repeated 10 times, I counted, in her appellant's brief) is MIND CONTROL by the government of those same attorneys (and of the public through those attorneys as representatives of members of the public in court.

That Letitia James was RE-ELECTED AFTER making that bold assertion shows that in New York State you may elect a mindless blurb of fat with a Democratic Party card to be Attorney General (or to any other public office).  So much attention people pay to the background of the candidates for public office they vote for.

On May 29, 2024, in two weeks, Letitia James (or her subordinates) will be making an oral argument in the 2nd Circuit in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, defending this bold policy, don't miss it if livestream is going to be available.

Btw, I have been licensed in New York, my husband has been licensed, too, I have polled several other attorneys licensed in the State of New York - and none of us people who have ever been licensed in New York knew what Letitia James  argued to the federal appellate court: that for over 100 years the main purpose of the government in the State of New York was MIND CONTROL of the lawyers by the government.

Believe me, documentary evidence I am going to put into this article series will be equally hilarious.

5.  As hilarious will be the coverage of the topic as to how the 2nd Circuit was trying to jam my pro se amicus curiae listing my research on the very topic of Letitia James' appeal made for a number of years - while this particular topic, constitutionality of attorney regulation in New York, is taboo in the mainstream academia for fear of losing their law licenses.

I have already lost mine, for criticism of a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker of Delaware County, NY (who was quietly taken off the bench, but I was still suspended, likely, because of articles in this blog criticizing other judges, such as the currently sitting corrupt judges John F. Lambert and Brian D. Burns), so I am free-free-free to discuss any topic in my legal scholarship or on this blog.

Moreover, since Letitia James has announced that the main purpose of New York State government (actually, I have raised this constitutional issue in my disciplinary proceedings) is mind control of lawyers, and I was suspended because I refused to submit to that mind control, I can just as well wear that suspension as a badge of honor.

The reason the 2nd Circuit has taken my amicus curiae brief off the publicly accessibly docket (while keeping me on the list of notified parties - since I have made a motion to vacate the deliriously stupid decision requiring me to undo my suspension and get admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar before I can file PRO SE amicus curiae briefs) is because it shows, in very simply legal terms, and based on mandatory US Supreme Court precedent that what New York is doing with attorney regulation is even less criminal that what the 2nd Circuit itself is doing with attorney regulation, and how disastrous that regulation is for the public.

6. Last, but certainly not least, will be my series of blog articles on Letitia James/Democrats' "Marie Antoinette" solution for the poor ("let them eat cake") in terms of lack of access to legal services when opposing the predatory actions of the fraudulent out of control credit card industry empowered by fraudulent out of control LICENSED attorneys - that generously donate to this fat rich woman's election campaigns, so she can only care to spend taxpayer money on her political agenda, while Rome is burning.

The whole point in the upcoming oral argument by Letitia James - who has spent so far, I am sure, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on litigating this issue - is whether New York has a public interest in FORBIDDING THE POOR AND THE ILLITERATE (INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS) TO HAVE HELP IN CHECKING BOXES IN A ONE-PAGE COURT FORM, choosing potential affirmative defenses against credit card lawsuits in order to avoid default.

That's it!

That's what Letitia James, a fat rich entitled "Democratic" government official, is fighting over - that the poor are, in her view "BETTER OFF" WITHOUT ANY HELP than allowing Upsolve, Inc. volunteers, for free, help poor people voluntarily engaging such help to check those boxes.

In other words, and that is a yet another issue I have repeatedly raised both in my legal scholarship articles on Academia.edu, and in this blog - what RIGHT does the government have to control the right of COMPETENT ADULTS, CONSUMERS, to choose who represent them in court or who consults them on issues of PUBLIC LAW, for free or for a fee?

7. I will have a coverage of the so-called e-filing system in New York courts (NYSCEF) and my experience in using it recently (and currently) as a pro se party in a civil court case (easement dispute, but that does not matter, NYSCEF features apply equally to all civil cases).

I will cover the advantages and disadvantages of using the system as a pro se (representing yourself) litigant, based on real-life examples and documentary evidence, covering various aspects of civil litigation in New York courts through e-filing and virtual court hearings, and New York State Court Administration's failure to make available to litigants easily available technical means of presenting best evidence to the court and to effectively conduct litigation during hearings.

If you are interested in these topics, stay tuned, I will start rolling out these articles within several days.

Members of the public are invited to attend, on the Internet, without revealing their names if they do not want to reveal them, a virtual evidentiary hearing in Delaware County Supreme Court, NY, between a corporation, owner of Stewarts Store, and us

 My husband and I have been sued for what is called an "easement dispute".

For the second time.

The first identical case has been dismissed in December last year for lack of jurisdiction, but without prejudice, so the lawsuit was re-filed.

The lawsuit is litigated electronically, through e-filing in NYSCEF.

The gist of the story a corporation by the name of Berrian Inc. claims that it owns a commercial building at 85 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753 (home of the so-called Stewart's Mercantile Store") located next to our building at 83 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753.

The corporation wants us to remove a fence on the property separating the parking lot at 83 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753 and the Village of Delhi parking lot, so that their commercial vehicles can (1) park, for free, in OUR parking lot, and (2) drive through OUR parking lot from the Village of Delhi parking lot through to Main Street and back.

We object.

The driving force of litigation is Stephanie Halberian, well known in Delhi, NY as owner of the so-called Blue Bee Cafe, and her attorney Gerard N. Misk, of Ginsburg & Misk, LLP.

Coincidentally, Ginsburg & Misk, LLP are also attorneys for two individuals who, represented by the same Ginsburg & Misk, LLP during the 1st action have provided Stephanie Halberian a $210,000 mortgage with a pledge of personal guarantee of her own and her husband's assets, all of them, to the two private lenders (Attorney Misk's personal friends out of New Jersey, owners of retail stores and gas stations).

The mortgage was to buy 114 Main Street, Delhi, NY for the Blue Bee Cafe.

The mortgage is available online from the Delaware County Clerk's Office public records register, under Beacon Records, Inc., since the name Blue Bee Cafe is a DBA (doing business as) of Beacon Records, Inc.

I will not go into the merits of the lawsuit against us by Berrian Inc., as we are not at a pre-merits stage of the case, discussing jurisdiction of the court.

You can download, for free, no registration needed, any filings from either of the lawsuits, 1st or 2nd, if you type in Google

"NYSCEF guest search" and then click on the link that appears in the search and enter my name into the menu, then two cases will appear, click on either one of them, depending on what you want to see.

Berrian Inc. v. Neroni, EF2023-322 is the dismissed case.

Berrian Inc. v. Neroni, EF2023-943 is the currently pending case. 

The currently presiding judge has reserved his decision on our motions to dismiss and put some issues up for an evidentiary hearing, a sort of a mini-trial with witnesses and cross-examination.

The hearing is currently scheduled for Monday, May 13, 2024, at 1:30 A.M., on the Internet, through Microsoft Teams.

Members of the public may attend the hearing.

To do that, they need to send a request to the court system providing their e-mail address (where the link to enter the virtual meeting will be sent).

Click on this link,

Or, enter in your browser the full path of the link:

https://portal.nycourts.gov/knowledgebase/article/KA-01070/en-us

At the bottom of the page that opens, click the blue words "Virtual Appearance Viewing Request Link".

In the form that opens, enter the following:

For Contact Information - enter your e-mail, confirm it, and enter nothing else.

For County, choose Delaware in the drop-down list on the left - and another drop-down menu, Court, will appear on the right.

For Court, check the only box there, Delaware County Supreme Court multibench, hit Select below.

In the right, for Date, choose 5/13/2024.

For Other Information, Case Number put in

EF2023-943

For Case Caption put in

Berrian, Inc. v. Neroni

You are done, hit the Submit button below.

You will soon receive an e-mail confirmation from the court system that your request is received and is being processed, and you will later receive an e-mail from the court giving you a link how to enter the Microsoft Teams meeting (you do not need to download anything to enter, as far as I know), and an entry code.

The New York Court system prohibits the screen recording, video recording and audio recording of court proceedings.

If anybody wants me to fill out their virtual requests to attend, they can send their preferred e-mail addresses to me through comments for this article, messenger, or email tatiana.neroni@gmail.com.  I will try to forward to the court system all requests sent to me.

If you are interested in how a real court hearing works, whether you are a non-lawyer member of the public, or a law student, you are very much encouraged to attend, it may be ... lively and interesting.

Issues that the court has put up for the hearing are:

(1) whether service of process upon my husband and myself was proper;

(2) whether notarizations on Plaintiff's affidavits of service were defective.

The hearing is set up for an hour, even though it can be shorter or longer, nobody can tell ahead of time.

UPDATE:  Date of hearing has so far changed to May 20, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

Change of date was requested for medical reasons, so an update will be posted as to whether the date will or will not be changed any further.