THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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 cost.

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.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"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.

“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.

Thursday, May 9, 2024

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.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)