Will the 3rd Department judges, clerks and members and attorneys from the 3rd Department Committee for Professional Conduct be ever prosecuted for falsifying a public record or are blood ties and connections thicker than law in the State of New York?

There is an expression that blood is thicker than water.

In New York, it appears that blood ties are also thicker than law.

Earlier in this blog, here, here and here, I wrote about the sudden ex parte transfer to the 4th Department of my disciplinary case and of my husband's file from his closed disciplinary case access to which was subject of a pending federal lawsuit. 

The transfer created an impression of (1) retaliation against both myself and my husband, since review of the files became difficult by transferring them hours' drive away from us;  and of (2) an attempt to tamper with evidence, or claim that certain files were potentially lost or misplaced in the transfer.

Usually, tampering with the evidence or witnesses in an official proceedings should be subject to a criminal investigation.  In view of the ranks of individuals involved in the potential tampering, and blood ties of those people (at least those blood ties that are readily apparent from public records and public attorney advertisements), it is naïve to think that any of the wrongdoers will be brought to justice.

I also wrote in this blog that the 3rd Department issued an order of transfer of my pending disciplinary case and of my "proceedings" pertaining to my husband, where such proceedings ended three years prior, on  July 7, 2011 and could not be transferred anywhere.

I also wrote in this blog that the order of transfer mentions that an "application" was made for that transfer.

I also wrote in this blog and that neither Mr. Neroni nor I were served with any such "applications", as is the requirement for motion practice in New York and that the Appellate Division 3rd Department staunchly refused to provide to us copies of the allegedly existing "application" that was never served on us and that was used as a basis of the transfer.

Additionally, by the time the "application" (the equivalent word of a "motion") was made, motion deadlines were over, and the Committee for Professional Conduct (COPS) was not given any leave for the extension of those deadlines, nor did the COPS ask the court for such an extension - at least no such requests were served upon me.

As to Mr. Neroni, his disciplinary case was concluded with his disbarment (without a hearing) on July 7, 2011.

COPS obtained a dismissal of certain causes of action filed by Mr. Neroni in federal court specifically on the basis that his case is concluded and closed.

Rule 22 NYCRR 806.3(b) regulating authority of COPS specifically provides that COPS can only investigate attorneys for misconduct.  Mr. Neroni is no longer an attorney, therefore, COPS had no authority to conduct any further investigations after his disbarment.

Both Mr. Neroni wrote to the 3rd Department asking to provide us with a copy of (1) what was transferred to the 4th Department, and (2) of the application which was the basis of the order of transfer.

The 3rd Department denied our request for these documents.

I wrote to the 4th Department with the same request.

Today I received two letters, one regarding my case and one regarding my husband's.  I publish here the letter regarding myself and I publish the letter regarding my husband with his permission.

In the letter regarding my husband the 4th Department indicates that all they received is the order of transfer and an accompanying letter.  

The letter from the 4th Department does not list any "application" for the order of transfer that the order of transfer mentions.

The letter from the 4th Department regarding my case sheds a little more light on the situation, claiming that included into the transferred papers was a copy of my lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, Neroni v. Peebles. 

That lawsuit, as I wrote earlier in this blog, was dismissed before it was served by the court which was the defendant in that same lawsuit.  Since the United States (court) was a party in the action, I have 60 days to appeal that dismissal, and 60 days did not expire yet.

Yet, the letter from the 4th Department regarding my case still does not indicate that any "application" was included with the papers transferred to the 4th Department from the 3rd Department.

The letter from the 4th Department claims that there is no indication that our cases were consolidated.

Yet, the order shows one caption for both me and my husband as "In the Matter of [myself] AND [my husband]" which usually indicates one single case.

Moreover, my own and my husband's names are mentioned in one paragraph.  So, there is no point playing dumb and pretending that the cases were not consolidated and treated as one by the 3rd Department in making the order. 

4th Department's pretense that certain files regarding Mr. Neroni about "pending complaints" could be sent directly to the Committee for Professional Standards of the 4th Department have no legal basis, because, as I mentioned above, Mr. Neroni was disbarred as of July 7, 2011, and as of the same date COPS lost their authority to investigate and prosecute him on any "new complaints" against Mr. Neroni.

Moreover, no "new complaints" were served upon Mr. Neroni.

So, the bottom line that we have here is:

1) there is an order of June 11, 2014 from the 3rd Department claiming that COPS made an "application" for an order of transfer;

2) The 3rd Department considered the "application" and "upon due deliberation" granted it;

3) The application was never served either on Mr. Neroni or on me;

4) The 3rd Department denied access to the "application" to both Mr. Neroni and me despite our requests;

5) The 4th Department did not receive any such "applications".

So - did the 3rd Department lie that there was an "application" made in a court order, thus making the court order based on non-existing application and thus void?

Did the 3rd Department rely upon an oral ex parte application by the COPS?  Ex parte communications with the court, whether oral or written, are attorney and judicial misconduct.

Appears that no "application" by the COPS is in existence, and that the COPS, together with the 3rd Department simply falsified a public record, a court order, in order to get their wish.

Will they be prosecuted?

When

• the son of the late Chief Judge of the 3rd Department Anthony Cardona, Anthony V. Cardona Jr. is an Assistant District Attorney in the Albany County;
• Steven Allinger, the son of an Albany County Family Court Judge Susan Kushner whom I recently criticized in this blog is another Assistant District Attorney in the same Albany County District Attorney's office; 
• Amanda Kuryluk, the niece of a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Mae D'Agostino, who was sued in her individual capacity in the same Neroni v. Peebles lawsuit is a partner in of Anthony Cardona Jr.'s law firm, replacing there her aunt who was a partner in that law firm before coming to the bench;
• two sons of another judge, Gary L. Sharpe, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, also sued in Neroni v. Peebles, are employed, respectively, by the New York State Attorney General's office (Michael Sharpe) and by the U.S. Attorney's office (Robert Sharpe) - and Gary L. Sharpe already sanctioned both my husband and myself after I directly asked him to confirm the fact of his son Michael's employment with the NYS AG's office because NYS AG's office appeared before Gary L. Sharpe in a civil rights lawsuit where I represented my husband -

in other words, when the federal and state government is so tightly entrenched and interweaved by blood ties, there is a real fat chance for criminal prosecution of COPS attorneys, members and the judges of the 3rd Department who made a court order based on a non-existing application while claiming there is such an application (which was never served upon us), and who engaged in a cover-up of their misconduct, including the ex parte communication with the COPS.

Yet, any "person from the street", an "average Joe" who would forge a public document, would be criminally prosecuted.  Because they do not have the right pedigree - such as the appellate judges and their pet agency, the Committee for Professional Conduct have.

This is the reality in the State of New York.

This is the reality of attorney regulation and licensing where the Rules of Professional Conduct are inapplicable to the powerful attorneys employed in the government. 

As I said earlier in this blog - if the public is not protected from shenanigans of the most powerful attorneys, the whole idea of the regulation of the legal profession is a sham.

My husband's and my own cases clearly show that, instead of the declared "rule of law", what we have in New York, and for quite a while, is the "law of connections" or "law of blood ties" - that is the only "law" that matters here.

Brain drain and brain dump in the United States

Let's face it, the United States is not topping any lists in educational performance of its students.


Far from it, educational performance of United States students (on the average) is admittedly mediocre, and that is according to official reports.


When my daughter came to an American school from a Russian public school, we were both amazed how easy the curriculum is - as compared to what it is in Russian public schools, or at least was when I was growing up in Russia long time ago and when my older daughter went to school there.


The U.S. is making strong efforts to provide economic incentives to the bright and talented people from all over the world to come and work in the United States - both because within the country, interest of its own students to the "brainy" professions is lukewarm and because the bright and talented professionals from, let's say, developing countries may be cheaper than American college graduates.


Thus, the brain drain may help the U.S. economy, as well as hurt it.


From the point of view of human capital, it is interesting what is happening in the legal profession.


Here, law schools are competitive and are trying to attract students with the best performance, or, in other words, the intellectual elite of the nation.


After graduation and licensing, these same intellectuals are thrown into the murky waters of the practice of law where the best survival tool is scraping and bowing to the judge - no matter how stupid, immoral or incompetent the judge appears to be.


This is a mode of survival for many attorneys.


A retired judge once told me that "I am digging a hole for my client (a female college professor) with my intellectual efforts".  Not only he told me that without reading the record that he was commenting on.  He told me that without any qualms about the discriminatory and sexist nature of his statement.  The retired judge has actually retired from the Appellate Division 3rd Department.  His name is Carl Mugglin.


I noticed that raising constitutional issues is perceived as frivolous, unnecessary and wasteful conduct by most judges in most courts.


Research tools are prohibitively expensive, and, as far as I know, most small-firm or solo attorneys either do without them or reduce them to the bare minimum.


Finally, if you dare to criticize a judge, your license may be pulled, and no matter how skilled, bright or talented you are, you are prevented from sharing your skills, intellect, ideas and wisdom with the public - even the indigent and under-served public.


So, after the bright and talented graduate from law school, they must either engage in brain-dumping and risk brain atrophy by intentionally dumbing down their arguments in order to stay off the radar of judicial wrath and to survive and earn a livelihood, or are dumped out of meaningful employment, because a disbarred attorney has very little chances to get gainful employment.


Brain drain on the one side and brain dump on the other.  Isn't that a waste of human capital - of American college graduates, scientists and engineers, who cannot compete with cheaper foreign work force, and for American law school graduates who either need to dumb themselves down and not show their brains, thus stifling legal innovation, or risk showing it - and risk to be dumped out of professional workforce entirely.


Such a situation is demoralizing to any individual, and particularly to the bright individuals who were lured to law school with claims that they are "intellectual elite".


This "internal emigration" into kitchen dissent by the legal profession while having to publicly brownnose people who are possibly dishonorable and incompetent leads to high levels of stress, alcohol and drug abuse and burnout in the legal profession.


Because of the fear of retribution, attorneys, even the best and the brightest, are unable to show their true potential and help their clients the way they truly can - and that is especially sad in civil rights cases.


Reducing intellectuals to groveling and seemingly brainless sycophants as a point of survival cannot be deemed to be in the public interest.


What is in public interest is to use the human capital of the nation to the best of its abilities.


And that is one more reason for me to claim that independence of the legal profession from the stifling and retaliative control of the judiciary is a matter of urgency in this country.

Should these 14 New York Senators be impeached for voting in favor of a legislation that benefited them financially and protected the market of their professional services?

Recently a legislation was passed in New York State enhancing unauthorized practice of law from a misdemeanor to a felony.


According to my research of public records, 14 New York Senators whom I name in the table below voted for this legislation, legislation that enhanced restrictions to the market where they continue to provide professional services. 


Therefore, these New York Senators had a material interest in the legislation they were voting for - to restrict competition to their business - and should not have voted at all.


It is interesting to mention that what exactly constitutes the practice of law remains undefined, and thus is subject to selective and arbitrary enforcement. 


Yet, these 14 attorney-senators made sure that this vague and undefined activity must be now punished as a felony (1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison + fines and prohibition to vote and have firearms) rather than a misdemeanor (up to 1 year in the local jail + fines).

The data in the table below was compiled by me from two public websites - the website of the New York State Legislature as to the voting records for this particular statute, and the website of the New York State Court Administration as to registration statuses and information for senators-attorneys.


It is for the public to decide whether the senators who use New York Legislature to get benefits for their business should be impeached, thrown out of office and disciplined as attorneys for conduct unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

No.	Name of Senator-attorney	Attorney Reg. No.	Admitted to practice law in NY	Judiciary Committee Vote - Mar 1, 2011	Floor Vote, Mar 7, 2011	Judiciary Committee Vote  – Jan 18, 2012	Floor Vote – May 1, 2012
1.	Breslin,Neil D. ( in private practice, Hiscock & Barclay)	1431972	1972	Aye	Aye	Aye	Aye
2.	DeFrancisco, John A. (private practice, DEFRANCISCO & FALGIATANO) (co-sponsor)	1374495	1972	Aye		Aye
3.	Flanagan, John J., (in private practice, FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, COHN & TERRNA, LLP.)	2433803	1991	Aye		Aye
4.	Gianaris, Michael N.	2598399	1994	Aye		Aye
5.	Lanza, Andrew J.	2550093	1993	Aye		Aye
6.	LaValle, Kenneth P (in solo private practice)	2554574	1993	Aye		Aye
7.	Little, Elizabeth E. (in private practice, LITTLE & O'CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C.)	2528818	1993	Aye		Aye
8.	Nozzolio, Michael F. (in private practice, NOZZOLIO LAW OFFICES C/O HARRIS BEACH PLLC)	1818814	1980	Aye		Aye
9.	O’Mara, Thomas F. (in private practice, DAVIDSON & O'MARA, P.C.  243 LAKE ST)	2479269	1992	Aye		Aye
10.	Perkins, William P. (in private practice, WILLIAM PHILLIP PERKINS   SEYFARTH SHAW LLP)	2843191	1997	Aye		Aye
11.	Ranzenhofer, Michael H. (in private practice, FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER PC  PO BOX 31)	1765411	1980	Aye		Aye
12.	Saland, Stephen M. (co-sponsor, in solo private practice)	1634526	1969	Aye		Aye
13.	Zeldin, Lee M. (in solo private practice)	4195053	2004	Aye		Aye
14.	Adams, Eric R. (in solo private practice)	1786243	1978			Aye

Ethical obligations and sweet dreams of Attorney James Ranous, the Deputy Clerk of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department

My first question to Mr. Ranous, the Deputy Clerk of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department - do you sleep well at night?

Does your conscience bother you?

At least a little bit?

Well, it should.

The Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable to all attorneys, including you, Mr. Ranous, provide that an attorney must (I stress it, must, this is not a discretionary option) report attorney misconduct or judicial misconduct that an attorney knows about.

That may just as well include misconduct of the attorney's employer, no matter how powerful, no matter what consequences to the attorney.

That is a duty that the Rules of Professional Conduct impose upon the members of the legal profession for the protection of the public.

I've written in this blog that the NYS Appellate Division Third Department engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee for Professional Conduct the moment I mentioned in federal court on my husband's behalf that I am seeking to see the voting record in my husband's disciplinary case and engage an authenticity expert, especially in view of the recent "resignation"of three attorneys from the Committee among investigation regarding investigation for allegedly filing false time sheets.

When the court employing Mr. Ranous engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee about a CLOSED case and transfer documents sought through a federal lawsuit, what did Mr. Ranous do?

Did he report attorney misconduct?

No.

Did he report judicial misconduct?

No.

Here is the entire correspondence between my husband and the Appellate Division (posted with my husband's permission) that started after the Appellate Division suddenly transferred an long-closed case to the 4th Department, "coincidentally" did it right after I raised in federal court the issue of authenticity and availability of documents in the Committee and did it without showing the application for such an order of transfer to my husband or myself as his attorney.

Document 1.  The ex parte order of transfer.  My husband's case was concluded on July 7, 2011 with the resulting loss of jurisdiction by the court and the Committee.  My case was commenced in January 2013.  My husband's case and my case were never merged (consolidated).  Neither my husband nor I were ever served with the application for this order.

Document 2.  My husband's first letter in response to the ex parte order requesting to disclose authority upon which the order was made and to provide copies of documents upon which the order was granted and documents which were transferred to the 4th Department.

Document 3.  First obnoxious answer by Mr. Ranous ignoring the request for copies of documents.

Document 4.  My husband's second letter to Mr. Ranous repeating his request for copies of documents upon which the ex parte order was granted and copies of documents which were transferred

Document 5.   Mr. Ranous's second obnoxious reply to my husband arrogantly telling Mr. Neroni that Mr. Ranous "was directed to advise" Mr. Neroni that his request "for a copy of all proceedings resulting in this Court's order of June 11, 2014 and for copies of documents transferred has been denied".  

Just like that - denied without an explanation who "directed" Mr. Ranous to answer in this manner, on what grounds or for what reasons.

Today I've read the new lawsuit by Leon Koziol against the Appellate Division Third Department and the Committee for Professional Conduct a portion of which I publish herein (parts of pages 1 and 25):

Document 6.  The first page of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing names of defendants.

Document 7.   Part of page 25 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing that the Appellate Division Third Department engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee, attorneys Duffy and Zayas, in 2012 and denied Mr. Koziol access to the important documents upon which the court relied in denying him his application for reinstatement of his law license, a constitutionally protected interest.

Document 8.  Part of page 25 of  Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing that Mr. Koziol's second application for reinstatement of his law license was denied because of his political activity protected by the 1st Amendment, posts on his website and anti corruption testimony before the Moreland Commission. 

Document 9.  Part of page 19 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit referenced in Document 8 above.

Document 10.  Part of page 9 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit referenced in document 9 above.


Statements by Mr. Koziol, together with documents from my own and my husband's cases, including my husband's federal lawsuit for access to his own disciplinary file, show clearly that the 3rd Department and the Committee for Professional Standard treat disciplinary proceedings as their own personal fiefdom, do not feel restricted by any rule of law, engage in ex parte communications as a matter of custom and engage in retaliation for pubic criticism of misconduct within the court system also as a matter of custom.

An attorney working within the system, knowing of such misconduct, is obligated by Rules of Professional Conduct to report such misconduct.

In my husband's case Mr. Ranous did the opposite.

He participated in the cover-up and arrogantly told my husband that he was "advised" by an unknown individual that my husband's request of access to the ex parte application to transfer his file 5 hours away from him was denied (see Document 5 above) - no explanations, no grounds, no authority - denied and that's it.

One more example showing that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the government or friends or relatives of government officials. 

One more example of why attorney licensing do not protect the public, but only protects public officials for accountability for misconduct by giving them power to quash investigation and prosecution against themselves, as well as instill fear in the legal profession and the public by retaliation targeting critics and exterminating their reputation and livelihood.

Once again, so much for the rule of law in the state of New York.

And Mr. Ranous - I return to my initial question - how do you sleep at night?  Any pangs from your conscience?

Didn't think so.