Multiple times, in civil and criminal proceedings, when I am simply trying to make the record for my client and preserve my arguments in the face of clear bias of a judge, I was told that I was "out of line" by the very judge whom I was challenging.
Thus, the judge is trying to prevent me from making the record and preserving the arguments pertaining to his or her misconduct, bias or appearance thereof, to help my client at the appellate level, should an appeal become necessary.
The law operates in such a way that if I do not preserve my argument on record, then my client won't be able to raise it on appeal.
Yet, if I do try to preserve it, I am somehow "out of line" which is a direct threat that sanctions will follow if I do not stop doing what I am doing - doing my duty for my client.
Is the above described scenario the type of behavior deserving anybody's respect?
Of course not.
When a judge uses his or her power to retaliate against an attorney, directly or through his family members or clients, for attorney's criticism of investigation of the judge's misconduct or concealed conflicts of interest, is it the type of behavior deserving anybody's respect?
Of course, not.
But, both types of behaviors happen in our courts every day and there is no statistics of how wide spread the problem is, because people are afraid to come forward and create such statistics.
Even journalists are largely ignoring the problems of dishonorable behavior of judges. Judges have good connections in the government, and any journalist who speaks out against them may find himself on the receiving end of judicial wrath, and in such a way that he or she will not be able to prove that his criticism and the court order ruling against him were connected in any way.
I also heard many times from the pulpits of many courts that an attorney must not only respect the courts, but instill that respect into their clients.
And here is where I must take a pause.
It is my firm belief that NOBODY, EVER can REQUIRE me to respect anybody, including the government. Respect is a personal feeling toward an individual and institution and it must be EARNED.
Also, the interesting detail is - nobody requires you (at least as yet) to respect the police instead of showing them the door if they come to your house without a warrant and want to enter.
Nobody requires you to respect the president, or even the American flag. The U.S. Supreme Court protected as constitutional activity (1) burning of the American flag before the White House; (2) casting insults at a funeral of a fallen soldier.
There is no requirement that you must absolutely respect a particular Senator, or the Legislature as a whole.
But the courts, which control reputation and livelihood of attorneys through licensing, require that attorneys respect them and instill that respect into their client and the general public - whether that respect is warranted or not.
Any individual or institution deserve respect as a benefit of the doubt.
Yet, if an individual or institution does something that destroys that presumption of respect, the respect is gone and must be earned back. That individual or institution cannot simply put a knife to your throat and tell you - respect me NOW, or you will starve. That's essentially what courts are doing to attorneys.
I would say, as I said here before, a branch of the government which self-servingly creates for itself absolute immunity for its own malicious and corrupt acts in office in clear violation of its officers' oaths of office, and who continuously and viciously persecutes its critics by stripping them of their livelihood is not deserving of presumed respect and is not doing much to earn it.
And - when I was sworn in as an "officer of the court", my only duty as I was told was to uphold the Constitutions and the laws of New York State and the United States.
Also, being part of the sovereign ("We the People"), I do not owe respect to delinquent servants.
That said, I treat each and every judge whom I do not yet know with respect - and give them a benefit of the doubt.
That said, my feelings as to the judges who, in my opinion, do not deserve respect, are my feelings and nobody's business, even though some attorneys and judges try to have me sanctions for my criticism of the system which bestows upon itself the self-indulgency of absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts.
If you detract from the formula the word "judge" or "judicial system", any system that abuses its power to forgive to itself its own corruption and who blocks any possibility of an effective remedy to the victims of its malicious and corrupt conduct - does not have a right to exist and must be immediately reformed.
When we add the words "judges" and the "judicial system", the sheer power that this branch wields over every one of us, makes people fear for their own livelihood and close their eyes upon what is going on - that is, until disaster strikes at themselves or their loved ones.
For how long will we be reigned by fear?
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Discrimination and misconduct against a pro se party by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on an appeal involving a judge
My husband was prosecuting an appeal in the 2nd Circuit, and doing it pro se.
I filed that appeal in the court below, because I was his attorney in the court below, and the clerk in the court below rejects pro se appellate filings if in that court a person was represented by counsel.
Yet, my husband wanted to proceed pro se on the appeal.
For that reason, he filed all the appropriate forms required of pro se parties, including an "Acknowledgement and Notice of Appearance" as a pro se party.
I personally served those forms by mail on July 18, 2014.
After Mr. Neroni's letter to the 2nd Circuit of July 18, 2014, with forms, announcing to the court that he is proceeding on the appeal pro se, I continued to receive e-mail notifications that the court sent to me instead of him as a pro se party.
On July 24, 2014, I received an e-mail notification that, unless Mr. Neroni files "forms D and C", his appeal will be dismissed by August 4, 2014.
Of course, since Mr. Neroni by that time was a pro se party, the notification sent to me was not a valid service to him.
Moreover, since Mr. Neroni was a pro se party, the court could not require him to file D and C forms, required only of parties represented by counsel, and could not threaten dismissal of a properly filed (and paid for) appeal. That's an equal protection issue and access to court issue.
Also, 2nd Circuit clerks outdid themselves (in - ahem - disingenuity it is called politely) by sending to me an e-mail saying that "Pro Se materials" were sent to me - instead of to Mr. Neroni.
Sending Pro Se materials, by email notification, to an attorney - indicates that the court clerks knew by that time what they are doing, that they were dealing with a pro se party, and still were sending the Pro Se Materials, to a Pro Se party, to his wife by email instead of to him by mail.
I consulted with the local post office and they told me that it takes a maximum of 3 days for the mail to travel to NY city (as it was later confirmed when Mr. Neroni resent his forms by certified mail, with tracking).
Thus, by July 23, 2014 the court already had Mr. Neroni's pro se forms sent on July 18, 2014 (above).
Yet, it did not deter them to send TO ME the below email "Pro Se Documents, to attorney Tatiana Neroni, SENT", on July 23, 2014.
Mr. Neroni called the clerk's office in my presence and asked them why are they doing what they are doing when he already filed pro se forms as of July 18, 2014.
The clerk's office responded that they never received the forms.
Now, this is another point of discrimination against pro se parties - denying them opportunity to file electronically as of right, as attorneys are allowed to do, and thus putting on pro se parties more costs and more inconvenience by having to print and send submissions by mail and run the risk that the clerk's office will claim it never received them.
The clerk of the court also explained to Mr. Neroni that the forms that he said he filed were the correct forms, and that he is not required, as a pro se party, to send forms D and C, as such forms are only required from counseled parties.
The clerk of the court encouraged Mr. Neroni to re-send the same pro se forms he has sent on July 18,k 2014 and that the court allegedly did not receive.
Mr. Neroni braced himself and re-sent his forms, already sent on July 18, 2014, to the 2nd Circuit, now by certified mail, with an accompanying letter protesting discrimination against him and sloppy practices of the clerk's office of the 2nd Circuit.
I will only include here the letter, as what was included with the letter is already published above.
The tracking by USPS of Mr. Neroni's forms now sent to the court by certified mail shows that the 2nd Circuit has received those forms on August 4, 2014.
In the letter accompanying the forms (see above, letter of August 1, 2014) Mr. Neroni pointed out that this is not the first time that the clerk's office of that particular court loses correspondence and sends notifications to the wrong party.
I also note that there is a lag of filing in the court of approximately 2 weeks between the date the court actually receives the filing by mail and actually files it and sends out notifications - as demonstrated in appellate cases, my records of when I've sent certain documents for filing to the court and notifications I received from the court.
Yesterday, I (again!) received a notification that Mr. Neroni's appeal was dismissed because of Mr. Neroni's alleged default.
Yesterday was August 11, 2014. Mr. Neroni notified the court that he is representing himself as of July 18, 2014 and, by certified mail, as of August 1, 2014, received by the court (confirmed by USPS) on August 4, 2014.
What was the default? Failure to file forms D and C - counseled forms! Declaring a default on August 11, 2014 because Mr. Neroni did not submit "counseled appeal forms" that he was not required to submit (according to the court clerk's advice to Mr. Neroni on the phone), and sending notification of that default, again, to me, was clear misconduct.
The picture is clear: despite multiple notifications, the court still continued to treat Mr. Neroni as a counseled party, send correspondence to me instead of to him directly and finally punished Mr. Neroni for non-compliance with the form he was not required to comply with, as the court's own clerk told Mr. Neroni. The notification of punishment was also sent to the wrong party, myself.
If the court chooses to stick to its obviously wrong default decision, Mr. Neroni has only one recourse - to appeal further, to the U.S. Supreme Court where he does not have a right to appeal as of right, and while everybody knows that to get a "cert" to the U.S. Supreme Court is like for a camel to get through a needle's eye.
So, what recourse does Mr. Neroni have if the court will not graciously correct its own grievous mistake? None.
Of course, Mr. Neroni sent to the 2nd Circuit yet another letter trying to alert them to the problem in how they treat (or, rather, mistreat) pro se parties, enclosing as attachments all documents published above.
But - based on prior correspondence, most likely it will be once again a voice hollering in the wilderness.
My question to the public is - who are those people working in the 2nd Circuit who are paid by taxpayers to ensure people's access to court?
Do they have any education? Do they know how to read? Do they know how to apply their own rules? Were they trained how to deal with pro se parties? Were they trained how to deal with civil rights cases raising issues of public concern?
Do they have any conscience when they are discriminating against a 67-year-old pro se party in such a way and upsetting him by their outrageous actions? Apparently, Mr. Neroni cannot sue the clerks of the court or the judge who issued the order for, basically, taking his money for the hefty filing fee and not doing their jobs - because they are absolutely immune from suit, even for malicious and corrupt actions.
To say that all of the above discrimination is somehow for public interest is to insult anybody's intelligence.
"Coincidentally", the appealed case was Neroni v. Becker against judge Becker, and my question is - should protection of Judge Becker go that far, to the point of breaking the law and engaging federal appellate clerks and judges in misconduct?
==
After this blog was last updated on August 12, 2014.
I really do not know what to do - to laugh or to cry...
As I was publishing this blog, yet another email notification arrived - again about Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal, again sent to me, and again notifying me that Pro Se documents were sent.
I asked the court, by e-mail, to stop sending me notifications about Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal and explained that service of anything in this appeal upon me after Mr. Neroni notified the court he is proceeding pro se is not valid.
The interesting part is that I am not admitted to the bar of the 2nd Circuit (but am admitted to the court below - Northern District of New York), and consent to change counsel under these circumstances so that Mr. Neroni would proceed pro se was not required. He only needed to notify the court, and he did, three times in writing and two times on the phone in my presence.
My next question is - why Pro Se documents are sent to anyone where the court already dismissed that appeal?
And why Pro Se documents are - again - sent to an attorney?
And I repeat my earlier question - what kind of people work in the clerk's office in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit?
I filed that appeal in the court below, because I was his attorney in the court below, and the clerk in the court below rejects pro se appellate filings if in that court a person was represented by counsel.
Yet, my husband wanted to proceed pro se on the appeal.
For that reason, he filed all the appropriate forms required of pro se parties, including an "Acknowledgement and Notice of Appearance" as a pro se party.
I personally served those forms by mail on July 18, 2014.
After Mr. Neroni's letter to the 2nd Circuit of July 18, 2014, with forms, announcing to the court that he is proceeding on the appeal pro se, I continued to receive e-mail notifications that the court sent to me instead of him as a pro se party.
On July 24, 2014, I received an e-mail notification that, unless Mr. Neroni files "forms D and C", his appeal will be dismissed by August 4, 2014.
Of course, since Mr. Neroni by that time was a pro se party, the notification sent to me was not a valid service to him.
Moreover, since Mr. Neroni was a pro se party, the court could not require him to file D and C forms, required only of parties represented by counsel, and could not threaten dismissal of a properly filed (and paid for) appeal. That's an equal protection issue and access to court issue.
Also, 2nd Circuit clerks outdid themselves (in - ahem - disingenuity it is called politely) by sending to me an e-mail saying that "Pro Se materials" were sent to me - instead of to Mr. Neroni.
Sending Pro Se materials, by email notification, to an attorney - indicates that the court clerks knew by that time what they are doing, that they were dealing with a pro se party, and still were sending the Pro Se Materials, to a Pro Se party, to his wife by email instead of to him by mail.
I consulted with the local post office and they told me that it takes a maximum of 3 days for the mail to travel to NY city (as it was later confirmed when Mr. Neroni resent his forms by certified mail, with tracking).
Thus, by July 23, 2014 the court already had Mr. Neroni's pro se forms sent on July 18, 2014 (above).
Yet, it did not deter them to send TO ME the below email "Pro Se Documents, to attorney Tatiana Neroni, SENT", on July 23, 2014.
Mr. Neroni called the clerk's office in my presence and asked them why are they doing what they are doing when he already filed pro se forms as of July 18, 2014.
The clerk's office responded that they never received the forms.
Now, this is another point of discrimination against pro se parties - denying them opportunity to file electronically as of right, as attorneys are allowed to do, and thus putting on pro se parties more costs and more inconvenience by having to print and send submissions by mail and run the risk that the clerk's office will claim it never received them.
The clerk of the court also explained to Mr. Neroni that the forms that he said he filed were the correct forms, and that he is not required, as a pro se party, to send forms D and C, as such forms are only required from counseled parties.
The clerk of the court encouraged Mr. Neroni to re-send the same pro se forms he has sent on July 18,k 2014 and that the court allegedly did not receive.
Mr. Neroni braced himself and re-sent his forms, already sent on July 18, 2014, to the 2nd Circuit, now by certified mail, with an accompanying letter protesting discrimination against him and sloppy practices of the clerk's office of the 2nd Circuit.
I will only include here the letter, as what was included with the letter is already published above.
The tracking by USPS of Mr. Neroni's forms now sent to the court by certified mail shows that the 2nd Circuit has received those forms on August 4, 2014.
I also note that there is a lag of filing in the court of approximately 2 weeks between the date the court actually receives the filing by mail and actually files it and sends out notifications - as demonstrated in appellate cases, my records of when I've sent certain documents for filing to the court and notifications I received from the court.
Yesterday, I (again!) received a notification that Mr. Neroni's appeal was dismissed because of Mr. Neroni's alleged default.
Yesterday was August 11, 2014. Mr. Neroni notified the court that he is representing himself as of July 18, 2014 and, by certified mail, as of August 1, 2014, received by the court (confirmed by USPS) on August 4, 2014.
What was the default? Failure to file forms D and C - counseled forms! Declaring a default on August 11, 2014 because Mr. Neroni did not submit "counseled appeal forms" that he was not required to submit (according to the court clerk's advice to Mr. Neroni on the phone), and sending notification of that default, again, to me, was clear misconduct.
The picture is clear: despite multiple notifications, the court still continued to treat Mr. Neroni as a counseled party, send correspondence to me instead of to him directly and finally punished Mr. Neroni for non-compliance with the form he was not required to comply with, as the court's own clerk told Mr. Neroni. The notification of punishment was also sent to the wrong party, myself.
If the court chooses to stick to its obviously wrong default decision, Mr. Neroni has only one recourse - to appeal further, to the U.S. Supreme Court where he does not have a right to appeal as of right, and while everybody knows that to get a "cert" to the U.S. Supreme Court is like for a camel to get through a needle's eye.
So, what recourse does Mr. Neroni have if the court will not graciously correct its own grievous mistake? None.
Of course, Mr. Neroni sent to the 2nd Circuit yet another letter trying to alert them to the problem in how they treat (or, rather, mistreat) pro se parties, enclosing as attachments all documents published above.
But - based on prior correspondence, most likely it will be once again a voice hollering in the wilderness.
My question to the public is - who are those people working in the 2nd Circuit who are paid by taxpayers to ensure people's access to court?
Do they have any education? Do they know how to read? Do they know how to apply their own rules? Were they trained how to deal with pro se parties? Were they trained how to deal with civil rights cases raising issues of public concern?
Do they have any conscience when they are discriminating against a 67-year-old pro se party in such a way and upsetting him by their outrageous actions? Apparently, Mr. Neroni cannot sue the clerks of the court or the judge who issued the order for, basically, taking his money for the hefty filing fee and not doing their jobs - because they are absolutely immune from suit, even for malicious and corrupt actions.
To say that all of the above discrimination is somehow for public interest is to insult anybody's intelligence.
"Coincidentally", the appealed case was Neroni v. Becker against judge Becker, and my question is - should protection of Judge Becker go that far, to the point of breaking the law and engaging federal appellate clerks and judges in misconduct?
==
After this blog was last updated on August 12, 2014.
I really do not know what to do - to laugh or to cry...
As I was publishing this blog, yet another email notification arrived - again about Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal, again sent to me, and again notifying me that Pro Se documents were sent.
I asked the court, by e-mail, to stop sending me notifications about Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal and explained that service of anything in this appeal upon me after Mr. Neroni notified the court he is proceeding pro se is not valid.
The interesting part is that I am not admitted to the bar of the 2nd Circuit (but am admitted to the court below - Northern District of New York), and consent to change counsel under these circumstances so that Mr. Neroni would proceed pro se was not required. He only needed to notify the court, and he did, three times in writing and two times on the phone in my presence.
My next question is - why Pro Se documents are sent to anyone where the court already dismissed that appeal?
And why Pro Se documents are - again - sent to an attorney?
And I repeat my earlier question - what kind of people work in the clerk's office in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit?
Judge Elizabeth Garry of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department: when the judge has a grudge, the rule of law goes out the door
I have written on this blog about the "confidential order" of transfer of my own disciplinary proceeding to the Appellate Division 4th Department made in an ex parte manner, while neither I nor my husband (who, for some inexplicable reason was joined into my disciplinary action, even though he is not an attorney since July 7, 2011) are allowed to even see the "application" that was the basis of this ex parte order of transfer.
Apparently, ex parte communication between attorneys or parties and the presiding judge is not allowed.
In this case, apparently, the court is making an exception to the attorneys for the Committee the Court itself appointed - which is, in my opinion, judicial misconduct.
In case of Justice Elizabeth Garry, that misconduct is aggravated by multiple issues of misconduct pertaining to the order of transfer, on top of the two already outlined issues of misconduct - ex parte communication with the Professional Conduct Committee (hereinafter COPS) and blocking my own and my husband's access to the alleged "application" for the ex parte order of transfer.
Here are these issues:
1) Justice Garry was extremely upset immediately before she came to the bench of the Supreme Court (and was assigned to the Mokay matter in 2007) that one of her very well paying clients left her as a private attorney and hired my husband. According to my husband, she was very vocal about it. He did not raise it in the proceedings early on because he did not think at that point that Judge Garry will stoop to ruling against him because of her petty personal grudge. He was mistaken.
2) Justice Garry presided in the court over the Mokay farce, the basis of disbarment of my husband without a hearing while the Mokay case is still unresolved and is currently adjourned without a date. Presiding over the same or related matter in the court below is a strict disqualification for an appellate judge to preside over a case in the Appellate Division. Apparently, Justice Garry does not care about that.
3) One of the members of the COPS, attorney Samantha Holbrook, was Justice Garry's own law partner (as stated in the Judge's biography on the court's website) where Judge Garry toiled immediately before she came to the bench and was assigned to the Mokay saga. Thus, Samantha Holbrook also had a financial grudge against my husband for losing her paying client to him. Thus, Justice Garry presiding over the ex parte order of transfer, where the ex parte communication is between her and COPS where her former, equally disgruntled law partner Samantha Holbrook is a member of the Petitioner,
4) It is interesting to mention that where COPS was called a "Petitioner", there should be "a petition" - as to both individuals named as "Respondents" in the caption. Not only there was no petition naming my husband and served upon my husband at the time the order was made, but the court lost jurisdiction for entertaining any petitions against my husband after the court disbarred my husband as of July 7, 2011, and Justice Garry cannot pretend she did not know that.
5) Justice Garry also cannot pretend that she did not know that in my cross-motion to dismiss and for sanctions against COPS I specifically pointed out disqualification of Samantha Holbrook because she was the law partner of Justice Garry immediately before Justice Garry came to the bench.
6) Justice Garry also cannot pretend that she did not know at the time of her ex parte communication with the COPS where Samantha Holbrook was a member, about a lawsuit filed against her individually in federal court where a waiver of service was served upon her by certified mail upon her where I attempted to discover her networking connections with attorneys in front of her through a lawsuit, because discovery is not allowed before making motions to recuse, judges may sanction you for simply asking them a question pertaining to their potential disqualification (happened to me) and FOILs regarding documents potentially exposing judicial disqualification or potential financial interest in the outcome of a litigation are routinely stalled by the New York State Court Administration (happened to me) and transferred to the object of information sought, the judge, where the judge can retaliate against the FOILer at his heart's desire - as judge Carl F. Becker did, whose sanctions after my FOILs and after my lawsuits for misconduct against Judge Becker are the sole basis of my disciplinary proceedings.
I wrote on this blog that after the ex parte communication and transfer, and after God knows how many more ex parte communications and pressure upon the federal court, the federal court which was a co-defendant in litigation and thus disqualified from presiding, instead of transferring the federal lawsuit to another court, as I asked, dismissed it sua sponte before it was served, and called it "frivolous".
To a wrongdoer sued in a court of law, any allegations of his wrongdoing must seem frivolous, and an institution sued for its wrongdoing is no exception. My lawsuit is frivolous in the eyes of the defendant U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York simply because I sued that defendant, and that defendant considered that it had the power to decide a case against itself, a clear and screaming due process violation - not that anybody in that court cares for the rule of law, as long as a case that may result in embarrassing discoveries, a public scandal and a necessity to massively void many court orders can be squashed before it destroyed careers.
When the Appellate Division 3rd Department appoints every member and attorney of COPS and makes procedural and substantive rules of disciplinary proceedings favoring COPS, that already smacks of disqualification and puts validity of those rules into question.
When the Appellate Division 3rd Department creates rules by which 18 out of 21 members of COPS whose task is allegedly to protect the public from bad attorneys are practicing attorneys who are practically given a tool to eliminate the competitors they do not like, while lay members of the public may not outvote the supermajority of 18 attorneys, competitors to the attorneys subject to discipline - that is already a point of disqualification for both the COPS and the Court and a point to question validity of each and every disciplinary action adjudicated following such rules, which are clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, Justice Garry pushed the envelope even further by presiding over the case related to the case where she was a judge in the court below, and where a member of the COPS is her own former law partner who shared Justice Garry's personal grudge against Mr. Neroni for losing a private client.
Nothing like just a little bit of retaliation, Judge Garry, right? Nothing like abusing public trust and abusing the tremendous power the public put in your hands, right?
Shouldn't the name "justice", the name of your office, be not in name only? Shouldn't you follow and enforce the rule of law, not destroy it for personal reasons?
Apparently, ex parte communication between attorneys or parties and the presiding judge is not allowed.
In this case, apparently, the court is making an exception to the attorneys for the Committee the Court itself appointed - which is, in my opinion, judicial misconduct.
In case of Justice Elizabeth Garry, that misconduct is aggravated by multiple issues of misconduct pertaining to the order of transfer, on top of the two already outlined issues of misconduct - ex parte communication with the Professional Conduct Committee (hereinafter COPS) and blocking my own and my husband's access to the alleged "application" for the ex parte order of transfer.
Here are these issues:
1) Justice Garry was extremely upset immediately before she came to the bench of the Supreme Court (and was assigned to the Mokay matter in 2007) that one of her very well paying clients left her as a private attorney and hired my husband. According to my husband, she was very vocal about it. He did not raise it in the proceedings early on because he did not think at that point that Judge Garry will stoop to ruling against him because of her petty personal grudge. He was mistaken.
2) Justice Garry presided in the court over the Mokay farce, the basis of disbarment of my husband without a hearing while the Mokay case is still unresolved and is currently adjourned without a date. Presiding over the same or related matter in the court below is a strict disqualification for an appellate judge to preside over a case in the Appellate Division. Apparently, Justice Garry does not care about that.
3) One of the members of the COPS, attorney Samantha Holbrook, was Justice Garry's own law partner (as stated in the Judge's biography on the court's website) where Judge Garry toiled immediately before she came to the bench and was assigned to the Mokay saga. Thus, Samantha Holbrook also had a financial grudge against my husband for losing her paying client to him. Thus, Justice Garry presiding over the ex parte order of transfer, where the ex parte communication is between her and COPS where her former, equally disgruntled law partner Samantha Holbrook is a member of the Petitioner,
4) It is interesting to mention that where COPS was called a "Petitioner", there should be "a petition" - as to both individuals named as "Respondents" in the caption. Not only there was no petition naming my husband and served upon my husband at the time the order was made, but the court lost jurisdiction for entertaining any petitions against my husband after the court disbarred my husband as of July 7, 2011, and Justice Garry cannot pretend she did not know that.
5) Justice Garry also cannot pretend that she did not know that in my cross-motion to dismiss and for sanctions against COPS I specifically pointed out disqualification of Samantha Holbrook because she was the law partner of Justice Garry immediately before Justice Garry came to the bench.
6) Justice Garry also cannot pretend that she did not know at the time of her ex parte communication with the COPS where Samantha Holbrook was a member, about a lawsuit filed against her individually in federal court where a waiver of service was served upon her by certified mail upon her where I attempted to discover her networking connections with attorneys in front of her through a lawsuit, because discovery is not allowed before making motions to recuse, judges may sanction you for simply asking them a question pertaining to their potential disqualification (happened to me) and FOILs regarding documents potentially exposing judicial disqualification or potential financial interest in the outcome of a litigation are routinely stalled by the New York State Court Administration (happened to me) and transferred to the object of information sought, the judge, where the judge can retaliate against the FOILer at his heart's desire - as judge Carl F. Becker did, whose sanctions after my FOILs and after my lawsuits for misconduct against Judge Becker are the sole basis of my disciplinary proceedings.
I wrote on this blog that after the ex parte communication and transfer, and after God knows how many more ex parte communications and pressure upon the federal court, the federal court which was a co-defendant in litigation and thus disqualified from presiding, instead of transferring the federal lawsuit to another court, as I asked, dismissed it sua sponte before it was served, and called it "frivolous".
To a wrongdoer sued in a court of law, any allegations of his wrongdoing must seem frivolous, and an institution sued for its wrongdoing is no exception. My lawsuit is frivolous in the eyes of the defendant U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York simply because I sued that defendant, and that defendant considered that it had the power to decide a case against itself, a clear and screaming due process violation - not that anybody in that court cares for the rule of law, as long as a case that may result in embarrassing discoveries, a public scandal and a necessity to massively void many court orders can be squashed before it destroyed careers.
When the Appellate Division 3rd Department appoints every member and attorney of COPS and makes procedural and substantive rules of disciplinary proceedings favoring COPS, that already smacks of disqualification and puts validity of those rules into question.
When the Appellate Division 3rd Department creates rules by which 18 out of 21 members of COPS whose task is allegedly to protect the public from bad attorneys are practicing attorneys who are practically given a tool to eliminate the competitors they do not like, while lay members of the public may not outvote the supermajority of 18 attorneys, competitors to the attorneys subject to discipline - that is already a point of disqualification for both the COPS and the Court and a point to question validity of each and every disciplinary action adjudicated following such rules, which are clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, Justice Garry pushed the envelope even further by presiding over the case related to the case where she was a judge in the court below, and where a member of the COPS is her own former law partner who shared Justice Garry's personal grudge against Mr. Neroni for losing a private client.
Nothing like just a little bit of retaliation, Judge Garry, right? Nothing like abusing public trust and abusing the tremendous power the public put in your hands, right?
Shouldn't the name "justice", the name of your office, be not in name only? Shouldn't you follow and enforce the rule of law, not destroy it for personal reasons?
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Members of the bar in Pennsylvania, 11th District for Congressional elections and citizens residing in that district! Vote for Andy Ostrowski, a Congressional candidate running on a platform of court reform. You can bring a real change for all of us.
One of my very first posts on this blog was an appeal for attorneys disciplined for criticism of the judiciary to unite in action to fight encroachments upon independent court advocacy by the judiciary, especially that truly independent court advocates usually have a reason to criticize judiciary for errors, sloppy work and outright misconduct.
Errors, sloppy work and outright misconduct in this branch of the government only gets worse in the absence of real oversight and real discipline against the errant judges.
In my appeal I appealed to attorneys who are presently practicing and to suspended and disbarred attorneys whose licenses were pulled specifically for criticism of the judiciary, as the most eloquent and most potent and knowledgeable group of experts as to the issue of judicial misconduct, to provide as much information as possible to the voters about instances of judicial misconduct, and to appeal to legislators for a quick and efficient judicial reform.
Such a reform is necessary where the majority of litigants in modern American courts are faced with the problem that there is no real access to court and no affordable and efficient legal representation for an average American, due to the quagmire of rules created by the judiciary that makes it impossible for average people to navigate the court system, and because of self-serving judicially created immunity for malicious and corrupt acts.
While I was talking about legislative initiative, in other words, initiative centered around talking to existing legislators, I've overlooked an even better opportunity - to become such a legislator and a lawmaker, and to participate and to become a people's representative who would be able to spearhead such a reform.
Andy Ostrowski in Pennsylvania actually had such an idea - and he courageously and persistently is pursuing this goal.
Andy Ostrowski is running for Congress.
Andy Ostrowski is a suspended attorney.
Discipinary authority recently refused to reinstate his law license.
Why? Because he runs a civil rights website and raises there issues of public concern. Isn't it for public interest? Yes, it is. Isn't such activity protected by the 1st Amendment? Yes, of course, it is within the core values of the 1st Amendment.
But, in the eyes of disciplinary authorities, what is clearly for public interest - but against the interest of the judicial establishment - prevented Andy Ostrowski's law license to be reinstated.
Did Andy Ostrowski know that his public advocacy may serve to prevent reinstatement of his law license?
Probably, yes. Statistics across the country is frightening. Attorneys are universally disciplined for any criticism of judges, and such discipline is universally upheld, no matter whether discipline was, in fact, authorized by the law and whether attorney's criticism was protected by the 1st Amendment or not.
Moreover, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by suspensions and disbarments of attorney whistleblowers, made sure that the state legal profession would be overcome by fear and is intimidated into not reported judicial misconduct, whether it was warranted or not.
There are a lot of cases around the country where disciplinary authorities blatantly violate the 1st Amendment and refuse to reinstate law licenses - or take law licenses - based on protected speech for public benefit.
Did it deter Andy Ostrowski from putting his personal interests aside to promote the interests of public benefit and fairness? Definitely.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader and public advocate such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state of Pennsylvania, of all state, the state which was recently rattled by the "Kids-for-Cash" scandal where two judges were involved in a scheme to fill a private juvenile detention facility with kids improperly sentenced in exchange for kickbacks and sent there without the benefit of a hearing or a counsel representing them, in violation of applicable law.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state where the legal community of the Luzerne County and beyond knew or should have known what was happening with juvenile sentencing for years, and the where the state judiciary has for years refused to discipline these judges.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state where the legal community acted like cowards and protected their own interests in the fear that reporting judicial misconduct (even in order to do their duty and save the kids) will land them in hot waters of judicial rage and retaliation.
The state can attempt to stifle, silence, tar-and-feather its critics, pull their licenses all they want, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding in the eating.
And Andy Ostrowski has already proven his worth. He is fighting for civil rights even though his license has been pulled, and even at the expense of reinstatement.
The legal community who was silently letting the kids to be sold into slavery/juvenile delinquency - which resulted in at least one suicide and untold and irreversible trauma for other kids - are not the true representative who will listen to people's wishes and at least attempt the necessary legislative changes, no matter what will be the personal cost to him.
When you come to court, you want your counsel to fearlessly defend your position.
Your counsel, at least under the present circumstances, is torn between his duty to you and his duty to his own family. Most likely, his family will win, and he will not risk his law license to raise an issue in court for one client, when there is a real threat that the attorney will be sanctioned or disbarred for criticizing a judge.
The problem of judicial retaliation is pervasive in the country, and has legal experts worried.
And for a good reason. You will not have true access to court unless you have fearless and independent advocacy. And you will not have fearless and independent advocacy while regulation of attorney livelihoods is in the hands of the judiciary whose misconduct your attorney may have to challenge on your behalf.
Thus, judicial retaliation against attorneys criticizing the judiciary is not just attorney's problem - it is everybody's problem.
Members of the bar of Pennsylvania, residents of the district where Andy Ostrowski runs!
Your fear of retribution from the judiciary if you come and support Andy Ostrowski's cause openly is understandable. You have families to feed and reputation to uphold. And sometimes these needs drive people to forget or put on the back burner the oath of office that they took when they became attorneys.
Yet, one avenue of redress is still available to you, it is secret and does not require you to openly reveal your support of Andy Ostrowski - but it can still get him elected. That is voting. Voting is in this country - or at least that's what the election committee's make us think - secret.
Vote for Andy Ostrowski. Stop your cowardice. Bring about much-needed change in the federal court system. Help Andy Ostrowski promulgate legislation that will provide true remedies to victims of constitutional violations.
It will not expose you, it will not jeopardize your livelihood to do the right thing. Yet, it will do a lot of good to all of us.
I hope that Andy Ostrowski will be the first of many attorneys or former attorneys who realize that urgent legislative measures are necessary to create real enforceable mechanisms for access to courts and equal protection of laws, and real laws enforceable by private individuals directly need to be introduced to address the issue of judicial misconduct and retaliation, which continues to undermine democracy in the United States each time a judge rules in a malicious or corrupt manner, because of the judge's bias, because of the judge's friendship with one of the attorneys, because the judge was upset or jealous with parties or counsel.
As attorneys you, possibly, cannot do much under the existing state of events without inviting sanctions from judges for criticism even of the most clear misconduct.
As voters, you can do a lot.
Please, vote responsibly.
Please, vote for change.
Please, vote for Andy Ostrowski for the U.S. Congress.
Errors, sloppy work and outright misconduct in this branch of the government only gets worse in the absence of real oversight and real discipline against the errant judges.
In my appeal I appealed to attorneys who are presently practicing and to suspended and disbarred attorneys whose licenses were pulled specifically for criticism of the judiciary, as the most eloquent and most potent and knowledgeable group of experts as to the issue of judicial misconduct, to provide as much information as possible to the voters about instances of judicial misconduct, and to appeal to legislators for a quick and efficient judicial reform.
Such a reform is necessary where the majority of litigants in modern American courts are faced with the problem that there is no real access to court and no affordable and efficient legal representation for an average American, due to the quagmire of rules created by the judiciary that makes it impossible for average people to navigate the court system, and because of self-serving judicially created immunity for malicious and corrupt acts.
While I was talking about legislative initiative, in other words, initiative centered around talking to existing legislators, I've overlooked an even better opportunity - to become such a legislator and a lawmaker, and to participate and to become a people's representative who would be able to spearhead such a reform.
Andy Ostrowski in Pennsylvania actually had such an idea - and he courageously and persistently is pursuing this goal.
Andy Ostrowski is running for Congress.
Andy Ostrowski is a suspended attorney.
Discipinary authority recently refused to reinstate his law license.
Why? Because he runs a civil rights website and raises there issues of public concern. Isn't it for public interest? Yes, it is. Isn't such activity protected by the 1st Amendment? Yes, of course, it is within the core values of the 1st Amendment.
But, in the eyes of disciplinary authorities, what is clearly for public interest - but against the interest of the judicial establishment - prevented Andy Ostrowski's law license to be reinstated.
Did Andy Ostrowski know that his public advocacy may serve to prevent reinstatement of his law license?
Probably, yes. Statistics across the country is frightening. Attorneys are universally disciplined for any criticism of judges, and such discipline is universally upheld, no matter whether discipline was, in fact, authorized by the law and whether attorney's criticism was protected by the 1st Amendment or not.
Moreover, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by suspensions and disbarments of attorney whistleblowers, made sure that the state legal profession would be overcome by fear and is intimidated into not reported judicial misconduct, whether it was warranted or not.
There are a lot of cases around the country where disciplinary authorities blatantly violate the 1st Amendment and refuse to reinstate law licenses - or take law licenses - based on protected speech for public benefit.
Did it deter Andy Ostrowski from putting his personal interests aside to promote the interests of public benefit and fairness? Definitely.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader and public advocate such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state of Pennsylvania, of all state, the state which was recently rattled by the "Kids-for-Cash" scandal where two judges were involved in a scheme to fill a private juvenile detention facility with kids improperly sentenced in exchange for kickbacks and sent there without the benefit of a hearing or a counsel representing them, in violation of applicable law.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state where the legal community of the Luzerne County and beyond knew or should have known what was happening with juvenile sentencing for years, and the where the state judiciary has for years refused to discipline these judges.
It is particularly symbolic that a leader such as Andy Ostrowski appeared in the state where the legal community acted like cowards and protected their own interests in the fear that reporting judicial misconduct (even in order to do their duty and save the kids) will land them in hot waters of judicial rage and retaliation.
The state can attempt to stifle, silence, tar-and-feather its critics, pull their licenses all they want, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding in the eating.
And Andy Ostrowski has already proven his worth. He is fighting for civil rights even though his license has been pulled, and even at the expense of reinstatement.
The legal community who was silently letting the kids to be sold into slavery/juvenile delinquency - which resulted in at least one suicide and untold and irreversible trauma for other kids - are not the true representative who will listen to people's wishes and at least attempt the necessary legislative changes, no matter what will be the personal cost to him.
When you come to court, you want your counsel to fearlessly defend your position.
Your counsel, at least under the present circumstances, is torn between his duty to you and his duty to his own family. Most likely, his family will win, and he will not risk his law license to raise an issue in court for one client, when there is a real threat that the attorney will be sanctioned or disbarred for criticizing a judge.
The problem of judicial retaliation is pervasive in the country, and has legal experts worried.
And for a good reason. You will not have true access to court unless you have fearless and independent advocacy. And you will not have fearless and independent advocacy while regulation of attorney livelihoods is in the hands of the judiciary whose misconduct your attorney may have to challenge on your behalf.
Thus, judicial retaliation against attorneys criticizing the judiciary is not just attorney's problem - it is everybody's problem.
Members of the bar of Pennsylvania, residents of the district where Andy Ostrowski runs!
Your fear of retribution from the judiciary if you come and support Andy Ostrowski's cause openly is understandable. You have families to feed and reputation to uphold. And sometimes these needs drive people to forget or put on the back burner the oath of office that they took when they became attorneys.
Yet, one avenue of redress is still available to you, it is secret and does not require you to openly reveal your support of Andy Ostrowski - but it can still get him elected. That is voting. Voting is in this country - or at least that's what the election committee's make us think - secret.
Vote for Andy Ostrowski. Stop your cowardice. Bring about much-needed change in the federal court system. Help Andy Ostrowski promulgate legislation that will provide true remedies to victims of constitutional violations.
It will not expose you, it will not jeopardize your livelihood to do the right thing. Yet, it will do a lot of good to all of us.
I hope that Andy Ostrowski will be the first of many attorneys or former attorneys who realize that urgent legislative measures are necessary to create real enforceable mechanisms for access to courts and equal protection of laws, and real laws enforceable by private individuals directly need to be introduced to address the issue of judicial misconduct and retaliation, which continues to undermine democracy in the United States each time a judge rules in a malicious or corrupt manner, because of the judge's bias, because of the judge's friendship with one of the attorneys, because the judge was upset or jealous with parties or counsel.
As attorneys you, possibly, cannot do much under the existing state of events without inviting sanctions from judges for criticism even of the most clear misconduct.
As voters, you can do a lot.
Please, vote responsibly.
Please, vote for change.
Please, vote for Andy Ostrowski for the U.S. Congress.
Assigned attorney for the rich revisited - rights of judge's family members to free legal representation at taxpayers' expense was elevated to the level of constitutional precedent by Judge Gary L. Sharpe
I have covered in this blog that an attorney whose firm advises state and federal judges through the non-transparent non-governmental organization State-Federal Judicial Council (see more about this organization here) applied for counsel fees in a civil rights lawsuit brought by my husband pro se (on his own behalf, without counsel).
I wrote that in his application, Mr. Gleason has shamelessly asked the court to have Mr. Neroni pay Mr. Gleason for Mr. Gleason's advocacy for a non-client, the wife of Judge Michael Coccoma, the Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York, where Mr. Gleason was advocating to get for Ms. Coccoma free legal representation by New York State Attorney General's office, Judge Sharpe's son's employer, at the expense of taxpayers.
I have written that Ellen Coccoma was not Mr. Gleason's client and thus Mr. Gleason had no right to advocate for her in front of the court or claim legal fees for such advocacy.
I have written that the point of advocacy of Mr. Gleason on behalf of Ms. Coccoma was, in fact, to get for Ms. Coccoma free legal representation by the New York State Attorney General at taxpayers' expense.
I've written that Ellen Coccoma was sued for her misconduct as a private attorney in a private action where she invoked the powers of the People. I have written that Ellen Coccoma, sued as a private attorney, was not entitled to representation by the New York State Attorney General.
I wrote that Judge Gary Sharpe, the judge presiding over the case, was disgruntled in his decision by my pro se lawsuit filed in May of 2014 where Mr. Neroni did not participate and which was seeking from Judge Sharpe information as to his participation in the American Inns of Court (see my blog here, here and here) and all other similar organizations, which clearly included the State-Federal Judicial Council.
Now I am announcing that Judge Gary Sharpe has made it official and created a precedent that a private attorney like Mr. Gleason may advocate for a non-client and ask that a moneyed non-client is awarded free legal advocacy at the expense of taxpayers, and that a civil rights plaintiff must pay for such frivolous advocacy for a non-client.
Gary Sharpe awarded the entire shameless request of Mr. Gleason.
Assigned counsel for the rich and powerful, at the expense of taxpayers have been written by Gary Sharpe into law, and reinforced by legal fees against a person who contested it.
It only adds insult to injury that the assigned counsel for the rich was assigned to the wife of the powerful judge in New York State, that the assignment went to the New York State Attorney General's office where Gary Sharpe's son is employed, and that the sanctions came after Mr. Neroni inquired in another case, Neroni v. Becker about such employment of the judge's son and asked the judge to step down.
It only adds insult to injury that Mr. Neroni has asked the judge to recuse from this case in view of his obvious prior retaliation and award of legal fees in Neroni v. Becker for work completely unrelated to Mr. Neroni's claims.
It only adds insult to injury that this award has come after I have sued Judge Sharpe in his individual capacity, and the point of lawsuit was asking for the judge's possible involvement in organizations where Mr. Gleason's law firm and HHK (another law firm to which fees were awarded) were likely part of.
Judging by the fact that the judge relied upon four lawsuits:
In Neroni v. Becker Gary Sharpe awarded against Mr. Neroni legal fees for review of O'Sullivan v. Hallock, which was not related to Mr. Neroni's case in any way, shape or form, and of several other cases that had nothing to do with Mr. Neroni.
As to the above dismissed or partially dismissed cases that the judge was referring to in his decision as to Mr. Neroni's alleged "bad faith", none of them with the exception of the remanded Neroni v. Becker (where the award of legal fees is still on appeal) ruled that the lawsuits were frivolous.
Judge Sharpe could not change those decisions made by other judges and now rule that those lawsuits were, in fact frivolous, for purposes of his new findings in a new case.
Moreover, the partial dismissal in Neroni v. Zayas was on jurisdictional grounds. If the court has no jurisdiction to decide a claim, it does not have jurisdiction to decide that the claim was frivolous, that is clear logic.
The dismissal of Bracci v. Becker and Neroni v. Grannis was, similarly, jurisdictional.
If the case was not decided on the merits, a court cannot consider the merits for purposes of deciding whether the case was frivolous.
It is an equal protection issue.
If the court refused to take jurisdiction to reach the merits of a case to protect a civil rights plaintiff, it cannot reach the merits of the case to protect a defendant in the same action.
I will address more specifically the essence of Neroni v. Grannis, Bracci v. Becker, and Neroni v. Becker, with documents from those cases, in more details in separate blogs.
I will show specifically that by dismissing civil rights lawsuits by law-trained civil rights plaintiffs the court forecloses the road to recovery to multiple New Yorkers defrauded by its own government and forecloses the hope of controlling rampant corruption and misconduct of public officials in the state of New York.
It is easy for the court to abuse its power and chill civil rights litigation by simply squashing a person who dared to raise sensitive issues of attorney and judicial misconduct in a civil rights lawsuit.
It appears that judge Gary L. Sharpe pays no attention to the constitutional oath of office that he took when he was confirmed as a federal judge for a lifetime. After all, what is to be done to him for his obvious misconduct and retaliation against a litigant? Who will discipline him? Statistics of discipline of federal judges shows that such discipline is practically non-existent in the United States.
As a Russian saying goes, "a craven will not take another craven's eye".
Yet, 42 U.S.C. 1988, the statute under which attorney fees were requested and awarded, was not meant as a sword against civil rights plaintiffs.
It was meant to encourage, not discourage civil rights litigation.
I already wrote on this blog that constitutional arguments may not be judged by the same criteria as the "frivolous" actions are judged - whether they fall into the "mainstream" thought or not.
Such an approach chills civil rights litigation into extinction.
Mr. Neroni - and any other potential civil rights litigant - were shown by the decision of Gary Sharpe in Neroni v. Coccoma on legal fees that there is no point raising issues of misconduct of the powerful attorneys, especially if they are related to judges.
Gary L. Sharpe, whose son works for the NYS Attorney General's office (who was awarded legal representation of Ellen Coccoma thanks to efforts of Attorney Gleason) elevated nepotism in the judicial system to the level of constitutional precedent.
So much for justice.
So much for fairness.
So much for the rule of law.
I wrote that in his application, Mr. Gleason has shamelessly asked the court to have Mr. Neroni pay Mr. Gleason for Mr. Gleason's advocacy for a non-client, the wife of Judge Michael Coccoma, the Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York, where Mr. Gleason was advocating to get for Ms. Coccoma free legal representation by New York State Attorney General's office, Judge Sharpe's son's employer, at the expense of taxpayers.
I have written that Ellen Coccoma was not Mr. Gleason's client and thus Mr. Gleason had no right to advocate for her in front of the court or claim legal fees for such advocacy.
I have written that the point of advocacy of Mr. Gleason on behalf of Ms. Coccoma was, in fact, to get for Ms. Coccoma free legal representation by the New York State Attorney General at taxpayers' expense.
I've written that Ellen Coccoma was sued for her misconduct as a private attorney in a private action where she invoked the powers of the People. I have written that Ellen Coccoma, sued as a private attorney, was not entitled to representation by the New York State Attorney General.
I wrote that Judge Gary Sharpe, the judge presiding over the case, was disgruntled in his decision by my pro se lawsuit filed in May of 2014 where Mr. Neroni did not participate and which was seeking from Judge Sharpe information as to his participation in the American Inns of Court (see my blog here, here and here) and all other similar organizations, which clearly included the State-Federal Judicial Council.
Now I am announcing that Judge Gary Sharpe has made it official and created a precedent that a private attorney like Mr. Gleason may advocate for a non-client and ask that a moneyed non-client is awarded free legal advocacy at the expense of taxpayers, and that a civil rights plaintiff must pay for such frivolous advocacy for a non-client.
Gary Sharpe awarded the entire shameless request of Mr. Gleason.
Assigned counsel for the rich and powerful, at the expense of taxpayers have been written by Gary Sharpe into law, and reinforced by legal fees against a person who contested it.
It only adds insult to injury that the assigned counsel for the rich was assigned to the wife of the powerful judge in New York State, that the assignment went to the New York State Attorney General's office where Gary Sharpe's son is employed, and that the sanctions came after Mr. Neroni inquired in another case, Neroni v. Becker about such employment of the judge's son and asked the judge to step down.
It only adds insult to injury that Mr. Neroni has asked the judge to recuse from this case in view of his obvious prior retaliation and award of legal fees in Neroni v. Becker for work completely unrelated to Mr. Neroni's claims.
It only adds insult to injury that this award has come after I have sued Judge Sharpe in his individual capacity, and the point of lawsuit was asking for the judge's possible involvement in organizations where Mr. Gleason's law firm and HHK (another law firm to which fees were awarded) were likely part of.
Judging by the fact that the judge relied upon four lawsuits:
- one of them still proceeding (Neroni v. Zayas),
- three dismissed without award of sanctions or finding of frivolous conduct (partial dismissal in Neroni v. Zayas, dismissals in Neroni v. Grannis, Bracci v. Becker), and
- one (Neroni v. Becker) de facto reversed on appeal when the 2nd Circuit remanded the case back to Gary Sharpe who already sanctioned Mr. Neroni for arguing against expansive application of the Younger abstention, specifically because the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the application of the Younger abstention after Mr. Neroni was sanctioned under its previous broader version.
In Neroni v. Becker Gary Sharpe awarded against Mr. Neroni legal fees for review of O'Sullivan v. Hallock, which was not related to Mr. Neroni's case in any way, shape or form, and of several other cases that had nothing to do with Mr. Neroni.
As to the above dismissed or partially dismissed cases that the judge was referring to in his decision as to Mr. Neroni's alleged "bad faith", none of them with the exception of the remanded Neroni v. Becker (where the award of legal fees is still on appeal) ruled that the lawsuits were frivolous.
Judge Sharpe could not change those decisions made by other judges and now rule that those lawsuits were, in fact frivolous, for purposes of his new findings in a new case.
Moreover, the partial dismissal in Neroni v. Zayas was on jurisdictional grounds. If the court has no jurisdiction to decide a claim, it does not have jurisdiction to decide that the claim was frivolous, that is clear logic.
The dismissal of Bracci v. Becker and Neroni v. Grannis was, similarly, jurisdictional.
If the case was not decided on the merits, a court cannot consider the merits for purposes of deciding whether the case was frivolous.
It is an equal protection issue.
If the court refused to take jurisdiction to reach the merits of a case to protect a civil rights plaintiff, it cannot reach the merits of the case to protect a defendant in the same action.
I will address more specifically the essence of Neroni v. Grannis, Bracci v. Becker, and Neroni v. Becker, with documents from those cases, in more details in separate blogs.
I will show specifically that by dismissing civil rights lawsuits by law-trained civil rights plaintiffs the court forecloses the road to recovery to multiple New Yorkers defrauded by its own government and forecloses the hope of controlling rampant corruption and misconduct of public officials in the state of New York.
It is easy for the court to abuse its power and chill civil rights litigation by simply squashing a person who dared to raise sensitive issues of attorney and judicial misconduct in a civil rights lawsuit.
It appears that judge Gary L. Sharpe pays no attention to the constitutional oath of office that he took when he was confirmed as a federal judge for a lifetime. After all, what is to be done to him for his obvious misconduct and retaliation against a litigant? Who will discipline him? Statistics of discipline of federal judges shows that such discipline is practically non-existent in the United States.
As a Russian saying goes, "a craven will not take another craven's eye".
Yet, 42 U.S.C. 1988, the statute under which attorney fees were requested and awarded, was not meant as a sword against civil rights plaintiffs.
It was meant to encourage, not discourage civil rights litigation.
I already wrote on this blog that constitutional arguments may not be judged by the same criteria as the "frivolous" actions are judged - whether they fall into the "mainstream" thought or not.
Such an approach chills civil rights litigation into extinction.
Mr. Neroni - and any other potential civil rights litigant - were shown by the decision of Gary Sharpe in Neroni v. Coccoma on legal fees that there is no point raising issues of misconduct of the powerful attorneys, especially if they are related to judges.
Gary L. Sharpe, whose son works for the NYS Attorney General's office (who was awarded legal representation of Ellen Coccoma thanks to efforts of Attorney Gleason) elevated nepotism in the judicial system to the level of constitutional precedent.
So much for justice.
So much for fairness.
So much for the rule of law.
One in every four adults in the United States is not entitled to a vigorous legal defense?
Every attorney in the State of New York, at the time of receiving his or her license, takes an oath of office as an officer of the court.
As part of that oath, the attorney swears to uphold the Constitutions of the State of New York and of the United States of America.
Both Constitutions have equal protection clauses prohibiting the government to engage in discrimination.
Attorneys have been disciplined, quite severely, for discriminating against potential clients based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or social status.
America is a country with the highest prison population among civilized countries.
As recently as on July 15, 2014, less than a month ago, a lawyer testified in front of the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force and provided numbers, that 68 million Americans, more than the population of France, have criminal records.
20 million Americans, according to the numbers quoted in the same article, have felony convictions.
It is reported that the population of the United States reached 317 people in 2014.
In other words, 21% of the US population, or approximately every fourth adult, have a criminal record.
Americans with criminal records are, as everybody else, in need of court representation for everyday things like representations in consumer debts cases, foreclosure proceedings, divorce, custody proceedings - you name it.
When a client with a criminal record is hiring an attorney for a civil case or an attorney is assigned to them, the client has every right to expect that he will not be provided a substandard representation simply because they have a criminal record.
An attorney is not allowed to discriminate against litigants simply on the basis of their status as a convicted felon.
The maximum that an attorney can do with the conviction, if the attorney represents a party opposing a convicted felon is to bring out their conviction at trial and hope that the court will take that conviction as proof of their lessened credibility.
Yet, an attorney will be crossing the line if he or she claims that because a person is a convicted felon, he or she is not worthy of any consideration of the court.
That would amount to an attorney breaking his or her oath of office and, in fact, arguing to the court that a convicted felon, by virtue of his or her conviction, is not allowed to:
(1) have access to court guaranteed by the Petitions Clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
(2) have a right to due process of law, both substantively (fairness in resolving facts of the case) and procedurally (where the court must follow set rules of procedure applicable to the case, notwithstanding the party's status);
(3) have a right to equal protection of laws - meaning, if a certain rule applies to A litigant, that rule must apply to THE litigant, no matter what his or her status is, if he is a convicted felon or not.
Moreover, all attorneys understand that if an attorney pledged to undertake representation of a person who happens to be a convicted felon, that attorney may not claim his client's diminished social status to provide a substandard representation.
I was astonished to find out recently that a seasoned attorney may allow all of those principles to go out the door - and the court would not either report the attorney to the disciplinary authorities, nor sanction her, nor caution her that her behavior is unacceptable and, in fact, constitutes a breach of her oath of office.
In her pleading to the court, attorney Delice Seligman of Kingston, NY claimed that my pleadings on behalf of a convicted felon, in a civil proceedings, are not worthy of consideration and theatrically asked, who that great client is on whose behalf I am expending myself so much - a convicted felon?
It might surprise Ms. Seligman to learn that I do not make a distinction as to status of my clients in the level of representation that I am providing. Moreover, Ms. Seligman might learn a lot if she re-reads the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment that she was sworn to uphold many decades ago, as well as disciplinary rules prohibiting attorneys to engage in discriminatory behavior.
In our situation, attorney Seligman openly asked the court to, basically, shut the door of the courthouse and the possibility of fair judicial review in my client's face because (1) she is a convicted felon and (2) because she is represented by an attorney who criticizes judicial misconduct in this blog.
In other words, because of my political activity outside of the courtroom, and because of my client's criminal record, my client is not "worthy of consideration", no matter how well supported by documents, legal authorities and reasoning our arguments are.
The judge who Attorney Seligman pled this atrocious and discriminatory claim in front of neither sanctioned her nor turned her into disciplinary authorities, which I can assess by the fact that the judge still remains on the case. By disciplinary rules for judges, a judge who refers an attorney to authorities must recuse from all cases where such an attorney appears.
Attorney Seligman is a seasoned local attorney for the court where she has made her atrocious discriminatory statements, under oath, by the way.
If you are "a local" and obey the courts no matter what you are ordered to do, including engaging in an ex parte communication with a judge, called in there before multiple witnesses, as attorney Seligman did - in other words, being "a good girl" for the judges absolves you of any sanctions for misconduct.
Is this protection of the public which attorney regulation is supposed to achieve?
As part of that oath, the attorney swears to uphold the Constitutions of the State of New York and of the United States of America.
Both Constitutions have equal protection clauses prohibiting the government to engage in discrimination.
Attorneys have been disciplined, quite severely, for discriminating against potential clients based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or social status.
America is a country with the highest prison population among civilized countries.
As recently as on July 15, 2014, less than a month ago, a lawyer testified in front of the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force and provided numbers, that 68 million Americans, more than the population of France, have criminal records.
20 million Americans, according to the numbers quoted in the same article, have felony convictions.
It is reported that the population of the United States reached 317 people in 2014.
In other words, 21% of the US population, or approximately every fourth adult, have a criminal record.
Americans with criminal records are, as everybody else, in need of court representation for everyday things like representations in consumer debts cases, foreclosure proceedings, divorce, custody proceedings - you name it.
When a client with a criminal record is hiring an attorney for a civil case or an attorney is assigned to them, the client has every right to expect that he will not be provided a substandard representation simply because they have a criminal record.
An attorney is not allowed to discriminate against litigants simply on the basis of their status as a convicted felon.
The maximum that an attorney can do with the conviction, if the attorney represents a party opposing a convicted felon is to bring out their conviction at trial and hope that the court will take that conviction as proof of their lessened credibility.
Yet, an attorney will be crossing the line if he or she claims that because a person is a convicted felon, he or she is not worthy of any consideration of the court.
That would amount to an attorney breaking his or her oath of office and, in fact, arguing to the court that a convicted felon, by virtue of his or her conviction, is not allowed to:
(1) have access to court guaranteed by the Petitions Clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
(2) have a right to due process of law, both substantively (fairness in resolving facts of the case) and procedurally (where the court must follow set rules of procedure applicable to the case, notwithstanding the party's status);
(3) have a right to equal protection of laws - meaning, if a certain rule applies to A litigant, that rule must apply to THE litigant, no matter what his or her status is, if he is a convicted felon or not.
Moreover, all attorneys understand that if an attorney pledged to undertake representation of a person who happens to be a convicted felon, that attorney may not claim his client's diminished social status to provide a substandard representation.
I was astonished to find out recently that a seasoned attorney may allow all of those principles to go out the door - and the court would not either report the attorney to the disciplinary authorities, nor sanction her, nor caution her that her behavior is unacceptable and, in fact, constitutes a breach of her oath of office.
In her pleading to the court, attorney Delice Seligman of Kingston, NY claimed that my pleadings on behalf of a convicted felon, in a civil proceedings, are not worthy of consideration and theatrically asked, who that great client is on whose behalf I am expending myself so much - a convicted felon?
It might surprise Ms. Seligman to learn that I do not make a distinction as to status of my clients in the level of representation that I am providing. Moreover, Ms. Seligman might learn a lot if she re-reads the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment that she was sworn to uphold many decades ago, as well as disciplinary rules prohibiting attorneys to engage in discriminatory behavior.
In our situation, attorney Seligman openly asked the court to, basically, shut the door of the courthouse and the possibility of fair judicial review in my client's face because (1) she is a convicted felon and (2) because she is represented by an attorney who criticizes judicial misconduct in this blog.
In other words, because of my political activity outside of the courtroom, and because of my client's criminal record, my client is not "worthy of consideration", no matter how well supported by documents, legal authorities and reasoning our arguments are.
The judge who Attorney Seligman pled this atrocious and discriminatory claim in front of neither sanctioned her nor turned her into disciplinary authorities, which I can assess by the fact that the judge still remains on the case. By disciplinary rules for judges, a judge who refers an attorney to authorities must recuse from all cases where such an attorney appears.
Attorney Seligman is a seasoned local attorney for the court where she has made her atrocious discriminatory statements, under oath, by the way.
If you are "a local" and obey the courts no matter what you are ordered to do, including engaging in an ex parte communication with a judge, called in there before multiple witnesses, as attorney Seligman did - in other words, being "a good girl" for the judges absolves you of any sanctions for misconduct.
Is this protection of the public which attorney regulation is supposed to achieve?
Friday, August 8, 2014
"Judge threatens attorney" revisited: attorney Delice Seligman admits to ex parte communication with Judge Cahill under oath - and claims that for an attorney to raise the issue of Judge Cahill's misconduct because of the ex parte communication and to ask him to recuse was wrong
On March 26, 2014 I have written in this blog that:
I have in my possession an Affirmation by Attorney Seligman who admitted under oath that:
(1) she did engage in an ex parte conference with Judge Cahill;
(2) that such a conference was "routine";
(3) that judge requested her to invite me to a separate ex parte conference after her own ex parte conference concluded.
So, what Judge Cahill and the New York State court administration was carefully trying to hide by destroying the tapes that recorded what occurred on the floor where Judge Cahill's chambers are located, Attorney Seligman admitted under oath.
Thank you, Attorney Seligman. You have made my task of exposing your own and judge Cahill's misconduct so much easier.
As to the "conference" that Judge Cahill allegedly conducted with Ms. Seligman that day, actually, as I have written in this blog before, Judge Cahill had no right to hold any conferences in the case where a final judgment (by default) was entered by Judge Cahill - with gross errors and with no evidence that the action was ever served upon my client.
Only my motions to vacate that final judgment were pending, and under the circumstances, I asked for an oral argument in open court on record - and instead Judge Cahill held a "settlement conference", which included an ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.
Even if, by a stretch of imagination, to call a conference was proper at that time, judges are not allowed to talk to attorneys in turns, for whatever allegedly benign reasons they are doing it - because there is no way to make sure whether the content of communication with one attorney without the presence of the opposing attorney was benign or whether the judge was simply agreeing with one attorney how to fix the case against the other party and attorney.
The strict prohibition against ex parte communications between judges and parties or counsel representing parties in litigation exists for a reason, and Judge Cahill had no authority to cancel that rule for his own benefit.
In view of Ms. Seligman's admissions under oath it is clear that my conduct in:
(1) trying to get access to the judge's chambers at the time when he was conducting an ex parte conference within with Attorney Seligman;
(2) protesting to the judge's secretary that an ex parte communication was going on and insisting on entry;
(3) refusing to engage in my own ex parte communication with the judge when he allowed Ms. Seligman to leave and directed her to call me in for a one on one conference with the judge;
(4) asking the judge to step down in view of his obvious misconduct, ex parte communication with an attorney to the exclusion of the opposing counsel, over that counsel's objection
were undoubtedly proper and serving my client's best interests.
As any attorney dealing with judicial misconduct would understand, to openly stand up to a judge who is openly and adamantly committing misconduct in front of you requires some courage.
Ms. Seligman believes that, in fact, in this situation I was in the wrong and I should be punished for "causing" Judge Cahill to recuse.
This point of view is disturbing, shows that Ms. Seligman is unfit to practice law - and, as a larger issue of public concern - shows that attorneys' fear of the judiciary involved in misconduct has become so deeply ingrained that any attorney who does not demonstrate such fear and who is, in fact, doing her job to properly protect her client from such misconduct - is considered by the legal profession to be "out of line".
Well, if I was "out of line" protecting my client from obvious judicial misconduct, and that is the routine belief ingrained in the profession - reforms in that profession and how it is regulated are long overdue.
In this case, notwithstanding the admissions, Attorney Seligman claimed that I should be sanctioned for causing Judge Cahill's recusal.
Thus, Attorney Seligman remains in denial that what she did was wrong.
Attorney Seligman inadvertently demonstrated exactly what is wrong with having attorney licenses controlled by the judiciary.
This control has attorneys in such a grip of fear that it becomes ingrained into seasoned attorneys (and Delice Seligman has been practicing law for decades) that WHATEVER the judge asks them to do - they must do it, no matter how illegal that is.
Delice Seligman takes that ingrained fear to a new level by actually claiming that an attorney who raised that issue and asked the judge to recuse was wrong and should be sanctioned for allegedly causing the recusal of Judge Cahill.
Thus, attorney Seligman remains in denial that what to engage in an ex parte communication with a judge is wrong. Attorney Seligman admitted under oath to facts that are qualified as attorney misconduct and judicial misconduct, but is in denial that she indeed committed misconduct. Attorney Seligman continues to blame others, specifically myself, for "causing" Judge Cahill to recuse, in fact, for "terrorizing" him into recusal.
Moreover, Attorney Seligman concocted a story for the court claiming that I somehow knew what was going to happen and made my "Judge threatens attorney" post before the conference between her and Judge Cahill even occurred and that I posted the blog "Judge threatens attorney" of March 26, 2014 at 9:46 am New York time, which was before the time of her ex parte communications.
For purposes of this misrepresentation, Attorney Seligman conveniently omitted to mention to the court that, while I am posting from New York state, the blog's server is located in California and that the postings are registered by the Pacific time, 3 hours behind New York state.
As I am updating this post, what I see on the right hand of my screen is an announcement by Google "Published on 8/8/14 2:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time". As I am writing this, my computer shows 5:39 pm New York (Eastern Atlantic) time which is 3 hours ahead. I published this blog not 3 hours and 24 minutes ago, but 24 minutes ago.
Thus, the post "Judge threatened attorney" of March 26, 2014 was posted not at 9:46 am New York time, as Delice Seligman claimed to the court, accusing me of "predicting" or "provoking" what occurred in judicial chambers, but at 12:46 pm New York time (9:46 am Pacific time), well after the ex parte conference between Ms. Seligman and Judge Cahill that I describe in detail in my initial blog on this issue, and after I came back to my office, an approximately 1 hour 45 minute' drive from Kingston NY where the motion hearing was supposed to take place and instead the ex parte conference between Ms. Seligman and Judge Cahill took place, to Delhi NY where my office is located.
Information as to where the blog server is located is available in the terms and conditions for www.blogger.com, which are located here in open access to the public.
Yet, it was too much to ask for Attorney Seligman to actually do her due diligence and abstain from making false statements to the court to whitewash her own misconduct and judge Cahill's misconduct.
For Attorney Seligman obviously the best defense is a good offense - no matter how frivolous such an offense is and no matter whether it involves making false statements to the court against her opponent who has caught her (and the judge) in misconduct.
The bottom line remains: attorney Delice Seligman has made an admission under oath that she did engage in an ex parte conference with Judge Cahill on March 26, 2014.
After her admissions, it is the turn of the Judicial Conduct Commission - as to Judge Cahill, and of the Grievance Committee - as to Attorney Seligman - to dispense discipline.
Stay tuned as to whether these two individuals will ever be sanctioned for their misconduct or will they be whitewashed by the system, as it usually happened with the politically connected attorneys, and especially with judges in the state of New York.
- Judge Christopher Cahill of the Ulster County Supreme Court, New York, engaged in an ex parte communication in a civil case with my opponent, attorney who is calling herself in court papers Delice Seligman (her name as per attorney registration is Dolores Felice Seligman, of Kingston, NY),
- that the judge gave instructions to his personnel to block me from entry into his chambers where the ex parte communication with Delice Seligman was occurring, and I was so blocked,
- that the judge asked Delice Seligman to ask me for a separate ex parte conference with the judge after her own ex parte conference concluded,
- that I refused to engage in such an ex parte conference and asked the judge to recuse, and
- that the judge recused, but loudly claimed that I was "out of line" and loudly and publicly threatened to turn me into professional conduct committee.
I have in my possession an Affirmation by Attorney Seligman who admitted under oath that:
(1) she did engage in an ex parte conference with Judge Cahill;
(2) that such a conference was "routine";
(3) that judge requested her to invite me to a separate ex parte conference after her own ex parte conference concluded.
So, what Judge Cahill and the New York State court administration was carefully trying to hide by destroying the tapes that recorded what occurred on the floor where Judge Cahill's chambers are located, Attorney Seligman admitted under oath.
Thank you, Attorney Seligman. You have made my task of exposing your own and judge Cahill's misconduct so much easier.
As to the "conference" that Judge Cahill allegedly conducted with Ms. Seligman that day, actually, as I have written in this blog before, Judge Cahill had no right to hold any conferences in the case where a final judgment (by default) was entered by Judge Cahill - with gross errors and with no evidence that the action was ever served upon my client.
Only my motions to vacate that final judgment were pending, and under the circumstances, I asked for an oral argument in open court on record - and instead Judge Cahill held a "settlement conference", which included an ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.
Even if, by a stretch of imagination, to call a conference was proper at that time, judges are not allowed to talk to attorneys in turns, for whatever allegedly benign reasons they are doing it - because there is no way to make sure whether the content of communication with one attorney without the presence of the opposing attorney was benign or whether the judge was simply agreeing with one attorney how to fix the case against the other party and attorney.
The strict prohibition against ex parte communications between judges and parties or counsel representing parties in litigation exists for a reason, and Judge Cahill had no authority to cancel that rule for his own benefit.
In view of Ms. Seligman's admissions under oath it is clear that my conduct in:
(1) trying to get access to the judge's chambers at the time when he was conducting an ex parte conference within with Attorney Seligman;
(2) protesting to the judge's secretary that an ex parte communication was going on and insisting on entry;
(3) refusing to engage in my own ex parte communication with the judge when he allowed Ms. Seligman to leave and directed her to call me in for a one on one conference with the judge;
(4) asking the judge to step down in view of his obvious misconduct, ex parte communication with an attorney to the exclusion of the opposing counsel, over that counsel's objection
were undoubtedly proper and serving my client's best interests.
As any attorney dealing with judicial misconduct would understand, to openly stand up to a judge who is openly and adamantly committing misconduct in front of you requires some courage.
Ms. Seligman believes that, in fact, in this situation I was in the wrong and I should be punished for "causing" Judge Cahill to recuse.
This point of view is disturbing, shows that Ms. Seligman is unfit to practice law - and, as a larger issue of public concern - shows that attorneys' fear of the judiciary involved in misconduct has become so deeply ingrained that any attorney who does not demonstrate such fear and who is, in fact, doing her job to properly protect her client from such misconduct - is considered by the legal profession to be "out of line".
Well, if I was "out of line" protecting my client from obvious judicial misconduct, and that is the routine belief ingrained in the profession - reforms in that profession and how it is regulated are long overdue.
In this case, notwithstanding the admissions, Attorney Seligman claimed that I should be sanctioned for causing Judge Cahill's recusal.
Thus, Attorney Seligman remains in denial that what she did was wrong.
Attorney Seligman inadvertently demonstrated exactly what is wrong with having attorney licenses controlled by the judiciary.
This control has attorneys in such a grip of fear that it becomes ingrained into seasoned attorneys (and Delice Seligman has been practicing law for decades) that WHATEVER the judge asks them to do - they must do it, no matter how illegal that is.
Delice Seligman takes that ingrained fear to a new level by actually claiming that an attorney who raised that issue and asked the judge to recuse was wrong and should be sanctioned for allegedly causing the recusal of Judge Cahill.
Thus, attorney Seligman remains in denial that what to engage in an ex parte communication with a judge is wrong. Attorney Seligman admitted under oath to facts that are qualified as attorney misconduct and judicial misconduct, but is in denial that she indeed committed misconduct. Attorney Seligman continues to blame others, specifically myself, for "causing" Judge Cahill to recuse, in fact, for "terrorizing" him into recusal.
Moreover, Attorney Seligman concocted a story for the court claiming that I somehow knew what was going to happen and made my "Judge threatens attorney" post before the conference between her and Judge Cahill even occurred and that I posted the blog "Judge threatens attorney" of March 26, 2014 at 9:46 am New York time, which was before the time of her ex parte communications.
For purposes of this misrepresentation, Attorney Seligman conveniently omitted to mention to the court that, while I am posting from New York state, the blog's server is located in California and that the postings are registered by the Pacific time, 3 hours behind New York state.
As I am updating this post, what I see on the right hand of my screen is an announcement by Google "Published on 8/8/14 2:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time". As I am writing this, my computer shows 5:39 pm New York (Eastern Atlantic) time which is 3 hours ahead. I published this blog not 3 hours and 24 minutes ago, but 24 minutes ago.
Thus, the post "Judge threatened attorney" of March 26, 2014 was posted not at 9:46 am New York time, as Delice Seligman claimed to the court, accusing me of "predicting" or "provoking" what occurred in judicial chambers, but at 12:46 pm New York time (9:46 am Pacific time), well after the ex parte conference between Ms. Seligman and Judge Cahill that I describe in detail in my initial blog on this issue, and after I came back to my office, an approximately 1 hour 45 minute' drive from Kingston NY where the motion hearing was supposed to take place and instead the ex parte conference between Ms. Seligman and Judge Cahill took place, to Delhi NY where my office is located.
Information as to where the blog server is located is available in the terms and conditions for www.blogger.com, which are located here in open access to the public.
Yet, it was too much to ask for Attorney Seligman to actually do her due diligence and abstain from making false statements to the court to whitewash her own misconduct and judge Cahill's misconduct.
For Attorney Seligman obviously the best defense is a good offense - no matter how frivolous such an offense is and no matter whether it involves making false statements to the court against her opponent who has caught her (and the judge) in misconduct.
The bottom line remains: attorney Delice Seligman has made an admission under oath that she did engage in an ex parte conference with Judge Cahill on March 26, 2014.
After her admissions, it is the turn of the Judicial Conduct Commission - as to Judge Cahill, and of the Grievance Committee - as to Attorney Seligman - to dispense discipline.
Stay tuned as to whether these two individuals will ever be sanctioned for their misconduct or will they be whitewashed by the system, as it usually happened with the politically connected attorneys, and especially with judges in the state of New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)