One more proof that Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, cannot read

Judge Sharpe filed against my husband, Mr. Neroni, a sua sponte (commenced by the judge) anti-filing injunction action, seeking to preclude my husband from any further filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Of course, a right of access to court to vindicate violatons of constitutional rights, including fundamental constitutional rights, is in itself a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be taken away without a hearing.

No hearing was offered or given to Mr. Neroni despite his demand for such a hearing.

Judge Sharpe is the judge who Mr. Neroni sought to recuse twice before the anti-filing injunction action was initiated by the judge against him.

Mr. Neroni provided to the court multiple exhibits showing that Judge Sharpe is (1) actually biased against Mr. Neroni and me, his wife and attorney in several actions;  (2)  Judge Sharpe sanctioned Mr. Neroni for his actions in still pending actions, including the actions in which no sanctions were imposed.

The Docket Sheet of Gary Sharpe's lawsuit against Mr. Neroni was labeled as a "Civil Rights Action":

Of course, a judge of a federal court cannot bring a civil rights action against a private party as a defendant.  A civil rights action can only be brought by a private party against a state actor.  Judge Sharpe was not acting as a private party when bringing this case, and Mr. Neroni is not a state actor who has violated Judge Sharpe's civil rights.

Yet, I guess that the Northern District of New York is Judge Sharpe's own court and he can do with it and its procedures, as with his own fiefdom, as he pleases.

In his opposition and cross-motion, Mr. Neroni provided 86 documentary exhibits showing that:

(1) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni;
(2) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni, that is me, based on my blogs criticizing Judge Sharpe;
(3) The law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe brought the anti-filing injunction action against Mr. Neroni are politically connected law firms employing relatives of judges;
(4) One of the law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe recently ruled awarding attorney fees agaisnt Mr. Neroni (the sanction is currently on appeal) is serving as a de facto depository of employees of the court after they leave the court for private employment.  Exhibits were provided showing that clerks of judges of the court, including a clerk of Judge Sharpe, were accepted as associates and partners into Hiscock & Barclay of Albany, NY, for whose benefit Judge Sharpe brought the action, which created a huge appearance of impropriety.
(5)  Judges of the court are members of an organization American Inns of Court where Hiscock & Barclays partners and employees are members and sponsors;
(6) A partner of Hiscock & Barclay

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that an anti-injunction order must comply with strict scrutiny as blocking his fundamental constitutional rights.  Mr. Neroni argued that any prior restraint on speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which were dismissed by the court, as a discretionary matter, under Younger abstention, meaning that the court had jurisdicton, but decided to let a state court decide first.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which are still pending, are pending with counsel who was not notified of the anti-injunction proceeding, pending before another judge and where no sanctions were imposed.

In his anti-injunction order issued on November 26, 2014, Judge Sharpe dedicated a grand total of two 1/2 lines to the factual findings supporting his anti-filing injunction against Mr. Neroni. 

Judge Sharpe stated that Mr. Neroni "failed to provide sufficient justification for his previous conduct", whether Mr. Neroni had to justify his "conduct" or not.

It is obvious that, to Judge Sharpe who hates Mr. Neroni and hates me for exposing his misconduct publicly, including this blog, it is apparent that no amount of arguments, facts, documents or legal authorities will be "sufficient justification".

It was obvious that the whole "order to show cause" giving Mr. Neroni an opportunity to respond only in writing and not in person, while a hearing in these kind of cases is required, was a mere formality, and the case was pre-judged before it was even filed.  

Moreover, Judge Sharpe went so far as certifying in the same order that any appeal that Mr. Neroni would seek to undertake from Judge Sharpe's anti-filing injunction will be deemed to be in bad faith.  

Any reasonable person, including myself, knowing what can follow if an appeal is filed against such a certification, would perceive it as a clear threat to Mr. Neroni that if he appeals, he will be sanctioned, so, don't appeal, or else.

Yet, if any reasonable person reads the statute under which the certification was made, the reasonable person will have a question as to whether Judge Sharpe can read, because the statute under which the certification was made was in no way applicable, and thus the certrification was false. 

It is relevant to mention here that I already asked the question whether Judge Sharpe can read in this blog and on the blog of Forbes.com after Judge Sharpe sanctioned me and Mr. Neroni for correctly reading the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and those sanctions were part of Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse in this case.

It is interesting to mention that Judge Sharpe has brought anti-filing injunction proceedings against Mr. Neroni within a couple of weeks of my statement on Forbes.com that Judge Sharpe cannot read, and I cannot deem it a simple coincidence.  There are too many coincidences in how Judge Sharpe treats me and Mr. Neroni and all of those "coincidences" are slanted against us.

Judge Sharpe, as a sworn federal judicial officer, CERTIFIED (which means it is done under oath) that pursuant to a statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (which means that my husband should have been a pro se plaintiff in a civil rights action, and was adjudicated by the court, on his own application, as a poor person), my husband's appeal from his decision, if undertaken, will be undertaken in bad faith.

Of course, I consider the statute itself where a judge of a court below is allowed to block an appeal from his own decision by claiming it is taken in bad faith, unconstitutional and seeking to prevent appellants' access to court in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitutions.

But the beauty of the present situation, where a high-ranking federal judge is using this particular statute in this particular case is that the statute, by its clear and unambiguous language, refers to civil actions and appeals brought by pro se civil rights litigants adjudicated as poor persons.

Let me count how many mistakes the judge has made in his certification in order to block Mr. Neroni from appealing his decision:

(1) Mr. Neroni is not a Plaintiff in this action;
(2) this action is not a civil rights action;
(3) Mr. Neroni was not adjudicated as a poor person.

Here is the portion of the docket report before Judge Sharpe's ruling on November 26, 2014.  It clearly shows that Mr. Neroni is not a plaintiff in this action, and that he never applied for or received a poor person (in forma pauperis) status from the court.

Thus, certification under this statute seeking to preclude Mr. Neroni from filing an appeal and implicitly intimidating him with sanctions for filing an appeal in bad faith, did not have any legal basis.

Either the judge did not read the statute that he was using as a basis for his certification, or he simply did not care what it said, as long as he cites some law, right or wrong, to block my husband from appealing Judge Sharpe's unlawful and unconstitutional order made in favor of a "friendly" law firm that, upon information and belief, provides material benefits for judges of Judge Sharpe's court, helps pick magistrate judges, participates in making local rules of the court and accepts employees of the court as associates and partners.

And this false certification, ladies and gentlemen,  and the reasons behind it, are grounds for impeachment of Judge Sharpe, which is what is going to be sought.

Last, but definitely not least, is the mistakes in how the clerk of the court filed Mr. Neroni's pleadings in this case, in a way that violated rules of court to such electronic filings, made it more difficult for readers on PACER to review the file and made it impossible to word-search the file, as is required by court rules. 

There is a requirement to electronic filings in this court, that all exhibits must be filed separately, and must be scanned into a word-searchable PDF.

Mr. Neroni, as a pro se defendant, was not allowed to file electronically, it was the obligation of the clerk of the court to follow the rules in how documents are scanned and filed, and those rules are not different from rules applicable to counseled parties.

I checked on PACER today how Mr. Neroni's cross-motion with 86 exhibits was filed by the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and found TWO major violations of the court rules:

(1) 86 exhibits were filed in 5 batches, instead of each exhibit separately.  Such defective filing prevents people who are searching this file on PACER and who do not know about this case, from assessing the true number of exhibits.  If a person sees 5 exhibits, he or she may be less interested in the case than if he or she sees 86 exhibits filed;

(2) Exhibits are not filed in word-searchable format, precluding a major utility required for documents filed on PACER.

I do not believe this was done accidentally.  I do believe this was done intentionally, to preclude the word-search of the filed documents and to make it more complicated for the public to review this file.

The judge obviously was protecting himself and his associate judges whose misconduct and conflicts of interest were exposed in the exhibits.

And that will be yet another basis for our petition for impeachment.

Impeachment petition of several federal judges of the Northern District of New York court is being prepared

I put the public on notice that I am in the process of preparation of a petition/request to the U.S. Legislature to impeach the Chief Judge of the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe and several other judges, such as Senior Judge Thomas McAvoy, Judge Lawrence Kahn, Judge Glenn Suddaby, for:

1) Intentional and self-serving violations of their constitutional oath of office;

2) favoritism to politically entrenched law firms and attorneys;

3) presenting to the public an appearance that certain attorneys can influence judicial decisions;

4) using the rule of frivolous conduct as a tool of retaliation against attorneys, family members and clients of attorneys who speak out against judicial misconduct;

5) bringing the judicial office in disrepute by creating an impression that the desired judicial decisions can be obtained by using politically entrenched attorneys;

6) abusing their power in bringing and prosecuting proceedings, as a tool of personal vendetta, designed to block access to court to attorneys and parties who criticized judges and sought their recusal or seeking information about their in- and out-of-court misconduct.

The disciplinary rules as written by the federal judiciary, do not allow to discipline a judge for acts on the bench, even if those acts were malicious, corrupt and/or in violation of his or her constitutional oath of office.

Yet, the judge-created absolute judicial immunity protects judges from lawsuits, even for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, because discipline is available.

Since discipline is not available, the only remaining way of making federal judges accountable is impeachment.

Impeachment is a complex procedure that must be commenced through the U.S. Legislature.  The U.S. Legislature should be notified of judicial misconduct to become aware of it and to commence the procedure.  Hence, I am preparing a petition.  I am preparing the petition because of my own experience with the judges against whom I am seeking impeachment, and because of documented experience of my husband and some other people.  

If any other attorneys and parties who litigated in this court have a basis to seek impeachment of its judges, I request to contact me so that we could do it together.  Thank you for your attention.

Will the U.S. Congress dare to impeach federal judge Fuller for domestic violence against his wife?

It has been reported that Congresswoman Sewell requested the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to commence an impeachment investigation of federal judge Mark Fuller who reportedly assaulted his wife in an Atlanta hotel.

The judge was charged criminally with domestic violence, requested to step down, but so far reportedly refused to do so.

The judge was reportedly stripped of his cases, but continues to draw his salary of $200,000.00, at taxpayers' expense.

Impeachment of a judge is a procedure that the U.S. Congress uses very rarely.  

Judges are human, and, especially with federal judges who are on life tenure and against whom discipline for misconduct on the bench is simply unavailable by federal court rules, and discipline through civil lawsuits by the victims is unavailable through judicially created doctrine of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, such absolute power has a tendency to go to the judges'  heads and corrupt them absolutely.  

Judging by conduct of some federal judges I have dealt with, such power does so corrupt and makes many judges too arrogant in their belief in their own impunity to comply with their constitutional oath of office and not to strike against critics of their misconduct within court proceedings.

Since all disciplinary complaints about judges, which, naturally, complain about judges' misconduct on the bench, are dismissed without review, no statistics of judicial misconduct of federal judges on the bench is collected or exists, and without statistics, the picture appears to be benign.

The only alternative way to get a federal judge disciplined is impeachment, a 3-step tedious procedure which must be initiated by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.


Yet, it appears to be a distinct policy of the federal government not to impeach judges, no matter how bad their behavior is, not to upset the public and not to mar public image of the federal judiciary.

In this case, where the cat is out of the bag and where reports of domestic violence by a judge against his wife are already all over the Internet, the image is already marred and attempting to "save" it can be regarded by the public as nothing other than protecting a judge's career, no matter what he did, simply because he is a judge.

Assaulting a woman tells volumes about a federal judge's judicial temperament.  It would especially tell volumes to female attorneys or parties appearing in front of that judge.  If the judge cannot keep his temper in check not to lay a hand on a helpless woman in a private hotel room, the judge is not fit by temperament to remain on the bench.

Life tenure of federal judges clearly is "during their good behavior".  Assaulting a woman is not good behavior by any definition in a civilized society.

I am a criminal defense attorney myself, and I understand and fully subscribe to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Yet, investigations for impeachment are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings, and the U.S. Congress definitely does not have to wait until the criminal proceeding is complete to commence its own impeachment procedures, especially when the victim/witness and her medical records are, most likely, very available for the investigation.

Not to impeach a judge under such circumstances will be very suspicious and will smack of a policy to condone any misconduct if it is done by the new American aristocracy, a member of federal judiciary.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, should not be tolerated by "We the People", by us.

A complaint was filed against Judges Robert Mulvey, Michael V. Coccoma, Carl F. Becker

I have filed a complaint today with the New York State Commission for judicial conduct against:

1) Judge Carl F. Becker, of Delaware County Court/ Supreme Court/ Family Court for unlawfully unsealing information about a youtful offender (YO) in a family court proceeding where the YO was not a party, and without notice to the YO, his attorney or the court which handled the YO adjudication, and to investigate Judge Becker's role in intimidating the YO by threats of incarceration into signing a release of the YO information to Judge Becker's court after a complaint about improper release of YO information was filed with Judge Mulvey, the Chief Adminstrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District;

2) Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York, for retaliating against a criminal defendant after he complained about Michael V. Coccoma that Michael V. Coccoma was treating the criminal defendant as a sex offender while he was never charged, convicted or sentenced for a sex offense.  Upon information and belief, after the criminal defendant filed a complaint against Judge Coccoma with the Commission of Judicial Conduct, he was unlawfully sentenced by Judge Coccoma for 4 years in prison because he denied he was a sex offender (correctly) while the judge insisted he was a sex offender (incorrectly);

3) Judge Robert Mulvey, Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District, for a pattern of retaliation and misconduct in a nubmer of cases, featuring deciding cases where jurisdiction of the court abated after incapacitation of a party, attempting to drag me as an attorney into a case from which I was released by consent trying to bind my former client, misrepresenting what occurred in a court proceeding in order to retaliate against me and, through me, against my husband for suing the judge for misconduct, for targeting my clients in retaliaton against me, for failure to disclose his conflicts of interest and recuse from cases.

A complaint was filed against Judge Mary Rita Connerton, of Binghamton, NY

I just filed a complaint with New York State Judicial Conduct Commission against Judge Mary Rita Connerton, the Chief Family Court Judge out of Binghamton New York, for:

(1) bigoted attitude to me as a foreign-born attorney and party;

(2) using her authority to protect governmental officials from developing the record of their misconduct at trial;

(3) engaging in ex parte communication on the merits of a case involving my constitutional rights;

(4) blocking my access to the recording of the court proceedings where the judge, behind my back, tells parties and counsel that my motion gives her a headache;

(5) relying upon oral argument in front of a recused judge in order to skip an oral argument and a trip from Binghamton, NY to Delhi, NY;

(6) likely being the source who ordered my detention in the courthouse on the way out of the courthouse (access to security videotapes to establish that for sure was blocked by the court administration), on the day when I DID NOT appear in front of Judge Connerton as an attorney or party, simply because of Judge Connerton's bias to me; and, among other things,

(7) for giving the government legal advice as to how to "get" my family better "the next time" since the government could not make their case against us the first time.

I consider Judge Connerton to be a jeopardy to the public and especially to the diverse body of litigants in Binghamton, Judge Connerton's usual seat, since Judge Connerton made negative inferences agaisnt me for "furrowed brow and hurried speech", even though she must know that such mannerisms may be attributed to the fact that English is not my native language.

On diabetic gun license holders who drink and criticize the government, diabetic judges and diabetic judges who drink

Public would want to know if the man/woman whose finger is on the big red nuclear button has a health condition that can either cause his/her judgment to be clouded, or his finger to twinge.


I insist that public would also want to know if the person in whose hands is a particular litigants life, liberty, reputation, property, or custody of children has any medical or mental health conditions that would prevent him from having good concentration or retention of information, or which would cloud his or her judgment.


Let's focus on just one possibility - if a judge has diabetes.


Swings in sugar levels in diabetes, as is well known, can and do cause swings in moods and in perception, or even visual hallucination, if diabetes is not under control.


It is highly inadvisable for a diabetic to drink alcohol.


Recently, Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker revoked a gun license of a person using the fact that he was a diabetic and intoxicated as a passenger in a car, see Lillian Browne, Walton Reporter, November 13, 2014, p. 3 "Man Acquitted of Charges, Sues Walton PD".


As quoted by the newspaper above, Judge Becker reprimanded the gun license holder this way: "There is sufficient grounds to believe that you engaged in conduct which raises serious questions as to your conduct and decision making abilities to consume alcoholic beverages when you are a diabetic".


Now, since a judge acknowledges that drinking while having diabetes is a serious judgment flaw, are judges, the public officials who are supposed to make decisions, often in fast-paced environments, about people's liberty, reputation, property, custody of children - do they undergo regular screening for debilitating diseases and influence of alcohol and drugs?


Try FOILing this information and your FOIL will be rejected on the issue of privacy.  It is a private issue whether the black-robed person on the bench has a mood swing and pushes "the red nuclear button of your life" because he is sick, or sick and drunk, or sick and under the influence of medication.


I cannot get FOILs through even for financial information of judges, while judges' financial reports must clearly be public record and must show people what the judge owns, what is his/her and his/her spouse's income and who gives the judge gifts.




Yet - isn't the fact that Mr. Picinich is a diabetic also private and why did Judge Becker publicize it on record and make it a part of his court decision?


Shouldn't we the People have more say in who takes our liberty, reputation, property and children away?  Shouldn't we know if a certain judge is a diabetic and may be hallucinating or having a sugar level-induced mood-swing on the bench while deciding your case?  Shouldn't we know if the judge who is a diabetic is "drinking his lunch and dinner", and especially if it is on a regular basis?


I recall that all those public officials, including judges, call themselves (when they pretend humility that they do not have) "public servants".  Yet, those so-called "servants", when they get out of hand, which is what they do as a matter of right, are very difficult, if at all possible, to get rid of, and usurp power to retaliate against the complainants and eliminate complainants' rights, be that livelihood, reputation, property, gun licenses, other licenses - you name it.


And - my question now is, will Judge Becker return the gun license to Mr. Picinich who was acquitted by a jury of the criminal charges, or will Judge Becker still "stick to his guns", no pun intended, and continue to punish the acquitted individual - which will look like punishing him for


(1) winning a jury trial,
(2) having the police officer John Cornwell disappear from Walton PD, 
(3) having the Walton Police Department embarrassed, and
(4) for suing the Walton Police Department in court?


Isn't Judge Becker just a little out of control where he denies or revokes gun licenses in cases involving criticism of the government, and this is the second case when he does it that I know, and there may be more cases that I do not know of?


And - since Judge Becker, as a judicial officer, pronounced that it is a judgment flaw for a diabetic to drink alcohol, that should be the law now and all individuals who have to make important judgments on a daily basis that people's lives depend on, including judges, should be screened for whether they are diabetics who drink, or have other debilitating physical or mental diseases affecting concentration and judgment, or whether they are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol while at their official duties?


Wouldn't that be a good idea?

More on finality of court orders that declare that the Sun rises in the West

This is yet another hypothetical for law students.

Let's say a certain court and a certain judge who had authority to preside over a case as a finder of facts, found that the Sun rises in the West.

The losing party made a motion to vacate claiming plain error, and lost because such errors must be raised only on appeal.

The losing party sued in federal court and lost on the Younger abstention grounds, because state appeals did not run through yet.

The losing party appealed and the appellate court affirmed claiming that they cannot do anything, because they must defer to the factual findings of the lower court.

The losing party sued in federal court against and lost under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because the federal court claimed issues of due process that the losing party is raising should have been raised on appeal.

Ok.  The losing party lost in state court and on all appeals from the state court order that says that the Sun rises in the West.

The losing party has lost in federal court without reaching the merits, because the state court already made its ruling which should be final and should not be disturbed.

Now, as to the losing party, for all purposes, the Sun rises in the West?

Yes, it must, it is now the law.

But does the Sun really rise in the West?

Look out your western-bound window in the morning and you will know.

Yet, if you move to vacate once again the obviously crazy decision of the court, you will now be sanctioned for frivolous conduct, ordered to pay your opponent's counsel fee and, possibly, blocked from access to court altogether as a "vexatious litigant".

But the Sun still rises in the East - yet, not for you...

This is just a hypothetical of how the law of finality works in American courtrooms.

You think it's crazy?  There are zillions of decisions that say exactly this, only instead of "Sun rises in the West" there is something slightly different, for example, a misrepresentation of documents which do not say what the court says they say, or misrepresentation of the law which does not say what the court says it says.

Yet, the result is the same - if the court says (erroneously, or with a purpose to hurt you) that black is white, A is Z and that, yes, that the Sun rises in the West - that's the law for you.

And don't you dare tell the judge that it is - what? - that's right, crazy, your Honor!