A court permission to waive your own privacy?

I wrote on this blog about the order of December 17, 2014 "sealing" the order itself and the papers upon which it was made, including open public records from other courts and open newspaper articles.

In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the privacy that is protected is the ATTORNEY's privacy, and that privacy should be waiveable at attorney's WISH.  

Yet, since the December 17, 2014 order talked about "sealing" and "confidentiality", I had to make sure that I do not violate the court order if I actually publish it - and any papers it is based on.  Of course, the court has no right to seal public records from other courts, or newspaper articles in open access, or any other open-access records from third parties, without notification of the custodians or authors of such records.

I tested whether the December 17, 2014 order was, in fact, a "gag order" against me and an attempt of the court to close the courtroom from the public and the media and protect itself and the prosecutor from public scrutiny in a highly sensitive and politically charged case.

In my letter to the court I asked, politely, to unseal any records of my disciplinary proceedings and make them open to the public.  Since confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceeding is for purposes of protecting my privacy, my privacy can be waived for the asking.  And I asked , in my letter, which is, in my view, all that is needed. 

Rules as to necessity of motions to "unseal" disciplinary records of attorneys are made for the benefit of attorneys and are directed at third parties, not attorneys themselves.  Apparently, that was not the view of the court.

The court replied to me in a letter that if I want to unseal the records of my own disciplinary proceedings, I need to do it on a motion, after filing a filing fee of $45, and the court will grant it only if there is "a good cause shown".

In other words, according to the court, it is not my call to waive my own privacy, it is the court's discretion, to allow me only "for good cause shown".

What is this "good cause shown", nobody knows.

The court did not concern itself with the issue that the only requirement for a person to be able to waive HER OWN privacy is to be a COMPETENT ADULT.

A licensed attorney is PRESUMABLY a competent adult.

In fact, any adult is considered competent under New York law unless adjudicated by a court incompetent.

There was never an adjudication (naturally) that I am incompetent.

Thus, under New York law, I can waive my own privacy without requesting anybody's permission.

(By the way, even incompetent adults do not need permission of a court to waive their own privacy, their guardian's permission is enough).

Apparently, that is not what the disciplinary court believes, and the reason why the disciplinary court's "beliefs" are contrary to existing New York law is, apparently, the highly political nature of the proceedings and the court's desire to protect itself and the disciplinary attorneys from public exposure into their procedures allegedly designed to protect that same public.  

To make motions to a court that denies motions, even on fundamental constitutional issues, without an explanation, reasoning or analysis, is an exercise in futility.  I am not going to be paying the state of New York money in filing fees and making motions ASKING the court to allow me to waive my own privacy when, once again, the condition precedent for me to waive such privacy without anybody's permission is simply to be a competent adult and simply DO it - and I did.

It is interesting to mention that the court "graciously" allowed me to file a motion to unseal the records that are going to be used in the disciplinary proceedings up and until February 6, 2014, without staying hearings in my proceedings.

Yet, hearings in my proceedings will have to be concluded, by order of the same court, by the same date of February 6, 2014.

Moreover, even if I make a motion now, the court, most likely, will not decide it until the proceedings will be over (judging by how much time it took to decide my previous motions), and the issue whether the public and the media should have been allowed into the courtroom, will be then declared "moot" by the court and will be an issue for appellate review.

Of course, I will insist that waiving my own privacy in attorney disciplinary proceedings and inviting members of the public and the press into the courtroom is my due process right that should be available to me for the asking (and I already asked, in a letter to the court) - and it is certainly not subject of the court's discretion "for good cause shown", nor should it be subject to any motion practice.

Courts keep generating more and more materials for my book on disciplinary proceedings in New York.  

I wonder if people who write such letters ever think what kind of "trace" in history they are leaving.  An infamous trace.

West Virginia joined the states punishing attorneys for criticism of judges, 1st Amendment be damned

Wouldn't you want to live in a dream world where you can eliminate your critics by taking away their licenses? 

Then, run for a judge and you can do it to your heart's desire, the 1st Amendment be doomed. 

West Virginia joins the states that discipline attorneys for criticism of judges - even though such criticism is a statement on the issue of grave public concern (integrity of a public officer), is in the core values protected by the 1st Amendment, an attorney has a duty to assure his or her client's right to an impartial adjudication (a fundamental constitutional right, by the way), discovery of judges' backgrounds in most states is unavailable, so the rules of judicial conduct require judges to recuse if there is even an APPEARANCE of impropriety. An appearance of impropriety is measured by a person's reasonable PERCEPTION. 

Yet, for purposes of discipline, a West Virginia judge required from an attorney FACTUAL BASIS for his statements and not reasonable perception. 

Thus, the right to an impartial adjudication of the litigant, and the right of the litigant to effective, independent, zealous and fearless representation was trumped by the fact that the objects of the criticism (judges) hold the livelihood of the critics (attorneys) in their hands. And in viciously pursuing such critics to the bitter end, revocation of their licenses, judges do not care whether they violate the U.S. Constitution which gave them the power to sit on that bench in the first place.

The interesting detail is that the disciplining judge, Justice Margaret L. Workman stated while disciplining the attorney that "the interests sought to be protected by the attorney disciplinary system require a less stringent standard than the actual standard", and with this statement Justice Workman rejected the attorney's 1st Amendment challenge.

I wonder if Judge Workman is aware of the concept of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution with the resulting pre-emption rule of federal law over inconsistent state law.  She should be aware of that clause, since she, as every judge in this country, took office swearing an oath of office as a pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution, together with the Supremacy Clause and the 1st Amendment.

While the judge made a statement about the interests the attorney disciplinary proceedings sought to protect, there is no indication the judge paid attention to the interests the 1st Amendment was seeking to protect.

In fact, the higher the stigma and the consequences for the litigant, the higher should be the standards of protection, not the lower, as judge Workman stated.

But, of course, when "the interests sought to be protected" in this particular case, to shield judges from the most knowledgeable, capable, credible and eloquent critics - the attorneys who know what is going on in court better than the occasional litigant and whose statements would thus be believed by the public - those self-serving interests of the class of the judiciary, which class included Judge Workman herself, of course, trump everything, including the U.S. Constitution the judge pledged to uphold.

Following the logic of the judge, that the higher the government's interests in the proceedings, the lower should be the standards of defense afforded to litigants, criminal defendants should not be afforded any protections at all, because of the interests the state has - to protect the public from crimes.  Yet, the law is quite the opposite - the higher the possibility of a stigma and the graver the consequences to the litigant in terms of potential loss of civil rights, the higher should be procedural and substantive protection for the litigant, and NOBODY in this country, including judges, has authority to cancel protections of the U.S. Constitution, in ANY proceeding, for ANY reason.

Actually, when the government seeks to take away people's fundamental rights, such as, in the attorney disciplinary cases, a right to earn a living in the chosen profession and calling, an elevated standard of scrutiny, the so-called strict scrutiny, is applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Workman should do a refresher course in constitutional law before being allowed on the bench since she demonstrated incompetence in constitutional law that would have garnered her a failing grade in law school and on a bar exam.  But - when you already made it to the bench, competence is not important any more, is it, as long as you can wield your power they way you want it?

The interests that the attorney disciplinary proceedings are sought to protect is - to protect the public from attorneys who are unfit to practice.  The lawyer was disciplined, on the opposite, for attempt to protect  his client and assure for his client an impartial judge.  Shielding judges from criticism, rightful or wrongful, is not within the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings and attorney disciplinary proceedings should not be used as a sword wielded by the judiciary against its critics rather than for the true protection of the public.

An attorney should never be disciplined for attempting to do his job right, the way he understands it.

Independence of court representation is the cornerstone of democracy, much more important than super-sensitive sensibilities of judges who should not take this office if their temper cannot withstand criticism without lashing out against critics.

Attorney Grievance Committees unlawfully operating as collection agencies on public dime - is it any wonder why people are leaving the state of New York to leave behind the corruption, abuse of power and waste of their taxpayers' money?

I received just before Christmas from the Attorney Grievance Committee a request to confirm whether certain documents, including a letter from a certain state organization threatening me to turn a money judgment into the Attorney Grievance Committee "for collection"  are true and correct documents.


Apart from the fact that:


(1) enforcement of money judgments must be a separate court action in a different court than the disciplinary proceedings, and preceding the disciplinary proceedings, 


(2) that no such enforcement proceeding was brought against me;


(3) that the money judgment (sanctions unlawfully imposed upon me by Judge Carl F. Becker in retaliation for suing him, after I sued him) was satisfied through a court escrow over a year before the threat that the threat 


the interesting fact remains that the Attorney Grievance Committee is now discharging the functions of a collection agency - functions that the Committee is not authorized to do by any law or regulation.


What is also interesting is that the Attorney Grievance Committee is continuing to prosecute the fraudulent Charge IV claiming that I did not obey a lawful order of the "tribunal" (that would be Judge Becker who sanctioned me in retaliation for suing him), when I obeyed that unlawful order 2 years before the disciplinary petition was brought.


I guess, Mary Gasparini is too busy giving lectures about attorney ethics at CLE seminars to do due diligence for the job that New York taxpayers (including me) are paying her to do.


Of course, judging by how disciplinary proceedings are handled, due diligence - or the law for that matter - has nothing to do with what is going on, it is an order from up above to destroy me no matter what, the truth, the law, the Constitution and the due diligence be damned - and attorney Mary Gasparini of the Attorney Grievance Committee, NYS Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department, apparently and in my personal opinion, cares more about her own job security than about the truth, the law, the Constitution and the due diligence combined (or about such trifles as common decency or waste of public money on fraudulent and frivolous political persecutions of an attorney).


I raised in the state courts handling the issue (NYS Appellate Divisions, 3rd and 4th Departments) the issue that Attorney Grievance Committees in New York are not authorized to operate as collection agencies, as they habitually do.  The 3rd Department made an ex parte order of transfer of the case to the 4th Department, over 100 miles away from where my witnesses are, making it practically impossible for me to get people to testify for me, and is stalling access to papers upon which it granted the ex parte order.


The 4th Department denied my cross-motions raising federal constitutional issues without an explanation, and reacted to my motion to vacate that decision and give me a reasoned answer, which is what I am entitled to as a matter of due process of law, with yet another similar decision without an explanation, now accompanied with an anti-filing injunction, without a notice to me or opportunity to be heard on the issue why my access to court , a fundamental right, should be restricted.


To tell me that this is somehow "the rule of law" is to insult my own, and anybody else's, intelligence.  It's Star Chamber, pure and simple, and the court is frustrated that I delay my fate that was decided before the disciplinary petition was even filed.


I wrote in this blog enough as to how the federal court operates in my district, blocking any constitutional issues, including the one I raised about Attorney Grievance Committees operating as collection agencies without any authority under the law - it simply tossed the lawsuit as frivolous, and, as I said before, this shining example of unlawfulness will be included into a separate book about constitutional issues I raised that were tossed by courts.


I understand that no matter what the Attorney Grievance Committee does against an attorney marked for destruction, such as myself, who did the unthinkable, criticized judges for misconduct, and no matter whether actions of the Attorney Grievance Committee will be lawful or unlawful, fraudulent or not, the Attorney Grievance Committee or its attorneys or members will never be prosecuted, and the whistleblower like me who points out that certain actions of the Attorney Grievance Committee are not lawful, will be marked for destruction and destroyed. 


And I understand that public money, including my own hard-earned money paid as a taxpayer, will be used for that destruction, in the name of protection of the public, no less.


So, now the public money is being used to enable Mary Gasparini, of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the NYS Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department, to operate as a debt collector without any statutory authority to do that.


And Mary Gasparini, as well as her supervisors, apparently have no qualms using that public money for such purposes.


No wonder there is such a reported exodus out of the State of New York - the state where the taxes are high, the job market is bad, and the collected taxes are used on illegal adventures such as collection of a satisfied money judgment by Attorney Grievance Committees having no right to engage in debt collection.


Last years' report indicated that during the last decade people leaving New York State took with them $45.6 bln in personal income from the state's economy, which was close to 7% of the combined income of New Yorkers reported in 2010.


This years' report indicates that the exodus from New York continues, and I support such exodus wholeheartedly.


Only when the  New York state budget will have no money paying people like Mary Gasparini for lecturing at CLE seminars and engaging in debt collection instead of doing her job diligently and in good faith, maybe something will  then start changing in New York.


This year's report indicated that people continue to leave New York state.


It is time the state of New York should stop treating its taxpayers like dirt and starts paying attention to where abuse of power and waste by public officials hurts the state economy.


Actually, what I am experiencing, will make for a nice book on legal ethics/ primer into the legal profession, for pre-law and law students.  I have enough documentary materials for that for sure, and at least such a book will describe the real world of legal ethics, or rather, how the rules of legal ethics are used as a sword against critics of any misconduct of public officials instead of for protection of the public, as is their declared purpose.


So, if I am relieved of my license in order to make me less credible as a critic of the judiciary, first of all, as I wrote in this blog earlier, I will engage in providing services in arbitration and mediation, an unregulated activity in the State of New York.


Plus, I will then have the time to write those books - and since they will be based on documentary evidence and legal authorities, I don't think taking of my law license will take from their value or credibility.

A book is planned mapping constitutional issues that state and federal courts considered frivolous in litigation that my husband and/or I handled

My husband and I have been through a lot from the time that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.


The bar and the judiciary viciously opposed doubling of our legal services, which one judge called "double-teaming" (as in:  "I hate their double-teaming"), mostly in criminal and Family Court proceedings. 


For some local attorneys, my entry into the legal profession increased competition since my husband mostly handled cases outside of Delaware County, and I started to handle cases in Delaware County and adjoining counties, thus taking away business from other attorneys.  They hated it and openly declared promises to "run them out of town".


For many local judges, in me they acquired a pain in the ass since, despite being a beginner attorney, I was trained by one of the best lawyers in the area for many more years than my law school training, had three advanced degrees, including an advanced degree in teaching English, was and remain independent and mature-minded, stubborn, well-trained and well-researched in civil rights litigation, and, having been born and raised in a communist country (Russia), had a belief to uphold and enforce the rule of law.


I am not a person with a "whatever you say, Your Honor" mentality, who can be taught to scrape and bow to the so-called "authority", even when that authority is clearly wrong and is violating the law, the way I, a well-trained and well-researched individual with a law degree, understand that law.  Is this independent streak causing the demise of my career in law?  If it will, it will make for another good book, or two.


I understand that nobody likes criticism, yet attorneys, in zealously protecting their clients' rights, must criticize whoever violates their clients' rights, be it the judge or any public official, and must do it as often as often violations of those clients' rights occur.


So, the judicial system "double-teamed" with powerful attorneys - to get rid of us.


In 2011 they disbarred my husband, thus depriving the poor and under-served population of Delaware County of his services, including pro bono services that he generously provided to a lot of people, who could come to him or call him, before his disbarment, at any time and many of them got free advice from him.


After my husband's wrongful disbarment, without a hearing, after 37 years of service to his community, I tried to carry his torch as much as I could, providing free advice and free legal services as much as I could. 


Two years before my husband's disbarment a certain group of local public officials started to prepare grounds to disbar me, too.


From illegal (and dismissed) parking tickets in front of the courthouse where everybody parks, but only I was targeted as a "big-mouth attorney", to illegal (and dismissed) child neglect proceedings by people whose conflicts of interest will take a book to fully describe, and I, most likely, do not know the full extent of the conflicts which still keep emerging, to the judge who was at the head of the campaign to stop our "double-teaming" and "run me out of town" and whom I sued (Delaware County judge Carl F. Becker) assigning himself to the cases where I appeared as attorney or party and sanctioning me for raising constitutional arguments, to rumors being spread out all across New York courts, from local to the Supreme court level that I am either already disbarred or about to be disbarred, urging potential clients not to come to me - we had it all.


Both my husband and I tried to litigate multiple violations of our constitutional rights by state and local officials in federal courts.  We quickly learnt that federal courts are joined with the state courts at the hip and fiercely protect the state public officials from adjudication of misconduct, by "local rules", various judicially created doctrines and the so-called "judicial discretion" to punish litigants for frivolous conduct.


Over the years of litigation I've learnt to expect that every constitutional argument that I am bringing in state or federal court, no matter how well researched, reasoned or supported by legal authorities (even though there is no requirement to support constitutional arguments by legal authorities, as the only legal authority such arguments require are the U.S. Constitution and your own reasonable interpretation of it, and whether it is reasonable is for the jury and not the federal judge to decide), will be rejected, ridiculed and sanctioned.


Finally, I decided to pull into a book and publish the following:


(1) the constitutional issues that state and federal courts declared frivolous in cases that I handled for myself and/or my clients;


(2) the legal authorities and reasoning I used to support my argument;


(3) the reasoning of various courts rejecting my constitutional arguments, where available (because some courts rejected my constitutional arguments without any reasoning);


(4) the names of judges who rejected my constitutional argument, their biographies and appearances of conflicts of interest that I was able to find, and their history of handling other constitutional arguments, as well as their history of retaliation for criticism; 


(5) the value of the arguments I was bringing, not just for me, my family members or my clients, but for the entire American public.


I hope the book will provide a valuable for litigants, attorneys and other readers inside and outside of the United States insight into the workings of the American judicial system, the myth of the so-called "access to justice for all" and the myth that the allegedly "honorable" judges in the American allegedly "honorable" court system allegedly uphold the U.S. Constitution instead of violating it at every possible turn.


I plan to publish three versions of the book in several languages:  English, Russian and Spanish.


The book will be put together and published within a reasonable time of the conclusion of my disciplinary case.  I hope you will be my readers.  I promise I will work hard on the book and make it worth my readers' time and money.

Arbitration and mediation services will now be provided at 203 Main Street, Delhi, NY. By appointment only.

No matter what is the outcome of my disciplinary proceedings which I described here in detail, I have a right to earn a living.  I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of the court system, and I believe I will be railroaded into a suspension or disbarment no matter what the law says.  Critics of the judiciary should suffer.  But - not too fast, please.


I am now announcing that I will provide arbitration and mediation services at my current office location at 203 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753.  By appointment only.  Make an appointment ahead of time (607) 746-6203.


Arbitration and mediation services are not regulated in the State of New York, and whether I am suspended or disbarred, will not affect my ability to provide arbitration and mediation services.  So, even if I am suspended or disbarred, I will continue providing arbitration and mediation services.


My fees for arbitration and mediation are, and will remain, negotiable in each case.


No legal advice is allowed to be provided, or will be provided as part of arbitration or mediation services.


Thank you for your attention.

Does anybody need an electronic microscope to see judicial retaliation here?

How do you resolve a motion asking the court to vacate its previous decision without an explanation, reasoning or analysis?  While the motion was to resolve fundamental constitutional issues which legal scholars is this country are increasingly focusing on? 

By yet another equally unreasoned and equally illegal decision, coupled with an illegal anti-filing injunction, imposed without a notice or opportunity to be heard and in violation of the attorney's 1st Amendment right GUARANTEEING her access to court.

Well done, Judges Smith, Fahey, Carni, and Valentino of the Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department.

I understand it is difficult to curb your temper and not to retaliate when you are being criticized - especially when the criticism is true.

And what an accelerator my blog was!  What you could not decide in two months, you suddenly decided in two days - since my blog was published.

Well done!  After all, what is the U.S. Constitution to you when you need to settle a score with an attorney who dared to criticize you?

The selective illiteracy epidemic in courts is catching. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is affected

In May 16, 2014 I filed a lawsuit against a number of public officials where, among other requested remedies, I sought disclosure of secret contacts between influential attorneys and law firms with judges who presided and are presiding on my own cases and cases of my clients.  I had information that judges are participating in at least certain named "mentoring" organizations and there is, thus, a likelihood that judges are not only engaged in ex parte communications regarding my cases behind my back, but may be provided material benefits by my opponents.

Membership and benefits in such organizations are secret, and the only way to receive that information was through a lawsuit.

I also sought discovery and damages against the federal court and judges whose employee spied on me on the Internet.

Before any Defendants appeared in the action, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby whose recent law clerk was a Defendant in that action, dismissed the action (where Judge Suddaby's court and its individual judges, including the Chief Judge, were defendants), dismissed it "sua sponte" and called it frivolous - that is, instead of recusing and transferring the case to another court.

Judge Suddaby found grounds for judicial immunity even though the information I sought was in regarding judges out of court activities to which judicial immunity does not apply. 

The whole concept of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts ON THE BENCH is simply wrong, unconstitutional and self-serving, since it was invented (relatively recently) to protect judges from the civil rights movement, raising recognition of people's civil rights and lawsuits.

Courts routinely state that judicial immunity applies only to judicial acts, acts during court proceedings.

Yet, when anybody tries to test that restriction, usually the restrictions does not work, and in many cases sanctions follow.

In Bracci v. Becker I raised numerous instances of Judge Becker's out-of-court acts, yet, judicial immunity was applied by Judge D'Agostino nevertheless.

I later learnt that Judge D'Agostino is part of the "mentoring" circuit with attorneys who had grudges against me, and I simply wanted to confirm the list of members in that mentoring circuit, what kind of benefits she received and the list of attorneys she met with behind closed doors.

Judge Suddaby protected her by dismissing my lawsuit verifying her possible benefits before she had a chance to appear in the action, and the same for all other powerful defendants.

So, the first step of damage control for the fellow judges was done by Judge Suddaby.

I appealed Judge Suddaby's "sua sponte" dismissal (dismissal on the court's own motion) - and, by the way, the "court's own motion" was never served upon me and I was never allowed to oppose it. 

When I appealed Judge Suddaby's decision, I followed the law and did not serve the Notice of Appeal upon anybody- because no parties had a chance to appear on the other side and the dismissal was sua sponte.

Yet, the appellate court, the 2nd Circuit, named all defendants in the case as "Appellees" - parties to the appeal, my opponents.  That was against the court's two own recent cases:

1) Boddie v. Alexander, 356 F. App'x 438, 439 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2009) ("Because the District Court dismissed this action before service of process, the defendants listed in the complaint are not parties to this appeal");

2) Petway v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 450 F. App'x 66, 66 n.2 (2d Cir. 2011) (Because the District Court dismissed [plaintiff's] complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) prior to its service on any defendant, no defendant has appeared in the case, either in the District Court or on appeal").

Then, bizarre things started to happen.

The 2nd Circuit court received a letter from the New York State Attorney General dated September 26, 2014, clearly stating the above law and indicating that NYS AG is not appearing in that action on behalf of any Appellees.  NYS AG asked the court to remove the NYS AG's office from the list of counsel.

I did not find in the docket of this case any decision of this court on the letter of NYS AG, but it appears that the request was granted without any motions, and NYS AG is not listed on the docket as attorneys for the State Defendants.

Despite the fact that the NYS AG notified the court that, by the court's own recent precedents (2009 and 2011), there are no Appellees in this case, the court stubbornly continued to deem all defendants in the court below as Appellees, see the snippets from the court's docket report as of today:

 

 

Moreover, the court sent out, without copying me, "Default notices" to Appellees, notifying them of their nonexisting "default" and practically inviting them to file notices of appearance to oppose me in the appeal where, by law, I had no opposition.

One Notice of Appearance was filed by Porter L. Kirkwood, Esq., the Delaware County Attorney.

The Notice of Appearance simply stated that Mr. Kirkwood appears on behalf of an "Appellee", without a name.  It was clear that such a "notice" was a nullity and had to be rejected by the court.

I notified the court that

(1) there are no Appellees in the action;
(2) that Mr. Kirkwood "Notice of Appearance" on behalf of an unnamed Appellee is a nullity

and requested to remove Mr. Kirkwood from the case.

The court which sent back to me or my husband appealing Pro Se any documents where the court personnel thought any corrections should be made, including a comma (!) on the front page of an Appellant's Brief, was extremely lenient to Mr. Kirkwood.

The court READ MR. KIRKWOOD'S MIND and PRESUMED that Mr. Kirkwood is appearing on behalf of Richard Northrup, Delaware County District Attorney.

Thus, in regards to governmental parties, the court acts as a kind mind-reader and advocate, and in regards to a civil rights plaintiff/appellant the court acts like an evil stepmother inventing for such civil rights plaintiffs/Appellants, like for Cinderellas, a mountain of unnecessary and burdensome activities.

Specifically, for me, right after NYS AG notified the court of the law in the case, that there are no Appellees, by the court's own recent two precedents, the court sent to me a "notice of defective filing" where the defect was "missing proof of service" - and, where there are no Appellees, there is no duty to serve anybody, and thus, the court has no authority to require proof of service upon non-existing parties.  Here is the notice:

The "defective notice" with "missing proof of service" was filed on October 27, 2014 (see the runner on top of the document above). 

I answered the court that where there are no Appellees, there should not be any service required, and attached to my answer the letter from NYS AG of September 26, 2014, indictating to the court that they were already notified about that not only by myself but by the NYS Attorney General.

Despite that, on November 18, 2014 the court stubbonrly issued a "default notice" to "appellees" and failed to send me a copy of that notice.  So, the court engaged in an ex parte communication with non-parties in the action pertaining to the action.  Here is the notice:

It is interesting to mention that the above ex parte "Default Notice" of November 18, 2014 does not contain an indication to whom it is addressed.

Yet, the docket report does contain such an indication.

So, a little short of 2 months after the New York State Attorney General notified the court that it is NOT appearing on behalf of any parties in this appeal because, by the court's own two recent precedents, there are no appellees in this case, the court continues to communicate with State Defendants as "appellees", and in an ex parte manner, no less.  On an appeal from a civil rights complaint seeking disclosures about possible massive ex parte communications of judges with influential attorneys outside of court proceedings.  Makes a lot of sense and raises a question - can the court personnel read?

As you can note, Porter L. Kirkwood appeared in the action on November 26, 2014, 8 days after the notification to State Defendants only.  It is unclear how he was notified - by phone, possibly?  That is another misconduct on behalf of the court, but - guess what - while applying to themselves absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts ON THE BENCH - BECAUSE - allegedly discipline against such misconduct is available - judicial discipline against federal judges is not available if misconduct occurred ON THE BENCH.  So, if a federal judge commits misconduct on the bench, short of impeachment, you have no remedies.  A motion to recuse is directed to the same judge, and the same judge will - surprise, surprise! - sanction you for making the motion to recuse him/her and award against you thousands of dollars of attorneys fees of your opponent, so that you do not dare to that again in the future.  So much for the rule of law, fairness and justice.

In this case, it gets better.

The docket report indicates (I never received any notices of these filings) that:

On December 4, 2014 attorney Barbara Underwood for a number of State Defendants was "terminated". 

Nowhere in the docket does it show that Barbara Underwood appeared on anybody's behalf. On the opposite, the letter from NYS AG's office of September 26, 2014 (above) clearly stated that nobody is appearing on behalf of State Defendants becuase, by law, on this particular appeal there are no appellees (opponents to the appeal).

On December 8, 2014 attorney Steve D. Clymer is mysteriously "substituted" in blase of attorney Brenda K. Sannes.  Who those people are, I do not know, I was never notified about their roles in this case.

On the same December 8, 2014 the court sent yet another "default notice":

As in the case with the first "default notice", it was sent out ex parte, without notifying me, so it was another ex parte communication with non-parties in my appeal.

As previously, the "default notice" did not list to whom it was sent.

As previously, the docket report on Pacer reflected to whom the default notice was sent.

Of course, the ex parte communication was with judges of the lower court - defendants in the action who were NOT parties in the appeal, by the 2nd Circuit's own two recent precedents.  But - when the appellate court engage in ex parte communication with judges, if they are defendants in a civil rights action, in the 2nd Circuit it appears to be ok.  Identity of the defendants absolves the appellate court from following the law - that is the only conclusion I can arrive at given the pattern of actions of the court in this case.

On the same December 8, 2014 the court received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office on behalf of the above mentioned federal defendants (who never appeared in the action in the court below and, by law, are not appellees in this appeal either, so they are NON-PARTIES).

The U.S. Attorney's letter is similar to the New York Attorney General's letter of September 26, 2014 above, indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office cannot, by law, appear on behalf of any appellees in my appeal.

Both NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General indicated a possibility that they may appear in my appeal with "amicus briefs", even though there are rules restricting who can file "amicus briefs", and in this situation, neither of the offices qualifies (in my opinion), and if they do file "amicus briefs", they will disqualify themselves as attorneys for parties, should the case be reversed, remanded, and should the defendants be served.  I guess, nobody thinks that far into the future.

So, as of December 8, 2014, both the NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney notified the court of its own two precedents and indicated that they are not authorized to appear on behalf of defendants who were not served and did not appear in the action below, and thus are not, as a matter of law, Appellees in this appeal.

The court appears to be deaf and blind to those statements, because the very next day it issues the following order:

There is no explanation as to why my request to exclude Porter Kirkwood, who never properly appeared in the action (appearance on behalf of an unnamed Appellee is a nullity even if there are Appellees in the appeal, and on this appeal there are no appellees, as a matter of law, in accordance to the court's own two recent precedents).

Yet, there is a threat that if I do not serve Porter Kirkwood with my appellate forms, the forms will be stricken from the docket.  It is, in fact, a threat to dismiss my appeal if I do not comply with a clearly unlawful order of the court.

I will, of course, comply, to avoid dismissal of the appeal, which does not mean that I concede that the order above is lawful - it is clearly not.

Moreover, on the same day of December 9, 2014 the following second "notice of defective filing" was sent to me.

I am now notified that if I want to strike Porter Kirkwood's appearance, I need to do that with an attending form.

First of all, the court already denied my request, without any forms.

Second, no notices of defective filings were sent to Porter Kirkwood when he did not list the name of the "Appellee" in his notice of appearance, making such a Notice of Appearance a clear nullity.

Instead of rejecting Porter Kirkwood's notice as a matter of law, the burden is put on me to file motions to strike Porter Kirkwood's "appearance", and such a notice is coupled with an order already denying me the request.

So - should I or should I not even bother to file the "missing motion information statement"?

To me, the above means that the court, both judges and personnel, are either biased, or prejudiced, or illiterate (selectively), or all the above.

In my case the harassment unleashed upon me by the court is egregious enough.  But civil rights law is supposed to serve the underserved population, the illiterate and borderline illiterate and the poor.

How can these civil rights plaintiffs/appellants fight with this stubborn, arrogant and lawless red tape, issued by courts, with a threat of dismissing the appeal if a civil rights appellant does not comply with a clearly unlawful court order catering for the powerful governmental defendants - who are NOT parties in the appeal, as a matter of law.

Let us also consider staffing of federal courts.

According to vacancies posted on Indeed.com for federal court personnel, federal courts only hire "the best of the best".

The hired court employees receive excellent salaries and benefits, must adhere to a "code of conduct" and serve "at will" "at the pleasure of the court".

Yet, judging by the actions of personnel of the 2nd Circuit court, the main "code of conduct" is not adherence to the law or U.S. Constitution, but serving at the whim of judges who would not adhere to the law where they are inventing unlawful barriers to a civil rights appeal that may affect themselves in a profound way.

After all, they are only "at will" employees serving "at the court's pleasure". 

And, once again, so much for the rule of law.