Disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini rewrote state and federal law to help herself

My disciplinary prosecutor outdid herself in her own stupidity.

In addition to the previously filed criminal charges for contempt of court - for violating my own privacy - Mary Gasparini filed additional purported criminal charges, of course, without following any formalities required for that by the criminal law.

Now Mary Gasparini wants the court to additionally punish me for criminal contempt of court for the following:

1) because criminal charges against me appeared on this blog (criminal proceedings in New York are public and there was no sealing orders in criminal proceedings);

2) because the "Decision" of Referee Sirkin appeared on this blog (decisions that are without authority to make may not be deemed part of court proceedings, and Referee Sirkin had not authority to make decisions in my disciplinary case);

3) because Mary Gasparini's own conduct prosecutable as a state crime (attempted fraud upon the court and conspiracy to commit such fraud upon the court) and as a federal crime (RICO, wire fraud, theft of honest services of a public official) was reported on this blog.

Actions of a public official which are outside of his or her authority and which are criminal (which is per se outside of his or her authority) may not be officially deemed part of any proceedings.

To crown it all, Mary Gasparini acts as the main complaining witness in the same criminal proceedings proceedings which she purports to bring as a prosecutor, violating all possible rules of prosecutorial ethics, as well as constitutional law requiring public prosecutors to be impartial - and how much impartiality can you expect from a complaining witness trying to avenge exposure of her own criminal misconduct?

Well, I did know that attorneys who are part of or represent attorney disciplinary committees in New York are so drunk of their own power and the feeling of impunity that they completely forget that they are not immune from criminal prosecution - and Mary Gasparini is simply asking to be criminally prosecuted and put behind bars, hopefully federal bars, where she belongs as the criminal that she is.  

Unless, of course, committing fraud upon the court and submitting to the court falsified transcripts have suddenly become legal.

How Stephen R. Sirkin changed the New York State Constitution

I do not believe New Yorkers are aware or even noticed that in December of 2014 Stephen Sirkin, a retired Wayne County judge, unilaterally changed the New York State Constitution, specifically, its Article VI paragraph 4 subsection b that provides:

"The appellate divisions of the supreme court are continued, and shall consist of seven justices of the supreme court in each of the first and second departments, and five justices in each of the other departments. In each appellate division, four justices shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of three shall be necessary to a decision. No more than five justices shall sit in any case."

Once again, for any decision of an appellate court, the following conditions should be satisfied:

(1) a maximum of 5 and a minimum of 4 appellate court justices must make a decision;
(2) a minimum of three appellate court justices must agree to make the decision valid.

In my disciplinary case, Stephen Sirkin, a court-appointed referee who is not an appellate court justice and who was not appointed to make any decisions in my case, still made that decisions without any permissions - and the court rolled over and refuses to recognize that the referee is out of control and defies the court order.

New York State Constitution does not allow appellate judges to delegate their authority to non-judges to make decisions in court cases.

Yet, Sirkin has now scrapped the provision of the New York State Constitution about the quorum and concurrence requirements - without New Yorkers' knowledge.

Remember how much Judge Lippman wanted to change the New York State Constitution to allow him to be a judge until he is 80?

New Yorkers did not allow it - they voted against it, to the great regret of Judge Lippman who leaves the New York State Court of Appeals pretty soon.

Judge Lippman should have asked Stephen Sirkin to make a "Decision" to change judges' mandatory retirement age instead.

Sirkin would have obliged.

A complaint has been filed with the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct against Judge Alta R. Martin, "acting" judge of the Greene Village Court

The essence of the complaint is that:

1. Judge Alta R. Martin engaged in a coerced ex parte off record communication with a represented criminal defendant and attempted to create an unwarranted unfavorable impression about his attorney;
2. Judge Alta R. Martin engaged in an ex parte communication with the prosecution;
3. Judge Alta R. Martin "googled" the defense counsel and read the blog of the defense counsel before ruling on the defendant's motion, even though there was nothing in the blog pertaining to proceedings in her court;
4. Judge Alta R. Martin who is not an attorney and whose level of formal education is unknown, demonstrated, through her actions and documents generated by her in a criminal proceeding that she lacks a basic understanding of duties of a judge presiding over a criminal proceeding, thus denying a defendant basic constitutional rights to a competent and impartial judicial review.
5. In a case involving issues of racially motivated police brutality Judge Alta R. Martin denied, without an explanation, warranted relief to a criminal defendant on an unopposed and well supported omnibus motion where the People defaulted and under while engaging in ex parte communications with the People.

I understand that the judicial system will not pay attention to racially motivated police brutality in our neck of woods until another Ferguson breaks out.

The time to stop it is on a case by case basis, wherever and whenever racially based police brutality raises its ugly head.

Judge Alta R. Martin, apparently, together with the Chenango County District Attorney's Office, is part of the problem, not of a solution.

Judge Lippman continues to parade his incompetence. Now it is the presumption of innocence that the judge does not seem to be aware of.

I wrote on this blog before about lack of competence of Judge Lippman who ascended to be the Chief Judge of the State of New York through influence of his now-indicted buddy Sheldon Silver.

In his addresses to graduates at law school graduations Judge Lippman calls graduates who yet have to sit for the bar and obtain a law license "lawyers".

Yet, New York criminal statutes make it a crime for anybody without a license represent him- or herself as being a lawyer.

I guess, for a judge the law is different.

Moreover, in his decisions at the Court of Appeals level Judge Lippman picks and chooses which constitutional violations are substantial and which are insubstantial, even though there is no such distinction under the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn to uphold and protect.

I made a whole series of posts about Judge Lippman's "State of the Judiciary" address in 2015, self-praising judges and paying no attention in his speech to the rampant judicial misconduct permeating state courts and the culture of fear that is spread among attorneys who are afraid to raise their voices against such misconduct for fear of retaliation from judges, against themselves and their clients, to the point of losing their licenses, reputations and livelihoods.

You can simply word-search the word "Lippman" on this blog to see my previous posts about Judge Lippman's accomplishments.

Yesterday, Judge Lippman made yet another blunder that shows just how unprepared this judge is for the job he is doing.

In an interview pertaining to the new system of issuing tickets instead of summonses for possession of small amounts of marijuana in New York City, Judge Lippman was quoted by the media to have said the following:

“These are people who are not hardened criminals, they are normal people.  They have jobs, they have families and there has got to be a way to treat them with respect and dignity and get them back to their lives.”

Last time I checked, presumption of innocence equally applied to ALL criminal defendants, whether charged with possession of "small amounts of marijuana" or - and especially - those who are charged with murder.

The more serious the charge - the higher the risk for the criminal defendant - the more seriously presumption of innocence must be handled and treated by the court.

Yet, to Judge Lippman, the Chief Judge of a large state no less, people who are ticketed are "normal people" and "not hardened criminals" - as opposed to whom?  Defendants charged with felonies?

Isn't it included into every jury instruction that a court must deliver to a criminal jury that even an indictment for a felony - no matter what kind of felony - is not evidence, and lay candidates for trial juries are eliminated for failure to understand the concept of the criminal defendant's presumption of innocence.

When the Chief Judge of the State of New York has no understanding of that concept, and instead, publicly professes an amateurish belief that people must be treated differently based on what they are charged with - that is downright scary.   

 
 

Ex parte communications between attorneys and judges, public records about ex parte communications and sanctions for seeking and using public records about judicial and attorney misconduct

An article was published yesterday in Pennsylvania about extremely interesting events.

Several attorneys obtained from a County telephone records that indicated that there were text exchanges between district attorneys and judges, and, as I understand are using them or are about to use them to try to vacate convictions obtained by such prosecutors from such judges after they engaged in ex parte messaging, sometimes during hearings.

Even though the actual texts were not released, only records showing the fact of text exchanges between the prosecutors and judges was released, the judges involved undertook an unprecedented step - they filed for injunctions against attorneys who obtained public records showing that they were engaged in text exchanges during or in relation to open public proceedings. 

Moreover, these judges seek to DESTROY evidence of their own misconduct, and that is, before their victims, the criminal defendants in proceedings where the exchanges were taking place, get a chance to make motions to vacate their convictions because of ex parte communications!

I bet that judges did not include as necessary parties into that action to enjoin and destroy their own cell phone records the criminal defendants who they harmed and for whom that evidence is indispensable to overturn their convictions - and that is NOT right.

And the basis for such a request?  Judges indicated in their application to the court that, should the records be released, it will "ruin their public image".

The act of texting with the prosecutors, and thus, engaging in ex parte communication does not ruin, in their eyes, "their public image", but the contents of the text, confirming their misconduct, will destroy their public image - and for that reason the public information that must get the judges off the bench for misconduct, must be destroyed.

The same article (see the link above) indicates that several attorneys in the area declined to comment on the situation that became "toxic" for a very reasonable fear of retaliation from judges.

That is, members of the honorable profession (lawyers) who are supposed to report judicial misconduct, refuse to report it because they are afraid of retaliation for that against them and their clients from the extremely honorable members of the legal profession, judges, whose integrity courts always presume, despite granting them immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

The sad part about it is that attorneys in Pennsylvania are still afraid to report judicial misconduct, even after the Kids for Cash scandal in that same state revealed that stifling reports of judicial misconduct can lead to unsafe situation harming (and even leading to deaths) of children.

It has been reported that several attorneys' licenses were suspended or revoked for criticizing judiciary IN PENNSYVLANIA, before the Kids for Cash scandal hit the media, thus stifling reports of judicial misconduct and jeopardizing the public.

The judges who were convicted and are serving federal prison time in the Kids for Cash scandal were subjects of multiple complaints, all of which were nonchalantly dismissed.

Now - a second such scandal, within a short time, pertaining to misconduct of judges, in the same state! And this time, judges belligerently try to have the PUBLIC records of their own misconduct destroyed! Think of the arrogance of these people who think they are not punishable and above the law no matter what they do!

Moreover, across the country judges uniformly sustain discipline against attorneys for criticism of judges protected by the 1st Amendment.

In New York, attorneys are as reluctant to report judicial misconduct, and they have a good reason for this.

My husband who reported misconduct of judges and sued a judge, was disbarred after that.

I am the subject of a disciplinary proceeding specifically based on sanctions imposed upon me by a judge whom I sued, after I sued him, on behalf of myself and two clients.

Judge Carl F.Becker of Delaware County punished me for the following legal conduct:

(1) for seeking under Freedom of Information Law of his financial semi-annual reports to the New York State Court Administration - $1,250 in sanctions;

(2) for using in the court proceedings open public records pertaining to misconduct of another judge (the late Robert Harlem of Otsego County)  and of his son Richard Harlem, which, if properly investigated and prosecuted would have resulted in disbarment of both of these attorneys back in 2000 - $5,500 in sanctions against me for "invading privacy" of the retired judge, his son, the judge's secretary and law clerk, all involved in fraud, for using open court records in another court where sworn pleadings of an Assistant New York State Attorney General Mary Walsh described misconduct, and $5,500 in sanctions against my husband and client Frederick J. Neroni for the same "invasion of privacy" and "harassment'.

The sanctions were imposed, by the way, at the stage of a pre-answer motion to dismiss where all of Mr. Neroni's allegations against these people were PRESUMED to be true, and thus could not possibly be a basis for sanctions - but still were.

And guess what - "attorneys of record" in that interesting case are the same Richard Harlem who was a party in that proceeding, and the firm where Richard Harlem's (and Mr. Neroni's and my own) disciplinary prosecutor John R. Casey is a partner, even though he picked from the bunch of attorneys referred for his investigation and prosecution, Mr. Neroni and me (complainant against retired judge Robert Harlem and his son Richard Harlem) to prosecute, and chose Robert Harlem and Richard Harlem as his firm's paying clients.

Moreover, Richard Harlem and John Casey's firm representing Richard Harlem had the audacity to ask the court to award legal fees against Mr. Neroni for this alleged "invasion of privacy", and, in a paroxysm of greed, John R.Casey's partner David Cabaniss disclosed the fact of ex parte communications between himself and Judge Becker's chambers (12 minutes, one day before the motion hearing) and with the chambers of the next judge, Judge Ferris Lebous (two times, 6 minutes each).

The reason these ex partes were disclosed is because Mr. Cabaniss wanted Mr. Neroni to pay Mr. Cabaniss' clients for Mr. Cabaniss' "legal services" provided during those ex parte communications.

In New York, court rules and Canons of Judicial Conduct prohibit judges to engage in ex parte communication.  Such behavior is also a fundamental due process violation, undermining parties' right to an impartial adjudication.

Yet, ex parte prohibition is not enforced in New York against well-connected attorneys, and the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct refuses to look at proven ex parte communications as violations.

In March of 2014 I reported an ex parte communication between Judge Christopher Cahill, of the Ulster County Supreme Court, and attorney Dolores Felice (Delice) Seligman, where, in a highly contested divorce proceeding,  a judge invited first Ms. Seligman, an attorney he knew, into his chambers for a 15-minute conference, without my consent, and gave a direction to his secretary not to allow me to enter. 

Then the judge's secretary invited me, for a "leftover" ex parte conference, which I refused to attend.

When I confronted the judge (standing in the doorway of his chambers in plain view of witnesses and refusing to enter and engage in my own ex parte communication), the judge threatened to turn me into the disciplinary authorities. 

When I complained about the judge, the complained was dismissed as not having enough grounds for discipline.

The conclusion - it is ok in New York for judges to openly engaged in ex parte communications, and to threaten attorneys who disagree with such misconduct to have them punished for pointing the misconduct out.

Ex parte communications, even those who are openly observable, are pervasive.

In one and the same case, I moved to recuse, on affidavits of witnesses, one judge based on his ex parte communication IN COURT (after he adjourned the case and after I left the courtroom), in front of witnesses, with a prosecutor, and I am making yet another motion to recuse the next judge on the case, Judge Alta  R. Martin, the "acting" justice of the Greene Village Court, Chenango County, who was appointed after the one who engaged in the ex parte communication - for the same thing, for ex parte communications, for having conferences with the prosecutor in chambers behind closed doors and for engaging in coerced ex parte communications with a represented criminal defendant off record.

According to an affidavit of a witness that I have, prosecutor Michael Ferrarese of the Chenango County District Attorney's office simply barges in Judge Martin's chambers, closes the door and remains there for as long as he wants, discussing unknown topics and not inviting criminal defense attorneys or pro se parties who are present in the courtroom.

Also, Alta R. Martin is a judge who has authored and distributes in her court unique "scheduling notices" which, in defiance of the court's duty to advise criminal defendants of their right to remain silent during the entire criminal proceedings, advises them that they "need" to talk to the prosecutor before the next proceeding.

I just posted a previous blog about a whole ex parte motion that was decided in my disciplinary court that I cannot get access to nearly a year after it was made (and which I moved to vacate today).

I posted a lot this April about a whole ex parte trial conducted by Judge Kevin Dowd of Chenango County, without any shame, in my absence and while the judge knew I had a medical leave from work issued by a physician after diagnosing my back injury that did not allow me to come to trial or withstand the physical rigors of a multi-day trial.

Now in Pennsylvania judges outdid their New York colleagues by trying to have their brethren,  judges from other courts, order to destroy and prevent distribution of public records of gravest concern, obviously containing proof of the judge's misconduct, because otherwise why say that distribution of such records will destroy their "public image".

In fact, it will not only ruin the judge's public image, but will indicate that they engaged in a federal crime of WIRE FRAUD, and theft of honest services of a public officials, the crime that the feds charged New York State former Assembly leader Sheldon Silver at this time.  

The same also may constitute the state crime of fraud and may result in massive voiding of criminal conviction.

Think about it!

Can criminal defendants now move with courts to ask them to compel district attorneys to destroy evidence of their crime instead of prosecuting them?

So, how come judges in Pennsylvania who committed crime against the public and against such criminal defendants have a different status under the law?

Why evidence of their criminal activity must be destroyed?

Also, think how many lives may have been ruined, both of criminal defendants convicted with the help of such ex parte texting, and their families!

Think of the cost to taxpayers for such trials, unlawful incarceration and of the future re-trials!

That is not the judges' concern though. 

Their concern is how to destroy evidence in order to "preserve their public image" - an absolutely shameless request, but what else one can expect from a class of public officials who presume their own integrity while at the same time granting themselves absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office.

As the new Pennsylvania case indicates, there is no limit to judicial arrogance and the belief deeply entrenched into the judiciary that a judge is God and must be allowed  can do whatever he or she likes, with impunity.

Yet, judges are public servants subject to public scrutiny.

Let's help them realize that, through an appropriate legislative action against judicial immunities, for judicial accountability and for cameras in the courtroom.

Also, since cameras in the courtroom will definitely not catch texting through cell phones, I suggest introduction of laws requiring judges and parties to disclose their cell phone records to their opponents.

There is no place for ex parte communications in court proceedings, other than those that are restricted by statute and are in compliance with the U.S. and State Constitutions.

This situation is pervasive not only in New York and Pennsylvania, but also in other states, like Texas and Florida where such misconduct was reported by the media. 

In Florida (see link in the previous paragraph), a prosecutor and a judge exchanged 1,400 texts and phone calls during a DEATH PENALTY trial. 

In Texas, a judge recently resigned after having been caught texting with prosecutors.   In her texts, the judge was actually recommending to the prosecutions questions to ask witnesses. 

I encourage all attorneys representing clients in death penalty cases, whether in a trial or on appeal, and relatives of such criminal defendants (because one does not have to be an attorney to seek access to public records) to seek telephone records of prosecutors on freedom of information requests.  These records can be a lifeline to the condemned defendants.

On the brighter side, the courage of Pennsylvania attorneys who obtained records exposing texting between prosecutors and judges, distributed them and are fighting for their clients' rights to have access to such public records and to overturn their convictions based on evidence of ex parte communication has showed the way to other people.

Now, texts from cell phones of prosecutors are up for grabs under the Freedom of Information Law, and should be sought by every criminal defense attorney in every criminal proceeding.

And - if judges and prosecutors are ab-using the advancements in technology, why the public is not allowed to simply videotape court proceedings?  Private cameras in the courtroom would have made it a lot easier to catch the texting judges - something that transcripts of proceedings does not reflect.

If courts refuse to abide by its own orders, how can any court orders be binding on the public?

I have published on this blog the ex parte order by which the Appellate Division 3rd Department transferred my disciplinary proceedings to the Appellate Division 4th Department.

Here it is, again.

 

 

 

The order was based "upon the papers filed in support of the application".

 

The application was never served upon me, so it is an illegal ex parte order.

 

On receipt of the order, I immediately asked both the Appellate Division 3rd Department and the Appellate Division 4th Department for access to the following documents:

1. the "application";
2. "papers filed in support of the application";
3. proof of service of the application on me

My husband Mr. Neroni did the same, since his name mysteriously ended up on the caption of my disciplinary proceedings, in violation of all fathomable laws and rules.

 

The 3rd Department, the court that had to transfer all records, including the requested records, to the 4th Department, answered with an outright denial of access,admitting that it unlawfully retained a portion of the record of my disciplinary proceedings that it was supposed to transfer.

 

The 4th Department responded with a list of papers that were transferred to it which did not include the requested papers, thus confirming that it is illegally proceeding with my disciplinary proceedings on an incomplete record and is illegally deciding a motion for a summary judgment on an incomplete record.

 

Recently, I double-checked with both courts about access to these records.

 

The 3rd Department now engaged the services of an attorney for the New York State Court Administration who treated me like a pest and practically told me that since the 3rd Department once denied me access to the records (without any legal basis to do so since all the requested records should have been transferred, by the 3rd Department's own order of June 11, 2014 to the 4th Department), I should not be asking for it again.

 

On receipt of the answer from the NYS Court Administration attorney on behalf of the 3rd Department, I sent a letter to the 4th Department asking it two simple questions:

 

(1) did it receive the application, papers submitted in support of the application and proof of service of all of those papers upon me since our last correspondence when the 4th Department stated to me it did not receive such papers;

 

(2) when will the 4th Department provide to me the evidentiary hearing that it ordered to be provided to me on September 30, 2014.

 

In answer to these two simple questions I received this letter dated April 10, 2015:

 

 



 

 

 

 

The letter indicates two things:

 

(1) no papers were additionally transferred after the letter from the 4th Department dated July 30, 2014 and listing the records that were transferred to it from the 3rd Department in my disciplinary proceedings; to me it means that:

 

• the 3rd Department court, especially based on its latest response to my letter requesting access to records, is still unlawfully withholding records from my disciplinary proceedings;
• the 4th Department court is:
• unlawfully proceeding in attorney disciplinary proceedings on an incomplete record;
• is unlawfully reviewing a motion for a summary judgment on an incomplete record, which, all in all, constitutes in bias against me and in favor of the court's own disciplinary committee and harassment against me, especially taking into consideration other violations of my rights by the 4th Department court that I wrote about on this blog.

 

(2) The 4th Department court, same as the 3rd Department court, refuses to abide by its own orders.

 

The 3rd Department court issued an order of June 11, 2014 transferring all of my disciplinary proceedings to the 4th Department court, but refused to abide to its own order and withheld from the 4th Department court a portion of records from those proceedings, records that I never saw but which the court unlawfully relied upon in transferring the case to the 4th Department.

 

The 4th Department court issued an order of September 30, 2014 appointing a referee and ordering the referee to hold an evidentiary hearing for my benefit.  The referee did not hold the hearing, I asked when such a hearing will be held, and now the court is answering me that I need to make an extra motion, pay extra money and engage in extra effort (and undergo an extra stress) to obtain from the court what the court already granted to me in its September 30, 2014 order.

 

My question to you, my readers, as members of the public is:

 

if courts refuse to abide by its own orders, why should the public consider any court orders binding? 

 

 

The wealthy, educated and entrenched expressing the viewpoint of the poor consumers of legal services - what a joke!

I am reviewing the backgrounds of the "lay" members in the attorney disciplinary committees in the State of New York.

While the supermajority of members of such committees are attorneys, making it impossible for non-attorneys to carry their voices if they differ from those of attorneys, even then, the "lay" individuals appear to be carefully selected - by the courts - from the wealth and the educated, from that sector of the population that is not hurting from not being able to afford legal services and who has enough funds to simply sue their attorney for malpractice if he or she does something wrong.

It is apparent that the state-sponsored system of protection for consumers exists to protect those consumers who have no funds to do that for themselves, being poor and uneducated.

Yet, the "lay" members are:

• journalists, including "Ivy-league" educated journalists
• editors of major TV companies - all obviously not poor people
• individuals who came from "old wealth" (such as - the father is a prominent OB/GYN, chief of staff of a hospital in LA, the mother owns apartment buildings in LA, the person herself is a media producer, along with her husband);
• individuals who "serve" on a board of private schools for little privileged tykeks (K-12) where they have two children at a time enrolled, at the price tag of over $44,500 per year per each;
• financial specialists of different kinds, from CPAs to investment managers to equipment lease manager

Do I need to remind anybody that over 80% of people in New York state cannot afford an attorney and that the Chief Judge of the State of New York called this situation an ongoing crisis?

So how do we solve it?

We put market participants and wealthy and entrenched lay individuals on disciplinary committees to weed out exactly those solo, private, independent, not wealthy attorneys who actually serve the poor, and to keep afloat those who make donations and have a potential to hire these people or their companies to provide their investment or financial advice.

Nothing like just a little a crooked.

Some of the "lay" members of committees are either related to attorneys or connected to prominent law firms through financial ties - and that is only what I can readily find on the Internet, without asking for records.

• Dr. Hany Ghaleb (3rd Department committee) - married to the former judge and now practicing attorney Jhilil "Jill" Ghaleb;
• Dr. Richard Maceko (4th Department) - father to the Assistant Energy Counsel Emma Maceko, graduate of the Albany Law School;
• Miles Bottrill (4th Department) - Director, the Syracuse University College of Law who has a financial interest not to vote in a way that may affect generous donations of prominent law firms to his law school, so Mr. Bottrill has a financial interest not to ever vote to discipline attorneys of donors, no matter what they do 
• Louis J. Cercone, Jr. (4th Department) - Managing Director of Brisbane Consulting Group in charge of Business Valuations, Forensic Accounting, and Litigation Support Services who will lose patronage from large litigation firms if he affects their ratings and attractiveness to clients and the judiciary if he disciplines the firm or any attorney from the firm that hired him in the past or may hire him in the future, and the usual clients of such support companies are large and rich law firms, not the solo attorneys who are usually disciplined by such committees.

I am sure that for other "lay" individuals connections with the legal industry can also be found after some digging, the system usually insures herself so that no "rogue" people come on these committees to upset the apple cart for the prominent attorneys and their law firms.

So, not only the attorney-lay person ratio is slanted several times towards the market participants and against the consumers, but the voice of the real consumer is further stifled because NO consumers, NOT one low-to-middle-consumer of legal services, not one person (I am positive) with a criminal record, not one person who lost custody of a child or who is in arrears for child support and is in desperate need of affordable legal services is among the lay members.

This way, the "prominent" attorney members of the disciplinary committees have no problem eliminating competition of the solo attorneys who actually provide legal services at an affordable price to the under-served rural population and actually are accessible to their clients to talk to them at any time of day or night.

As Judge Lippman told his buddy Sheldon Silver at the time he was put on top of this pyramid of corruption - "not too shabby".