Federal Trade Commission's guidelines toll funeral bells to attorney licensing in New York

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission where the U.S. Supreme Court declared that occupational licensing and discipline by members of the regulated profession may be in violation of federal antitrust law, without protection of the so-called "state immunity defense".  That was in February, 2015

On October 14, 2015, the FTC issued a press release introducing guidelines explaining how a state regulatory board can still get coverage under the state immunity defense, and what kind of conduct will not be covered.

Conduct NOT covered by the immunity defense, according to FTC guidelines, is:

1. disciplinary proceedings according to a pattern or policy that can have a substantial anticompetitive impact on the market, where
2. there is either no clear articulation of statutory authority of the disciplinary board to act in an anticompetitive way, or
3. where the regulatory board is composed of super-majority of market players (instead of consumers of services in the regulated market), there is no active oversight by an INDEPENDENT government agency.

FTC Guidelines also provided certain examples as to what will NOT constitute an active market supervision, such as:

1) when the supervising agency itself consists of regulated market participants; and

2) if the supervising agent is State Attorney General, and he or she represents the regulatory board on an ongoing basis.

FTC Guidelines also provides that an individual who was a market participant does not cease to become a market participant for purposes of "active supervision" element of the "state immunity defense" if the individual becomes a public servant and stops practicing the profession for the time of participation in the regulatory board.

Now, how does all of this apply to attorney regulation in New York?

CLEAR ARTICULATION BY STATUTE

NOTHING in the attorney licensing statute, Judiciary Law Section 90, provides for attorney disciplinary committees.

NOTHING allows such committees to exist, or conduct investigations or prosecutions of existing attorneys.

The only "committees" provided by the regulatory statute are "fitness committees" that pre-screen candidates for admission to the bar, but have no clear statutory authority (or any statutory authority) to investigate an attorney or revoke his or her law license.

So, attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are already failing one of the two prongs of the state immunity defense, and all attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York, consequently, are conducted in violation of civil AND CRIMINAL federal laws.  In other words, attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are operated as criminal cartels.

ACTIVE MARKET SUPERVISION

As FTC Guidelines provided, active market supervision element of the state will not be met:

1) when the supervising agency itself consists of regulated market participants; and

2) if the supervising agent is State Attorney General, and he or she represents the regulatory board on an ongoing basis.

New York attorney disciplinary regulation fails the active market supervision test on both counts above.

1) The controlling agency is the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Divisions.  Appellate Divisions are comprised of judges, all of whom must be market participants, licensed attorneys.  If a judge's license is revoked or suspended, the judge will cease being a judge, so the judge's regulatory supervisory function is conditioned upon approval of the judge's attorney license by the regulatory board that the judge supervises.  Obviously, such a dependency fails the active supervision test.

Appellate Judges in New York are not elected for life, serve only 14-year terms and, if not re-elected, return to their occupation as licensed attorneys unless they resign.  Thus, appellate judges are active market participants for purposes of "active supervision" analysis.

2) New York State Attorney General is not (at least not yet) the public official or agency appointed to supervise attorney disciplinary boards.  If he is, his supervision will fail the "active supervision" test because NYS Attorney General represents regulatory boards in an ongoing way, advising them how to conduct disciplinary proceedings in order to escape liability, and then representing them as an advocate in possible resulting civil rights lawsuits.

NYS AG's position as an advocate of attorney disciplinary board is incompatible with the necessary independent of the supervisor in order to meet the "active supervision" test.

And, finally, since there is a pronounced policy of attorney disciplinary committees in New York to target with discipline only solo, independent, minority, female, immigrant and civil rights attorneys, likely with lower fees and who more willingly and more often work at reduced rates or pro bono, and to whitewash misconduct of politically connected attorneys whose fees are higher, this anti-competitive conduct through attorney disciplinary proceedings may have a substantial impact upon competition in the regulated market.

So, the logical conclusion is that New York State attorney disciplinary/licensing system, as it exists today, operates in violation of federal criminal antitrust laws.

An antitrust lawsuit against attorney regulation is being litigated in a federal district court in Florida

The case has been filed in June of 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is called Erwin Rosenberg v Florida State Bar, Case No. 1:15-cv-22113.

Antitrust claims were dismissed since then - unfortunately, but several due process challenges to Florida bar rules survived.

In the case, attorney Erwin Rosenberg has been suspended for one year, judging by the pleadings submitted, at least in part for criticism of judicial misconduct and with judicial misconduct that led to the disciplinary proceedings - a husband judge affirming a wife-judge's decision challenged by Mr. Rosenberg for bias.

Erwin Rosenberg advanced very skillful argument pertaining to invalidity of attorney disciplinary rulings against him on antitrust and due process grounds.  

Erwin Rosenberg's argument can be used to show conceptual invalidity of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, one of the main  court-created bars to civil rights litigation.

I wish Erwin Rosenberg luck in his lawsuit.  

Mr. Rosenberg's brilliant arguments may pave a path for other attorneys unjustly disciplined for doing their jobs for their clients.

A disciplinary complaint was filed against New York attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis, James Hartmann and Denis Dineen requesting their disbarment

As the heading says, a disciplinary complaint was filed (I was not the complainant) against the following attorneys:

1) Richard Harlem - son of the late New York Supreme Court Justice and Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Harlem, law partner in the law firm Harlem & Jervis, of Oneonta, NY;

2) Eric Jervis, Richard Harlem's law partner;

3) James Hartmann, of Delhi, NY, husband of the law clerk of the judge-elect Gary Rosa of the Delaware County Family Court, New York, and

4) Denis Dineen, former law clerk of Richard Harlem's father, the late judge Robert Harlem.

There is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct in New York, so no matter when misconduct was committed by an attorney, it is still reachable by attorney discipline.

The complaint was based on a reportedly unsolicited affidavit sworn to on November 2, 2015 from a witness who asserted under oath that attorney Richard Harlem filed a lawsuit on behalf of the witness while the witness never hired Richard Harlem and never authorized him to file lawsuits on his behalf.  

According to the affidavit, Harlem was notified by the witness about the problem and that Harlem is proceeding on a retainer agreement where the witness's signature was forged.

According to the affidavit, Harlem arrogantly asserted to the witness, an indigent and disabled individual, that Harlem is still his attorney.

According to the affidavit, knowing that he was never hired by the witness to file or prosecute lawsuits on the witness's behalf, attorneys Richard Harlem and Eric Jervis made multiple sworn statements to several courts that they do, indeed, represent the person in question, and obtained a large judgment based on their alleged legal fees against that individual who, according to the affidavit, never hired them in the first place.

Attorney James Hartmann failed to verify whether the witness (one of several parties in the litigation) ever hired Harlem & Jervis or James Hartmann for the trial in the lawsuit, and submitted to the court boxes of sworn statements of Richard  Harlem and Eric Jervis, as well as solicited testimony of Richard Harlem, but not of the individual in question, in support of the contention that Richard Harlem did represent the individual.  

The complaint also points out that Richard Harlem intentionally lied to the court that he represented the person in question when he blocked discovery directed at that person, and that, by lying to the court that Richard Harlem and his law firm represents the person in question, the defendant in the lawsuit was blocked from direct communication with a valuable material witness, which severely impaired the defendant's defense in the case.

The complaint also adds that Richard  Harlem's fraud upon the court was not isolated (it happened in that particular lawsuit over the course of several years), but is coupled with his, his father's and Denis Dineen's misconduct in the Blanding case in Otsego County Surrogate's Court.

The complaint requests disbarment of attorney Denis Dineen (who is now employed with New York State Workers' Compensation Board) for aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law by a sitting Supreme Court Justice Robert Harlem, while knowing that the sitting judge is not allowed by the State Constitution to practice law, and knowing that an attorney is not allowed to bequeath to himself in a will he drafts any benefits, as Judge Harlem did.  Instead of reporting Judge Harlem's misconduct, Dineen helped Judge Harlem by appearing as a witness on one of the codicils (additions) to the will that Judge Harlem drafted in his favor for a multi-millionaire testator.

I will hold my breath if the system will dare to discipline "blue blood" attorneys who so far escaped discipline for decades.

If it doesn't, you know that attorney disciplinary system exists not to protect you from attorneys who commit misconduct, but to protect powerful attorneys who commit misconduct from criticism and to quash criticism of judicial misconduct and corruption amongst attorneys.

An affidavit like that is at the very least worth investigation and, possibly, referral from the attorney disciplinary committee to appropriate criminal investigators and prosecutors.

If the statements in the affidavit are true, Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann committed massive fraud upon the court that requires their disbarment and incarceration for the rest of their lives.

Once again, will the system dare to apply the rule of law against these politically connected attorneys?

Stay tuned.

I can't afford my scented hanky to deal with the poor!

Russians have a saying:

"Some complain their bread is too hard;
Some complain their pearls are too small".

This blog post is about complaints of New York judiciary (and of attorneys whose livelihood is depending on good graces of that judiciary) to the New York State Commission for Judicial Compensation about the size of the pearls judges can and cannot afford.

DEBRA RASKIN, president of the New York City Bar Association, testimony of all witnesses are quoted from this official transcript of the November 30, 2015 hearing before the NYS Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative Compensation:

1. "I would also point out that many New Yorkers enter the state court system without counsel, which means that our judges not only manage heavy case loads but also must have the skill, patience and efficiency to shepherd through litigants who are proceeding without the benefits of lawyers. According to the New York State Unified Court System in 2013, there were 3.8 million cases filed in the trial courts that year alone and approximately two million litigants who proceeded in civil cases without representation of counsel. For many of those individuals - family, housing and debt matters - the outcome of the cases will be life-changing. ", transcript, p. 27.
   
   "Thus, our state court judges bear an enormous responsibility to manage and resolve not only the large complex cases, but in the face of significant obstacles the smaller cases, cases for unrepresented individuals that are no less critical to the well-being of our state. The quality of our judiciary and social and financial impact of the decisions they make every day depend on this", p. 27.
   
   Remember, this is the president of an organization that heavily lobbies to have attorney licensing remain the way it is (the NY City bar association did that before the recent Commission for Statewide Attorney discipline), and thus to prevent those millions of New Yorkers from getting affordable legal services, and this person who is part of the REASON why New Yorkers cannot have affordable legal representation, advocates to raise the pay of judges who help her maintain her lucrative status quo, BECAUSE judges "have" to deal with all those unrepresented litigants.
   
   If you think there can be a bottom of moral degradation of the legal profession, this is it - to advocate the hand that feeds you at the expense of your victims because that hand has to deal with those victims of your own behavior.

And, Debra Raskin states that her bar association supported the previous judicial pay raise, too:

1. "the City Bar actively supported increasing juddicial pay when the Commission first convened in 2011" - so that the judiciary would not forget the favor and give quid pro quo favor accordingly.
   

Here is the testimony on the same day of BARRY BOHRER, Chairman, Fund for Modern Courts, transcript, pp. 32-33:

1. "Given the continuing challenges of the economy, many more litigants in these difficult times are turning to the courts to resolve both family and financial problems. Most often, these litigants are unrepresented, requiring the judiciary to take an ever more active role in the resolution of those problems. Our recommendations take this into account."

Translation into the plain English.

• economy is getting worse;
• more people are getting poor as a result;
• consumer debt cases and bank foreclosures on people's homes rise;
• bad economy causes many families to split up;
• child support applications rise
• people affected by bad economy and poverty go to court to resolve their problems either voluntarily (child support petitioners) or involuntarily (child support respondents, consumer debt and residential foreclosure defendants);
• courts have to "deal" with these poor unrepresented people;
• for that hard work of dealing with the poor, despite the worsening economy, judges need to be paid extra

Again, this is the Chairman for the so-called "Fund for MODERN Courts".  Very modern courts, indeed.

What Barry Bohrer omitted to mention is also that he is a licensed attorney, and that for him the judiciary for whose pay raise he is advocating, is his licensing agency holding his own livelihood in their hands:

And, this "Fund for Modern Courts"'s officially announced programs is "Supporting Judges", made in affiliation with a now-convicted felon Sheldon Silver.   How appropriate.   

Judges could not have a better advocate for judicial pay raises.

This snapshot as taken of the Modern Courts website TODAY, several days after conviction of Sheldon Silver.

I guess, Sheldon Silver still has some clout that the "Modern Courts" Fund, an advocate for judicial pay raises, considers it appropriate to parade their affiliation with him.

The Modern Courts also supported Lippman's "Constitutional Amendment" to increase judge's mandatory retirement age from 70 (Lippman leaves at the end of this year, this is why the Commission's hearings are so rushed, to make the pay raise Lippman's legacy as a favor of the judiciary he leaves behind and before whom he will appear as a lawyer starting from January 1, 2016).

New York taxpayers rejected that amendment at a constitutional referendum of November 3, 2013, as they should reject the undeserved and unwarranted judicial pay raises now.

Remember Barry Bohrer - this is a licensed attorney from a powerful and rich law firm who:

1) depending financially through law licensing on the judiciary, and on favors from the judiciary in resolving his client's cases, and for that reason:

2) he cavorts with the top judge of the state through "civic" organizations like this "Fund for Modern Courts";

3) publicly supports judges through declarations on that organization's website;

4) supports increasing retirement age for judges which saddles New Yorkers with octogenarian judges and would have allowed Chief Judge Lippman 10 more years of more pay; and

4) who keeps the picture of a convicted felon, Judge Lippman's childhood buddy and bosom friend Sheldon Silver, convicted in federal court specifically for corruption in public office, on the webpage of his "civic organization" while indicating support for the state judiciary.

Judges of the State of New York should really be proud of such an advocate.  

Barry Bohrer can just as well put a slogan for the New York State judiciary on the website of his organization:

"Judges of the State of New York are not for sale.  We already bought them."

* * *

The next courtier with an even more disgusting testimony in support of judicial pay-raise at the hearing of November 30, 2015, was Adrienne Holder, "of Legal Aide Society", an Ivy League law school graduate, transcript starting at p. 49.

This is the officially declared champion for the poor, who is actually paid to represent the poor in various settings.

Let's see what that champion says on the issue of judicial pay raise.

This is what she says:

1. 
   
   

1. 
   
   Ok, we got it, she and her staff represent the poor across a large area of the State of New York.
   
   
   Holder says that she is in a unique position to address the issue of judicial pay raises from her organization's prospective and experience.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Remember that Holder is a licensed attorney whose livelihood is in the hands of the judiciary through licensing.
   
   
   And, her career growth is in the hands of the same judiciary, because if she gets sanctioned by a judge for whatever reason, her license can get pulled, and she will lose her job.
   
   
   So.
   
   
   This is Holder's "unique prospective":
   
   
   "we strongly endorse substantial pay increases for the judiciary".
   
   
   And she goes on, and on, and on, about "judicial independence", necessity to attract "judicial talent" (that somehow cannot be attracted with a salary of $174,000 per year, with benefits, perks and support personnel), yada, yada, yada.
   
   
   Here it is.
   
   
   The advocate of the poor.
   
   
   Stating that the poor could just as well become a little poorer, so that the judges in front of whom she appears representing those poor people are paid a lot extra.
   
   
   And here is a chime-in from a judge in front of whom the poor usually appear - a City Court judge, in eviction, traffic ticket, crimes up to a misdemeanor level, felony arraignments, arraignments on family court warrants.
   
   
   Here is who the speaker is:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   He says that his court deals with a lot of unrepresented (poor, poorly educated) parties:
   
   
   
   
   
   He says that the job of a judge is worth doing no matter what:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    And yet, he complains about THIS level of judicial salaries - while working with the poor:
   
   
   
   
   
   Moreover, he complains that he gets less than 1/2 of the "middle level" salary of a full time judge of $145,000 per year.
   
   
   In other words, private attorney and part time judge Matthew Turner, of Troy, NY,  complains that, in addition to his private practice, he is paid as a 1/2 time judge less than $72,500 a year, with benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

You know...

Don't people have SOME shame?  At least not to complain about their "meager bucks" while working with the poor, and asking to increase their pay in order to be able to work with the poor better while this private attorney and half-judge's pay is $20,000 per year more for 1/2 judicial position than what an average New York taxpayer who is going to foot the bill of Turner's pay increase is getting.

I wrote on this blog about another such complainer - Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dowd who complained about his "meager bucks" of $174,000 per year right into the face of an indigent pro se litigant", I have a transcript on file, and NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct did not consider that statement an act of misconduct for Judge Dowd.

We read about the nobility in the olden times in the olden countries who would hold a scented handkerchief while dealing with the poor.  

This is what our new nobility, the judiciary, and their courtiers the attorneys, seem to be doing.

They are advocating that they need to be paid more because they HAVE TO - DEAL - with THOSE people - the unrepresented parties - THE POOR.  The horror!

Yet, economists say that increased judicial pay may attract not legal talent, but status seekers and "leisure seekers", those people for whom "that vacation in Paris will seem more affordable".

 

While working with the poor.

In return for their hard work - with the poor.

So, we the taxpayers must now pay extra for HAVING to work with us.

We are that plebs that judges have to be paid extra "to deal with" if we appear before those judges on our own, without an expensive agent thrust upon as as compulsory and expensive "help" from the government in order to represent us.

And we, as that plebs, who is coincidentally the employer of the State judges, should say "no" to the bigger pearls and scented hankies for the judiciary that they need to work with the poor and with all of unrepresented parties, the ordinary people who foot their bills.

They need to earn their pay - and they don't do it even now.

No pay raises for New York judges!

The irresponsible experiment with court access - secret policies of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against civil rights plaintiffs

On October 20, 2014 the Chief Judge of the Northern District of New York commenced an anti-filing proceeding against my husband based on his constitutional civil rights lawsuits, to block him from access to court to complain about any future constitutional violations by the government.

In the Order to Show Cause of October 20, 2014 there were no grounds shown: not statutory, not through case law, not through anything, for imposition of an anti filing injunction Chief Judge sought to impose.

Mr. Neroni opposed the Order to Show Cause and made a motion to recuse based on the court's incestous relationship with certain attorneys that the court granted boons in the cases that the court used as grounds for anti-filing injunction, such as attorneys from Hiscock & Barclay, see also here, (now Hiscock & Barclay merged with another firm and is called Barclay Damon) and Hinman, Howard and Kattel, advisor of the court and at the same time employer of a defendant, Ellen Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma.

I will upload Mr. Neroni's opposition a little later, it is large, has a lot of exhibits and requires a lot of time to upload.

In November of 2014, NDNY already imposed the anti-filing injunction, without an evidentiary hearing, based on 5 civil rights cases - at the very same time as the U.S. Congress discussed amendment of Rule 11 (sanctions rule), with a vigorous debate that sanctions will be abused by federal courts and disproportionately imposed upon civil rights plaintiffs (like Mr. Neroni) in order to chill civil rights litigation (which is what the anti-filing proceedings were doing).

Two of the five cases that the Order to Show cause for the anti-filing injunction against Mr. Neroni is based upon were still pending at the time the Show Cause Order was issued.

I was Mr. Neroni's counsel in those two cases (Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127) and Neroni v Grannis (3:11-cv-1485), and a co-Plaintiff in one of them, but the parallel proceedings were commenced ex parte, without notifying me as counsel or co-Plaintiff, while NDNY called the entire proceedings "frivolous" (which affected my personal rights, too, requiring notice to me of the commencement of those parallel proceedings, moreover the court was constrained by court rules and ethical rules not to communicate with Mr. Neroni, a counseled party, directly and not through his counsel).

But, back to the basics.

October 20, 2014 - Order to Show Cause was issued by the NDNY court, not showing any legal basis for imposition of the anti-filing injunction (see that order included into the Appellee's brief interlinked below).

November, 2014 - the Anti-filing injunction, here, now showing (with notice given backwards, after the fact - which is unconstitutional per se) that the basis of the Order to Show Cause WAS actually the so-called "All Writs Act", not that Mr. Neroni was aware of this since the Order to Show Cause never gave him that notice;

Mr. Neroni appealed the anti-filing injunction in 2014.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit required Mr. Neroni to comply with the filing rules on an extremely tight schedule, and Mr. Neroni, a pro se party, did comply with those rules and filed his Appellate Brief and appendix timely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit then slept at the wheel and did not issue a scheduling order in the case until October, 2015.

The 2nd Circuit appointed the U.S. Attorney General's office for the Northern District of New York to represent the now new Chief Judge of NDNY Glenn Suddaby as the Appellee (opponent) in Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal.

On December 2, 2015, three privileged governmental lawyers, only one of whom was admitted to the 2nd Circuit, filed a brief on behalf of Judge Suddaby, it is available here.

In that brief, for the first time since the Order to Show Cause was issued on October 20, 2014, NDNY revealed that it was acting on policies (and Article III of the U.S. Constitution giving limited powers to federal courts do not allow federal courts to engage in policy-making, especially on issues of access to court, a constitutional issue, that is the exclusive prerogative of the U.S. Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution).

Here is the policy NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby provided.

Civil rights litigants and attorneys practicing in NDNY might find it useful to familiarize with this policy that was not made part of the "Local Rules" of that court, but is claimed to exist since 2007.

By the way, it is also claimed to have been significantly amended, with new procedures, after I filed my lawsuit against Judge Becker in December of 2011.   An interesting response, isn't it?

The policy:

So, there exist Congress-enacted statutes.

There exist Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

There exist publicly posted court rules.

There exist publicly posted local rules of court that public has a notice of an opportunity to comment on before they are introduced.

And - there exists a secret policy that overruns all of the above and that is pulled out of the court's hat long after the court was supposed to give a litigant notice that the court is actually acting on this policy and on nothing else.

The brief also mentioned close to 20 cases from the 2nd Circuit spelling out more policies on imposition of anti-filing injunctions and so-called "tests" that Mr. Neroni allegedly did not comply with in opposing the Order to Show Cause in 2014 and allegedly did not spell out in his appeal in 2015.

Once again, the notice of the "tests" he was supposed to comply with in October of 2014 was given to him, after the fact, more than a year later, in an opposition to his appeal, in another court.

And, a privileged young woman, a Yale Law School-educated U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jaynnie Lilley argued (in a footnote only) that Mr. Neroni's constitutional arguments "are meritless and are not worthy of response".

The only place this young attorney sworn as an officer of the court to protect the U.S. Constitution, found it necessary to address egregious violations of Mr. Neroni's constitutional rights which were absolved through application of various types of immunities without the court even looking at the merits of the cases, was in a footnote at the end of her brief - like this:

"(violations to rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments)" that are "meritless and not worthy of response".

By the way, this disdainful statements was made by Mrs. Lilley in the same breath as Mrs. Lilley spelled out the "test" by which the 2nd Circuit declared that "issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived". 

When an appellee claims that certain issues are "not worthy of response", that means the appellee is choosing not to respond to those issues - at the peril of that same test being applied to him and all of his defenses to those arguments being "considered waived".

What do they teach them in Yale Law School?

Well, the worthiness of that Ivy League "legal education" was recently shown when two months ago, in October of 2015, a team of prisoners without any legal education defeated a team of law students from Harvard Law School.

And, law students interviewed after the defeat clearly stated the reasons for the defeat - the law students did not consider uneducated prisoners as worthy opponents and did not prepare ("they caught us off guard").  And that is, when the conditions for preparation for the debate were slanted against the prisoners and in favor of the privileged and highly educated Ivy League law students, "the best of the best" - because prisoners were not allowed to do research online, and there was no such restriction upon law students.  

That's what happened here, too.  A disbarred attorney and a civil rights litigant is not considered a worthy opponent, and a young and privileged Ivy League law school graduate looks at him down her privileged dainty nose in the hope that ANYTHING that the government says will be swallowed by the court and treated favorably.

We'll see whether the 2nd Circuit's fairness and impartiality will be on par with those who ruled the competition between the Harvard Law School students and prisoners.

But, that footnote above is the essence of what the government is doing with civil rights litigation - it is quashing it, with an implication or open declaration that it is not worth a response, and is punishing victims of constitutional violations with blocking all opportunities for them to complain against ANY FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT against them.

That is the same as putting a bull's eye on the person and tell the government - do ANYTHING YOU WANT to him, he has no right or remedy to protect himself.

Does it look like a constitutional democracy to you?

In his testimony before the U.S. Congress Judiciary Committee in opposition to the new version of the federal court sanctions rule, the President for the advocacy group, Center for Constitutional Litigation, called such an amendment to sanctions, same as the previously existing version of that same rules abolished in 1993 because of its targeting of civil rights plaintiffs and chilling civil rights litigation, "an irresponsible experiment with court access".

Any sanctions imposed upon people for raising constitutional arguments and trying to obtain a legal remedy, like Mr. Neroni was trying, against powerful government officials for violating of his constitutional rights, is, similarly, an irresponsible experiment with court access that should not be happening in a democratic society.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allows politically connected attorneys from the U.S. Attorneys' office to practice without admission or renewal

My husband was served with a Response brief in the case where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York was declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit a party Appellee as of November 12, 2015.

Of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals assigned the U.S. Attorney General's office for the Northern District of New York to handle the case, and attorneys who appeared in the case are not from that office, making their appearance of questionable validity.

The names of attorneys whose name (not signature) appeared on the Appellee Chief Judge Glenn Suddaby's brief, are:

1) Benjamin C. Mizer;
2) Matthew Collette;
3) Jaynie Lillie

Of course, it is questionable that the U.S. Attorney General's office has a right to appear in opposition to my husband's appeal of anti-filing injunction where part of the basis of that anti-filing injunction is the case Neroni v Grannis (a still ongoing case) pertaining to which Mr. Neroni has filed a criminal complaint WITH the U.S. Attorney General's Office (Preet Bharara) back in 2014, you can see that complaint interlinked in this blog here.

The criminal complaint deals with the apparent bribery by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo of the then-Appellate Division 3rd Department judge Leslie Stein by promoting her (with a large power, prestige and salary/benefits increase to the New York State Court of Appeals) WHILE she was deciding the case against Mr. Neroni by the DEC - and, of course, it took her just 6 days after the  nomination to decide in favor of DEC (subordinate of Governor Cuomo) and against Mr. Neroni, a clear quid-pro-quo.  

Mr. Bharara recently pursued "quids pro quo" against two out of three "men in a room" in New York (New York Assembly Speaker, now former, Sheldon Silver, and New York Senate Majority Leader, now former, Dean Skelos).

There is no reason to believe that Mr. Bharara will not pursue Mr. Neroni's complaint, so the anti-filing injunction, and opposition by the U.S. Attorney General's office to Mr. Neroni's appeal to that injunction, interferes with the U.S. Attorney General's own criminal investigation into corruption in New York by opposing, punishing and intimidating their own witness.

But, back to our trio of attorneys from the U.S. Attorney General opposing Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal.

As I stated above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to represent Judge Suddaby as the Appellee on that appeal.

That means that the trio of attorneys who appeared on Appellee's behalf must be (1) licensed to practice in New York state, and (2) admitted to practice in the 2nd Circuit.

Here are results of my research as to all three on the websites of New York State and 2nd Circuit court systems.

1)  Benjamin C. Mizer - admitted in New York, but not admitted in the 2nd Circuit.  

Thus, according to the rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Mr. Mizer had no right to put his signature on briefs, especially as a principal attorney in an appeal, and to file any documents electronically with the 2nd Circuit court.

Yet, Mr. Mizer is part of the office that represents both the NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby, and the 2nd Circuit Court itself, so, I guess, one does not piss of one's own attorney by application of one's pesky rules of admission to one's own counsel.

That is exactly why the New York State Attorney General and his over 600 Assistant Attorneys General escape attorney discipline - because that office represents attorney disciplinary committees in New York in federal actions, defending them against civil rights actions for constitutional violations.

Once again, one does not piss of one's own attorney with the application with that pesky rule of law against him.

So much for the declared purpose of attorney discipline of "protection of consumers".  Right.  

So, why Mr. Mizer was even thrown into this litigation if he is not admitted in the 2nd Circuit?  The answer is very simple.

Mr. Mizer, according to his official biography posted on the website of the U.S. Attorney General's office, is a former law clerk of the now-sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens.

Nothing like having a familiar name for a U.S. Supreme Justice in the pleadings in the court below for the case that has a potential to go to the U.S. Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds.   The name can signal to the justice - "here I am, rule my way", right?

2) The second attorney who signed the Appellee's brief on behalf of Judge Suddaby is Matthew Collette, who is not admitted in New York and who should be on inactive status due to violation of the 2nd Circuit's rule of renewal. 

The rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, snapshot below, provides that an attorney must renew his admission status every 5 years, and an attorney who failed to renew admission one month after the expiration of the 5-year period (that was September 11, 2015 for Mr. Collette, nearly 3 months ago), is placed in "inactive status" and must complete the renewal process to practice before the court.

Yet, apparently violating that rule, Mr. Collette was not put on "inactive" status and was allowed to make electronic filing as an attorney for the Appellee, and I wonder why the 2nd Circuit violates its own rules in order to allow to practice an attorney from the office that is the official legal advisor BOTH of Judge Suddaby AND of the 2nd Circuit.

As I said above, you do not piss off your own attorney by applying to him your own pesky rules of admission. The rules of law are only for the outsiders, the mere mortals, not for government officials.


Here is information from Matthew Collette's LinkedIn profile:

Now I get it.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

Nobody applies rules made for mere mortals to the current Deputy Director of the U.S. Department of Justice who is making a lightning-fast career to up on top.  Who knows where Mr. Collette will end up next, one does not want to step on his toes now by applying those pesky rules of admission of the 2nd Circuit to him.

3) Jainie Lilley - admitted in the 2nd Circuit (and appears on the bottom of the list of three attorneys, the previous two either not admitted, or should be on an "inactive" status based on the court's rules), but not admitted in the State of New York, so Janie Lilley is not from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to which office the case was assigned by the court.

So.

For some inexplicable reason, the U.S. Attorney General's Office had the need to have three names of attorneys put on Judge Suddaby's Appellee's brief in an anti-injunction case on the issue of restriction on future political speech (a presumptively unconstitutional act under existing constitutional law), the first of them being two political heavy-weights (not admitted to that court) and the last is a privileged girl from a rich and powerful family.

Everything about that "trio" is about what today's America is all about - status, connections and money.

The rule of law?  You are kidding me, right?

The mask of hypocrisy as to the purpose of attorney regulation in New York is off as of November 2015

On November 13, 2015, a law license of an attorney (mine) was pulled for "frivolous" criticism of a judge (and a prosecutor, and the Vice-Chair of the New York Commission of Judicial Conduct drumming favors from a judge dependent on his favors) in several motions to recuse (motions made in order to ensure my client's constitutional right to an impartial judicial review).

On November 30, 2015, a judge of an attorney-licensing court, Judge Sheri Roman of the Appellate Division 2nd Department, testified in front of the NYS Judicial Compensation Commission, and in her testimony, extended, on behalf of the state judiciary, a "resounding thank you" to a law firm and several named attorneys of that law firm for advocating in favor of judicial pay raises, pay raises for those people who hold in their hands licenses and livelihoods of those same attorneys (see interlinked transcript of Judge Roman's testimony, pages 40-41, see also full analysis of her testimony here).

So, in the month of November, year of 2015, the New York judiciary finally threw to the winds its mask of hypocrisy and openly stated to the people what exactly attorney licensing in this state is for:  

1) to fight the whistleblowers of judicial corruption and make sure that they cannot earn a living in their own state, or anywhere else they choose to go from the glorious State of New York; and

2) to encourage corruption of the government by the legal elite, as a quid pro quo for keeping their licenses intact, keeping them in business and, no doubt, ruling in their favor.

I wonder if law schools will assign Judge Roman's testimony to law school students as a required reading in their Ethics class - because, as I said before on this blog, brown-nosing the judiciary is THE ONLY rule of "ethics" New York State attorneys need to survive in their "noble profession".