The new rule of attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York

Attorneys in New York!

DO NOT SPEAK about YOUR OWN disciplinary proceedings!

Or else you will be charged with a criminal contempt of court by your disciplinary prosecutors, in your civil case!

And especially if such disciplinary proceedings involved judicial misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct.

And especially if you know that court transcripts are being COOKED and you have documentary proof of it.

The U.S. Constitution be damned.

Public interest be damned.

Due process be damned.

The rule of law be damned.

What can I say...

My book about attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York just gets richer and richer with materials, case studies, exhibits and characters.

Criminal contempt was brought because the government was caught?

Part of "criminal" charges brought by Mary Gasparini against me within a civil proceeding, which, I believe, are now a public record as a matter of law since those are criminal charges and there are no secret criminal proceedings in New York, is an exhibit that Mary Gasparini claimed is the transcript of the appearance in my attorney disciplinary proceedings on January 12, 2015.

I was notified by the court that the appearance on January 12, 2015 was to be a scheduling conference.

I received no notice that the conference of January 12, 2015 was at the same time planned to be a hearing.  

In the transcript provided by Mary Gasparini to the court in support of her "criminal" charges, the very first page, the appearances page, says nothing that the "proceeding" in question is actually a pre-trial conference:

 Somewhere in the depths of her Affirmation in support of her Notice of Motion for criminal contempt against me within a civil proceeding, Mary Gasparini utters the word "pre-trial", but cannot bring herself to say the word "conference". 

 On the same page, Mary Gasparini calls what was going on in front of Referee Sirkin (while noticed to me as a pre-trial scheduling conference) as a "hearing":

A pre-trial hearing, Ms. Gasparini?  Really?  From you, the CLE lecturer on attorney disciplinary rules and proceedings?  From you, a disciplinary prosecutor paid by the People of the State of New York - guess for what - to protect them from attorneys committing misconduct, not to save your own ass when you are caught in misconduct.

Don't you know, Ms. Gasparini that there is no such thing as pre-trial hearings in attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York? 

Don't you know that, according to court rules, the referee only has a right to "hear and report", not for any "pre-trial hearings"? 

I would have liked to have one, but none are allowed by the rules...

Moreover, Mary Gasparini provided to the court in support of criminal charges against me with the transcript of proceedings with the following cooked certification by Court reporter Debra Garrison:

Apparently, I was sworn by Debra Garrison, a female, without even my knowing it, and while later on in the proceeding I argued to the court that the stenographer that is taking the record is a male, I assumed it was the same male stenographer as was taking the record of the previous pre-trial conference, and I clearly stated that the previous male stenographer (who I assumed was taking the record of the conference on January 12, 2015) incorrectly put in that it was a hearing and that I made stipulations, which was not true, and that I am NOT making any stipulations or waivers. 

If Debra Garrison swore me in, I at least had to hear her voice, but Debra Garrison could not see my ID, so she could not swear me in.

I would love to call Debra Garrison to testify in my criminal proceedings, to see whether Debra Garrison's voice can be perceived by anyone as a man's voice.

Moreover, Mary Gasparini provided an audio recording of the same January 12, 2015 "proceeding" to the court at the same time and claimed it was a "correct copy" of the proceedings, as reflected by the transcript.

Why then there is no voice of Debra Garrison swearing me in heard on the recording?

Why then there is no stipulations heard on the recording?

Why then there is no indication on the recording that I was "called as a witness", was "sworn in" and "testified"?

As to Debra Garrison, what can you say about the certified court reporter who hears the following:

 and still files a transcript with the following:

Is Debra Garrison tough on hearing?  Then she should not be a court reporter.

Because what Debra Garrison did as shown below is false transcript and false certification for which I will seek to have Debra Garrison's credentials as court reporter revoked and to have Debra Garrison herself criminally charged for fraud.

But, returning to Mary Gasparini, this disciplinary prosecutor claimed to the court, through knowing submission AS TRUE of the COOKED transcript of Debra Garrison with COOKED certification, after Mary Gasparini engaged in an ex parte communication with Referee Sirkin which was captured by the recording that Mary Gasparini actually stipulated with me (that I allegedly agreed and Mary Gasparini allegedly agreed) that:

(1)  what I attended on January 12, 2015 was an Examination before trial;
(2) Civil Practice Law and Rules apply;
(3) Signing and filing of the transcript is waived;
(4) the witness (I did not know I was a witness or that I was called by anybody) is allowed to be sworn by Debra Garrison, Court Reporter and Notary Public.

On top of all of the above being not true, as is reflected in the recording, there are also the following "little discrepancies":

• EBTs are not allowed in attorney disciplinary proceedings;
• Mary Gasparini and her predescessors claimed that CPLR do not apply in attorney disciplinary proceedings; 
• EBTs are not held in front of a judge or a referee in New York.
•  an appearance cannot be at the same time an EBT and a hearing before a referee or judge -

but who really cares when the ultimate goal is to "get" the outspoken attorney who consistently breaks the taboo of criticizing judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, incompetency and, at times, sheer stupidity?

Mary Gasparini also attached to her motion for criminal contempt an alleged audio recording of the same pre-trial conference of January 12, 2015, and claimed that the audio recording was a "correct copy" of the transcript and, yet, the audio recording has NOTHING whatsoever about:

(1) Debra Garrison;
(2) calling me as a witness;
(3) swearing me as a witness;
(4) any discussion that what occurred on January 12, 2015 in front of Referee Sirkin was a "hearing";
(5) any discussion of any stipulations or waivers on my behalf for the purposes of that "hearing".

Mary Gasparini already filed the above fraudulent submissions with the court and already served it on me by means of interstate commerce, U.S. Mail.

What Mary Gasparini did is, in my legal opinion

• fraud,
• conspiracy to commit fraud,
• mail fraud, 
• conspiracy to deprive me of honest services of a prosecutor, a referee and the court;

 not to mention that it is also fraud upon the court, a misdemeanor in the state of New York punishable not only by a fine and 1 year imprisonment, but also with disbarment without a hearing.  As a legal expert, I have a right to express this legal opinion.
Mary Gasparini committed this fraud not to protect the public from me - because there is nothing to protect the public from.  What Mary Gasparini is trying to do through her desperate attempt to punish me criminally is

• to protect herself, 
• to protect Referee Sirkin, 
• to protect the Appellate Division 4th Department from discipline for violating every constitutional protection I was supposed to have in attorney disciplinary proceeding.

Of course, to avoid the obvious problem that a hearing was not given to me despite court order, the ultimate way of "dealing" with the problem for the Gasparini-Sirkin-Garrison team, was to falsify the transcript and to present it as if

(1) it was a hearing, not a scheduling conference;
(2) I was sworn and testified at that hearing;
(3) I made waivers and stipulations in that hearing.

Actually, the recording Ms. Gasparini supplied to the court shows that Sirkin, Gasparini and other people present in Gasparini's office on January 12, 2015 continued to discuss me ex parte after Sirkin stated that the conference is over, but forgot to disconnect the phone call.  Their discussion somehow did not make it into the transcript though.

The only thing that prevented the transcript from being cooked to the point that I actually substantively testified in a fact-finding hearing that never happened,  was the audio recording made of that pre-scheduling conference and promptly published on the Internet.

Otherwise I could easily see in the transcript 150 pages of my testimony admitting to every accusation cast at me by Mary Gasparini.

But, the recording obviously prevented the crew from cooking the books in a way that would allow them to escape.

Not being able to cook the books any further, Gasparini simply charged me with contempt of court - instead of filing a complaint charging the Referee for disobeying the order of the court to hold a fact-finding hearing for me on or before February 6, 2015 and his unlawful refusal to hold the same.

God only knows what ELSE Gasparini, Sirkin and Garrison would have put into that certification and that transcript, what else I allegedly would have "testified" to,  had the proceedings not been audio-recorded.

That is why I am charged with criminal contempt of court?

Because the government cannot deny now that it is cooking court transcripts and because I have proof now for the New York State Legislature clearly showing that creating an audio or even better - video recording - of court proceedings is actually a must, a requirement of due process of law because otherwise the courts will COOK THE TRANSCRIPTS.

There were, by the way, no rules for subpoening witnesses in attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York on January 12, 2015, and I was not notified by the court of any changes in those rules before January 12, 2015. 

Lack of rules for subpoenas exists, as I understand, to short-change attorneys and deprive them of their right to defend themselves in such proceedings.

Yet, the lack of such rule backfired in my case against the prosecutor and the referee themselves.

And by the way, the court order that is now public because it is the basis of criminal charges against me, prohibited me to VIDEO tape, not AUDIO tape the proceedings.  I did not videotape the conference of January 12, 2015.  I was not there and I did not appear through Skype to make it even possible for me to do that.  I appeared by phone from Delhi, NY, and Mary Gasparini acknoweldged that under oath in her charges.

 People of the State of New York!  What are the conclusions, beyond my own case, that must be drawn from all of this mess?

Only prompt publishing on the Internet of the shenanigans of the "honorable" judges and prosecutors can save people's constitutional rights in court proceedings, can save your

• liberty
• property
• custody of children
• reputation
• livelihood

Otherwise they will simply COOK THE TRANSCRIPTS as they attempted to do in my case and your rights will be lost.

SO - push your legislators to repeal New York Civil Rights Law 52 that currently prohibits "televising, broadcasting or taking motion pictures of certain proceedings".  That law is standing in the way of your access to true justice.

Criminal proceedings in New York are open to the public. Or are they in the 4th Department when such proceedings will necessarily involve exposure of its own misconduct that the court wants to hide?

This is what I received from my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini today - she commenced a criminal proceeding against me within the civil disciplinary proceeding for allegedly violating a court order that I am not even allowed to reveal (or am I - since proceedings are now criminal and thus open to the public?).  1st year law students and other readers, please note that the caption does not say "People of the State of New York v. Tatiana Neroni, Defendant", as it must say in criminal proceedings in the State of New York.

Criminal proceedings in New York, once again, are open to the public.  Therefore, I am publishing here Mary Gasparini's Notice of Motion and Affirmation as evidence of her misconduct, abuse of power and retaliation against me after I filed a lawsuit against her for fraud upon the court on December 10, 2014 and published the Summons with Notice on this blog, and I am doing it again now.

I will not, as yet, publish the "secret" order of December 17, 2014 that Mary Gasparini claims I violated, even though my legal opinion is that, by pressing criminal charges against me based on alleged violation of that order to which I will and do plead "not guilty", Mary Gasparini shot herself in the foot and made that same order and all other exhibits underlying the charges public, as well as all "contempt proceedings", and that is as a matter of New York State and federal constitutional law.

Apparently, Mary Gasparini seeks to have a summary criminal proceeding against me, and to resolve it in one day, having me locked up for a year.

Yet, there is no such thing as summary criminal proceedings in New York, under the State or U.S. Constitution.

If the State and U.S. Constitution are to be followed, I will have to be charged:

(1) in the jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly committed, and the blog was and is hosted in the State of California;
(2) by the elected criminal prosecutor of the jurisdiction where the alleged crime was allegedly committed, and Mary Gasparini is definitely not that person, I doubt that Mary Gasparini is even admitted to the bar of the State of California;
(3) with all procedural protections provided for criminal defendants under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the state where the alleged crime is being prosecuted, such as:

•    the right to remain silent throughout the criminal proceedings, which is what I am invoking now as to all elements and circumstances of the charged crimes;
• the right to a jury trial, pre-trial discovery, bill of particulars, motions and pre-trial hearings.

 That is, among other things.

It is apparent that what Mary Gasparini seeks is:

• a secret criminal proceeding (no public access or even knowledge to the public);
•  a criminal proceeding where I have no right to remain silent - since the "proceeding" was brought on a "motion" requiring apparently my answer to that motion, while no answer other than plea "guilty" or "not guilty" ("not guilty" for me) is required in a criminal proceeding.
• a summary proceeding (no jury trial, no pre-trial discovery)

I do not know what Mary Gasparini knows about criminal law, but here she stepped actually into my realm, since I am a criminal defense attorney with years of trial experience and Mary Gasparini is clearly out of her element judging by the alleged "charges" and the way they were brought.

Judiciary Law 750(a)(3) used by Mary Gasparini is an equivalent of a 2nd degree contempt of court, a Class A misdemeanor under Penal Law 215.50(3), punishable by up to a year in the county jail.

For such crimes, jury trials are required by the New York State Constitution unless the defendant waives that right in writing.

There is no way I will waive my right to a jury trial in a criminal proceedings against me, orally or in writing.

Sometimes a public official needs to just know where to stop, correct her errors and apologize to the victim of her misconduct.  

Mary Gasparini instead, continues to retaliates against the victim and only aggravates her behavior.

A public official does not have authority, as part of her public duties, and at public expense, and in secret from the public, to defend her own stupidity, fraud and incompetence and to retaliate against victims of her own stupidity, fraud and incompetence by bringing illegal criminal proceedings in a civil action.

Time will show who will win.

Stay tuned as to how this mess progresses.

Time to get your heads out of the ... maybe, sand, colleagues?

More and more people get referred to me by attorneys who don't want to "be blackballed" by the judiciary, and for that reason do not want to provide to their clients services that their clients need, like making a motion to recuse against a judge who the referring attorneys know is biased and needs to be disqualified.

When referring such clients you, dear colleagues, know that I was already sanctioned for making motions to recuse, and that an attorney can be severely sanctioned for stepping into a case only to recuse a judge.  But you don't care about me, do you?

When referring such clients, you tell them that you don't want to be blackballed by even making a motion to recuse (a completely legal thing to do, isn't it), but that I have nothing to lose in risking yet another sanction on behalf of your clients that you do not to serve properly.

You took an oath of office, same as I did.

You pledged to zealously protect interests of your clients and to uphold the laws and the Constitutions of the State of New York and of the United States of America, same as I did.

Yet, when it comes to actually practice what you preached when taking that oath of office, you refuse to do that because the supposedly honorable judges will retaliate against you for doing your job?

And rules of attorney discipline require you to report that judicial misconduct, but you never do, again because you are afraid?

And you call yourself members of an honorable profession?

And you know that the judge is retaliating against me for doing my job on behalf of my clients, including indigent and pro bono clients, and do nothing to step in because the bell is now tolling not for you?

You know, don't you, that such behavior is not exactly honorable?

Don't you think there may come a time for every attorney when he or she will have to do that moral choice and make that motion to recuse, maybe on your own behalf - and you will be in my position then?

Who will help you then?

You know, don't you, that everybody will be then sitting in the bushes afraid to speak in your defense, same as you are doing now with me?

Don't you think there would have to come a time to demand that the "rules of the game" be changed so that your oath can mean something real?

Don't you think there would have to come a time when people will start asking questions why this "honorable" legal profession is in fact so cowardly in failing to protect the public from judicial misconduct?

Don't you feel ashamed when you refer your clients, including paying clients, to me simply because you are cowards and do not have the guts to do your own job properly?

You should be.

But - of course, I cannot tell you how to live your lives.  If you want to live with your heads deeply in ... let's say, the sand ... it is your choice.  And a matter of your conscience.

But - don't you think it would be actually more prudent, in the long run, to get together, make and implement and plan to clean up the corrupt and dirty stables of our state and federal judiciaries instead of pretending you are part of the honorable profession while you are brown-nosing judges you know to be incompetent, biased and sometimes openly corrupt?

It is better to clean up a festering wound when you see it than to allow it to turn into a gangrene that will make the system beyond redemption.

Remember my words when this filth - who knows - starts affecting your own life, not just the lives of your clients who you refuse to protect despite your duty to do so.

Your conscience, your life, your oath of office, your choice.

Trends, trends, trends

I am continuing to do research on the so-called "business models" across large law firms in the country.

I already posted multiple stories on this blog evidencing the most prominent "business model" that I see as an attorney and a researcher, the "mesh-advice-carrot-and-stick" business model.  You can word-search on this blog "American Inns of Court",  "Judges indebted to others", "state-federal judicial council" for examples of how large law firms hire relatives, friends and/or former employees of judges, "serve" upon public or quasi-public bodies that provide either education, entertainment, catering, rule-making or discipline for the judiciary.

More and more I come to a conclusion that a large factor in hiring practices of large law firms is the candidate's connections with all branches of the government and especially the judiciary.  That is convenient both from the point of view of influence upon courts - favorable decisions - and money and growing popularity with clients and more money which comes with it, and it is convenient from the point of view of being free from any reach of sanctions from the judiciary, no matter what the firm or attorney from the firm may be doing.  

The approach proves to be invincible, since only solo attorneys appear to ever be reached by discipline.

It appears important for large law firms to have their attorneys "serve" in a variety of capacities on committees that 

(1) create court rules;  
(2) create the law, including the laws favoring the law business itself;  
(3) advise the judiciary;  
(4) provide small and large benefits and favors for the judiciary, openly and behind closed doors through various "social networking" situations and settings; 
(5) be part of selection of judges;  
(6) be part of judicial discipline; 
(7) be part of attorney discipline

Participation in all of those activities is possible only when the law firm is large enough to afford to do business and have their various members "serve" in those various capacities. 

This "business model" provides allows large law firms to:

(1) provide enough favors for the judiciary so that it is "not proper" for the court not to give them something in return;
(2) have an intimidating effect upon judges where law firms whose members can discipline judges appear in front of those judges;
(3) create rules and laws favorable for the law firms and their clients;
(4) know the "insider rules" and "the ears" of particular judges by hiring his or her law clerks and other court personnel;
(5) be in a position of an "advisor" to the judiciary and thus be deemed a better advocate than solo independent attorneys;

I wonder why attorneys and judges still bother with oaths of office when the way decisions are so clearly tainted by the "business model" and, even with scant hard evidence of briberies of the judiciary by large law firms (because potential prosecutors are also lawyers craving, in the event they are not re-elected for the next term, to go work for those large firms and use their connections for personal gain), there is enough appearances of impropriety and likelihood of influence upon the judiciary by large law firms in the make-up of law firms, their hiring practices - and then blatant advertising of attorneys' prior employment with the judiciary or other branches of the government to attract more clients and raise prestige of their firm. 

Stay tuned for the ratings that will start coming next week.

Stay tuned for ratings of law firms on diversity and connections to the government

I decided to start my own rating of large law firms.

I will rate law firms on the following:

(1) overall racial and ethnic diversity among attorneys (OR)
(2) racial and ethnic diversity among partners/members; (PR)
(3) overall gender diversity among attorneys; (OG)
(4) gender diversity among partners/members (GP)
(5) combined gender/ethnic diversity in partnership (CGRP)
(6) % of attorneys in the firm (whether associates, partners, members, of counsel or counsel) who are  former or present public employees or officials (GCI - government connections index)

I will start publishing actual ratings, probably at a rate of weekly or biweekly.

Stay tuned.

When former or current public officials are hired by law firms "to increase the firm's prestige and perceived power", hide from disgrace or - possibly - run from a political fallout...

New York Post, in its yesterday's article about Sheldon Silver's law firm Weitz & Luxenberg writes about the separate calendars in court marked "Weitz" and "Non-Weitz", the "Weitz" calendars moving faster than the "Non-Weitz" calendars, according to long-complaining lawyers.

The article also writes about a separate section of the courthouse dedicated for servicing the "Weitz" business.

Most notoriously, the article quotes statements by "Weitz & Luxenberg" to Silver's investigators, that they hired Silver - who knows nothing about asbestors investigation which is the law firm's specialty because they "hoped 'to increase the firm's prestige and perceived power'".

Unfortunately, Weitz & Luxenberg is not the only law firm who does this "celebrity-for-hire" trick, hiring or joining as partners or as "of counsel" public officials who are licensed attorneys, not so much for actual work, but "to increase the firm's prestige and perceived power".

I recently analyzed on this blog such firms as 

• Hiscock & Barclays of Albany, New York;
• Hinman, Howard and Kattel of Binghamton, New York;
• Harris Beach PLLC

They all appear to have an inordinate number of former court personnel, former judges, former prosecutors, present Senators, and present and former other public officials, including present hearing officers in the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission.  

To me as a citizen, taxpayer, attorney and litigant, this "symbiosis" raises all kinds of red flags as to appearances of impropriety and potential to influence courts and steal honest services of judges.

I started following one more law firm which I got interested in because it allegedly employed Steven D. Zayas, former disciplinary prosecutor whom I am suing for fraud and fraud upon the court and who left the Appellate Division 3rd Department in 2013 "amid investigation into filing false time sheets".

Steven D. Zayas's official attorney registration indicates, as of today, that he is employed by the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP. 

The website of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, however, does not show as of today an attorney Steven D. Zayas in its "Z" section of attorney listing:

At this time, I do not know what is the reason for such a discrepancy.

Yet, what is exceedingly peculiar is that the same law firm that gave shelter to the disgraced former prosecutor Steven D. Zayas, also embraced, as of last week, January 12, 2015,  3 prosecutors right out of Preet Bharara's office (U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York), the office currently prosecuting Sheldon Silver for corruption.

The names of these former prosecutors are:

1. Matthew L. Schwartz;
2. Peter M. Skinner;
3. John T. Zach

Does it mean that prosecutors out of U.S. Attorney's office in SDNY were afraid of fallout in view of the impending arrest and charges against Sheldon Silver and ran for cover? 

Interesting timing to leave this particular office, especially in droves.

I will continue to analyze this law firm and will report results later.

Stay tuned.