When your opponent in litigation takes your attorney's license

Imagine that you sue somebody for something wrong done to you, let's say, an assault upon you, or a battery, or fraud.

Imagine that you hired an attorney who represents you in that lawsuit, paid that attorney, and that attorney made good advances for you in litigation, and your position in litigation, because of services of that attorney, is promising.

Imagine that, in the middle of your litigation, the person you are suing takes your attorney's license, and thus you find yourself without an attorney and with a necessity to find another attorney, paid him or her again, get him or her familiarized with your case again, and, possibly, lose all the progress gained by your attorney, because in many cases progress made by attorneys is also based on attorney's record in litigation and experience in particular proceedings, which might not be matched by the new attorney.   

You think it is not possible?

It is, if your opponent in litigation is the government.

That is exactly the situation my clients are now.

I sued the State of New York on behalf of one set of clients in federal court.

I represented a client sued by the State of New York in federal court.

On November 17, 2015 was my deadline to file a motion for sanctions against the State of New York and its various public officials, for frivolous conduct in two federal courts.  The lawsuit was on behalf of a client.

On November 13, 2015, four days before the deadline to ask a federal court to sanction the State of New York for frivolous conduct, State of New York as a licensing authority suspended my law license and gained advantage in litigation against all my clients.

So, as you see, the State of New York as a party-opponent to my clients in litigation can simply take the law license of their attorney and deprive them of effective legal services this way - after I provided those services for those particular clients for YEARS, and after it will cost them dearly to replace me as an attorney, because a new attorney will have to be explained everything that happened in the YEARS of prior litigation, and read the record of the prior litigation - which, at the average trial attorney's hourly rate, looks like a punishment of my clients for opposing the State of New York in litigation.

That is exactly why I have been advocating for years that regulation of attorneys by the government while attorneys may have a duty to oppose the government, sue the government, investigate the government, challenge misconduct of the government  - is completely unconscionable, unconstitutional, undemocratic, undermines independence of the legal profession and deprives people of truly effective and independent representation in court.

So, next time you try to hire somebody to sue the State of New York, or in defense of a lawsuit against you by the State of New York, note why you will  have a difficulty finding an attorney willing to represent you.  

Because they wouldn't want to lose their law license and livelihood in the middle of that representation, if the State of New York chooses to gain advantage in litigation this way, yet again.

Two words on the New York State Commission for pay raises for New York judges, legislators and other unconstitutional officers

A Commission of insiders is going to hold a "public" hearing on November 30, 2015 in New York City in order to make "binding" report to the Legislature with recommendations of pay raises for all three branches of the government - judges, legislators and executive officers, collectively called "constitutional officers".

That is done without first cleaning up corruption in all of those three branches.

I will run a fuller blog on the issue tomorrow.

Today I wanted to say just a couple of words.

Here is a picture I took today near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

This is a report that the State of South Carolina expects next year 1 billion dollars in extra revenue, and there was already a media report in the local press as to a gradual plan of returning the revenue back to taxpayers through income tax reduction.

I a still a newcomer in the State of South Carolina, but, compared to what is going on in New York, these reports show me that in South Carolina, the government actually works.

In New York, we see exodus of taxpayers out of the state, we see recurrent huge budget deficits, we see one senator after the other being criminally prosecuted, we see shady conduct of New York State Governor and people close to him reported constantly.

We see gas prices somehow higher in New York (a colder state with a higher demand, higher supply and better bargaining power of purchasers of gas in bulk due to volume) than in South Carolina.  It is clear there is an oligopoly somewhere, but New York State Attorney General, instead of looking into it, helping New Yorkers and fighting such monopolies and oligopolies in gas pricing that hurts people, especially in winter time, badly, instead of that, NYS AG is involved in defending violators of people's constitutional rights in federal court.

And, no doubt, expects a pay raise for that, too.

We experience rampant corruption in the New York judiciary - even though unaddressed by the disciplinary authorities who mostly have conflicts of interest to even be on the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct (because most people on that commission are licensed attorneys, and a licensed attorney attempting to punish a judge who holds that attorney's license in his hands, is suicidal for an attorney).

In New York, I handled constitutional litigation since 2009 and was suspended last week from my practice of law as a penalty for doing that constitutional litigation.

Anybody who tried to sue state officials in New York, or raise constitutional issues in New York state court, or in federal court, knows that the judiciary has an extremely sour look whenever a constitutional argument is raised.

For the New York judiciary a "constitutional argument" is the equivalent of a "frivolous argument", with the resulting consequences.

The only time we hear about "constitutional officers" is when those officers ask for a pay raise.

The pay of government officials in New York, on average, is already very much over $100,000 a year, much more than the average income of taxpayers who pay them out of their pockets, which makes no sense.

And, it makes no sense for those unconstitutional officers to claim pay raises when the state is going through one year of budgetary deficit after another, when both leaders of the state legislature are criminally charged for fraud and corruption, when only a willfully blind person would not see corruption in the judiciary, in every court a person has the misfortune of setting his or her foot into.

I suggest this.

Let's charge the government with creating a database of all of its sworn officers.

With a family tree for each officer until the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity (NY standard for disqualification of jurors), affinity understood broadly, and including any significant other, boyfriend or girlfriend, and their relatives, not only spouses and their relatives.

Let's make all those "constitutional officers" (including attorneys who are deemed "officers of the court" and have overwhelming influence upon all branches of the government) self-report those connections, put them into a database.

With places of work, of course, along with places of work of close friends of those relatives.

Let's demand introduction of anti-nepotism and anti-cronyism policies in all three branches of the government, prohibiting employment of close relatives in the same branch of the government and/or agency, and closely verifying friendships between public officials with a duty to appear in front of one another in adversarial proceedings.

Let's demand disclosure of memberships of public officials in memberships in all non-public organizations, with a list of members in those organizations.

All of that should be self-reported and self-entered into a relational computer database.

This way, when a person is to appear before a judge, it will be easy to enter the judge's name and the name of the opposing counsel and/or party for the red flags of potential conflicts of interest to pop up.

When one public official nominates a candidate for another governmental position, recommends a promotion, a benefit, makes a favorable decision in favor of somebody - red flags may come up indicating a potential conflict of interest.

When we do those elementary initial steps and see how clean our government is, then we can review their claims of pay raises.

What I would advocate for now is not a pay RAISE, but, as I wrote before on this blog, a pay REDUCTION, and tying public officials' income to the average income of the area they are serving.  

They did not deserve a pay raise, not yet.

Let's tie the eligibility for pay raises to the government's degree of transparency, efficiency and accountability.

My order of suspension might be not valid for yet another reason - they cannot even suspend people in a coherent way

A non-attorney reader pointed out to me a fatal flaw in my order of suspension that, I admit, I missed with the emotions of the last couple of days.

My order of suspension said that I "should be suspended", but does not say that I was actually suspended.

There is a difference to say that a person should be beheaded rather than that the person was actually beheaded.

As the order was worded - by people for whom, unlike me, English is a native language - my head is still on.

Can these klutzes even suspend people properly?

And - thank you for the tip! (I will not disclose the reader's identity).

The Anthony Pacherille story: Part 4 - freedom to protest in front of a public official's home

I posted three reports so far about the Anthony Pacherille's story where Judge Brian Burns, of Otsego County Court, New York, presiding over a case of a teenager charged with a crime, disliked the teenager's father's letter asking for leniency at sentencing, because the letter asked for compassion and mentioned that the judge had a teenage son (a publicly known fact through the judge's appearance with his wife and three teenage children, a girl and two boys, at his own swearing-in ceremony several months prior to the date of the letter).

Judge Burns felt that his, his children's and his family's safety was threatened with the defendant's father's letter, but did not recuse and instead denied the child the youthful offender's status that the child was entitled to and sent the mentally ill child to a maximum security adult prison for 11 years.

The father wanted to demonstrate in front of the judge's home, the local ordinance required to put in the actual address where the demonstration will be held, in order to apply for a permit.

The father went to the judge's residence and knocked on the door to verify whether it was the judge's address. The judge's wife answered the door, confirmed it was the judge's residence and told the father to leave.  The father apologized and left.

For that, the father was charged, on the judge's complaint, with harassment in criminal court.  The criminal proceeding was dismissed on 1st Amendment free speech grounds, but the father, as I understand, was not able to hold his planned demonstration in front of Judge Burns' home.

Recently, because of a protest in front of a State Senator's residence in the town of West Depford, New Jersey.

The town of West Depford tried to introduce an ordinance that would prohibit demonstrations other than 100 feet away from a residence, with the following restrictions:

• not more than 10 people;
• once every 2 weeks,

and some people protested introduction of such an ordinance as unconstitutional, see comments to the interlinked article, one of such comments I post here:

The ordinance was actually enacted, with an added restriction that the city must be notified in advance of 24 hours.

The restriction of "no more than 10 people once every 2 weeks" is clearly unconstitutional as violative of protesters' 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, and it is a matter of time when a lawsuit challenging it will be filed, but that is not the point as applied to Tony Pacherille's case.

In Tony Pacherille's case, there is no indication that the City of Oneonta had such an ordinance, and without such an ordinance, the local police had no right to prohibit a demonstration by Tony Pacherille outside of Judge Burns' home.

See also how a demonstration outside a public official's residence was handled in California.

Here is a report with an included video of a protest outside the residence of the City of Los Angeles this past summer.  The police controlled the crowd when the mayor tried to sneak out of the residence through the back door and was confronted by the demonstrators, but the demonstration was not dispersed by the police and was allowed to proceed.

In this country, there are cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dedicated to the 1st Amendment freedom of speech and association that will make your blood boil.

They seem to be grossly unfair to the victims of offensive expression.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court doggedly supported freedom of speech over hurt feelings, even in situations where the speech was grossly, extremely offensive.  The U.S. Supreme Court's message was always - that those who were offended should simply look the other way, because the core of speech is protected content, political expression.

With the determination to protect the constitutional freedom of speech and assembly, the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. disregarded the feelings of Holocaust survivors and their families by allowing a march of "national socialists" (fascists) through their town;
2. disregarded the feelings of African Americans as to the history of lynching by repeatedly striking down criminal statutes for cross-burning in front of residences of African Americans, see here and here;
3. disregarded the feelings of mourners of fallen soldiers who died protecting this country who were confronted with hateful speech right at their loved one's funerals.

If SUCH feelings under SUCH circumstances were disregarded on 1st Amendment grounds, the mere displeasure of a judge and his wife as to a picket on a public sidewalk in front of the judge's residence, where there were no safety issues involved whatsoever (Tony Pacherille verified the address, Judge Burns' wife told him to leave, he left, the Chief of Police called, Tony Pacherille said he will not come TO the residence again, meaning on the judge's property).  

Tony Pacherille could still walk the public street where the Judge's house was located.  As a taxpayer, Tony Pacherille was paying for upkeep of that street and was entitled to walk it.

There is nothing more protected as political protest in front of a residence of a public official.  

To any reasonable observer, it would be clear that Holocaust survivors would feel threatened by a march of fascists through their town.

To any reasonable observer, it would be clear that an African American family would be more than alarmed and threatened by a burning cross on their lawn - and, by the way, their lawn was PRIVATE property, so a trespass was involved, too.

Here, Tony Pacherille planned a peaceful picketing outside a judge's residence on a public sidewalk.

If there are no safety issues involved - and in Tony Pacherille's case there were none, as the criminal court subsequently concluded - such a protest should have been allowed.

So, restrictions imposed on Tony Pacherille's right to demonstrate in front of Judge Burns' home were clearly unconstitutional, and imposing such restrictions was abuse of power - both on the side of the police and city authorities, and on behalf of Judge Burns who sought such restrictions, knowing (as a judge who was sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution) that such restrictions are in violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free association.

The Anthony Pacherille's story, Part 3 - after the sentencing: thin skin, long arms, the sense of entitlement and the complete lack of integrity of Judge Brian Burns of Otsego County

This is the 3rd story in my series of blog posts about the case of Anthony Pacherille and his family, of Cooperstown, NY, Otsego County, and about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct involved in this case see Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

I left off in Part 2 where Judge Burns failed to disclose that he felt unsafe because of the contents of the boy's letter sent to Burns as part of regular pre-sentencing procedure.

If the judge felt personally unsafe, he had to recuse before the sentencing of the boy who just turned 16 at the time of the shooting and who was definitely entitled to a youthful offender status, and especially because of his mental health status and the evidence of cruel, consistent and prolong bullying that his family said it had.

Instead, Judge Burns lashed out and retaliated against the father through his teenage son, by sending him for 11 years into an adult maximum security prison.

The father was legitimately upset as to that outcome, and wanted to protest.

According to the father's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court with the Northern District of New York, the father, with a constitutionally allowed protest in mind, and having been advised that the City of Oneonta where Judge Burns apparently resided at that time, had an ordinance in place requiring protestors to apply for a permit with determination of time and place of the protest, Anthony Pacherille father went to what he thought was Judge Burns' address to verify if it was, indeed, Judge Burns' address, in order to put it on the application for a permit with the City of Oneonta.

The father reportedly knocked on the door at 9 Union Street, Judge Burns' wife answered, the father asked whether it was Judge Burns' address, the wife confirmed it and expressed displeasure that Tony Pacherille came there, Tony Pacherille apologized and left.  That was all.

Here is what happened next, according to Tony Pacherille's federal complaint.

After his visit to Judge Burns' residence Tony Pacherille received a call from the City Police Chief telling Tony Pacherille that the City Police received a call from Judge Burns expressing displeasure about Tony Pacherille's visit, and the Chief of Police asked Tony Pacherille to "cease and desist" from coming to Judge Burns' residence, I understand, at the threat of criminal prosecution.

The call to the police, however misguided, was a legitimate way to address the situation for Judge Burns.

The situation was diffused by that phone call, Tony Pacherille did not intend to visit Judge Burns' residence again and consented not to do that in his conversation with the Police Chief.  No further action was required.

Yet, Judge Burns did not restrict himself with legitimate ways.

Here is the letter dated August 3, 2011 that Tony Pacherille received from John McConnell, Esq., counsel to the Unified Court System (it was attached to Tony Pacherille's Amended Complaint in federal court, I obtained it from Pacer.gov).

Talking about thin skin, long arm and a feeling of entitlement of New York State judiciary.

Here is the salary of attorney John McConnell, Esq. paid to him by you, my readers from the State of New York.  I obtained this information from seethroughny.org.

The letter was written in 2011.

In 2011 John McConnell's salary was $136,500 a year.

What occurred between Judge Burns and Tony Pacherille was a PRIVATE dispute.  Judge Burns could:

1) complain about Tony Pacherille to the police - and he did;
2) ask the local authorities to start criminal proceedings against Tony Pacherille - and he later did;
3) SUE Tony Pacherille for, let's say, trespass (there is no civil private right of action for harassment in New York) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) on himself and his wife - but Judge Burns knew that, had he sued Tony Pacherille for IIED, he would have had to disclose to Tony Pacherille his and his wife's mental health records, which Judge Burns obviously did not want to do.

If Judge Burns so desired, he could hire an attorney to assist him in filing the criminal complaint, and assisting him in filing a civil action against Tony Pacherille, which would have included a filing fee of $210 in the Supreme Court, and a substantial retainer to the attorney - since it was a PRIVATE action by Judge Burns against Tony Pacherille.

Instead, Judge Burns used a state employee, an attorney paid BY US THE TAXPAYERS $136,500 a year at the time (and whose pay skyrocketed to $185,000 by 2015, obviously for "serving" judges proper and improper requests), to represent Judge Burns for free in a private action.

Attorney McConnell stated in the letter that the Office of the Court Administration represents judges of the State of New York "in legal matters".

That is not true.

New York State Attorney General represents judges of the State of New York "in legal matters", and NYS AG claims that such a designation of his office as legal counsel for judges is statutory, by Public Officers Law Section 17.   New York State Attorney General has claimed that much recently in federal court, and the federal court agreed.

It is NOT the duty of the New York State Court Administration to represent Judge Burns in private matters.

It is not a duty of the New York State Attorney General, or of ANY public official, at public expense, to represent Judge Burns in matters where he thinks his personal safety is jeopardized because a visitor on his porch.

New York State Court Administration has no authority to represent judges in civil or criminal matters.  So, attorney McConnell (1) lied, and (2) misused his time paid for by taxpayers to give a personal favor to a judge - on an official letterhead.

Since attorney McConnell had no right to write or send such a letter, it was attorney misconduct and harassment of Tony Pacherille.

Was Attorney McConnell disciplined for that misconduct?  Of course, not.

Attorney McConnell was instead promoted, and his salary soared $49,300 in 4 years,  a 36% increase from the already unreasonably huge salary of $136,500.  That's at the background of the ongoing budget crisis, the exodus of people (taxpayers) out of New York state and shrinking tax base that pays attorney McConnell's salary.

That's who you pay your hard-earned tax money, New Yorkers, and that's what your money is used (or, rather, misused, for).

Was Judge Burns disciplined for abusing his power in utilizing a highly paid court employee to send this "Cease and Desist" letter when he had to hire a private attorney to do that and pay him or her out of Judge Burns' own pocket?  Of course, not.

Brown-nosing the judiciary pays off, and no laws will stand in the way of providing a private favor to a judge, even if that favor is illegal.

"Brown-nosing the Judiciary 1, 2 and 3" must be the main subject taught in the "legal ethics class" in law schools, not the lies about "attorney ethics" and "judicial ethics" that law schools preach to law students, because THAT is how you REALLY advance in the legal profession in the State of New York.

By the way, McConnell was, reportedly, the one who signed the letter about the "stop-gap" job offer to Christine Ryba on behalf of Michael Coccoma, after she was secretly booted by 3rd Department Chief Justice Karen Peters for unethical conduct - strategically booted, I must say, only one day before elections, so voters did not know of her termination and voted her into a judicial office nevertheless.

As I said above, as to attorney McConnell - brown-nosing the judiciary to cater for their little illegal whims, including the married Judge Coccoma's whim in wasting taxpayer money to offer an unnecessary for him "consolation stop-gap job" for 6 weeks to a pretty-face young female attorney fired for unethical conduct - works.  

You can expect yet another salary increase for attorney McConnell after the tear-jerking letter to Ryba on Coccoma's behalf - at your expense, New York taxpayers, of course.

As to Judge Burns and McConnell's claim that the NYS Office of Court Administration represents Burns in "legal matters", that was not only not true (NYS Attorney General does - in matters connected with official conduct, not in private matters like Tony Pacherille's visit to the judge's front porch and the judge's displeasure about it), but, eventually, even NYS AG did not get to represent Judge Burns when Tony Pacherille filed a federal lawsuit against him.

I will post in one of my next blog covering the Pacherille story as to what kind of law firm Judge Burns has actually hired to "effectively defend" him against Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit, as well as about other ways in which the Otsego County establishment persecuted the Pacherille family.

I will also write about our right and entitlement, as citizens, to protest in front of homes of public officials, even those with thin skin, long arms, a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of integrity - and about the applicable law on the subject.

Stay tuned.

No Rule 11 motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS AG Schneiderman today. I guess, they must be happy for their handiwork

Today was my deadline to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS Attorney General Schneidrman for having my husband's case dismissed, and then promoting my husband's ideas from the dismissed lawsuit in the "Final Report" of the NYS Attorney Discipline Commission.

As you know, in New York, as in other states, the judiciary (with Judge Lippman as a Chief judge) controls attorney licensing.

So, before I could file the Rule 11 motion, my license was revoked.

That reminds me of how attorney Doris Sassower's license was suspended - when she filed an appeal challenging constitutionality of cross-endorsements in judicial elections in New York.

Moreover, today the NYS Attorney General intimidated me by claiming that I am engaged in unauthorized practice of law because I filed a motion to recuse and vacate on behalf of my husband (and myself) in another federal case.

The intimidation came - that is funny, really - through e-notification, served upon me "by ECF only" by the NYS AG Maria Lisi-Murray (who lost her previous lucrative job in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson because of her incompetence in a case where I represented Plaintiffs suing the Chenango County Department of Social Services).  

That case, by the way, is scheduled for trial on February 29, 2016, having overcome all hurdles of motions to dismiss and for a summary judgment.

I, of course, advised my clients in that case of suspension of my state law license and they reported to me that, so far, ACLU in Albany refused to recommend any attorneys to replace me in that case as soon as they heard that the case is against Social Services.

Yet, e-service is only allowed against clients represented by attorneys.

So, in the same breath, the "legal talent",  NYS Assistant Attorney General, who recently "resigned" from Levine, Gouldin and Thompson within 10 days of denial of a motion for a summary judgment where Lisi-Murray asked the federal court to decide triable issues of fact (an "F" in 101 Civil Procedure) in favor of her client, the Chenango County Commissioner of Social Services and her employees, did two diametrically opposite things:

1) she served me as if I am an attorney; and
2) she claimed I am not an attorney and I am engaged in UPL by filing on behalf of a client.

At least, Lisi-Murray is consistent in her incompetence.  Kudoz to Levine, Gouldin and Thompson for getting rid of her.  But now, we the taxpayers, myself included, are saddled with feeding the incompetent attorney picked up as a "consolation prize" by the NYS Attorney General's office (see also my recent blog about another "consolation" hiring by the State of New York of yet another attorney - an unethical one, who, what a coincidence! also was in the past a NYS Assistant Attorney General).

I published recently a report about incompetence and unethical conduct of yet another three NYS Assistant Attorneys General - 

1. Kenneth Gellhaus (I will add a blog about Gellhaus shortly), 
2. Michael Danaher, see here and here, and 
3. Andrew Ayers (former law clerk of the now-U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor), see here, here, here and here.

It appears that, same as the policy of NYS to hire police officers, to not hire applicants with an IQ over a certain level to prevent "rotation" of work force, same the NYS AG's office is picking attorneys who are incapable to survive in private practice outside of the NYS AG's office, who are not only unethical, but also lack the very basic competence.

And we the taxpayers are saddled with the task of feeding them.

And, by the way - these klutzes will NEVER be disbarred like my husband was - without a hearing - on bogus charges of fraud upon the court.

Because they are covered with absolute immunity for fraud upon the court.

And they will never be suspended - like I was - for being sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" for making a motion to recuse a judge - because they REPRESENT all judges they appear in front of, and because they will NEVER be sanctioned for frivolous conduct by their judges-clients, no matter what they do.

They will continue to saddle you, ladies and gentlemen, New York taxpayers, with their inflated salaries and benefits, and those of their families, no matter what they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole reason why attorney regulation is not protecting you.  It is protecting them, and their ability to milk you for their salaries.  And I bet, their salaries and benefits that are milked out of you, are better than yours.

As to Rule 11 motion today - I did not file it.

But I did file a letter explaining to the court that I did not file it BECAUSE I was intimidated by the State Defendants, two top judges of the court and by Defendant Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General who orchestrated revocation of my law license right before my deadline to file a motion for sanctions against them, and who drove home to me that the not-so-subtle threat that they will consider my filing of the Rule 11 motion against them today as criminal conduct.

Constitutional issues in my disciplinary proceedings will be published

Since I am now "safely" suspended, and cannot be any longer criminally prosecuted for violating my own privacy (as I was from January to May of 2015 when the bogus charges were sua sponte dismissed by the court), I will start publishing my pleadings raising constitutional issues that the 4th Department was too afraid to address.

Those are extensive pleadings, with a lot of exhibits, I will need some time to scan them, but I will publish them, for the public to be able to see why I was REALLY suspended, and for the public to be able to see that the issues that I raised were issues that the State of New York plagiarized and presented in its Final Report in the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, while suspending me nevertheless 2 months after the Final Report was filed, and denying my multiple motions raising those same issues - without an explanation or reasoning.

I am going to publish my constitutional motions - which were, again, all denied without an explanation or reasoning - so that people know what their public officials are capable of.

Stay tuned.