On the physical safety of critics of public officials in New York

At the beginning of November, 2015, Delaware County (NY) District Attorney Richard Northrup ran for a County Judge seat, unopposed - and won, of course.  Since he was unopposed, he needed only one voice - his own - to get elected.  According to the Delaware County Election Board (who has been known to fabricate documents in the past), Northup got several thousand votes.

I have written on this blog many times about Richard Northrup's unethical behavior in several cases.  You can run his name in the "search" window below to see those blogs.

I have some more information to add, about Northrup, his ethics, and about the general safety issue for government critics as revealed in my case.

In September of 2015, I asked Richard Northrup's office to recuse from a traffic case because of a pronounced bias to me as an attorney and against my family.

As one of the reasons, I cited 

• prosecution of crimes committed against us before I was admitted to practice law (and started to make motions to recuse local judge Becker who was extensively sued by many people, who fabricated certificate of the 2002 election after I pointed it out to him in a motion [my law license was suspended for pointing out Becker's fraud in a motion to recuse that the disciplinary court has "modestly" called "a client matter"] and defrauded voters as to his 2012 election and who has recently "retired" from the bench before his time, suggesting he was given an order to leave or get booted - as Judge Peters recently gave to her very "special counsel" Christina Ryba) and 
• non-prosecution of a burglary into our home in Delhi, NY that was committed in September 2013 by a known subject, after I started to criticize judicial misconduct - and misconduct of DA Northrup's office

Richard Northrup's office recused from the traffic case, but there was no indication that he recused from the burglary case into our home.

Because the burglary into our home that was located within 5-minutes walk from the DA's office, a violent felony, was not investigated or prosecuted for 2 years, I called Richard Northrup in October of 2015 and asked for the DNA evidence and pictures collected by the Delhi Village Police at the crime scene, as well as incident reports, so that I can pursue a special investigator and prosecutor.

Here is what I got from Mr. Northrup:

1/ that he was unaware (!!!) of the investigation - that is, after my letter in September 2015, a month prior, after which letter his whole office recused, and after I personally went to his office in September of 2013, the very moment I discerned the threatening piece of evidence in my home that also indicated that a burglar was there;

2/ that he cannot give me the DNA back because allegedly NOW they are investigating (obviously to prevent my review what happened with the evidence);

3/ Richard Northrup injected himself into the investigation himself, telling me that he himself will handle the investigation and communicate with me, instead of the police - which in itself shows that what Northrup was doing was simply damage control;

4/  I told Northrup that two police officers who were investigating the crime scene later stopped by us in a police vehicle, voluntarily, without "solicitation" on my husband and my own behalf, when we walked our dogs in Delhi, NY at night, and told us that the subject in question has made a confession that he was in the room where the threatening and incriminating evidence was found (likely, with his DNA on it), and where the location of the room was not made known by us to the subject and the existence of that room was not obvious in the house.

5/  Northrup said he will talk to Delhi police chief.

6/ Then Northrup told me that:

   a) Delhi police does not have a confession and does not have a statement from police officers in question about the confession, and that police officers deny they had that confession;

   b) Delhi police does not have statements from either my husband or from myself (both of us made such statements), and why wouldn't we do those statements again - 2 years down the road;

     When I asked for copies of incident reports, Northrup refused to provide them citing "ongoing investigation" - which was not ongoing for 2 years.

     After I accused Northrup of not doing his job of investigating and prosecuting a violent crime for 2 years, allowing the subject who lived next door to escape to another state and not doing anything to locate him there easily, even though he can be easily located through certain federal records, Northrup promised he "looked into the matter" and then got back to me and told me that "coincidentally", now they actually found the subject in another state and now they need our statements allegedly for extradition of the subject.

     Of course,  at that point I did not have even residual trust in the integrity of Richard Northrup and his office and I fully realized that any statement I provide to Richard Northrup will be scrutinized for inconsistencies (2 years after the fact) with the incident reports that can be honed by Delhi Village police the way they want it.

     I asked Northrup to recuse from the investigation and apply for a special investigator and prosecutor - something he had to do a long time ago.

    Northrup sent me an e-mail saying he did apply for such a special investigator and prosecutor.  I never heard anything after that (a month ago) from Northrup, his office or the County court.

    On November 13, 2015 my law license was "coincidentally"  and allegedly suspended (I still was not officially served with that order, 2 weeks after it was allegedly made), where the court blamed me for not appearing in person at the "mitigation" hearing that occurred before the court decided my liability.

    At the same time, the court refused to allow me an open-access mitigation hearing and said that I had to apply for such open public hearing through a motion, even though the law allows me to have such a hearing for the asking (and I asked several times).  Of course, the court denied all my motions without an explanation and punished me for asking for reasoned decisions on motions, so blaming me for not making yet another motion was - the polite legal word is - disingenuous.  The plain English word for "disingenuous" is stupid.

     The disciplinary court refused to disqualify a prosecutor who was the only supporting witness for a failed criminal case commenced by that same witness against me for blogging on issues of public concern.

    That witness, attorney Mary Gasparini, wanted me in jail for criminal contempt of court for 60 days (30 and 30 on two applications).

    I posted with the court indisputable and unrebutted evidence that transcripts of two conferences with a referee were fabricated.

    Under the circumstances where 

• a burglary with a threatening evidence left on the floor of our bedroom remains un-investigated, 
• DNA from the burglary likely lost, spoiled or hidden,
• a confession is lost or destroyed, 
• our statements are unpreserved and unreported, 
• incident reports hidden, investigating police officers coerced into saying there were no confession after they told us there was, 

AND

• after I was denied a public hearing and was practically forced to "choose" whether 
• not to come to a hearing or 
• to come and physically appear in a closed room, without witnesses, before judges I criticized, their pet prosecutor I criticized and who wanted me in jail because her tender sensibilities were upset when an audio recording of what really occurred in the conference where transcripts were fabricated was posted on the Internet

DID I HAVE A CHOICE?

Can I be blamed that I chose my PHYSICAL SAFETY over appearance in front of a biased judicial panel?

And, by the way, the NY Attorney General who is supposed to investigate and prosecute crimes, including, obviously, cooking court records, but instead is representing those who cooked the court records, tried to drag me out of my out-of-state safe haven back into the State of New York for a "deposition" - without serving me with that deposition.

And, now the Assistant Attorney General Maria Lisi-Murray has asked - and received - permission from yet another disqualified judge, a magistrate who has no right under the law to impose sanctions (officially disqualified because his court has injected itself as a PARTY PLAINTIFF into a proceeding based on the proceeding where I am still a party and prejudged it as frivolous while it is still pending), to file a motion for sanctions against me for offending her tender sensibilities and to state that I have a good reason to believe she, a public official whose salary I, as a taxpayer, am paying is (1) incompetent and (2) likely has a personal grudge against me that has likely motivated her to make false statements against me in the past (it is documented) and at this time (reasonable inferences may be made from the evidence).

Lisi-Murray wants to have me dragged to the State of New York - where it is not PHYSICALLY safe for me.  Why?  

Once again, based on the above described circumstances, it is not physically safe for me to be in the State of New York, and no court, especially a court that injected himself into the case as a party AGAINST me and my husband, can order me to travel 800 miles in order to put my life and safety in danger.

After all, I read what reportedly happened to a critic of judicial misconduct in New York Sunny Shue - and that murder was still not properly investigated.

Danger in our days, to your safety as well as to your rights comes more from the government than from anybody else, and, as I said before, life of critics of official misconduct in New York and in Delaware County is forfeit.   

So, I will stay away from New York, and recommend other people to do that, too.  

It is yet another way of voting against governmental corruption in New York by leaving the state and taking your tax dollars to another state.

To all of you who are left behind in New York, especially to the critics of governmental misconduct - stay safe.

    

Resurrected from the dead, trade guilds suffocate the U.S. economy through occupational regulation

In May of 2015, the U.S. Bureau of Statistics has published a remarkable article about efforts in states toward de-licensing (deregulation) of professions.

The article compared licensing of occupations and professions with trade-union collective bargaining to fix and raise income of union members and stated that the issue of job growth and factors preventing job growth (such as occupational regulation and licensing) has become lately an issue of national importance.

It is also remarkable that de-licensing met with resistance of the licensed professions and not consumers, and that practically all efforts at de-licensing were defeated by market-player lobbyists for the "self-regulated" guilds which was definitely not in the interests of consumers. 

One of the described efforts to deregulate, a House Bill 1006 of 2012 in the State of Indiana, that was seeking to eliminate mandatory licensing for barbers and cosmetologists, as well as for dieticians, hearing aid dealers, PIs, and security guards, was quickly dubbed the "right to work for less" bill - which pinpoints exactly the purpose of occupational licensing to cut off competition and raise prices for services, not, as it is declared for purposes of licensing, to protect health, safety and well-being of consumers.

So, while consumers continue to hurt, while labor market in the U.S. continues to deteriorate and people who can earn their own living continue to be unable to find suitable jobs in the heavily regulated job market, those who already have regulated jobs are resisting entry of competitors into the labor market - to the detriment of consumers and without any regard to any consumers' well-being.

Yet, as I reported on this blog, the situation in the job market may be becoming so critical in terms of contributing to income disparity that causes social unrest that deregulation will be at some point mandated as a matter of national safety.

I think, we are moving in that direction since the article already reported that over 30% of the U.S. work force is in regulated jobs, that occupational regulation is killing small business, preventing geographic and upwards (income) mobility, increases costs of services to consumers while reducing variety and supply of such services - and the lobbying efforts to increase rather than decrease occupational regulation are coming from the regulated professions, clearly showing "who benefits".

It is time for consumers of various services from currently regulated professions, on the one hand, and those who cannot enter the labor market and properly provide for themselves and their families because of restraints through occupational regulation that has nothing to do with protection of consumers, on the other hand, to demand, through lawsuits or pressure on their elected public officials:

• to start aggressive legislative audits of all regulated professions on the subject of 
• whether the declared purpose of consumer protection is actually what happens in the regulated profession, or is the main actual purpose of such regulation, per each regulation profession, is establishing "a right to work for more" in the regulated jobs, and protection of consumers be d**d, well, kissed good-bye.

The history of occupational regulation shows that economical development in Europe flourished when city and town guild systems were torn down.

Such guild systems are now resurrected from the dead and are suffocating the U.S. labor market, and one does not need a crystal ball to predict that social unrest may ensue, soon, if the government continues to allow interest groups to derail efforts at de-regulation or at least at auditing whether occupational regulation helps or hurts consumers - and the U.S. economy.

After the court was caught - it snapped, and suspended me through an OUT-OF-COURT order of suspension (which was not provided to me)

I wrote on this blog about the saga of how I my law license was pulled (I will omit re-telling of the whole story), just that the order of state suspension at the same time finds me liable for a disciplinary violation AND in the same breath states that an aggravating circumstance is that I did not "acknowledge misconduct" or "express remorse" on an EARLIER date - before the decision on liability was made.

That is a classic prejudgment of the action making the revocation of my state law license in valid.

"Coincidentally", my law license was pulled on the same day when my civil rights lawsuit on behalf of three clients against the Chenango County Department of Social Services and some of its officers and employees (Argro v Osborne), a lawsuit that was going on since 2012 and that survived two motions to dismiss and a motion for a summary judgment, was scheduled to proceed to trial.

Of course, pulling my law license because a state judge Becker sanctioned me 3 times after I sued him, did nothing to protect my clients (from me). 

On the opposite, pulling my law license left my three now former clients (and I am talking only about Argro v Osborne, while I had other cases) scrambling to find another attorney who would not be afraid to take on social services.

My now former clients in Argro v Osborne already reported to me that New York ACLU already turned them down after they heard that the lawsuit is against the social services.

I also described how the federal court snapped after I made a motion to recuse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on November 16, 2015, 4 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit deemed the court a party petitioner-appellee against my husband, and when my license was very much valid.

The NDNY court ordered me to make a filing on November 20, 2015.

On November 20, 2015, before making that e-filing, I checked my status as an attorney on the federal court's website.  It was active, and I have the printout.

Yet, on November 23, 2015 I received an e-notification ( the e-notification means that the court treats me still as an attorney) containing a letter that I was allegedly suspended by order of the NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby as of November 18, 2015, 5 days prior.

Today, I printout out the docket report of that case which lists me as a lead attorney for the palintiffs, 6 days after I was allegedly suspended.

Yet, on November 20, 2015 my status on the court's website was "active", I did not receive the alleged order of suspension from Chief Judge Suddaby (and I did not receive it up to now), and Chief Judge Suddaby allegedly suspended me - without notice or opportunity to be heard - after I pointed out to the court in a motion to recuse that the court injected itself as a party petitioner against my husband in a parallel proceeding in two pending matters as of October 20, 2014, and as of October 20, 2014 the court has no authority to make ANY decisions pertaining to my husband or myself.

Once again, IF I was suspended on November 18, 2015 - of which I received NO official notification as of now, then WHY does the court continue to serve me by electronic means on November 23, 2015, as if I am still a licensed attorney? 

And why I am still listed as an attorney for the Plaintiffs in Argro v Osbrone today, on November 24, 2015, allegedly 6 days after the federal suspension?

And IF, as a "suspended attorney", I can still use the e-filing system, IF I can still file, serve and be served in my own actions where I am a party by electronic means, then WHY I was not served by e-notification with my own order of suspension - in order to entrap me into unauthorized practice of law?

Looks like that and  -  nice try. 

At least, I printed out my "Active" status as of November 20, 2015 (at night), and that was my ONLY actual notice of my status as of that date.

Moreover, today I also obtained information from the government electronic source Pacer.gov about all of my federal lawsuits (I am litigating in federal court since 2011).

There are only three lawsuits on Pacer with my name as attorney or party without a closing date:

1. 
   Neroni v Grannis, 3:11-cv-1485 (I am mentioned twice, as an attorney and a party);
2. 
   Argro v Osborne, 3:12-cv-910;
3. 
   Baron v. Southard, 3:13-cv-153 (I withdrew from that case).

My state law license was pulled on November 16, 2015 (back-date of the court order is November 13, 2015).

The letter in Argro v Osborne of yesterday, Nov. 23, 2015, claimed that Judge Suddaby suspended me as of November 18, 2015.

A reciprocal suspension is a separate disciplinary proceeding, which has to be filed in court and assigned a case number and a judge.   

Pacer.gov shows no proceeding with my name filed in NDNY court in November of 2015. 

Since there is no such proceeding, here couldn't be an order of suspension where no such proceeding was commenced.

Chief Judge Suddaby simply snapped and produced out of the thin air that order of suspension for his friends judges Peebles, Sharpe , and his court.

Peebles and Sharpe felt hurt I criticized their documented misconduct in a motion to recuse, so Suddaby gave them a consolation toy - an out-of-court order of my suspension, no court proceedings necessary.

Of course, the court seems to be closely monitoring this blog, and I expect that a disciplinary proceeding against me will be back-commenced and back-dated.

I do not know what will they do with electronic date stamps though, but I can expect anything from this court.

Something like "oopsie", we knew we had to suspend her as an extremely dangerous person (a civil rights attorney who filed a lawsuit against social services that survived and proceeds to trial IS a very dangerous person, I agree), but we kind of forgot to file that proceeding.  So - here goes.

Only, guys, too many slips for "accidental" "good faith" errors.  And too much documented misconduct and appearance of impropriety.

Now, I believe, a criminal investigation of NDNY court's shenanigans, and not only against me, should be started.

Preet Bharara will have his hands full.

I will report as to how that endeavor proceeds.

Stay tuned.

After the court was caught, it snapped

On November 12, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is a party appellee in a case started by the NDNY court against my husband (without notice to me) based on two cases still pending in that court where my husband was counseled by me.

Thus, the court injected itself AS A PARTY into pending litigation, though a parallel proceeding, without notice to parties, counsel or presiding judges, and pre-judged to pending actions as frivolous.

Based on that, on November 16, 2015, I filed a motion to vacate and recuse any orders of the court made after the ex parte parallel proceeding was filed, and that was on October 20, 2014.  I keep promising to publish the motion, and I will do it, I need a couple more days to do that, the motion is large.  I downloaded the official (filed) version of it from Pacer and am preparing it for publishing, it will be published on this blog until Tuesday, I promise.

Since courts always require EXHAUSTIVE evidence in support of even APPEARANCE of impropriety regarding a judge, and since I was already punished by courts for not providing enough information to request a recusal (it is never enough, by the way), I provided enough now.

I provided two supporting affirmations, one with 34 documentary exhibits and the other with 9 documentary exhibits.

It is apparent that NDNY was disqualified from making any decisions pertaining my husband or myself after October 20, 2014 (the filing date of the ex parte parallel proceedings without notice to me as attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127 and Neroni v Grannis, 3:11-cv-1485), and especially after November 12, 2015 when the 2nd Circuit branded the court as a party in related proceeding commenced before these two COUNSELED cases were adjudicated.

And, I already wrote on this blog that I was given a deadline until November 17, 2015 to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against top judges of the State of New York and its Attorney General.  I ultimately did not file the Rule 11 motion because of the threats of NYS Attorney General (a defendant in the action where the Rule 11 motion was about to be filed) that I am practicing in federal court without a license (it was not true, I was on "active" status, but I preferred not to play with my liberty, since I learnt courts do not care about the law, and could incarcerate me anyway).

The result of my activity in federal court?

The State of New York suspended my law license on November 16, 2015, but backdated it to November 13, 2015, and then claimed in Neroni v Grannis that my motion to vacate and recuse is invalid because I filed it when I was suspended (I was not suspended at that time in federal court and was not notified of my suspension by the state court).

NDNY, Magistrate Peebles, having read information in the Nov. 16, 2015 motion pertaining to his own and his court's too-close-for-propriety relationships with powerful and rich law firms, as spelled out in supporting affirmations and exhibits, made two adverse decisions against me and my husband since the filing date of the motion, November 16, 2015.

Peebles ordered me to RE-file a document that was filed as Dkt. 68-2 (at the very top of the main Dkt. 68) because allegedly he did not want to "sift through" 620 pages filed (all affirmations and all exhibits included) to get to my affirmation in opposition to motion to compel discovery that became invalid once the court's involvement in the parallel proceedings as a party was revealed.

Peebles also allowed the State of New York to file a motion for sanctions against me - even though the State of New York did not follow the mandatory procedure for such a motion under federal Rule 11.

By the way, the rude manner in which Peebles treated me is revealing in and of itself.  

Peebles would never dream of telling an attorney from a powerful law firm in such a disrespectful and disdainful manner that he does not have to "sift through" what was filed with the court.

Ok, I re-filed what Peebles asked to refile, and, since the NYS Attorney General tried to intimidate me with claims that I practice law without a license in federal court by proceeding on behalf of a client (my husband), I flat out printed out my "active" attorney status in NDNY court and attached it as an exhibit to the filing, so that there are no claims that I practiced law in federal court without a license.

That was on Friday night, November 20, 2015.

Guess what?

On Sunday morning my attorney status in federal court was already "suspended", and that is - without notice or opportunity to be heard, without notification to me, and before I was even served with the state order of suspension.

I must note that suspension in federal court is not automatic after suspension in state court.  I know that for a fact because I represented an attorney who was disbarred in state court and was still served with a notice of petition in a federal court, giving the attorney an opportunity to oppose the suspension in federal court.

NDNY did not have authority to even suspend me, not after it injected itself, without notice to me, in a two pending counseled cases of my husband by pre-judging such cases as "frivolous" while they were still not so ruled by the assigned judge.

I guess, Peebles snapped when I pointed out to him, in my November 20, 2015 filing, that his two adverse orders to me based since I caught the court red-handed in filing ex parte proceedings against my husband in two pending counseled cases over my head.

Or, maybe, Peebles read my yesterday's blog about his own incestous relationship with his prior law firm that results in what appears to be case-fixing where state judges are sued.

In any event, after the court was caught, it snapped.

I will keep telling you how the "snapping saga" continues.

Stay tuned.

The Civil Rights Litigation Protection Act has become a necessity

Most people do not track what is going on in the federal Legislature.

So, my readers might be surprised to learn that there is a bill being prepared that will kill the remnants of civil rights litigation, the way it exists (or nearly does not exist) today, and it has already passed House and is in the Senate for further legislative proceedings.

Here is the text on the bill.

Here is the voting record on the bill.

And here is the call to democrats by the minority leader to vote "NO" on that bill because of the potential and history of Rule 11 to be disproportionately used against civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys to chill civil rights litigation against government abuses.

The call to vote "No" to the bill (above) contains ere is the description of the history of Rule 11 showing that Rule 11 was already used to chill civil rights litigation.

After it was "reformed" and a "safe harbor provision" put into it, Rule 11 motions are simply not used by government defendants.

Instead, they resort to motions asking for penalties against civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys under the so-called "inherent power of the court" and 28 U.S.C. 1927.

The penalties are still for "frivolous conduct", and, as democrats who dissented, were fearing, they are already used to chill civil rights litigation.

The same is occurring in state courts.

In New York, the rule of frivolous conduct, 22 NYCRR 130.1, as far as I know, is used ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY and ENTIRELY to chill civil rights issues.

I was sanctioned 3 times by a judge whom I sued on behalf of my clients, right after I sued him.

The judge sanctioned me for raising constitutional arguments in motions to recuse.

The State of New York, a defendant in actions where I sued it on behalf of clients, took my state law license, without a hearing, based on my constitutional arguments on behalf of my clients.

Please, note that constitutional arguments are especially vulnerable to the "frivolous conduct" rule, because the "frivolous conduct" rules allow judges discretion (use their whim, practically) for arguments that are not "mainstream", not "supported by authorities".

For judges reviewing motions under the rules of frivolous conduct, "authorities" are not the U.S. Constitution itself, interpreted by the litigant or the litigant's attorney (which is completely legal and part of the attorney's duty), but additional state and federal statutes and cases where another court or another government body would first say what the litigant or the litigant's attorney is saying.

In other words, the rule of frivolous conduct does not allow certain novel ideas to be raised for the first time in the pleading, it prohibits the so-called "cases of first impression", thus stifling development of constitutional jurisprudence, and stifling social progress.

As dissenting democratic Senators correctly stated regarding House Bill 758, if penalties are imposed for novel or unusual constitutional arguments, there would have been no "Brown v Board of Education" and other important precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court that changed how we all live and prohibited various forms of discrimination.   

I wrote on this blog long time ago about the "mysterious rule of frivolous conduct", its vagueness, overbreadth, reaching protected conduct and disproportionately targeting civil rights attorneys and attorneys raising constitutional arguments in any other litigation.

I wrote on this blog long time ago about the whole "tree" of thoughts (and that tree is far from complete) that an attorney needs to go through before making a motion to recuse a judge, for fear of retaliation.

The target of these rules is not "lawsuit abuse".

The target of these rules is civil rights litigation.

These rules are used to intimidate litigants and especially their attorneys not to take civil rights cases.

Even while 42 U.S.C. 1988 was enacted to encourage civil rights litigation by providing incentives to civil rights attorneys for taking cases without being paid up front, with the hope that, if the case is successful, the attorney will be paid by the governmental defendants, the courts managed to hack up even that statute and put it on its head, instead using it now to award attorney fees to governmental defendants, perpetrators of constitutional violations, making their victims pay their perpetrators' attorney fees, which is completely contrary to the legislative intent of 42 U.S.C. 1988.

So, while the U.S. Congress is toiling on whether to pass or not to pass H.R.L. 758 that seeks to amend Rule 11 back to where it was in the year 1983 and was used to stifle civil rights litigation, the U.S. courts are quietly laughing at the efforts and are bypassing Rule 11 anyway, stifling civil rights litigation just the same, by other means.

And state courts are contributing to that stifling by simply revoking licenses of civil rights attorneys who raise constitutional arguments - and are sanctioned for them as if "for frivolous conduct".

The legislation that is really needed is the Civil Rights Litigation Protection Act, imposing an absolute prohibition on the courts against penalizing civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys.

After all, judges and prosecutors are immunized for malicious and corrupt acts in office, as a matter of public policy (even though courts that invented that rule may not create public policy decisions, it is the exclusive matter of legislating for the U.S. Congress). 

Enforcement of the U.S. Constitution against government encroachments is no less important.

It is necessary to enact federal legislation prohibiting ANY rules, regulations or court decisions imposing ANY penalties on litigants and/or their court representatives who raise constitutional issues in litigation.

I mean, once a constitutional argument is raised, the litigant or attorney must be immune to penalties, otherwise it is too easy for courts to invent a reason other than a penalty for a constitutional argument to impose a penalty for filing a pleading CONTAINING a constitutional argument.

Ask your U.S. representative in Congress to introduce and enact Civil Rights Litigation Protection Act.

Otherwise, you can say goodbye to civil rights litigation, because ANY of your pleadings in court may now, at a judge's whim, be considered "frivolous", and NO attorney, whose licenses are in the hands of those same judges before whom they are raising constitutional arguments, will want to raise constitutional issues of sensitive nature - such as on a motion to recuse, or raising an issue of misconduct of a government official.





 

Worse than terrorists

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government action directed at communication with foreign terrorist organizations is subject to coverage under the 1st Amendment and requires strict scrutiny as content-based regulation.  That regulation included legal advice.

...

...

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, as of 2010, took a position that attorney speech potentially in aide of foreign terrorist organizations, is covered by the 1st Amendment and is entitled to heightened scrutiny.

Yet, state courts suspend and disbar attorneys for criticism of judicial misconduct (as it was done to me and to many more attorneys lately, a separate blog naming attorneys and providing overviews of their stories will follow shortly), repeatedly rejecting the claim that attorney speech on the issue of public concern, misconduct of public officials (judges) is entitled to 1st Amendment coverage and heightened scrutiny.

In my case my 1st Amendment challenges were not even reflected in the order of suspension, my constitutional challenges were simply denied without any explanation or reasoning.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from such conduct is - under the U.S. law, I and other attorneys who took on judicial misconduct, are treated worse than if we would be aiding foreign terrorist groups.

And that is - for doing our job for our clients and for establishing the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review, which necessarily required making motions to recuse and, in those motions, spelling out judicial bias, conflicts of interest,  misconduct or appearance of impropriety.

I think, the issue of protection of attorney speech and attorney independence is now ripe for review of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Anthony Pacherille story - Part 5: Judge Burns hires a law firm with ties to the presiding magistrate judge in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit

I continue reporting on the story of Anthony Pacherille,  16-year-old mentally disabled boy who was sentenced as an adult to 11 years of adult maximum security prison (instead of a youthful offender status to which he was entitled) by Otsego County (NY) Judge Brian Burns who prefers to go easy on wealthy drunk killers of poor women and maimer of poor children than to do his duty of fairness towards a teenage defendant.

I also reported that the likely reason why Judge Burns denied the YO status to the child was because the child's father had the misfortunate of asking Judge Burns for mercy, as a father of a teenager to a father of a teenager.

Judge Burns, who paraded his three teenage children in front of everybody at his swearing-in ceremony just 5 months prior to the Pacherille-father's letter to the court (sent as part of pre-sentencing procedure and approved by the child's attorney), felt threatened by the letter - but did not recuse, and instead retaliated for the father's letter against the child.

See the prior parts of Anthony Pacherille's story reported on this blog here:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

In Part 4, I also reported how Tony Pacherille tried to verify Judge Burns' address to satisfy the ordinance of the City of Oneonta that requires to disclose ahead of time the place of peaceful demonstrations.  Tony Pacherille wanted to demonstrate in front of Judge Burns' home, went to the home, knocked on the door, Burns' wife opened the door, Pacherille-senior asked whether it was judge Burns' residence, the wife answered "yes" and asked Tony Pacherille to leave, he did leave.

I also reported in Part 4 how Judge Burns unlawfully used, at taxpayers' expense, a highly paid attorney representing the Office of New York Court Administration (NY OCA) to pen and send to Pacherille-father a letter, fraudulently representing to Tony Pacherille (the father of the teenager Anthony Pacherille) that the NY OCA represents Judge Burns (in a private matter), and that the father should cease and desist coming to Judge Burns' residence, otherwise civil or criminal action will be considered.

The letter from John McConnell (NY OCA attorney) was dated August 3, 2011.

Judge Burns submitted a deposition sworn to on August 5, 2011 to a criminal court, as a witness and complainant in a criminal proceeding against Tony Pacherille, indicating that Judge Burns felt threatened by the letter of Tony Pacherille written to the court as part of pre-sentencing procedure before Burns proceeded to sentencing Tony Pacherille's son.

Tony Pacherille was actually prosecuted for harassment based on deposition of Judge Burns, and the proceeding was dismissed by Judge Downey based on 1st Amendment grounds.

Tony Pacherille sued Burns in federal court.

Usually, judges are represented in actions pertaining to their official duties by the New York State Attorney General.

The docket report of the lawsuit shows that initially Burns was represented in that case by the New York State Attorney General:

Note Docket 4 dated 7/15/2013, Notice of Appearance of attorney Stephen M. Kerwin.

Note below attorney registration information of the same Stephen M. Kerwin as working for the NYS Attorney General's office.

Yet, on September 3, 2013, Docket 19, a law firm Hancock & Estabrook filed with the court a "letter motion" requesting permission to allow it to proceed on Burns' behalf, and directed the "letter motion" to the decision of Judge David Peebles.

Here is the letter of Hancock Estabrook and attached stipulation with NY Attorney General for the substitution.

It took David Peebles only two days to give business to Hancock Estabrook, under the circumstances where NY AG's office would have represented Burns for the set salary, and Hancock Estabrook would be paid out of New York taxpayers' pockets additionally.

Here is the caption of an order from that lawsuit dated 7/3/14, a year after the lawsuit was filed:

As I already described in Part 4 of Anthony Pacherille's story, abbreviations "GLS" and "DEP" on the path on top of the filing in federal court show the names of the assigned judge and magistrate, the then Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe and Magistrate David E. Peebles.

Now let's see whether there is any appearance of impropriety in David Peebles presiding over Tony Pacherille's case and especially making the orders of substitution of counsel, without any disclosures to the parties or the court.

According to the biography of Chief Magistrate Peebles posted on the website of that court, David E. Peebles came to the bench from that law firm, Hancock and Estabrook, and was "affiliated" with that law firm since 1978, for 27 years.

According to the website of that court's bar association where the picture of all judges of the court is prominently placed on the front page of the association's website, clearly sending a message to the public that the bar association is somehow part of that court - and has influence on that court, which, judging by decisions the court is making, is true.

Review of the website of NDNY bar association reveals that:

1) only a few prominent law firms are Trustees, Officers and members of "standing committees" of the bar association, and as such, are in frequent contact with judges of the court and communicate and take directives from the Chief Judge of the court;

2) Hancock Estabrook is one of those law firms - its partner Doreen Simmonds (a co-alumni with David Peebles not only in the law firm, but also in Peebles' prior employment in the Onondaga County District Attorney's office) is:

      (1)  is a past president of NDNY Bar Association (2004-2005) that is merged at the hip with the court;

      (2) A member of two "standing committees" of the NDNY bar association, one of them requiring a close interaction (ex parte as to any parties and opposing counsel in any litigation Hancock Estabrook handles in NDNY court) with a judge of that court Frederick Scullin and his employee

(3) "coincidentally", Doreen Simmonds is also a recipient of a "Judge Duane" award for, among her other accomplishment, "promoting relations between the bench and the bar".

4) Doreen Simmonds is also a member of a secret-membership organization sponsoring judges and their law clerk's trips abroad, and monthly dining and wining for judges, the American Inns of Court, and received an award from that organization in 2013.

As of September 23, 2013, right at the time when Hancock Estabrook appeared as Burns' counsel in Pacherille's case, Doreen Simmonds was also a Chair of the Attorney Grievance Committee in the Fifth Judicial District - so her law firm was covered on all sides.

By establishing close social ties with the Onondaga County District Attorney's office (where the DA is a law school buddy with the Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District James Tormey), with a judge of the Northern District of New York, by "serving" as officers, trustees, members of "standing committees" of the NDNY bar association that is merged at the hip with the NDNY federal court, by having its partner former partner chair the local attorney disciplinary committee, Hancock Estabrook covered all bases - to drum up business, get the ear of judges and escape any possible discipline.

 and, Hancock Estabrook partner John G. Powers is a current Trustee of NDNY bar association.

It is clear that with so much on her plate in terms of public service, Doreen Simmonds would not have time for work, but, there is an appearance that her "public service" in "promoting relationships between the bench and the bar", specifically, between her law firm and the Northern District of New York court, likely an ex parte relationship based on past ties with Magistrate Peebles, IS her main job.

Also, please, note that the firm employs an attorney by the last name of D'Agostino that has a striking facial resemblance with the court's judge Mae D'Agostino:

The firm has even more connections with Judge Peebles and the court.

For example, 

5) Hancock Estabrook employs Judge Peebles' judicial intern Douglas G. Gorman;

6) In February of 2013 (before the Pacherille's lawsuit was filed on 7/3/2013) Hancock Estabrook hosted a "moot court competition" for law students where David Peebles was presiding (and, naturally, had to have an opportunity for ex parte contacts with Hancock Estabrook lawyers).

Note that Peebles was participating in this worthy civic event, the First Year Moot-Court competition sponsored by Hancock Estabrook and communicating with Hancock Estabrook, in February of 2013, when he was one of the assigned judges in Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit against Judge Burns.

Even though the moot competition was hosted before the filing of the lawsuit, not all law firms can have a judge to preside over a competition they sponsor, and "coincidentally" the presiding judge is the former partner of the main sponsor, showing the close social and emotional ties of judge Peebles with Hancock Estabrook.

As always, Judge Burns chose wisely - in his usual corrupt way.

Same as in sentencing - lenient for the rich and powerful, blasting against those who crossed his fragile little ego, to the point of retaliating against the child for the requests of leniency by the father - Burns unmistakeably chose one law firm that was dear to the heart of one of the presiding judges, Magistrate Peebles.

And, instead of disclosing his connections to the law firm and recusing from the case, David Peebles presides over the substitution of counsel "letter motion" and grants it - in two days only.

For the detailed description as to how the court got rid of Tony Pacherille's federal lawsuit against Judge Burns after Hancock Estabrook appeared on Burns' behalf, stay tuned for my next post.

As to what happened after the dismissal...

The usual.

One of the partners of the firm, Janet Callahan, was appointed on November 6, 2015, according to Hancock Estabrook's own press-release, to the so-called "screening committee" for the appointment of Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, the chief state judge, and "interviewed candidates" for the position of the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.  

As always, such "interviewing" was committed to an attorney from a powerful law firm with an incestous relationship with the judiciary and who is financially interested in the outcome of their own "screenings", not to the public.

The appointment of a Hancock Estabrook partner to the position of choosing a possible candidate for the position of Chief Judge of New York State was made after Hancock Estabrook obtained from the pair of federal judges Sharpe-Peebles (Peebles being their former law partner) a dismissal of a lawsuit against a state judge Burns for misconduct outside of his judicial capacity.  

Hancock Estabrook served the state judiciary well, Judge Peebles helped them do that service and get business, now Hancock will give back to the state judiciary through the screening committee.

Not too corrupt.

And, of course, the Sharpe-Peebles tandem dismissed not only the lawsuit against Burns, but also the lawsuit against his partner in crime Otsego County DA John Muehl.

John Muehl, of course, misrepresented the dismissal to the public in a public statement to the local newspapers "The Daily Star" (of Oneonta, NY) that the lawsuit was dismissed because there was no truth in it.

Yet, the lawsuit was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.  When a lawsuit is dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts, the issue whether the corrupt acts occurred remains wide open.

John Muehl apparently conceals from the public the fact that the lawsuit against him was dismissed on prosecutorial immunity grounds, and conceals the fact that prosecutorial immunity was (unconstitutionally) give by the U.S. Supreme Court to criminal prosecutors in reliance on "availability" of attorney discipline - which, we know it for a fact, is not available in New York against criminal prosecutors.

So, both Burns and Muehl, undisciplined, unaccountable and empowered by lack of accountability, remain on the loose.

Beware.