Does your conscience bother you?
At least a little bit?
Well, it should.
The Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable to all attorneys, including you, Mr. Ranous, provide that an attorney must (I stress it, must, this is not a discretionary option) report attorney misconduct or judicial misconduct that an attorney knows about.
That may just as well include misconduct of the attorney's employer, no matter how powerful, no matter what consequences to the attorney.
That is a duty that the Rules of Professional Conduct impose upon the members of the legal profession for the protection of the public.
I've written in this blog that the NYS Appellate Division Third Department engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee for Professional Conduct the moment I mentioned in federal court on my husband's behalf that I am seeking to see the voting record in my husband's disciplinary case and engage an authenticity expert, especially in view of the recent "resignation"of three attorneys from the Committee among investigation regarding investigation for allegedly filing false time sheets.
When the court employing Mr. Ranous engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee about a CLOSED case and transfer documents sought through a federal lawsuit, what did Mr. Ranous do?
Did he report attorney misconduct?
No.
Did he report judicial misconduct?
No.
Here is the entire correspondence between my husband and the Appellate Division (posted with my husband's permission) that started after the Appellate Division suddenly transferred an long-closed case to the 4th Department, "coincidentally" did it right after I raised in federal court the issue of authenticity and availability of documents in the Committee and did it without showing the application for such an order of transfer to my husband or myself as his attorney.
 |
Document 1. The ex parte order of transfer. My husband's case was concluded on July 7, 2011 with the resulting loss of jurisdiction by the court and the Committee. My case was commenced in January 2013. My husband's case and my case were never merged (consolidated). Neither my husband nor I were ever served with the application for this order.
Document 2. My husband's first letter in response to the ex parte order requesting to disclose authority upon which the order was made and to provide copies of documents upon which the order was granted and documents which were transferred to the 4th Department.
Document 3. First obnoxious answer by Mr. Ranous ignoring the request for copies of documents.
Document 5. Mr. Ranous's second obnoxious reply to my husband arrogantly telling Mr. Neroni that Mr. Ranous "was directed to advise" Mr. Neroni that his request "for a copy of all proceedings resulting in this Court's order of June 11, 2014 and for copies of documents transferred has been denied".
Just like that - denied without an explanation who "directed" Mr. Ranous to answer in this manner, on what grounds or for what reasons.
Today I've read the new lawsuit by Leon Koziol against the Appellate Division Third Department and the Committee for Professional Conduct a portion of which I publish herein (parts of pages 1 and 25):
Document 6. The first page of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing names of defendants.
Document 7. Part of page 25 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing that the Appellate Division Third Department engaged in an ex parte communication with the Committee, attorneys Duffy and Zayas, in 2012 and denied Mr. Koziol access to the important documents upon which the court relied in denying him his application for reinstatement of his law license, a constitutionally protected interest.
Document 8. Part of page 25 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit showing that Mr. Koziol's second application for reinstatement of his law license was denied because of his political activity protected by the 1st Amendment, posts on his website and anti corruption testimony before the Moreland Commission.
Document 9. Part of page 19 of Mr. Koziol's federal lawsuit referenced in Document 8 above.
Statements by Mr. Koziol, together with documents from my own and my husband's cases, including my husband's federal lawsuit for access to his own disciplinary file, show clearly that the 3rd Department and the Committee for Professional Standard treat disciplinary proceedings as their own personal fiefdom, do not feel restricted by any rule of law, engage in ex parte communications as a matter of custom and engage in retaliation for pubic criticism of misconduct within the court system also as a matter of custom.
An attorney working within the system, knowing of such misconduct, is obligated by Rules of Professional Conduct to report such misconduct.
In my husband's case Mr. Ranous did the opposite.
He participated in the cover-up and arrogantly told my husband that he was "advised" by an unknown individual that my husband's request of access to the ex parte application to transfer his file 5 hours away from him was denied (see Document 5 above) - no explanations, no grounds, no authority - denied and that's it.
One more example showing that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the government or friends or relatives of government officials.
One more example of why attorney licensing do not protect the public, but only protects public officials for accountability for misconduct by giving them power to quash investigation and prosecution against themselves, as well as instill fear in the legal profession and the public by retaliation targeting critics and exterminating their reputation and livelihood.
Once again, so much for the rule of law in the state of New York.
And Mr. Ranous - I return to my initial question - how do you sleep at night? Any pangs from your conscience?
Didn't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment