"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Will the 3rd Department judges, clerks and members and attorneys from the 3rd Department Committee for Professional Conduct be ever prosecuted for falsifying a public record or are blood ties and connections thicker than law in the State of New York?

There is an expression that blood is thicker than water.

In New York, it appears that blood ties are also thicker than law.

Earlier in this blog, here, here and here, I wrote about the sudden ex parte transfer to the 4th Department of my disciplinary case and of my husband's file from his closed disciplinary case access to which was subject of a pending federal lawsuit

The transfer created an impression of (1) retaliation against both myself and my husband, since review of the files became difficult by transferring them hours' drive away from us;  and of (2) an attempt to tamper with evidence, or claim that certain files were potentially lost or misplaced in the transfer.

Usually, tampering with the evidence or witnesses in an official proceedings should be subject to a criminal investigation.  In view of the ranks of individuals involved in the potential tampering, and blood ties of those people (at least those blood ties that are readily apparent from public records and public attorney advertisements), it is naïve to think that any of the wrongdoers will be brought to justice.

I also wrote in this blog that the 3rd Department issued an order of transfer of my pending disciplinary case and of my "proceedings" pertaining to my husband, where such proceedings ended three years prior, on  July 7, 2011 and could not be transferred anywhere.

I also wrote in this blog that the order of transfer mentions that an "application" was made for that transfer.

I also wrote in this blog and that neither Mr. Neroni nor I were served with any such "applications", as is the requirement for motion practice in New York and that the Appellate Division 3rd Department staunchly refused to provide to us copies of the allegedly existing "application" that was never served on us and that was used as a basis of the transfer.

Additionally, by the time the "application" (the equivalent word of a "motion") was made, motion deadlines were over, and the Committee for Professional Conduct (COPS) was not given any leave for the extension of those deadlines, nor did the COPS ask the court for such an extension - at least no such requests were served upon me.

As to Mr. Neroni, his disciplinary case was concluded with his disbarment (without a hearing) on July 7, 2011.

COPS obtained a dismissal of certain causes of action filed by Mr. Neroni in federal court specifically on the basis that his case is concluded and closed.

Rule 22 NYCRR 806.3(b) regulating authority of COPS specifically provides that COPS can only investigate attorneys for misconduct.  Mr. Neroni is no longer an attorney, therefore, COPS had no authority to conduct any further investigations after his disbarment.

Both Mr. Neroni wrote to the 3rd Department asking to provide us with a copy of (1) what was transferred to the 4th Department, and (2) of the application which was the basis of the order of transfer.

The 3rd Department denied our request for these documents.

I wrote to the 4th Department with the same request.

Today I received two letters, one regarding my case and one regarding my husband's.  I publish here the letter regarding myself and I publish the letter regarding my husband with his permission.

In the letter regarding my husband the 4th Department indicates that all they received is the order of transfer and an accompanying letter.  

The letter from the 4th Department does not list any "application" for the order of transfer that the order of transfer mentions.

The letter from the 4th Department regarding my case sheds a little more light on the situation, claiming that included into the transferred papers was a copy of my lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, Neroni v. Peebles

That lawsuit, as I wrote earlier in this blog, was dismissed before it was served by the court which was the defendant in that same lawsuit.  Since the United States (court) was a party in the action, I have 60 days to appeal that dismissal, and 60 days did not expire yet.

Yet, the letter from the 4th Department regarding my case still does not indicate that any "application" was included with the papers transferred to the 4th Department from the 3rd Department.

The letter from the 4th Department claims that there is no indication that our cases were consolidated.

Yet, the order shows one caption for both me and my husband as "In the Matter of [myself] AND [my husband]" which usually indicates one single case.

Moreover, my own and my husband's names are mentioned in one paragraph.  So, there is no point playing dumb and pretending that the cases were not consolidated and treated as one by the 3rd Department in making the order. 

4th Department's pretense that certain files regarding Mr. Neroni about "pending complaints" could be sent directly to the Committee for Professional Standards of the 4th Department have no legal basis, because, as I mentioned above, Mr. Neroni was disbarred as of July 7, 2011, and as of the same date COPS lost their authority to investigate and prosecute him on any "new complaints" against Mr. Neroni.

Moreover, no "new complaints" were served upon Mr. Neroni.

So, the bottom line that we have here is:

1) there is an order of June 11, 2014 from the 3rd Department claiming that COPS made an "application" for an order of transfer;

2) The 3rd Department considered the "application" and "upon due deliberation" granted it;

3) The application was never served either on Mr. Neroni or on me;

4) The 3rd Department denied access to the "application" to both Mr. Neroni and me despite our requests;

5) The 4th Department did not receive any such "applications".

So - did the 3rd Department lie that there was an "application" made in a court order, thus making the court order based on non-existing application and thus void?

Did the 3rd Department rely upon an oral ex parte application by the COPS?  Ex parte communications with the court, whether oral or written, are attorney and judicial misconduct.

Appears that no "application" by the COPS is in existence, and that the COPS, together with the 3rd Department simply falsified a public record, a court order, in order to get their wish.

Will they be prosecuted?


in other words, when the federal and state government is so tightly entrenched and interweaved by blood ties, there is a real fat chance for criminal prosecution of COPS attorneys, members and the judges of the 3rd Department who made a court order based on a non-existing application while claiming there is such an application (which was never served upon us), and who engaged in a cover-up of their misconduct, including the ex parte communication with the COPS.

Yet, any "person from the street", an "average Joe" who would forge a public document, would be criminally prosecuted.  Because they do not have the right pedigree - such as the appellate judges and their pet agency, the Committee for Professional Conduct have.

This is the reality in the State of New York.

This is the reality of attorney regulation and licensing where the Rules of Professional Conduct are inapplicable to the powerful attorneys employed in the government. 

As I said earlier in this blog - if the public is not protected from shenanigans of the most powerful attorneys, the whole idea of the regulation of the legal profession is a sham.

My husband's and my own cases clearly show that, instead of the declared "rule of law", what we have in New York, and for quite a while, is the "law of connections" or "law of blood ties" - that is the only "law" that matters here.

No comments:

Post a Comment