"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.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

A second complaint has been filed against Judge Revoir for retaliation against the first complainant

I have filed the second complaint against Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., of Chenango County Family Court.

After the first complaint against the judge has been filed on September 1, 2014, Judge Revoir immediately engaged in retaliation against one of the complainants, an indigent mother, and made three unlawful orders, including an unlawful arrest warrant, instead of one lawful one - to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, memorializing what he said earlier on record on August 29, 2014, that he does not have jurisdiction over the only petition pending in front of him.

It is now in the hands of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and I truly hope that Judge Revoir will have the decency not to further retaliate against complainants against him, as he did in his September 4, 2014 order, his September 5, 2014 order to show cause and September 5, 2014 arrest warrant against Alecia Bracci, AFTER he stated that he has no jurisdiction over Alecia Bracci's proceedings.

I asked the Judicial Conduct Commission to take Judge Revoir off the bench because of the level of ignorance of the law, incompetence or, in the alternative, disdain to the rule of law that he demonstrated in Alecia Bracci's case, and especially because Judge Revoir, after he declared he has no jurisdiction over the case, took that jurisdiction and retaliated against the complainant, a young indigent mother, by taking her liberty and causing her child a trauma that will, probably, never be erased from the child's mind.

Busy courts and trouble reading

I keep hearing from judges that certain motions are "voluminous" meaning that it is difficult for judges to read them.

"Coincidentally", I am never hearing the same about motions filed against my clients, say, in a credit card consumer debt cases, or in foreclosure cases - in those cases courts usually rubber-stamp whatever the corporations want without complaining about "voluminous" motions.

Many times when I receive a judicial decision, not necessarily against my client, I see that judges fail to have read important portions of the record, because they either skip portions that by law they are not allowed to skip, or misrepresent it, showing that they did not read the record attentively, or even at all.

I understand how busy a judge can be and how many cases he may have.

I understand about budget cuts requiring judges to shoulder larger case burdens.

But - nobody dragged judges to benches against their will.

This is a job that has to be done, each case in front of a judge deals with a unique controversy where a litigant exhausted remedies out of court and has to resort to a court of law for assistance.

A judge has no right to claim that he or she is too busy to actually sit down and actually look and analyze the record of a case in front of him, no matter how voluminous the record is, in order to render a decision which may affect the entire life of an individual who came to court with a request for judicial intervention.

If the judge does not have enough time to do his job, he should either adjourn cases on his calendar so that he has enough time.  After all, for people who appear in front of him, each case may be life-changing, that's why they come and ask for the court's help and intervention to begin with.
And life-changing decisions should not be made by rushed or lazy people who have no desire to read what was put in front of them.

About foxes watching a chicken coop...

A woman who was punched by a police officer, and where the incident was caught on video, just obtained a 1.5 million dollar settlement, and the cop agreed to resign from his position.

In the case I reported on September 5, 2014 and yesterday, here and here, a police officer has intentionally driven back into a woman standing behind the vehicle while the woman was videotaping the police officer in order to,  kill her, injure her and to destroy the tablet in her hands.

When a cop who is trying to kill or injure a woman by intentionally backing up into her a police car in order to destroy evidence in her hands, that cop does not have just anger issues, and the cop clearly puts the destruction of the object in a person's hands above her life, which makes him extremely dangerous on the police force.

This person may have deep emotional problems when he disregards human life to the point he did in Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

The cop had no reason to back up the vehicle at all, so it can be presumed that he did it intentionally, and especially when you consider that he did not close the door, leaving it hanging open while he was driving back (to have a wider span to hit the woman), and put the car in gear and drove it very fast, so that the victim would not be able to jump away.

From the amount of settlement reached above for lesser behavior, it is clear how high the stakes are for the cop here, as well as for his employer, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department which hired that cop, in the event that the police officer in question had anger issues in his background that the Delaware County Sheriff has disregarding when hiring him and giving him weapons and a vehicle that can also be used as a weapon. 

It appears that these stakes are the only reasons  criminal charges were fabricated against Barbara O'Sullivan, "coincidentally" by the offender cop - to discredit her as a witness and destroy her life in retaliation.

It appears that is why the Delaware County Sheriff's Department suddenly created a one-person policy for Barbara O'Sullivan's attorney not to be able to have access to Barbara O'Sullivan unless she allows the corrections officers, employees of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, to search her confidential attorney file.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

The jeopardy of a judge who is at the same time a practicing attorney

I wrote in this blog about judges of local justice courts in the state of New York who are not attorneys and what a disaster it is to deal with the judge whose educational level may be several classes of school and who listens to every word of what the prosecution tells the judge to do.

Yet, I could not even fathom what kind of danger a judge of the local justice court who continues to practice law can be.

There is such a judge, judge Richard Gumo of the Delhi Town Court.
On Monday, September 22, 2014, I brought before him a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because of invalidity of the underlying document from a Family Court.
The proceeding in front of Judge Gumo was a criminal proceeding.
The criminal defendant was not a party in the Family Court proceeding from which the invalid document originated.
Thus, my client could not have access to the records of that court, or to appeal the Family Court decision.
Yet, the judge denied the motion without reading and stated specifically that he is not the appellate court and cannot "reverse" the Family Court, and that my client needs to appeal.
What bothers me is that Judge Gumo continues to be a practicing attorney in the State of New York and I know for a fact that he appears in Family Court.
Why do I know that?  Because earlier this year Judge Gumo tried to delay a scheduled jury trial in a criminal case by claiming that he has an appearance as an attorney in a child neglect proceedings which take precedence over the criminal proceedings.
I demanded to provide another judge instead of the one who appeared to be engaged on the day of the jury trial, the prosecution withdrew the case since they knew very well they did not have their main witness, but were trying to pressure me for a plea bargain rather than drop the charges.  
The e-courts show that Judge Gumo has open and active cases in the Supreme Court where Family Court judges are also presiding as Acting Supreme Court Justices, so reversing any rulings of a Family Court judge in a criminal proceedings in Delhi Town Court may very well hurt Judge Gumo's client's chances in the Supreme Court before a judge upset with such "overruling". 
As an attorney for a criminal defendant who suffered an adverse ruling from Judge Gumo despite the fact that the case was obviously jurisdictionally invalid, on many well-briefed grounds that Judge Gumo refused to read - did Judge Gumo refuse to declare a decision of a Family Court judge invalid for purposes of the criminal proceedings against the criminal defendant because Judge Gumo was afraid to hurt his own law practice and rattle a Family Court judge in front of whom he appears now or can appear in the near future for one of Judge Gumo's clients?
There is at least an appearance of financial interest here, and at least an appearance that justice was not done.  

That appearance, in my view, invalidated Judge Gumo's decisions and destroys public trust in impartiality of a practicing attorney who is also a judge.  
Of course, Judge Gumo should have recused, but, of course, it is futile to ask for that.  I know it from personal experience.
If we are talking about judicial independence and impartiality, we must demand that no judge can continue to practice law while on the bench, to avoid situations of conflict of interest as described here.

Criminal law is not for the faint of heart - not for the prosecutors, not for the defense attorneys and not for the presiding judges.

You hold somebody's liberty, fate, in some states - life in your hands (New York does not have death penalty).

And because the stakes are so high, criminal law should not be viewed, as it is now, as a game, because it is then a game played with somebody's life, and, of course, the lives of people who depend on the defendant - financially or emotionally.

If the judge lacks the guts to rule the way the applicable law and fairness to the defendant clearly dictate, for fear of ruffling the feathers of another judge before whom he practices, that means that the judge has considerations other than criminal litigation in front of him as the key factor determining the judge's decisions.

And when that starts happening, the judge simply should choose another path and get off that bench.

If the court has no ability to sequester witnesses, why hold the hearing where witnesses need to be sequestered?

I had a hearing recently in one of the local justice courts in Delaware County, state of New York.

There were 3 witnesses testifying for the prosecution.

It was obvious that there was a need for the so-called sequestration of witnesses.

I asked the judge to sequester witnesses, he simply stated that witnesses need to go outside because there are no premises inside the courthouse (a new courthouse, recently built) to sequester witnesses.

Then, when the first witness testified and went back, I requested that he be separated from other witnesses, and the court could not do that, because there was nowhere to separate the witnesses.

A relative of the defendant went outside, saw the witness who just testified and the two witnesses who were about to testify talking, came back and reported it to me.

I reported it to the court.

The judge got frustrated and told me to go myself outside and make sure that the witnesses for the prosecution are not talking.

Of course, this is not a defense attorney's job to do that.

My question to the Delhi Town Court and to all other courts where sequestration of witnesses is not possible for lack of space or premises - if there are no premises to sequester witnesses, why hold hearings where such witnesses are supposed to testify?  Trials? 

Wouldn't such failure to sequester witnesses invalidate the resulting decisions of the court based on such testimony?

The audio recording of Lt. Stanton explaining to attorney Tatiana Neroni the policy of Delaware County jail to search legal mail and attorney files, and explanations of the Delaware County attorney

First and foremost - recordings that I placed on this page are legal.

New York has a "one-person consent statute" for recordings of telephone conversations, requiring only one party to the conversations to consent to recordings.  New York law does not require the consenting party to notify the other party to the conversation that the conversation is recorded.

I was a party in both conversations that I publish below.

I posted earlier today a story about how I was blocked from coming to see a client in Delaware County jail under the circumstances where my client is in the jail based on investigations and charges brought by a police officer who nearly run my client over (intentionally) in a police vehicle trying to destroy the tablet she held in her hands while videotaping the police officer.

I naturally find the sudden vigilance of the Delaware County jail, and vigilance directed only at me and only for purposes of access to  this particular client, extremely suspect and in bad faith.

You can listen to my conversation with Lt. Stanton, Chief Officer of the Delaware County Jail, New York by downloading the voice file from this link.  Or, you can listen to the file on the linked site.

You can listen to my conversation with Porter Kirkwood, County Attorney for Delaware County, New York, by downloading the voice file from this link.  Or, you can listen to the file on the linked site.

It is clear that the Delaware County Attorney and the Chief Officer of the Delaware County jail coordinated their statements, but not completely.

The Delaware County Attorney (with whom I talked later than with Lt. Stanton) seemed to be unaware of Lt. Stanton's statement that corrections officers are allegedly supposed to "flip through pages" of my attorney file, and even attempted to deny it.  His denials were replaced with an awkward silence once I told him that I recorded Lt. Stanton's statements.

Also, the Delaware County attorney appeared to be unaware of the county policies on the matter, while Lt. Stanton rattled those policies right off and even relied upon the alleged "minimum standards" allegedly established by the New York State Commissioner of Corrections.

The County Attorney assured me that I will be allowed access to my client today if I go to see her in jail, but still insisted that the corrections officers will look into the envelope, if attorney materials are held in the envelope.  

The County Attorney also could not guarantee me that the corrections officers will not "flip through the pages" of my file, even if my attorney file will be in a "manila folder", which to me was still a denial of access to my client.

I have sent a cease and desist letter to both the County Attorney and the Delaware County Sheriff.

Will keep you apprised as to how the situation develops.

Life of a witness and victim of police misconduct may be in danger; attention attorneys who visit clients in Delaware County jail, New York: the personnel of Delaware County jail opens legal mail and searches attorney files as a matter of policy; the police officer who was involved in the vehicular assault on a woman on September 5, 2014 retaliates, puts her in jail on charges brought by him, obtains an arrest warrant, executes it, puts his victim in jail on felony charges and his employer blocks attorney access to his victim

The reason why I am publishing this press release is because I believe the life and well-being of my client and friend Barbara O'Sullivan who is now in Delaware County Jail may be in danger, and if anything happens to her - or to her daughter Alecia Bracci or her dogs - or to me or my loved ones - you have the answer why, through this press release.

I just talked on the phone with Lt. Stanton, the head officer of the Delaware County Correctional Facility, New York, located in Delhi, NY.

I called Lt. Stanton because I was not allowed access to my client, a pre-trial detainee in the Delaware County Correctional Facility ("coincidentally" while the client in question is held on charges with assault on a Delaware County Deputy Sheriff).

Lt. Stanton revealed to me the following policies of the Delaware County Jail that I feel I need to notify other attorneys attorneys about, in case they are visiting clients in Delaware County Jail or sending legal mail to their clients who are in custody in that jail.

The policies that Lt. Stanton told me about are as follows:

(1) that Delaware County Jail personnel opens legal mail to inmates and pre-trial detainees as a matter of right in front of inmates, allegedly in search of contraband, and does it based on the "minimum standards" of the New York State Department of Corrections;

(2) that Delaware County Jail looks through all attorney files of all attorneys who come to visit their client in jail, as a matter of right, allegedly as a safety measure, in the alleged search for "contraband".

My husband, while he was an attorney, came to visit his clients in Delaware County Jail for 37 years, always had closed envelopes with his clients' files, was never directed to show the contents of the envelopes.

I, as an attorney, visited clients in Delaware County Jail for 5.5 years, was never directed to show the contents of my attorney file.

I talked to another attorney who confirmed that in the long time that that attorney was practicing criminal law in Delaware County and visiting inmates and pretrial detainees in Delaware County jail, nobody ever asked that attorney to look at the contents of attorney file by "looking", "reading" or "flipping through the pages", or by asking to take the contents of "envelopes", "folders" or "manila folders", or by any other way.

It is obvious that when a corrections officer "looks" at the file and "flips through the pages", she or he gets glimpses of the content of the papers inside the file, and thus learns about the contents of the file which are privileged.

Moreover, while "flipping through the pages", the corrections officer, employee of Delaware County, can see photographic evidence that may be in the file and report the contents of what they saw to the prosecution, or to the witnesses, and witnesses in this case are also employees of the Delaware County Sheriff's office.

Attorney-client privilege is absolute, and at no other time in no other jail (state prisons that I visited, Otsego County Jail, Chenango County Jail) was I ever directed to show to the corrections officers the contents of my attorney file.

At this time, ny client remains in jail on a very high bail, I remain outside of the jail, and I cannot show my client any documentary materials in my  attorney file unless I also show those same privileged materials to the personnel of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, while the charges are brought on behalf of a Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy who is claimed to be the alleged victim of my client's alleged crime, so Delaware County Sheriff's department cannot claim they are disinterested parties here.

Of course, Lt. Stanton said that the personnel of the jail does not really want to read what they are flipping through.  And I do not care.  To me, if a literate person flips through a written material - he or she has an opportunity to read it, and that is a violation of attorney-client privilege if what the officer sees is privileged attorney file.

I put it into an envelope for a reason, so that the contents are not revealed. 

So, attorneys who visit Delaware County Jail to see your clients, or who send legal mail to their clients, inmates or pre-trial detainees of Delaware County Correctional Facility, New York, be aware - your legal mail will be searched and your attorney files will be searched, if, as Lt. Stanton cogently put it, his personnel is not negligent...

I have a funny feeling though that Lt. Stanton's personnel is negligent to search all attorneys' files but mine.

"Coincidentally", the officer who came to arrest my client and was allegedly bit by a dog (I saw only a band aid on his arm during his testimony on September 22, 2014), Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, was the perpetrator of a vehicular assault on my client n September 5, 2014 reported by me on the same day in this blog, who did  not report it or disqualify himself from prosecuting my client, instead, he filed a criminal complaint against her for allegedly "resisting arrest" (videotaping police misconduct is now resisting arrest?), and the arrest warrant that he had as a basis to enter her property was based on  the charges that he brought against the victim of his vehicular assault. 

Moreover, Officer Bowie had the audacity to execute the arrest warrant obtained on his own false charges against the victim of his vehicular assault, and ask two more officers to "help him".

I wonder how a person who should be a co-defendant in the action is allowed by the Delaware County Sheriff to participate in investigation and prosecution against his own victim.  You live - you learn.

Moreover, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department has leaked information about the charges pressed by Derek Bowie to the press, and my client Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci is now the subjects of a hate campaign on Facebook, with threats being made to their lives.

The TV news release relies on an alleged media release from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (now it is updated, eliminating initial references to a "pit bull type dog" because of an outcry on Facebook of pit bull lovers).

The Sheriff's Department website contains no such release, see the scan of the Department's media release webpage that I made today:

All of this begs a question - is the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and District Attorney's office engage in intentional prosecution of a victim of police misconduct to cover up a crime committed by the county police officer - a vehicular manslaughter on a resident of the county made by the use of a police vehicle, done in order to destroy evidence of police misconduct that she had in her hands (the tablet she used to videotape Derek Bowie on Sept. 5, 2014)?

See the picture that was taken on September 5, 2014 of Barbara O'Sullivan who has just escaped death or serious bodily injury after Delaware County Sheriff Deputy Derek Bowie assaulted her with a police vehicle in order to destroy the videotape she was making of his misconduct.

And here is the picture of the tablet smashed by Derek Bowie during his vehicular assault:

Since Barbara O'Sullivan had me report on my blog on September 5, 2014 that the video survived, even though the tablet was smashed, Derek Bowie needed access to Barbara O'Sullivan's house to search for the tablet - and got such access by having Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci arrested on false charges brought by Derek Bowie.

Derek Bowie also had another witness of the vehicular assault taken out of the house - the dog.

The dog was clubbed, TASERED 6 times, maced, and a metal hook was brought through his nose that the shelter refused to remove until the owner of the dog was bailed out of jail and took pictures of the dog's face.

According to testimony of three police officers in a felony hearing in Delhi Town Court on September 22, 2014, Barbara O'Sullivan followed orders of Officer Tahir Haqq and Officer Eric Alexander saw through the back window of Barbara O'Sullivan's house how Barbara O'Sullivan secured dogs in a cage, then Officer Haqq saw a dog "push by" Barbara O'Sullivan when she opened the door to surrender to the police - no intentional conduct could be charged based on this set of circumstances, yet, the Delaware County District attorney keeps pushing the charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, and I wonder why.

I also wonder whether I am being prevented from seeing Barbara O'Sullivan in jail without having my attorney file searched by the order of the Delaware County District Attorney's office.  

I also wonder what may happen to Barbara O'Sullivan in jail and whether she is safe here, in the hands of colleagues of Derek Bowie.

Outside the jail Derek Bowie already orchestrated a hate campaign against Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci by making an unofficial press release to TV stations, a highly unusual move.

That unofficial release generated hate statements toward Barbara O'Sullivan and Alecia Bracci on Facebook like this (taken off the Facebook comments to the story published by the TV station), and those are only the scans that I took on the day after the story ran, there might be more:

If you think that either Barbara O'Sullivan or Alecia Bracci can have a fair trial after this "trial on Facebook" orchestrated by Officer Bowie and his employer, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, think again.

I highly doubt that Officer Bowie will ever be investigated or prosecuted for his attempt to kill Barbara O'Sullivan with a police vehicle.

Yet, Officer Bowie already succeeded in a tide of hate directed through the media and Facebook at both Barbara O'Sullivan and Alecia Bracci, with accusations that they are "look ugly",  "look stupid",  and that they should be "put down" because of what they (both) allegedly did to the dog and to the officer.

The house of Barbara O'Sullivan was, according to my information, searched to recover the tablet, but the tablet was well hidden.

The police officer in question, Delaware County Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, who considers it possible to commit an attempt to murder a woman with a police vehicle for videotaping his misconduct, is still on the force, still has a TASER and a pistol in his possession and still can do the same he did to Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter Alecia Bracci - to any of you.

Don't you think the state authorities and the feds look into what is going on in Delaware County before the same police officer hones his vehicular assault skills on another victim?

Do you think that will happen?

Thursday, September 18, 2014

The recurring epidemic of sexual insecurity among judges

Michigan has suspended Judge Wade McCree, son of the first black judge appointed to the federal appellate court in the 6th Circuit and former U.S. Solicitor general, for repeatedly having sex in chambers with a complaining witness in an ongoing criminal case over which Judge McCree was presiding.

Judge McCree was also offering his paramour to chose punishment for the defendant who was, "coincidentally", her husband in arrears for child support.

Yet, the son of a judge was not permanently removed, was not permanently barred from becoming a judge, he was merely suspended.

Nor was Wade McCree disciplined as an attorney, and continues to be, after all this scandal, "an attorney in good standing".

During the disciplinary proceedings, Wade McCree claimed he suffered from "hypomania", or uncontrollable impulsive behavior.  It is interesting that he recalled that only when he was about to be taken off the bench for misconduct.  How many lives he damaged with his hypomania, nobody knows.

The lawsuit by the victim (criminal defendant) against Wade McCree was dismissed without reaching the merits, on grounds of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench. 

Close in time, in California, two judges, Scott Steiner and Cory Woodward, were recently censured, but NOT taken off the bench for having sex in the courthouse.

Judge Scott Steiner reportedly had sex in his chambers with two of his former law students and then tried to get one of them a paid position in the local District Attorney's office.

Judge Woodward had sex with a court clerk, in his chambers and in public places in the courthouse and was passing notes to her of sexual nature during court proceedings.

Both judges apparently remain in the same courthouse and can continue with using the courthouse as their dating grounds, only this time they will be more careful.

Neither of the judges was disciplined as an attorney.

Today the New York Times has reported that a federal judge in the State of Alabama was charged with an assault on his wife when she confronted him for having sex with a law clerk.

Mark E. Fuller, the judge of the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Alabama, is relegated to a position where he "does not have new cases assigned to him", but still continues to preside over cases, is not suspended and continues to receive salary and benefits as a public servant.

Mark E. Fuller was reportedly formally charged with assault in criminal court and entered a "diversion" program.

This writer has personally seen, in and out of the courthouse, SEVERAL male judges and their female law clerks in situations strongly suggesting that there was more than professional relationships between them - judging by the distance, or rather, lack thereof, the judge and his law clerk would maintain close to each other in social gatherings and in the courthouse, the way the female law clerk would brush off the judge's personal clothing worn at that time by the judge, the way the female law clerk would touch the judge...  People who did not know it was a law clerk asked me whether it was in fact the judge's spouse.

Yet, had I reported THAT, I would have disbarred long time ago... 

Judges can have sex in chambers with witnesses and remain "attorneys in good standing".  Attorneys who criticize judges for that most likely will get disbarred, and that is the problem with our system.

I do not know how Judges Steiner and Woodward got reported in California and what is the current fate of reporters, if any, against them, but Judge Wade reported himself when he filed a criminal complaint against his paramour for stalking and she went public with his sexts, while Judge Fuller was reported by his own beaten wife.  Again, no court personnel dared to report either of these judges.

In the absence of reporting because court employees and private attorneys are in fear of retribution from the system, such things continue and escalate into public scandals such as situations with Wade McCree, Scott Steiner, Cory Woodward and Mark Fuller.

Yet, since the situation seems to be proliferant, it begs a question -
is it the power getting into the judges' heads, or are they so insecure about their manly prowess and so hopeless to find anyone interested in dating them outside of the court system that they must necessarily use their power of office and their black robe to get a date?

You can only claim unfairness by the state court system if you are not white? New York State Attorney General's "equal justice for all" is only to get ordered results for powers that be in order to keep Mr. Schneiderman's own law license

I removed my disciplinary proceeding from a state court to the federal court under a federal statute.

The full text of the statute is here, cited by the New York State Attorney General in full in the Appellees' brief in Peters v. Neroni (appeal of the remand of my disciplinary case back into state court):

28 U.S.C. 1443 was enacted by the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. Congress must derive its autority to enact statutes only and exclusively from the United States Constitution.

The enabling provision of the United States Constitution that was used to enact 28 U.S.C. 1443 was the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The full text of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment taken from the website of the U.S. Government is:

Every federal judge, including judges of federal districts court, appellate circuit courts and every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court are sworn to protect the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause, its full text is taken from the transcript published on the website of the U.S. Government:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (that every judge and every attorney in the United States and in the sovereign states is sworn to uphold) state that the Supreme Law of the land is:

(1) The Constitution;
(2) the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
(3) all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States

Power to the federal judiciary is limited and delineated by Article III of the United States Constitution, see the full text of it here and below as a scan of the portion of Article III dealing with judicial power for your convenience:

Nowhere in the sections of Article III dealing with judicial power does the U.S. Constitution give judges power to make the law.

Thus, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution enumerating "the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" does not give power to federal courts to amend statutes through interpretation.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution vests the exclusive power to make law, or the legislative power, with the U.S. Congress:

The U.S. Congress enacted a removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1443:

Federal courts have no power, under the U.S. Constitution that every judge taking office is sworn to uphold, to change (amend) that statute.

The statute is clear and unambiguous.  It does not contain any references to racial restrictions on removal of civil actions from state to federal courts.

Yet, the New York State Attorney General claims on behalf of the State of New York that "[i]t is well-established, however, that the phrase "any law providing for the equal rights of citizens" means "any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality", see the scan below from the September 15, 2014 Appellees' Brief in Peters v. Neroni:

Of course, there is no such language about equal rights "stated in terms of racial equality" in 28 U.S.C. 1443

And the New York State Attorney General acknowledges that I have raised that issue:

And the New York State Attorney General, who is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution (same as I was as an attorney), must agree with me that holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution should not be followed by federal courts, because the New York State Attorney General must abide his own oath of office and, thus, must abide by the Supremacy Clause of the Article VI, the legislative power clause of the Article I, the Article III that does not give federal courts power to make the law (or amend the laws made by Congress through interpretation - as amendments must be enacted pursuant to Article I).

Yet, the New York State Attorney General, instead of abiding by his constitutional oath of office that he took in 2010, rejects my argument that it is the U.S. Constitution and not holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or of any other lower federal court that control the analysis.

The New York State Attorney General reserves to me only a right to "dispute applicability of these precedents", which is simply irrelevant when the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court, in making such precedents, exceeded its judicial power granted to it by the Article III of the U.S. Constitution and instead usurped the legislative power granted by the U.S. Constitution under Article I Section I only to the U.S. Congress.

And watch the legal basis provided by the New York State Attorney General  (Assistant Attorney General Andrew B. Ayers of counsel) on behalf of the State of New York that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution should not be followed and instead the U.S. Supreme Court holdings contrary to the Supremacy Clause should be followed:

Here is the signature page of the Appellees' Brief in Peters v Neroni showing the team of authors of this conclusory (not based on proof or arguments) statement:

If Andrew B. Ayers and his boss Eric T. Schneiderman under whose name Andrew B. Ayers has filed the brief would provide such an "analysis" in a law school final or on a bar exam, they would get a failing grade, because there is NO ANALYSIS at all. 

Mr. Ayers did not care to explain WHY it was correct for the district court judge Norman Mordue to violate his own constittuional oath of office and to put the holding of a federal court ahead of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the restrictions on judicial power in Article III of that U.S. Constitution and the exclusive legislative power given only to the U.S. Congress in the Article I Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

And there is a simple reason why Mr. Ayers has failed to provide such an explanation - because there is no plausible explanation for a judge to violate his constitutional oath of office, as there is no plausible explanation for Mr. Ayers to violate his own oath of office in arguing for affirming unconstitutional decision of Judge Mordue made in excess of his authority, through amendment of a U.S. Statute by interpretation.

If Eric T. Schneiderman and his team cannot even maintain the oath of office Eric T. Schneiderman took as a New York State Attorney General in 2010, and consider it their duty to violate their oath of office to preserve the status quo for their clients, even if it involves upholding an unconstitutional decision of a judge, Eric T. Schneiderman has no moral right to run for office and be elected to office again - as he tries to do now.

New York taxpayers do not need to pay public servants who only take public office and take the oath of office as a perfunctory token of power, with no intention to follow their oath of office, and with every intention to violate it in order to serve powers that be.

As to my own case, Eric T. Schneiderman and his team think that I am not entitled to the equal protection of laws because I was not RACIALLY discriminated when the Equal Protection Clause does not say one word that it is restricted only to racial discrimination, nor does the removal statute that I used say that.

If I am white, it can be implied from Mr. Schneiderman's and Mr. Ayers' "reading" of 28 USC 1443 (or, rather, imagining what is not there), that I can be discriminated for any other reason - such as a political prosecution because:
  • I am Russian and Russia has always been treated and presented as an enemy;
  • I am of foreign origin, speak with an accent, and in this country for many people, including many judges, speaking with an accent is an equivalent of being dumb, incompetent or uneducated, and judges hate to have me "teach them about the law" when I make objections about THEIR law with my foreign accent;
  • I am married to and continuously represent a disbarred civil rights attorney,
  • I am myself a civil rights attorney involved in multiple civil rights lawsuits on behalf of clients raising sensitive issues as to misconduct of government officials;
  • I have investigated multiple judges and prosecutors for misconduct through FOIL requests;
  • I have filed numerous DOCUMENTED complaints dealing with prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct with respective authorities;  
  • I have filed complaints about misconduct of high-standing politically connected attorneys with connections to the judiciary; and
  • I am a vocal critic of judicial misconduct and misconduct in the attorney disciplinary bodies of the New York State since 2009?
Discrimination on all of these grounds can apparently be disregarded (the NYS Attorney General thinks) because my skin is white?

Do you want a New York State Attorney General who understands "equal justice for all" only the way it suits his high-ranking and politically connected clients who hold in their hands Mr. Schneiderman's OWN LICENSE AND LIVELIHOOD?  A fearless protector of New Yorkers, indeed.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

So - which of the Neronis is prosecuted in the current disciplinary proceeding? Does not really matter as long as one of them is punished. And it never really mattered anyway.

It is so difficult to count and distinguish among those Neronis that they are constantly mixed up by the prosecutors.

The Professional Conduct Committee of the 3rd Department did not really want to read court papers based on which it prosecuted "a Neroni", so it decided to prosecute Tatiana Neroni for acts or omissions (non-existing) of Frederick J. Neroni in 2008 when Tatiana Neroni was not admitted to practice law.

Nearly two years into the prosecution, while knowing that the above charge is fraudulent (but, of course, who cares if the goal is to disbar a pesky Neroni?) the Professional Conduct Committee decided to simplify matters by simply piling together the two Neronis under one caption (even though Frederick J. Neroni was already disbarred by them) and dumping both of us to the 4th Department to prosecute:

In Neroni v. Becker, in federal court, Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the Northern District of New York, punished Mr. Neroni for sanctions against me, and punished me and Mr. Neroni for a pro se lawsuit of a third party that had nothing to do with either one of us.  As long as we were punished, that was ok with the judge, simply because I raised the issue that the judge's son is employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, and I considered it improper under the circumstances, for the judge to award any attorney's fees to his own son's employer.
But on September 15, 2014 the NYS Attorney General's office absolutely outdid itself by both continuing to allege that I failed to appear at a deposition in 2008 and failed to oppose a motion in 2008 when I was not an attorney (see my previous posts today for documents proving that),

while at the same time the NYS AG's office served their opposing brief in an appeal in federal court regarding my remanded disciplinary case upon my husband who is not an attorney and was never a party in MY disciplinary proceedings.

I already wrote in this blog that several judges already indicated they do not care which of the Neronis they sanction as long as they sanction one of us.
The same saga about punishing Neronis for actions of or omissions of one another (existing only in prosecutors' imagination) gloriously continues...
Once again - is there a limit to dishonesty and stupidity of public officials?

Who will prosecute the New York State Attorney General and his team for fraud upon the court?

The previous post was about "when" the New York State Attorney General and his assistant attorneys be prosecuted for fraud upon the court.

The next question is - WHO is going to do the prosecution?

Why I ask the question - because at least two Assistant District Attorneys in the Albany County District Attorney's office or their relatives or law partners were criticized by me in this same blog, so who is going to undertake the prosecution?

Anthony Cardona Jr., 

the son of the late chief judge Anthony Cardona under whose guidance my husband was fraudulently disbarred without a hearing, after his prosecutor was bought by a retired judge and son of a judge?

Anthony Cardona's law partners are:

Amanda Kuryluk, the beloved niece of the federal Judge D'Agostino who has abused her power and swept under the rug misconduct of Judge Becker and prevented federal review of Becker's pattern of misconduct in imposing sanctions upon me right after I sued him, even though she had no right to do it.

Diane Schilling, former special counsel of judge Michael V. Coccoma sued by my husband who was embraced by Anthony Cardona as a law partner after she was taken off the bench for misconduct - but not disciplined?  Anthony Cardona Jr. advertises on his website that Diane Schilling "served" as a judge, and says nothing to the public that she was taken off the bench for misconduct - an obvious misrepresentation and a disciplinary violation (in my legal opinion).

I raised issues of misconduct of Anthony Cardona Jr. and his partners Amanda Kuryluk and Diane Schilling since 2013 - and they are still not disciplined and still continue to engage in the false advertising of Diane Schilling's "service" as a judge:

OR - will Assistant Albany County District Attorney Stephen Allinger prosecute the New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman for fraud upon the court? 

I recently criticized his mother, Albany County Family Court Judge Susan Kushner for her misconduct

I also very recently filed a complaint against Stephen Allinger's mother Judge Sue Kushner with the Judicial Conduct Committee, and the complaint is currently pending.

Moreover, I already notified Sue Kushner's Facebook friend attorney Lisa Gordon who, upon information and belief, is also a spouse of a judge, and who was spreading information as of July 10, 2014 to my former clients that I have been already disbarred at that time.  I warned Lisa Gordon that she will be sued for defamation, she did not apologize.

Will the above circumstances weigh in the "discretion" of the Albany County District Attorney's office against criminal prosecution of high-standing attorneys who are openly engaged in fraud upon the court in order to take my license, as they are ordered by their judicial masters, without regard that the disciplinary prosecution is based on fraudulent sworn statements of multiple attorneys to the court?

Will ADA Stephen Allinger or ADA Anthony Cardona or the entire Albany County District Attorney's office be able to be impartial prosecutors protecting me as a victim of misconduct on behalf of attorneys Eric T. Schneiderman, Andrew B. Ayers, Barbara Underwood, Denise Hartman, and attorneys in other courts who promoted the same fraudulent claims?

Am I running out of options in this state?

The New York State government has become such a "melting pot" of relatives and friends that one really cannot get a fair review or effective legal remedy for the obvious wrong committed against her if she happened to step on one of the spiders in the spiderweb?