"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.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

When will attorney Peter Torncello be disbarred for using his power to block a disciplinary investigation and prosecution against himself? When will attorney John Casey, of Hiscock & Barclays, be disbarred for selling his prosecutorial discretion to retired judge Robert Harlem and his son Richard Harlem?

Here is a letter that Chief Attorney Peter Torncello (who resigned amid investigation into his potential misconduct in allegedly falsifying time sheets, but also sued for fraud upon the court) - wrote to me when I turned HIM in for misconduct into HIS Committee for Professional Conduct - because in New York, there is no other way to turn in disciplinary prosecutors.

Peter Torncello reviewed the complaint against himself and refused to investigate it quoting a "policy" that he applied to himself and that prohibited him to investigate and prosecute HIMSELF because of pending litigation against himself.

In his letter, attorney Torncello (who still has his law license intact) explained to me that I need to address with my " allegations" his litigation counsel.

Apparently, attorney Torncello, chief attorney of the Committee for Professional Conduct who has taken livelihood and reputation of many attorneys during his representation of the Committee for several years, did not really understand that the Committee was not his personal fiefdom and that if a member of the public (me) makes a complaint to the Committee about an attorney (Peter Torncello), Peter Torncello has no right to investigate it, prosecute it, make any decision upon it.

Peter Torncello also did not seem to realize while writing this letter that the complaint filed WITH the Committee should be reviewed BY the Committee - and if it is about members or attorneys of the Committee - all that has to be done is appointing disinterested investigators and prosecutors who would handle it.

Peter Torncello did not seem to realize that the Committee members or attorneys HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REJECT complaints AGAINST THEMSELVES without first RECUSING from HANDLING SUCH COMPLAINTS in ANY WAY.

Peter Torncello did not seem to realize that he had no right to direct me to "communicate solely" with his litigation attorney on matters pertaining to misconduct of Peter Torncello when all I was asking was that the COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, a governmental body entrusted to deal with issues of attorney misconduct (not Peter Torncello personally) should do its duty and investigate misconduct of several attorneys, those attorneys being attorneys for the Committee and attorney members of the Committee.

Once again - if a mechanism of disqualification is not in existence in the Committee where misconduct of its own members is the issue of a complaint to the Committee (as Peter Torncello's letter clearly shows), it is frivolous for these prosecutors to claim prosecutorial immunity, given to prosecutors by the U.S. Supreme Court specifically because they are otherwise subject to attorney discipline.

I also provided a diagram of how the little policy of non-prosecution that Peter Torncello generously applied to the complaint AGAINST HIMSELF is - or is not - applied at the Committee's whim and in accordance with the status of the attorney  who is the subject of the complaint and the attorney's relationship with members of the Committee.

It is not the policy which rules in the Committee for "Professional" Conduct, Appellate Division, 3rd Department - it is clear, obvious and unadulterated corruption.

I apologize for the small font in the diagram and request the readers to use the magnification that computers and tablets allow to view this table.  Unfortunately, I was not able to make the diagram larger while preserving all details in it.

Here is for your comparison:

The date of my husband's disbarment - July 7, 2011 (connected to the actual court decision by a link).

Next, here is a scan of John Casey's self-advertisement showing that:

(1) he is a law partner in Hiscock & Barclays;

(2) he has been a member of the Committee for Professional Conduct in 2007-2013, including the time when my husband was prosecuted by his Committee and disbarred:

A scan from New York E-courts from the case Neroni v. Harlem showing that a Request for Judicial Intervention (request for a judge to be assigned to the case) was filed on 6/13/2011, before Mr. Neroni's disbarment, and that Hiscock & Barclays, where John Casey was at the time a law partner, represents the Defendants:

The law of agency in New York applies equally to all partnerships, including law partnerships:  if a partnership represents a party, each partner of the partnership is PRESUMED by law to be representing that party.

Thus, John Casey, who was supposed to prosecute Richard Harlem and Robert Harlem (you can word-search their names on this blog to see the extent of their misconduct) instead, is PRESUMED to have accepted them as paying clients, and thus is PRESUMED to have shared in their attorneys' fees, and thus is PRESUMED to have received a bribe from two attorneys to not prosecute them and to instead prosecute the complainant against them - which is what John Casey did.

My question remains - when will this corruption end and when John Casey will be prosecuted and disbarred for his misconduct? 


  1. Tatiana Neroni,

    Could you please provide me with your email address? I would like to discuss and share some information about Peter Torncello with you. Otherwise, you can email me at Your prompt reply would be appreciated. Thank you.


    Sur Novel