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?