"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.

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?

No comments:

Post a Comment