"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, September 5, 2014

The use of unquestionable fraud by prosecutors in order to discipline an attorney - the same fraudulent song by the Disciplinary Committee of 4th Department now

It is universally declared that attorney licensing (and discipline) are designed to protect the public from attorneys who are not fit to practice law.

You be the judge who is not fit to practice law here - I or those attorneys who are prosecuting me.

In January of 2013, with a very curious timing (I just recovered from a pneumonia and I  had several trials scheduled back-to-back) the Committee for Professional Conduct, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, filed a petition to discipline me.

The essence of charges was:

Essense of charge
 What the evidence was
What 3rd Department is
What 4th Department is
That I did not attend a deposition for a client and that caused imposition of sanctions upon the client
Deposition happened in 2008;
I was admitted to practice law in 2009,
What was charged against me was obvious fraud.
3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, September of 2008
3rd Department made a motion for a summary judgment (judgment without a trial or hearing), and without providing to the court transcript of that deposition that was on file with the court and clearly showed 2008 as the date of the deposition, exonerating me beyond all doubt
Carries on with the fraudulent charge and opposed my motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct
That I failed to respond to a motion in the same action as the deposition and my failure to respond resulted in a default judgment for my clients
The motion was filed in 2008, I was admitted to practice law only in 2009, after the review date of the motion,
What was charged against me was obvious fraud.
3rd Department continued with the fraudulent charge until June 11, 2014, even through I provided the transcript of the deposition to them in February of 2013 showing the date, December of 2008, WHEN I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND COULD NOT ACT AS AN ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT
Result: same as in Charge No. 1
Same as above
That I was sanctioned by Judge Becker for frivolous conduct three times
Yes, I was – right after I sued Judge Becker for misconduct. 
 Courts refused to address on the merits the issue whether Judge Becker’s sanctions were an unconstitutional pattern of retaliation
None of my clients were hurt because of my actions
None of my clients complained
In fact, all sanctions were imposed for my zealous representation of clients, and most of them were indigent, one case was a Pro Bono case
The 3rd Department pursued these unconstitutional sanctions as, somehow, violation of attorney disciplinary rules, even though I was sanctioned for actually standing up for my clients against misconduct of a judge in two cases, and fraud of the opposing counsel (coincidentally also an upstate NY judge in a local justice court) in another case
4th Department knows of the constitutional issues  with the charges, but continues with the charges
That I failed to pay the sanctions
Even though the three imposed sanctions were clearly illegal, when I appealed them, I put in a bond back in 2011 for all three sanctions
When one appeal out of three was dismissed on a technicality and two affirmed while the appellate court ignored material parts of the record (I wrote about it elsewhere in the blog), the money went directly where Becker ordered it to go.
Thus, I ceded control over the money for all three sanctions claimed in the disciplinary petition 1.5 years before the petition was brought
The 3rd Department, after being alerted to the problem of their negligent review and prosecution of the case, still continued with the fraudulent charge
The 4th Department continues with the fraudulent charge and opposes my motion against them for frivolous conduct

I removed the case to the federal court, reasonably predicting that I will not get a fair review in the state court where multiple judges have a conflict of interest to review the case
It was remanded back because the 3rd Department claimed, under the so-called Younger abstention, claiming that the state court is fully able to handle my federal constitutional claims
As soon as the case was remanded from the federal court back to state court, the 3rd Department’s Committee for Professional Conduct claimed in a motion that I should not be allowed to use the state court to “air my generalized grievances”, or, in other words, to bring my federal constitutional claims, which was in direct contradiction to their own claims by use of which they got the remand.So, the bottom line is:

  • 3 charges (deposition, motion and payment of sanctions) were fraudulent, as shown by documentary evidence that prosecutors did not care to read;
  • all other charges were based on clear unconstitutional retaliation against me, based on personal vengeance, by a judge who I sued before sanctions were imposed

In other words, the whole disciplinary proceeding was a politically motivated fabrication.

And it still continues.

And I was denied even an oral argument that I requested, the very minimum of procedural due process.

I am asking you - how long do you think should it take to prove, with a transcript of a deposition in hand, that bears a court stamp and a date, that it was held in 2008 while I was admitted to practice law in 2009 and COULD NOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT CLIENTS AT THAT DEPOSITION?  So I COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CHARGED FOR NOT ATTENDING? BECAUSE I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME?

How about one second while you are holding your documents in front of the prosecutor?  Because, if the prosecutor has a shred of integrity left in him or her, he will immediately apologize and withdraw the such impossible charges (if they were brought by mistake).

I cannot prove it since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, one federal and two state courts - and all of them had a right to toss the disciplinary charges on the merits , with sanctions against prosecutors who are engaged in OBVOIUS FRAUD UPON THE COURT and OBVIOUS FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.

I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that in September and in December of 2008 I WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY and had no obligation (or right) to appear at depositions representing clients or to answer any motions on behalf of any clients.  And, by the way, the disciplinary petition, on its very first page, states that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.

I cannot prove since January of 2013, in 3 courts so far, that sanctions were paid into escrow in the summer of 2011, long before the Petition was filed, in January of 2013, and it is well documented.

And, 3 courts so far, as well as prosecutors in those courts, pretend they do not know that 3 sanctions in a row (in fact, there were more) imposed by a judge whom I just sued look really suspicious, wouldn't they to any impartial reasonable person?

Remember, all of them were sworn to uphold the federal constitution - but they advance unconstitutional, fraudulent, politically motivated prosecutions without blinking an eye.

Recently, another attorney posed in his blog a question whether disciplinary attorneys are bound by the same rules of conduct that they are enforcing upon others.

Disciplinary proceedings in New York are deemed civil proceedings, so - yes, of course they are so bound.

Yet, they seem to allow themselves not to be bound by those rules - because, at least in my case, they try to prosecute me because I was sanctioned for "frivolous" conduct (where sanctions were imposed by a judge after I sued him), while attorneys freely engage in fraud upon the court and frivolous conduct themselves while prosecuting the action.

PS  The name of the "heroes", disciplinary attorneys who continue to carry the fraudulent torch can be found here, all attorneys and all attorney members of the 4th Department Attorney Grievance Committee.

No comments:

Post a Comment