"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

What is an attorney to do if she is prosecuted on fraudulent charges? Speak out - nothing else helps.

I have stated since the time I first started this blog in March of 2014 that I am the target of political prosecution by the Committee for Professional Conduct based on 3 sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Carl F. Becker "for frivolous conduct",  and that all sanctions were imposed by Judge Becker upon me after I sued the judge for misconduct.

Moreover, I wrote that two charges in the disciplinary petition were fraudulent and the remaining charges - unconstitutional, as representing personal vendetta of a disqualified and biased judge who I sued right before he imposed the sanctions.

All sanctions were imposed in 2011, none were for hurting a client.   

Since the Committee for Professional Conduct for the 3rd Department, even when presented with documents showing that their charges are fraudulent, refused to withdraw the charges, it is time to publish documentary evidence showing that the charges are fraudulent.

I want to show to the public just how incompetent, immoral and corrupt prosecutors in the Professional Conduct Committee for the 3rd Department are for (1) bringing such charges and (2) continuing with them for 1.5 years in 2 courts, state and federal.

I want to show the public just how incompetent, immoral and corrupt prosecutors in the Attorney Grievance Committee for the 4th Department are for continuing to prosecute these fraudulent charges where they had in front of them documentary evidence clearly showing the charges are fraudulent.

Charge I Specification I says that Judge Carl F. Becker, of Delaware County Supreme Court, sanctioned me on August 10, 2011 in the amount of $1,250 because:

(1) I allegedly represented clients in an action "Matter of M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Bradley W. Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum, Tyler Harcott, Genevieve Gorder";

(2) It was implied that depositions in that case were repeatedly adjourned through my fault, otherwise why should that statement be in the disciplinary charges against me;

(3) that Judge Becker ("the above referenced court") issued a scheduling order directing completion of depositions by a date certain, subject to a conditional order of preclusion permitting an aggrieved party to seek an order striking the offending party's claims or defenses, and

(4) that I (THE RESPONDENT) committed the following attorney misconduct by ALLEGEDLY violating the order of preclusion and by ALLEGEDLY doing nothing to oppose the motion to preclude:

(a)  I ALLEGEDLY did not appear for scheduled depositions;
(b)  I ALLEGEDLY offered no explanation as to why I did not appear;
(c ) I ALLEGEDLY failed to submit written opposition to plaintiff's subsequent motion to strike the answer.

(5)  Judge Becker ("the above referenced court") then allegedly granted plaintiff's motion to strike and entered a default judgment against the defendant;

(6) If a reasonable reader not knowing anything but what is in the Petition (such as the court) reads the Petition, it will understand from Charge I Specification I that Judge Becker punished me for not appearing at the deposition, offering no explanation and failing to submit written opposition to plaintiff's motion to preclude.

Since it is Charge I Specification I, the very first charge, it is the most serious charge in the Petition - and it is serious, it is a charge of gross neglect against the client.

This charge was submitted by attorney Peter Torncello to a court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, in a verified Petition, where attorney Torncello has sworn to the truth of allegations contained in the Petition under oath:

Only Peter Torncello committed perjury because his allegations in Charge I Specification I did not and COULD NOT happen, and here is why.

Here is the front page of the transcript of the deposition in question:

The transcript was on file with the Delaware County Supreme Court as part of the file M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum, Index No. 2007-280, and on file in the Appellate Division as part of the Record on Appeal from the subsequent motion to vacate the judgment of default.  Peter Torncello did not even have to come to Delhi, NY in Delaware County to check out that record, it was right under his nose in Albany, NY.

The front page of the transcript clearly shows that the deposition in question was held in September of 2008.

Peter Torncello stated in the same disciplinary petition that I was admitted to practice law in 2009, see the front page of Torncello's petition, paragraph 2:

Here is the second page of the transcript of the same deposition.

 It clearly shows that:

(1) There was an attorney representing Bradley Torum and Samme Chittum-Torum at the deposition on September 15, 2008;  and that

(2) That attorney was my husband Frederick J. Neroni.

Thus, it was clearly untrue that:

(1) I was an attorney at the time of the deposition;
(2) that I had a duty to appear at that deposition;
(3) that no attorney appeared at that deposition.

Here is the Affirmation of Mailing of the Order to Show Cause for the motion to preclude in question:

The first page of the application for the Order to Show Cause shows that :

(1) Judge Becker was not the assigned judge on the case at the time the application was made, it was judge Eugene E. Peckham;

(2) The application was made on December 9, 2008 when I was NOT AN ATTORNEY, not the attorney of record on the case and not only I did not answer the motion, but if I would answer that motion representing myself as an attorney at the time, that would be a crime of practicing law without a license;

(3) that the counsel for the defendants Torum and Chittum-Torum at that time was Frederick J. Neroni (my husband) and not I.

(By the way, my husband did not have to answer the application either because it was never served - and no affirmation of service of a signed Order to Show Cause is on file with the court).

So, Peter Torncello is accusing me, under oath, of NOT practicing law without a license, which, ladies and gentlemen, is insane and Peter Torncello should be checked out for mental instability.

Charges II and III charge me with being sanctioned by Judge Becker after I sued him, in Shields v. Carbone and in Adams v. Bracci.  I already described these cases in detail in my blogs, as well as Judge Becker's misconduct in those cases.  

"Coincidentally", when I brought a motion to vacate the sanctions imposed upon me and my indigent client in Adams v. Bracci, all hell broke loose upon my client, the presiding judge went berserk to the point I had to turn him into the Committee of Judicial Misconduct, but the Judge still retaliated against my client by issuing an illegal bench warrant against her, which turned into a SWAT team production against her AND her disabled mother where my client's mother was assaulted by a police vehicle and her tablet with which she was video recording police misconduct was destroyed.

Charge IV charges me with the following:

When I filed notices of appeal of the sanctions in the summer of 2011, I filed the full amounts of sanctions into court as an escrow/bond - and thus ceded control over that money.

My affirmation of bond was on file with the Delaware County Clerk, who by law is the clerk for the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Delaware County who is responsible to accept such filings.

The Delaware County COURT CLERK (a supporter of Judge Becker in his elections of 2012) failed to transfer the money to the Lawyers' Protection Fund when one appeals were denied - and I was somehow to blame.

Yet, by January 2013 when the disciplinary petition with Charge IV was filed, the money was with the Delaware County Clerk's office for a year and a half, for which documentary evidence existed - that Peter Torncello simply was too lazy to check that, or checking that evidence would run contrary to his orders, to prosecute and disbar me no matter what.

These obviously fraudulent charges are continuing and survived in two courts so far and are pending in the third court, despite the fact that I provided all documentation to each court, and the Committee clearly does not have AUTHORITY, nor do the courts in question, for prosecuting me for NOT practicing law without a license in 2008, before my admission to the bar.

I actually notified the Committee several times about their "mistake", and the Committee ignored me.

I created an electronic record and sent the full copy of the deposition (above) and the Order to Show Cause (above), with supporting affirmation, dated also in December of 2008, to Mr. Zayas, Peter Torncello's subordinate attorney, who also left the Committee together with Peter Torncello after I sued both of them for fraud upon the court (dismissed by Judge Tormey for failure to serve after their counsel waived defects of service by filing an Answer on the merits).

Yet, attorney Torncello still proceeded with his fraudulent claims.

In fact, to avoid making the above false statements, all that Peter Torncello had to do was to actually read the records of the 3rd Department and of the court which issued all the orders that Peter Torncello was talking about.  This is elementary due diligence for any attorney, the due diligence that Peter Torncello did not feel he was obligated to do - because Peter Torncello, based on his own letter to me when I complained to the Committee of his misconduct, is unaccountable, is above the law and can allow himself to toss complaints against himself.

All that Peter Torncello had to do NOT to file fraudulent charges in 2013 was simply to look into the court file that of the case he was referencing and do his due diligence in order (1) not to take the court's time with frivolous claims;  (2) not to defraud the court and (3) not to bring false charges against an attorney - all of which is attorney misconduct FOR PETER TORNCELLO.

Yet, as I said, no matter that I've already proven beyond ANY doubt that Charge I Specification I and Charge IV are frivolous charges and Charges II and III are part of Judge Becker's unconstitutional personal vendetta, the case still proceeds, and now the Committee for Professional Conduct of the 4th Department insists that a summary judgment (judgment without a trial or hearing) should be granted on the fraudulent charges.

I am an attorney.

I am supposed to instill into my clients that there is a rule of law in the State of New York, and to advise them how the law operates.

Yet, in application to myself I know that there is no law if people look at something that is factually and legally impossible and continue to prosecute me on these impossible, insane and fraudulent charges.  Why?  Because a bunch of judges want my disbarment since I am publicly criticizing their misconduct, and the judges do not know how to handle the truth other to destroy the messenger of that truth.

And - unfortunately - attorneys on the Committee feel that any whim of any judge, no matter how unlawful and unsupported - is the Committee's command.  

But - since fraud upon the court is a basis for disbarment in the state of New York, when will attorneys John Casey and Peter Torncello be disbarred?

So, in New York an attorney who happens to criticize judicial misconduct, can be prosecuted on CHARGES THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE FRAUDULENT TO ALL PARTICIPANTS, FOR YEARS, and without any recourse against the perpetrators of the fraud.

And this is, supposedly, the rule of law in the State of New York.

No comments:

Post a Comment