"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

When the New York State Attorney General and his team be prosecuted for adamant fraud upon the court and suspended/disbarred?

New York State Attorney General outdid himself today by REPEATING the obvious documented fraud that I wrote about in my recent blog, in his appellate brief, where Mr. Schneiderman and his team of attorneys (Andrew Ayers, Denise Hartman, Barbara Underwood), have stated the following:

These statements were made in full knowledge that I was admitted to the bar in 2009 (see paragraph 2 of the Petition, my actual attorney registration information taken JUST NOW from the New York State Court Administration website):

ONCE AGAIN FOR NYS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE since the NYS Attorney General and his staff of attorneys, despite having Juris Doctor degrees, cannot read in their native language - a helping hand from a non-native speaker:

Note the date of the deposition - September 15, 2008, note appearance by attorney FREDERICK J. NERONI, note that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.

Note the date of December 9, 2008, note the name of opposing counsel as Frederick J. Neroni, note my admission to the bar in 2009.

Is it too difficult to read?

I return to the submission of New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and his assistants attorneys Andrew B. Ayers, Barbara Underwood and Denise Hartman as of SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 (Appellee's Brief, Peters v. Neroni):


Below is part of the docket report from the 2nd Circuit (obtained from showing when this fraudulent statement was filed by the NYS Attorney General's office in the "Appellee's Brief".

Yet, literally a crowd of attorneys CHOSE to NOT read the above court records and chose to USE TAXPAYERS' MONEY to KNOWINGLY CONTINUING WITH A PROSECUTION THEY KNOW TO BE FRAUDULENT, simply because I am such a thorn in the side of certain New York state judges that the system simply DOES NOT CARE whether it is by fraud or not that I am prosecuted - but they want the result ANYWAY, BY ANY MEANS.

My question to Albany County District Attorney: when will Eric T. Schneiderman, and all other attorneys who made similar statements that I DID NOT APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION, DID NOT OPPOSE A MOTION and THUS CAUSED A DEFAULT in this case be prosecuted for fraud upon the court?

And another question - how can these attorneys live with themselves and look at themselves in the mirror when they know they are following orders and perpetrating fraud through the use of their high proseuctorial office?

Is it the fear for their own jobs?

Is it because in New York, attorneys who actually tell the truth are blacklisted and marked for slaughter?

I simply cannot believe that so many attorneys, after reading these court documents can continue in good faith to pretend that I "did not appear at a deposition" or "failed to oppose a motion" before I was admitted to the bar.

You simply cannot be that stupid.

You have to be that dishonest.

Eric T. Schneiderman promised to protect New Yorkers from fraud before he was elected in 2010.

He instead protects people who violate New Yorkers' constitutional rights and perpetrates fraud upon the court, with impunity - and has the audacity to run for office again, in 2014, now, under the slogan "Equal Justice for All!"

I actually vote for this slogan - and if equal justice for all is to be had, Eric T. Schneiderman should be prosecuted for fraud upon the court and put in jail instead of in office, together with every member of his team who participated in perpetrating fraud upon the court.

It is also a suspension/disbarment offense to present the court with false statements, as illustrated in

Matter of Gurevich, 94 A.D.3d 39, 940 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2012] [18–month suspension where attorney, inter alia, made intentional misrepresentations in legal documents and compounded his misconduct by failing to acknowledge the same and express remorse];
Matter of Truong, 22 A.D.3d 62, 800 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept.2005], appeal dismissed 6 N.Y.3d 799, 812 N.Y.S.2d 32, 845 N.E.2d 464 (2006) (disbarment where attorney, inter alia, submitted a forged document to the court and testified falsely, given the lack of remorse and refusal to acknowledge misconduct).
Yet, since misrepresentations of the Assistant Attorney General Andrew B. Ayers to the federal court (under the authority and responsibility of NYS Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman) were on behalf of the disciplinary committee who is supposed to investigate and discipline Andrew B. Ayers for his misrepresentations to the court, it is obvious that Andrew B. Ayers will never be disciplined and that regulation of attorneys in New York is a smoke screen for persecutions of just some attorneys targeted by the system, while the main wrongdoers escape public review and continue to hurt the public.

No comments:

Post a Comment