"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.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

One more proof that Judge Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, cannot read

Judge Sharpe filed against my husband, Mr. Neroni, a sua sponte (commenced by the judge) anti-filing injunction action, seeking to preclude my husband from any further filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Of course, a right of access to court to vindicate violatons of constitutional rights, including fundamental constitutional rights, is in itself a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be taken away without a hearing.

No hearing was offered or given to Mr. Neroni despite his demand for such a hearing.

Judge Sharpe is the judge who Mr. Neroni sought to recuse twice before the anti-filing injunction action was initiated by the judge against him.

Mr. Neroni provided to the court multiple exhibits showing that Judge Sharpe is (1) actually biased against Mr. Neroni and me, his wife and attorney in several actions;  (2)  Judge Sharpe sanctioned Mr. Neroni for his actions in still pending actions, including the actions in which no sanctions were imposed.

The Docket Sheet of Gary Sharpe's lawsuit against Mr. Neroni was labeled as a "Civil Rights Action":

Of course, a judge of a federal court cannot bring a civil rights action against a private party as a defendant.  A civil rights action can only be brought by a private party against a state actor.  Judge Sharpe was not acting as a private party when bringing this case, and Mr. Neroni is not a state actor who has violated Judge Sharpe's civil rights.

Yet, I guess that the Northern District of New York is Judge Sharpe's own court and he can do with it and its procedures, as with his own fiefdom, as he pleases.

In his opposition and cross-motion, Mr. Neroni provided 86 documentary exhibits showing that:

(1) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni;
(2) Judge Sharpe is biased against Mr. Neroni, that is me, based on my blogs criticizing Judge Sharpe;
(3) The law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe brought the anti-filing injunction action against Mr. Neroni are politically connected law firms employing relatives of judges;
(4) One of the law firms in whose favor Judge Sharpe recently ruled awarding attorney fees agaisnt Mr. Neroni (the sanction is currently on appeal) is serving as a de facto depository of employees of the court after they leave the court for private employment.  Exhibits were provided showing that clerks of judges of the court, including a clerk of Judge Sharpe, were accepted as associates and partners into Hiscock & Barclay of Albany, NY, for whose benefit Judge Sharpe brought the action, which created a huge appearance of impropriety.
(5)  Judges of the court are members of an organization American Inns of Court where Hiscock & Barclays partners and employees are members and sponsors;
(6) A partner of Hiscock & Barclay

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that an anti-injunction order must comply with strict scrutiny as blocking his fundamental constitutional rights.  Mr. Neroni argued that any prior restraint on speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which were dismissed by the court, as a discretionary matter, under Younger abstention, meaning that the court had jurisdicton, but decided to let a state court decide first.

In his opposition, Mr. Neroni argued that the court has no right to deem frivolous actions which are still pending, are pending with counsel who was not notified of the anti-injunction proceeding, pending before another judge and where no sanctions were imposed.

In his anti-injunction order issued on November 26, 2014, Judge Sharpe dedicated a grand total of two 1/2 lines to the factual findings supporting his anti-filing injunction against Mr. Neroni. 

Judge Sharpe stated that Mr. Neroni "failed to provide sufficient justification for his previous conduct", whether Mr. Neroni had to justify his "conduct" or not.

It is obvious that, to Judge Sharpe who hates Mr. Neroni and hates me for exposing his misconduct publicly, including this blog, it is apparent that no amount of arguments, facts, documents or legal authorities will be "sufficient justification".

It was obvious that the whole "order to show cause" giving Mr. Neroni an opportunity to respond only in writing and not in person, while a hearing in these kind of cases is required, was a mere formality, and the case was pre-judged before it was even filed.  

Moreover, Judge Sharpe went so far as certifying in the same order that any appeal that Mr. Neroni would seek to undertake from Judge Sharpe's anti-filing injunction will be deemed to be in bad faith.  

Any reasonable person, including myself, knowing what can follow if an appeal is filed against such a certification, would perceive it as a clear threat to Mr. Neroni that if he appeals, he will be sanctioned, so, don't appeal, or else.

Yet, if any reasonable person reads the statute under which the certification was made, the reasonable person will have a question as to whether Judge Sharpe can read, because the statute under which the certification was made was in no way applicable, and thus the certrification was false. 

It is relevant to mention here that I already asked the question whether Judge Sharpe can read in this blog and on the blog of after Judge Sharpe sanctioned me and Mr. Neroni for correctly reading the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and those sanctions were part of Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse in this case.

It is interesting to mention that Judge Sharpe has brought anti-filing injunction proceedings against Mr. Neroni within a couple of weeks of my statement on that Judge Sharpe cannot read, and I cannot deem it a simple coincidence.  There are too many coincidences in how Judge Sharpe treats me and Mr. Neroni and all of those "coincidences" are slanted against us.

Judge Sharpe, as a sworn federal judicial officer, CERTIFIED (which means it is done under oath) that pursuant to a statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (which means that my husband should have been a pro se plaintiff in a civil rights action, and was adjudicated by the court, on his own application, as a poor person), my husband's appeal from his decision, if undertaken, will be undertaken in bad faith.

Of course, I consider the statute itself where a judge of a court below is allowed to block an appeal from his own decision by claiming it is taken in bad faith, unconstitutional and seeking to prevent appellants' access to court in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitutions.

But the beauty of the present situation, where a high-ranking federal judge is using this particular statute in this particular case is that the statute, by its clear and unambiguous language, refers to civil actions and appeals brought by pro se civil rights litigants adjudicated as poor persons.

Let me count how many mistakes the judge has made in his certification in order to block Mr. Neroni from appealing his decision:

(1) Mr. Neroni is not a Plaintiff in this action;
(2) this action is not a civil rights action;
(3) Mr. Neroni was not adjudicated as a poor person.

Here is the portion of the docket report before Judge Sharpe's ruling on November 26, 2014.  It clearly shows that Mr. Neroni is not a plaintiff in this action, and that he never applied for or received a poor person (in forma pauperis) status from the court.

Thus, certification under this statute seeking to preclude Mr. Neroni from filing an appeal and implicitly intimidating him with sanctions for filing an appeal in bad faith, did not have any legal basis.

Either the judge did not read the statute that he was using as a basis for his certification, or he simply did not care what it said, as long as he cites some law, right or wrong, to block my husband from appealing Judge Sharpe's unlawful and unconstitutional order made in favor of a "friendly" law firm that, upon information and belief, provides material benefits for judges of Judge Sharpe's court, helps pick magistrate judges, participates in making local rules of the court and accepts employees of the court as associates and partners.

And this false certification, ladies and gentlemen,  and the reasons behind it, are grounds for impeachment of Judge Sharpe, which is what is going to be sought.

Last, but definitely not least, is the mistakes in how the clerk of the court filed Mr. Neroni's pleadings in this case, in a way that violated rules of court to such electronic filings, made it more difficult for readers on PACER to review the file and made it impossible to word-search the file, as is required by court rules. 

There is a requirement to electronic filings in this court, that all exhibits must be filed separately, and must be scanned into a word-searchable PDF.

Mr. Neroni, as a pro se defendant, was not allowed to file electronically, it was the obligation of the clerk of the court to follow the rules in how documents are scanned and filed, and those rules are not different from rules applicable to counseled parties.

I checked on PACER today how Mr. Neroni's cross-motion with 86 exhibits was filed by the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and found TWO major violations of the court rules:

(1) 86 exhibits were filed in 5 batches, instead of each exhibit separately.  Such defective filing prevents people who are searching this file on PACER and who do not know about this case, from assessing the true number of exhibits.  If a person sees 5 exhibits, he or she may be less interested in the case than if he or she sees 86 exhibits filed;

(2) Exhibits are not filed in word-searchable format, precluding a major utility required for documents filed on PACER.

I do not believe this was done accidentally.  I do believe this was done intentionally, to preclude the word-search of the filed documents and to make it more complicated for the public to review this file.

The judge obviously was protecting himself and his associate judges whose misconduct and conflicts of interest were exposed in the exhibits.

And that will be yet another basis for our petition for impeachment.

No comments:

Post a Comment