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 Forbes.com 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 Forbes.com 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