Mary Gasparini changed the court rules - when she was affected personally

I wrote on this blog at length about misconduct of attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee, 4th Department, 5th District, Mary Gasparini, specifically, promoting the fraudulent Charge I Specification I (that I neglected clients by not appearing at a deposition and answering a motion at the time when I was not admitted to the bar) and no less fraudulent Charge IV (that I did not pay the court sanctions imposed by Judge Becker after I sued the judge - when I paid them into the court escrow immediately as they were imposed, 1.5 years before the Charge IV was brought against me in January of 2013).

I made a motion to the court to sanction Gasparini for submitting fraudulent charges to the court.

Mary Gasparini opposed my claim of frivolous conduct by saying that she inherited the claim (whatever it is) from her predecessor, the prosecutor from the Appellate Division 3rd Department, and that the court rules of the Appellate Division 4th Department where the case is in now prevent her from changing anything in the original petition.

Based on Mary Gasparini's submissions, the court denied my request to dismiss the fraudulent Charge I Specification I, without an explanation, so I can presume the court relied on Mary Gasparini's claim that she "could not change anything because of the court's rules".

Today, at a conference before the referee, the referee, instead of doing what the court ordered him to do, and that is - scheduling a fact-finding hearing to hear testimony on outstanding issues of fact - did something that the court did not authorize him to do, and that is, granted to the prosecution the motion for a summary judgment without hearing any testimony at all, and without even scheduling the evidentiary hearing, which was the ONLY thing that the referee was appointed to do.

"Coincidentally" the referee swept the proceedings under the rug and denied me a hearing that was ordered by the court after I put on social networks, including Facebook and in my blog, an invitation to the public and the media to come to my hearing after I waived privacy in my proceedings.

I bet it was very scary for the Petitioner to have to go forward and present evidence that was, in fact, fraudulent, and do it under oath - that would put the prosecution even closer to federal criminal investigation and prosecution.  And the referee obliged by helping the prosecution out and saving them from having to go forward with fraudulent claims - the referee simply granted the claims, having no authority to do that.

AFTER the Referee told me that he "granted" the prosecution's motion, Mary Gasparini stated on record that the prosecution is withdrawing Charge I Specification I - even though it cannot be procedurally done after a motion is granted, and even though, by Mary Gasparini's own claims to the court under oath, she could not change the original petition in any way.

I guess, after Mary Gasparini read in my blog that she is being sued for bringing Charge I Specification I, for fraud upon the court, she no longer cared whether court rules applied or not - she needed to do something to, basically, save her own hide.

Yet, what she did was the opposite.  Now that she withdrew Charge I Specification I there are clear issues that she knew that the charge was fraudulent, but never withdrew it before it was granted by the incompetent referee.

Stay tuned for the documents I am going to publish in my next blog, including the entertaining recording of the referee "granting a motion" and denying me a public hearing.

I will also publish my proposed list of witnesses, subpenaed records and issues for discussion at today's scheduling conference  - that the referee did not care to review, since the only purpose of proceedings, I understand was to SHUT ME UP and to PREVENT ME FROM HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING that would EXPOSE CORRUPTION IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

Well, I certainly will not shut up, as this case stinks of corruption to high heaven.

As I said, please, stay tuned for my next blog-post, with the recording of the telephone conference with Referee Steven Sirkin where the referee states that he "granted the motion" without hearing the testimony, or even scheduling such a hearing, which is the only function that he was supposed to do by court order.

 And one thing I must say to Mary Gasparini - withdrawing a fraudulent charge AFTER you won several motions based on it, does not preclude me from proceeding against you with my lawsuit for fraud upon the court, especially that you did not withdraw the other fraudulent charge, Charge IV.