A petition for a rehearing en banc was filed in the case Neroni v. Coccoma in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

The case filed and prosecuted pro se by my husband Frederick J. Neroni raises important issues of public concern, such as (among others):

(1) the use of public funds for free legal representation of private attorneys connected to the judiciary (see my blog post "assigned counsel for the rich");

(2) failure of the New York State court system to notify litigants that certain retired judges are appointed Judicial Hearing officers in certain courts, which prevents the public from knowing where the JHO's law firms are appearing in the same courts where the JHO is part of, despite the disqualification;

(3) the use by attorney disciplinary prosecutors of the results of disciplinary prosecution against attorneys for private gain.

You can word-search this blog for more information on the Neroni v. Coccoma case, I have several posts dedicated to this case.  The word-search window is located to the right of the text.

The petition additionally raises the following issues of extreme public concern:

• connections of powerful law firms, Hiscock & Barclay LLP (of Albany, NY) and Hinman, Howard & Kattell LLP (of Binghamton, NY) with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and with its judges, through the court system and its various "Committees" and through outside "Councils", and other "mentoring" and social networking organizations, as well as by accepting employees of the court for employment and partnership in these law firms (see e.g. my blogpost "Judges Indebted to Others");
• assignment of civil rights appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to a "fast and negligent" track to be decided by non-precedential "summary orders";
• the fact that judges assigned to civil rights appeals (and who decided it by non-precedential "summary orders") are predominantly very elderly, 75 to 80 years old, and possibly lack the necessary vigor for an effective precedential analysis and de novo review on appeals REQUIRED for the civil rights appeals as of right;
• consistent denial of equal protection of laws and due process of laws to civil rights appellants in the 2nd Circuit by dividing appeals into the tracks that, according to the court's arbitrary rules, are "worthy" or "unworthy" of precedential review de novo "as of right".

Stay tuned as to how the petition is decided.