It is illegal to jail an attorney for talking about her own disciplinary case - but when did the illegality of what she is doing stop attorney Mary Gasparini?

In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) that invalidated the law restricting publication of confidential records
of judicial discipline proceedings on the basis of 1st Amendment and the public's right to know about issues of judicial misconduct discussed in those proceedings.

My disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini was admitted to the bar in 1992.

Attorneys in New York get admitted to the bar at the age of 25-26 y.o. (a New Yorker graduates from high school at 18 + 4 years of college + 3 years of law school plus half a year until admission to the bar in January of the next year after graduation), so that puts her year of birth at around 1966. 

Mary Gasparini was approximately 12 years old when the U.S. Supreme Court case-on-point Landmark Communications Inc. was decided, Mary Gasparini did not even graduate from high school yet, but already learnt how to read (even though the way she acts suggests she lost the skill by now).

And, following the glorious traditions of disciplinary prosecutors in the State of New York, Mary Gasparini apparently lacks intellectual curiosity or due diligence to read applicable cases before attempting to charge people criminally.

May Gasparini attempted to charge me for "criminal contempt of court" for talking about my own disciplinary case on the blog, which is, according to Mary Gasparini, in violation of a court order based on Judiciary Law 90(10) which deems all records of attorney disciplinary proceeding "sealed".

Of course, it is technically impossible to seal all the public records upon disciplinary inquiries and proceedings against attorneys are based, see my blog post here listing mutliple exhibits from my disciplinary cross-motion which are "deemed sealed' by the same court order that Mary Gasparini claims I violated by talking about my disciplinary proceedings.  All of the "deemed sealed" papers remain in open access to the public, and custodians of such papers remain happily unaware that the papers are actually "deemed sealed".

Moreover, the same court where Mary Gasparini practices, NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department, recently held that Judiciary Law 90(10) has a dual function and protects confidentiality of:

(1) the complainant if there is one in the proceedings (there is no complainant in my disciplinary proceedings, the petition was directly filed by the Committee for Professional Conduct without a complainant, plus the Petition is available on Pacer.gov since the case was removed by me to a federal court and was not sealed by the federal court when it was remanded back to the state court) and

(2) the attorney who is the subject of the disciplinary proceeding, and I have expressly waived my own privacy, as any competent adult in the State of New York can do without any permission from anybody, and requested the court to make my proceedings public.

Yet, despite a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court on point which was decided before Mary Gasparini graduated from high school, and despite a precedent on point from her own court, the 4th Department, decided 6 years ago, Mary Gasparini rages on in her desire to punish me for violating my own privacy.

Of course, to put me in jail for violating my own privacy is beyond stupid, but when did that stop any government from acting, no matter how stupid and unlawful the action can be?

I guess, my privacy will be better protected in jail - thank you, Mary Gasparini, for your concern about me and my privacy, it is touching...  Even though, as I said before, let me sugar-coat the word a little bit - it is disingenuous (which in legalese means "stupid").