In May of 2014 I have filed a civil rights case Neroni v. Peebles in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The case raised multiple issues of public concern and listed multiple public officials (including judges) and multiple politically connected attorneys as defendants.
The case was dismissed before it was even SERVED, by a judge whose recent law clerk (as I learnt later on) was accepted for employment by the law firm of one of the defendants.
I appealed that "sua sponte" dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
The 2nd Circuit first tried to force me to get admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar while doing a pro se appeal.
I refused.
The 2nd Circuit forcibly "admitted" me to its bar anyway.
Then, the 2nd Circuit engaged in a game of treating defendants in the court below (where the case was dismissed before the action was served and before those defendants appeared in the action and became parties) as proper parties to the appeal.
The 2nd Circuit bent over backwards to call those non-parties "Appellees, invite them to appear in the action, and make me serve papers on them.
The NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General refused to appear in the appeal, practically supporting my argument to the court, with legal authorities, and stating that since their clients were never served before the court below dismissed the case, they are not parties to the appeal.
The court ordered me to make a separate motion to strike the Appellees.
I did.
Today I received a notification that my motion to strike Appellees as parties was denied.
I got curious as to why that happened, even though the 2nd Circuit's own case law provides that defendants who did not appear in the court below before the case was dismissed (as it happened in my case), are not proper parties in an appeal from such a dismissal.
I logged into Pacer.gov and retrieved the following order that the court did not consider necessary to notify me of:
First of all, I must note that, unlike all other civil rights cases where my husband or I were involved with the 2nd Circuit, this is the first time when the "troika court" that made a decision on the appeal did not consist of senior-status judges, and I wonder whether the dismissal was actually a knee-jerk reaction of the judges to my blog here describing there court as the court consisting of people too old to handle the rigorous regiment of constitutional appeals.
Yet, the senior status judges who are usually assigned to the fast-and-sloppy track deciding constitutional appeals (or, rather, rubber-stamping dismissals of such appeals), at least pretended that they had reviewed the case.
These "active-status" three judges did not even pretend that they reviewed the appeal, because the Appellant's Brief was never filed, nor was I allowed to even set a deadline to file it.
The court dismissed the constitutional civil rights appeal from a case raising issues of denial of access to court, court bias and issues of misconduct of judicial officers and court personnel OUTSIDE of court proceedings and thus not subject to any judicial immunity, without even wanting to see what I MIGHT say in the Appellant's brief - before such Appellant's brief was even filed.
So, when you, ladies and gentlemen, file a constitutional appeal with the 2nd Circuit, you have two options - either a "troika-court" of three senior status judges who pretended to read the case, but rubber stamp a denial of the appeal in a summary "non-precedential decision", or you get an active-duty "troika court" dismissing the appeal without even having an opportunity to review it.
And that is happening while a civil rights litigant has a right to FULL appellate review DE NOVO of all legal issues raised in the lower court.
I guess, the 2nd Circuit is afraid of my ability in raising those legal issues that they dismissed the appeal without allowing me to file an Appellant's brief?
By the way, in that same blog where I provided a table of ages of the judges of the 2nd Circuit, I suggested that instead of appointing 2nd Circuit judges for life, people should change this status quo by introducing to elect federal judges. That would have been a shock to the system of the 2nd Circuit judges who have become too comfortable in their jobs and allow themselves to do whatever their whims tell them, and not what the law requires them to do.
I am not at all surprised that the retaliation came, and that the retaliation came, "accidentally", the very next day after I did not appear in the fabricated criminal proceeding in my disciplinary action where my disciplinary prosecutor asked the court to put me in jail for 30 days for violating my own privacy.
I wonder what the 4th Department's ruling on the criminal proceeding will be, as I obviously was not curious enough to appear there and verify it in person.
As to this decision by the 2nd Circuit "troika court" in Neroni v. Peebles (that I published in this blog above), I will certainly publish the entire "non-meritorious" Neroni v Peebles lawsuit, with exhibits and all, on Facebook, by the end of this week.
When I publish it, the public will be the judge as to whether there are "no arguably meritorious issues" for discussion, or whether the 2nd Circuit and every one of its judges had an institutional interest to hide these issues as far as possible and prevent any review of issues raised in my lawsuit.
It's funny that what I raise in lawsuits is, first, declared as having no merit, and about 2 years down the road, I hear the same ideas from the speech of some high-and-mighty government official as his own novel and progressive ideas.
While such "noble" tricks makes one puke, the point is that I want the public to know what KIND of ideas our glorious federal courts and judges, sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution and citizens of the U.S. of America from violations of that Constitution, consider so lacking in merit that they dismiss an appeal BEFORE THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF WAS FILED, and without even setting the deadline for filing such a brief.
And that is, after the court below also dismissed the case before it was even served.
And that was after the 3rd Department and its Professional Conduct Committee engaged in an ex parte communication and left my disciplinary case when Neroni v. Peebles was filed and when the requests to waive service were sent out to defendants.
Something is fishy in the state of New York. Read Neroni v. Peebles and find out what exactly is so fishy and so sensitive that two courts refused me access to the courts with those issues.
As to what I am going to do next with Neroni v. Peebles, I will notify the public through this blog when any next steps will be made.
Please, give me until the end of this week to publish Neroni v. Peebles on Facebook.
I will provide a link to the lawsuit here or will make a short new blog notifying of the update.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment