"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

If courts refuse to abide by its own orders, how can any court orders be binding on the public?

I have published on this blog the ex parte order by which the Appellate Division 3rd Department transferred my disciplinary proceedings to the Appellate Division 4th Department.

Here it is, again.

The order was based "upon the papers filed in support of the application".
The application was never served upon me, so it is an illegal ex parte order.
On receipt of the order, I immediately asked both the Appellate Division 3rd Department and the Appellate Division 4th Department for access to the following documents:
  1. the "application";
  2. "papers filed in support of the application";
  3. proof of service of the application on me
My husband Mr. Neroni did the same, since his name mysteriously ended up on the caption of my disciplinary proceedings, in violation of all fathomable laws and rules.
The 3rd Department, the court that had to transfer all records, including the requested records, to the 4th Department, answered with an outright denial of access,admitting that it unlawfully retained a portion of the record of my disciplinary proceedings that it was supposed to transfer.
The 4th Department responded with a list of papers that were transferred to it which did not include the requested papers, thus confirming that it is illegally proceeding with my disciplinary proceedings on an incomplete record and is illegally deciding a motion for a summary judgment on an incomplete record.
Recently, I double-checked with both courts about access to these records.
The 3rd Department now engaged the services of an attorney for the New York State Court Administration who treated me like a pest and practically told me that since the 3rd Department once denied me access to the records (without any legal basis to do so since all the requested records should have been transferred, by the 3rd Department's own order of June 11, 2014 to the 4th Department), I should not be asking for it again.
On receipt of the answer from the NYS Court Administration attorney on behalf of the 3rd Department, I sent a letter to the 4th Department asking it two simple questions:
(1) did it receive the application, papers submitted in support of the application and proof of service of all of those papers upon me since our last correspondence when the 4th Department stated to me it did not receive such papers;
(2) when will the 4th Department provide to me the evidentiary hearing that it ordered to be provided to me on September 30, 2014.
In answer to these two simple questions I received this letter dated April 10, 2015:

The letter indicates two things:
(1) no papers were additionally transferred after the letter from the 4th Department dated July 30, 2014 and listing the records that were transferred to it from the 3rd Department in my disciplinary proceedings; to me it means that:
  • the 3rd Department court, especially based on its latest response to my letter requesting access to records, is still unlawfully withholding records from my disciplinary proceedings;
  • the 4th Department court is:
    • unlawfully proceeding in attorney disciplinary proceedings on an incomplete record;
    • is unlawfully reviewing a motion for a summary judgment on an incomplete record, which, all in all, constitutes in bias against me and in favor of the court's own disciplinary committee and harassment against me, especially taking into consideration other violations of my rights by the 4th Department court that I wrote about on this blog.
(2) The 4th Department court, same as the 3rd Department court, refuses to abide by its own orders.
The 3rd Department court issued an order of June 11, 2014 transferring all of my disciplinary proceedings to the 4th Department court, but refused to abide to its own order and withheld from the 4th Department court a portion of records from those proceedings, records that I never saw but which the court unlawfully relied upon in transferring the case to the 4th Department.
The 4th Department court issued an order of September 30, 2014 appointing a referee and ordering the referee to hold an evidentiary hearing for my benefit.  The referee did not hold the hearing, I asked when such a hearing will be held, and now the court is answering me that I need to make an extra motion, pay extra money and engage in extra effort (and undergo an extra stress) to obtain from the court what the court already granted to me in its September 30, 2014 order.
My question to you, my readers, as members of the public is:
if courts refuse to abide by its own orders, why should the public consider any court orders binding? 

No comments:

Post a Comment