"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.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

How the name "Neroni" causes judges and hearing officers to disregard their orders of assignment, as well as the rule of law and elementary human decency

An interesting scientific phenomenon presented itself in New York courts.

As soon as judges see the word "Neroni" on a pleading, they forget about the law, civility, decency or reasoning and act with a purpose - to show the Neroni's that they are below any possible law.

A number of judges in the Mokay case (read my post "the Mokay saga", here and here, and the early April posts for this year) disregarded the obvious problems with the case in order to push it forward, have my husband unlawfully disbarred and keep him disbarred, and that would be:

  • suing on a rehashed non-existent cause of action - tortious interference with prospective rights of inheritance;
  • suing on one testamentary instrument (oral) after probating another in another court;
  • having one law firm represent in one action the tortfeasor and ihis alleged victims, while claiming attorney fees as sole damages in the action - just to name a few problems.
There is applicable law as to all of the above, had I or my husband brought a case like that, it would have been dismissed as frivolous long time ago - and we would have been punished for conflicted representation.  But, since the conflicted representation is undertaken by a son of the Supreme Court justice and by the retired (and now late) Supreme Court justice, any misconduct that they committed in bringing and prosecuting a frivolous action is cured by their blue blood - and no law needs apply, especially when what is at stake is an unbridled son-of-a-judge's greed and the need to "get" a Neroni, the critics of judicial misconduct against the ephemeral requirement of the "rule of law" that judges have learnt to disregard knowing of their impunity to do whatever they want.

I have a disciplinary action pending, spawned, after I sued him, by a judge who is now running for the cover of an "early retirement" 2.5 years into his 10-year term after obtaining a re-election by making false statements to the voters, and who participated in the Mokay mess, first, by approving for probate one testamentary instrment, and then, through the Supreme Court, by enforcing a different testamentary instrument in the same case, the one he rejected in the Surrogate's Court.

The disciplinary action is prosecuted at this time by a wiz of a prosecutor who does not know, among other things, that she cannot prosecute and be at the same time a complaining witness and a claimed alleged victim in a criminal case SHE spawned against me - which was so bad that the court had to dismiss it sua sponte before the initial appearance date.

Yet, in the disciplinary action a court-appointed referee defied the court order of appointment directing the referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing on liability for my benefit.  The deadline for the referee to conduct such a hearing was February 6, 2015.  The referee openly defied that court order, failed to conduct the evidentiary hearing and instead, usurped the state constitutional authority of an appellate panel to decide cases in the appellate court and made a "decision" himself.

Instead of immediately replacing the referee and ordering the new referee to actually comply with the court order and conduct the court-ordered evidentiary hearing, the court is playing with me, pretending it does not understand what is going on and directs me to file "motions" to replace the referee, while the court already accepted what the referee did - unlawfully and while defying the court order to conduct a hearing - and scheduled a hearing in "mitigation" which does not happen before the court made a decision on liability (and the COURT did not do that - the referee did).

Similarly and at the same time, in the new case that I filed on behalf of my husband and that was transferred from the Surrogate's Court to the Supreme Court by a court order, the judge assigned to the case in the Supreme Court defies the court order of assignment and directs clerks in two courts to disregard the order of removal and assignment made by the judge's superior - and the superior knows about it and so far remains silent.

The Lady Justice appears to be very much sighted, moreover, the whole New York judicial system appears to be sitting on the scales of justice preventing the "rule of law" from taking effect where a "Neroni" is involved.

Recently, a judge (who was subpoenaed to testify about his own misconduct and misconduct of his staff in the Mokay case) declared "without merit" my doctor's diagnosis of a back injury that left me unable to appear at a trial, dismissed the jury, declared that my non-appearance because of a documented back injury, with a medical leave from work, as a waiver of the jury trial on behalf of my husband and myself, and conducted a trial in my absence.

That was done after that same judge gave two adjournments for medical reasons to my husband's opponents, without requiring their physicians to provide to him sworn statements as to their medical condition, and while the disabled counsel was one of several trial counsel, so the remaining trial counsel could proceed without the disabled counsel.

In the eyes of that judge (Kevin Dowd) disability of an American male attorney, even if documented without a sworn statement, always trumps a disability of a female Russian immigrant attorney, especially one who criticized the judge and subpoenaed him to testify, and especially the one who sued the judge on behalf of a client and whose husband sued the judge.

The judge had the indecency of having his law clerk threaten that I will be physically brought into the courthouse after I provided proof of my medical disability to the court.

So, disability of a non-Neroni counsel is grounds for an adjournment of a jury trial.  Disability of a Neroni counsel constitutes waiver of the jury trial.  This is how the "law of whim" operates in our neck of woods.

And, when the purpose is to "get", inconvenience or harass a Neroni, judges and referees do not have to abide by their own orders of assignment - or by the applicable law.

If such a "rule of whim" exists for the Neronis, it can - and does - exist for any other disfavored attorney or litigant in New York court, and it is the rule of whim and not the rule of law, that controls.

And that means that the rule of law in the State of New York, the rule that the law applies equally, without concern for one's status or identity, and in a predictable manner, is dead.   

No comments:

Post a Comment