Who will prosecute the disciplinary prosecutor - and her counsel?

I just put in a blog post about frivolous and fraudulent conduct in litigation of disciplinary attorney Monica Duffy and the New York State Attorney General and his Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers - as well as of Chief Judge of New York State Jonathan Lippman and Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters.

If sued, these two will invoke some kind of an immunity and will get the lawsuit dismissed.

Immunity is given based on the promise of availability of attorney discipline.

Monica Duffy, at the hearing in Albany before the New York State Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline, claimed with a straight face that there is no such thing as selective non-prosecution of prosecutors by her disciplinary committee.

Not only that was a lie at that time, because Duffy blocked investigations and prosecutions against herself as a disciplinary prosecutor before making that statement, and that is on my personal knowledge and documentary evidence on file, but now, in view of her newly found frivolous conduct, yet another question arises:

WHO will prosecute disciplinary prosecutor Monica Duffy AND HER ATTORNEY - the New York State Attorney General.

Will they, once again, block a disciplinary complaint against themselves?

Until and unless disciplinary prosecutors - and their powerful attorney, the New York State Attorney General who is defending unconstitutional conduct instead of prosecuting it, as is his job as an elected public official in the State of New York - are treated equally by the disciplinary process and are equally punished for fraud upon the court, frivolous conduct and acts clearly indicating their lack of fitness to practice law, the whole idea of attorney discipline is void of any meaning.

If the most powerful attorneys, who can do the most damage to people, are not reachable by attorney discipline, the whole idea of attorney discipline is just a sham.

That idea was also CLEARLY expressed in my husband's lawsuit Neroni v Zayas that Duffy had dismissed twice at the district court level, and now had it dismissed on the appellate level, WITHOUT REVIEW.

The interesting part is the described fraud DUFFY, LIPPMAN, PETERS and SCHNEIDERMAN do on their taxpayer-paid time, at taxpayers' expense, and pretending that it is for taxpayer's benefit.

It is for your benefit, ladies and gentlemen, that you are defrauded.

One doesn't need to read Orwell nowadays.

Just read the dissonant claims in different forums of the so-called "public servants".

That is SOME double-speak.