"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, November 24, 2015

After the court was caught - it snapped, and suspended me through an OUT-OF-COURT order of suspension (which was not provided to me)

I wrote on this blog about the saga of how I my law license was pulled (I will omit re-telling of the whole story), just that the order of state suspension at the same time finds me liable for a disciplinary violation AND in the same breath states that an aggravating circumstance is that I did not "acknowledge misconduct" or "express remorse" on an EARLIER date - before the decision on liability was made.

That is a classic prejudgment of the action making the revocation of my state law license in valid.

"Coincidentally", my law license was pulled on the same day when my civil rights lawsuit on behalf of three clients against the Chenango County Department of Social Services and some of its officers and employees (Argro v Osborne), a lawsuit that was going on since 2012 and that survived two motions to dismiss and a motion for a summary judgment, was scheduled to proceed to trial.

Of course, pulling my law license because a state judge Becker sanctioned me 3 times after I sued him, did nothing to protect my clients (from me). 

On the opposite, pulling my law license left my three now former clients (and I am talking only about Argro v Osborne, while I had other cases) scrambling to find another attorney who would not be afraid to take on social services.

My now former clients in Argro v Osborne already reported to me that New York ACLU already turned them down after they heard that the lawsuit is against the social services.

I also described how the federal court snapped after I made a motion to recuse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on November 16, 2015, 4 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit deemed the court a party petitioner-appellee against my husband, and when my license was very much valid.

The NDNY court ordered me to make a filing on November 20, 2015.

On November 20, 2015, before making that e-filing, I checked my status as an attorney on the federal court's website.  It was active, and I have the printout.

Yet, on November 23, 2015 I received an e-notification ( the e-notification means that the court treats me still as an attorney) containing a letter that I was allegedly suspended by order of the NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby as of November 18, 2015, 5 days prior.

Today, I printout out the docket report of that case which lists me as a lead attorney for the palintiffs, 6 days after I was allegedly suspended.

Yet, on November 20, 2015 my status on the court's website was "active", I did not receive the alleged order of suspension from Chief Judge Suddaby (and I did not receive it up to now), and Chief Judge Suddaby allegedly suspended me - without notice or opportunity to be heard - after I pointed out to the court in a motion to recuse that the court injected itself as a party petitioner against my husband in a parallel proceeding in two pending matters as of October 20, 2014, and as of October 20, 2014 the court has no authority to make ANY decisions pertaining to my husband or myself.

Once again, IF I was suspended on November 18, 2015 - of which I received NO official notification as of now, then WHY does the court continue to serve me by electronic means on November 23, 2015, as if I am still a licensed attorney? 

And why I am still listed as an attorney for the Plaintiffs in Argro v Osbrone today, on November 24, 2015, allegedly 6 days after the federal suspension?

And IF, as a "suspended attorney", I can still use the e-filing system, IF I can still file, serve and be served in my own actions where I am a party by electronic means, then WHY I was not served by e-notification with my own order of suspension - in order to entrap me into unauthorized practice of law?

Looks like that and  -  nice try. 

At least, I printed out my "Active" status as of November 20, 2015 (at night), and that was my ONLY actual notice of my status as of that date.

Moreover, today I also obtained information from the government electronic source about all of my federal lawsuits (I am litigating in federal court since 2011).

There are only three lawsuits on Pacer with my name as attorney or party without a closing date:

  1. Neroni v Grannis, 3:11-cv-1485 (I am mentioned twice, as an attorney and a party);

  2. Argro v Osborne, 3:12-cv-910;

  3. Baron v. Southard, 3:13-cv-153 (I withdrew from that case).

My state law license was pulled on November 16, 2015 (back-date of the court order is November 13, 2015).

The letter in Argro v Osborne of yesterday, Nov. 23, 2015, claimed that Judge Suddaby suspended me as of November 18, 2015.

A reciprocal suspension is a separate disciplinary proceeding, which has to be filed in court and assigned a case number and a judge. shows no proceeding with my name filed in NDNY court in November of 2015. 

Since there is no such proceeding, here couldn't be an order of suspension where no such proceeding was commenced.

Chief Judge Suddaby simply snapped and produced out of the thin air that order of suspension for his friends judges Peebles, Sharpe , and his court.

Peebles and Sharpe felt hurt I criticized their documented misconduct in a motion to recuse, so Suddaby gave them a consolation toy - an out-of-court order of my suspension, no court proceedings necessary.

Of course, the court seems to be closely monitoring this blog, and I expect that a disciplinary proceeding against me will be back-commenced and back-dated.

I do not know what will they do with electronic date stamps though, but I can expect anything from this court.

Something like "oopsie", we knew we had to suspend her as an extremely dangerous person (a civil rights attorney who filed a lawsuit against social services that survived and proceeds to trial IS a very dangerous person, I agree), but we kind of forgot to file that proceeding.  So - here goes.

Only, guys, too many slips for "accidental" "good faith" errors.  And too much documented misconduct and appearance of impropriety.

Now, I believe, a criminal investigation of NDNY court's shenanigans, and not only against me, should be started.

Preet Bharara will have his hands full.

I will report as to how that endeavor proceeds.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment