On November 12, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is a party appellee in a case started by the NDNY court against my husband (without notice to me) based on two cases still pending in that court where my husband was counseled by me.
Thus, the court injected itself AS A PARTY into pending litigation, though a parallel proceeding, without notice to parties, counsel or presiding judges, and pre-judged to pending actions as frivolous.
Based on that, on November 16, 2015, I filed a motion to vacate and recuse any orders of the court made after the ex parte parallel proceeding was filed, and that was on October 20, 2014. I keep promising to publish the motion, and I will do it, I need a couple more days to do that, the motion is large. I downloaded the official (filed) version of it from Pacer and am preparing it for publishing, it will be published on this blog until Tuesday, I promise.
Since courts always require EXHAUSTIVE evidence in support of even APPEARANCE of impropriety regarding a judge, and since I was already punished by courts for not providing enough information to request a recusal (it is never enough, by the way), I provided enough now.
I provided two supporting affirmations, one with 34 documentary exhibits and the other with 9 documentary exhibits.
It is apparent that NDNY was disqualified from making any decisions pertaining my husband or myself after October 20, 2014 (the filing date of the ex parte parallel proceedings without notice to me as attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127 and Neroni v Grannis, 3:11-cv-1485), and especially after November 12, 2015 when the 2nd Circuit branded the court as a party in related proceeding commenced before these two COUNSELED cases were adjudicated.
And, I already wrote on this blog that I was given a deadline until November 17, 2015 to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against top judges of the State of New York and its Attorney General. I ultimately did not file the Rule 11 motion because of the threats of NYS Attorney General (a defendant in the action where the Rule 11 motion was about to be filed) that I am practicing in federal court without a license (it was not true, I was on "active" status, but I preferred not to play with my liberty, since I learnt courts do not care about the law, and could incarcerate me anyway).
The result of my activity in federal court?
The State of New York suspended my law license on November 16, 2015, but backdated it to November 13, 2015, and then claimed in Neroni v Grannis that my motion to vacate and recuse is invalid because I filed it when I was suspended (I was not suspended at that time in federal court and was not notified of my suspension by the state court).
NDNY, Magistrate Peebles, having read information in the Nov. 16, 2015 motion pertaining to his own and his court's too-close-for-propriety relationships with powerful and rich law firms, as spelled out in supporting affirmations and exhibits, made two adverse decisions against me and my husband since the filing date of the motion, November 16, 2015.
Peebles ordered me to RE-file a document that was filed as Dkt. 68-2 (at the very top of the main Dkt. 68) because allegedly he did not want to "sift through" 620 pages filed (all affirmations and all exhibits included) to get to my affirmation in opposition to motion to compel discovery that became invalid once the court's involvement in the parallel proceedings as a party was revealed.
Peebles also allowed the State of New York to file a motion for sanctions against me - even though the State of New York did not follow the mandatory procedure for such a motion under federal Rule 11.
By the way, the rude manner in which Peebles treated me is revealing in and of itself.
Peebles would never dream of telling an attorney from a powerful law firm in such a disrespectful and disdainful manner that he does not have to "sift through" what was filed with the court.
Ok, I re-filed what Peebles asked to refile, and, since the NYS Attorney General tried to intimidate me with claims that I practice law without a license in federal court by proceeding on behalf of a client (my husband), I flat out printed out my "active" attorney status in NDNY court and attached it as an exhibit to the filing, so that there are no claims that I practiced law in federal court without a license.
That was on Friday night, November 20, 2015.
Guess what?
On Sunday morning my attorney status in federal court was already "suspended", and that is - without notice or opportunity to be heard, without notification to me, and before I was even served with the state order of suspension.
I must note that suspension in federal court is not automatic after suspension in state court. I know that for a fact because I represented an attorney who was disbarred in state court and was still served with a notice of petition in a federal court, giving the attorney an opportunity to oppose the suspension in federal court.
NDNY did not have authority to even suspend me, not after it injected itself, without notice to me, in a two pending counseled cases of my husband by pre-judging such cases as "frivolous" while they were still not so ruled by the assigned judge.
I guess, Peebles snapped when I pointed out to him, in my November 20, 2015 filing, that his two adverse orders to me based since I caught the court red-handed in filing ex parte proceedings against my husband in two pending counseled cases over my head.
Or, maybe, Peebles read my yesterday's blog about his own incestous relationship with his prior law firm that results in what appears to be case-fixing where state judges are sued.
In any event, after the court was caught, it snapped.
I will keep telling you how the "snapping saga" continues.
Stay tuned.
THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment