"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.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Caught the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in unprecedented misconduct

I was checking out my husband's pro se appellate case on (where any person can obtain, for a small fee), copies of public records of court proceedings.

Boy, what did I find.

I found that, as of November 12, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has designated the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York as a party in a lawsuit the court filed against my husband back on October 20, 2014.

The kicker was that the lawsuit was for an anti-filing injunction, and that it was based on two THEN-PENDING, COUNSELED cases.

Counseled by me.

And in one of those cases, I was also a party-co-Plaintiff.

So, what the NDNY court did, was - it pre-judged the two pending proceedings as frivolous before they were actually decided.

And when one of such proceedings was brought by me as a party while the court's pre-judgment was only filed against my husband, and was never served upon me, as a counsel in that pending case.

The judge who pre-judged the proceedings was the then-Chief Judge of the NDNY court Gary L. Sharpe, I criticized him multiple times on this blog for his misconduct, including failure to read and comprehend the U.S. Constitution (he sanctioned me for a correct reading of the 11th Amendment and directed me to re-read it - I did and the Amendment did not change since the time it was enacted).

Here are the rules of judicial conduct, the ones that the court violated in starting - as a party, as the 2nd Circuit said - an anti filing injunction against my husband based on two pending counseled cases.

1) When a judge is assigned to a case, that judge and nobody else, must decide that case, following the required procedure.  The pair of judges assigned to the Neroni v Grannis and Neroni v Zayas cases were Judges Lawrence E. Kahn and David E. Peebles.

The anti-filing proceedings were commenced by Judge Gary L. Sharpe, over the head of Judge Kahn, parties and counsel in those two pending cases.

An unprecedented misconduct.

2) When a person appears in a case through an attorney, as it happened in both of these cases, the court cannot, directly and indirectly, communicate with a represented party other than through his or her attorney.

I was Mr. Neroni's attorney in both Neroni v Grannis and Neroni v Zayas, and I was not notified of the parallel proceeding based on cases pending in front of a completely different pair of judges.

3)  When a "related" case is filed in a federal court concerning several parties, all of those several parties and their counsel have to be notified.

There were no official notifications made to the state defendants in Neroni v Grannis or Neroni v Zayas, of course, I do not know whether ex parte communications could be occurring, especially that Judge Sharpe's son works in the New York State Attorney General's office which represented defendants in both of these cases.

Throughout all this time, since October 20, 2014 and even after November 12, 2015 when Northern District of New York was clearly designated as a party in a proceeding that was filed when Neroni v Grannis and Neroni v Zayas were pending, Neroni v Grannis in full, Neroni v Zayas with some claims dismissed, some ongoing - throughout all this time, judges of the Northern District of New York failed to notify me, attorney of record for Mr. Neroni in both Neroni v Grannis and Neroni v Zayas that these cases were already pre-judged through a parallel ex parte proceeding.

Neroni v Grannis, by the way, is the related federal case to a state case where Judge Leslie Stein was bribed by the New York State Governor with nomination to the New York State Court of Appeals while she was in the process of deciding the case where New York Department of Environmental Conservation was a party.

It took her 6 days to decide for the DEC.  Ethics in the judiciary are not needed when promotions can be available.  I wrote about such situations on this blog again and again.

So, a motion was filed to vacate decisions in Neroni v Grannis and Neroni v Zayas and disqualify the court because it injected itself into those cases through unprecedented parallel ex parte proceedings, and pre-judged the cases, long Judge Lawrence Kahn rubber-stamped them by a full dismissal in Neroni v Zayas and a partial dismissal in Neroni v Grannis.

The motion is very large, it involves 43 documentary exhibits and two affirmations, so it will take me some time to publish it, but I will, soon.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment