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 Pacer.gov (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.