No Rule 11 motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS AG Schneiderman today. I guess, they must be happy for their handiwork

Today was my deadline to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS Attorney General Schneidrman for having my husband's case dismissed, and then promoting my husband's ideas from the dismissed lawsuit in the "Final Report" of the NYS Attorney Discipline Commission.

As you know, in New York, as in other states, the judiciary (with Judge Lippman as a Chief judge) controls attorney licensing.

So, before I could file the Rule 11 motion, my license was revoked.

That reminds me of how attorney Doris Sassower's license was suspended - when she filed an appeal challenging constitutionality of cross-endorsements in judicial elections in New York.

Moreover, today the NYS Attorney General intimidated me by claiming that I am engaged in unauthorized practice of law because I filed a motion to recuse and vacate on behalf of my husband (and myself) in another federal case.

The intimidation came - that is funny, really - through e-notification, served upon me "by ECF only" by the NYS AG Maria Lisi-Murray (who lost her previous lucrative job in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson because of her incompetence in a case where I represented Plaintiffs suing the Chenango County Department of Social Services).  

That case, by the way, is scheduled for trial on February 29, 2016, having overcome all hurdles of motions to dismiss and for a summary judgment.

I, of course, advised my clients in that case of suspension of my state law license and they reported to me that, so far, ACLU in Albany refused to recommend any attorneys to replace me in that case as soon as they heard that the case is against Social Services.

Yet, e-service is only allowed against clients represented by attorneys.

So, in the same breath, the "legal talent",  NYS Assistant Attorney General, who recently "resigned" from Levine, Gouldin and Thompson within 10 days of denial of a motion for a summary judgment where Lisi-Murray asked the federal court to decide triable issues of fact (an "F" in 101 Civil Procedure) in favor of her client, the Chenango County Commissioner of Social Services and her employees, did two diametrically opposite things:

1) she served me as if I am an attorney; and
2) she claimed I am not an attorney and I am engaged in UPL by filing on behalf of a client.

At least, Lisi-Murray is consistent in her incompetence.  Kudoz to Levine, Gouldin and Thompson for getting rid of her.  But now, we the taxpayers, myself included, are saddled with feeding the incompetent attorney picked up as a "consolation prize" by the NYS Attorney General's office (see also my recent blog about another "consolation" hiring by the State of New York of yet another attorney - an unethical one, who, what a coincidence! also was in the past a NYS Assistant Attorney General).

I published recently a report about incompetence and unethical conduct of yet another three NYS Assistant Attorneys General - 

1. Kenneth Gellhaus (I will add a blog about Gellhaus shortly), 
2. Michael Danaher, see here and here, and 
3. Andrew Ayers (former law clerk of the now-U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor), see here, here, here and here.

It appears that, same as the policy of NYS to hire police officers, to not hire applicants with an IQ over a certain level to prevent "rotation" of work force, same the NYS AG's office is picking attorneys who are incapable to survive in private practice outside of the NYS AG's office, who are not only unethical, but also lack the very basic competence.

And we the taxpayers are saddled with the task of feeding them.

And, by the way - these klutzes will NEVER be disbarred like my husband was - without a hearing - on bogus charges of fraud upon the court.

Because they are covered with absolute immunity for fraud upon the court.

And they will never be suspended - like I was - for being sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" for making a motion to recuse a judge - because they REPRESENT all judges they appear in front of, and because they will NEVER be sanctioned for frivolous conduct by their judges-clients, no matter what they do.

They will continue to saddle you, ladies and gentlemen, New York taxpayers, with their inflated salaries and benefits, and those of their families, no matter what they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole reason why attorney regulation is not protecting you.  It is protecting them, and their ability to milk you for their salaries.  And I bet, their salaries and benefits that are milked out of you, are better than yours.

As to Rule 11 motion today - I did not file it.

But I did file a letter explaining to the court that I did not file it BECAUSE I was intimidated by the State Defendants, two top judges of the court and by Defendant Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General who orchestrated revocation of my law license right before my deadline to file a motion for sanctions against them, and who drove home to me that the not-so-subtle threat that they will consider my filing of the Rule 11 motion against them today as criminal conduct.