"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.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

NYS Assistant Attorney General reminisces of rats - literally

When I was researching today on Twitter responses to the #LoveYourLawyerDay, I saw a tweet from NYS Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers, and visited his Twitter page.


Andrew Ayers is the New York State Assistant Attorney General who was given months of adjournments by the state judges whom Andrew Ayers represented in federal court (and both him and judges were disqualified from cases where Ayers continued to stubbornly appear and the judges continued to stubbornly rule), when he simply neglected to do his job when he was preparing his private book for publishing.  

Andrew Ayers is the one who claimed to the 2nd Circuit that I neglected two clients by not appearing at a deposition and by not answering a motion - two years after court documents were provided in the litigation that he was handling showing that at the time of deposition and motion I was not an attorney and could not possibly neglect clients as a lawyer at the claimed time.

Andrew Ayers is the one who obtained a dismissal of an appeal that challenged constitutionality of regulation of the legal profession (that Ayers acknowledges is in trouble and is crying for help) by filing an unsigned and unserved ex parte defective pleading claiming that the only reason my husband needs the page limit expanded is because his complaint (drafted by me) was "incoherent".  That was on September 21, 2015.  

Of course, 3 days later, on September 24, 2015 Andrew Ayers' clients filed a "Final Report and Recommendation" as members of the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline freely adopting ideas that they just dismissed in the "incoherent" complaint as perfectly good and needed for reforming the system of attorney discipline.

And, Andrew Ayers and his colleague from the court below on the same case, NYS Attorney General Bruce Boivin, continue to file mutually inconsistent pleadings.

Boivin says that Mr. Neroni could raise all of his after-dismissal issues on appeal and asks to deny his Rule 60 motion to vacate because of that.

Ayers says that Mr. Neroni only needs to address the amended complaint and nothing else on appeal, and for this reason does not need an extension of page limit, without which Mr. Neroni would actually be unable to cover all issues on appeal, including what happened after dismissal.

I kept wondering, what is wrong with those two attorneys.

Are they habitually drunk when writing and e-filing what they write and e-file?

Are they habitually on drugs?

Do they not know their "duty of candor to the tribunal" - those same duties that they have to PROSECUTE in their positions of New York State Assistants Attorney General, not commit themselves?

As a taxpayer, I have a right to know how a public servant whose salary is paid by my tax dollars, is doing his job.

I've got my answers, at least somewhat, through Andrew Ayers' tweets.


Especially when avoiding work comes as a feeling of entitlement, after having been anointed as part of royal entourage, having been a law clerk to the now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, which apparently absolves an attorney, for life, from doing his duty properly.

You are a public servant, Mr. Ayers, paid by taxpayers, including myself.

Either do not work on Sundays when you want to do something else, or do not catch yourself thinking "Eh, good enough".

When you see "pursuant to" in a brief, Mr. Ayers, please, look what it is pursuant to and do not fly into passion that somebody used a "lawyer-like" phrase.    Because too often you don't pay attention.

But here is the absolute best of the best.

In his book published in September of 2014 (when Ayers was working on the book while arguing to the court, where judges were his own clients, instead of doing his work on a case), Ayers claimed the honor of working in NYC for Judge Sonya Sotomayor.

Now, his reminiscences changed obviously, and instead of the honor of working for a judge in NYC, he now remembers about NYC missing the "feelings of disgust and alarm, mixed so poignantly with 'Wow, I'm really impressed" - by a rat dragging a piece of pizza down the stairs.

I am really impressed, too.

By the intellectual potential of our public servants.

So, now I need to think when reading Ayers' pleadings whether he was reminiscing of a rat or dreaming of making his life vivid and entrancing by avoiding work - again.

No comments:

Post a Comment