"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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit continues discrimination against pro se civil rights plaintiffs - including through page limits

I wrote on this blog a lot about discrimination against pro se parties by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Recently, I ran a blog about shenanigans of the 2nd Circuit that accepted defective unsigned filing by NYS Attorney General Andrew Ayers served to the wrong address (not served, in other words) in opposition to the extension of page limit on appeal by my husband Frederick J. Neroni - where Mr. Neroni was trying to cover not only appellate issues, but issues occurring after dismissal covering misconduct of defendants through actions inconsistent with their positions in litigation and consistent with Mr. Neroni's position that the defendants had dismissed.

I will run a separate blog on work ethic of Andrew Ayers.  

Right now I would like to concentrate on Andrew Ayers' fight against Mr. Neroni's request to exceed the page limit of 30 pages in the appellant's brief set by the court rules of the 2nd Circuit.

Yet, I read today on Twitter that on October 26, 2015, NFL lawyers filed a 59-page brief with the same court.

I went to, found the case, checked the docket file - and voila!  

No motions to extend page limit, no "notices of defective filings" - such as the ones that the 2nd Circuit court posted on Pacer for Mr. Neroni for filing a brief exceeding that page limit (but not to Andrew Ayers, former clerk of that court, for filing an unsigned and unserved document).

And, NFL never filed a motion for extension for page limit either.

Nothing like a little more proof of discrimination against pro se civil rights litigants discovered on a #LoveYourLawyerDay.

No comments:

Post a Comment