THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York defies a direct court order - as a party litigant
Note that the case is positioned as a "civil rights - other". Meaning that the defendant (here - Mr. Neroni) must be a state actor. Judge Sharpe just sanctioned Mr. Neroni for suing a person who Judge Sharpe did not consider a state actor. So, for Mr. Neroni to sue a non-state actor in a civil rights action is a sanctionable offense. For Gary Sharpe - the same thing is an exercise of power. Not supported by any law, as the order that follows, shows, just a sheer exercise of force.
A civil rights action presupposes that the suing party, the plaintiff, must have an injury, and the defendant must be a "state actor" that perpetrated a constitutional violation against the plaintiff.
There was no declared plaintiff (as of October 16, 2015, the 2nd Circuit recognized the court to be the respondent, as the initiating party of the litigation, see the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit below), but the case was brought against Mr. Neroni BY THE COURT, by its Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
Gary Sharpe sought to impose an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni for filing 5 civil rights actions in the court, while two of those actions were still pending at the time the anti-filing "civil rights action" was filed by Gary Sharpe against my husband, and referred to sanctions in two actions against judges or their relatives (Neroni v Becker, Neroni v Coccoma) that were imposed exclusively by Gary Sharpe for correct reading of the law and the U.S. Constitution and despite my husband's motion to recuse Gary Sharpe due to conflicts of interest involved.
Despite my husband's cross-motion to dismiss and recuse the illegal sua sponte action, and a request for an evidentiary hearing, despite my husband's pointing out that there are two still pending COUNSELED actions, pending before other judges than Gary Sharpe, where neither the judges nor the counsel were notified about the related anti-filing civil rights lawsuit, as required by law - Gary Sharpe plowed right through, denied the evidentiary hearing, denied the motion to recuse and imposed his anti-filing injunction and blocked my husband's access to court unless he discloses to the court things that nobody has to disclose as a pre-condition of filing a civil rights action for a constitutional violation.
The injunction imposed by Sharpe on November 26, a month after filing the sua sponte action, without a due process pre-deprivation evidentiary hearing required by law, mentions for the first time the legal basis for the injunction - 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), while that legal basis was not included as a notice to Mr. Neroni in the initial sua sponte "civil rights lawsuit" (see above), and thus, an action without a legal basis and a proper notice, was legally void.
Yet, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) is not listed as the basis for the lawsuit in the docket sheet (above).
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides as follows:
The sua sponte action was not formulated as a sua sponte petition for a writ, did not give notice it was based on 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), was misleading as claiming it was a "civil rights action" in the Docket, did not contain a docket sheet, as required by law for all filings in the NDNY court, did not list all related actions, and did not notify judges and attorneys in the related actions.
Apparently, the Chief Judge allowed himself to violate every rule in the book to exact vengeance upon Mr. Neroni - which was not "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". Not at all.
Here is my husband's Affirmation in opposition to the injunction.
But, here is the injunction blocking my husband's access to court guaranteed to him under the 1st Amendment, Petitions Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, to complain about present and future constitutional violations. All of them.
So, Gary Sharpe put a bull's eye on my husband and made him a target of governmental misconduct, because Mr. Neroni was stripped of any possibility of seeking a legal remedy against governmental violators.
My husband appealed.
He appealed a long time ago. Usually, civil rights appeals are put on a fast track. This one wasn't. The appeal was filed in 2014. We are at the end of 2015.
My husband just received in the mail a court order ordering the Chief Judge of the U.S. Attorney's office, on behalf of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to file a responding brief in the case by October 30, 2015.
Here it is.
Today is November 1, 2015.
My husband, as always, was not allowed to file electronically and does not receive electronic notifications of filings in his case.
Thus, I went and checked whether the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and its representative, the U.S. Attorney's Office, complied with the court order of the 2nd Circuit and filed a responding brief by October 30, 2015.
Instead, they filed a "letter" indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office is "seeking guidance" from the U.S. Justice Department whether they have authority to represent the Chief Judge - who is no longer Gary Sharpe, Sharpe was demoted, now the Chief Judge is Glenn Suddaby.
So, the NDNY court, through their attorneys the U.S. Attorney's office, tell the 2nd Circuit court (appellate Court): "we will continue our efforts to obtain guidance" - while defying the court order! And, NDNY and their attorneys expect the 2nd Circuit to swallow it while any other litigant or attorney sending a letter like that will be sanctioned.
Well, they should have thought whether they are putting themselves in a position of a party in litigation and who is going to represent them on appeal when Sharpe FILED his "sua sponte" "civil rights action" against my husband in October of 2014, A YEAR AGO.
Obviously, the thinking process of Gary Sharpe did not spread out farther than to exact revenge upon Mr. Neroni for bringing out the fact Gary Sharpe's conflicts of interest.
Sharpe's not-so-sharp thinking process may also be blurred by drinking. Anyway, the only time I saw Gary Sharpe in court (and he sat far away up from me up on top, so I could not smell his breath), his face, eyes and mannerisms clearly suggested that he imbibed, and that's - during an official court proceeding.
By the way, Gary Sharpe's one son, Michael Aaron Sharpe, is employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, and another - Robert Sharpe - in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The very office that was ordered by the 2nd Circuit to represent Sharpe's court in an appeal of Sharpe-created mess.
See, now, by court order, the U.S. Attorney's Office in NDNY/Robert Sharpe/Gary Sharpe's son is required to deal with Gary Sharpe's mess. And the new boss of Gary Sharpe Glenn Suddaby, as well as the U.S. Attorney's office balked at that and defaulted.
Time for retirement or impeachment for Gary Sharpe - finally?
And now they defaulted and defied a direct court order of the 2nd Circuit.
I wonder if now the U.S. District Court for the NDNY which clearly defied a court order and filing deadline, will be held to their default - and contempt of court.
Had any of civil rights appellants, instead of complying with the briefing deadlines, filed not a motion to extend, following the required Form 1080 that was never filed by the NDNY court, but a "letter" "notifying" the court that, instead of complying with a court order, the responding court and its counsel are "seeking guidance" from somebody else - they would be held in contempt and sanctioned, and their pleadings will be barred.
I also wrote on this blog about dismissals of pro se indigent (poor person's) civil rights cases by NDNY court - at a lightning speed, without any opportunity for them to "seek guidance" of counsel, even when they are begging that same U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to assign counsel to them or give them time to consult a counsel.
Obviously, NDNY court, consisting of legal experts that SET the law through precedents, does not want to apply to itself the standard it applies to other people - even to people with no legal background, poor and hardly literate.
The 2nd Circuit has a history of not giving any chances to civil rights plaintiffs, of being unforgiving to civil rights plaintiffs, of declaring "defective filings" of the civil rights plaintiffs wherever they file any "letters" meant as motions to extend time, without the required Form 1080 motion forms.
Recently, the 2nd Circuit refused to file into Pacer Mr. Neroni's appeal claiming it is "defective" because it exceeded the page limit.
It also refused to file Mr. Neroni's appeals previously because of an alleged lack of a comma (literally!) on the front page of appellant's brief.
Here, a letter meant as a motion is filed by a court-as-a-party, without the required motion form, clearly constituting a defective filing - and no "defective filing notice" is issued by the court.
So, the favoritism towards the court-as-a-party already started.
We'll see what next the 2nd Circuit will devise to protect the ass of Gary Sharpe - who was, until he was booted from his position as Chief Judge, was sitting on the "Judicial Conduct" Committee of the 2nd Circuit - at the very time when he was committing rampant misconduct.
I will report here the development in this case.