"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.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Lippman's clumsy attempts to address fundamental unconstitutionality of New York UPL statutes and attorney licensing in his "new" attorney disciplinary rules

As I stated in my previous blogs yesterday and today, New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, on the eve of his mandatory retirement that will happen tomorrow, continues to fight several civil rights lawsuits, one of them is an appeal and a motion to vacate in Neroni v Zayas, a civil rights lawsuit that I started on behalf of my husband and that is challenging several issues of constitutionality of attorney disciplinary system in New York.

As part of the lawsuit, Lippman fights, among other issues, these two:

1) an equal protection challenge requesting to declare that attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are administrative and not judicial in nature and that New York violates attorneys' equal protection of laws by not providing to them ANY right of judicial review of those administrative proceedings, such as the State of New York provides to holders of other occupational licenses;

2) a challenge to New York criminal unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes and attorney regulation scheme as a whole on the basis of the state's failure to provide a clear definition as to what the practice of law is - essentially, the claim is that, if the State of New York does not know what the heck the practice of law is, it cannot regulate the practice of law or impose criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.  

In fact, not only New York, but other states, too, struggle with definition of what the practice of law is, and decide what it is on an "ad hoc" (case-by-case) basis, with notice to criminal defendants provided backwards by the court instead of forwards by the legislature through a statute.  

It is obvious that such UPL statutes and attorney regulation of what is not defined are a violation of ex post facto laws prohibited by the U.S. Constitution that every judge and every lawyer is sworn to uphold.

You can read an interesting piece on the manipulation of UPL laws in different states here.

Lippman reflected his strife in Neroni v Zayas in his new attorney disciplinary rules as to these two issues in the following way:

1) he claimed (without authority, since such authority belongs to the Legislature and not to the Chief Judge) that attorney disciplinary proceedings are "special proceedings" (meaning special COURT proceedings) within the meaning of Article 4 of the CPLR - but then did not allow CPLR to apply to disclosure in such proceedings, as it applies to all other "special court proceedings", and introduced a new pleading for the goverment, a "reply";

Note Lippman's creativity in inventing a "reply".

For example, a Family Court case is a "special proceeding" within the meaning of CPLR Article 4.  

No "replies" are allowed in such proceedings to be filed by the government, nor in any other "special court proceedings" filed against the government.

A "reply" is allowed under the CPLR in MOTION practice, not in initiating pleadings for a case.

Lippman should not have paraded his incompetence as part of new attorney disciplinary rules, although he, of course, can claim incompetence as of his legacy, that would be true.

The usual three sets of initiating pleadings in court proceedings in New York (and not in special proceedings!) are:

  1.  Plaintiff's complaint;
  2. Defendant's answer AND COUNTERCLAIM if the Defendant so desires;
  3. the Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's counterclaim
In attorney disciplinary proceedings that are commenced by the arm of a licensing agency (even if the licensing agency is a court, it still discharges executive functions of a licensing agency, and therefore, attorney disciplinary proceedings are administrative and not judicial in nature) against an attorney, there is no right of a counterclaim, and thus, there should be no right for a reply.

Yet, Lippman invented such a right for disciplinary prosecutors, while all the way claiming that such proceedings are somehow under Article 4 of the CPLR.  You cannot find anything like that in Article 4 of the CPLR.

2)  As to UPL prohibitions, Lippman included into the new rules this fantastic text:

Yes, the practice of law is regulated in New York not by one statute, but by four criminal statutes, none of which provides a definition of what the practice of law, legal services or business of a lawyer is.

Here they are:

Judiciary Law 478 - prohibition of the practice of law without registraton and licensing; registration and licensing procedure are defined in the statute, practice of law or what constitutes "legal services" are not defined;

So, the new rules prohibit to disbarred and suspended attorneys this quadruple legislative blunder giving people absolutely no notice of prohibited conduct.

The practice of law in New York, as well as unauthorized practice of law is like obscenity - "you know it when you see it".

That is not how criminal statutes, and regulatory scheme based on such statutes, are supposed to operate, that much must be known even to 1st year law students.

So, Lippman leaves a lasting evidence of incompetence, self-service and corruption.   People of the State of New York could expect nothing else from Lippman. 

Yet, the two elephants in the room, issues of fundamental unconstitutionality of New York UPL statutes and attorney licensing system, that Lippman tried to so clumsily address in the "new" attorney disciplinary rules, remain open.

New York state joins other states in defiance of federal antitrust laws regarding attorney regulation

The "Irreverent Lawyer" blog recently commented on the state bars' "underwhelmed" reaction to the antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that affects attorney regulation.

What the blog does not say though is that the so-called "underwhelmed" reaction of the states to the antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is in fact ongoing defiance of the states in asserting, under the guise of protecting the public, that regulation of the legal profession can be done only by the legal profession itself, which is what the U.S. Supreme Court said is in violation of the Sherman Act without immunity.

That means, attorney regulations in all states that did not change their regulatory schemes from the disciplinary boards/ committees run by market participants (attorneys) without active state supervision by a NEUTRAL state body (go find it for attorneys), are in violation of federal antitrust laws (laws that, by the way, have both civil provision with a right of a private cause of action with treble damages, and a criminal component).

Anyway, the blog is a piece worth reading, together with the interlinked documents.

Especially in New York, where Chief Judge Lippman, on the steps of retirement, announced "new" attorney disciplinary rules that, while rearranging the chairs on Titanic's deck some more, violate antitrust laws as much as the previous rules did.

Jonathan Lippman's l"egacy of social justice" - NYS Associations of Court officers sues Lippman for violation of their constitutional rights

I wrote in my previous blog that I will cover lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman as part of his "legacy".

Here is the list of lawsuits available on against Jonathan Lippman.

Lawsuits against Lippman at trial level (Lippman is listed as "dft" - Defendant or "res", Respondent):

 Lawsuits at appellate level:

A missing date in the "Date Closed" column indicate a pending lawsuit or appeal.

There are two pending appeals and 5 pending lawsuits, according to this table.

The reporting by Pacer might not correctly reflect the true status of the cases.

For example, when a Rule 60 motion to vacate is filed based on new evidence, the case is still reported as "closed", even though litigation continues.

Therefore, there is no way, without going into all of docket reports of these cases (and paying for it, which I cannot afford), to learn whether motions to vacate based on new evidence have been filed in any lawsuits against Lippman claimed as "closed" on Pacer.

Here are some statements from the lawsuit New York State Court Officers Association v Hite, Case No. 1:12-cv-532 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Lippman is one of Co-Defendants in that ongoing lawsuit.

That's right, while advocating for 10 more years of his own "service" on the Court of Appeals, and even trying to have the New York State Constitution amended to give him those 10 more years of enhanced pay, while advocating for pay raises of the already inflated judicial salaries during ongoing budgetary crises and "justice gap" crisis when majority of New Yorkers cannot afford an attorney, Lippman at the same time cut benefits of his own "lesser", non-judiical employees - and got sued for that. 

The lawsuit is still pending while Lippman is leaving his office.

I do not see mainstream media commenting on that lawsuit as part of Lippman's "legacy" at the time he leaves his office.

As I mentioned above, there are more lawsuits pending against Lippman and many more dismissed on his requests that they are "meritless" (like our Neroni v Zayas from which he plagiarized his ideas for new attorney rules) or on the basis of "sovereign immunity" that New York waived in 1929 through Court of Claims act, or based on "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts" that New York waived by enacting Judiciary Law 14 that strips jurisdiction from a judge with personal interest in a case (and malice and corruption is the ultimate personal interests).

I will try to cover some of the other lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman, too. 

Stay tuned.

Plagiarism, frivolous conduct and catering for himself and his friends as Jonathan Lippman's legacy of "social justice" and the timid mainstream media

Recently, I ran a blog about a bad recent case of judicial corruption in Florida.

As part of that blog I provided a link to a YouTube video showing how a protestor was videotaping how reporters from mainstream media were walking towards the courthouse to attend a conference held by prosecutors (after, as a related court order said, parking in a secure parking lot provided by the prosecution) and completely ignored pleas by the reporter who asserted he was a 15-year fraud investigator, to look at the evidence he had of judicial corruption in that same courthouse.

One of the reporters told him to "talk to her manager about it".

Apparently, managers in the "free" mainstream media define what KIND of news is reportable and what kind is not.

Here is also a link to a 2009 law review written by a then law student who actually did a survey and put together an "economic model" of judicial corruption in the United States.  While I disagree with the author of the note on many points he is making (and will run a separate blog analyzing that particle law review article), he did point out that judicial corruption is a big problem in the United States, with 2% of the U.S. population reporting that they bribed judges only in one year, 2011, and explained some mechanisms of how judicial corruption works and what motivates it.

One of the big motivators, as reported in the law review, is unaccountability and failiure of attorneys who know about corruption to report it.  

The author of the law review, Stratos Pahis, asserted that it is more likely that corruption is reported in a criminal case when a criminal defendant who bribed the judge did not get what he expected from the judge, than when a bribe is made in a civil proceeding.  Also, the law review article noted that the higher the "honor" and "prestige" of judicial office (appellate judge vs trial judge, federal judge vs state judge), the higher is the price-tag of the bribe - and that is according to review of bribes of judges who were already caught and prosecuted for bribes, a very rare occurrence.

Now, New York Times claimed yesterday that Lippman leaves his office with a "legacy of reforms inspired for social justice".

This statement is a slap in the face of many people, and a slap in my face, personally. 

I stand as one of the attorneys that New York State "incapacitated" by suspending my law license BECAUSE I reported and criticized judicial corruption.  My law license was suspended BECAUSE I represented my clients in accordance with my oath of office and BECAUSE I made motions to recuse a corrupt judge (who ran from the bench 4 years after imposing sanctions upon me anyway, after NYS Comptroller found improprieties in the office he represented as an attorney going back 30 years, all those years when he was representing Delaware County and its Social Services).

I stand as an author of many points proclaimed by Lippman in his "reforms" that Lippman plagiariarized from my court pleadings, while at the same time having those civil rights lawsuits dismissed, me and my husband on whose behalf I filed those lawsuits, punished for "frivolous conduct".

In fact, Lippman continues to fight the lawsuit from which he plagiarized his "attorney discipline reform", at the appellate level.  Many of the same topics that he asserts in his newly-proclaimed attorney disciplinary rules were asserted in the lawsuit Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in 2013.  

Lippman fought tooth and claw to have the lawsuit dismissed, succeeded, while at the same time "creating" a Commission discussing the very same issues as reform issues.  

The Commission issued a final report on September 24, 2015, one day after my husband filed his appellant's brief appealing the dismissal of Neroni v Zayas, and while Lippman, 3rd Department Chief Judge Peters, Chief Attorney for 3rd Department Disciplinary Committee Duffy and New York State Attorney General Schneiderman continued to fight tooth and claw in appellate court what was already proclaimed by the Commission as meritorious issues for the needed social justice reforms.

Then, Lippman fought tooth and claw opposing acceptance of the brief by the federal appellate court, claiming it is too long because it addressed "incoherent" and "rambling" complaint in the court below (the complaint was coherent enough for Lippman to plagiarizing half of it for his various "reforms").  

In fact, the brief was long because: 

(1) the complaint was long, having to point out many unconstitutional issues in New York attorney disciplinary system (many of them Lippman left intact in the new rules, I will run a separate blog on that);  

(2) the dismissal was in two stages and by two different orders, requiring to address issues in both orders and because 

(3) Mr. Neroni in his pro se brief had to address Lippman's conduct in creation the Commission consisting of Lippman's co-defendants in Neroni v Zayas who were supposed to regurgitate his ideas from the lawsuit they asked the court to dismiss as their own ideas and as "reforms" for "social justice".

Then, Lippman's court system stripped me of my state law license right before my deadline to file a motion for sanctions in federal court against Lippman for frivolous conduct in Neroni v Zayas on state and federal level (nice when you as a litigant has such a control over your opponent's attorney, isn't it?), and federal court automatically stripped me of my federal law license based on Lippman's court system stripping of my state law license.

Then, on December 18, 2015, Lippman's counsel (NYS Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers) authored an Appellee brief continuing to claim that issues raised in Neroni v Zayas are properly dismissed as having "no merit".

Then, on December 29, 2015, while continuing to fight Neroni v Zayas appeal, Lippman issued new attorney disciplinary rules that reflected some of the same issues that Neroni v Zayas raised and announced a press-release assigning credit to everyone by Mr. Neroni or me as authors of many ideas in those new rules.  Lippman did not notify the federal appellate court of the issuance of his rules or of the fact that his rules closely tracked Neroni v Zayas, dismissed at Lippman's request.

By the way, Lippman's court system is still stalling my FOIL request for affidavits (public comment), public records submitted to the NYS Commission for Statewide Attorney Discipline that were used by the Commission as a basis of its final report.

It is interesting to mention that Lippman also plagiarized my ideas in the pleadings in Mr. Neroni's other lawsuit, Neroni v Becker, filed in the summer of 2012, in his 2013 "Cameras in the courtroom" speech.

There, I, on behalf of Mr. Neroni, contested constitutionality of criminal prohibition on videotaping of open court proceedings as a violation of litigants' due process of law.

Mr. Neroni and I got slapped with a dismissal of Neroni v Becker lawsuit and with sanctions for $6,995 for that lawsuit.

Lippman got credit for the idea and for his "legacy of promoting social justice".

Mr. Neroni had his lawsuit in Neroni v Zayas dismissed, I had my law license revoked in state and federal courts, Mr. Neroni was slapped with an anti-filing injunction of ALL of his civil rights lawsuits for the future unless he meets impossible conditions of a biased court, specifically for Neroni v Becker and Neroni v Zayas, and Lippman got credit for our ideas from those lawsuits, as for "legacy of promoting social justice".

In Neroni v Zayas, Mr. Neroni raised issues that Lippman's court system prosecutes suspended and disbarred attorneys for unauthorized practice of law for the same conduct which is allowed to unlicensed individual, as an equal protection challenge.

The 2nd Department created a precedent in June of 2015 punishing an attorney with denial of reinstatement because he engaged in paralegal and expert services, and Mr. Neroni raised it in his Neroni v Zayas Rule 60 motion to vacate at the trial level and on appeal.  Lippman continues to fight these arguments on both levels.

Moreover,  Lippman had Neroni v Zayas dismissed as "meritless", and then instituted a program "Legal Hand" based on a "public-private" partnership that received an "anonymous" donation of one million dollars from a "private benefactor" (Lippman's court system stalls my FOIL request on the identity of the benefactor and financial documents pertaining to the partnership), and practically allows and encourages unauthorized practice of law by unlicensed volunteers, something that a suspended or disbarred attorney would not be allowed to do.

In Neroni v Zayas, Mr. Neroni raised issues that disparity in rules between Appellate Divisions deprive disciplined attorneys, himself included, of equal protection of laws.  Lippman had his lawsuit dismissed as meritless and then adopted that idea in the new rules and got credit for the idea and for the "legacy of social justice".

Lippman's "legacy" is also:

  1.  to pitch and cast a deciding vote for his friend Sheldon Silver in a lawsuit as soon as he became Chief Justice
  2. to stall publishing Sheldon Silver's status as an attorney disbarred-by-operation-of-law after his recent conviction for federal crimes, 
  3. to try, with the help of his now-convicted childhood friend Sheldon Silver, to add 10 years to his own "service" as the Chief Judge through (failed) attempts to amend the NYS Constitution (quoting a "shortage" of judges no less, in a State with nearly 400,000 lawyers as a judicial pool to draw from), and
  4. to raise judicial salaries to $203,000 when the average income of a New Yorker is 4 times less and when the reported average salary of solo attorneys (who could be used for recruitment of judges) is times less than the current judicial salaries, making the reasons for pay raise contrived and the sort of "legacy" that ensures favorable rulings of courts for attorney Lippman in the future (Chief Administrative Judge Marks testified before the Commission begging for a pay raise on behalf of all judges, and such testimony could not happen without Lippman's approval).

That's quite a bit of "social justice" right there, that I know about, but there is more.

I surveyed civil rights lawsuits against Lippman on  There are quite a few brought against Lippman over the years.  Most of them are dismissed, but some are outstanding at the time Lippman is leaving his office.

Those lawsuits are also Lippman's "legacy" that the timid mainstream media refuses to address.

I do not know why, because, over 1.5 years of operating this blog not one judge I called corrupt and exposed for corruption tried to sue me for defamation.

You know why?  Because truth is an absolute defense, and because such a lawsuit will involve discovery.

That's why Judge Becker preferred to use the court "rule of frivolous conduct" to retaliate against me (so far successfully) by imposing upon me sanctions for making motions to recuse and for having my law license taken based on those sanctions.

Had he sued me for defamation for what I said in those motions to recuse, I would have been (1) immune from suit on the basis of litigation immunity;  (2) had absolute defense of truth and (3) would be entitled to extensive discovery that could have proven more corruption than I knew about.

So, the media's fear of defamation lawsuits for judges as the reason of not covering judicial corruption is wholly unjustified.

I will run a separate blog covering the "legacy" of lawsuits Lippman leaves behind, including the ongoing lawsuit against Lippman by - guess who - The New York State Court Officers' Association - in a separate blog.  

One very prominent feature that was NOT present in any of Lippman's speeches or rules he issued is how Lippman tried to fight judicial corruption.  

A survey of Lippman's speeches will find only flowery language praising our "best of the best" judiciary, with no word spoken, not a peep, about existence of judicial corruption or measures undertaken by Lippman to fight it.

That was despite the outcry from the public about judicial corruption, despite mutliple submissions and testimony on the subject before numerous commissions established by Lippman, including the Commission for Attorney Discipline and the Commission for Judicial Pay Raise.

In the new attorney disciplinary rules, protection for attorneys reporting judicial corruption is prominently absent.  As an attorney whose license was suspended for making a motion to recuse a corrupt judge, I know what it means.

Attorneys who referred clients to me to make motions to recuse because they did not want themselves blackballed, and because "I had nothing to lose", knew what it means.

Attorneys who did not report Kids for Cash Corruption in Pennsylvania or Greylord case corruption in Illinois, knew what it means.

Attorneys in New York stripped of their law licenses for criticism of judicial corruption (I am only the latest edition, there is a number of attorneys who lost their licenses because of criticism of judicial corruption), know what it means.

My recent suspension was to reinforce a point to the "honorable" legal profession of the State of New York a simple "pay to play" rule - keep mum about judicial corruption and you will be fine, report it and you will lose your "state-issued" license, and will be unable to earn for yourself, your family and your child (I have a minor son).

But, not exposing judicial corruption is enabling it.   

Once again, I will cover Lippman's "legacy of lawsuits" filed against him in my next blog. 

I will conclude my blog with a quote from Lippman's interview to the New York Times:


Tuesday, December 29, 2015

NY "new" rules of attorney discipline - more of the same

I will provide a thorough review of new attorney disciplinary rules announced in New York today (to take effect as of July 1, 2015) within several days, it can be done the same day they were announced.

Yet, I do have a couple of comments to make about reports regarding the rules.

1) I see no outrage among commentators that the "new" rules failed to consider requirements of federal antitrust law, as reflected in this year's U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, and attorney disciplinary committees will continue to consist of supermajorities of market players, licensed attorneys who are (a) competitors of attorneys subject to discipline and (b) investigators and prosecutors with a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, both disqualifying features.  

The new rules did not provide, as North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v FTC required, for active supervision of attorney disciplinary committees from a neutral state agency.  

So, criminal cartels quashing competition and blocking the public from participation in attorney discipline will remain criminal cartels.

2) Whoever of New York "officials" told San Francisco chronicle that Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos were already automatically disbarred under the old rules, are in no hurry to reflect that in Skelos' and Silver's public registration status, which continues to claim that they are attorney in good standing with no record of public discipline, even though under New York law they are disbarred as of the respective dates of their convictions.

Once again, as to the main problems of New York legal profession - running it as a criminal cartel, including the discipline, and protecting those close to power from attorney disciplinary proceedings, even in the face of criminal prosecutions and convictions, they remain the same.

I will post full analysis of the new rules, and its author Judge Lippman, within several days, after I review, analyze and research them.

Stay tuned.  

Civil rights appellants - be aware that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit manipulates its court docket in order to ignore your filings and to rule against you

I already wrote about the disgraceful and unlawful anti-filing injunction filed against Mr. Neroni by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for filing 5 civil rights cases, two of them pending and counseled (with an attorney representing him) during the time the anti-filing injunction was made.

The attorney (me) was not notified of the parallel anti-filing proceedings based on the pending counseled cases, and the cases were pre-judged by the then-Chief Judge Sharpe as frivolous.

The Appellee, Chief Judge Suddaby, filed an Appellee Brief on December 2, 2015 and served it by overnight mail, which added 1 day of service before Mr. Neroni received the brief.  Mr. Neroni was not allowed to file electronically, and was thus not notified by the court instantly that the brief was filed.

Mr. Neroni had 14 days from the day of service (December 3, 2015) to file his Reply Brief, that was until Thursday, December 17, 2015.

Mr. Neroni filed that reply brief, together with a motion to recuse the court, by overnight mail, with a guaranteed delivery, the credit card transaction showing the delivery was paid for on December 15, 2015 for $53.80.  I am a witness to the fact that the brief was filed by overnight mail and that the delivery was guaranteed by the deadline, see part of the docket report showing the dates of filings.

Yet, the appellate court made a decision against Mr. Neroni on December 18, 2015 (Docket No. 68), once again on a summary order - authority for which was contested by Mr. Neroni in his Reply Brief and motion to recuse.

The order of December 18, 2015 was never served upon Mr. Neroni, and today is December 29, 2015, nearly two weeks after the decision was made.

The order was obviously made after the court received Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse and Reply Brief, but the court stalled prompt filing of those papers to give itself time to make a decision as if Mr. Neroni did not file timely (which he did, I am a witness to it).  

Apparently, the court engaged in manipulation of its own docket by (1) denying Mr. Neroni ability to file electronically and thus controlling the date of filing and then (2) using its own misconduct in the date of filing in disregarding Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse and Reply Brief.

Of course, Mr. Neroni has no power to physically be present in court and to physically force the clerks to file his papers when they receive them, if their administrators tell them to do otherwise.

How predictable.

I will post analysis of this anti-filing order, which all civil rights plaintiffs would be interested in, later on.  I only read it today through Pacer (once again, Mr. Neroni was never served with this secretly made order).

Yet, what remains is that a federal appellate court manipulated its docket in order to ignore a motion to recuse the court and in order to affirm an unlawful punishment of a civil rights plaintiff in retaliation for criticism of incestous relationships with politically connected attorneys by district court judges and by the 2nd Circuit judges, and in order to ignore criticism of unconstitutional policies in the 2nd Circuit directed at civil rights appellants.

Stay tuned.

Frederick J. Neroni's appeal of denial by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York of his challenge to constitutionality of attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York

For those who are interested in the law and facts pertaining to a challenge my husband has made to the constitutionality of New York attorney disciplinary system, here is my husband Frederick J. Neroni's pro se appellate brief in that case, his appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

I must note that Defendants NYS Chief Judge Lippman, NYS Attorney General Schneiderman, Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Peters, Chairman (at the time of filing of the lawsuit, and now Chief Attorney) of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Division 3rd Department Duffy and former attorney of the Committee Zayas (who was, since the lawsuit was filed, let go from the Committee among investigation into allegedly filing false time sheets, but never disciplined) - this illustrative group fought tooth and claw against this brief to be filed in the scope it was actually allowed by the court to be filed.

It is interesting to read this case together with my motion to vacate the order of suspension of my federal law license by NDNY, and with another case, which I am going to report on later today, too.

Stay tuned.

My motion to vacate automatic suspension of my law license in federal court

For those who are interested in the law and facts surrounding suspension of my federal law license, here is my motion to vacate the suspension of my federal law license by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York under suspicious circumstances and with suspicious timing.

My jurisdictional statement in appeal of suspension of my law license (state court)

For those who are interested in the law and the facts surrounding my suspension from the practice of law, here is my jurisdictional statement and motions to recuse and disqualify filed with the New York State Court of Appeals in the constitutional appeal of suspension of my law license.

Disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini proves she is corrupt as she stalls disciplinary investigation of disbarring misconduct of politically connected attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann

At the end of November, a disciplinary complaint was filed against politically connected and powerful attorneys:

1)  Richard Harlem, of Oneonta, NY, son of late Supreme Court Justice Robert Harlem, former Chief Administrative Judge of New York State 6th Judicial District;

2) Richard Harlem's law partner Eric Jervis, also of Oneonta, NY;

3) James Hartmann, of Delhi, NY, husband to attorney Nancy Deming, law clerk to judge-elect Gary Rosa of Delaware County Family Court.

The complaint was accompanied with an affidavit from a witness other than the complainant proving that the above three attorneys committed fraud and fraud upon the court that warrant their disbarment.

During a month that followed, no attempts were made by the disciplinary committee to call the complainant (not me) to investigate, or to verify the essence of the affidavit with its author.

Which brings me to the conclusion that attorney Mary Gasparini of the disciplinary committee who was the addressee of the complaint, is trying hard to earn her salary as a gatekeeper of discipline against powerful attorneys and as a fabricator of evidence to pull law licenses of critics of judicial misconduct.

And, according to my information, Richard Harlem is lying low and is refusing to engage in communication with the person who he has been claiming as a client for 8.5 years in proceedings in two courts, Delaware County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division 3rd Department.

Actually, in the Appellate Division 3rd Department Richard Harlem, his law firm Harlem & Jervis and, thus, his partner Eric Jervis, continue their fraud upon the court, as they continue to claim that they represent the person who already submitted an affidavit (which is the basis of the disciplinary complaint) that he never hired Harlem to represent him in the Mokay action.

Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann did not even notify the Delaware County Supreme Court or the Appellate Division 3rd Department where Mr. Neroni's appeal is pending, that one of the alleged Mokay plaintiffs provided an affidavit that was submitted to the disciplinary committee claiming that the individal has never sued my husband Frederick J. Neroni, nor did that individual hire Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue him.

That is the height of "frivolous" and fraudulent conduct, and is a crime.

Yet, Mary Gasparini is not doing anything that an honest investigator and prosecutor would have done to verify the essence of the complaint.

Predictably so.

When a prosecutor is caught fabricating court transcript and lashes back at the person she prosecutes asking the court to put that person in jail for exposing her misconduct, one cannot expect that a dishonest prosecutor will suddenly develop a conscience and do her job honestly.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Will Delaware County be introduced to the modern word of public bidding on contracts?

Here is the interview report I received from the New York State Comptroller's Office of Delaware County Supervisor Wayne Marshfield who is also on the board of directors of the county's largest no-bid contractor Delaware Opportunities, Inc., see my blog about other Delaware County Supervisors on that board of directors here.

According to Mr. Marshfield, Delaware County includes no-bid contracts into its annual budgets, thus, in Mr. Marshfield's opinion, eliminating the need to bid out contracts and to separately make decisions on the choice of vendors for services.

And, contracts are not even discussed by the entire legislature of the County, only by "committees", so the County actually never does its job in approving contracts, with or without bidding!

A brilliant scheme, isn't it?

In home economics class, in middle school, they teach to form family budget this way:

(1) ascertain your needs,  
 (2) assess how much (approximately) your needs will cost (from a market survey of several different vendors) and 
(3) ascertain how much money you have, available and coming in in the immediate income or what can be obtained in loans.

Middle schoolers are not taught to first find a vendor you know who will give you the highest price and then build your needs and price your budget in accordance with the prices of that vendor.

You will not do that to your family, because for your family you would want the best service for the lowest available price.

Not so in Delaware County.

In Delaware County, "committees" of local government officials (who also sit on boards of vendors) determine the needs and put them into the budget of the County based on the prices quoted by the no-bid contractors that the County used for allegedly 30 years.

The problem is also that over 30 years, prices for goods and services changed dramatically, information technologies, such as Internet, made information about out-of-state goods and services readily available.

Therefore, the claim that Delaware County is a "large area with small population and few economic resources" which is touted by Delaware County officials as a justification of its 30-year practice of no-bid contracts, is not only a lie, but a stupid lie at that.

The Internet has made the entire world, including vendors from other counties, other states and other countries available for bidding on Delaware County contracts, and the price of submitting Delaware County contracts to bidding is the price of posting the bidding requirements on the existing Delaware County website - which is nothing, since it will have to be done by the already existing salaried employees.

Who knows, maybe it is cheaper to transport goods and services from China or deliver them electronically over the Internet to fit Delaware County needs for services, rather than to use taxpayer money to pay friends and relatives of members of the Delaware County government.

I understand that Delaware County needs to be introduced to the modern world, and it is a matter of time when an out of the area would-be vendor will sue the county for the opportunity to bid for its appropriation contracts. 

After all, New York State Comptroller, as of July of 2014, in his report on public contracts stated the following:


Delaware County should take notice. 

I will continue to FOIL Delaware County as to its contracting practices and report it on this blog.  Stay tuned.

Delaware County taxes and property foreclosures feed its 30-year no-bid inflated contracts to family and friends of local government officials

Delaware County Supervisor Marjorie Miller told in the interview to New York State Comptroller's auditor that two contracts made by Delaware County may have been given to friends of the multi-year Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors Mr. Eisel, one, an overpriced contract to a coroner, and another, a contract for the lease of the Treadwell school building.

That is what I know from public records.

What I also know from the same set of documents received from the NYS Comptroller's office that for years, Delaware County employees were not asked to sign conflict of interest disclosures, while for over 30 years Delaware County engaged in a one vendor per service no-bid contracting "system", renewable automatically without public input and without input by the entire legislature, by the Board of Supervisors' "committees" alone.

Moreover, Marjorie Miller said in her interview that oftentimes she was requested to approve budgets without seeing them.

So, Marjorie Miller already spotted the overpriced contract of the County with the coroner (Dr. Ucci, I believe), who Marjorie Miller identified as a friend of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors Mr. Eisel.

Lack of competition in contracts and lack of disclosures of conflicts of interests for 30 years, in a county best characterized as "a land of kissing cousins", where no no-nepotism (prohibition on hiring relatives) policy in employment exists, must necessarily lead to overpriced public contracts.

Those public contracts are financed by you, ladies and gentlemen, taxpayers of Delaware County.

Each year for those 30 years while running those no-bid contracts, Delaware County foreclosed on delinquent county-tax taxpayers and took many homes from Delaware County property owners.

Recently, Delaware County Department of Social Services Commissioner William Moon was caught in buying up such a foreclosed property through his wife who has a different last name.  

I wonder how many more of those buy-ups existed over the years of no-bid contracts, but Mr. Moon, apparently relying on his connections in the government and, likely, on the contracts to influential people he distributed over the years, escaped criminal and civil liability for his misconduct.

He only very quickly resigned, as did Judge Carl Becker, who was the legal advisor of Commissioner Moon for many years while the no-bid contract system was in existence and knew his many secrets, if not participated in Moon's little "inside trading" in real estate foreclosed by the County and in doling out contracts to family and friends.

It is my firm belief that support by the well-known corrupt judge Becker derailed judicial election campaign of his student, colleague and subordinate, now County Attorney Porter Kirkwood in the past judicial elections to the Family Court seat this year.

I wonder if property owners whose properties were foreclosed over the period of 30 years will now start questioning propriety of foreclosures to feed the corrupt inflated budgets of Delaware County that was made to accommodate inflated contract prices to family and friends of Delaware County government officials - under the guise of "helping" Delaware County in foregoing public bidding, because Delaware County has "small population" and "lacks economic resources" to verify whether contracts for services paid for with taxpayers' money, are provided at the best available prices.

"Community services" contracts in Delaware County, NY are automatically renewed by Chairman Eisel for years, and no new contractors are sought

If any of the residents of Delaware County, NY, would refuse to pay County taxes, his or her home will be taken by the County in foreclosure.

Yet, after taking his taxes, the County is engaged in distributing taxpayer money to the same "vendors" of services for 30 years, without any oversight.

Here is yet another example of it, received by me from the NYS Comptroller's office on a FOIL request (Delaware County stalled my FOIL request for the same records).

So - "Cindy ... was not aware of any fraud, misconduct or abuse in her department".  Renewing contracts without bidding and seeking no new vendors is not "fraud, misconduct or abuse" in "Cindy's" mind.  Because if Cindy starts asking questions of proppriety and legality as to what she, Mr. Eisel and County attorney Porter Kirkwood are doing - she will no longer be employed by Delaware County.

The tribal system of contract distribution should end, otherwise your county taxes exacted out of you at the threat of foreclosure on your home, are going to overpriced services of friends and relatives of the Delaware County government.

The tribal 30-year automatic-renewal contract system in Delaware County, NY

I wrote in this blog previously about public documents I received from the NYS Comptroller's office pertaining to its audit of Delaware County and its no-bid contracts.

In the previous blog, the interview of Supervisor Miller revealed certain specific improprieties in contracts:  specifically, that a contract with the coroner was at inflated prices because the coroner was Mr. Eisel's (Board Chairman's) friend, and improprieties regarding contracts about the Treadwell school buildings, for the same reason, because the dealings were with Mr. Eisel's friends.

I did not see anything in the records of audit provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's office indicating that the NYS Comptroller continued its investigation into that direction, but I saw claims that "no abuse or fraud were found" in other departments, after a statement that contracts were not bid to the public, as they were supposed to.

I continue to post public records provided to me by the NYS Comptroller's office.

Here is the report of the interview from the Department for the aging.

So, "the department has many contracts with various agencies in the area".   Yet, there is no disclosure, what kind of "agencies" exist in the area that have contracts with Delaware County, while Supervisor Miller already disclosed in her interview how contracts are being done - through friendship with Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Eisel.

By the way, I did not see anywhere in the report that disclosures by Mr. Eisel were made about contracting the County business to his friends.

The next thing is the lack of bidding.

The explanation is hilarious - yet somehow swallowed by the NYS Comptroller's office.

The declared reasons for not bidding contracts publicly and for striking deals for those contracts with friends behind closed doors at inflated prices, are as follows:

  • Delaware County's large size;
  • Smallness of population;
  • Lack of economic resources;
  • County feels fortunate to find (how?) one vendor "within a reasonable geographic distance".
That's why contracts are automatically renewed based on County's "history with that vendor".


The County supervisors obviously do not get through their heads that the "small population" and the "lack of economic resources" adds up to a "small population OF not-so-wealthy TAXPAYERS" requiring the County to engage in efforts to save every penny wherever possible, and the only mechanism to do that is through public bidding of contracts.

The interview reflects that Delaware County did not bid out contracts FOR 30 YEARS.  

That means that public contracts were bid before - apparently, before the largest contractor of Delaware County, the Delaware Opportunities, Inc. was established, where supervisors participate as board members (and likely get favors from subcontractors of services).

So, while economists say that competition is good for lowering prices and diversifying services, Delaware County says that a 30-year monopoly of one vendor per type of contract is good for Delaware County taxpayers - because there are not a lot of them and because they are poor.

In fact, because there are not a lot of taxpayers and because they are poor, Delaware County hopes that taxpayers will not have enough clout to sue the County and its supervisors for fraud and abuse that NYS Comptroller's auditors may have been paid not to find - otherwise they could not, in good faith, find "no fraud and abuse" without even pursuing the leads given in those same interviews.

We are not talking pennies here.

We are talking millions of dollars in contracts which are habitually, over the period of 30 years, being awarded to the same vendors, without bidding, in a county with "small population" that "lacks economic resources"!

"Budgeted appropriations" in 2014 alone were 129 million dollars and none of them - none! - were bid to the public!

I bet that the County could get a lot more services for that budget had it bid those appropriations out.

Maybe, then, the County government would have found out that over 30 years things change, new people are born and grow into adulthood or come into the area who can provide new services, new technologies develop, and it is not appropriate to automatically renew contracts given 30 years ago to the same bidder, obviously based on some "friendly" connections to officials within the Delaware County government.

I lived in Delaware County for 17 years.

My husband lived in Delaware County for over 40 years.

Both of us practiced law in the county for a long time, my husband longer than me, and through bits and pieces, through statements of clients, friends and acquaintances and through occasional documents provided in discovery in court cases, we came to the conclusion long time ago that Delaware County government is not a democratic entity - it is a tribal entity.  

Relatives and friends are hired throughout the County, the County does not have an anti-nepotism policy, and I am sure that the no-bid contracting system is as tribal as the County employment policies. 

If you ask that question directly under FOIL - to list all relatives and friends working in the County, you will not get any information, because such information is not "FOIL-able".  

I guess, legislation should be changed to change that.  Because that information directly pertains to issues of public concern, to corruption and waste of taxpayer funds through 30-year no-bid automatically renewed contracts awarding taxpayer money - your money - to the select members of the tribe.  

By the way, Delaware County still stalls me and refuses to show me those "automatically renewable" contracts.

I urge Delaware County taxpayers to demand disclosure of the names of the vendors and to publish those renewable contracts on the County website - and to announce public bidding.

The interesting question, to me, is - why NYS Comptroller did not expand its audit into the 30-year period and why it did not publish the names of the vendors?

Because of "scarce economic resources" of his office, or because his office was properly "motivated" by Delaware County?

No wonder New York is losing people to other states... The level of corruption is simply disgusting.



Sunday, December 27, 2015

Occupational licensing hurts the U.S. economy - opting-out provisions to occupational licensing for individual consumers and their chosen providers are the easiest way to solve the problem

In July of 2015, the U.S. President's Department of the Treasury Office of Economic Policy, together with the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Department of Labor,  published a report regarding the state of occupational licensing in the United States.  

The report paints a very scary picture of what occupational licensing does to the economy of the U.S. and to people's livelihoods.   I encourage my readers to read the report in full, it is quite interesting.

I especially encourage supporters of Bernie Sanders to read this report.   Senator Sanders claims he will create jobs for average Americans if elected president.  I do not know how he will fulfill that promise when over 25% (and, by other sources, over 30%) of the U.S. job force is regulated by state governments, over which the President has no control.

Here is a very illustrative paragraph from the report:

 So, the federal government practically openly acknowledges that occupational licensing of professions by states which is always declared to be done in order to protect consumers of services, but is in reality lobbied by those same professions as a measure to restrict competition and keep prices of services higher than they are worth in a free market, in reality hurts the U.S. economy, hurts people and prevents them from having an ability to properly provide for their families and from obtaining services they need at affordable prices.

I wonder when the federal government will go further than stating the problem and what it will do to address it. 

I already wrote in this blog about my position as a consumer of services that are licensed by the government:  as a competent adult, I have a right of free choice of service providers for my personal use and for the use by my household and family.

If the government wants to give me help in verifying qualifications and quality of work of such providers, I have a right to say to the government - no, thank you, I do not need your help.   

And, the government certainly has no right to punish me with a criminal record for "aiding and abetting" or "soliciting" "unauthorized practice" of a licensed profession because I rejected the government's help.

The opting-out provisions for individual consumers and their chosen providers to occupational licensing may undo this problem of the U.S. economy, and quite easily.   And, such opting-out provisions will not hurt consumers who want occupational licensing to remain in place.  People will simply have a choice - to go with a licensed or with an unlicensed provider, to accept or to reject help in verifying quality of services by the government.

It is very simple.  When you are offered help, you can say - "no, thank you, I'll manage on my own".  Even if the helper is the government.

Florida's conflicting "compelling interests": maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and protecting corrupt judges from criticism and discipline

A protestor was arrested on public property with a sign protesting certain actions of the government.

That was a classic 1st Amendment activity that was not subject to any punishment from the government.

Yet, the government wanted to punish the protestor.

The way to do that was to lie to the criminal jury that the protestor was trespassing on private property rather than that he was on public property and, as a taxpayer and co-owner of public property, could not possibly be "trespassing" on it.

But, that the protestor was on private and not public property would have been perjury.

And, to introduce such perjury in court would have been a crime.

And, a criminal defendant who knew he was on public property would have been entitled to point out that crime of perjury by stating to the jury - "I was on public property, and the People's witness is lying", and offer documentary proof, and witness accounts that the location where the protestor was peacefully standing with a sign was public property.

So - what was the government to do to still introduce perjurous testimony and still get the conviction for trespass on public property?

The government needed a corrupt judge.

And the government got two such judges - one who the criminal defendant from introducing the truthful statements that he was standing on public property with the protest sign when arrested, and the second one who added to the corruption of the first by issuing an administrative order threatening to arrest anybody who would stand, again, on public property holding signs accusing the first one of corruption.

Here are the names of the heroes of this story that happened recently in Florida.

The protestor's name is Michale Hoffman, member of a group called "Photography is Not a Crime" (PINAC).

The name of the first corrupt judge is Duval County judge Brent Shore who granted prosecution's "motion in limine" (motion to exclude) truthful testimony of criminal defendant that he was on public property, peacefully holding a protest sign and that his activity is fully protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here is the motion to exclude of the prosecution.

Two public prosecutors, State Attorney Angela B. Corey and her deputy attorney Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez signed this plea to the court to allow perjurous testimony and to block the truth from being heard by the jury.

They requested the court to block the truth because that truth could be "highly prejudicial to the State in the minds of the jury".

Attorneys Corey and Hernandez acknowledged in a sworn statement to the court that the defendant will be seeking to introduce at trial evidence on three issues:

1/  that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment;
2/ that "the property Defendant was located on and trespassed was a public forum" ;
3/ that the Aviation Authority trespass warning violated Florida public records law.

In other words, attorneys Corey and Hernandez asked the judge to prevent the criminal defendant from countering perjurous evidence that attorneys Corey and Hernandez were seeking to introduce at trial to establish "trespassing" to a criminal jury.

The motion could be plainly worded like that:  judge, why wouldn't you allow us to introduce perjury by blocking defendant from introducing the truth - because we will not be able to prove our case if the jury hears the truth.

The judge said - ok, of course, and blocked Michael Hoffman from introducing evidence that he was on public property and that his protest was protected by the 1st Amendment. 

Of course, blocking a criminal defendant from effectively confronting a perjurous witness would be a violation of the criminal defendant's due process of law and his 6th Amendment right to effectively confront a perjurous witness.

Even then, the jury was initially deadlocked, and a juror sent a note to the judge asking whether it was illegal to protest on public property.

Judge Shore whose duty was to give all applicable laws to the jury, refused to do his duty and refused to answer that question.

Moreover, after Judge Shore obtained unlawful conviction by:

  1. unlawfully refusing to grant a motion to dismiss;
  2. unlawfully granting a motion in limine;
  3. unlawfully blocking truthful evidence at trial and
  4. refusing to do his duty by refusing to give the law to the juror as to whether it was illegal to remain on public property with a protest sign
Judge Shore included into the sentencing of Michale Hoffman a prohibition to participate in 1st Amendment protests, so the very same evidence that was blocked from the jury as "prejudicial" to the prosecution, was used to impose the criminal sentence.

Were judge Shore's actions corrupt?

Clearly appears that way.

Here is Judge Shore's picture, so that you can see our self-complacent and very likely corrupt hero.  

And of course, Judge Shore worked in the same office that asked him to allow them to prove their criminal case by perjury while blocking confrontation of the perjurous witness, in violation of the 6th Amendment.

Judge Shore gets $138,000 a year from taxpayers (including Michale Hoffman) for his unlawful activity of drumming up wrongful convictions based on perjury.

Here is the picture of state attorney Angela Corey who obtained from the judge permission to prove a criminal case by perjury.

She is listed as a religious person.  Her religion allows her to solicit perjury and fabricate criminal cases, relying on judge-created absolute prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts during prosecution of criminal cases and the unwritten policy of the Florida Bar of never disciplining criminal prosecutors for attorney misconduct.

Corey apparently has a history with attorney misconduct and perjury.

Attorney professor Alan Dershowitz called for Corey's disbarment in 2013 when she submitted what he called a false affidavit in the famous Zimmerman case.

Corey was also reported to have overcharge people in order to drum up guilty pleas, to obtain 20-year sentences for self-defense in what was called a case fraught with instititutional racism, in charging a 12-year-old child as an adult on a "felony-murder" theory (a theory that he was present as part of the team when another member of the team committed murder).

And, that Corey enhanced without authority her own pension and gave illegal bonuses to her staff - I wonder whether the bonuses were for drumming up wrongful convictions.

Quite a history.

The second attorney who obtained permission to commit perjury under Angela Corey's authority, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez, was not even supposed to prosecute cases at the time she prosecuted Michael Hoffman's case, because she herself was under investigation for "domestic battery", from which her boss Angela Corey recused.  To allow a person under criminal investigation to prosecute crimes is something else.

According to her personal LinkedIn profile, Elizabeth Kathleen Hernandez graduated from law school in 2013, just 2 years before she tried Michale Hoffman's case:

Kathleen Hernandez was admitted to practice law in September of 2014 and had less than a year of experience as a lawyer when she prosecuted Michale Hoffman.

And, with a charge for domestic battery and the history of obtaining permission from the court to prove a criminal case by fabricated evidence - and actually fabricating the case at trial - Kathleen Hernandez has no record of public discipline.

So, this was the "dream team" that drummed up the wrongful conviction of Michale Hoffman by blocking the jury from knowing the relevant evidence and the relevant law.

The "dream team" had a higher protector, Chief administrative judge of Florida's 4th Judicial Circuit judge Mark Mahon.

To quash protests against corruption in Michale Hoffman's case, and in continuation of the circus that the State Attorney Corey started by charging and prosecuting Michale Hoffman for trespassing on public property by peacefully holding a protest sign, Judge Mahon issued two administrative orders, one in March of 2015 and another in July of 2015.

Here is the March 5, 2015 order of Judge Mahon where Judge Mahon defines what is and what is not news media and introduces paid "Media Authorization Cards" and a burdensome procedure to prove that those who want to videotape a public trial (which is allowed by Florida law) are, indeed, "media" in Judge Mahon's understanding.

Here is the order of July 1, 2015.

In his July 1, 2015 order, Judge Mahon clearly brands speech criticizing judges as "unprotected" speech and proclaims his purpose of protecting "integrity" of the judiciary - by arresting critics of judicial corruption.

Really, sometimes you need to give people enough rope to hang themselves.

For a self-important tyrant which is what the majority of judges become with years of impunity for malicious and corrupt acts and no discipline and accountability whatsoever, you only need to give him a forum to make a complete idiot of himself - which is what Judge Mahon did with his July 1, 2015 order.

And, being a "third generation attorney", apparently filled Judge Mahon with a huge sense of entitlement, but did not prevent Judge Mahon from making, once again, a complete idiot of himself in his profusely worded order that had little sense.

Judge Mahon even advertised in his order of July 1, 2015 the youtube videos that he did not want people to see.

Here they are:

Interview with the "main media" posted on YouTube.

This footage includes videotaping of the "main media" attending a press conference of what appears to be the prosecutors where reporters walk right by a person who tells them he is a 15-year fraud investigator and who offers them evidence of corruption in the courthouse.  Actually, one female reporter told the person with evidence of judicial corruption to talk to her manager.  It appears that the reporters had a directive from their managers not to gather certain types of materials for their news coverage.

Also, the footage shows that court security officers allowed reporters with video-cameras to videotape state attorney's press-conference right in front of the courthouse's door, but ordered the person videotaping that conference to leave and requiring him to provide a "press pass".

The security officer who required the video reporter to leave is arrogantly chewing gum, open-mouthed (disgusting!) right into the camera and refuses to reveal his name and badge number as required by law.

 Three other officers who formed a wall before the video reporter gave their names and badge numbers.  The gum-chewing officer gave his name, separately, and badge number, separately, only after being threatened to be turned into Internal Affairs for discipline.

Here is the video of the "secure parking garage" that allegedly posed security concerns.  It is still publicly available on YouTube and not ordered pulled from it.  Had it presented security concerns, it would not have been allowed to stay in the public domain.

By the way, note in the order that representatives of mainstream media were, for some reason, packed in the secure parking area reserved for the State Attorney (prosecution).   So much for the "independent" media coverage.

Please, note also that in his July 1, 2015 order Judge Mahon lumped prosecutors and law enforcement officers together with judges in his reference to the Florida record access statute which made an exemption to the judiciary.

Actually, Judge Mahon should know as a lawyer and a jurist that prosecutors and law enforcement officers are part of an executive branch.

Yet, advocacy of the judge for the prosecutor and law enforcement officers who were insuring that criminal trial will be held on perjurous evidence inside the courthouse, has nothing to do with ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Judge Mahon quickly rescinded his order on July 7, 2015, but only after he was sued, see docket report of the federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge Mahon based on the order.

In rescinding the order directing to arrest any person engaged in constitutionally protected activity on public grounds outside the courthouse, Judge Mahon stated that the reason for the unconstitutional July 1, 2015 order (for which he was sued and which was rescinded as soon as he was sued) was to allegedly protect the unnamed defendants' right to a fair trial.  

Yet, if that was the reason, Judge Mahon shouldn't have been swayed by a lawsuit, shouldn't have rescinded the order and should have stood his ground.

In reality, his order was doing the opposite - trying to protect the prosecution's permission received from Judge Shore to an unfair trial based on fabricated evidence against defendant Michale Hoffman, and protests actually enhanced Michale Hoffman's chance to a fair trial.

Moreover, the text of the July 1, 2015 order (above) plainly speaks for itself and has nothing to do with fairness of trial for defendants, but has everything to do with protection of judges and court personnel from criticism for corruption.  

Prohibition to photograph judges and their cars was laughable since the same buildings, vehicles and individuals whose photographing was prohibited could be videotaped and photographed and seen through Google Maps photography, without any restrictions.

And, defendant Michale Hoffman would only benefit by the videotaping, as it would be evidence of judicial, prosecutorial and police corruption.

The bottom line.

Judge Mahon was not publicly disciplined.

Judge Shore was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Corey was not publicly disciplined.

Attorney Hernandez was not publicly disciplined.

Michale Hoffman was publicly convicted of a crime of trespass on public property (!!) as a result of corrupt efforts of the four above mentioned "public servants" highly paid by the taxpayers of the State of Florida, and now Mr. Hoffman must fight and pay his way through appellate courts to have the fabricated conviction reversed.

Coincidentally, on April 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of discipline against a Florida attorney who solicited funds for her judicial election campaign.

In affirming the judgment of discipline, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated the following:

"Florida's interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary is compelling".

Here is some additional information from the Florida Bar's website about the case.

So, the same state of Florida whose State Attorney asked Judge Shore and received permission from him to fabricate a criminal case, and who did fabricate a criminal case with Judge Shore's help, had apparently a compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary.

And, in order to maintain that public confidence, Judge Mahon issued an "administrative order" threatening to arrest anyone who would say that a judge is corrupt, even if that statement is made during a peaceful 1st Amendment protest on public property and was based on clear evidence of such corruption.

I wonder whether people in the State of Florida will actually demand and insist on discipline for judges Shore and Mahon and for prosecutors Corey and Hernandez.

"Photography Is Not A Crime" has already held a rally in front of Judge Mahon's courthouse chaning "Judge Mahon has to go", and they are right. 

Because, if these four people, Judges Mahon and Shore, and prosecutors Corey and Hernandez, are not disciplined and if Michale Hoffman's fabricated conviction is not voided without any appeals, the public will have absolutely no reason to have confidence in the integrity of the Florida judiciary - or its legal profession.