"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.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment