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