After all, he brought and successfully prosecuted criminal charges against the two heads of New York State Senate - the Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Majority Leader Dean Skelos.
Yet, apparently, the same conflict of interest applies to Mr. Bharara's office as it does to NYS Attorney General's office - which is the ultimate reason as to why NYS Attorney General, as the legal advisor of the same Silver and Skelos did not prosecute his own clients for corruption.
I reviewed the opposition by the U.S. Attorney General, on behalf of Glenn Suddaby, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, just out of interest - what kind of opposition can their be to completely unconstitutional and quite likely corrupt conduct of the previous judge Sharpe who imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband for contents of his correct constitutional civil rights arguments.
I learnt a lot.
The U.S. Attorney General and his "of counsel" attorneys acted as if they are not sworn government officials required to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the law, but mercenary privateers whose aim is only to win the case, at any and all costs.
The U.S. Attorney General's office, among other things, committed the following attorney misconduct in opposition to my husband's appeal of anti-filing injunction based on his civil rights actions:
- misrepresented the record,
- misrepresented procedural history of cases,
- implied that interlocutory appeals in the underlying cases are final appeals (makes a difference for a jurisdictional review),
- tried to minimize or deny obvious misconduct of their client,
- omitted to mention new mandatory authorities which were contrary to their position;
- claimed that meritorious constitutional arguments are not "worthy of response" and "meritless";
- argued that notice of grounds for anti-filing injunction provided backwards (a year after imposition of anti-filing injunction), including through secret policies of the court, is a proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
But, to crown it all, the U.S. Attorney General's office relied upon a case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit claimed that an anti-filing injunction against a civil rights litigant is proper to prevent the litigant from gaining publicity of issues he is raising and because some reporters called the litigant "nuts", "weirdo" and a "menace to society" (based on hearsay statements of unknown reporters).
Very "professional" behavior, I must note, for a court to call a litigant names based on contents of his civil rights actions.
Thus, the U.S. Attorney General advanced a view, obviously shared with federal courts, that any civil rights plaintiffs is a potential "nut", based on the issues he is raising and based on the way he is presenting those constitutional issues to the court.
That is the ultimate unconstitutional content-based regulation, curtailing of protected speech and access to court based on the impact of its message upon society if it hits the press.
Bravo, the U.S. Attorney General.
Making tiny steps in showy fighting of corruption through Mr. Bharara's office, while maintaining "business as usual" and protecting corrupt federal judges and their decisions that, in turn, protect corrupt New York State officials.
I will later post my husband's Pro Se Reply Brief in opposition to U.S. Attorney General's frivolous arguments on behalf of Chief Judge Suddaby.
In his Reply Brief, Mr. Neroni described in detail discriminatory policies against civil rights defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and the U.S Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (including its policies of negligent review of civil rights appeals by near-octogenarian, restricted-authority judges).
It will be an interesting reading, I promise.