"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 2, 2015

The true reason for my suspension, without notice, hearing or service of the order of suspension, from the bar of the U.S. District Court of the State of New York

On November 16, 2015 I filed a motion to vacate, recuse and disqualify with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

That was a related case with the case where my husband and I filed a criminal complaint in the fall of 2014, more than a year ago, with the U.S. Attorney General Preet Bharara to investigate and prosecute New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and the now-New York State Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Stein.

Judge Stein who made a decision in favor of Cuomo's subordinate in a case of extreme importance for New York State landowners (and in terms of New York State liability to landowners for wrongful civil penalties, fines, costly remediations and criminal convictions that would have to be vacated en mass if the case was to be properly decided), within 6 days of being nominated to the seat of New York State Court of Appeals, with a corresponding pay raise, remains undisciplined and unprosecuted, as well as Cuomo.

The criminal complaints against Judge Leslie Stein and against New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo are here, mine and my husband's.

The motion explaining to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York that it may not continue presiding over an action into which it injected itself as a party against my husband over my head as my husband's counsel in an ongoing pending case through a parallel ex parte proceeding and prejudged it is here:

1) Affirmation of Frederick Neroni with exhibits:

2) My affirmation with exhibits:

3) Memorandum of Law in support of motion to recuse, disqualify and vacate

Within 2 days I was suspended from by the disqualified court who lacked authority to do anything against me due to the nature of the motion to recuse, disqualify and vacate, and, most certainly, in retaliation for the motion.

Without a notice.
Without a hearing.
Without even the courtesy of serving upon me the order of suspension.

How predictable - for a tyranny, not for a democracy.

No comments:

Post a Comment