"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.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Nobody puts Baby in the corner. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allows politically connected attorneys from the U.S. Attorneys' office to practice without admission or renewal

My husband was served with a Response brief in the case where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York was declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit a party Appellee as of November 12, 2015.

Of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals assigned the U.S. Attorney General's office for the Northern District of New York to handle the case, and attorneys who appeared in the case are not from that office, making their appearance of questionable validity.

The names of attorneys whose name (not signature) appeared on the Appellee Chief Judge Glenn Suddaby's brief, are:

1) Benjamin C. Mizer;
2) Matthew Collette;
3) Jaynie Lillie

Of course, it is questionable that the U.S. Attorney General's office has a right to appear in opposition to my husband's appeal of anti-filing injunction where part of the basis of that anti-filing injunction is the case Neroni v Grannis (a still ongoing case) pertaining to which Mr. Neroni has filed a criminal complaint WITH the U.S. Attorney General's Office (Preet Bharara) back in 2014, you can see that complaint interlinked in this blog here.

The criminal complaint deals with the apparent bribery by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo of the then-Appellate Division 3rd Department judge Leslie Stein by promoting her (with a large power, prestige and salary/benefits increase to the New York State Court of Appeals) WHILE she was deciding the case against Mr. Neroni by the DEC - and, of course, it took her just 6 days after the  nomination to decide in favor of DEC (subordinate of Governor Cuomo) and against Mr. Neroni, a clear quid-pro-quo.  

Mr. Bharara recently pursued "quids pro quo" against two out of three "men in a room" in New York (New York Assembly Speaker, now former, Sheldon Silver, and New York Senate Majority Leader, now former, Dean Skelos).

There is no reason to believe that Mr. Bharara will not pursue Mr. Neroni's complaint, so the anti-filing injunction, and opposition by the U.S. Attorney General's office to Mr. Neroni's appeal to that injunction, interferes with the U.S. Attorney General's own criminal investigation into corruption in New York by opposing, punishing and intimidating their own witness.

But, back to our trio of attorneys from the U.S. Attorney General opposing Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal.

As I stated above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to represent Judge Suddaby as the Appellee on that appeal.

That means that the trio of attorneys who appeared on Appellee's behalf must be (1) licensed to practice in New York state, and (2) admitted to practice in the 2nd Circuit.

Here are results of my research as to all three on the websites of New York State and 2nd Circuit court systems.

1)  Benjamin C. Mizer - admitted in New York, but not admitted in the 2nd Circuit.  

Thus, according to the rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Mr. Mizer had no right to put his signature on briefs, especially as a principal attorney in an appeal, and to file any documents electronically with the 2nd Circuit court.

Yet, Mr. Mizer is part of the office that represents both the NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby, and the 2nd Circuit Court itself, so, I guess, one does not piss of one's own attorney by application of one's pesky rules of admission to one's own counsel.

That is exactly why the New York State Attorney General and his over 600 Assistant Attorneys General escape attorney discipline - because that office represents attorney disciplinary committees in New York in federal actions, defending them against civil rights actions for constitutional violations.

Once again, one does not piss of one's own attorney with the application with that pesky rule of law against him.

So much for the declared purpose of attorney discipline of "protection of consumers".  Right.  

So, why Mr. Mizer was even thrown into this litigation if he is not admitted in the 2nd Circuit?  The answer is very simple.

Mr. Mizer, according to his official biography posted on the website of the U.S. Attorney General's office, is a former law clerk of the now-sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens.

Nothing like having a familiar name for a U.S. Supreme Justice in the pleadings in the court below for the case that has a potential to go to the U.S. Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds.   The name can signal to the justice - "here I am, rule my way", right?

2) The second attorney who signed the Appellee's brief on behalf of Judge Suddaby is Matthew Collette, who is not admitted in New York and who should be on inactive status due to violation of the 2nd Circuit's rule of renewal. 

The rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, snapshot below, provides that an attorney must renew his admission status every 5 years, and an attorney who failed to renew admission one month after the expiration of the 5-year period (that was September 11, 2015 for Mr. Collette, nearly 3 months ago), is placed in "inactive status" and must complete the renewal process to practice before the court.

Yet, apparently violating that rule, Mr. Collette was not put on "inactive" status and was allowed to make electronic filing as an attorney for the Appellee, and I wonder why the 2nd Circuit violates its own rules in order to allow to practice an attorney from the office that is the official legal advisor BOTH of Judge Suddaby AND of the 2nd Circuit.

As I said above, you do not piss off your own attorney by applying to him your own pesky rules of admission. The rules of law are only for the outsiders, the mere mortals, not for government officials.

Here is information from Matthew Collette's LinkedIn profile:

Now I get it.

Nobody applies rules made for mere mortals to the current Deputy Director of the U.S. Department of Justice who is making a lightning-fast career to up on top.  Who knows where Mr. Collette will end up next, one does not want to step on his toes now by applying those pesky rules of admission of the 2nd Circuit to him.

3) Jainie Lilley - admitted in the 2nd Circuit (and appears on the bottom of the list of three attorneys, the previous two either not admitted, or should be on an "inactive" status based on the court's rules), but not admitted in the State of New York, so Janie Lilley is not from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to which office the case was assigned by the court.


For some inexplicable reason, the U.S. Attorney General's Office had the need to have three names of attorneys put on Judge Suddaby's Appellee's brief in an anti-injunction case on the issue of restriction on future political speech (a presumptively unconstitutional act under existing constitutional law), the first of them being two political heavy-weights (not admitted to that court) and the last is a privileged girl from a rich and powerful family.

Everything about that "trio" is about what today's America is all about - status, connections and money.

The rule of law?  You are kidding me, right?

No comments:

Post a Comment