"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.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Neroni v Follender - #SanctionsForTrueCriticismOfJudidicalMisconduct in New York

On March 3, 2016, in Neroni v Follender I was punished by the Appellate Division 3rd Department with a $2,000 fine, a $8,000 attorney fee and an anti-filing injunction for presumed-true statements criticizing actions of a person who is a judge in New York state, see also my blogs today here, here and here.

My statements were actually true, because they were supported by court transcripts and court records, and legally presumed to be true, because the action was dismissed at a pre-answer stage, and on a pre-answer motoin to dismiss, statements in the complaint are presumed as true.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, again and again, most recently in Reed v Town of Gilbert in June of 2015, that content based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under the 1st Amendment.

Yet, nearly a year after Reed, the 3rd Department defied the law, defied the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, defied the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that each judge of the panel was sworn to uphold, and upheld punishment of an attorney for criticizing a judge in a presumed-true statement.

A judge must maintain integrity and fitness in and out of office.

Thus, my statements criticizing Jonathan Follender, even though an attorney, were statements criticizing a judge, because when he was engaged in that misconduct, Jonathan Follender was and still is a judge and should have comported himself, even off the bench, in accordance with his judicial status.

Punishment for true criticism of , ladies and gentlemen, this must end somewhere,  and I am going to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, with this issue.


  1. Were you sanctioned as a lawyer or layperson?

  2. That particular sanction was used against me in the disciplinary proceeding before the appeal of the sanction was decided. I raised the 1st Amendment and truth as an absolute defense in both proceedings.