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.
Were you sanctioned as a lawyer or layperson?
ReplyDeleteThat 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.
ReplyDelete