"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, April 6, 2016

A jurisdictional statement was filed challenging New York State Court of Appeals' illegal policy of dismissing as discretionary constitutional "as of right" appeals

I believe this pleading may be of interest to the public, as it raises issues of public concern - it challenges the recently revealed policy of the New York State Court of Appeals to dismiss constitutional appeals "as of right" (and mandatory for the court's review under a New York State statute and New York State Constitution that the court is sworn to uphold) as if such "as of right" constitutional appeals are discretionary - "we get to pick our cases" (statement from the bench of Judge Pigott on February 8, 2016 at the swearing-in testimony of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore).

On April 1, 2016 I have filed with the New York State Court of Appeals, the following:

Notice of Motion - I accompanied my jurisdictional statement to the NYS Court of Appeals with a motion to disqualify several judges, and to disqualify an attorney who lost authority to represent a corporate client since May 2, 2014, the day of the client's dissolution (of which dissolution he did not notify me or the courts);

Jurisdictional Statement - contains arguments regarding:

  • 1st Amendment content-based regulation of speech;
  • impropriety of recusal-reentry-retaliation schemes of several New York judges and courts;
  • a motion to recuse Janet DiFiore;
  • discusses New York State of Appeals recently announced policy that dismissing "as of rights" appeal is done because judges believe they "pick their cases", and not for any other contrived pretextual reasons;
  • Discusses the split between appellate departments on the issue whether violation of CPLR 2103(a) (service of pleadings by a party in litigation) is a "mere irregularity" (3rd Department) or a jurisdictional defect (1st, 2nd and 4th Departments);
  • discusses whether there exists a clear "pleading specificity standard" for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court;
  • discusses the sole remedy for bringing claims potentially barred by affirmative defenses (if they are raised) -  to timely and validly raise that defense in pleadings, or else waive it, CPLR 3211(e), but sanctions (as was done to me) is not a proper remedy for bringing a time-barred claim, and especially when the defense is waived by failure to serve properly under CPLR 2103(a);
  • discusses that sanctions are not a proper remedy for allegedly imperfect pleadings - amendment of pleadings is, CPLR 3025;
  • discusses due process, ex post facto and bill-of-attainder problems in the case

Exhibit A - Transcript of New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge DiFiore swearing-in ceremony on February 8, 2016 where Judge Pigott claimed that the court "gets to pick its own cases", thus acknowledging that the court that routinely dismisses constitutional appeals "as of right" because allegedly no "substantial" constitutional question is raised - is doing it simply because the court is "tired", and to reduce its caseload.  

Exhibit 1 - Dismissal of "as of right" constitutional appeal of Frederick J. Neroni in 2011 which allowed to keep without change unconstitutional disbarment of my husband.

Exhibit 2 - Dismissal of my own "as of right" constitutional appeal in 2013 that allowed later suspension of my law license in 2015

Exhibit 3 - Dismissal of my disciplinary "as of right" constitutional appeal in 2016

Exhibit 4 - Dismissal of my husband's and my own "as of right" constitutional appeal pertaining to our property in New York in 2015 which allowed dismissal of the bulk of our federal civil rights lawsuit against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation on "Rooker-Feldman" grounds

Exhibit 5 - Printout from New York State Department of Corporations website indicating that the corporation that I am suing (and which is represented by judge/attorney Jonathan S. Follender has been dissolved since May 2, 2014, stripping Follender of authority to represent the corporation - of which he did not care to notify me or the courts);

Exhibit 6 - Stipulation and letter of resignation of Judge Delmar House showing that a judge has a duty to maintain a high integrity level in his private conduct, not only on the bench - which directly relates to Follender's fraudulent conduct that he was sued for;

Exhibit 7 - Decision by Appellate Division 3rd Department to affirm sanctions against me in Neroni v Follender for the same conduct for which other 3 judicial departments reward plaintiffs with a victory;  the Jurisdictional statement lists conflicts of interest of the 3rd Department court and Follender's efforts to inflame the court by stating to it, repeatedly that I need to be punished for my professional activity as a civil rights attorney;

Exhibit 8 - Order of June 11, 2014 by which 3rd Department recused from my disciplinary case;

Exhibit 9 - printout from my attorney registration page showing that I was admitted in 2009 by that same 3rd Department (which the court forgot and put in that a lawsuit was filed in 2007 against "my clients")

Exhibit 10 - a printout from New  York Justice showing Jonathan S. Follender as a judge of the Denning Town Court, Ulster County, which is significant for the 1st Amendment issue that I am raising on my constitutional "as of right" appeal

Exhibit 11 - a printout from the "attorney lookup" page on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York showing that Jonathan S. Follender has a federal law license, and is thus supposed to know federal law pertaining to civil rights litigation, and to know better than to ask a court to punish me for suing the court in its official capacity for a declaratory judgment - it's the law that designated that court as a proper defendant in such a civil rights action, and I just followed that law

No comments:

Post a Comment