"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.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Judge Rumsey retaliates for criticism by claiming that a discontinued lawsuit against me is alive - and is warned to cease and desist his criminal activity against me

I criticized a judge on this blog - Judge Rumsey, for his misconduct in a divorce case.

That was in 2015.

Also in 2015, but earlier, a frivolous lawsuit against me and my law office - for "negligent legal advice", brought by an unlicensed real estate company for telling my then-client not to release the escrow money to the unlicensed real estate undisclosed dual agent, but instead to sue them for fraud - which is what she did.

As I mentioned above, the lawsuit was for "negligent legal advice".

Asserted by a third party.

A business.

That failed to present competent evidence that the business and its employees had real estate licenses at the time relevant to litigation.

But still insisted that escrow money was theirs (the Plaintiff still - allegedly - holds the money in escrow, without any proof that the entity was licensed and entitled to that money).

My then-client Beverly Sines since died - on March 10, 2015, 6 days after the action against me was discontinued and at the time when I was a licensed attorney, and when the only remaining defendant in the case was my then-client.

The date of Beverly Sines' death is acknowledged in Judge Rumsey's letter - but not the date of discontinuance of claims against me:


First of all, Judge Rumsey misstates the law as to me being Beverly Sines' attorney of record.

New York law strips a perfectly licensed attorney of authority to represent a person on the person's death.

So, I had no authority to represent Beverly Sines as of the date of her death, March 10, 2015, and was certainly not an attorney of record, so there was no need to mention my suspension on November 13, 2015, 8 months after my representation of Beverly Sines ended with her death, other than to harass me.

There was no need to mention me in any way, shape or form, because, as I said above, claims against me personally were discontinued as of March 4, 2015.

Judge Rumsey, pretending he did not read the index of the case he was assigned to by the judge who knew about the discontinuance and made an order of abatement as to Beverly Sines after that discontinuance as to claims against me and Neroni Law Office.

Instead, Judge Rumsey mentions a conference of February 1, 2016 I was never notified about:

Since I was not notified about that conference, it was clear that the previous judge Mulvey knew that claims against me were discontinued, and there was no need to notify me - my authority to represent Beverly Sines ended at her death on March 10, 2015, and I was suspended and could not represent her Estate anyway, even if I would be asked (I wasn't), and claims against me personally were discontinued as of March 4, 2015, nearly a year prior to the conference.

Yet, Judge Rumsey rages on:

and directs the only remaining attorney in the case, attorney for Demeree Realty, to notify "the Neroni defendants" - myself included - why?

Paul Tomkins signed a stipulation of discontinuance, at the time a motion to dismiss, for a summary judgment (for non-compliance with discovery) and for sanctions and attorney fees against him personally was pending.

That signed stipulation was filed with the court on March 4, 2015.

What is Paul Tomkins supposed to notify the "Neroni defendants" of?

I am not a party in the proceeding any more.

I do not need to be notified about the "results of communication" with the family of Beverly Sines.

This whole letter is completely bizarre.

Jurisdiction over the lawsuit against Beverly Sines abated as of the date of her death.

My authority to represent Beverly Sines stopped at her death.

I was never contacted by her Estate and never hired to represent her Estate before my suspension on November 13, 2015.

The frivolous lawsuit against me for giving her a perfectly sound legal advice was discontinued by filing a stipulation of discontinuance on 3/4/2015.

That stipulation is reviewable online for free - see the entire docket of the case here.

With that in mind - the claims against me and my (now former) law firm were discontinued on consent on March 4, 2015 (see docket above), yesterday Judge Rumsey, who is suddenly presiding over the dead case instead of Judge Mulvey who knew about the discontinuance, sends me the following letter claiming that the discontinued claims against me are very much alive - because of a decision of Judge Mulvey on 2014, predating the discontinuance.

It is obvious that the judge pretends he did not read the index of the case before making those allegations in writing, in a letter to all counsel, which is defamation as far as the discontinued claims are concerned, and defamation outside of the court's jurisdiction.

That's tough.

If I could read it online for free from South Carolina, certainly the judge who was allegedly assigned to the case could read what was in it before sending such letters out.

Which brings me to the point - is it done against me in retaliation for criticism of Judge Rumsey in my blogs here and here?

I've sent a letter to Judge Rumsey, copy to my opponent who signed the stipulation of discontinuance in February of 2015, pointing out his mistake, with attached index of the case showing that the stipulation of discontinuance was filed in March of 2015.

I received no apology, of course.

I do not expect it, because, I believe that the reason to send a letter on April 21, 2016 claiming that the claims that were discontinued as of March 4, 2015 are still alive, was to mention my later suspension as of November 13, 2015, harass me and force me to hire counsel for the already non-existing Neroni Law Office.

And that's what I told Judge Rumsey in an e-mail letter - that I consider this letter as harassment, and if he tries to claim that the lawsuit against me is alive once again - I will turn him to criminal authorities, for stalking and harassment.  And that includes wire fraud and mail fraud, because the letter was sent by U.S. Mail and by the Internet.  

And judges lately are being prosecuted and convicted for mail fraud and wire fraud.

So, while I am not expecting an apology from Judge Rumsey, I expect him to leave me alone as to the lawsuit where I am no longer a party or attorney, and I expect a response to my Judiciary Law 255 request asking Judge Rumsey to provide me a copy of Judge Mulvey's (the previous judge's) recusal and of Judge Rumsey's assignment.

I will post these documents when I receive them.

As well as I will post my complaint against Judge Rumsey to the Judicial Conduct Commission that I am planning to file, and any responses to that complaint.

And - please, look at the last filings in the case as of yesterday:

and compare it with Judge Rumsey's letter:

So, two conferences, on February 2, 2016 and on March 1, 2016, were scheduled without reflecting the scheduling orders in the index, and one of them, the conference of February 2, 2015, was held.

Without my presence or notification to me as to both conferences, but with "notes in the chambers file" as to the conference of February 2, 2016.

Which means that Judge Mulvey knew very well that I was not a party in litigation any more, nor am I a licensed attorney, or an attorney of record, so I could not be brought into the case in any way, shape or form.

As to the directive by Rumsey to Tomkins to communicate to me what the family members said about the estate proceedings - why should I care?

I am out of the case, one.

What the family members think is irrelevant to the issue, what is relevant is whether the Estate was done or not, and that is verifiable without inquiries to the family members, with one phone call to the court with exclusive jurisdiction over probate proceedings in the case of a person who died in Chenango County - the Chenango County Surrogate's Court.

Judge Rumsey references Judge Mulvey's oral order not reflected in the index authorizing Attorney Tomkins to speak to family members of the deceased defendant Beverly Sines.

That order, or the scheduling notice for the conference where the order was made, is not reflected in the index of the case.

The last filing in the official index is a "letter" filed on April 14, 2015.

It is interesting to mention that after doing this little secret conference and issuing this little secret order that does not appear anywhere but in the undiscoverable "notes in chambers file", Judge Mulvey quickly recused from the case, got it reassigned to Rumsey, while leaving "notes in the chambers file" about the secret conference, but no notes about the open and public discontinuance of claims against me.


Bring that Neroni in - for one reason or another, and rub it into her mentioning her suspension.

Well, the rubbing-in may result in a criminal proceeding now against Judge Rumsey, if state or federal authorities would dare to prosecute a judge, or judges.

And - the appellate process in my disciplinary case is not yet over, and there may be surprises there.

So - stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment