"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, May 28, 2016

The Argro saga continues: a practice guide of how to screw the poor - just ask NDNY judges David Peebles and Norman Mordue and attorneys Woodruff "Teen Lover" Carroll and Erin Donnelly

I wrote on this blog about the civil rights lawsuit against Chenango County CPS, a case where I was removed from the case purportedly because I was suspended in federal court on November 18, 2015 (there is no public federal order of suspension, and thus no legal court order of suspension, and thus I am not suspended in federal court), but in reality - to prevent me from trying the case and obtaining a multi-million dollar recovery for the plaintiffs against Chenango County Department of Social Services.

Today, I looked it up on Pacer again - my name, cases filed and closed in 2015.

Here is what Pacer returned:

In that case I am listed as an attorney, not a party, it is closed in July of 2015, not November, and the case is not about discipline against me, but a civil rights lawsuit I brought on behalf of a client against an anti-semitic state Judge Kevin Dowd.

The order of suspension must be public to be valid.

As the query from Pacer as of today shows, there is NO public order of suspension of me as an attorney in federal courts.  None.

Which can only mean that, as a matter of law, I am an attorney in good standing in the Argro case, and my removal from that case was unlawful.

I also wrote on this blog how, after my alleged suspension, an attorney recommended by the local "bar association" (which is dominated by attorneys and judges who I sued) sold out the plaintiffs and was fired for misconduct and for repeated fraud upon the plaintiffs.

I also wrote on this blog that the attorney for the Defendants Erin Donnelly was representing to the court for months that the low amount she is offering is because of the low ($100,000-$150,000) payout limit.

Of course, I verified with the Chenango County through a FOIL request that those assurances were fraudulent, and that the Chenango County insurance payout limit per occurrence is $1,000,000.  Not to mention that New York law does not allow insurance coverage of intentional misconduct, and without coverage, insurance cannot control settlement amounts.

I also wrote about efforts of attorney Woodruff Carroll to defraud plaintiffs into signing low settlement of a multi-million dollar case, and into signing an affidavit against me.  The plaintiffs refused and fired Mr. Carroll for misconduct.

And that attorney Woodruff Carroll has a massive support from his well-connected siblings, while also demonstrated such lack of judgment - and morals - when he ran for an elected legislative seat in Onondaga County that he was called as "lacking a filter" in the press because of his outrageous statements that no civil rights attorney, or any self-respecting person would ever make.

Mr. Carroll returned to their residence, from Syracuse to Oxford, NY, three times, trying to force them to sign what they didn't want to sign and what was forced upon them by the combined fraud of Mr. Carroll and attorney Erin Donnelly.

Mr. Carroll came to plaintiffs' residence on Friday, May 20th;  Saturday May 21st; and, plaintiffs suspect, on May 22nd when plaintiffs simply did not open the door for him, but somebody insistently knocked on their doors, like Mr. Carroll did the previous days.

On May 24, 2016, Mr. Carroll notified the court that he has been fired by the plaintiffs.

The court told him that he cannot notify the court of being fired, but must submit a motion.

Mr. Carroll submitted a letter motion to withdraw, and an in-person hearing was scheduled for June 3, 2016, that was beyond the date to oppose my motion, May 31, 2016.

Of course, plaintiffs did not want Mr. Carroll to oppose my motion because they agreed with it.

So, when offering plaintiffs $100,000 for singing a $35,000 settlement and a false affidavit against me did not work, pleas about Mr. Carroll's law license and his sick sister did not work, Mr. Carroll and the defendants' counsel, and, no doubt, the court, put their heads together to defraud the plaintiffs in a new way.

Today, plaintiff Dara Argro called me to tell me that Mr. Carroll called her today (that is important) and notified her that the Defendants CPS filed a motion YESTERDAY which needs to be opposed by May 31, 2016, and that since Mr. Carroll is not yet relieved by the court as plaintiffs' counsel, he should be the one opposing the motion.

So, CPS filed a motion, on a Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, to be responded to not within 17 days, as required by the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, but within 4 days, three of them falling on national holidays.

Here is a portion of the local rules of the NDNY court on the returnable dates for motions:

Here is the motion calendar of the court where, as a filing guide to parties, 31 days are automatically added to the filing date of the motion to determine the returnable date:

Here is how three overlapping motions in the case were scheduled:

My motion:

Mr. Carroll's three motions:

The Defendants' motion filed on 5/27/2016, with responses demanded on May 31, 2016 (within 4 days over the Memorial weekend, and while plaintiffs' counsel was fired and awaiting determination of motion to withdraw).

Defendants' May 27, 2016 motion, even though definitely attempting to infringe upon my rights, were not served upon me, 

so I chose not to look at them, not to be accused of waiving service.

Here is how motions have to be filed in NDNY:

1) a motion is filed, dates of response, reply and motion hearing are set:

I filed my motion on May 13, 2016, so the following dates for the motion were set by the court:

  • responses (including cross-motions, if any) - May 31, 2016 (+ 18 days from filing);
  • reply to response - June 6, 2016 (+ 6 days from filing of responses);

2) A cross-motion can only be filed against the party who filed the motion.

3) If the motion is a new motion, filed against a party who did not file a motion, it should follow the local rules and 31 days should be added to the filing date for the returnable date, and 17 days for response for the opposing party.

In other words, for a motion filed on May 27, 2016, the returnable date would have to be June 27, 2016, and the response date would have to be, according to the court's own rules, June 13, 2016.

Here is a table of scheduling of how the currently pending, overlapping and interralted motions were actually filed and scheduled:

Date filed
Who filed
What is the motion about
Response deadline
Reply to response deadline
Motion hearing date
Tatiana Neroni, plaintiffs previous attorney removed because of purported order of suspension – while there is no public order of suspension in federal court

Motion to vacate order stripping me of legal fees, recuse the court, sanction attorneys Carroll and Donnelly for frivolous conduct

May 31, 2016
June 6, 2016
June 15, 2016
Carroll requested permission to file cross-motion, the court denied his request
Woodruff Carroll, plaintiffs' new attorney
Motion to withdraw from representation
of plaintiffs because plaintiffs fired Woodruff Carroll

No response date set
No reply date set
Hearing in person on June 3, 2016

Woodruff Carroll
Motion to adjourn dates on my motion because of pending motion to withdraw

Denied, because the hearing date of June 3, 2016 was a "firm date" and was allegedly not "affected" by my motion to withdraw
That plaintiffs' rights were not "affected" in denying them adjournment of all dates until their counsel is removed from the case and until they hire a new counsel, was a lie of the enraged Judge Peebles, because plaintiffs were thus forced to be represented in opposition to my motion they did not want to oppose by an attorney they just fired for fraud that I described in my motion, requesting sanctions against that attorney

To enforce a settlement, dismiss the case with prejudice, deny me opportunity to apply (after the case closes) for legal fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, and to bar me from filing more motions
(the motion was not served upon me, and I did not read it and did not waive service, I just read the docket entry)

May 31, 2016
No reply date set
June 15, 2016
Since the motion was not served upon me, it was not a cross-motion, but a new motion, and had to be filed following the usual local rules, in 31 days of advance and with 17 days for response
Response date for
·       My motion filed 18 days prior
·       Defendant's motion filed 4 days prior

Plaintiffs are not allowed to voice their position "pro se" because they have counsel that the court did not relieve yet, even though he was fired for misconduct
Hearing date for motion to withdraw

Such a hearing is academic since Mr. Carroll by that time will have done all the damages needed to be done to the case by May 31, 2016
Motion returnable date for
·       My motion filed on May 13, 2016
·       Defendant's motion that was not served upon me that was filed on May 27, 2016

Mr. Carroll may be very well removed from the case by that time, so the only reason to set 4 days for response for plaintiffs was to force them to use Mr. Carroll for opposition to the motion seeking a result that Mr. Carroll was trying to force upon the plaintiffs for 3 consecutive days by coming to their house

Now, what Defendants, Mr. Carroll and judges Mordue and Peebles accomplished by this motion and by how responses to this motion and scheduling for Mr. Carroll's motion to withdraw was done - is that indigent plaintiffs who are "technically" still represented by Mr. Carroll have NO CHOICE but allowing the attorney they just fired for fraud to represent them in a case where issues of the same fraud must be brought and discussed.

By court rules, plaintiffs may not proceed pro se while Mr. Carroll is still not relieved by the court.

And, the court conveniently refused to relieve Mr. Carroll at the time he was fired, or to adjourn deadlines for the plaintiffs to have Mr. Carroll removed by the court and to find new counsel.

Does it appear like this case is criminally fixed by the court and attorneys who wanted to kill the case - for money?

Most definitely.

Mr. Carroll has demonstrated, even by the timing of his call regarding the new motion (not when it was made, yesterday, with only 4 days' advance, but today, with 1/4 of that time gone).

Time was of the essence, right?

Yet, for his own benefit, when he wanted plaintiffs to sign a false affidavit against me to save his law license, he didn't just call, he actually came to their residence three days in a row - when plaintiffs told him not to come.

Of course, when it was time of the essence as to plaintiffs' rights, Mr. Carroll did not call right away.

And did not ask the "pissed off" judge for an adjournment until he is removed from the case.

And did not ask the "pissed off" judge for recusal, even knowing that the judge was "pissed off", and thus not impartial, towards the plaintiffs.

Mr. Carroll only called Dara this afternoon, and did not call his other two clients at all.

And, to Dara Mr. Carroll told that, since he is still "officially" Dara's attorney, he "must" oppose the motion - or everything will be lost.

When Dara asked Mr. Carroll to do the most reasonable thing under the circumstances - file a letter motion requesting an adjournment from the judge of opposition to the motion until the time when Mr. Carroll is relieved from his duties (because he has been fired as of May 20, 2016), and until the time when Dara and the other two plaintiffs find a new attorney - Mr. Carroll adamantly refused to file such a letter request.

Mr. Carroll explained his refusal by a claim that allegedly the response date of May 31, 2016, 3 days before the hearing on Mr. Carroll's motion to withdraw because he was fired, was set by "the judge", that the judge was "pissed" with Dara "for some reason", as Mr. Carroll said, and Mr. Carroll did not want to piss off the judge any further.

So, even though Mr. Carroll claimed to be officially an attorney for the plaintiffs until June 3, 2016, the hearing for his motion to withdraw, and even though opposition to the Defendants motion involves issues of his own fraud upon the plaintiffs and his own collusion with defendants' counsel (which, of course, he will not willingly raise against himself in a pleading), and even though Mr. Carroll acknowledged that the judge was "pissed" with his client, Mr. Carroll did not file either a request for adjournment beyond the date of his removal from the case by the court, nor did he file a motion to recuse the judge who was "pissed" off and retaliating against his clients with shortened-to-nothing time to respond.

Of course, it was in Mr. Carroll's interests not to be fired until the end of the case, and this maneuver allowed him to force himself back upon the plaintiffs, claiming to them that if they do not re-hire him and do not allow him to represent their interests - after all the fraud he committed against them - all will be lost for them.

Let's compare the response dates given to Defendants on my motion and given to plaintiffs who "pissed off the judge" on Defendants' motion.

Defendants were given 18 days to respond (May 13, 2016 to May 31, 2016) to a non-dispositive motion;

the "bad" plaintiffs who "pissed off" the judge were given 4 days to respond to a dispositive motion, where those 4 days were over the Memorial Day weekend, after they fired their counsel for fraud and while the court refused to remove the counsel and to give plaintiffs adjournment of all dates until they find new counsel.

Apparently, "Woody" Carroll - who, by the way, has tendencies of hanging out in video-chatrooms that lure teenagers to talk about sex, as demonstrated by his Facebook page (and, of course, nobody investigates him as a possible sexual predator against children because of his connections).

The "Tinychat" video chatrooms, as parents are repeatedly warned, is a direct way to their children's webcams - in the child's bedroom mostly.

And, the "tinychat" has been exposed as a "dirty" site where children may be exposing themselves before a webcam.

"Woody" is a mountain climber and posts on Facebook extremely explicit descriptions even of mountain caves.

THIS is who Chenango County child protective services, their attorneys and two judges, David Peebles and Norman Mordue, teamed up with - to screw up the poor.

And, under "Woody"'s they seem to have reached new heights in that art.

After all, "Woody" said in his election campaign for a legislative seat that the poor need to just be "roughed up a little" to "get 'em motivated".

And "Woody" knows about "roughing them up", doesn't he?

In this case though, roughing up the poor got to completely new levels. 

Where a judge, "pissed off" at the behavior of the plaintiffs who actually want a jury trial instead of being represented by a fraudster attorney who sold them out, and want out of fraudulently induced settlement that they never signed, the judge in question, instead of recusing (because he is pissed off with a party, and can no longer be impartial), fixes everything he can possibly fix:

1) refuses to release an attorney when he is fired;
2) refuses to adjourns pending dates until the time when the attorney is removed from the case by the court and until a new attorney is hired;
3) sets an extremely short date, in violation of the court rules, to answer a dispositive motion - knowing full well that the combination of the rulings will require plaintiffs to use the services of an attorney they fired for fraud.

These two judges, Peebles and Mordue, give professional attorneys 18 days to respond to a non-dispositive motion, and give 4 days over a national holiday to three indigent civil rights plaintiff to answer a dispositive motion, while at the same time forcing them into a situation where they have a "choice" - to re-hire an attorney they just fired for misconduct so that he would oppose the defendants' motion for them (in his favor, of course), or lose the case.

Of course, Dara Argro told me that she realizes now that they have been better off without Mr. Carroll or any attorney than with Mr. Carroll.

As of today, Mr. Carroll refuses to do his duty and refuses to do what Dara Argro asked him to do - file a letter motion asking an adjournment of the date of response to Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement (obtained by fraud) and to dismiss the case with prejudice, until Mr. Carroll is removed from the case and until a new counsel is found and appears in the case.

And the "pissed off" judge, instead of recusing from the case, continues to preside over it and enforce fraud orchestrated, with the help of the court, against three indigent victims of CPS misconduct and of the fraud of two attorneys - Woodruff Carroll and Erin Donnelly.

I will continue to cover this story because, it appears that exposure of fraudsters at this time is the only thing that can help my former clients.

I want you to remember the faces of the people who are screwing the poor so savagely, cruelly, relentlessly and shamelessly.

Woodruff Carroll - the mountain climber, teen lover and fraudster:

Erin Donnelly - just fraudster, who graudated law school in 2005, with "honorary recognitions" as children's advocate (!!), 

got admitted in NY in 2013, 8 years after graduation, and a year AFTER the Argro case was even brought.

Judge David Peebles - the case-fixer judge who does not know when to recuse from a case, even when his bias and case-fixing can no longer be hidden:

Judge Norman Mordue - a "senior" status judge who should have retired by now, instead of openly and unashamedly fixing court cases against the poor, in favor of connected attorneys.  An army veteran, a "Purple Heart", a "Bronze Star", a "Distinguished Service Cross" bearer - and a case-fixing fraudster.  Past honorable acts do not cover the dirty acts of today - which are clearly visible in this case.   Teaming up with a possible child predator and with child protective services sued for misconduct, in order to rob poor people of their day in court and their rightful remedy for civil rights violations.

For shame, Judge Mordue.

Enough already.

No comments:

Post a Comment