"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, August 17, 2016

Attorney Woodruff Carroll lied again, along with attorney Erin Donnelly - surprise!

I just received a letter from Levine, Gouldin and Thompson attorney Erin Donnelly who claimed that
her ex parte motion against me is still pending, and is not withdrawn or dismissed - that's the motion
  • that was never served upon me, but
  • was heard in an ex parte manner at an ex parte hearing in June of 2016,
  • the transcript of the hearing was then sealed from me, and
  • attorney Donnelly claims I am not entitled to see the transcript of how a motion against me is being discussed behind my back and without notice to me  is still pending.

Yet, attorney Woodruff Carroll of Syracuse, NY, in two sworn statements to the court, in opposition to my motion to get access to that transcript, claimed that the motion is "moot" because it was withdrawn and dismissed by Ms. Donnelly.

That's perjury, isn't it?

And, that's a crime of fraud upon the court (state crime, Judiciary Law 487) and a federal crime of wire fraud, isn't it?  Because attorney Carroll actually filed those fraudulent statements using the electronic filing system over the Internet.

Because it cannot be that BOTH attorney Carroll - who claims that attorney Donnelly's ex parte motion was withdrawn or dismissed, and attorney Donnelly who claims the opposite - could be right.

By the way, attorney Donnelly preferred not to put her claim into a sworn format, instead cautiously submitting it as a "letter" pleading, contrary to the court's Local Rules - but that's ok, since her last name is not Neroni, she can violate the court rules in whichever way she wants.

And, both of these attorneys claimed that everything that is happening - with the ongoing ex parte communications on top of the 28 ex parte communications that were already subject of my motion to recuse, and the pending ex parte motion of Ms. Donnelly, which, according to Ms. Donnelly, was already heard in an ex parte manner, and the transcript of the oral argument of the motion is sealed from me - are all good law and procedure, and that they should not be subject to sanctions for that.

I guess, new law was introduced that I somehow missed, that courts of United States are exempt from applying the U.S. Constitution wherever Tatiana Neroni is concerned and are free to discuss her in an ex parte manner, and that is good and dandy.

It will be interesting to see what the court will rule based on all of those submissions of attorneys Carroll and Donnelly.

I've just got a court ruling, in another case, but by the same NDNY court, sanctioning me for non-appearance at a deposition for which I was never served with notice, and for disregarding a court order that I was similarly never served with - where the non-service was by the same "magistrate" (whose term expired in May of 2016 and no order of reappointment was published at the time he handled, as a judge, the ex parte hearing in June of 2016).

That ruling is just a continuation of what is being done in Argro - I am simply not entitled to notice where my rights are concerned.

I cannot file through the electronic filing system, the ECF, because I am "suspended" - or, as NDNY Judge Kahn falsely claimed in today's court order, disbarred.

But, by the court rules, I also cannot be served through ECF - but those rules do not matter.

Judicial whims matter.  We are not in Russia, after all, where judges are not allowed to rule on a whim - only based on the law.

And judicial whims in our neck of woods called the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York are - to kick me, again and again, in disregard of any law, to deny me any rights that other people have, simply because of who I am - the critic of judicial misconduct.

Well, there is a saying - he laughs best who laughs last.

And, we are yet to see who laughs best, aren't we?

No comments:

Post a Comment