"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, August 19, 2016

Documentary evidence suggesting that suspension of my law license is the result of retaliation of the purported magistrate of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York David Peebles and other political figures of New York State and NDNY for suing them

Proof that the purported NDNY Magistrate David Peebles had a hand in my suspension in state court in retaliation for suing him.

In the case Argro v Osborne in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, attorney Woodruff Carroll submitted a Memorandum of Law where he claimed:
1) that MY suspension in state court was the result of my own AND MY HUSBAND's civil rights lawsuits against political figures of The State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (including David Peebles):

First, you will not find any lawsuits of political figures as the basis of my suspension in the order of suspension though, raising a question - how Mr. Carroll came upon such interesting knowledge, coincidentally after an ex parte hearing before David Peebles (one of the political figures I sued), who sealed the transcript of the ex parte hearing?

Such a suspension would raise clear political persecution and motivation and would be a 1st Amendment issue that I would immediately addressed - but my civil rights litigation against the "political figures" in the State of New York and NDNY was NOT mentioned as the basis for my disciplinary proceedings or suspension, so I had no notice that the underlying cause of disciplinary proceedings against me is political.

Second, my husband filed several lawsuits pro se, without my participation - Neroni v Coccoma, Neroni v Mayberger, so Mr. Carroll's claim that I was suspended for my husband's civil rights litigation raises clear due process issues.

Mr. Carroll also married me to another man - a Frank Neroni.

2) that, even though Attorney Carroll characterized my civil rights lawsuit that were allegedly the basis of my suspension as "crackpot", "sour grapes" and frivolous, attorney Carroll never read those lawsuits and doesn't know what is in those allegedly frivolous lawsuits

3) That the settlement in Argro v Osborne was in reliance upon my suspension, and the Plaintiffs will be severely damages if my suspension is vacated:

4) that David Peebles would have been very upset if the Plaintiffs did not settle the case (and instead proceeded to trial)

5) Moreover, attorney Carroll submitted to the court an Affidavit where he listed issues discussed by David Peebles in an ex parte hearing on June 3, 2016 (after his term expired), and those issues included issues of Peebles' misconduct that I put into my motion to recuse (which is still pending):

And, David Peebles quickly sealed the evidence of David Peebles discussing two motions involving me,

1) Dkt. 112 - my motion to recuse, with a returnable date of June 17, 2016, which was NOT referred to Peebles by court order, and

2) an ex parte motion of Defendants for an anti-filing injunction against me personally

by sealing the transcript of such an ex parte oral argument -

while attorney Carroll who the press claimed "lacks a filter" emerged out of that ex parte hearing in front of David Peebles who I sued in 2014, with a wealth of knowledge, not derived from reading the cases (because Carroll claimed under oath he did not read those cases) that I was suspended because I sued political figures of the State of New York and of the NDNY court - and that includes Peebles himself.

Where else the no-filter attorney Carroll could get the knowledge that my suspension was based on my lawsuits against political figures in New York and NDNY court?

Certainly not from my order of suspension in state court - it has not a word about it.

Certainly not in any records of the disciplinary proceedings - the prosecutors did not bring this issue, the court did not mention that issue, and prosecutors denied political motivation of my disciplinary proceedings when I raised that issue.

The only reasonable source is David Peebles.

And, of course, this new evidence gives me a basis to seek re-opening of my disciplinary proceedings.

Which, of course, I will do.

And will report it on this blog.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment