"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

Documents showing that, in NDNY court, I am not entitled to be served with motions concerning me, be present at oral arguments of those motions, or have access to transcripts of those oral arguments - why? Ask attorney Woodruff Carroll. Because I am (allegedly) a "crackpot" who "sued everybody who is anybody".

Here is the docket report of the case Argro v Osborne that I litigated for 3.5 years as the Plaintiffs' attorney - after which I was suspended in state court system on the day the case was ordered to proceed to trial, was ALLEGEDLY suspended in federal court (no public order of suspension and no public disciplinary file exists), and stripped of my legal fees for 3.5 years of litigation - while my clients received money based on my work.

Of course, I applied for legal fees.

Of course, I applied for disqualification of the court and sanctions against attorneys who were engaged in repeated ex parte communications behind my back.

Here is the entire docket report of that case that I obtained today from

Here is my Affirmation listing 28 (!) ex parte communications with the court regarding my rights to fees or regarding motions that either I filed, or was filed against me, the listing of ex parte communications starts at page 19.

Here is the Affidavit and Memorandum of Law of attorney Woodruff Carroll confirming that David Peebles (the purported magistrate whose judgeship was not confirmed after his term expired in May of 2016) discussed AND DECIDED my motion to recuse pending at that time.

Carroll acknowledges that he received my motion to recuse, vacate a premature ex parte order based on ex parte pleadings, and for sanctions against him:

That motion was returnable on June 17, 2016 before District Judge Mordue,

and review of that motion by Peebles was denied by an ex parte text order of Mordue:

Yet, Carroll claimed under oath in his Affidavit that not only Peebles did review that motion, but that he has actually decided it - before its returnable date, without notice to me, behind my back, in a secret proceeding the transcript of which he later sealed:

So, Carroll confirmed, under oath, that Peebles reviewed and decided my still pending motion that was specifically not referred to him, behind my back, and that he reviewed and decided a motion for an antifiling injunction - which Donnelly claimed on August 11, 2016 (see below) is still pending.

Peebles conducted that ex parte court hearing of June 3, 2016 after expiration of his term in Mid-May of 2016, acting as a private individual and not covered by judicial immunity of any kind.  He was at that point a usurper of public office.

The only proof that Peebles was a legitimate magistrate at the time of the ex parte hearing of June 3, 2016 was Carroll's own words only:

Carroll, of course, knows, that the only proof of a judge's appointment is the public order of his appointment - which Carroll could not produce (and if he could, it would be based on a corrupt and invalidly appointed panel of brown-nosing attorneys appearing in front of Peebles), same as the only proof of an attorney's suspension in federal court is the public order of her suspension - which Carroll also could not produce, because neither of these documents exist, at least, none were published by the time of Peebles' presiding over the ex parte June 3, 2016 hearing.

Please, also note that attorney Woodruff Carroll's admits he never read my arguments in my civil rights lawsuits that attorney Carroll calls, multiple times, "crackpot", as well as my legal arguments - which attorney Carroll did not oppose on the merits.

That the motion for the anti-filing injunction against me that Carroll claimed Peebles reviewed and decided on June 3, 2016, was ex parte, and was not served upon me is beyond doubt - based on documentary evidence in the docket that I am publishing here below. 

Here is the docket entry of the ex parte motion by Defendants against me personally for an anti-filing injunction, showing that the motion, even though there was no valid affidavit of service filed with it, was referred to David Peebles.

Here is the certificate of service of that motion showing that the motion was not served upon me, but was instead served by attorney Erin Donnelly upon herself:

Here is, an order granting to Defendants their request to seal - from me - exhibits in an ex parte motion they are filing against me:

Here are filings of attorney Carroll claiming that David Peebles reviewed that ex parte motion, admitted that it was not served, and had it withdrawn by Defendants.

Note that attorney Carroll calls my legal arguments "crackpot" or "rants from a crackpot" throughout his submissions, while not addressing my arguments on their merits.

Note that attorney Carroll previously admitted that he was fired by his clients, under circumstances described herehere and here, see also Carroll's propensity to chat with teenagers in online sex chat rooms - here.  Apparently, the NDNY court prefers to hug criminals than to honor honest work of an attorney in a civil rights action.

Note that attorney Carroll was forced upon the Plaintiffs by the court that denied to Plaintiffs an extension of time when the ex parte motion by Defendants was filed - since Carroll was fired, but not released by the court, Carroll explained to the Plaintiffs that he "has" to defend them on that motion, even though he was fired.

Note that Carroll was forcibly "re-hired" on a condition that he acknowledges that Plaintiffs DO NOT oppose my motion for attorney fees AGAINST DEFENDANTS.

Note that Carroll then opposed my motion for attorney fees AGAINST DEFENDANTS, while the motion did not seek money from his own clients.

Carroll actually claimed my motion to recuse filed in May, this one:

was scheduled to be discussed on June 3, 2016 - of course, such scheduling was never sent to me. 

In fact, the court actually denied Carroll's request to schedule my motion for June 3, 2016, or reference of my motion to recuse to David Peebles - but Carroll still claimed that the motion was not only discussed with Peebles in the ex parte hearing of June 3, 2016, but decided by Peebles on that day - see Affidavit and Memorandum of Law of Carroll referenced above.

Yet, on June 3, 2016 the court did discuss Defendants' ex parte motion for an anti-filing injunction against me:

and sealed - including from me - the transcript of that discussion.

When I, naturally, made a motion for access to the sealed transcript discussing one motion that I filed (according to Carroll) and one motion, an ex parte motion, filed against me, according to the entry, both Carroll and Donnelly, attorney for the Defendants, vigorously opposed the motion for access claiming that I am not entitled to see what was the contents of discussions of (1) my motion or a (2) motion against me filed in an ex parte manner.

While doing it, attorneys Woodruff Carroll and Erin Donnelly used their usual strategy - Carroll tried to lie and say that Donnelly withdrew her motion after Peebles acknowledged that it was filed ex parte,

So, Carroll claimed that service of Erin Donnelly upon Erin Donnelly of her ex parte motion against me was in accordance with the court's directions - which is an accusation of judges of the court not simply of impropriety, but of imbecility.

and Donnelly tried to just brazenly state that, no, she did not withdraw the motion, but I was not entitled to be served, was not entitled to be present, and there is no problem with not serving me with anything regarding the motion, and no reason to give me access to the transcript of an oral argument of that motion.

So, Carroll continues to fight against my right to recover my legal fees NOT from his clients, but from the Defendants (and thus working for the Defendants), while admitting that two motions regarding me were discussed at the ex parte hearing of June 3, 2016, but while also claiming that I have no right of access to the transcript of that discussion, and that all my arguments are "rants from a crackpot".

Donnelly continues to claim that I am simply not entitled to see motions filed against me, exhibits filed with that motion, be noticed or present at the oral arguments of those motions, or see transcripts of those oral arguments. 

In that Donnelly and Carroll - and NDNY, obviously - agree.

I have no rights.

No right to be notified when a motion against me is filed.

No right to see exhibits filed with that motion.

No right to know when an oral argument on that motion is scheduled.

No right to access to transcript of oral argument on that motion.

Just - no rights.


Because I am a "crackpot" (according to Carroll), because I was suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York because I "sued everybody who is anybody" (information NOT reflected in my disciplinary proceedings, so, I understand, Peebles shared this knowledge with Carroll at the ex parte hearing with the now-sealed transcript), and because anything I file is "rants from a crackpot" not worth reading or mentioning.

With the exception, of course, of my work in this very lawsuit, Argro v Osborne, based on which Carroll got paid - while vigorously fighting to deny me ANY payment for 3.5 years of work.

But, my work over 3.5 years that Carroll got paid for, and not I, is not worth mentioning.

After all, I am just a constantly ranting crackpot who has no rights because I "sued everybody who is anybody".


No comments:

Post a Comment