For example, in my attorney disciplinary proceedings I was charged for actions as an attorney in 2008 in a court case where my husband was an attorney of record, and while in 2008 I myself was not an attorney and could not act as an attorney. That was the main charge, Charge I Specification I, see it described in my previous blog. The disciplinary prosecutor orally withdrew it - after her motion for a summary judgment to claim that I was guilty of attorney misconduct based on that fraudulent charge was granted by a referee. But, the disciplinary court did not note the withdrawal of that charge and granted the motion for the summary judgment in its entirety, for all charges.
So, as I said above, I stand sanctioned for not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law, for NOT appearing at a deposition in 2008, before I was admitted to the bar in 2009, and for NOT committing a crime of UPL again when I did not oppose a motion filed in 2008 - because I was not an attorney, and not an attorney of record in that case at that time.
Yet, I am suspended from the practice of law because I was sanctioned for not appearing at a deposition where my husband did appear and where it would have been a crime for me to appear instead of my husband because I was not an attorney.
Then, in an environmental case, DEC Commissioner Grannis and former judge Carl F. Becker ruled that I was not a necessary person to be brought in as a party regarding my own piece of real estate, because I was party "in privity" with my husband - yet, no sale of the same property would be valid without my own signature.
Then, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, without reading the record of an appeal, ruled that pro se lawsuits of my husband were brought by me.
And now, as a crown jewel of all of the above, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York decided the motion filed by my husband as if it was filed by me as a party.
Here is how Judge Lawrence Kahn managed to do that, and I already mentioned that Judge Kahn shares the disability of New York State Judge Rita Connerton - both develop headaches at the necessity to read documentary evidence about their own misconduct on motions to recuse.
Here is the court order I, but not Mr. Neroni, received today from Judge Kahn, by e-mail:
Here is how Judge Kahn dismisses motion to vacate under Rule 60 - my husband's motion:
From the very first paragraph of the Decision and Order that I received today, Judge Kahn claims that it was I, as a party Plaintiff, who made the motion to "vacate all orders made in this case after October 20, 2014, Dkt. No. 68".
It is interesting to mention that, according to Pacer.gov, despite the fact that my husband's claims were dismissed a year ago, and my claims were dismissed today, and we are the only two plaintiffs, the case is not yet closed:
The docket of the case shows that my husband Frederick Neroni was terminated on June 11, 2014:
And, here is the Docket 68 that Judge Kahn mentions as exclusively MY motion to vacate:
Docket 68 was filed before my alleged suspension in FEDERAL court - which is claimed by the court to have happened on November 18, 2015 (without any public order of suspension).
I filed the motion on my behalf as to the motion to recuse, and on my client's and husband's behalf as to motion to vacate under Rule 60.
I had no standing as a plaintiff to make a motion to vacate the orders of dismissal of my husband's claims.
Apparently, Judge Kahn did not read the motion before ruling on it. I understand that to read 620 pages of documentary evidence about your own misconduct can be tedious, but Judge Kahn, obviously, did not read even a one-PARAGRAPH docket entry describing WHOSE motion that was.
By the way, my husband's motion under Rule 60 was unopposed and should have been granted by default.
But, here is what Judge Kahn writes about that motion - falsely claiming that I made it on my own behalf, even though I couldn't and I didn't - my husband was the filer of that motion, I was just his attorney filing the motion on his behalf.
Judge Kahn describes the procedural history of the case this way:
No mentioning of my husband filing a motion to vacate under Rule 60.
Not that Judge Kahn distinguishes between the two of us as filers:
Since Judge Kahn mentions "Plaintiffs" and "Plaintiff's husband Frederick Neroni", he means, describing the motion to vacate, that I, and not my husband Frederick J. Neroni, made it.
Then, throughout the argument, the motion is treated as MY motion, not my husband's.
So, Judge Kahn denied a motion to vacate that my husband made as a party, and that I filed electronically only as my husband's attorney at the time, and not a party.
My husband's motion that is reflected in Docket 68, is not even mentioned in the decision.
It is clear from the decision that Judge Kahn treats me as the party Plaintiff who filed the motion to vacate under Rule 60, despite the contents of the motion, and despite the docket entry indicating that it was my husband who did that.
Yet, the docket entry of that same decision - Docket 81, mentions that the Plaintiffs (plural without an apostrophe denoting possessive case) motion to recuse is denied (without mentioning the motion to vacate):
It is apparent that the hatred for my husband and myself in Judge Kahn is such that he does not read what comes in front of him mentioning our names, but blindly rules against us - confusing my husband with me and me with my husband - as long as the decision is against us.
Let's see what the 2nd Circuit will say on appeal.
But, of course, the 2nd Circuit already pre-judged this case, ruling that I apparently represented my husband in two pro se cases that he filed on his own - so the 2nd Circuit also does not read our cases.
It is not necessary to give us notice, and it is not necessary to read anything that we file - we are wrong anyway because of who we are, that's the "opinion" of courts that are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
But, who knows, maybe, the U.S. Supreme Court will read our filings.
I will continue to report what is happening in this case.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment