"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, January 18, 2017

A FOIA request and a demand to turn a case into the federal grand jury was made to U.S. Attorney in SNDY Preet Bharara

In or about October of 2014, I made a complaint to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, requesting him to investigate and criminally prosecute New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and judge Leslie Stein (who is now a justice of New York State Court of Appeals), because Justice Stein decided a case in favor of Andrew Cuomo's subordinate the Department of Environmental Conservation after Andrew Cuomo, during the pendency of an appeal against DEC, after Leslie Stein, as a presiding justice, heard the appeal, but before she decided it, nominated her to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The story about Cuomo bribing Stein with a promotion was published on this blog in 2014.  Since then, I was stripped of my law license, and Stein's court refused to hear my constitutional appeal that it had to hear by statute.

I considered Cuomo's nomination of Stein between the time she heard and decided an appeal by Cuomo subordinate agency, as a bribe to Justice Stein and asked Preet Bharara to investigate the case and prosecute it.

I never heard from Preet Bharara's office after I filed my complaint in 2014.

Today, I filed a FOIA request for the results of the investigation, and for the entire investigative file (2.5 years is more than enough to conclude an investigation where the bribery and the resulting case-fixing was apparent on its face and well documented), and a demand for Preet Bharara, as U.S. Attorney General investigating crimes in the upper echelon of the New York State Government, to turn my complaint for further investigation of the federal grand jury.

Since the screen scans allow only a very small font, here is the same FOIA request/demand, in a bigger font:


Dear Mr Bharara:

Please, forward to me within reasonable time, as required by law, copies of the investigative file investigating my complaint that I have sent to you in or about October of 2014, by mail, complaining of fraudulent activities of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Specifically, the complaint was about the following situation:

  1. Andrew Cuomo is the Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York;
  2. Andrew Cuomo is vested with power to nominate judges to the New York State Court of Appeals;
  3. Andrew Cuomo's subordinates, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, were litigating a case against my husband and myself, and our appeal from the lower court was heard, but not decided by the Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, with Judge Leslie Stein as a presiding judge of the panel.
  4. The outcome of the case could lead to vacatur of multiple criminal convictions and civil fines against New York landowners;
  5. After the appeal was heard by Judge Leslie Stein, but not yet decided by her, Governor Cuomo, Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York, nominated Judge Stein to the New York State Court of Appeals;  such a job had sufficiently higher prestige, power, salary and benefits, and post-retirement employment opportunities for Judge Stein than her job as the judge of the Appellate Division;
  6. Less than a week after the nomination was announced, Judge Leslie Stein ruled for Andrew Cuomo's subordinates in our case, disregarding the law, as the complaint explains.

I have sent a complaint requesting criminal investigation in or about October of 2014, and never heard back from you.

I believe that Governor Cuomo's nomination operated as a bribe and theft of honest services of a judge in our proceedings, and that Judge Stein, who has failed to recuse from the case after she was offered a material benefit by the party's boss (Governor Cuomo) during the pendency of the case fixed the court case in favor of her benefactor.

I demand to turn my complaint over for the action of the federal grand jury as to Andrew Cuomo and as to Judge Leslie Stein.

In the event that my demand to turn the case into the action of the federal grand jury is not honored, I reserve a right to resort to legal remedies available to me in order to compel your office to submit the case to the federal grand jury.

Moreover, since your investigation of the case must be complete by now, after more than 2 years of investigation, I request a copy of the investigative file, of all documents reflecting how the investigation was occurring, and the documents showing how the investigation was concluded, pursuant to FOIA.

Sincerely yours,

Tatiana Neroni
P.O. Box 3937
Pawleys Island, SC 29585


Whether Preet Bharara completed the investigation or not, whether he did any investigation of my complaint or not, and whether he does or does want to turn the case over for the action of a federal grand jury, existing legal mechanisms give me a standing to file a lawsuit in federal court to compel Preet Bharara to turn the case into the grand jury.

For that reason, I first filed a demand with Preet Bharara to turn the case into the federal grand jury.

If that is not done within a reasonable time, I have a right to sue Preet Bharara, to compel presenting the case to the federal grand jury.

I have filed the FOIA request/demand by e-mail, to have an electronic evidence that the FOIA request/ demand to turn the case into the grand jury was filed.

I will publish any responses to my FOIA request/demand.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment