"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.

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

On the need of urgent legislative intermediate and sunset review of unconstitutional practices in attorney regulation by New York appellate courts: New York attorney regulation courts are in open contempt of a direct US Supreme Court order as a matter of policy


On the need of urgent legislative intermediate and sunset review of

unconstitutional practices in attorney regulation by New York appellate courts


New York attorney regulation courts are in open contempt of a direct US Supreme Court order as a matter of policy


Tatiana Neroni, J.D.

October 26, 2021

List of cited authorities

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4, Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by the government...... 2, 3

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5, Right against self-incrimination................ 2, 3


Court cases

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)................................................... 2

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)............................................ 2

Matter of Albert O. Grant, 184 AD3d 315 (1st Dept 2020).................................... 4

Matter of Alexander L. Shapiro, 177 AD3d 28 (1st Dept 2019).................... 4

Matter of Craig F. Meltzer, 189 AD3d 80 (1st Dept 2020).................................... 4

Matter of Donald R. Dunn, 174 AD3d 175 (1st Dept 2019)............................. 4

Matter of Durove, 2015 NY Slip Op 08517, 135 AD3d 176 (1st Dept., November 19, 2015)............................ 5

Matter of Kavin L. Edwards, 171 AD3d 221 (1st Dept 2019)............................. 4

Matter of Lawrence A. Doris, 186 AD3d 23 (1st Dept 2020)............................... 4

Matter of Lori Vinciguerra, 188 AD3d 56 (1st Dept 2020).................................... 4

Matter of Marina Trubitsky, 183 AD3d 146 (1st Dept 2020)............................. 4

Matter of Paul Frieary, 190 AD3d 7 (1st Dept 2020)........................................... 4

Matter of Wayne A. Autry, 177 AD3d 44 (1st Dept 2019).................................... 4

Matter of William S. Winters, 190 AD3d 27 (1st Dept 2020)............................... 4

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958) 2

Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) 2,3



Other Authorities

22 NYCRR § 1240.7(b)(3)...................... 3

22 NYCRR 1240.9(2).............................. 3

22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1)......................... 3


In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that in any proceedings, civil or criminal, in rem or in personam, a person may not be made to produce documents to be used to incriminate him, or be made to testify against himself, based on protections of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution[1].

And, in 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the government may not obtain indirectly the result that it is not allowed to obtain directly, it may not strip people of their federal constitutional rights under the guise of some state policies[2].

New York attorney-regulating courts did not obey that US Supreme Court precedent and continued to strip attorneys of their licenses and livelihoods for refusal to engage in self-incrimination during investigations by licensing prosecutors.

Let’s not also forget that in regulating attorneys New York courts have been regulating a subject, “practice of law” that is not clearly defined by the State Legislature, and, thus, the entire regulatory scheme of lawyers is, and remains, unconstitutional and void for vagueness and overbreadth[3].

In view of continued defiance by New York lawyer-regulating courts of Boyd v US). and Speiser v Randall), in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court had to issue a direct order declaring unconstitutional specifically the practices of New York lawyer-regulating courts in stripping attorneys of their licenses and livelihoods for failure to produce records and for failure to testify during investigations meant to affect their licenses[4].


In answer to that direct court order by the U.S. Supreme Court New York attorney-regulating courts engaged in further defiance of constitutional precedent and criminal contempt of court as a matter of policy.

New York attorney-regulating courts have at least 3 policies in direct contempt of the U.S. Supreme Court order in Spevack v Klein.

Policy # 1.  The presiding judge of the attorney-regulating court may, by a court rule, help in investigation/prosecution of an attorney by compelling him to produce records and to testify by a judicial subpoena, or subpoena duces tecum, under the penalty of contempt-of-court for disobedience [5].  In fact that policy is, in and of itself, a contempt of a higher – U.S. Supreme – court order, directed at New York attorney regulated courts[6] and declaring unconstitutional this particular type of compulsion, violating 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, New York attorney regulating courts honor their rule higher than the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and a direct U.S. Supreme Court order.

Policy # 2.  In New York, a lawyer may be stripped of his law license “on the interim basis”, according to a state court rule –

·       during a licensing investigation,

·       before any formal charges are filed and

·       before the final adjudication of these charges,

·       simply for invoking his 4th and 5th Amendment privilege by:

o   Failing to respond to a complaint,

o   Failing to come to a deposition and testify against himself, and

o   Failing to produce records to be used against himself[7]

Policy # 3.  In New York, a lawyer may be automatically permanently stripped of his license if he/she persists in invoking his/her 4th/5th Amendment privilege for 6 months after he/she is initially stripped of his/her license because of invoking her 4th/5th Amendment privilege[8].


These 3 policies are written by New York lawyer-licensing courts as legislators expressing the will of these courts to defy a direct order of the U.S. Supreme Court in Spevack v Klein that declared unconstitutional the very actions that New York state courts authorized in their 3 rules by which attorneys in New York are automatically and summarily stripped of their licenses and livelihoods for invoking their constitutional rights in license-revocation proceedings, without any formal charges brought against them.

And, these openly and defiantly unconstitutional policies are not allowed to collect dust – they are actively used by the court to punish lawyers with banishment and starvation for disobedience, even though if that particular type of disobedience is what the U.S. Constitution (that each judge of the court is sworn to uphold) allows lawyers to do[9]. 

New York courts consider enforcement of these openly unconstitutional policies of such importance that they consider it necessary to make sure that, for example, a very elderly lawyer’s license is rather revoked for failure to cooperate with the investigation than surrendered voluntarily, as the lawyer asked the court to allow him to do[10] - an unreasonable viciousness, especially as compared to practices of New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct towards judges routinely allowing judges to resign from the bench for non-disciplinary reasons to save face.

These policies are undermining not only federal constitutional rights of particular lawyers who are stripped of their licenses for invoking their federal constitutional rights, but of the whole declared purpose of attorney regulation – protection of the public.

People cannot expect vigorous protection/defense of their constitutional rights from attorneys who are forbidden by state licensing authorities to protect their own constitutional rights and who must live out their entire professional life in fear that their license and livelihood can be yanked at any time for nothing more than invoking their federal constitutional rights that they are undoubtedly entitled to[11] - by a U.S. Supreme Court order directed specifically at New York attorney-regulated courts, no less.

People cannot be expected to trust legitimacy of all appellate court’s decisions when such appellate courts are openly defying – for over half a century, too - a U.S. Supreme Court order regarding their power over lawyers.

New York appellate courts must start doing their job in upholding the U.S. Constitution in their decisions rather than openly and defiantly violating the U.S. Constitution and a direct order of the U.S. Supreme Court in lawyer-regulating cases.  Courts cannot expect the public to rely on legitimacy of such courts’ decisions otherwise.

The openly unconstitutional policies in regulating lawyers in New York must be abolished, and regulation of lawyers in New York should be subjected to urgent legislative intermediate and sunset review in view of its general unconstitutionality and its pervasive unconstitutional policies and practices.

[1] Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).

[2] Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).

[3] See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values.

1.      First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.  

2.      Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them.  A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.  

3.      Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms."  Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked," footnotes omitted, emphasis added, the quotation structured.

[4] Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967).

[5] 22 NYCRR § 1240.7(b)(3) (“Investigation, Disclosure.  The Chief Attorney [of the attorney licensing prosecutors – T.N.] is authorized to apply to the Clerk of the Court for a subpoena to compel the attendance of a person as a respondent or witness, or the production of relevant books and papers, when it appears that the examination of such person or the production of such books and papers is necessary for a proper determination of the validity of a complaint. Subpoenas shall be issued by the Clerk in the name of the Presiding Justice and may be made returnable at a time and place specified therein”).

[6] Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967).

[7] See 22 NYCRR § 1240.9(a)(1): “§ 1240.9 Interim Suspension While Investigation or Proceeding is Pending (a) A respondent may be suspended from practice on an interim basis during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding on application or motion of a Committee, following personal service upon the respondent, or by substitute service in a manner approved by the Presiding Justice, and upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon: (1) the respondent’s default in responding to a petition, notice to appear for formal interview,

examination, or pursuant to subpoena under these Rules”.

[8] See 22 NYCRR 1240.9(2): “An application for suspension pursuant to this rule may provide notice that a respondent who is suspended under this rule and who has failed to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension may be disbarred by the Court without further notice”.

[9] See e.g. Matter of Wayne A. Autry, 177 AD3d 44 (1st Dept 2019) (lawyer’s license suspended for 3 months in New Jersey, but also indefinitely, “until further order of the court”, “based on his failure to cooperate

with two separate disciplinary investigations”, New York court added identical “reciprocal discipline”);

               Matter of Donald R. Dunn, 174 AD3d 175 (1st Dept 2019) (“failure to appear for a deposition as directed by a judicial subpoena … that evidenced a willful failure to cooperate with the AGC’s investigation, which warranted his interim suspension”);

               Matter of Kavin L. Edwards, 171 AD3d 221 (1st Dept 2019) (interim suspension for “failure to cooperate with the AGC’s investigation of professional misconduct”.  The lawyer “failed to submit a written answer to the disciplinary complaint and defaulted on the second day of his court ordered deposition”);

               Matter of Alexander L. Shapiro, 177 AD3d 28 (1st Dept 2019) (interim suspension for failure to cooperate with the investigation and appear at a deposition/interrogation following a judicial subpoena);

               Matter of Marina Trubitsky, 183 AD3d 146 (1st Dept 2020) (interim suspension for failure to appear at a deposition/interrogation following a judicial subpoena);

Matter of Craig F. Meltzer, 189 AD3d 80 (1st Dept 2020) (interim suspension for “failure to cooperate with the AGC’s investigation of professional misconduct); 

Matter of Lori Vinciguerra, 188 AD3d 56 (1st Dept 2020) (suspension for 3.5 years, one of the reasons – failure to provide to prosecutors information about lawyers’ employers since the year 2002); 

Matter of William S. Winters, 190 AD3d 27 (1st Dept 2020) (reciprocal with New Jersey suspension for 5 years for failure to cooperate with investigation);

Matter of Lawrence A. Doris, 186 AD3d 23 (1st Dept 2020) (interim suspension for failure to cooperate with investigation and be deposed/interrogated following a judicial subpoena);

Matter of Paul Frieary, 190 AD3d 7 (1st Dept 2020) (interim suspension for failure to cooperate with licensing investigators/prosecutors);

Matter of Albert O. Grant, 184 AD3d 315 (1st Dept 2020) (interim suspension for failure to cooperate with licensing prosecutors re accusations of criminal nature – theft).

[10]  See e.g. Matter of I. Frederick Shotkin, 174 AD3d 146 (1st Dept 2019) (a 91-year-old lawyer asked the court to allow him to voluntarily surrender his license for non-disciplinary reasons, the court denied that request and took the license through a public “interim suspension” for failure to cooperate with investigation); 

[11] See e.g.  Matter of Durove, 2015 NY Slip Op 08517, 135 AD3d 176 (1st Dept., November 19, 2015) where the court states that allegations of a client against the attorney (of criminal nature) cannot be proven on the documentary evidence licensing prosecutors obtained, but that does not matter because the attorney may be stripped of his license, before the investigation is complete and before any formal charges are filed, on an “interim basis” simply because he refused to be interrogated by licensing prosecutors.   

Monday, October 25, 2021

Amnesty International has launched a petition regarding unlawful detention of civil rights attorney Steven Donziger convicted of contempt of court and disbarred in New York for winning a 9.5 BILLION dollar judgment in Ecuador for victims of environmental catastrophe committed by the oil giant Chevron

 Here is the text of the petition:

"First UA: 105/21 Index: AMR 51/4915/2021 Date: 25 October 2021 



On 1 October, Steven Donziger, a lawyer and environmental rights defender who successfully represented victims of oil dumping in Ecuador, was sentenced to six months in prison on a politically motivated ‘contempt of court’ charge. 

He has already spent more than two years under house arrest in a process that United Nations experts found lacks any legal basis and is in violation of numerous fair trial standards. 

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that his detention is in retaliation for his work as a lawyer for the Indigenous communities in Ecuador. 

He must be released immediately and unconditionally.


Attorney General Merrick Garland 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 USA 

Dear Attorney General Garland, 

Steven Donziger is a US lawyer and environmental rights defender who has represented victims of oil dumping in an emblematic case against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador, following accusations that the corporation was responsible for what is widely considered one of the worst oil-related environmental disasters in recent history. 

He has been under pre-trial house arrest since August 2019 after he refused to comply with a court order to hand over his electronic devices, arguing that such a disclosure could compromise the confidentiality of the communications with his clients and put them at risk. 

The detention follows a long-running smear campaign of intimidation and harassment against Steven Donziger and other human rights defenders by Chevron. 

In September 2021, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Steven Donziger’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary because it lacks any legal basis and is in violation of several norms relating to the right to a fair trial, including the apparent lack of impartiality of the courts. 

Moreover, the Working Group concluded that his detention appears to be in retaliation for his work as a legal representative of Indigenous communities in Ecuador. 

Despite serious concerns over the lack of independence, objectivity and impartiality of the judge who ordered the pre-trial house arrest and who has overseen the trial over criminal contempt charges, Steven Donziger was sentenced on 1 October to the maximum penalty of 6 months in prison and denied the possibility to be released pending an appeal. 

I urge the Department of Justice to assume jurisdiction over the case instead of the private prosecutor, and promptly implement the UN Working Group’s decision by ensuring that Steven Donziger is released immediately and unconditionally. 

I also call on you to launch a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding Steven Donziger’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty and take the necessary measures to ensure that corporations do not abuse the justice system to target and harass human rights defenders

Yours sincerely"

What is prominently lacking in the petition is an indication that Donziger was also DISBARRED by the same court that suspended Rudy Giuliani - disbarred in a summary fashion, too, without a hearing, FOR SCORING THE BIGGEST CIVIL RIGHTS ENVIRONMENTAL WIN IN HISTORY!!!

The omission is deliberate - "Amnesty International" is a product of ABA's "Rule of Law" (neocolonial capture of the world) initiative, and does not want to shoot itself in the foot showing to the public that its sponsors are COMPLICIT PARTICIPANTS in abuse of justice system and harassing of human rights defenders.

Now comes the question - WILL the United Nation or WILL IT NOT launch its own investigation into political prosecutions of human rights defenders in the United States, at least based on Steven Donziger's case, even though he is only one of many similarly persecuted, harassed and abused civil rights attorneys?

On the lightning striking twice into the same Delaware County judicial seat - an afterthought on the sudden "retirement" of "judge" Richard Northrup, Delaware County, New York

Isn't it just a little weird to a reasonable observer that in a county with disappearing population, over a period of just 6 years, two judges, one after the other, ran from the same judicial seat mid-term, each forfeiting( $209,000 (salary per year) - 114,000 (annual pension)) times 3.5 years = $332,500 in income? 

While neither one of them was known for letting a penny pass by?

And each forfeiting this kind of money to "spend more time with their family, travel, sleep and take care of their well-being"?

And this is happening despite absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office given to all American judges by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stump v Sparkman and despite efforts of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to shred without investigation all complaints against judges no matter how serious and how well supported by documentary evidence?

In a county the size of several European country with population of around 40,000 (thousand, no mistake) people - meaning, a thin-populated county with a lot of rural roads, some through the mountains, close to New York City - a haven for all kinds of traffickers: drug, guns, other contraband, slave-trading - adult and child.

WHAT did Judge Becker and then his friend and successor on the throne Judge Northrup do to trigger THE BOOT?

Shouldn't the FBI look closer at this County just based on this improbable statistic - 

2 judges resigned from the same seat mid-term within 6 years?  Again, in a county with nearly no population and a lot of secret roads for all kinds of trafficking?

I think people have a right to know - what is REALLY going on.

What did Dick Northrup do on top of the "usual" shenannigans allowed to New York judges to be booted off the bench mid-term - just like his friend Carl Becker was?

This past Friday County "Judge" Richard Northrup

has officially retired from his unlawfully held position, only 6 years into the 10-year term.

Coincidentally, the same - running from the bench midterm - was done by the person who has illegally sworn him in office, being at the time a private citizen - see in the picture below the former County Judge Carl F. Becker, donning a judicial robe as if he is still a judge, swearing Northrup in into his own former judicial seat (they can't both be judges at the same time regarding the same judicial vacancy, right?).

Becker, friend of Northrup who "swore in" Northrup to become a judge as illegal as Becker in his 1st term - Becker did not file certificate of election as required by law in 2002 and forged it in 2011 when I pointed the lack of it in a motion to vacate his decision as not being decisions of a lawful judge.

Becker, friend to Northrup so close that Northrup allowed him to annul legitimacy of his judgeship by having a private person to impersonate a judge and to publicly and illegally administer Northrup's judicial oath of office, was a very frequently-reversed judge, 

famous for helping his friend Northrup to win criminal cases by eliminating good criminal defense attorneys by pulling their licenses - Becker eliminated 3 criminal defense attorneys who bothered him and his friend Northrup with motions, appeals and civil rights lawsuits.

Becker thus helped Northrup eliminate David Roosa who in his lawsuit in federal court (a public record) disclosed that Becker complained against Roosa and had his law license pulled for providing effective representation to indigent criminal defendants in assigned cases - Roosa treated cases of indigent defenses with no difference to cases of retained clients, doing the full amount of work, including discovery and motions, which enraged Becker (the lawsuit was, of course, dismissed on "absolute judicial immunity" grounds without review of Becker's conduct on the merits - as all other lawsuits against him were hushed down). 

Becker was also the judge who eliminated from the reach of Delaware County (and beyond) people a team of husband and wife criminal defense, Family Court (defense-against-CPS) and civil rights attorneys Frederick and Tatiana Neroni who Becker was especially upset about because 

  1. they were "double-teaming" (Becker's word) at criminal trials - one looking through documents provided by the prosecution right before testimony of the witness spotting necessary issues to ask questions and adding to the questions of the other while the other was cross-examining the witness, because
  2. they were in court every day, even though Becker never assigned cases to them - because people hired them based on their skills, and because
  3. they did not hold back and were not afraid to make motions to recuse Becker.
Becker first tried to eliminate both by orchestrating a bogus child neglect proceedings against both of them accompanied by a police/DA's criminal investigation and prosecution by his friend Northrup.

When that failed, Becker assigned himself - after an initial recusal - to all civil cases where the couple appeared, refused to recuse himself, imposed sanctions on the wife for making motions to recuse him, fixed the case against the husband, and orchestrated disbarment of the husband and suspension of the wife - which helped Northrup as a prosecutor a lot, since first the husband, and then the husband-and-wife team ran, for years, a 24/7 legal clinic where anybody could call or come at any time of day or night and receive legal advice, the first consultation - always for free.

As it has become a "time-honored tradition" in Delaware County and the greater upstate area, local journalists are only brave to bash Trump (since it is allowed by the state establishment), but are extremely timid to point out corruption and misconduct of local public officials, especially those with tremendous power, like prosecutors and judges.

In view of timidity of local journalists, I will do their job for them in this article, covering - as a first-hand witness or expert who have reviewed the records - the true "accomplishments" of the supposed "jurist" Richard Northrup.

As shown in the public database of New York licensed attorneys, "judge" Northrup has gotten his law license in 1984:

According to the local accolade to Northrup on his retirement, Northrup is a native of Walton, New York, and - in my free interpretation of what that accolade said - broke out on his own after law school and for the first 2 years of his practice practiced criminal defense in Greene County where he even worked, fresh out of law school, as an "assistant public defender for Greene County".

Apparently, Northrup did not survive on his own in his private practice and in 2 years' time returned to his parents in Walton.

For 6 years he was trying to practice on his own under his parents' wing in Walton - which also was not very successful.

I personally reviewed one of the documents created by Northrup in his private practice, the will of Arthur Kilmer Sr, so convoluted that courts of two levels, Delaware County Supreme Court and Appellate Division 3rd Department - as well as several attorney teams - could not figure out who out of the testator's numerous children and grandchildren gets what according to that will.

Being no good in criminal defense and no good in civil private practice, in other words, failing in his private law practice even under the wing of his parents, Northrup resorted to the refuge of all incompetent and corrupt individuals - he decided to "serve" people as a taxpayer-salaried public official.

So, in 1992, at the age of 33, Northrup switched sides in criminal cases and started to work for prosecution, being no good in criminal defense.

The difference between the required competence of a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney in New York is that the criminal defense attorney should actually work, and a prosecutor should have a pulse and a law license:

  1. the prosecutor is the legal advisor of the grand jury that - by words of the former Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Sol Watchler - can indict a ham sandwich;
  2. the majority of criminal court judges are themselves former prosecutors, often from the same or parallel (County Attorney, CPS prosecutor) offices who heavily help prosecutors in criminal cases; AND
  3. criminal prosecutors have been (illegally) immunized by the U.S. Supreme Court for committing crimes in office, fabricating wrongful conviction, engaging in corrupt schemes and violating constitutional rights of criminal defendants and other people related to the criminal prosecution.

Let me recall once again - I believe, I did it in one of my previous articles about Northrup - my first recollection of Northrup's competence as a prosecutor that prompted me to say that all he needed to be a DA was a law license and a pulse, no competence or brains needed.

At that time, I was still a law student who my husband took with him to attend him as an assistant at a trial for felony rape.

Northrup was the prosecutor on the case.

He presented the jury with a piece of evidence in a ziploc - underwear with reddish-brown spots on it.

Here comes cross-examination by my husband to the police officer witness on the stand (by recollection):

Question: do you know what kind of spots are those?

Answer:    I assume it is the victim's blood.

Question:    How do you know?

Answer:    I don't know.

Question:    Did you have this piece of evidence checked by an expert to verify if these brown spots are blood at all?

Answer:    No.

Question:    So, you do not know whether these spots are blood or wine or paint?

Answer:    No, I don't know.

THIS was the "piece of evidence" that Northrup was proudly parading in a ziplock in front of a jury!

Without putting in any effort whatsoever to properly prepare for trial and to at least attempt to verify that the assertion he is making in court - that the evidence he is offering is blood of the victim on the victim's underware - is not wine or paint, is blood, and is specifically the victim's blood.

This is the quality of "public service" that Northrup was providing - at a high salary, for years - to the public.  

Let's go on with his proud biography of public servant, as presented by the accolade of the now-radical leftist rag "The Daily Star" from Oneonta, NY.

Having qualified as an assistant prosecutor, with his pulse and his license intact, Northrup made a quick career and already in 1996, at the age of 37, after just 4 years of being an assistant district attorney, became Delaware County District Attorney.

He remained in that position for 19 years, 4 3/4 terms, getting re-elected 5 times, before he ran for the judicial seat vacated by his friend Carl Becker (who ran from the bench mid-term chased by a triple investigation by upon information from my personal sources - by the FBI, the State Comptroller, and the State Judicial Conduct Commission.)

On becoming District Attorney in 1996 and having discretion as an employer to hire part-time assistant district attorneys - who are allowed to continue to practice law privately - Northrup made a wise (for his career) decision, hiring as an Assistant District attorney and then making Chief Assistant District attorney John Hubbard, law partner to Carl Becker, the then assistant County Attorney and CPS prosecutor.

When Becker became judge in 2002, District Attorney Northrup failed to disclose to criminal defense attorneys (including my husband Frederick J. Neroni since 2002 and myself since 2009) that he employed as his 2nd-in-command the criminal court judge's law partner.

I truly believe that all criminal convictions attained in the period between 2002 and 2015 before judge Becker must be vacated because of this non-disclosure - by Northrup and by Becker.

John Hubbard disclosed that he was a law partner of Carl Becker only when he himself ran for the position of the District Attorney in 2016, after Northrup became a judge in Becker's place and Hubbard - Acting District Attorney in Northrup's place.

Even when I reported Judge Becker to the DA's office for having committing a crime, filing the required certificate of election in 2002, that was never filed and then forged and filed in 2011, when all documentary proof of that election was long gone - John Hubbard talked to me, never disclosing that he was Becker's law partner and only asked - "why do you need this?"

And, of course, Becker returned the favor Hubbard gave his old law partner for not criminally prosecuting Becker - Becker got himself assigned to a case reviewing Hubbard's own former botched representation of clients 

("In October 2004, plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase and harvest timber upon property owned by defendants Bradley W. Torum and Samme Chittum-Torum (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). Defendants thereafter conveyed the property, without reserving plaintiff's rights, to individuals who refused to permit the collection of the timber. This action against defendants and the purchasers of the property ensued" - 

attorneys for the parties on that supposedly improper conveyance of the property was Becker's law partner John Hubbard (conveniently hired by DA Northrup to please Becker and win criminal cases) and Becker's friend and then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney, more about Spinney below). 

Naturally, Becker should not have touched that case with a 10-foot pole because of his multiple grounds for disqualifications - but he did, and his sanction against me for making a motion to recuse him was one of the sanctions which he used to have my law license pulled, without a hearing, automatically.

Becker's rage against me was apparent to anybody who frequented court hearings where Becker reacted to my appearances for my clients as to a red rag, exploding to anything I say and telling me publicly to "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni".

Of course, Hubbard and Northrup, Becker's buddies, never prosecuted Becker and those who helped him file a forged certificate of election - for their crimes.

DA Northrup had a yet another accomplishment: he was 

When I saw that agreement in black and white as a public record - it is still a public record in Delaware County courthouse at 3 Court Street, Delhi, NY 13753 in the criminal case People v Richard Carbone - I was shocked.  I simply could not believe my eyes.

For public officials to misuse their positions so that to SELL supposed leniency in criminal cases in exchange for personal favors to them - waivers of the defendants' rights to sue them in federal court for money, in their individual capacity - is, very plainly, selling decisions in criminal cases for bribes, which is a crime, state and federal.

Northrup and Becker had a good cover to protect them on all sides from any accountability for that crime - the defense attorney prior to me on the case who stepped into the case illegally, without filing with the court a formal substitution of attorney, and for the only purpose to get a quick buck on that "plea-for-waiver/bribe" scheme from his blind client who didn't know what he was signing - and the defense counsel did not tell him - was no other than the then-Vice Chair of the New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct Stephen Coffey.

And on that Commission (I wonder if she was also on the take for a portion of that money) was the Presiding justice of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters) - who, being also the chief of attorney-licensing court, orchestrated pulling licenses of both my husband and my own after I have upset the plea-for-waiver/bribe scheme, publicly humiliated Coffey and Peters and had the money returned to my legally blind client.

As I said above, I addressed this illegal "practice" in criminal and then - successfully, despite threats -  in a related civil case.

After my success on appeal - summary judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings, Becker 
  • got the judge in the civil case replaced, 
  • got himself assigned to that case, 
  • where the Plaintiff was Becker's girlfriend and 
  • her attorney, Becker's longtime friend and boss, then-Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney admitted in open court on record to ex parte communication with Becker about the case.
Then, answering my motion to have him recused from the case for obvious conflicts of interest, Becker sanctioned me for "frivolous conduct" and "threat to the court" (I warned him that when I sue him and Northrup on his illegal policy, I will call them as witnesses), quickly complained against me to licensing authorities and had my license pulled without a hearing.

So, I am a witness to this policy of forcing criminal defendants to sign waivers of their right to sue Judge Becker, DA Northrup and the police participating in bringing the criminal case about (so, the County Attorney had to be in on it, too) through just one case - People v Carbone, and, as a witness, I was eliminated by the Northrup-Becker team.

By the way, before my husband Frederick Neroni got disbarred, in the spring of 2011, Northrup's career ticket to Becker's favors, Becker's law partner Hubbard, then Chief Assistant District Attorney to Northrup, approached my husband and, addressing his arguments regarding that illegal "pleas-for-waivers/bribes" on appeal of the criminal case People v Carbone, threatened my husband, telling him point blank that he is "burning bridges", and requested to withdraw these arguments from the appeal.

When my husband refused, in 2 months he was disbarred by Karen Peters' court.

Hubbard, not being extremely bright, also told me privately that the "pleas-for-waivers/bribes" policy of Northrup's DA's office was a "usual policy" into many plea bargain agreements.

I do not know whether Hubbard, now the County DA, still continued this illegal "policy", with Northrup, his former employer and benefactor, as a judge, and will continue it now when Northrup retired.

Did I also mention that Northrup, being a DA, refused to prosecute Ellen Coccoma, County Attorney for Delaware County, wife of then-Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, for her crimes committed during her illegal (in view of being a full-time employee and officer of Otsego County) representation of private clients trying to enforce - tada! - Northrup's botched will of Arthur Kilmer Sr?  During which Ellen Coccoma herself committed several fraudulent acts - but was, of course, never sanctioned given her pedigree?

I must say that before the Northrup-Becker-Hubbard-Coffey-Peters team accomplished their task to pull my license, though, I did have the money stolen from my client with the help of Becker, Northrup, Becker's girlfriend Shields, and County Attorney Spinney return to my legally blind client.

When Northrup became a judge, I know of at least one case where he acted as a judge in the case where he previously acted as a prosecutor - which the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed in 2016 was unconstitutional.

Northrup could not escape conflicts in his judicial position where he became a judge in 2015 handling CPS and criminal cases while for 23 prior years Northrup learnt everything there was to learn about everybody in Delaware County through criminal and CPS investigations shared with the DA's office, as New York law requires.

He obviously could not escape making his judicial determinations in such cases (as his friend Becker did) upon what is called "extra-judicial evidence", information from reports he obtained during his 23 years as a criminal prosecutor - and this type of RISK of judicial bias is simply unacceptable in a court in a supposed democratic society.

Now, as a parting gift to Delaware County taxpayers, 
  • this "distinguished jurist" retired mid-term - which means taxpayers will have to pay for an extra election for his replacement - and 
  • used the government facility, at taxpayers' expense and during taxpayer-paid business hours, for his retirement party - he has hosted a reception, in court.

By the way, the filing of the forged documents by Sharon O'Dell was in the case based on Hubbard's and Spinney's botched representation of clients - Hubbard and Spinney, of course, were never sanctioned, but I was for trying to get Becker off that case with the help of a motion to recuse.

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to even investigate that complaint - which Northrup perceived as a permission to do the same and throw more parties in the courthouse at taxpayer expense and during court time, now in his own "honor".

What an accomplished individual!

Last, but not least "accomplishment" that came out from the official eulogy on Richard Northrup's retirement is his lament about the lack of criminal defense attorneys for the indigent/poor criminal defendants.

a need for additional assigned counsel should be reduced to those cases where the Public Defender's office has a conflict or is overloaded.

Yet, the practice, according to Northrup himself, of getting attorneys, at the cost of $60 (for misdemeanors) and $75 (for felonies and family court cases) an hour for travel time out of Delhi NY and out of Delaware County, continues.

Northrup says that he "solicits attorneys from other cities and counties" to represent the indigent, up to Binghamton (an hour and a half away, more so in winter time and in case of traffic jams).

To hire an attorney out of Binghamton at $75 an hour means that every personal appearance of that attorney in court costs Delaware County taxpayers $225 more than an appearance of an attorney from Delhi, NY.

I know of one "disqualification" of an attorney living in Delhi, NY within a walking distance to the courthouse (1/2 mile, 1-minute's drive, as Google shows).  She is the daughter of two attorneys, Frederick Neroni and Tatiana Neroni who Northrup with his friend Becker successfully removed from criminal cases - so that they would not interfere with their career paths by their effective representation of every client, privately retained, assigned or pro bono (which we did a lot).  Northrup never assigned one case to that attorney in his 6 years of judgeship, neither did other judges.  They preferred to have Delaware County taxpayers pay the extra $225 for appearances of attorneys out of Binghamton instead.

So, let's summarize the accomplishments of jurist Dick Northrup listed above:

  1. a failed public defender and criminal defense attorney;
  2. a failed private practitioner who botched wills so that courts could not figure out who gets what how after the death of the testator;
  3. a prosecutor who has hired judge's law partner to (without disclosure to defense counsel) drum up more convictions from the judge;
  4. a prosecutor who refused to prosecute that same judge for committing crimes in office;
  5. a prosecutor who colluded with that same judge in an illegal policy blackmailing criminal defendants (including blind ones) into waiving their rights to sue the judge, the prosecutor, the police and the county for constitutional violations in federal courts as a price of getting leniency in plea bargains in criminal cases - in other words, the prosecutor was selling leniency in criminal conviction in exchange of waivers of personal liability for money in potential federal future court cases;
  6. A person who illegally took the bench for 6 years after an illegal oath of office administered by a private individual, a friend and benefactor, former judge;
  7. A person who presided as a judge over cases he handled as a prosecutor;
  8. A person who wasted Delaware County taxpayer's money for personal benefit or out of personal grudges - by 
  • not assigning local counsel to cases because they are presumably trained by skilled attorneys Northrup with his friend Becker already eliminated, instead assigning counsel from out of the county and having Delaware County taxpayers paying extra $225 for each appearance of such counsel in court,
  • by "retiring" mid-term and having Delaware County taxpayers finance an extra election - same as his friend Becker did in 2015 to have Northrup take his place;
  • by throwing parties at taxpayers' expense and during taxpayer-paid court business time in the courthouse in honor of his own retirement.

Northrup has accomplished over his lifetime of "public service" a lot - and a lot for which people without his prosecutorial and judicial immunity/permission to commit crimes in office would be doing hard time behind bars for the rest of their lives.

I repeatedly turned Northrup and some other local judges in for his shenannigans to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and they rejected without even an attempt to investigate them, even though they were supported with documentary evidence of misconduct, including criminal misconduct in office.

Given that NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is a costly (for taxpayers) shredding machine for complaints against state judges, and judges in the state of New York are allowed to commit about ANY crime in office without any accountability, I have a serious question:

WHAT EXACTLY DID NORTHRUP DO that he was booted mid-term - because that's exactly what it is.

When a judge resigns (without citing health reasons) "to spend more time with his family, travel and sleep more and focus on his well-being" 

while earning $210,900 a year,

reducing his income to a nearly twice smaller pension - like his friend Carl Becker is now getting:

there must be a hefty reason for this - sudden, too! - "retirement".

It simply does not happen in New York without the judge being BOOTED FOR MISCONDUCT SO BAD that even the all-tolerating New York system of "judicial (un)accountability" can't take it.

Which, again, begs the question - what exactly could Northrup manage to do so that the all-permissive New York system would not allow him to "serve" out the remaining 3.5 years of his term?

I welcome input from local sources in answer to this question (confidentiality guaranteed).