To answer concerns of lay witnesses at the public hearings before the Commission for Statewide Attorney Discipline - mechnisms of getting rid of court challenges to selective enforcement of attorney disciplinary rules are tossed by federal courts

In the case Neroni v Zayas (my husband's case) my husband described several situations where high-ranking attorneys, including those with familial ties to high-ranking judges or retired judges, wee not prosecuted by disciplinary committees for misconduct which was unquestionable based on documentary evidence and well publicized.

The lawsuit (Amended Complaint is published on Facebook) clearly names the situations and the attorneys who escaped attorney discipline because of their pedigrees.

My husband raised the issue that attorney disciplinary system, as it exists today, exists to whitewash and protect high-ranking and politically connected attorneys from misconduct while eliminating competition from independent solo attorneys and quashing political dissent by destroying such attorneys' credibility, reputation and livelihood through disbarment.

That claim was dismissed "for lack of standing".

Noting that lay legal consumers did raise issues of selective enforcement of attorney discipline, or, rather, its non-enforcement against criminal prosecutors (despite thousands of ascertained wrongful convictions where prosecutorial misconduct was a factor), and noting how members of the Commission immediately engaged in attempts to dissuade witnesses that such selective enforcement is taking place, I will show the mechanism of how federal courts avoid review of such claims, thus further encouraging and perpetuating selective enforcement of attorney discipline.

Neroni v Zayas, Case No. 3:13-cv-127-LEK-DEP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Dkt. 46, p. 9 (decided on March 31, 2014):

        "Plaintiff's eleventh cause of action challenges 
        'the Committee's selective non-enforcement of
        attorney discipline in regards to attorneys having
        high-rank familial and political connections, 
        de facto creating a class of legal nobility in New York'.
        
        He seeks 'a declaration that the whole scheme of 
        enforcement of attorney disciplinary rules is
        unconstitutional".

First, the court states that any challenges to the order of disbarment are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Mr. Neroni did not challenge in that claim an order of disbarment, but the policy of selective enforcement, or non-enforcement of attorney discipline creating a title of nobility in violation of federal U.S. Constitution.

Second, the court states (incorrectly, without fully or attentively reading the 87-age complaint, which is clear from the decision) that

        "All that remains is therefore a generalized grievance
        against the regulation of attorneys in New York, which is
        insufficient to confer Article III standing.

         Furthermore, Plaintiff supports this cause of action
         by identifying attorneys who have not been disciplined
         for misconduct alleged by Plaintiff (Am. Compl. paragraphs
         299-332).  However, 'a private citizen lacks a judicially
         cognizable interest in prosecution or nonprosecution of
         another'.  Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
         (1973).  Plaintiff therefore does not have standing to bring
         a claim challenging the selective non-enforcement of 
         attorney disciplinary rules".

Brilliant.

Yet, note that Mr. Neroni did not assert (nor did the court state he did) a private right to bring disciplinary proceedings against "identified attorneys".

The only claim he was making was for a declaratory judgment declaring the system of attorney disciplinary proceedings unconstitutional as TAINTED, BY POLICY, by selective enforcement and non-enforcement - the EXACT SAME issues that the State of New York is "reviewing" in public hearings before the Statewide Commission, while at the same time fighting the appeal of THAT SAME ISSUE by Mr. Neroni.

 And note, too, that while a "private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in prosecution or nonprosecution of another", a panel consisting of super-majority of such private individuals, legal consumers, would have such authority in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Four intermediate Appellate Court in the State of New York have rule-making authority (usurped, in my opinion), define the structure of attorney disciplinary committees with super-majorities of attorneys on such committees, so that legal consumers would have no say on the committees whatsoever.

Those Appellate Courts could and should have changed that structure to super-majority of legal consumers at any time, especially since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court made in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission on February 25, 2015 confirmed exactly what Mr. Neroni also claimed in his lawsuit and that the federal court dismissed as a "generalized grievance":

that supermajority of competitors on the disciplinary committees, created by the adjudicating court for the benefit of secretly selected private attorneys who "serve" on such committees violate disciplined attorney's due process of law (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 271, 277-78, 298, 301, 303-04, 330 - the court cited these paragraphs in its decision to dismiss).

What is even more interesting to mention is that some of the "identified attorneys" in the complaint dismissed by the Senior federal judge Lawrence Kahn were communicating (directly or through their law partners) with Judge Kahn behind closed doors through the organization called The American Inns of Court.

And, the American Inns of Court is now information that Judge Kahn and his pair in the litigation, Magistrate David Peebles, are both "officers" of American Inns of Court, are both meeting with attorneys or law partners of attorneys identified in Mr. Neroni's lawsuit and likely are receiving monetary and non-monetary benefits (free monthly wining and dining) from such attorneys and their law firms.

The interesting part about hiding is the sequence of how that information was in the open, then was hidden, then was once again in the open, then was once again hidden - and then the cached copy of what was hidden was instantly destroyed (but not before I was able to save it).

The hiding occurred when I filed a lawsuit of my own targeting the hiding, reappeared when the lawsuit was dismissed, by the challenged court itself, before it was served, and then was hidden when I, once again, mentioned Judge Kahn and his shenannigans in my blog.

Well, at least you can see that bought judges are afraid of publicity.

Yet, shenanigans of Judge Kahn out of court make any and all legal arguments made by Judge Kahn in court about standing, governmental interests and justiciability simply laughable.  All the judge Kahn cared about here is to continue to receive material benefits from the "identified attorneys" belonging to legal elite.

In Neroni v Zayas, Judge Kahn, apparently, says - you have no justiciably cognizable interest in any violation of your civil rights, no matter how hard you try.  Because I am here, guarding the door.

Actually, the Chief Judge of the court, Gary L. Sharpe, considered Judge Kahn's "motivated" dismissal of most of the claims insufficienty.

While the remaining claims were still pending before Judge Kahn, Judge Sharpe imposed upon Mr. Neroni an anti-filing injunction claiming that his claims in Neroni v Zayas, all of them, including the still pending, and those dismissed claims which are raised over and over again by lay consumers of legal services in front of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, are frivolous.

For bringing those "frivolous" claims, Gary Sharpe prohibited Mr. Neroni from filing lawsuits asking Judge Sharpe's court to provide a remedy for NEW constitutional violations against Mr. Neroni without reciting to Gary Sharpe all lawsuits Mr. Neroni ever brought (and in his 37 years as an attorney he brought a lot of them, an uncountable number in fact), recite all sanctions imposed upon him by biased judges and provide proof that he paid those sanctions - which has absolutely nothing to do with his right to sue for NEW federal constitutional violations.

That was done by Gary Sharpe in retaliation for Mr. Neroni's and my own criticism of Gary Sharpe for not recusing in a string of cases where New York State Attorney General represented parties in front of Judge Sharpe while employing Judge Sharpe's son - and did it for years, consistently ruling for the clients of Judge Sharpe's son's employer.

Apparently, now Mr. Neroni needs to keep away from the State of New York, because refusal of the federal court to consider his new constitutional claim is an invitation to the state government to violate his constituttional rights.  


What Gary Sharpe did is put a bull's eye on my husband branding him as an outlaw not eligible for protection of federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.  While Gary Sharpe took office on an oath to uphold equal protection of laws, the rule of law, and that same U.S. Constitution - as to every person located on the U.S. soil.


Just the illustration as to how federal lawsuits challenging various constitutional problems are made to disappear, and in this case - selective enforcement of laws and creating legal elite which is above the law, which is EXACTLY what is being discussed by lay witnesses before the Statewide Commission on Attorney Dicipline.

Because judges who decide such cases, are themselves members of such legal elite, benefit by it, and will not do anything to undo their own cozy existence.

Rule of law?

No, bought judges.

 

Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline, "public" hearing in Buffalo - drumming up business even there

The Statewide Commission was presented to the public at the hearing as the "brainchild" of the pre-eminent Chief Judge of the State of New York.

Well, if you can call the panic attack of Judge Lippman to do something after the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners case according to which members of disciplinary committees and those who set them into action and allow them to proceed the way they proceed, are committing federal antitrust felonies.

Of course, Judge Lippman never announced to the public that the real purpose of the Commission is to do something to preserve the current status quo for those who have long made attorney disciplinary process their business, because installing super-majorities of - the horror! - consumers of legal services in the place of attorneys, which is the current situation, will upset financial well-beings of too many attorneys.

I am currently reviewing the transcripts of the "public" hearings of the Commission recently posted on the Commission's website.

So far I have read two transcripts - the Albany transcript (over 60 pages) and the Buffalo transcript (71 pages).  It will take me a while to read the next one, NYC transcript (161 pages), but I wanted to share some of the impressions from reading the Buffalo transcript while they are still fresh in my mind.

As to the two transcripts of the Commission's public hearings I've read so far - Albany and Buffalo, one more aspect was added through the Buffalo transcript that was not present in the Albany transcript, and that is relentless business-drumming by two attorneys with a business interest to preserve the status quo in the disciplinary proceedings, one of whom was the Chair of the disciplinary committee in that same department and now represents attorneys in disciplinary proceedings. 

His colleague who is in the same business of representing attorneys in disciplinary proceedings was there, too.

I will omit names at this point, I will present scans of testimony with detailed comments later.

What I want to say now is - even with the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners' case looming over their heads, even with the Commission called as an emergency to make efforts to preserve the status quo so that the disciplinary process in New York is not dissolved as unlawful antitrust activity by the feds, members of the Commission were still at it - drumming up business and absolving themselves from any wrongdoing.

TWICE was one of the Commission members, an appellate judge Lindley, confronted with the claim that specifically criticized his activity as a judge.

A brave female attorney, Stephanie Sanders, representing the Minority bar association, expressed her personal opinion that disciplinary committees are engaged in racial profiling.

Judge Lindley attempted to rebut that by quoting, without naming names, only two African American attorneys who were allegedly disciplined by the courts. 

First, for Judge Lindley, apparently, only African Americans are minorities in this great country. 

Second, to Ms. Sanders credit to her courage, she did not back down and continued to confront Judge Lindley (I will follow her fate - if she will be later retaliated against) by stating that she asked for the statistics on race of attorneys who were disciplined and was told that such statistics was unavailable.

So, it clearly looked like Judge Lindley was caught in a lie, because he was pretending to know statistics of race of disciplined attorneys (when most often disciplinary proceedings are conducted on paper without even seeing the disciplined attorney and without the attorney's race ever appearing in the record of the proceedings) - the statistics that the committees intentionally did not collect.

The second time when Judge Lindley was caught in a lie was by a lay legal consumer, a victim of a wrongful criminal prosecution and the founder and co-chair of the organization dealing with wrongful convictions called "It Could Happen To You", Bill Bastuk. 

Judge Lindley previously claimed that disciplinary committee do not engage in selective non-enforcement of attorney discipline against prosecutors involved in wrongful convictions.  Judge Lindley claimed that he knows of four prosecutors who were allegedly disciplined (without giving names, name of the appellate department where such an extraordinary event allegedly occurred, or time period over which the whopping 4 prosecutors were allegedly disciplined).

That number was against close to 4,000 wrongful convictions involving prosecutorial misconduct, as confirmed by studies conducted by the Innocence Project, It Can Happen To You organization and a Michigan Law School study - all quoted later in the Buffalo hearing. 

4 out of 4000 is a great number to begin with.  It is what - 0.1%?  Great.

Well, Judge Lindley was caught in a lie on that one, too.

Bill Bastuk testified that he was and still is an unremedied victim of wrongful criminal prosecution where two named prosecutors, until the bitter end, insisted on withholding exculpatory evidence from him while prosecuting him for rape that never happened (luckily, he was acquitted - but after spending $150,000 on his defense) - relayed to the Commission this story.

He sued the two prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence in his case, the case got dismissed on prosecutorial immunity grounds - and Bill Bastuk raised the issue that I keep raising in this blog for an eternity:  why his dismissed lawsuit was not used to commence disciplinary proceedings against the two prosecutors?  And I will add that absolute prosecutorial immunity was even invented on the rationale that alternative ways - through attorney discipline - are available to bring accountability to the prosecutors.  Well, such ways are unavailable in New York, so prosecutorial immunity should not be given.

According to Mr. Bastuk, when a proposal was made by his organization It Can Happen To You to the New York State Legislature, in view of the fact that prosecutorial misconduct is consistently not addressed by the attorney grievance committees, to establish a separate independent Commission for prosecutorial misconduct, representatives of the District Attorneys Association "descended upon the Capitol like paratroopers" (his words), in order to lobby the Legislature and persuade Senators DeFrancisco and Bonacic who were handling the Bill S24 not to promote that Bill - because everything is good the way it is (wrongful convictions and all).

The DA's Association claimed (same as Judge Lindley at the Buffalo hearing) that they have a list of disciplined prosecutors.

The Senators are still waiting for that list - and it has been a long time.

The inconvenient truth is - there is no such list, or, if a prosecutor was ever disciplined in the glorious state of New York (and then - censured, not suspended or disbarred as the "mere mortal" attorneys are), that was the Albany County DA, and he was prosecuted not for withholding exculpatory evidence, but for criticizing a judge - something he had a 1st Amendment right to do and SHOULD NOT have been disciplined for.

But, the most hilarious performance was given by two attorneys who were invited to testify by members of the Commission, who were also members of disciplinary committees that were at the core of existing problems - unfairness, lack of uniformity, racial profiling, selective enforcement or non-enforcement of attorney discipline, quashing competition to private businesses of members of the Committees through attorney disciplinary process.

The testimony of the two attorneys was most revealing.

They claimed that everything in the Appellate Division 4th Department is good, fair and even model for the entire State of New York, and not only nothing should be changed, but the practices of the 4th Department should be spread out and modeled for the rest of the State.

I've never seen such an unashamed business-drumming in my life. 

The two "paratroopers" that descended upon the Commission's public hearing (by invitation no less, and by invitations at the last minute, by their own admission) were:

1. attorney Richard T. Sullivan, of Harris Beach LLC and "former chair of the Eigth Judicial District Attorney Disciplinary Committee", and
2. Joel Daniels, "an attorney in Buffalo who also handles attorney disciplinary matters"

These "paratroopers" make their business and charge money for representing attorneys in disciplinary matters before the disciplinary committee in the 4th Department.

Richard T. Sullivan comes from a pre-eminent law firm that became even more pre-eminent since last year, when it accepted as partner the former judge of the New York State Court of Appeals Victoria Graffeo, so when Mr. Sullivan drummed up business at the Commission's public hearing, he was doing it not only for himself, but for the retired Judge Graffeo, too.

Richard T. Sullivan and Joel Daniels stated the following:

• that nothing should be changed;
• that they would agree to any changes that the Commission would suggest and any FURTHER restrictions on proceedings (while right now there is nothing OTHER than restrictions on attorney's rights in such proceedings - no right of discovery, no subpoena power and no appeal as of right);
• that everybody in the 4th Department Court (the court where they argue their paid cases) is wonderful;
• that everybody, from attorneys to investigators, in the 4th Department committees, are wonderful;
• that discovery, basically, is not needed for attorneys when attorneys in the attorney disciplinary committees are so wonderful and when all that the disciplined attorneys should do is simply "talk" to the disciplinary committee and politely ask them to open their files while they "usually" open their files to be reviewed by the attorneys subject to discipline

Well, I've been writing on this blog for several months about the opposite:

• refusal of attorneys from that same disciplinary committee - Mary Gasparini and Gregory Huether - to open their files for my review, after Mary Gasparini claimed they have an "open file policy" on the phone, but then withdrew that policy as soon as I made a motion for sanctions against Mary Gasparini for proceeding (without reading, she admitted that) with fraudulent charges transferred to her from another Department - charging me for attorney misconduct for not appearing on behalf of a client at a deposition at the time when, as documented in court records, I was NOT an attorney, not admitted to the bar and was not and could not represent anybody at that time in that proceeding;
• fabricating transcripts and presenting fabricated transcripts to the court where it was claimed that the court-ordered hearing that was never provided to me was provided;
• launching a criminal prosecution against me for exposing fabrication of transcript in a blog;
• continuing disciplinary prosecution (Mary Gasparini) after appearing against me in the criminal proceedings as a sole witness, which disqualified the disciplinary attorney ABSOLUTELY from proceeding - as well as her entire office;
• making multiple fraudulent claims to the court after her disqualification, and up to the very last appearance in front of the court. 

I am going to publish the transcript of the last appearance in front of the disciplinary court on May 26, 2015 (where I did not appear, for fear that Mary Gasparini will invent some other basis to have me locked up, as she already asked the court to do, in retaliation of exposure in my blog of her misconduct and incompetence - and while the court refused to give me a public hearing and condoned fabrication of transcripts, I could reasonably fear not only for my liberty, but for my life, I could simply maimed or killed in that jail, and nobody would be the wiser).  So, I did not appear.

But Mary Gasparini appeared and made further fraudulent claims to the court, even though she was disqualified from her appearance since January of 2015 as a witness in a CRIMINAL prosecution against me, for speaking out about her misconduct in my case.

Yet, the Buffalo transcript taught me what I did wrong in handling my proceedings.

It, apparently, does not matter what I allegedly committed or was charged with.

What matters is that I did not hire a local insider - like Mr. Sullivan of Harris Beach - and did not pay him money to do his insider job with the Committee (and, possibly, with sharing the money I paid him with the Committee, I will not be surprised).

It is apparent that, to some people, my own files that are locked to me, are open to Mr. Sullivan for the asking - by the same "wonderful" people from the same Committee who defraud the court in my case, make frivolous arguments in my case and fabricate court transcripts in my case.

So, not only the Committee, consisting, in violation of federal antitrust law, as the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled, quashes competition under the guise of disciplinary activity - it drums up business for itself and for its former members like Mr. Sullivan.

For people like Mr. Sullivan (and his partners, of course, including the retired Judge Graffeo) lack of transparency, lack of elementary discovery rights for attorneys subject to discipline are necessary for their financial and business well-being, because they appear as the ultimate saviors who "know ways" behind the process, through those back doors, to those "wonderful people" who are wonderful only to insiders and who make their own rules for insiders - and their own rules against those who actually dare to take their misconduct head-on, like I did, and demand that disciplinary proceedings are handled openly, honestly, and with observation of the same rights as in any other civil proceedings with any litigants.

It is my opinion that the insider Mr. Sullivan and his disciplinary business can only survive in the murky waters where no rights exist - so that he can "arrange" that his clients are treated leniently by the "wonderful people" that open the back doors to Mr. Sullivan (which are locked to non-insiders).

Imagine for a second what will happen if the State of New York does what the U.S. Supreme Court required it to do in February of 2015 through its decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission:

• replace super-majorities of attorneys on the disciplinary committees with super-majorities of no-nonsense legal consumers like Bill Bastuk; or
• create oversight by the State over such committees, with a veto and modifying power, also by neutral overseers like Bill Bastuk

All the connections carefully forged over the years, all the back-door arrangements will disappear into the thin air where all that works is the rule of law - that is currently non-existing in the attorney disciplinary proceedings.

It is interesting to mention that Mr. Sullivan and his colleague in the disciplinary business attorney Joel Daniels did not spend much breath on protection of legal consumers.

Well, their interest was lying in the different direction:

• how to brown-nose appellate judges on the Commission and members of attorney disciplinary committees on the commission;
• how to ensure that their carefully made arrangements, for presently pending cases and for future business, will remain intact, and even, more ambitiously,
• how to spread the Star Chamber policies that exist in the 4th Department to the entire State of New York

I will note that the Commission announced ahead of time that there will be only limited time to testify, only 2 hours during lunch time, during vacation period, with a very short notice to the public, and that the testimony will be pre-screened by written submissions and by invitations only.

Somehow, TWO attorneys who work and, possibly, have business relationships with the "wonderful people" on the disciplinary committee of the local appellate division, were invited to testify about how everything is fine and should be preserved and even spread over the rest of the State of New York, while an unknown number of legal consumers with proposed no-nonsense testimony were rejected.

So, the goals of the Commission are clear:

• preserve the status quo;
• create smoke screens to try to regain the dwindling public trust in the integrity of attorneys and judges in the State where prosecutorial misconduct and misconduct of high-ranking attorneys and judges is rampant and unaddressed, and no smoke screens will help hide it;
• drum up more business

By the way, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Daniels' "advocacy" was exclusively self-serving and was not helping the rights of either their clients or the public - and business rights of attorneys representing attorneys in the disciplinary process was not part of the proceedings, so inviting these two people wasted time (deliberately) that could have been taken by legal consumers' testimony.

If processes in attorney disciplinary proceedings are changed to at least the same processes that exist in civil proceedings in New York, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Daniels will lose business, because their "backroom dealings" will not be as necessary as before.

And - think what will happen to Mr. Sullivan's and Mr. Daniels' businesses if - the horror, again! - attorney licensing is eliminated, because it DOES NOT WORK, let's face it - and attorney misconduct, fraud etc. is going to be addressed through open civil proceedings in court, based on the already existing causes of action for breach of contract, breach of privacy and confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/malpractice, with full discovery and an appeal as of right.

Attorneys will then simply not need Mr. Sullivan's and Mr. Daniels' services.

That's why Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Daniels were invited by Commission members who were not interested in changing the status quo, while sitting on the Commission and pretending that that's their purpose.

In the noble profession, hypocrisy and greed reign.

No surprises there.

FOIL requests were filed for financial disclosures of judicial candidates Porter Kirkwood and Richard Northrup

I filed FOIL requests for financial disclosures filed with the appropriate authorities by judicial candidates in Delaware County, Porter Kirkwood and Richard Northrup.

Responses to FOILs will be published on this blog.

Stay tuned.

FOIL requests were filed for copies of $129.6 million worth of public contracts in Delaware County awarded without public bidding

I FOILed authorities who are custodians of the $129.6 million in contracts awarded by Delaware County, with approval of the current judicial candidate, Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood, while illegally bypassing public bidding.

I will publish responses to such FOILs.

Stay tuned.

Preliminary remarks on review of the transcripts of New York State Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline

I am reviewing the transcripts of the three "public" hearings that the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline that were posted on the Commission's website.

Before I go into details - and there will be a lot of details, because transcripts of the hearings are fairly long,  I would like to make some preliminary remarks. 

ATTENDANCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

First, not all members of the Commission cared to even come to the public hearings, and I wonder if the findings of the Commission are valid where 

Out of 41 members of the Commission:

• 8 members  (19.5%) were present at the Albany public hearing; the names of Commission members present at that hearing (according to the transcript) are:
• Peter James Johnson, Esq.;
• Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
• Monica Duffy, Esq.;
• Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Sean Morton, Esq.;
• E.J. Thorsen, Esq.
• 6 members (14.6%) were present at the Buffalo public hearing; names of Commission members present at that hearing (according to the transcript) are:
•  Barry Cozier, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Stephen Lindley (appellate judge);
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
• Vincent Doyle, III, Esq.
• 6 members (14.6%) were present at the New York City "public" hearing where reporter Gary Jacobs was ousted from the building, and an attempt was made to oust him off the sidewalk to prevent his reporting - in violation of Open Meetings Law; the names of Commission members who were present that day (according to the transcript) and are responsible for ousting Mr. Jacobs are:  
• Barry Cozier, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Peter Skelos, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
• Sean Morton, Esq. (Deputy Clerk, Appellate Division, 3rd Department)

I highlighted in green names of Commission members who appeared in all three public hearings.

There are only 2 out of 41 (4.8%) of Commission members who considered it necessary for themselves to appear at public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
2. Robert Guido, Esq.

I highlighted in yellow names of Commission members who appeared in two out of three public hearings.


 There are 4 out of 41 (9.7%) of Commission members who appeared in only two out of three public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
2. Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
3. Sean Morton, Esq.;
4. Barry Cozier, Esq.

 I did not highlight names of Commission members who appeared in only one out of three public hearings.

There are 6 out of 41 (14.6%) of Commission members who appeared in only on out of three public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Peter James Johnson, Esq.;
2. Monica Duffy, Esq.;
3. E.J. Thorsen, Esq.;
4. Stephen Lindley (appellate judge);
5. Vincent Doyle, III, Esq.;
6. Peter Skelos, Esq.

All in all, 12 out of 41 members of the Commission (29.2%) appeared at the public hearings that the Commission held, and the absolute super-majority of the Commission did not appear at all, including 100% of the lay members of the Commission.

If the majority of members of the Commission were too busy to attend all three two-hour meetings, and thus shirked their duty, I wonder why they agreed to participated in the Commission in the first place - to have a point on their resumes?



WASTE OF TIME BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

I am reading now the Albany transcript, and I already noted the outstanding amount of time wasted by members of the Commission in making unnecessary curtsies to each other, the judicial system and glorifying how good the judicial system is, the judges who allowed the use of their building are, how good the existing attorney disciplinary system is, how a Commission member was presenting oral arguments in the court where the Commission was sitting etc. etc. etc.

The brown-nosing by Commission members is truly nauseating - and a tremendous waste of time since time for the hearings was very limited, hearings were held during summer vacation period, and at lunch time, for 2 hours, only a limited number of witnesses was pre-screened and invited to testify, each witness was given only 10 minutes to testify - and against that background of time limitations, the waste of time by the Commission members on glorifying each other and the judicial system is even more frustrating.



BICKERING WITH WITNESSES BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

Conflict of interest of Commission members was readily apparent where witnesses criticized the state of events for which one or more Commission members present at the hearing was responsible, and the criticized Commission member immediately launched arguments with the witness, badgering the witness and forcing the witness, for the sake of having any changes in the system, to appease the criticized member of the Commission and to back down on the criticism.

That was truly disgusting to read.

Such bickering - or witness badgering - or the need for witnesses to practically apologize and back out of their testimony or criticism of what was the problem CREATED by the Commission members that the Commission members were supposed to somehow resolve - would not have happened, had the Commission consisted of neutral individuals and not of people who created the problems that the Commission is supposed to find solutions for.

Nothing like observing a bunch of foxes come together to preside over invitation-by-testimony by chickens.
                       

                            *              *               *
 

I will run detailed blogs on the language used by the members of the Commission, the choice of witnesses who testified by invitation, the points that each witness made, whether such points were (in my opinion, of course), meritorious or not, and why certain points were made - and, especially, why certain points were omitted by certain witnesses.

Stay tuned.

Delawarel County's revealing responses to a FOIL request

In 2010 I asked Delaware County, New York, through a FOIL request, to provide me the list of all of its written policies.

I received a response that Delaware County has none.

In 2015 I repeated the request.

The response I received last week was that there are too many in existence to send me immediately, and that I need to come to Delaware County (from South Carolina where I am now) to review the policies and ask to provide me copies of "what I need".

Which is, as you understand, dear readers, BS and attempt to avoid response to the FOIL request which I will appeal.

Next, I asked in 2010 and in 2015 whether Delaware County has an anti-nepotism policy (policy against hiring relatives in a position that may present conflicts of interest).

No such policy in 2010 and no such policy in 2015.  Delaware County employment swarms with relatives, often with different last names, making them, and conflicts of interest they create, untraceable.

I asked in 2010 and in 2015 whether Delaware County has any policy specifically for disqualification of employees where they engage in activities that may present a conflict of interest with their direct duties.

No such policy in 2010 and no such policy in 2015.

I asked repeatedly from 2009 to 2015, for documents showing Delaware County's compliance with certification requirement of its Sheriff's Department by the New York State Criminal Justice Department - while such certification is paraded to Delaware County residents as evidence of good training and good practices in the Sheriff's Department.

Up to 2015 Delaware County was only inviting me to review those records (which I know must exist, because otherwise Delaware County Sheriff's Department would not have had continued certification from the State Criminal Justice Department). 

In 2015 the response to that same question asked on a FOIL request was that there are "no records responsive" to my request.  Which - I know - is BS. 

Well, I will ask for the same records from the Criminal Justice Department.  Records supporting a certification that the Sheriff's Department parades as evidence that it is well trained and does not violate people's constitutional rights are subject to FOIL on both ends of the filings.

There was also an interesting discovery regarding the bail receipt of a certain individual, posted in the fall of 2014.

Judge Carl F. Becker was listed as the judge on the receipt - even though at the time bail was posted and the case was transferred to Delaware County Becker had to recuse from the case of my client - as he promised to the federal court he would, in order to have a certain lawsuit dismissed.

Well, this is not the first time when Becker lied to authorities and went back on his word after he attained what he wanted.

I will keep the public informed about responses to FOIL requests I receive from various state and local agencies.

Stay tuned.

I posted on Facebook the Amended Complaint in Neroni v Zayas, a 2.5 year old civil rights lawsuit on Facebook - to illustrate how New York fights in lawsuits the very same changes as it asserts as goals of its various "Commissions"

I've just posted the Neroni v Zayas  federal lawsuit that I filed on behalf of my husband Frederick J. Neroni 2.5 years ago, on February 2, 2013.

Since that time, in March of 2014 part of the claims were dismissed.

In November of 2014 the court where the case was still pending imposed an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni, on the court's own motion (by a different judge than the one presiding on the pending case) claiming the still pending Neroni v Zayas case was frivolous.

In June of 2015 the rest of the claims in Neroni v Zayas were dismissed, and the case is currently on an appeal by Mr. Neroni acting Pro Se.

Once again, the anti-filing injunction claimed that the lawsuit was frivolous.

Since the lawsuit was filed, two defendants changed their place of work, so to say:

• Disciplinary Committee attorney Stephen D. Zayas resigned amid a scandal and investigation that he allegedly filed false time sheets (while he was never prosecuted) ;
• Dean Skelos, the majority leader of NYS Senate, was indicted by the feds for corruption on May 28, 2015

Also, since the "frivolous" lawsuit was filed, and since the anti-filing injunction was imposed, two changes occurred suggesting that the lawsuit was far from frivolous.

1/ On February 25, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court has held that regulation of professions through "state" boards consisting of super-majorities of private members of regulated professions, without proper oversight, is a federal antitrust violation that does not entitle committee members to any immunity.

On May 6, 2015 a consumer group headed by a federal antitrust prosecutors called upon state Attorneys General across the country to enforce that precedent in how attorney regulation is handled.

The Neroni v Zayas  lawsuit filed 2 years prior to that decision - and which was used as allegedly "frivolous" by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to bar Mr. Neroni's access to court in the future - raises the same issue, from the point of view that it is a violation of due process of law of a disciplined attorney where the disciplinary process orchestrated by supermajorities of private competitors (with particular conflicts of interest pointed out in detail in the complaint, with names of conflicted competitors).

Doesn't it make Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe who has commenced the sua sponte anti filing injunction proceedings and imposed the injunction look stupid, biased and corrupt?

2/ On March 30, 2015 NYS Chief Judge Lippman named members of the Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline the goal of which (at least, the declared goal) is to make attorney disciplinary proceedings (now done through 4 intermediate appellate courts with their own differing rules) more uniform and fair to attorneys, and more efficient for public protection.

New York is FIGHTING at the very same time the appeal of dismissal of THOSE SAME CLAIMS that lack of uniformity and fairness in procedures (or lack thereof) in attorney disciplinary proceedings make such proceedings unconstitutional and their result void.

Once again, doesn't the situation where the same arguments are claimed by NYS to be frivolous and warranting public hearings make the State of New York actors, including New York State Attorney General who is still fighting this lawsuit, now on appeal, as well as Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe who has commenced the sua sponte anti filing injunction proceedings and imposed the injunction look stupid, biased and corrupt?

By the way, transcripts of hearings before the Commission are now posted online, from the Albany, Buffalo, and New York City "public hearings" (how public was the hearing I already reflected in one of my blog following the video coverage of the "public hearing" by a New York City reporter who was thrown out of the building and ordered to get off the sidewalk before the building where the hearings were going on, in violation of New York Open Meetings Law.

 Affidavits of people who were NOT allowed to testify are not posted, and I asked the NYS Court administration for copies of these affidavits, to see what exactly did these people say that they were not "invited" to testify.

3/ Since May of 2014 and to this day, and during the pendency of the anti-filing injunction proceedings against Mr. Neroni, New York Senator DeFrancisco was advocating for creation of a separate Commission to address prosecutorial misconduct.

Look up NY Senate Bill S24 that is seeking to amend Judiciary Law by including into it Article 15-A, Commission for prosecutorial misconduct.  Such a separate Commission would not be needed if attorney disciplinary committees were doing their jobs and prosecuted prosecutors (including themselves).  

So, the solution offered by a Senator Attorney DeFrancisco - while his Senate, through its attorney New York State Attorney General, fights Neroni v Zayas asserting the very same thing - is to add to taxpayers' burden and, in addition to the dysfunctional attorney disciplinary committees that do not do their jobs create yet another Commission, modeled after NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct - which also does not do its job, instead working as a shredder of complaints against judges.


So - if Mr. Neroni, a disbarred attorney, says it - it is frivolous and punishable.

If a New York State Senator - Judge - "Commission member" says it, even if that contradicts what that same Senator - Judge - Commission member - does in opposing those same challenges in Mr. Neroni's lawsuit - that is completely meritorious and even commendable.

It is insane, ladies and gentlemen, that the same idea is treated differently when it comes from people of different social statuses.

And such an attitude of the government, and especially of federal courts, clearly proves that 

(1) the rule of law and equal protection of laws that judges are sworn to protect does not exist;  

(2) judges are adamantly violating their own oath of office in practically every dismissed civil action;  

(3) Mr. Neroni was correct when he was stating in his lawsuit that the system of attorney discipline, as it exists in New York, is designed to quash political dissent, and reduce credibility of dissenters.  

After all, in every order of dismissal of Mr. Neroni's case (and, as I researched, cases of other suspended and disbarred attorneys making meritorious challenges to constitutionality of proceedings), on the very first pages, as a matter of policy, and contrary to the standard of review of motions to dismiss requiring courts to liberally construe pleadings in favor of the non-moving party, courts engaged in plaintiff-bashing by pointing out that plaintiff is a disbarred (suspended) attorney and his complaint is:

• incomprehensible;
• verbose;
• redundant;
• confusing
• convoluted

You name any negative attribute - you will find it in orders of dismissal of civil rights cases filed by suspended and disbarred attorneys.

Given that most often those suspended and disbarred attorneys are civil rights attorneys who litigated in those same cases professionally for years, it is clear that these allegations are not only contrary to the standard of review, but also not true.

And, the State of New York cannot even pay lip service to its claim that it wants to bring about changes in attorney disciplinary system without putting its collective foot into its collective mouth.

Am I the only person who finds it objectionable that, on top of creating a Commission, once again, with a supermajority of market players, Judge Lippman allowed to preside over the public hearings to make attorney disciplinary proceedings fair to the just-retired judge Peter Skelos, brother of the indicted Senate Leader Dean Skelos, while Judge Peter Skelos went into "early retirement" after appointment to the Commission and after indictment of his brother (a defendant in Mr. Neroni's lawsuit).

At the time of his retirement on August 1, 2015 Peter Skelos, an appellate judge, was 59, and thus 11 years away from mandatory retirement in New York.

His resignation letter that he is retiring because of a "wonderful opportunity" to continue a private legal practice does not fool anybody.

Here is the "wonderful opportunity", the law firm that accepted the brother of the Senate leader indicted for corruption who suspiciously ran off the appellate bench within a month of his brother's indictment.

The law firm claims to be "conveniently located" to satisfy clients in, among others, Nassau County.  Peter Skelos who hastily retired from the bench of Appellate Division 2nd Department in order to join the firm, should disqualify the firm in the Appellate Division 2nd Department.  Yet, such disqualifications usually never happen.  So, after Peter Skelos' brother has been indicted for corruption, Peter Skelos himself embraced a "wonderful opportunity" to work for a law firm which, as a "general practice" law firm, must work in the court that Peter Skelos just left?

That is a wonderfully ethical decision worthy of a member of the Statewide Commission on attorney discipline.

Nor does any reasonable person has any doubt that "election" and appointments of the whole dynasties of lawyers to be Senators, Governors and appellate judges have anything to do with merit rather than their political and familial connections.

Remember the hypocrisy of the State of New York in trying to blow smoke screens into the public eyes by claiming they are trying to bring change through Commissions - while they are fighting tooth and claw, since 2013 to prevent that very same change to come through a court decision in Neroni v Zayas.