I am covering issues of attorney independence around the world, and I am, of course, interested in how such issues are handled in my native country, Russia.
So far, in Russia your trusted neighbor could represent you in court, other than in criminal cases, as long as you, once again, trust him or her and gave him or her a power of attorney to do so.
That is about to change, possibly, soon.
It is no big secret that the Russian economy has been suffering greatly recently due to actions of its leadership.
As a result, the market of all paid services has dwindled.
At that background, Russian attorneys did the same as American attorneys did after the Great Depression - moved for a monopoly for legal services under the guise of protecting consumers, but in fact protected their own market from competition that could have lowered prices for services of legal elite.
Of course, the legal elite in the U.S. (as it will, undoubtedly, do in Russia), does not want those same consumers to participate in regulation that is claimed to be for consumers' benefit, instead establishing super-majorities of market players to regulate themselves, quash competition and grant or revoke state licensing as personal favors or punishments.
As reported by Russian sources covering developments in the market of legal services, on October 27, 2015 the Russian Ministry of Justice held a meeting to finalize conceptual rules of regulation of attorney's monopoly for representation in court (the linked resource is in Russian) - of course, under the guise of preventing "crooks" from defrauding innocent consumers.
As we know from experience in the U.S., the crooks are, in fact, inside, the legal elite that, under the guise of protecting consumers, is protecting their own market and applies attorney discipline only to critics of their misconduct, while allowing members of the "old boys' club" to get away with murder, as long as the "old boys" (or girls) are well-connected or related to high-ranking members of the government of any branch, on state or federal level.
Questions arise:
1) if it ain't broken - why fix it;
2) doesn't anybody learn on other people's mistakes? should everybody step on self-created rusted rakes in order to first suffer and then - years and decades down the road, after thousands and, possibly, millions of people suffered from that mistake, try to start deregulating the "noble profession", as the process began in the U.S. and is well under way in the UK and some other European countries?
One more thing - Russian attorneys do not take into account that the gifted cage they are getting themselves into provides not only the upside (monopoly), but also a huge downside (dependency on government favors for their livelihood).
And that in return for monopoly for the profession as a whole, especially given Russia's recent history, court attorneys may be paving for themselves a road to GULAG.
Because it is a matter of time when a case turns up when an attorney will not be able to stand aside and will have to take a position, possibly a position that the government will not like.
And the attorney will quickly be disbarred, blacklisted and will not be allowed to work even as a janitor in a law firm, despite the attorney's ability to help people, and an unmet need for court representation in the attorney's specific area of law.
By locking themselves in this guilted cage, Russian attorneys strip themselves of their independence and of their freedom of speech and freedom to actually help their clients and at the same time earn their living by making necessary and honest arguments to the court, not stake their living upon brown-nosing judges at every turn, as American attorneys are forced to do.
Isn't that a little bit too much of a loss, even in return for a monopoly?
Monday, November 2, 2015
Hair-braiders' occupational regulation - if it is not constitutional in Texas, it shouldn't be in Iowa, Arkansas and Washington. The doomsday of occupational regulation is a-coming?
On January 5, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has struck attempts of regulation by the Texas Board of Licensing and Regulation to regulate hair-braiders.
Texas, both through state and federal courts, seems to be leading the way in occupational deregulation. In June of 2015 the State Supreme Court of Texas has struck as unconstitutional, on state constitutional grounds, eyebrow threading regulation - I wrote about it earlier in this blog, here and here.
Non-sensical hair-braiding regulation of hair-braiding has already been mocked by Jon Stewart in his Comedy Central show, possibly, that's why courts and judges who do not want to become the laughinstock of the nation, start striking down hairbraiding regulations - as the Western District of Texas federal court did. I guess, comedians should take more court cases, it will greatly improve the quality of constitutional precedents in this country.
Hair-braiders challenged regulation of their 5000-year old trade with imposition of unnecessary and expensive training, office and equipment requirements that are not needed for the actual hair-braiding in Arkansas, Washington and in Iowa.
It is interesting to see how the predominantly white federal courts will decide this predominantly African-American hairstyling regulation.
It is also illustrative that individuals and businesses start to increasingly take the alleged "government regulation boards" to court to strike down attempts of private interest groups to quash competition, deprive people of their livelihoods and decimate consumer choices for more diverse and cheaper services.
Since the government, while pretending to fight for "public safety", provides no evidence that public safety suffers, but instead blatantly advances arguments of "rational basis", "purely economic regulation", and "it must be right if the government says so - if if the government decided to favor one group of people over the other with economic favors", and, when regulated occupations have reached over 1/3 of jobs in the U.S. economy
(as cited in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC, a February 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that stripped dentists of antitrust "state immunity" for their regulating activities)
and regulation of occupation stifles competition, entrepreneurship and economic development in the U.S., contributing to poverty, economic stagnation and public unrest - occupational deregulation is a writing on the wall, and is coming fast.
Texas, both through state and federal courts, seems to be leading the way in occupational deregulation. In June of 2015 the State Supreme Court of Texas has struck as unconstitutional, on state constitutional grounds, eyebrow threading regulation - I wrote about it earlier in this blog, here and here.
Non-sensical hair-braiding regulation of hair-braiding has already been mocked by Jon Stewart in his Comedy Central show, possibly, that's why courts and judges who do not want to become the laughinstock of the nation, start striking down hairbraiding regulations - as the Western District of Texas federal court did. I guess, comedians should take more court cases, it will greatly improve the quality of constitutional precedents in this country.
Hair-braiders challenged regulation of their 5000-year old trade with imposition of unnecessary and expensive training, office and equipment requirements that are not needed for the actual hair-braiding in Arkansas, Washington and in Iowa.
It is interesting to see how the predominantly white federal courts will decide this predominantly African-American hairstyling regulation.
It is also illustrative that individuals and businesses start to increasingly take the alleged "government regulation boards" to court to strike down attempts of private interest groups to quash competition, deprive people of their livelihoods and decimate consumer choices for more diverse and cheaper services.
Since the government, while pretending to fight for "public safety", provides no evidence that public safety suffers, but instead blatantly advances arguments of "rational basis", "purely economic regulation", and "it must be right if the government says so - if if the government decided to favor one group of people over the other with economic favors", and, when regulated occupations have reached over 1/3 of jobs in the U.S. economy
(as cited in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC, a February 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that stripped dentists of antitrust "state immunity" for their regulating activities)
and regulation of occupation stifles competition, entrepreneurship and economic development in the U.S., contributing to poverty, economic stagnation and public unrest - occupational deregulation is a writing on the wall, and is coming fast.
A 2nd Circuit's occupational regulation case has been chosen as one of the worst in 2014-2015 in failing to protect the U.S. Constitution
A 2nd Circuit case made in July of 2015 has made it, not surprisingly, into the list of the worst decisions of 2014-2015 in failing to protect constitutional rights of Americans by the civil rights research group the Institute of Justice. Here is the complete report, see also the insightful coverage of the report in George Leef's blog on Forbes.com.
The interesting part is that the case was practically on the same issue as was decided earlier this year, in February of 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC, where the U.S. Supreme Court not only ruled that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners was run by entrenched incumbents, market players protecting their monopoly and not sufficiently controlled by the state to justify their immunity from liability under federal antitrust laws, but also that teeth whitening is NOT an activity related to dentistry.
If it is not an activity related to dentistry, it should not be subject - jurisdictionally - to regulation of the dentistry commission.
Yet, the 2nd Circuit decided to defy this immediate U.S. Supreme Court precedent and produced a case, Sensational Smiles v Connecticut Dental Board, where said the following (among other things):
1) regulation of LED lights used in teeth whitening is related to public health because such lights may cause burns of the mouth during teeth whitening, and a non-dentist will not be prepared to deal with the problem.
The ONLY basis to conclude that LED lights ACTUALLY present a danger to public health when used in teeth whitening was the article cited by the Dental Board's expert indicating that burns from LED lights during teeth whitening "cannot be absolutely excluded"
- a double negation which did not say that possibility of such burns was actually confirmed.
In the view of the 2nd Circuit, a speculation without evidentiary support that LED lights MAY cause burns was enough to allow a private interest group posing as a government agency (Connecticut Dental Board) to prevent their competitors from providing cheaper services to consumers, thus preventing (1) a whole group of people from earning their livelihood, and (2) preventing a whole group of other people, consumers, from choosing cheaper and more plentiful services.
Moreover, the 2nd Circuit allowed regulation by dentists of non-dentists in the area that did not constitute dental services - just 4 months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teeth whitening was not related to dentistry - and thus may not be subject to regulation as dental services, through a Dental Board of any state.
After upholding unlawful regulation by dentists over non-dentists in the area that did not constitute dental services on speculative grounds under the claim of protecting public safety, the 2nd Circuit went further and called what it just upheld on "public safety" grounds a "pure economic regulation".
The 2nd Circuit then upheld a "legitimate governmental interest" to discriminate on economic grounds - just because the government wanted to favor one group of people over the other.
The commentators in the report said that the only "silver lining" that came out of the 2nd Circuit case that they rightfully called "deplorable" is that the 2nd Circuit deepened the circuit split on the issue of whether the government has a "legitimate right" to discriminate on purely economic grounds - and "ripened" the issue for the U.S. Supreme Court review.
Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has ALREADY reviewed the case of North Carolina Board Examiners and has ALREADY ruled that the particular kind of regulation - pursuing teeth-whiteners by dentists - is violating the Sherman Act in view of lack of control over the dentists regulating the dental profession by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue of dentists imposing a private monopoly under the guise of a state-regulated profession for purposes of public health and safety that it stripped the dentists of "state immunity" for antitrust actions and subjected them to liability for private actions - with treble money damages - for antitrust activity.
The 2nd Circuit simply skipped the issue by claiming that the issue of antitrust violations were not raised by the appellants - even though violation of federal laws is within the Supremacy Clause, and the 2nd Circuit has a right to review relevant Supremacy Clause issues sua sponte.
Moreover, the claim that the appellants did not raise the issue of antitrust liability was an exercise of intellectual dishonesty by the courts - because the Appellant's brief was filed on September 12, 2014, while the decision stripping members of the Dental Board of the "state immunity" for antitrust liability in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC was made only 6 months later, in February of 2015.
Since federal court have long developed a tendency to sanction civil rights plaintiffs for raising issues that may be subject to court-created "immunities", awarding against civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys attorney fees for the "immune" perpetrators of misconduct, it was unreasonable to require Sensational Smiles, LLC, to
in order for a federal appellate court to be able to review the issue whether the speculative "public safety"/"purely economic" regulation by dentists of non-dentists on the issue that did not constitute dentistry, is antitrust activity subject to the court's review.
Moreover, the 2nd Circuit DID review applicability of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, a case decided AFTER the Appellant's brief was filed, so the Appellant's brief could not possibly discuss that case - on other issues, but not on the very issue that would have led to strike the "LED" regulation on violation of antitrust law grounds.
Intellectual dishonesty at its height.
Not surprising for the 2nd Circuit though.
The interesting part is that the case was practically on the same issue as was decided earlier this year, in February of 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC, where the U.S. Supreme Court not only ruled that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners was run by entrenched incumbents, market players protecting their monopoly and not sufficiently controlled by the state to justify their immunity from liability under federal antitrust laws, but also that teeth whitening is NOT an activity related to dentistry.
If it is not an activity related to dentistry, it should not be subject - jurisdictionally - to regulation of the dentistry commission.
Yet, the 2nd Circuit decided to defy this immediate U.S. Supreme Court precedent and produced a case, Sensational Smiles v Connecticut Dental Board, where said the following (among other things):
1) regulation of LED lights used in teeth whitening is related to public health because such lights may cause burns of the mouth during teeth whitening, and a non-dentist will not be prepared to deal with the problem.
The ONLY basis to conclude that LED lights ACTUALLY present a danger to public health when used in teeth whitening was the article cited by the Dental Board's expert indicating that burns from LED lights during teeth whitening "cannot be absolutely excluded"
- a double negation which did not say that possibility of such burns was actually confirmed.
In the view of the 2nd Circuit, a speculation without evidentiary support that LED lights MAY cause burns was enough to allow a private interest group posing as a government agency (Connecticut Dental Board) to prevent their competitors from providing cheaper services to consumers, thus preventing (1) a whole group of people from earning their livelihood, and (2) preventing a whole group of other people, consumers, from choosing cheaper and more plentiful services.
Moreover, the 2nd Circuit allowed regulation by dentists of non-dentists in the area that did not constitute dental services - just 4 months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teeth whitening was not related to dentistry - and thus may not be subject to regulation as dental services, through a Dental Board of any state.
After upholding unlawful regulation by dentists over non-dentists in the area that did not constitute dental services on speculative grounds under the claim of protecting public safety, the 2nd Circuit went further and called what it just upheld on "public safety" grounds a "pure economic regulation".
The 2nd Circuit then upheld a "legitimate governmental interest" to discriminate on economic grounds - just because the government wanted to favor one group of people over the other.
The commentators in the report said that the only "silver lining" that came out of the 2nd Circuit case that they rightfully called "deplorable" is that the 2nd Circuit deepened the circuit split on the issue of whether the government has a "legitimate right" to discriminate on purely economic grounds - and "ripened" the issue for the U.S. Supreme Court review.
Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has ALREADY reviewed the case of North Carolina Board Examiners and has ALREADY ruled that the particular kind of regulation - pursuing teeth-whiteners by dentists - is violating the Sherman Act in view of lack of control over the dentists regulating the dental profession by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue of dentists imposing a private monopoly under the guise of a state-regulated profession for purposes of public health and safety that it stripped the dentists of "state immunity" for antitrust actions and subjected them to liability for private actions - with treble money damages - for antitrust activity.
The 2nd Circuit simply skipped the issue by claiming that the issue of antitrust violations were not raised by the appellants - even though violation of federal laws is within the Supremacy Clause, and the 2nd Circuit has a right to review relevant Supremacy Clause issues sua sponte.
Moreover, the claim that the appellants did not raise the issue of antitrust liability was an exercise of intellectual dishonesty by the courts - because the Appellant's brief was filed on September 12, 2014, while the decision stripping members of the Dental Board of the "state immunity" for antitrust liability in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC was made only 6 months later, in February of 2015.
Since federal court have long developed a tendency to sanction civil rights plaintiffs for raising issues that may be subject to court-created "immunities", awarding against civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys attorney fees for the "immune" perpetrators of misconduct, it was unreasonable to require Sensational Smiles, LLC, to
- exercise clairvoyant abilities,
- predict that a case in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC will be decided the way it was decided, by stripping the "state immunity" from the "state" Dental Board,
- raise the issue of antitrust liability in the district court below,
- be sanctioned and slapped with attorney fees for the defendants for raising an "immune" issue, then
- file an Appellant's brief in the appellate court, risking to be sanctioned more,
in order for a federal appellate court to be able to review the issue whether the speculative "public safety"/"purely economic" regulation by dentists of non-dentists on the issue that did not constitute dentistry, is antitrust activity subject to the court's review.
Moreover, the 2nd Circuit DID review applicability of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, a case decided AFTER the Appellant's brief was filed, so the Appellant's brief could not possibly discuss that case - on other issues, but not on the very issue that would have led to strike the "LED" regulation on violation of antitrust law grounds.
Intellectual dishonesty at its height.
Not surprising for the 2nd Circuit though.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York defies a direct court order - as a party litigant
In the fall of 2014, the then-Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Gary L. Sharpe, brought a "civil rights action" against my husband Frederick J. Neroni, sua sponte, on his own initiative.
Note that the case is positioned as a "civil rights - other". Meaning that the defendant (here - Mr. Neroni) must be a state actor. Judge Sharpe just sanctioned Mr. Neroni for suing a person who Judge Sharpe did not consider a state actor. So, for Mr. Neroni to sue a non-state actor in a civil rights action is a sanctionable offense. For Gary Sharpe - the same thing is an exercise of power. Not supported by any law, as the order that follows, shows, just a sheer exercise of force.
A civil rights action presupposes that the suing party, the plaintiff, must have an injury, and the defendant must be a "state actor" that perpetrated a constitutional violation against the plaintiff.
There was no declared plaintiff (as of October 16, 2015, the 2nd Circuit recognized the court to be the respondent, as the initiating party of the litigation, see the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit below), but the case was brought against Mr. Neroni BY THE COURT, by its Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
Gary Sharpe sought to impose an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni for filing 5 civil rights actions in the court, while two of those actions were still pending at the time the anti-filing "civil rights action" was filed by Gary Sharpe against my husband, and referred to sanctions in two actions against judges or their relatives (Neroni v Becker, Neroni v Coccoma) that were imposed exclusively by Gary Sharpe for correct reading of the law and the U.S. Constitution and despite my husband's motion to recuse Gary Sharpe due to conflicts of interest involved.
Despite my husband's cross-motion to dismiss and recuse the illegal sua sponte action, and a request for an evidentiary hearing, despite my husband's pointing out that there are two still pending COUNSELED actions, pending before other judges than Gary Sharpe, where neither the judges nor the counsel were notified about the related anti-filing civil rights lawsuit, as required by law - Gary Sharpe plowed right through, denied the evidentiary hearing, denied the motion to recuse and imposed his anti-filing injunction and blocked my husband's access to court unless he discloses to the court things that nobody has to disclose as a pre-condition of filing a civil rights action for a constitutional violation.
The injunction imposed by Sharpe on November 26, a month after filing the sua sponte action, without a due process pre-deprivation evidentiary hearing required by law, mentions for the first time the legal basis for the injunction - 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), while that legal basis was not included as a notice to Mr. Neroni in the initial sua sponte "civil rights lawsuit" (see above), and thus, an action without a legal basis and a proper notice, was legally void.
Yet, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) is not listed as the basis for the lawsuit in the docket sheet (above).
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides as follows:
(a)
The sua sponte action was not formulated as a sua sponte petition for a writ, did not give notice it was based on 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), was misleading as claiming it was a "civil rights action" in the Docket, did not contain a docket sheet, as required by law for all filings in the NDNY court, did not list all related actions, and did not notify judges and attorneys in the related actions.
Apparently, the Chief Judge allowed himself to violate every rule in the book to exact vengeance upon Mr. Neroni - which was not "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". Not at all.
Here is my husband's Affirmation in opposition to the injunction.
But, here is the injunction blocking my husband's access to court guaranteed to him under the 1st Amendment, Petitions Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, to complain about present and future constitutional violations. All of them.
So, Gary Sharpe put a bull's eye on my husband and made him a target of governmental misconduct, because Mr. Neroni was stripped of any possibility of seeking a legal remedy against governmental violators.
My husband appealed.
He appealed a long time ago. Usually, civil rights appeals are put on a fast track. This one wasn't. The appeal was filed in 2014. We are at the end of 2015.
My husband just received in the mail a court order ordering the Chief Judge of the U.S. Attorney's office, on behalf of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to file a responding brief in the case by October 30, 2015.
Here it is.
Today is November 1, 2015.
My husband, as always, was not allowed to file electronically and does not receive electronic notifications of filings in his case.
Thus, I went and checked whether the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and its representative, the U.S. Attorney's Office, complied with the court order of the 2nd Circuit and filed a responding brief by October 30, 2015.
They didn't.
Instead, they filed a "letter" indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office is "seeking guidance" from the U.S. Justice Department whether they have authority to represent the Chief Judge - who is no longer Gary Sharpe, Sharpe was demoted, now the Chief Judge is Glenn Suddaby.
So, the NDNY court, through their attorneys the U.S. Attorney's office, tell the 2nd Circuit court (appellate Court): "we will continue our efforts to obtain guidance" - while defying the court order! And, NDNY and their attorneys expect the 2nd Circuit to swallow it while any other litigant or attorney sending a letter like that will be sanctioned.
Well, they should have thought whether they are putting themselves in a position of a party in litigation and who is going to represent them on appeal when Sharpe FILED his "sua sponte" "civil rights action" against my husband in October of 2014, A YEAR AGO.
Obviously, the thinking process of Gary Sharpe did not spread out farther than to exact revenge upon Mr. Neroni for bringing out the fact Gary Sharpe's conflicts of interest.
Sharpe's not-so-sharp thinking process may also be blurred by drinking. Anyway, the only time I saw Gary Sharpe in court (and he sat far away up from me up on top, so I could not smell his breath), his face, eyes and mannerisms clearly suggested that he imbibed, and that's - during an official court proceeding.
By the way, Gary Sharpe's one son, Michael Aaron Sharpe, is employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, and another - Robert Sharpe - in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The very office that was ordered by the 2nd Circuit to represent Sharpe's court in an appeal of Sharpe-created mess.
See, now, by court order, the U.S. Attorney's Office in NDNY/Robert Sharpe/Gary Sharpe's son is required to deal with Gary Sharpe's mess. And the new boss of Gary Sharpe Glenn Suddaby, as well as the U.S. Attorney's office balked at that and defaulted.
Time for retirement or impeachment for Gary Sharpe - finally?
And now they defaulted and defied a direct court order of the 2nd Circuit.
I wonder if now the U.S. District Court for the NDNY which clearly defied a court order and filing deadline, will be held to their default - and contempt of court.
Had any of civil rights appellants, instead of complying with the briefing deadlines, filed not a motion to extend, following the required Form 1080 that was never filed by the NDNY court, but a "letter" "notifying" the court that, instead of complying with a court order, the responding court and its counsel are "seeking guidance" from somebody else - they would be held in contempt and sanctioned, and their pleadings will be barred.
I also wrote on this blog about dismissals of pro se indigent (poor person's) civil rights cases by NDNY court - at a lightning speed, without any opportunity for them to "seek guidance" of counsel, even when they are begging that same U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to assign counsel to them or give them time to consult a counsel.
Obviously, NDNY court, consisting of legal experts that SET the law through precedents, does not want to apply to itself the standard it applies to other people - even to people with no legal background, poor and hardly literate.
The 2nd Circuit has a history of not giving any chances to civil rights plaintiffs, of being unforgiving to civil rights plaintiffs, of declaring "defective filings" of the civil rights plaintiffs wherever they file any "letters" meant as motions to extend time, without the required Form 1080 motion forms.
Recently, the 2nd Circuit refused to file into Pacer Mr. Neroni's appeal claiming it is "defective" because it exceeded the page limit.
It also refused to file Mr. Neroni's appeals previously because of an alleged lack of a comma (literally!) on the front page of appellant's brief.
Here, a letter meant as a motion is filed by a court-as-a-party, without the required motion form, clearly constituting a defective filing - and no "defective filing notice" is issued by the court.
So, the favoritism towards the court-as-a-party already started.
We'll see what next the 2nd Circuit will devise to protect the ass of Gary Sharpe - who was, until he was booted from his position as Chief Judge, was sitting on the "Judicial Conduct" Committee of the 2nd Circuit - at the very time when he was committing rampant misconduct.
I will report here the development in this case.
Stay tuned.
Note that the case is positioned as a "civil rights - other". Meaning that the defendant (here - Mr. Neroni) must be a state actor. Judge Sharpe just sanctioned Mr. Neroni for suing a person who Judge Sharpe did not consider a state actor. So, for Mr. Neroni to sue a non-state actor in a civil rights action is a sanctionable offense. For Gary Sharpe - the same thing is an exercise of power. Not supported by any law, as the order that follows, shows, just a sheer exercise of force.
A civil rights action presupposes that the suing party, the plaintiff, must have an injury, and the defendant must be a "state actor" that perpetrated a constitutional violation against the plaintiff.
There was no declared plaintiff (as of October 16, 2015, the 2nd Circuit recognized the court to be the respondent, as the initiating party of the litigation, see the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit below), but the case was brought against Mr. Neroni BY THE COURT, by its Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
Gary Sharpe sought to impose an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni for filing 5 civil rights actions in the court, while two of those actions were still pending at the time the anti-filing "civil rights action" was filed by Gary Sharpe against my husband, and referred to sanctions in two actions against judges or their relatives (Neroni v Becker, Neroni v Coccoma) that were imposed exclusively by Gary Sharpe for correct reading of the law and the U.S. Constitution and despite my husband's motion to recuse Gary Sharpe due to conflicts of interest involved.
Despite my husband's cross-motion to dismiss and recuse the illegal sua sponte action, and a request for an evidentiary hearing, despite my husband's pointing out that there are two still pending COUNSELED actions, pending before other judges than Gary Sharpe, where neither the judges nor the counsel were notified about the related anti-filing civil rights lawsuit, as required by law - Gary Sharpe plowed right through, denied the evidentiary hearing, denied the motion to recuse and imposed his anti-filing injunction and blocked my husband's access to court unless he discloses to the court things that nobody has to disclose as a pre-condition of filing a civil rights action for a constitutional violation.
The injunction imposed by Sharpe on November 26, a month after filing the sua sponte action, without a due process pre-deprivation evidentiary hearing required by law, mentions for the first time the legal basis for the injunction - 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), while that legal basis was not included as a notice to Mr. Neroni in the initial sua sponte "civil rights lawsuit" (see above), and thus, an action without a legal basis and a proper notice, was legally void.
Yet, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) is not listed as the basis for the lawsuit in the docket sheet (above).
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides as follows:
(a)
The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
The sua sponte action was not formulated as a sua sponte petition for a writ, did not give notice it was based on 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), was misleading as claiming it was a "civil rights action" in the Docket, did not contain a docket sheet, as required by law for all filings in the NDNY court, did not list all related actions, and did not notify judges and attorneys in the related actions.
Apparently, the Chief Judge allowed himself to violate every rule in the book to exact vengeance upon Mr. Neroni - which was not "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". Not at all.
Here is my husband's Affirmation in opposition to the injunction.
But, here is the injunction blocking my husband's access to court guaranteed to him under the 1st Amendment, Petitions Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, to complain about present and future constitutional violations. All of them.
So, Gary Sharpe put a bull's eye on my husband and made him a target of governmental misconduct, because Mr. Neroni was stripped of any possibility of seeking a legal remedy against governmental violators.
My husband appealed.
He appealed a long time ago. Usually, civil rights appeals are put on a fast track. This one wasn't. The appeal was filed in 2014. We are at the end of 2015.
My husband just received in the mail a court order ordering the Chief Judge of the U.S. Attorney's office, on behalf of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to file a responding brief in the case by October 30, 2015.
Here it is.
Today is November 1, 2015.
My husband, as always, was not allowed to file electronically and does not receive electronic notifications of filings in his case.
Thus, I went and checked whether the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and its representative, the U.S. Attorney's Office, complied with the court order of the 2nd Circuit and filed a responding brief by October 30, 2015.
They didn't.
Instead, they filed a "letter" indicating that the U.S. Attorney's office is "seeking guidance" from the U.S. Justice Department whether they have authority to represent the Chief Judge - who is no longer Gary Sharpe, Sharpe was demoted, now the Chief Judge is Glenn Suddaby.
So, the NDNY court, through their attorneys the U.S. Attorney's office, tell the 2nd Circuit court (appellate Court): "we will continue our efforts to obtain guidance" - while defying the court order! And, NDNY and their attorneys expect the 2nd Circuit to swallow it while any other litigant or attorney sending a letter like that will be sanctioned.
Well, they should have thought whether they are putting themselves in a position of a party in litigation and who is going to represent them on appeal when Sharpe FILED his "sua sponte" "civil rights action" against my husband in October of 2014, A YEAR AGO.
Obviously, the thinking process of Gary Sharpe did not spread out farther than to exact revenge upon Mr. Neroni for bringing out the fact Gary Sharpe's conflicts of interest.
Sharpe's not-so-sharp thinking process may also be blurred by drinking. Anyway, the only time I saw Gary Sharpe in court (and he sat far away up from me up on top, so I could not smell his breath), his face, eyes and mannerisms clearly suggested that he imbibed, and that's - during an official court proceeding.
By the way, Gary Sharpe's one son, Michael Aaron Sharpe, is employed by the New York State Attorney General's office, and another - Robert Sharpe - in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The very office that was ordered by the 2nd Circuit to represent Sharpe's court in an appeal of Sharpe-created mess.
See, now, by court order, the U.S. Attorney's Office in NDNY/Robert Sharpe/Gary Sharpe's son is required to deal with Gary Sharpe's mess. And the new boss of Gary Sharpe Glenn Suddaby, as well as the U.S. Attorney's office balked at that and defaulted.
Time for retirement or impeachment for Gary Sharpe - finally?
And now they defaulted and defied a direct court order of the 2nd Circuit.
I wonder if now the U.S. District Court for the NDNY which clearly defied a court order and filing deadline, will be held to their default - and contempt of court.
Had any of civil rights appellants, instead of complying with the briefing deadlines, filed not a motion to extend, following the required Form 1080 that was never filed by the NDNY court, but a "letter" "notifying" the court that, instead of complying with a court order, the responding court and its counsel are "seeking guidance" from somebody else - they would be held in contempt and sanctioned, and their pleadings will be barred.
I also wrote on this blog about dismissals of pro se indigent (poor person's) civil rights cases by NDNY court - at a lightning speed, without any opportunity for them to "seek guidance" of counsel, even when they are begging that same U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to assign counsel to them or give them time to consult a counsel.
Obviously, NDNY court, consisting of legal experts that SET the law through precedents, does not want to apply to itself the standard it applies to other people - even to people with no legal background, poor and hardly literate.
The 2nd Circuit has a history of not giving any chances to civil rights plaintiffs, of being unforgiving to civil rights plaintiffs, of declaring "defective filings" of the civil rights plaintiffs wherever they file any "letters" meant as motions to extend time, without the required Form 1080 motion forms.
Recently, the 2nd Circuit refused to file into Pacer Mr. Neroni's appeal claiming it is "defective" because it exceeded the page limit.
It also refused to file Mr. Neroni's appeals previously because of an alleged lack of a comma (literally!) on the front page of appellant's brief.
Here, a letter meant as a motion is filed by a court-as-a-party, without the required motion form, clearly constituting a defective filing - and no "defective filing notice" is issued by the court.
So, the favoritism towards the court-as-a-party already started.
We'll see what next the 2nd Circuit will devise to protect the ass of Gary Sharpe - who was, until he was booted from his position as Chief Judge, was sitting on the "Judicial Conduct" Committee of the 2nd Circuit - at the very time when he was committing rampant misconduct.
I will report here the development in this case.
Stay tuned.
Oneonta, NY, a town with a history of racial profiling, to commemorate the memory of its recently deceased racist mayor Dick Miller - with a garden. How sweet.
Recently, plans of the City of Oneonta, New York, were announced to commemorate the memory of the recently deceased mayor of the City of Oneonta Richard Miller - with a garden in his memory, the "Miller garden", to preserve and further Miller's "legacy".
There is one glitch in those sweet commemorating plans. Part of Miller's "legacy" is that of a racist.
A year before his reported suicide in October of 2014, Richard Miller was sued for racial discrimination by a black individual who claimed that Richard Miller, as Director of the Board of a local theater that announced renting out its spaces, refused to rent a space to his studio entertaining minorities and specifically told him that Miller does not want "the likes of him" to be given rentals, and that the "likes of him" should actually leave the city.
"The likes" was black, and there was no reason to deny him the rental of the spaces. The civil rights plaintiff against Richard Miller had no criminal record. Of course, the local police attempted to create such a criminal record for him.
The local police first arrested him in the middle of the night because he did not put on a turn-signal on an empty street in a lane with an arrow clearly showing that he is intending to turn.
Then the police beat him, pepper-sprayed him and tasered him.
Then the police charged him with resisting arrest.
That was not enough - when the charges were reduced to a plea of "making unreasonable noise", the police charged him with felony drug possession, put him in jail, and then the team of Otsego County judge John Lambert and Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, acting together, attempted to drain his financial resources for the trial (Lambert, ordering numerous unnecessary "pretrial conferences", see how he does it in my previous blog) and to intimidate him that, if he proceeds to trial on THIS indictment, Muehl will RE-indict him for higher counts.
When the courageous individual persisted in proceeding to trial, Muehl finally coughed up a confession that he does not have a witness for the prosecution, that their alleged witness disappeared somewhere in Florida and was not to be recovered for trial.
Yet, Muehl continued to bluff that he had a witness - up until the trial date approached, and continued to intimidate the black individual who was the target of campaign orchestrated by Richard Miller to "get the likes of him out of town" - because he provided entertainment to minorities constituting just 4% of the City of Oneonta's population, but constituting over 60% of criminal defendants in Oneonta City Court, charged by the city's all-white police force.
After the felony counts were dismissed for failure of prosecution to provide a witness (if prosecution ever had a witness, or instead just tried to intimidate the victim of racial discrimination to plead guilty to a felony - against no prior criminal record - in order to get a basis to further discriminate against him) - he sued.
The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, was named Baron v Miller, 3:13-cv-153.
The City of Oneonta is notorious for racial profiling, and commemorating a garden in the memory of a racist is a slap in the face of the unlawfully profiled, discriminated and prosecuted minorities in the City of Oneonta.
Some years ago, a racial profiling sweep by the Oneonta police was upheld by a federal court because the racial factors were allegedly not the only factors in the sweep.
The sweep was triggered by a complaint of an elderly woman who was burglarized and who vaguely remembered the attacker as a "young black MAN".
That characterization was enough for the sweep of the whole city and of the SUNY campus, arrest of a black professor walking down the street, arrest of many young people including a young black WOMAN - and constitutionality of all of that was upheld by our glorious federal courts.
Yet, there were vigorous dissents in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Brown v Oneonta, including one joined by the current U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor, see comments about the dissent legal blogs.
There was also a petition by the New York Civil Liberties Union for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, available here.
The Brown v Oneonta case was not the only case that caught public attention involving racial profiling in the City of Oneonta.
Some time in the early 2000, I report the case from memory, several young black people were charged by Oneonta City police for defending themselves against assault by several white students in the Oneonta Parking garage. A white student suffered brain damage. No white students were charged, only the black young people who were defending themselves. The first indictment was tossed because the identifying information about the alleged perpetrators of crimes were "young black people in baseball caps". Later on, one of the initially indicted black individuals was not re-indicted, one pled guilty on ill advice of his attorney, and the others were acquitted at trial.
Then, there was the felony drug case, tossed because allegedly the prosecution's witness was nowhere to be found - after Judge Lambert denied access to the initial reports that the black individual was entitled to, attempted to drain his resources by dragging him to multiple unnecessary conferences off record where he was not allowed to appear, and after the courageous individual did not succumb to intimidations of John Muehl to indict him "higher" if he proceeds to trial.
There were also recent, May 2015, anti-racial profiling demonstrations in Oneonta, NY, you can see a video report about it here.
With THIS history of racial unrest and tension in the city, to dedicate a GARDEN to a racist who has reportedly killed himself recently (shortly after being sued for racial discrimination)?
A very bad idea.
There is one glitch in those sweet commemorating plans. Part of Miller's "legacy" is that of a racist.
A year before his reported suicide in October of 2014, Richard Miller was sued for racial discrimination by a black individual who claimed that Richard Miller, as Director of the Board of a local theater that announced renting out its spaces, refused to rent a space to his studio entertaining minorities and specifically told him that Miller does not want "the likes of him" to be given rentals, and that the "likes of him" should actually leave the city.
"The likes" was black, and there was no reason to deny him the rental of the spaces. The civil rights plaintiff against Richard Miller had no criminal record. Of course, the local police attempted to create such a criminal record for him.
The local police first arrested him in the middle of the night because he did not put on a turn-signal on an empty street in a lane with an arrow clearly showing that he is intending to turn.
Then the police beat him, pepper-sprayed him and tasered him.
Then the police charged him with resisting arrest.
That was not enough - when the charges were reduced to a plea of "making unreasonable noise", the police charged him with felony drug possession, put him in jail, and then the team of Otsego County judge John Lambert and Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl, acting together, attempted to drain his financial resources for the trial (Lambert, ordering numerous unnecessary "pretrial conferences", see how he does it in my previous blog) and to intimidate him that, if he proceeds to trial on THIS indictment, Muehl will RE-indict him for higher counts.
When the courageous individual persisted in proceeding to trial, Muehl finally coughed up a confession that he does not have a witness for the prosecution, that their alleged witness disappeared somewhere in Florida and was not to be recovered for trial.
Yet, Muehl continued to bluff that he had a witness - up until the trial date approached, and continued to intimidate the black individual who was the target of campaign orchestrated by Richard Miller to "get the likes of him out of town" - because he provided entertainment to minorities constituting just 4% of the City of Oneonta's population, but constituting over 60% of criminal defendants in Oneonta City Court, charged by the city's all-white police force.
After the felony counts were dismissed for failure of prosecution to provide a witness (if prosecution ever had a witness, or instead just tried to intimidate the victim of racial discrimination to plead guilty to a felony - against no prior criminal record - in order to get a basis to further discriminate against him) - he sued.
The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, was named Baron v Miller, 3:13-cv-153.
The City of Oneonta is notorious for racial profiling, and commemorating a garden in the memory of a racist is a slap in the face of the unlawfully profiled, discriminated and prosecuted minorities in the City of Oneonta.
Some years ago, a racial profiling sweep by the Oneonta police was upheld by a federal court because the racial factors were allegedly not the only factors in the sweep.
The sweep was triggered by a complaint of an elderly woman who was burglarized and who vaguely remembered the attacker as a "young black MAN".
That characterization was enough for the sweep of the whole city and of the SUNY campus, arrest of a black professor walking down the street, arrest of many young people including a young black WOMAN - and constitutionality of all of that was upheld by our glorious federal courts.
Yet, there were vigorous dissents in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Brown v Oneonta, including one joined by the current U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor, see comments about the dissent legal blogs.
There was also a petition by the New York Civil Liberties Union for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, available here.
The Brown v Oneonta case was not the only case that caught public attention involving racial profiling in the City of Oneonta.
Some time in the early 2000, I report the case from memory, several young black people were charged by Oneonta City police for defending themselves against assault by several white students in the Oneonta Parking garage. A white student suffered brain damage. No white students were charged, only the black young people who were defending themselves. The first indictment was tossed because the identifying information about the alleged perpetrators of crimes were "young black people in baseball caps". Later on, one of the initially indicted black individuals was not re-indicted, one pled guilty on ill advice of his attorney, and the others were acquitted at trial.
Then, there was the felony drug case, tossed because allegedly the prosecution's witness was nowhere to be found - after Judge Lambert denied access to the initial reports that the black individual was entitled to, attempted to drain his resources by dragging him to multiple unnecessary conferences off record where he was not allowed to appear, and after the courageous individual did not succumb to intimidations of John Muehl to indict him "higher" if he proceeds to trial.
There were also recent, May 2015, anti-racial profiling demonstrations in Oneonta, NY, you can see a video report about it here.
With THIS history of racial unrest and tension in the city, to dedicate a GARDEN to a racist who has reportedly killed himself recently (shortly after being sued for racial discrimination)?
A very bad idea.
Porter Kirkwood vs Gary Rosa - main problematic positions of candidates as expressed at the meeting with voters in October of 2015 in Sidney
I watched and listened through the one-and-a-half hour video of the meeting of judicial candidates Gary Rosa and Porter Kirkwoods with voters in October 2015.
The main problems that spring up (my personal opinion, of course) come from answers of candidates to two questions of the moderator
1) if and when it is appropriate to terminate parental rights;
2) if and when it is appropriate to put parents in jail for non-payment of child support,
and based on statements of Porter Kirkwood
3) about his devotion to work to protect "families and children",
4) his alleged encouragement by Porter Kirkwood to his supporters not to succumb to the alleged, but not specified "negativity" in the current judicial election campaign and the alleged "high road" of his campaign;
5) about Kirkwood's alleged love for appellate practice (while Rosa professed no experience in appellate practice);
6) and, the most horrible of all, a boastful revelation of Porter Kirkwood about a program of unlawful psychological experimentation on foster care children at taxpayers' expense. What Kirkwood parades as his advantage over Gary Rosa, is in fact, attorney misconduct warranting disbarment - where Porter Kirkwood first prosecuted as juvenile sex offenders, and then Porter Kirkwood, as advisor to the Delaware County DSS, the children's legal guardian, gave consent to experimental "treatment" (torture and sexual abuse) of those foster care children by a notorious, indiscriminate and greedy snake-oil peddler, the now-deceased psychologist "Dr." Hamill who was NOT a medical doctor and whose methods were NOT scientifically proven, at a cost to taxpayers of over $52,000 per foster child per year.
I already posted yesterday a blog about Kirkwood's appellate experience, which makes his claims that he took the job with the County because of his love of appellate practice a joke.
The rest of the five topics I outlined here require consideration in separate blogs, which I am going to do shortly.
Stay tuned.
The main problems that spring up (my personal opinion, of course) come from answers of candidates to two questions of the moderator
1) if and when it is appropriate to terminate parental rights;
2) if and when it is appropriate to put parents in jail for non-payment of child support,
and based on statements of Porter Kirkwood
3) about his devotion to work to protect "families and children",
4) his alleged encouragement by Porter Kirkwood to his supporters not to succumb to the alleged, but not specified "negativity" in the current judicial election campaign and the alleged "high road" of his campaign;
5) about Kirkwood's alleged love for appellate practice (while Rosa professed no experience in appellate practice);
6) and, the most horrible of all, a boastful revelation of Porter Kirkwood about a program of unlawful psychological experimentation on foster care children at taxpayers' expense. What Kirkwood parades as his advantage over Gary Rosa, is in fact, attorney misconduct warranting disbarment - where Porter Kirkwood first prosecuted as juvenile sex offenders, and then Porter Kirkwood, as advisor to the Delaware County DSS, the children's legal guardian, gave consent to experimental "treatment" (torture and sexual abuse) of those foster care children by a notorious, indiscriminate and greedy snake-oil peddler, the now-deceased psychologist "Dr." Hamill who was NOT a medical doctor and whose methods were NOT scientifically proven, at a cost to taxpayers of over $52,000 per foster child per year.
I already posted yesterday a blog about Kirkwood's appellate experience, which makes his claims that he took the job with the County because of his love of appellate practice a joke.
The rest of the five topics I outlined here require consideration in separate blogs, which I am going to do shortly.
Stay tuned.
Judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood abuses his power as the Delaware County Attorney in order to get elected and stalls disclosure of his potential undisclosed unethical interest in Delaware County contracts
Porter Kirkwood has been chest-pounding throughout his judicial election campaign about his alleged honesty, integrity, stellar reputation and qualification for Family Court judgeship and "taking the high road" as to the alleged "claims of negativity".
Yet, Delaware County, advised by Kirkwood as a legal advisor, stalled disclosure of contracts that were subject to New York State Comptroller's office, in answer to my Freedom of Information Request.
And here is the likely reason, why - Porter Kirkwood may have been involved in an undisclosed interest in those contracts.
Here are some pieces from the New York State Comptroller's audit report of May 2015 on Delaware County.
Yet, Delaware County, advised by Kirkwood as a legal advisor, stalled disclosure of contracts that were subject to New York State Comptroller's office, in answer to my Freedom of Information Request.
And here is the likely reason, why - Porter Kirkwood may have been involved in an undisclosed interest in those contracts.
Here are some pieces from the New York State Comptroller's audit report of May 2015 on Delaware County.
Once again.
The New York State Comptroller's Office made inquiries about possible interests in contracts pursuant to General Municipal Law of 24 individuals, including 19 members of the Board of Supervisors, four Department heads and the County Attorney (that is our judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood).
Apparently, since the Delaware County stalls disclosure about the contracts, I will have to file a FOIL request with the New York State Comptroller's office about the contracts covered by audit, vendor names, inquiries into the "possible interests in contracts" of "24 individuals", including a County Attorney.
The NYS Comptroller's audit report indicates that "one individual", without stating his name, out of 24 individuals that included the County Attorney Porter Kirkwood, did not comply with disclosure requirements of the individual's "potential interest in contracts".
Whether that individual was Porter Kirkwood or not, was not announced.
Porter Kirkwood would have an affirmative duty to come forward to the public and, during his judicial campaign, clearly state that he WAS NOT the individual mentioned in the NYS Comptroller's report who had an interest in the County contracts, but did not comply with disclosure requirements.
He did not make such a disclosure.
Instead, throughout his election campaign, he repeatedly stated that he had nothing to do with the no-bidding contracts - despite the report about the NYS Comptroller's inquiry about HIS "possible interest in contracts".
And now the County still does not have a procurement policy (according to the County's disclosure in answer to my FOIL request) - as was recommended by the NYS Comptroller in its "key recommendations":
The County reportedly "opted" not to have a Board of Ethics that the County announced in its own earlier resolution it will have.
And, the County, instead of committing ethical questions to a Board of Ethics, a public body whose meetings and decisions would be subject to public meetings law, "opted" to entrust the henhouse to the fox, to the behind-the-doors decision-making of the target of the NYS Comptroller's inquiry into unethical conduct - County Attorney Porter Kirkwood.
There is NOTHING ethical about this "ethical policy".
Porter Kirkwood's name cannot possibly be cleared after the audit report.
It is a violation of disciplinary rules for an attorney to have ANY interest in his client's dealings without a written disclosure of conflict of interest and a written waiver of that conflict of interest.
Porter Kirkwood's client is Delaware County, a public body supported by our, the taxpayers', money.
Porter Kirkwood owes us the taxpayers and voters an explanation he never gave during his judicial campaign - as to his own self-dealing in the County contracts, and as to covering up self-dealing of county officers and employees.
Instead, Porter Kirkwood claimed "taking the high road", not engaging in "negativity" and denouncing "attacks" on him during his judicial campaign.
While all the time he was stalling disclosure of public records that could provide the voters much needed - and potentially damaging - truth about the true face of Porter Kirkwood The Smiler.
I, of course, will get to the bottom of the names and numbers, through FOIL requests filed in various public agencies.
It will take time, but I will do it. I owe it to my family who pays the taxes. I owe it to my neighbors and friends who pay the taxes in Delaware County and do not have my knowledge and skills to pursue FOIL requests - an act presumed to be done in public interests (as courts ruled), and an act for which, nevertheless, I was repeatedly sanctioned and persecuted by the targets of the FOIL inquiries. People are afraid nowadays to even file a FOIL requests. Even more reason for me to do that, as my public service to my neighbors and friends in Delaware County.
Yet, while I am making my ways through the stallings of government agencies with FOIL requests, Porter Kirkwood may become an elected judge, elected through his fraud and non-disclosure to the voters of his misdeeds, as well as through his efforts to hide his misdeeds by abusing his power as the County Attorney and advisor to the Records Officer of the County and to deny release of records to me pursuant to FOIL requests.
Yet, there are precedents in the State of New York where a judge was taken off the bench based on something he did long before he became a judge - or even a lawyer.
Nor does judgeship protect Porter Kirkwood from criminal liability, if such liability is warranted based on public records that he is concealing from exposure to the public.
So, Porter Kirkwood should rest assured that, even if he gets elected as a judge, and if his "possible" misdeeds with contracts, which are PUBLIC RECORDS, and MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, are revealed when he is already a judge, there are plenty of legal avenues to address it and make sure he is no longer a judge.
Yet, there is enough impropriety in Kirkwood abusing his power, stalling public access to potentially damaging information, and now appointing himself THE person to address ethical questions in Delaware County instead of a public body subject to public meetings law - to simply NOT elevate Kirkwood into an even higher position of power.
His ethics on that high bench will not get miraculously better.
Absolute judicial immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts is what he craves - not service to the people. And corrupt acts will follow.
Now, let's count unethical acts Porter Kirkwood have so far been caught in:
- Representing private clients on taxpayer-backed time as a private attorney, during his employment for the County;
- Representing Social Services supervisor Peter Bracci sued for elder abuse and wrongful death of his father by his own sister (not a job for the County Attorney), which was in direct contradiction with Porter Kirkwood's duty to prosecute elder abusers;
- Failure to submit his own son's assault on another child on school grounds to a special juvenile delinquency investigator and prosecutor, and instead malicious prosecution of his son's victim's parents and (failed) vigorous efforts at two court levels to label his son's victim as mentally ill, to discredit the victim as a witness against his son;
- Ex parte communications with his friend, former boss and presiding judge Becker during pendency of cases before Becker leading to "winning" the cases before Becker;
- Interest in County contracts that was subject of NYS Comptroller's inquiry in May of 2015, and stalling disclosure of such contracts during his election campaign;
- Disclosure at the meeting with voters that Kirkwood participated in masterminding a program of psychological experiments on juvenile delinquents in foster care - where Kirkwood was, at the same time, an advisor of the County as legal guardian of the children, and the prosecutor of those same children, an IRRECONCILABLE conflict of interest that warrants DISBARMENT of Porter Kirkwood, not his elevation as a judge;
- False claims of superior appellate knowledge;
- Claims of allegedly handling "3000 cases" in Delaware County Family Court that Family Court refused to allow to verify, and, thus, truth or falsity of such claims cannot be established;
- Endorsing claims of other people who repeat his claim of "3000 cases" in Family Court, while, same as everybody else, are blocked from verifying truth or falsity of such statements, and thus, are made in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of such statements.
Voters, when you go to the booths on November 3, 2015, please, think if you need Porter Kirkwood who is a good candidate for disbarment AT THE VERY LEAST, as your Family Court judge who will also be appointed the local Acting Supreme Court justice and, as such, will decide ALL aspects of your life for the next 10 years, with absolute immunity for his MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts - which acts, judging from his past record, we as taxpayers and voters may be assured, will come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)