I can't afford my scented hanky to deal with the poor!

Russians have a saying:

"Some complain their bread is too hard;
Some complain their pearls are too small".

This blog post is about complaints of New York judiciary (and of attorneys whose livelihood is depending on good graces of that judiciary) to the New York State Commission for Judicial Compensation about the size of the pearls judges can and cannot afford.

DEBRA RASKIN, president of the New York City Bar Association, testimony of all witnesses are quoted from this official transcript of the November 30, 2015 hearing before the NYS Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative Compensation:

1. "I would also point out that many New Yorkers enter the state court system without counsel, which means that our judges not only manage heavy case loads but also must have the skill, patience and efficiency to shepherd through litigants who are proceeding without the benefits of lawyers. According to the New York State Unified Court System in 2013, there were 3.8 million cases filed in the trial courts that year alone and approximately two million litigants who proceeded in civil cases without representation of counsel. For many of those individuals - family, housing and debt matters - the outcome of the cases will be life-changing. ", transcript, p. 27.
   
   "Thus, our state court judges bear an enormous responsibility to manage and resolve not only the large complex cases, but in the face of significant obstacles the smaller cases, cases for unrepresented individuals that are no less critical to the well-being of our state. The quality of our judiciary and social and financial impact of the decisions they make every day depend on this", p. 27.
   
   Remember, this is the president of an organization that heavily lobbies to have attorney licensing remain the way it is (the NY City bar association did that before the recent Commission for Statewide Attorney discipline), and thus to prevent those millions of New Yorkers from getting affordable legal services, and this person who is part of the REASON why New Yorkers cannot have affordable legal representation, advocates to raise the pay of judges who help her maintain her lucrative status quo, BECAUSE judges "have" to deal with all those unrepresented litigants.
   
   If you think there can be a bottom of moral degradation of the legal profession, this is it - to advocate the hand that feeds you at the expense of your victims because that hand has to deal with those victims of your own behavior.

And, Debra Raskin states that her bar association supported the previous judicial pay raise, too:

1. "the City Bar actively supported increasing juddicial pay when the Commission first convened in 2011" - so that the judiciary would not forget the favor and give quid pro quo favor accordingly.
   

Here is the testimony on the same day of BARRY BOHRER, Chairman, Fund for Modern Courts, transcript, pp. 32-33:

1. "Given the continuing challenges of the economy, many more litigants in these difficult times are turning to the courts to resolve both family and financial problems. Most often, these litigants are unrepresented, requiring the judiciary to take an ever more active role in the resolution of those problems. Our recommendations take this into account."

Translation into the plain English.

• economy is getting worse;
• more people are getting poor as a result;
• consumer debt cases and bank foreclosures on people's homes rise;
• bad economy causes many families to split up;
• child support applications rise
• people affected by bad economy and poverty go to court to resolve their problems either voluntarily (child support petitioners) or involuntarily (child support respondents, consumer debt and residential foreclosure defendants);
• courts have to "deal" with these poor unrepresented people;
• for that hard work of dealing with the poor, despite the worsening economy, judges need to be paid extra

Again, this is the Chairman for the so-called "Fund for MODERN Courts".  Very modern courts, indeed.

What Barry Bohrer omitted to mention is also that he is a licensed attorney, and that for him the judiciary for whose pay raise he is advocating, is his licensing agency holding his own livelihood in their hands:

And, this "Fund for Modern Courts"'s officially announced programs is "Supporting Judges", made in affiliation with a now-convicted felon Sheldon Silver.   How appropriate.   

Judges could not have a better advocate for judicial pay raises.

This snapshot as taken of the Modern Courts website TODAY, several days after conviction of Sheldon Silver.

I guess, Sheldon Silver still has some clout that the "Modern Courts" Fund, an advocate for judicial pay raises, considers it appropriate to parade their affiliation with him.

The Modern Courts also supported Lippman's "Constitutional Amendment" to increase judge's mandatory retirement age from 70 (Lippman leaves at the end of this year, this is why the Commission's hearings are so rushed, to make the pay raise Lippman's legacy as a favor of the judiciary he leaves behind and before whom he will appear as a lawyer starting from January 1, 2016).

New York taxpayers rejected that amendment at a constitutional referendum of November 3, 2013, as they should reject the undeserved and unwarranted judicial pay raises now.

Remember Barry Bohrer - this is a licensed attorney from a powerful and rich law firm who:

1) depending financially through law licensing on the judiciary, and on favors from the judiciary in resolving his client's cases, and for that reason:

2) he cavorts with the top judge of the state through "civic" organizations like this "Fund for Modern Courts";

3) publicly supports judges through declarations on that organization's website;

4) supports increasing retirement age for judges which saddles New Yorkers with octogenarian judges and would have allowed Chief Judge Lippman 10 more years of more pay; and

4) who keeps the picture of a convicted felon, Judge Lippman's childhood buddy and bosom friend Sheldon Silver, convicted in federal court specifically for corruption in public office, on the webpage of his "civic organization" while indicating support for the state judiciary.

Judges of the State of New York should really be proud of such an advocate.  

Barry Bohrer can just as well put a slogan for the New York State judiciary on the website of his organization:

"Judges of the State of New York are not for sale.  We already bought them."

* * *

The next courtier with an even more disgusting testimony in support of judicial pay-raise at the hearing of November 30, 2015, was Adrienne Holder, "of Legal Aide Society", an Ivy League law school graduate, transcript starting at p. 49.

This is the officially declared champion for the poor, who is actually paid to represent the poor in various settings.

Let's see what that champion says on the issue of judicial pay raise.

This is what she says:

1. 
   
   

1. 
   
   Ok, we got it, she and her staff represent the poor across a large area of the State of New York.
   
   
   Holder says that she is in a unique position to address the issue of judicial pay raises from her organization's prospective and experience.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Remember that Holder is a licensed attorney whose livelihood is in the hands of the judiciary through licensing.
   
   
   And, her career growth is in the hands of the same judiciary, because if she gets sanctioned by a judge for whatever reason, her license can get pulled, and she will lose her job.
   
   
   So.
   
   
   This is Holder's "unique prospective":
   
   
   "we strongly endorse substantial pay increases for the judiciary".
   
   
   And she goes on, and on, and on, about "judicial independence", necessity to attract "judicial talent" (that somehow cannot be attracted with a salary of $174,000 per year, with benefits, perks and support personnel), yada, yada, yada.
   
   
   Here it is.
   
   
   The advocate of the poor.
   
   
   Stating that the poor could just as well become a little poorer, so that the judges in front of whom she appears representing those poor people are paid a lot extra.
   
   
   And here is a chime-in from a judge in front of whom the poor usually appear - a City Court judge, in eviction, traffic ticket, crimes up to a misdemeanor level, felony arraignments, arraignments on family court warrants.
   
   
   Here is who the speaker is:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   He says that his court deals with a lot of unrepresented (poor, poorly educated) parties:
   
   
   
   
   
   He says that the job of a judge is worth doing no matter what:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    And yet, he complains about THIS level of judicial salaries - while working with the poor:
   
   
   
   
   
   Moreover, he complains that he gets less than 1/2 of the "middle level" salary of a full time judge of $145,000 per year.
   
   
   In other words, private attorney and part time judge Matthew Turner, of Troy, NY,  complains that, in addition to his private practice, he is paid as a 1/2 time judge less than $72,500 a year, with benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

You know...

Don't people have SOME shame?  At least not to complain about their "meager bucks" while working with the poor, and asking to increase their pay in order to be able to work with the poor better while this private attorney and half-judge's pay is $20,000 per year more for 1/2 judicial position than what an average New York taxpayer who is going to foot the bill of Turner's pay increase is getting.

I wrote on this blog about another such complainer - Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dowd who complained about his "meager bucks" of $174,000 per year right into the face of an indigent pro se litigant", I have a transcript on file, and NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct did not consider that statement an act of misconduct for Judge Dowd.

We read about the nobility in the olden times in the olden countries who would hold a scented handkerchief while dealing with the poor.  

This is what our new nobility, the judiciary, and their courtiers the attorneys, seem to be doing.

They are advocating that they need to be paid more because they HAVE TO - DEAL - with THOSE people - the unrepresented parties - THE POOR.  The horror!

Yet, economists say that increased judicial pay may attract not legal talent, but status seekers and "leisure seekers", those people for whom "that vacation in Paris will seem more affordable".

 

While working with the poor.

In return for their hard work - with the poor.

So, we the taxpayers must now pay extra for HAVING to work with us.

We are that plebs that judges have to be paid extra "to deal with" if we appear before those judges on our own, without an expensive agent thrust upon as as compulsory and expensive "help" from the government in order to represent us.

And we, as that plebs, who is coincidentally the employer of the State judges, should say "no" to the bigger pearls and scented hankies for the judiciary that they need to work with the poor and with all of unrepresented parties, the ordinary people who foot their bills.

They need to earn their pay - and they don't do it even now.

No pay raises for New York judges!

The irresponsible experiment with court access - secret policies of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against civil rights plaintiffs

On October 20, 2014 the Chief Judge of the Northern District of New York commenced an anti-filing proceeding against my husband based on his constitutional civil rights lawsuits, to block him from access to court to complain about any future constitutional violations by the government.

In the Order to Show Cause of October 20, 2014 there were no grounds shown: not statutory, not through case law, not through anything, for imposition of an anti filing injunction Chief Judge sought to impose.

Mr. Neroni opposed the Order to Show Cause and made a motion to recuse based on the court's incestous relationship with certain attorneys that the court granted boons in the cases that the court used as grounds for anti-filing injunction, such as attorneys from Hiscock & Barclay, see also here, (now Hiscock & Barclay merged with another firm and is called Barclay Damon) and Hinman, Howard and Kattel, advisor of the court and at the same time employer of a defendant, Ellen Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma.

I will upload Mr. Neroni's opposition a little later, it is large, has a lot of exhibits and requires a lot of time to upload.

In November of 2014, NDNY already imposed the anti-filing injunction, without an evidentiary hearing, based on 5 civil rights cases - at the very same time as the U.S. Congress discussed amendment of Rule 11 (sanctions rule), with a vigorous debate that sanctions will be abused by federal courts and disproportionately imposed upon civil rights plaintiffs (like Mr. Neroni) in order to chill civil rights litigation (which is what the anti-filing proceedings were doing).

Two of the five cases that the Order to Show cause for the anti-filing injunction against Mr. Neroni is based upon were still pending at the time the Show Cause Order was issued.

I was Mr. Neroni's counsel in those two cases (Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127) and Neroni v Grannis (3:11-cv-1485), and a co-Plaintiff in one of them, but the parallel proceedings were commenced ex parte, without notifying me as counsel or co-Plaintiff, while NDNY called the entire proceedings "frivolous" (which affected my personal rights, too, requiring notice to me of the commencement of those parallel proceedings, moreover the court was constrained by court rules and ethical rules not to communicate with Mr. Neroni, a counseled party, directly and not through his counsel).

But, back to the basics.

October 20, 2014 - Order to Show Cause was issued by the NDNY court, not showing any legal basis for imposition of the anti-filing injunction (see that order included into the Appellee's brief interlinked below).

November, 2014 - the Anti-filing injunction, here, now showing (with notice given backwards, after the fact - which is unconstitutional per se) that the basis of the Order to Show Cause WAS actually the so-called "All Writs Act", not that Mr. Neroni was aware of this since the Order to Show Cause never gave him that notice;

Mr. Neroni appealed the anti-filing injunction in 2014.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit required Mr. Neroni to comply with the filing rules on an extremely tight schedule, and Mr. Neroni, a pro se party, did comply with those rules and filed his Appellate Brief and appendix timely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit then slept at the wheel and did not issue a scheduling order in the case until October, 2015.

The 2nd Circuit appointed the U.S. Attorney General's office for the Northern District of New York to represent the now new Chief Judge of NDNY Glenn Suddaby as the Appellee (opponent) in Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal.

On December 2, 2015, three privileged governmental lawyers, only one of whom was admitted to the 2nd Circuit, filed a brief on behalf of Judge Suddaby, it is available here.

In that brief, for the first time since the Order to Show Cause was issued on October 20, 2014, NDNY revealed that it was acting on policies (and Article III of the U.S. Constitution giving limited powers to federal courts do not allow federal courts to engage in policy-making, especially on issues of access to court, a constitutional issue, that is the exclusive prerogative of the U.S. Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution).

Here is the policy NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby provided.

Civil rights litigants and attorneys practicing in NDNY might find it useful to familiarize with this policy that was not made part of the "Local Rules" of that court, but is claimed to exist since 2007.

By the way, it is also claimed to have been significantly amended, with new procedures, after I filed my lawsuit against Judge Becker in December of 2011.   An interesting response, isn't it?

The policy:

So, there exist Congress-enacted statutes.

There exist Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

There exist publicly posted court rules.

There exist publicly posted local rules of court that public has a notice of an opportunity to comment on before they are introduced.

And - there exists a secret policy that overruns all of the above and that is pulled out of the court's hat long after the court was supposed to give a litigant notice that the court is actually acting on this policy and on nothing else.

The brief also mentioned close to 20 cases from the 2nd Circuit spelling out more policies on imposition of anti-filing injunctions and so-called "tests" that Mr. Neroni allegedly did not comply with in opposing the Order to Show Cause in 2014 and allegedly did not spell out in his appeal in 2015.

Once again, the notice of the "tests" he was supposed to comply with in October of 2014 was given to him, after the fact, more than a year later, in an opposition to his appeal, in another court.

And, a privileged young woman, a Yale Law School-educated U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jaynnie Lilley argued (in a footnote only) that Mr. Neroni's constitutional arguments "are meritless and are not worthy of response".

The only place this young attorney sworn as an officer of the court to protect the U.S. Constitution, found it necessary to address egregious violations of Mr. Neroni's constitutional rights which were absolved through application of various types of immunities without the court even looking at the merits of the cases, was in a footnote at the end of her brief - like this:

"(violations to rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments)" that are "meritless and not worthy of response".

By the way, this disdainful statements was made by Mrs. Lilley in the same breath as Mrs. Lilley spelled out the "test" by which the 2nd Circuit declared that "issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived". 

When an appellee claims that certain issues are "not worthy of response", that means the appellee is choosing not to respond to those issues - at the peril of that same test being applied to him and all of his defenses to those arguments being "considered waived".

What do they teach them in Yale Law School?

Well, the worthiness of that Ivy League "legal education" was recently shown when two months ago, in October of 2015, a team of prisoners without any legal education defeated a team of law students from Harvard Law School.

And, law students interviewed after the defeat clearly stated the reasons for the defeat - the law students did not consider uneducated prisoners as worthy opponents and did not prepare ("they caught us off guard").  And that is, when the conditions for preparation for the debate were slanted against the prisoners and in favor of the privileged and highly educated Ivy League law students, "the best of the best" - because prisoners were not allowed to do research online, and there was no such restriction upon law students.  

That's what happened here, too.  A disbarred attorney and a civil rights litigant is not considered a worthy opponent, and a young and privileged Ivy League law school graduate looks at him down her privileged dainty nose in the hope that ANYTHING that the government says will be swallowed by the court and treated favorably.

We'll see whether the 2nd Circuit's fairness and impartiality will be on par with those who ruled the competition between the Harvard Law School students and prisoners.

But, that footnote above is the essence of what the government is doing with civil rights litigation - it is quashing it, with an implication or open declaration that it is not worth a response, and is punishing victims of constitutional violations with blocking all opportunities for them to complain against ANY FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT against them.

That is the same as putting a bull's eye on the person and tell the government - do ANYTHING YOU WANT to him, he has no right or remedy to protect himself.

Does it look like a constitutional democracy to you?

In his testimony before the U.S. Congress Judiciary Committee in opposition to the new version of the federal court sanctions rule, the President for the advocacy group, Center for Constitutional Litigation, called such an amendment to sanctions, same as the previously existing version of that same rules abolished in 1993 because of its targeting of civil rights plaintiffs and chilling civil rights litigation, "an irresponsible experiment with court access".

Any sanctions imposed upon people for raising constitutional arguments and trying to obtain a legal remedy, like Mr. Neroni was trying, against powerful government officials for violating of his constitutional rights, is, similarly, an irresponsible experiment with court access that should not be happening in a democratic society.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allows politically connected attorneys from the U.S. Attorneys' office to practice without admission or renewal

My husband was served with a Response brief in the case where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York was declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit a party Appellee as of November 12, 2015.

Of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals assigned the U.S. Attorney General's office for the Northern District of New York to handle the case, and attorneys who appeared in the case are not from that office, making their appearance of questionable validity.

The names of attorneys whose name (not signature) appeared on the Appellee Chief Judge Glenn Suddaby's brief, are:

1) Benjamin C. Mizer;
2) Matthew Collette;
3) Jaynie Lillie

Of course, it is questionable that the U.S. Attorney General's office has a right to appear in opposition to my husband's appeal of anti-filing injunction where part of the basis of that anti-filing injunction is the case Neroni v Grannis (a still ongoing case) pertaining to which Mr. Neroni has filed a criminal complaint WITH the U.S. Attorney General's Office (Preet Bharara) back in 2014, you can see that complaint interlinked in this blog here.

The criminal complaint deals with the apparent bribery by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo of the then-Appellate Division 3rd Department judge Leslie Stein by promoting her (with a large power, prestige and salary/benefits increase to the New York State Court of Appeals) WHILE she was deciding the case against Mr. Neroni by the DEC - and, of course, it took her just 6 days after the  nomination to decide in favor of DEC (subordinate of Governor Cuomo) and against Mr. Neroni, a clear quid-pro-quo.  

Mr. Bharara recently pursued "quids pro quo" against two out of three "men in a room" in New York (New York Assembly Speaker, now former, Sheldon Silver, and New York Senate Majority Leader, now former, Dean Skelos).

There is no reason to believe that Mr. Bharara will not pursue Mr. Neroni's complaint, so the anti-filing injunction, and opposition by the U.S. Attorney General's office to Mr. Neroni's appeal to that injunction, interferes with the U.S. Attorney General's own criminal investigation into corruption in New York by opposing, punishing and intimidating their own witness.

But, back to our trio of attorneys from the U.S. Attorney General opposing Mr. Neroni's pro se appeal.

As I stated above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to represent Judge Suddaby as the Appellee on that appeal.

That means that the trio of attorneys who appeared on Appellee's behalf must be (1) licensed to practice in New York state, and (2) admitted to practice in the 2nd Circuit.

Here are results of my research as to all three on the websites of New York State and 2nd Circuit court systems.

1)  Benjamin C. Mizer - admitted in New York, but not admitted in the 2nd Circuit.  

Thus, according to the rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Mr. Mizer had no right to put his signature on briefs, especially as a principal attorney in an appeal, and to file any documents electronically with the 2nd Circuit court.

Yet, Mr. Mizer is part of the office that represents both the NDNY Chief Judge Suddaby, and the 2nd Circuit Court itself, so, I guess, one does not piss of one's own attorney by application of one's pesky rules of admission to one's own counsel.

That is exactly why the New York State Attorney General and his over 600 Assistant Attorneys General escape attorney discipline - because that office represents attorney disciplinary committees in New York in federal actions, defending them against civil rights actions for constitutional violations.

Once again, one does not piss of one's own attorney with the application with that pesky rule of law against him.

So much for the declared purpose of attorney discipline of "protection of consumers".  Right.  

So, why Mr. Mizer was even thrown into this litigation if he is not admitted in the 2nd Circuit?  The answer is very simple.

Mr. Mizer, according to his official biography posted on the website of the U.S. Attorney General's office, is a former law clerk of the now-sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens.

Nothing like having a familiar name for a U.S. Supreme Justice in the pleadings in the court below for the case that has a potential to go to the U.S. Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds.   The name can signal to the justice - "here I am, rule my way", right?

2) The second attorney who signed the Appellee's brief on behalf of Judge Suddaby is Matthew Collette, who is not admitted in New York and who should be on inactive status due to violation of the 2nd Circuit's rule of renewal. 

The rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, snapshot below, provides that an attorney must renew his admission status every 5 years, and an attorney who failed to renew admission one month after the expiration of the 5-year period (that was September 11, 2015 for Mr. Collette, nearly 3 months ago), is placed in "inactive status" and must complete the renewal process to practice before the court.

Yet, apparently violating that rule, Mr. Collette was not put on "inactive" status and was allowed to make electronic filing as an attorney for the Appellee, and I wonder why the 2nd Circuit violates its own rules in order to allow to practice an attorney from the office that is the official legal advisor BOTH of Judge Suddaby AND of the 2nd Circuit.

As I said above, you do not piss off your own attorney by applying to him your own pesky rules of admission. The rules of law are only for the outsiders, the mere mortals, not for government officials.


Here is information from Matthew Collette's LinkedIn profile:

Now I get it.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

Nobody applies rules made for mere mortals to the current Deputy Director of the U.S. Department of Justice who is making a lightning-fast career to up on top.  Who knows where Mr. Collette will end up next, one does not want to step on his toes now by applying those pesky rules of admission of the 2nd Circuit to him.

3) Jainie Lilley - admitted in the 2nd Circuit (and appears on the bottom of the list of three attorneys, the previous two either not admitted, or should be on an "inactive" status based on the court's rules), but not admitted in the State of New York, so Janie Lilley is not from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to which office the case was assigned by the court.

So.

For some inexplicable reason, the U.S. Attorney General's Office had the need to have three names of attorneys put on Judge Suddaby's Appellee's brief in an anti-injunction case on the issue of restriction on future political speech (a presumptively unconstitutional act under existing constitutional law), the first of them being two political heavy-weights (not admitted to that court) and the last is a privileged girl from a rich and powerful family.

Everything about that "trio" is about what today's America is all about - status, connections and money.

The rule of law?  You are kidding me, right?

The mask of hypocrisy as to the purpose of attorney regulation in New York is off as of November 2015

On November 13, 2015, a law license of an attorney (mine) was pulled for "frivolous" criticism of a judge (and a prosecutor, and the Vice-Chair of the New York Commission of Judicial Conduct drumming favors from a judge dependent on his favors) in several motions to recuse (motions made in order to ensure my client's constitutional right to an impartial judicial review).

On November 30, 2015, a judge of an attorney-licensing court, Judge Sheri Roman of the Appellate Division 2nd Department, testified in front of the NYS Judicial Compensation Commission, and in her testimony, extended, on behalf of the state judiciary, a "resounding thank you" to a law firm and several named attorneys of that law firm for advocating in favor of judicial pay raises, pay raises for those people who hold in their hands licenses and livelihoods of those same attorneys (see interlinked transcript of Judge Roman's testimony, pages 40-41, see also full analysis of her testimony here).

So, in the month of November, year of 2015, the New York judiciary finally threw to the winds its mask of hypocrisy and openly stated to the people what exactly attorney licensing in this state is for:  

1) to fight the whistleblowers of judicial corruption and make sure that they cannot earn a living in their own state, or anywhere else they choose to go from the glorious State of New York; and

2) to encourage corruption of the government by the legal elite, as a quid pro quo for keeping their licenses intact, keeping them in business and, no doubt, ruling in their favor.

I wonder if law schools will assign Judge Roman's testimony to law school students as a required reading in their Ethics class - because, as I said before on this blog, brown-nosing the judiciary is THE ONLY rule of "ethics" New York State attorneys need to survive in their "noble profession".

Judge Sheri Roman's testimony before the NYS Commission for Judicial Pay raise - shameless and flowery unwarranted self-praise, invitation for corruption to attorneys and a substantiation for a "judicial pay adjustment", a pay CUT

In her testimony before the New York State Commission for Judicial, Executive and Legislative Compensation, Appellate Division judge Sheri Roman made many interesting statements.

Here the are, with comments. 

1) the Judicial Pay Commission is the "key component to remedy a wrong of constitutional import impacting judicial independence" (pages 34-35 of the transcript) - the word "Constitution" is used by judges in four settings: 

    No. 1 - judges take their office and start receiving their salary and benefits by taking an oath pledging to protect and enforce the Constitution of the State of New York and of the United States;

    No. 2 - when a constitutional argument is brought in court, judges punish those who raise those arguments with multi-thousand-dollar monetary fines and make sure such people cannot earn a livelihood in the State of New York or in any other state;

    No. 3 - when judges are sued for violation of constitutional rights, they invoke absolute judicial immunity to violate the U.S. Constitution that they took the oath to protect (No. 1), they assert their right to violate the U.S. Constitution as a necessary condition of maintaining their "judicial independence", and they ask to punish the victims of their constitutional violations for complaining and make sure that those who complain and especially their attorneys suffer monetary fines and be deprived of their livelihood (No. 2);

    No. 4 - judges recall the U.S. Constitution when they claim that they need a pay raise to continue to protect their judicial independence, the same judicial independence that they also need to protect by punishing those who raise constitutional arguments and those who sue judges for constitutional violations; judges need the pay raise to continue to protect the U.S. Constitution with immunity (No. 2, No. 3 above).

Quite a "House that Jack built" kind of an argument, isn't it?  

Yet, that is the reality of what is happening with the U.S. Constitution, judicial "independence" FROM that U.S. Constitution, and penalties imposed upon people who raise constitutional arguments in court, pro se or through an ever diminishing number of attorneys who are brave enough to do their duty by their clients, including penalties upon victims of judicial constitutional violations for daring to complain about those violations and for daring to ask for help against judges who committed those constitutional violations.

Judge Sheri Roman's testimony before the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation is a good example of setting No. 4. 

For licensed attorneys, "officers of the court" similarly sworn to protect the U.S. and State Constitutions, but who do not have absolute immunity for misconduct "in office" like judges gave themselves, raising constitutional arguments is safe only in setting No. 4 - in support of judicial pay raises (see below where Judge Roman extends a "resounding thank you" to licensed attorneys whose licenses she regulates for advocating for her pay raises).

Ok, let's go further with Judge Roman's testimony, here are other quotes. 

2)"there is no real controversy for the need for judicial pay adjustment", p. 35 - I guess, Judge Roman polled every one of the millions of New York state taxpayers who she is saddling with that pay raise, what an accomplishment;

3) "across the state, judges dedicate their professional life to the rule of law", p. 35; as far as I know from my professional experience, judges dedicate their professional life to anything but the "rule of law", mostly, they dedicate their lives to  using the courtroom to settle their personal grudges, extending their personal favors and demonstrating their power without regard to the rule of law;

4)please, brace yourself to absorb this one: "judges strive to employ every scintilla of their legal acumen accumulated throughout their legal career to achieve just resolutions" - I was always disgusted with people who praise themselves, and especially in a flowery language.  It is a "flowery language alert" - whenever you see that, hold onto your pocket, most likely you are being duped.

5) "fairness of course is the bedrock of expectations we are relied upon to mete out to all citizen who cross the thresholds of our courtrooms", pp. 35-36.  That declaration may be true because the public does elect judges to fairly resolve disputes in court - which does not happen in reality

As a "consequence" of No. 5, 

6) "justices of this state trust that we have finally achieved by this Commission our own path to fair compensation", p. 36 - by "this"  Commission comprised of people with financial interest in judicial pay raises "justices of this state" certainly can trust that they have achieved "a path" to RAISED compensation - which has nothing to do with fairness, appropriateness of such pay, or approval of the taxpayers who are being saddled with that pay; nor can the Legislature delegate an important task deeply affecting the State budget to unelected officials, making the Commission and its findings completely illegitimate and void;

7) "this Commission,comprised of successful legal, business and civic leaders, understands the necessity to advance and maintain seasoned, learned and compassionate bench" - that is as thick a hint as it could be made, to the bar dependent for its licenses and livelihoods, as well as for their "successes", upon favors of the "seasoned, learned" and especially "compassionate bench" (this statement of Judge Roman also raises in my, possibly, too-vivid imagination, some disturbing images about inanimate objects (bars) being "successful" and about other inanimate objects ("benches") being "compassionate", p. 36;

8)"the necessity to advance and maintain a seasoned, learned and compassionate bench ... is a prerequisite to the economic vitality and preeminence of New York State" - now, for those of you who thought that the job of judges is to decided just certain cases coming before them, this one is a new, apparently, judges are marketing themselves as an attraction point of the State of New York to businesses - how appropriate (at least, there is no wonder any more when you read judicial decisions openly catering to business litigants over individuals without any regard for that much propounded "rule of law", in foreclosures and consumer debts cases), p. 37

9) "the 12-1/2 year salary freeze diminished the stature of the judiciary in the eyes of our citizens as well as those in the legal profession" - I wish Judge Roman would not speak on behalf of "our citizens", it clearly reminds me of a salesman trying to instill into you why you "deserve no less" than some expensive trinket that you do not need - and the proposition that judicial salary freeze somehow diminished "stature of the judiciary" in the eyes of the legal profession... why should that be even a relevant point?  A lawyer is an agent of a litigant who comes to court to advocate for his or her client, a judge is doing his or her job resolving that dispute, that's it - "statures" have no relevancy to that;

10)   the importance of the legal profession in whose eyes the salary "freeze" diminishes the "stature of the judiciary" is that the legal profession "is the very well we need to draw upon to fill the ranks of tomorrow's judiciary, as well as prevent the premature retirement of those who personify judicial talent" - and these statements are thrown around by a sitting judge without presentation of ANY data showing that the salary "freeze" at $174,000 a year scares away from the "bench" any number of lawyers, including those who line up for $60 and $75-an-hour assignments (rather, what "scares them away" is the expense and required clout in the judicial election campaigns that those who "personify judicial talent" cannot afford like Judge Sheri Roman did for her own election);

11) "a judge embodies notions of equal treatment and fair play, but how can a judge decree a fair solution in cases before them when they are not empowered to achieve fairness for themselves" - now, that is rich, because for those who are familiar with New York court system and the New York judiciary, a judge in New York courts "embodies" notions of a cantankerous and capricious tyrant whose whim rules over the rule of law every time, yet, what is valuable in this particular false self-praise is that Judge Roman attempts to connect and condition judicial compensation on judicial performance, on its "fairness" part, saying that since judges are fair to everybody else (of course, they are not), they need to be treated fairly by the taxpayers - in that regard, if that principle is invoked by the judiciary, it should be applied: since the judiciary is not fair to "citizens", it cannot expect fairness in its compensation;

12) "12-1/2 years with no salary or cost of living adjustment created an adverse financial situation that was not sufficiently ameliorated by the raises decreed by the last salary Commission" - think about how judges and their families are struggling on only $174,000 a year, do you feel compassion overwhelming you?

13) "anyone who chooses a life in public service makes that career decision understanding they will never accumulate the wealth of their colleagues in the private sector. We need diversity of background for those willing to apply for appointment or election to the bench. We do not want a judiciary comprised of those who aspire because it's viewed as a career with a guaranteed paycheck or a bench comprised primarily of those select individuals wealthy enough to retire to the bench. To achieve this diverse judiciary, we need to assure judicial candidates that it is an economically viable aspiration providing fair compensation" - here Judge Roman pretends to be an economist implying that we need to raise judicial pay to attract better judicial candidates, while, in fact, there are studies by economists showing that raising judicial pay may worsen the quality of the judiciary, I will cover that subject in my next post;

14) "a stagnant period of 12-1/2 years created a twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench. Seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - I was taught as a linguist (I have a Masters degree in teaching English as a foreign language from the Moscow Linguistic University) that metaphors should be used cautiously since perception of the creator of the metaphor may differ, significantly, from the perception of the reader and can invoke reactions other than those sought.  Now imagine in your mind's eye the "twist and constriction in the pipelines of the bench"... I wonder who wrote the piece for Judge Roman.  If it was Judge Roman herself, she definitely is a candidate for a judicial pay CUT, and if it is her clerk, she needs to change that clerk.  Look at the next one: "seeds of judicial aspirations certainly lay fallow" - what are "judicial aspirations", why should the public answer those aspirations, why should they answer those aspirations with pay raises of the already inflated salaries, what is the empirical, evidentiary support for the pay raises other than that judges want to be paid the same as their neighbors?

15) "the rippling effects [of the salary "freeze" - T.N.] diminish the stature of the judiciary in tandem with diminishing the ability of our jurists to be bread winners for their families" - as I said above, my heart, as, I am sure, the hearts of New York taxpayers who  make on average not more than $52,000 a years, overflows with compassion to the poor judges who cannot provide for their families on $174,000 a year.  On the other hand, if they can't do that, they (1) need a course in home economics and (2) they should step off the bench because if they cannot handle their own family budget on more than ample pay, they certainly cannot be trusted with good judgment in making judicial decisions;

16) "our legal system has not tread water. New York judges now hear over 4 million cases. Supreme Court filings have increased more than percent since the 2011 salary Commission last heard testimony. Justice is delivered in staggering quantities, with judicial implementation of innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation". I know of some "innovative initiatives to address the astonishing complexity of today's litigation".  They are: (1) disregard the record;  (2) disregard the law, (3) drag people into multiple coerced conferences so that they drain their resources on legal fees to attend those conferences and can no longer afford an attorney for the actual trial of the cases; (4) punish people for making constitutional arguments, (5) dismiss most cases on motions to dismiss or summary judgment disregarding the applicable law, (6) use the "move up or move on" rule; (7) use on appeal the "judicial deference to the biased judge below" rule;  (8) use on appeal the "constitutional avoidance" (I do not see your Constitutional argument, along with parts of the record it refers to) rule.  Because of those "innovative initiatives" Injustice IS, indeed, "delivered in staggering quantities".

17) judges had "generous support from academia in analyzing the financial and comparative data, which were all included as exhibits in our association's written submission. The Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University School of Industrial Labor Relations has provided us with reliable statistics, including historic data from the archive of the National Center for State Courts. Our ability to pay analysis was compiled under the auspices of James Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute" - of course, Judge Roman omits to mention a strong  opposition "in the academia" showing that there is no evidentiary support for the proposition that judges are underpaid and should be paid more, and that there are people in the "academia" who believe that raising judicial salaries will worsen the quality of "justice delivered in staggering quantities", see article "Are Judges Overpaid";

18) judges "recognize that the state's fiscal picture is eons away from the dismal one that confronted us in the past. ...

The state anticipates multi-billions in state budget surpluses and is in its best fiscal position in many years, as described by New York State Budget Director Mary Beth Labate" - I wonder which planet Judge Roman and NYS State Budget Director Labate are from, and I wonder why REAL monetary increases should be based on ANTICIPATED surpluses where the current economic conditions in the State of New York are so far from healthy that the State of New York ranks 47 of 51 states in economic health.  Of course, when you are on the bottom, all steps you make are in the "right direction" - upwards, but such "anticipation" in no way justifies spending now what the state economy simply does not have to spend;

19) "our fair compensation request would constitute a small fraction of 1 percent of the state's operating budget" - first, Judge Roman did not indicate how small is the "fraction of 1 percent", second, Judge Roman does not give a real number of all pension related and non-pension related benefits impact of the salary increase, and under conditions where New York already has $250 billion of unreported public employee benefits debt as opposed to just $30 billion reported, such an omission is very telling;  Judge Sheri Roman, "the saleswoman" for the judiciary, does not want to show the downside of her unnecessary expensive trinket to the taxpayers upon whom she is thrusting that trinket of judicial pay raise;

20) "the continued declination to promulgate appropriate and fair compensation has created an injury of constitutional proportions and undermines the ability of New York to provide an excellent, enlightened, hard working judiciary. Competitive salaries are required to attract the best and brightest" - now, let's get real: judges in New York are elected, nobody drags them into election campaigns, and when they run for the judicial position, they know the salary they are getting into; judges are getting into a term of 10 (in Family and County Courts) or 14 years (Supreme Court), the salary for those terms are fixed, and there should be no expectation of salary increase by those who are already on the bench.  You ran for that position, you got that position, you are paid for the position you applied for, now work for that pay or get out, it is as simple as that.  And, the public sector judiciary does not need the "best and the brightest", competent, honest and hardworking are enough, thank you very much.

21) "a resounding thank you must be accorded Stroock and Stroock and Levan, Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker, for their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation" - now, THAT is an open signal to the "citizens and the legal profession" that the law firm of Strook, Strook & Levan and lawyers of that law firm "Joe Forstadt, Alan Klinger and Dina Kolker", are the favorites of Judge Roman and of the State judiciary because of "their perpetual support of the judiciary's request for fair treatment and compensation".  That is corruption, ladies and gentlemen.  

A judge of the appellate division, a law-licensing agency, a judge who holds in her hands licenses and livelihoods of every one of the lawyers in that same Strook, Strook & Levan, in her public testimony to the NYS Commission for Judicial Compensation, which she knows will be published for the whole wide world to see, puts a pointer on a law firm indicating that that law firm is her favorite - because attorneys of that law firm fortified their business, as well as protected their licenses and livelihoods by advocacy that brought more money to the judges in front of whom those attorneys appear.  That is also a signal to other lawyers to advocate for judicial pay raise, to earn the same "resounding thank you" from the judiciary, in more than just words.  That is an invitation for corruption.  You advocate to raise my salary, and I will not take your license and will make judicial decisions in your favor.  That's a hint, as clear as it can be.  Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, Judge Roman.

I urge present and future litigants and attorneys in the State of New York (those who are not in the brown-nosing the "constricted and twisted" "pipeline of the bench" - not my words, Judge Roman's) to note the testimony of Judge Sheri Roman and its apparent invitation to attorneys for corrupt relationships with the state judiciary.

I urge the U.S. Assistant Attorney General Preet Bharara note Judge Sheri Roman's testimony, for the same reason.

On the other hand, Judge Sheri Roman's testimony is a good example that judicial salaries should be, indeed, "adjusted" - it should be adjusted downwards, through a pay cut, until and unless the New York judiciary is thoroughly cleaned of judges such as Sheri Roman.

Commission for judicial pay raises published my statement - surprisingly

Here it is.

Fraudster attorney Mary Gasp-arini cannot stop harassing me - and they say it isn't personal?

I wrote on this blog about misconduct of disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini:

1) that Gasparini advanced, without an investigation or due diligence, fraudulent charges against me that I neglected my clients and should be disciplined for neglect at the time when I was not even admitted to the bar and could not by law be an attorney;

2) that Gasparini submitted to court fabricated court records, and I provided to the court evidence of fabrication;  Gasparini acknowledged under oath authenticity of what evidence in those audio recordings;

3) that Gasparini, in a personal vendetta against me, fabricated criminal charges against me for violation of my own privacy (one does not have a brain to be a disciplinary attorney in the State of New York), and advanced those criminal charges as a prosecutor AND the sole witness for the prosecution, which disqualified Gasparini as of January of 2015 from the disciplinary proceedings, yet, she proceeded anyway - because you do not have a conscience, integrity or morals to be a disciplinary attorney in New York either when courts will cover and rubber-stamp anything you do anyway.

Today I received yet another shining example showing that:

1) Gasp-arini is on a personal all-out course to harass me and avenge exposure of her stupidity, incompetence and complete lack of integrity on this blog; and

2)  that Gasp-arini is trying to spy on me and continue to investigate what I am doing, where I MIGHT be living and what I might be doing next.

Here is the letter that Gasp-arini sent to - guess - The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.

 Gasparini did not care enough to serve me with the Notice of Entry of the order of suspension, but she cared very much to notify the state where I am now residing.

In the letter Gasp-arini asserts that "this office" "has reason to believe" that I moved to Georgetown, South Carolina - even though my mailing address is a P.O. Box in Pawleys Island, SC, so Mary Gasparini did not discern the reasons for "their" "beliefs" as to my location, and that I "may seek admission to the South Carolina bar".

Oh, brother.  Such mind-readers.

This vicious woman cannot stand the thought that I MAY be applying to any bar of any other state,
without any evidence that I actually AM applying to any bar, or have any DESIRE to apply to any bar.

This woman automatically assumes, without any grounds, that I will lie on my potential application to South Carolina bar as to whether I was disciplined in other states (which I have to disclose IF I apply - which I have no intention of doing), so she is acting as a well-wisher and forewarns the court of my tainting presence in South Carolina.  She is definitely judging me by her own example, because it is Gasp-arini and not I who was repeatedly defrauding the court (that was happy to be defrauded) by submitting fraudulent disciplinary and criminal charges and cooked court transcripts.

And this fraudster who escaped disciplinary and criminal liability for her fraud because she blocks any investigation and prosecution of herself for attorney discipline, and because of powerful connections that the Committee has with the local criminal authorities, has the audacity to invoke "professional courtesy" in what is in reality a very personal vendetta.

In fact, she is so stupid that she continues to defraud even the South Carolina court by claiming that she is a "principal counsel" on a letter with a letterhead that says that somebody else is that "principal counsel" and Gasp-arini is simply an "associate counsel".

I am sure Gasp-arini as an "associate counsel" of that office did not have authority to pen such letters, or to use taxpayer-paid time to do that, or to use stationary or postage paid for by taxpayers' money to effect her own personal vendetta.

But, this signature as "principal counsel" on the letter head saying that she is only an "associate counsel" is what Gasp-arini is - she is so stupid that she commits fraud without even caring to look how obvious that fraud is, same as how she was acting throughout the disciplinary proceedings.

Many attorneys move after they are disciplined to pursue other life paths and occupations.

It is definitely an irregular procedure for a disciplinary committee to follow an attorney around and, without any suspicion of any unlawful activity,  trying to forewarn local authorities that a suspended attorney has moved into the state.

It is like Gasp-arini considers me on par with a sex offender whose arrival into the area must be announced to the local authorities.

Boy, if that kind of energy would be used to do what she is paid for by New York taxpayers (myself included)...

By the way, I also intend to visit and possibly reside in Russia.

I wonder if Gasp-arini will learn Russian in order to notify Mr. Putin of my possible arrival and tainting presence.  Out of professional courtesy.  Maybe, learning another language will develop her brain somehow - even though I highly doubt it.