In a bizarre case, a Cook County (Illinois) judge Valarie Turner was removed from the bench for allowing Rhonda Crawford, the law clerk for another judge, the county's chief Judge Thomas Evans, to preside over two cases wearing a judge's black robe.
Apparently, the court considered that a law clerk presiding over cases in a black robe has gone too far.
Yet, in New York law clerks factually preside over cases, through the so-called incessant "court conferences" where such law clerks do not wear black robes, but they pretty much decide cases for the judge, and appearances in front of such a lawyer is mandatory for parties and their attorneys.
I wonder if judges in New York will be punished at any time for holding conferences where they are not present, through their law clerks, and demanding parties to pay to their attorneys to attend - and often waste time listening to law clerks describing their personal life, like, for example, Judge John Lambert's ruddy-faced law clerk Mark Oursler was regularly doing for years.
Because, whether the presiding law clerk does or does not wear black robes, is not that important - what is important is that he or she does preside over such conferences.
But, as it often happens, what is misconduct in one state - here, Illinois, is quite ok in another, the blessed corrupt state of New York.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
The Nevada Judge Conrad Hafen, voted out of office for handcuffing a female public defender, now is caught discriminating against the media in his courtroom
I wrote in May of 2016 about a Nevada judge, Conrad Hafen, who handcuffed a female public defender for making constitutional arguments on behalf of her indigent client against jail time - when the judge did not want to hear it.
After an outrage in the media about that case, Judge Hafen was voted out of office - and the sexist Judge Hafen lost his judicial seat to a woman, a poetic justice.
But, unfortunately, judge Hafen was not taken off the bench, as he should have been.
And, until his successor takes the bench, Judge Hafen remains as King of the bench.
Judge Hafen did not change his ways or views - that he can "control his courtroom" on his personal whims.
And, he is now full of vengeance - against those who made his voting out of office possible, the media.
Recently, Judge Hafen was caught doing two more illegal things - throwing alleged victims' relatives out of the courtroom during a criminal arraignment open to the public, and now threatening to arrest and handcuff a reporter if he would use his cellphone for audio recording or taking pictures - which was allowed to other people present in the courtroom.
Apparently, it is not enough to vote Judge Hafen out of office, it is necessary to also take him off that bench, quickly, and to make sure he would never again get into a position of power over people.
After an outrage in the media about that case, Judge Hafen was voted out of office - and the sexist Judge Hafen lost his judicial seat to a woman, a poetic justice.
But, unfortunately, judge Hafen was not taken off the bench, as he should have been.
And, until his successor takes the bench, Judge Hafen remains as King of the bench.
Judge Hafen did not change his ways or views - that he can "control his courtroom" on his personal whims.
And, he is now full of vengeance - against those who made his voting out of office possible, the media.
Recently, Judge Hafen was caught doing two more illegal things - throwing alleged victims' relatives out of the courtroom during a criminal arraignment open to the public, and now threatening to arrest and handcuff a reporter if he would use his cellphone for audio recording or taking pictures - which was allowed to other people present in the courtroom.
Apparently, it is not enough to vote Judge Hafen out of office, it is necessary to also take him off that bench, quickly, and to make sure he would never again get into a position of power over people.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
NDNY #SeniorDistrictCourtJudgeLawrenceKahn claims I am my husband - because he did not read the motion before deciding it
I already wrote on this blog that courts are so psyched up just hearing our names that they do not make a distinction between me and my husband - Tatiana Neroni or Frederick Neroni become interchangeable nowadays in court decisions.
For example, in my attorney disciplinary proceedings I was charged for actions as an attorney in 2008 in a court case where my husband was an attorney of record, and while in 2008 I myself was not an attorney and could not act as an attorney. That was the main charge, Charge I Specification I, see it described in my previous blog. The disciplinary prosecutor orally withdrew it - after her motion for a summary judgment to claim that I was guilty of attorney misconduct based on that fraudulent charge was granted by a referee. But, the disciplinary court did not note the withdrawal of that charge and granted the motion for the summary judgment in its entirety, for all charges.
So, as I said above, I stand sanctioned for not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law, for NOT appearing at a deposition in 2008, before I was admitted to the bar in 2009, and for NOT committing a crime of UPL again when I did not oppose a motion filed in 2008 - because I was not an attorney, and not an attorney of record in that case at that time.
Yet, I am suspended from the practice of law because I was sanctioned for not appearing at a deposition where my husband did appear and where it would have been a crime for me to appear instead of my husband because I was not an attorney.
Then, in an environmental case, DEC Commissioner Grannis and former judge Carl F. Becker ruled that I was not a necessary person to be brought in as a party regarding my own piece of real estate, because I was party "in privity" with my husband - yet, no sale of the same property would be valid without my own signature.
Then, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, without reading the record of an appeal, ruled that pro se lawsuits of my husband were brought by me.
And now, as a crown jewel of all of the above, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York decided the motion filed by my husband as if it was filed by me as a party.
Here is how Judge Lawrence Kahn managed to do that, and I already mentioned that Judge Kahn shares the disability of New York State Judge Rita Connerton - both develop headaches at the necessity to read documentary evidence about their own misconduct on motions to recuse.
Here is the court order I, but not Mr. Neroni, received today from Judge Kahn, by e-mail:
Here is how Judge Kahn dismisses motion to vacate under Rule 60 - my husband's motion:
From the very first paragraph of the Decision and Order that I received today, Judge Kahn claims that it was I, as a party Plaintiff, who made the motion to "vacate all orders made in this case after October 20, 2014, Dkt. No. 68".
It is interesting to mention that, according to Pacer.gov, despite the fact that my husband's claims were dismissed a year ago, and my claims were dismissed today, and we are the only two plaintiffs, the case is not yet closed:
The docket of the case shows that my husband Frederick Neroni was terminated on June 11, 2014:
And, here is the Docket 68 that Judge Kahn mentions as exclusively MY motion to vacate:
Docket 68 was filed before my alleged suspension in FEDERAL court - which is claimed by the court to have happened on November 18, 2015 (without any public order of suspension).
I filed the motion on my behalf as to the motion to recuse, and on my client's and husband's behalf as to motion to vacate under Rule 60.
I had no standing as a plaintiff to make a motion to vacate the orders of dismissal of my husband's claims.
Apparently, Judge Kahn did not read the motion before ruling on it. I understand that to read 620 pages of documentary evidence about your own misconduct can be tedious, but Judge Kahn, obviously, did not read even a one-PARAGRAPH docket entry describing WHOSE motion that was.
By the way, my husband's motion under Rule 60 was unopposed and should have been granted by default.
But, here is what Judge Kahn writes about that motion - falsely claiming that I made it on my own behalf, even though I couldn't and I didn't - my husband was the filer of that motion, I was just his attorney filing the motion on his behalf.
Judge Kahn describes the procedural history of the case this way:
No mentioning of my husband filing a motion to vacate under Rule 60.
Not that Judge Kahn distinguishes between the two of us as filers:
Since Judge Kahn mentions "Plaintiffs" and "Plaintiff's husband Frederick Neroni", he means, describing the motion to vacate, that I, and not my husband Frederick J. Neroni, made it.
Then, throughout the argument, the motion is treated as MY motion, not my husband's.
So, Judge Kahn denied a motion to vacate that my husband made as a party, and that I filed electronically only as my husband's attorney at the time, and not a party.
My husband's motion that is reflected in Docket 68, is not even mentioned in the decision.
It is clear from the decision that Judge Kahn treats me as the party Plaintiff who filed the motion to vacate under Rule 60, despite the contents of the motion, and despite the docket entry indicating that it was my husband who did that.
Yet, the docket entry of that same decision - Docket 81, mentions that the Plaintiffs (plural without an apostrophe denoting possessive case) motion to recuse is denied (without mentioning the motion to vacate):
It is apparent that the hatred for my husband and myself in Judge Kahn is such that he does not read what comes in front of him mentioning our names, but blindly rules against us - confusing my husband with me and me with my husband - as long as the decision is against us.
Let's see what the 2nd Circuit will say on appeal.
But, of course, the 2nd Circuit already pre-judged this case, ruling that I apparently represented my husband in two pro se cases that he filed on his own - so the 2nd Circuit also does not read our cases.
It is not necessary to give us notice, and it is not necessary to read anything that we file - we are wrong anyway because of who we are, that's the "opinion" of courts that are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
But, who knows, maybe, the U.S. Supreme Court will read our filings.
I will continue to report what is happening in this case.
Stay tuned.
For example, in my attorney disciplinary proceedings I was charged for actions as an attorney in 2008 in a court case where my husband was an attorney of record, and while in 2008 I myself was not an attorney and could not act as an attorney. That was the main charge, Charge I Specification I, see it described in my previous blog. The disciplinary prosecutor orally withdrew it - after her motion for a summary judgment to claim that I was guilty of attorney misconduct based on that fraudulent charge was granted by a referee. But, the disciplinary court did not note the withdrawal of that charge and granted the motion for the summary judgment in its entirety, for all charges.
So, as I said above, I stand sanctioned for not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law, for NOT appearing at a deposition in 2008, before I was admitted to the bar in 2009, and for NOT committing a crime of UPL again when I did not oppose a motion filed in 2008 - because I was not an attorney, and not an attorney of record in that case at that time.
Yet, I am suspended from the practice of law because I was sanctioned for not appearing at a deposition where my husband did appear and where it would have been a crime for me to appear instead of my husband because I was not an attorney.
Then, in an environmental case, DEC Commissioner Grannis and former judge Carl F. Becker ruled that I was not a necessary person to be brought in as a party regarding my own piece of real estate, because I was party "in privity" with my husband - yet, no sale of the same property would be valid without my own signature.
Then, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, without reading the record of an appeal, ruled that pro se lawsuits of my husband were brought by me.
And now, as a crown jewel of all of the above, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York decided the motion filed by my husband as if it was filed by me as a party.
Here is how Judge Lawrence Kahn managed to do that, and I already mentioned that Judge Kahn shares the disability of New York State Judge Rita Connerton - both develop headaches at the necessity to read documentary evidence about their own misconduct on motions to recuse.
Here is the court order I, but not Mr. Neroni, received today from Judge Kahn, by e-mail:
Here is how Judge Kahn dismisses motion to vacate under Rule 60 - my husband's motion:
From the very first paragraph of the Decision and Order that I received today, Judge Kahn claims that it was I, as a party Plaintiff, who made the motion to "vacate all orders made in this case after October 20, 2014, Dkt. No. 68".
It is interesting to mention that, according to Pacer.gov, despite the fact that my husband's claims were dismissed a year ago, and my claims were dismissed today, and we are the only two plaintiffs, the case is not yet closed:
The docket of the case shows that my husband Frederick Neroni was terminated on June 11, 2014:
And, here is the Docket 68 that Judge Kahn mentions as exclusively MY motion to vacate:
Docket 68 was filed before my alleged suspension in FEDERAL court - which is claimed by the court to have happened on November 18, 2015 (without any public order of suspension).
I filed the motion on my behalf as to the motion to recuse, and on my client's and husband's behalf as to motion to vacate under Rule 60.
I had no standing as a plaintiff to make a motion to vacate the orders of dismissal of my husband's claims.
Apparently, Judge Kahn did not read the motion before ruling on it. I understand that to read 620 pages of documentary evidence about your own misconduct can be tedious, but Judge Kahn, obviously, did not read even a one-PARAGRAPH docket entry describing WHOSE motion that was.
By the way, my husband's motion under Rule 60 was unopposed and should have been granted by default.
But, here is what Judge Kahn writes about that motion - falsely claiming that I made it on my own behalf, even though I couldn't and I didn't - my husband was the filer of that motion, I was just his attorney filing the motion on his behalf.
Judge Kahn describes the procedural history of the case this way:
No mentioning of my husband filing a motion to vacate under Rule 60.
Not that Judge Kahn distinguishes between the two of us as filers:
Since Judge Kahn mentions "Plaintiffs" and "Plaintiff's husband Frederick Neroni", he means, describing the motion to vacate, that I, and not my husband Frederick J. Neroni, made it.
Then, throughout the argument, the motion is treated as MY motion, not my husband's.
So, Judge Kahn denied a motion to vacate that my husband made as a party, and that I filed electronically only as my husband's attorney at the time, and not a party.
My husband's motion that is reflected in Docket 68, is not even mentioned in the decision.
It is clear from the decision that Judge Kahn treats me as the party Plaintiff who filed the motion to vacate under Rule 60, despite the contents of the motion, and despite the docket entry indicating that it was my husband who did that.
Yet, the docket entry of that same decision - Docket 81, mentions that the Plaintiffs (plural without an apostrophe denoting possessive case) motion to recuse is denied (without mentioning the motion to vacate):
It is apparent that the hatred for my husband and myself in Judge Kahn is such that he does not read what comes in front of him mentioning our names, but blindly rules against us - confusing my husband with me and me with my husband - as long as the decision is against us.
Let's see what the 2nd Circuit will say on appeal.
But, of course, the 2nd Circuit already pre-judged this case, ruling that I apparently represented my husband in two pro se cases that he filed on his own - so the 2nd Circuit also does not read our cases.
It is not necessary to give us notice, and it is not necessary to read anything that we file - we are wrong anyway because of who we are, that's the "opinion" of courts that are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
But, who knows, maybe, the U.S. Supreme Court will read our filings.
I will continue to report what is happening in this case.
Stay tuned.
Attorney Woodruff Carroll lied again, along with attorney Erin Donnelly - surprise!
I just received a letter from Levine, Gouldin and Thompson attorney Erin Donnelly who claimed that
her ex parte motion against me is still pending, and is not withdrawn or dismissed - that's the motion
Yet, attorney Woodruff Carroll of Syracuse, NY, in two sworn statements to the court, in opposition to my motion to get access to that transcript, claimed that the motion is "moot" because it was withdrawn and dismissed by Ms. Donnelly.
That's perjury, isn't it?
And, that's a crime of fraud upon the court (state crime, Judiciary Law 487) and a federal crime of wire fraud, isn't it? Because attorney Carroll actually filed those fraudulent statements using the electronic filing system over the Internet.
Because it cannot be that BOTH attorney Carroll - who claims that attorney Donnelly's ex parte motion was withdrawn or dismissed, and attorney Donnelly who claims the opposite - could be right.
By the way, attorney Donnelly preferred not to put her claim into a sworn format, instead cautiously submitting it as a "letter" pleading, contrary to the court's Local Rules - but that's ok, since her last name is not Neroni, she can violate the court rules in whichever way she wants.
And, both of these attorneys claimed that everything that is happening - with the ongoing ex parte communications on top of the 28 ex parte communications that were already subject of my motion to recuse, and the pending ex parte motion of Ms. Donnelly, which, according to Ms. Donnelly, was already heard in an ex parte manner, and the transcript of the oral argument of the motion is sealed from me - are all good law and procedure, and that they should not be subject to sanctions for that.
I guess, new law was introduced that I somehow missed, that courts of United States are exempt from applying the U.S. Constitution wherever Tatiana Neroni is concerned and are free to discuss her in an ex parte manner, and that is good and dandy.
It will be interesting to see what the court will rule based on all of those submissions of attorneys Carroll and Donnelly.
I've just got a court ruling, in another case, but by the same NDNY court, sanctioning me for non-appearance at a deposition for which I was never served with notice, and for disregarding a court order that I was similarly never served with - where the non-service was by the same "magistrate" (whose term expired in May of 2016 and no order of reappointment was published at the time he handled, as a judge, the ex parte hearing in June of 2016).
That ruling is just a continuation of what is being done in Argro - I am simply not entitled to notice where my rights are concerned.
I cannot file through the electronic filing system, the ECF, because I am "suspended" - or, as NDNY Judge Kahn falsely claimed in today's court order, disbarred.
But, by the court rules, I also cannot be served through ECF - but those rules do not matter.
Judicial whims matter. We are not in Russia, after all, where judges are not allowed to rule on a whim - only based on the law.
And judicial whims in our neck of woods called the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York are - to kick me, again and again, in disregard of any law, to deny me any rights that other people have, simply because of who I am - the critic of judicial misconduct.
Well, there is a saying - he laughs best who laughs last.
And, we are yet to see who laughs best, aren't we?
her ex parte motion against me is still pending, and is not withdrawn or dismissed - that's the motion
- that was never served upon me, but
- was heard in an ex parte manner at an ex parte hearing in June of 2016,
- the transcript of the hearing was then sealed from me, and
- attorney Donnelly claims I am not entitled to see the transcript of how a motion against me is being discussed behind my back and without notice to me is still pending.
Yet, attorney Woodruff Carroll of Syracuse, NY, in two sworn statements to the court, in opposition to my motion to get access to that transcript, claimed that the motion is "moot" because it was withdrawn and dismissed by Ms. Donnelly.
That's perjury, isn't it?
And, that's a crime of fraud upon the court (state crime, Judiciary Law 487) and a federal crime of wire fraud, isn't it? Because attorney Carroll actually filed those fraudulent statements using the electronic filing system over the Internet.
Because it cannot be that BOTH attorney Carroll - who claims that attorney Donnelly's ex parte motion was withdrawn or dismissed, and attorney Donnelly who claims the opposite - could be right.
By the way, attorney Donnelly preferred not to put her claim into a sworn format, instead cautiously submitting it as a "letter" pleading, contrary to the court's Local Rules - but that's ok, since her last name is not Neroni, she can violate the court rules in whichever way she wants.
And, both of these attorneys claimed that everything that is happening - with the ongoing ex parte communications on top of the 28 ex parte communications that were already subject of my motion to recuse, and the pending ex parte motion of Ms. Donnelly, which, according to Ms. Donnelly, was already heard in an ex parte manner, and the transcript of the oral argument of the motion is sealed from me - are all good law and procedure, and that they should not be subject to sanctions for that.
I guess, new law was introduced that I somehow missed, that courts of United States are exempt from applying the U.S. Constitution wherever Tatiana Neroni is concerned and are free to discuss her in an ex parte manner, and that is good and dandy.
It will be interesting to see what the court will rule based on all of those submissions of attorneys Carroll and Donnelly.
I've just got a court ruling, in another case, but by the same NDNY court, sanctioning me for non-appearance at a deposition for which I was never served with notice, and for disregarding a court order that I was similarly never served with - where the non-service was by the same "magistrate" (whose term expired in May of 2016 and no order of reappointment was published at the time he handled, as a judge, the ex parte hearing in June of 2016).
That ruling is just a continuation of what is being done in Argro - I am simply not entitled to notice where my rights are concerned.
I cannot file through the electronic filing system, the ECF, because I am "suspended" - or, as NDNY Judge Kahn falsely claimed in today's court order, disbarred.
But, by the court rules, I also cannot be served through ECF - but those rules do not matter.
Judicial whims matter. We are not in Russia, after all, where judges are not allowed to rule on a whim - only based on the law.
And judicial whims in our neck of woods called the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York are - to kick me, again and again, in disregard of any law, to deny me any rights that other people have, simply because of who I am - the critic of judicial misconduct.
Well, there is a saying - he laughs best who laughs last.
And, we are yet to see who laughs best, aren't we?
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn is upset - you can tell: he falsely claimed in a court order that I am disbarred
I wrote many times on this blog that I sued Judge Lawrence Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, for misconduct and failure to disclose his participation in out-of-court ex parte communications with attorneys who were opponents or counsel for opponents in my own or my husband's litigation, see, for example, here and here, you can also word-search "Lawrence Kahn" in the search window of the blog on the right.
Today I was "served" by e-mail - while Local Rules of NDNY court require service of non-attorney pro se parties by regular mail - with a decision dismissing my civil rights lawsuit against New York State former Commissioner for Environmental Conservation.
Here is the decision signed by Judge Kahn today.
From the decision I learnt, to my amazement, that I am already disbarred, see p. 14 of the decision:
I went and checked on the website of the New York State Court administration - as well as on Pacer - whether I am really disbarred now. I only knew about a 2-year suspension (rendered unconstitutional so far by TWO court decisions - in June of 2015 and in June of 2016).
Pacer, as before, has no information about any disciplinary actions against me in federal court.
The state court system displays the following:
Senior Judge Kahn should be seriously upset - or seriously demented - to claim I am now disbarred, without any basis for it.
Judge Kahn also sanctioned me for not appearing at a deposition in New York while being given "proper notice".
Well, "proper notice" means notice by mail - since I was pro se, and that's in accordance with the court's own Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Moreover, I cannot be required by any rules to appear over 100 miles away, and here I was required to appear 850 away.
The court decision also claims that I received a notice of
a "December order" - in 2015, after I was suspended in New York State court and, according to the NDNY, without a public court order, suspended in NDNY, too. Suspension rendered me a lay pro se party not allowed to file electronically with the court, but not allowed to also be served electronically through ECF, as an attorney.
Since the "December order", described by Judge Kahn here
was never served upon me by regular mail, I was never on notice of anything contained in that order - so I was not properly given notice of:
Today I was "served" by e-mail - while Local Rules of NDNY court require service of non-attorney pro se parties by regular mail - with a decision dismissing my civil rights lawsuit against New York State former Commissioner for Environmental Conservation.
Here is the decision signed by Judge Kahn today.
From the decision I learnt, to my amazement, that I am already disbarred, see p. 14 of the decision:
I went and checked on the website of the New York State Court administration - as well as on Pacer - whether I am really disbarred now. I only knew about a 2-year suspension (rendered unconstitutional so far by TWO court decisions - in June of 2015 and in June of 2016).
Pacer, as before, has no information about any disciplinary actions against me in federal court.
The state court system displays the following:
Senior Judge Kahn should be seriously upset - or seriously demented - to claim I am now disbarred, without any basis for it.
Judge Kahn also sanctioned me for not appearing at a deposition in New York while being given "proper notice".
Well, "proper notice" means notice by mail - since I was pro se, and that's in accordance with the court's own Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Moreover, I cannot be required by any rules to appear over 100 miles away, and here I was required to appear 850 away.
The court decision also claims that I received a notice of
a "December order" - in 2015, after I was suspended in New York State court and, according to the NDNY, without a public court order, suspended in NDNY, too. Suspension rendered me a lay pro se party not allowed to file electronically with the court, but not allowed to also be served electronically through ECF, as an attorney.
Since the "December order", described by Judge Kahn here
was never served upon me by regular mail, I was never on notice of anything contained in that order - so I was not properly given notice of:
- a requirement to appear at a deposition in another state;
- appear at a court conference, even by telephone;
- a threat of sanctions, or
- a threat of dismissal of the action for non-appearance at a deposition.
Since I had no notice, I did not have to appear anywhere and could be sanctioned for that in any way, like Judge Kahn did, falsely claiming I am disbarred now.
Judge Kahn claimed, refusing to recuse, that the court did not inject itself as a party in the same proceedings.
Yet, that is abjectly not true, because I provided to judge Kahn a court order of the 2nd Circuit MAKING the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York a party in a related sua sponte anti-filing injunction proceeding against my co-Plaintiff and husband that was commenced, without notice to me as my husband's attorney at the time in the Neroni v Grannis case, in October of 2014, nearly 2 years before the case illegally concluded today, on August 17, 2016.
Judge Kahn apparently attempted to legitimize David Peebles' ex parte communications with the New York State Attorney General's office - accepting ex parte motions, making ex parte orders, imposing upon me sanctions for non-compliance with ex parte orders that were never served upon me, and for non-appearance at depositions across the country where notices were never served upon me and where I could not be made to appear 850 miles away from home.
By the way, you can search the entire decision of Judge Kahn, and you will not find any mentioning that I, as a pro se party, in accordance with rules of civil procedure and court's own Local Rules, must be served by regular mail - with everything, including pleadings and court orders.
Judge Kahn simply ducked this issue, because addressing the issue on the law required him to deny the motion to the New York State Attorney General, while that was not in tune with Judge Kahn's desire to kick me some more.
That behavior is completely in sync with another case, Argro v Osborne, where the NDNY court, the former magistrate David Peebles and Judge Norman Mordue denied me attorney fees for 3.5 years of work and has engaged in nearly 30 ex parte communications documented in the docket (as checked at the end of July, 2016, maybe, there are more now) .
It is interesting to mention that all judges involved in ex parte communications against me were sued by me in May of 2014 for out-of-court ex parte communications and online investigations against me in a case named Neroni v Peebles. By the way, NDNY court initially assigned defendant Peebles to preside over the case as a magistrate.
It is also interesting to mention that that lawsuit, dismissed "sua sponte" by the court where all judges were witnesses and the majority of judges were defendants in the action, may be revived soon, since I have a public document indicating that judges of NDNY court, and of the 2nd Circuit may be not only in ex parte communication, but may also be secret members of behind-the-scene organization, New York State-Federal Judicial Council, the purpose of which, according to the only existing document describing that purpose, a law review article by Judge Jack Weinstein, is to "reduce friction" between state and federal authorities - in other words, to fix cases.
So, a case for DEC was fixed by Judge Kahn, no surprises here.
Of course, a civil or criminal litigation may now reveal, based on evidence I already have and which I plan to procure by lawful means, that Judge Kahn and David Peebles were (as I am sure they were and are) witnesses and co-conspirators in a case-fixing scheme with New York State authorities, a lot of careers can be ditched and a lot of heads may roll - and that's exactly why I am repeatedly sanctioned by various courts, law or no law.
Just why wouldn't you shut up, Mrs. Neroni?
I wouldn't, and I will continue to investigate NDNY for politically-motivated case-fixing and for all activities that surround that case-fixing.
Also - did I mention that Judge Kahn sanctioned me, and that was in direct response of making a motion to recuse, a motion that he, as a witness in a related case, had no right to review or decide, and that he, likely, did not read because it was too much for him to read:
Judge Kahn is not the first judge who develops a headache and sudden inability to "sift through" evidence of his own misconduct - I recently wrote about judge Rita Connerton, a New York Family Court judge who had a similar problem. Here is also evidence as to how Judge Connerton later lied about her ex parte complaints regarding her headaches from my constitutional motions, and how she fixed the transcript to show that I was actually present at the ex parte conference, which was defied by Judge Connerton's own letter confirming that I was absent.
I know only one cure for such a disability - impeachment and criminal proceedings, since disciplinary complaints are tossed without investigation and lawsuits are tossed based on self-given absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.
Thus, my efforts will be towards criminal investigation of those "honorables" who, at the expense of taxpayers, turned American courts into a tool of retaliation against people, like myself, exposing judicial misconduct.
And, of course, I will report my steps, when appropriate, on this blog.
Stay tuned.
The 92-year-old, possibly demented, much criticized, reversed and taken off cases for bizarre behavior federal judge Milton Shadur is still on the bench - why?
I wrote previously on this blog about a civil rights lawsuit of an African American dismissed - and recently reinstated - because of improper conduct of a 92-year-old judge Milton Shadur.
This is the continued analysis of the failure of the federal judicial system to address judicial misconduct, and especially misconduct of judges so old that their conduct appear clearly demented.
The judge who improperly dismissed the civil rights case for excessive use of force by an African American civil rights plaintiffs, the 92-year-old U.S. District Court Judge Milton Shadur, remains on the bench despite his continued misconduct and bizarre and incompetent behavior.
In this blog, I will cover the relentless pursuit by Judge Shadur of this African-American civil rights plaintiff, without any legal grounds, and apparently on the basis of the judge's personal racial bias.
That judge Shadur is cantankerous and "does not like to keep waiting", and likes to bash criminal defense attorneys - and now civil rights plaintiffs - is well known.
In July of 2015 Judge Shadur sanctioned a criminal defense attorney $200 because the judge disliked the contents of the attorney's legal argument. That happened one month after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reed v Town of Gilbert, requiring strict scrutiny for content-based regulation of speech by the government, and sanctions for content of a criminal defense attorney's speech is the ultimate content-based regulation.
Judge Shadur did not care about the 1st Amendment - and, obviously, the Above the Law blog did not, either, since the obvious unconstitutionality of that order was not pointed out while reporting the order of sanctions. The report just said that Judge Shadur "does not like to keep waiting".
That would be an "F" to Judge Shadur and "Above the Law" author for knowledge of applicable law.
In the same July 2015, Judge Shadur imposed yet another $200 fee against a lawyer, with another "F" cast by the judge against the lawyer - while the "F" squarely belonged to the judge himself.
In his 4-page decision the judge legislates from the bench, amending the notice pleading related only to claims by plaintiffs, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, to now apply to defendants, and applies to defendants two federal cases, Twombly and Iqbal, addressed to sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims only.
Judge Shadur also established a rule that a hard copy of anything electronically filed should be delivered to his office on the day of filing, which is one day before the Local Rules require such delivery - so Judge Shadur obviously considers himself with authorities to change Local Rules of the court without public notice, comment or input.
Actually, Judge Shadur was thrown off a sex discrimination case by an appellate court in 2014 for his "tone of derision" alone - and yet Judge Shadur continued with the same while imposing his sanctions against attorneys in July of 2015.
And, in 2010 the same appellate court has ruled, removing Judge Shadur from a criminal case:
And in fairness to the government, which is entitled to the same consideration as other litigants, the resentencing should be by a different judge."
"One cannot read the 168-page transcript of the sentencing hearing, and the two memoranda attempting to justify the sentence that the judge issued after he had announced the sentence at the conclusion of the hearing, without sensing that the judge had committed himself irrevocably to a noncustodial sentence for the defendant".
The judge was "committed" to a "noncustodial sentence", in disregard of sentencing guidelines, in other words, the judge did not want to send the convicted criminal to prison - because of who the convicted criminal was, and that was Edward Vrodlyak, the "judicial kingmaker" who had long-time connections with Judge Shadur.
The prosecution asked for 41 months (that's nearly 3.5 years) in prison, in the case of public fraud against a prominent former Chicago Alderman - and Judge Shadur gave Vrodlyak no prison sentence at all, instead sentencing Vrodlyak to five years of probation, a $50,000 fine and 2,500 hours of community service - and was reversed and taken off the case for it.
On remand Vrodlyak was sentenced to 10 months in prison by another judge and was released on probation in November of 2011.
Then, Edward Vrodlyak was released from home imprisonment months early, by judge Matthew Kennelly.
In 2014, Judge Shadur removed himself from Michael Jordan's lawsuit after inappropriately pressuring Michael Jordan to lower his damages claim - and doing it in an insulting manner, calling Michael Jordan "greedy," and likening him to a "hog" who would "get slaughtered".
In 2011, Judge Shadur issued a decision regarding a civil rights plaintiff who was an inmate, and who Judge Shadur thought was subject to the so-called Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, of 1995, PLRA.
I wrote on this blog about PLRA, and its unconstitutional restriction of civil rights litigation and access to courts by inmates.
PLRA substantially contributed to the human rights crisis that is ongoing in U.S. prisons at this time.
Yet, PLRA applies to "prisoners" - which means, the person subject to PLRA must be first convicted, so that the judge would engage in pre-screening review required by PLRA.
Judge Shadur, in his younger years, was actually the judge who ordered release of the so-called "Goldstone report" in the Chicago torture scandal by the police.
And, in 1997 Judge Shadur voiced a very reasonable criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court "baseline test" as to conditions of confinement:
And, only back in 2002, Judge Shadur criticized the automatic invocation of "qualified immunity" by police officers in civil rights cases:
Yet, in the Fenton case, a case where the litigated events occurred during the chase and arrest of a person not convicted of any crime - and thus not subject to PLRA - Judge Shadur went out of his way
- Applying PLRA - which did not apply;
- Assessing illegal fees against the civil rights plaintiff, who was at that point a pre-trial detainee, not a convicted prisoner, and whose lawsuit addressed not prison conditions, but excessive force during arrest; and
- Raiding the pro se plaintiff's commissary account in pre-trial detention - apparently, Judge Shadur had time and resources for that.
It is, probably, not even necessary to mention that the civil rights plaintiff in question was African American, and that judge Shadur is white.
Joseph Fenton's lawsuit arose from a police chase and military-style apprehension efforts in Illinois in 2014 with attempted murder of a woman and a child in the State of Georgia, and had a bench warrant for his arrest from the State of Georgia.
Joseph Fenton waived extradition and was taken to the State of Georgia for trial, and his civil rights lawsuit was filed at the time of his pre-trial detention.
There were obvious facts pointing to excessive force during arrest in the plaintiff's complaint (such as the use of a flash-bang grenade during the apprehension that led to multiple injuries of the plaintiff), which should have been addressed at the very least by an Answer by the defendants or a defendant's motion to dismiss, and ultimately by the jury, if such a motion would be denied.
Judge Shadur, however, did not allow the case to proceed based on the non-applicable PLRA.
Here are some excerpts from Judge Shadur's decision that the the appellate court decision reversed :
"Smell test", "serious doubt" as to credibility - all of that is for the jury, and a judge reading a pleading MUST PRESUME the truth of factual pleadings. That's the law.
I will provide excerpts from Judge Shadur's orders harassing Joseph Fenton and trying to get every last penny from his commissary, under the inapplicable PLRA, for court fees for allegedly frivolous conduct - which was also overruled by the appellate court.
At this time, I can only ask a question - what happened to Judge Shadur?
Is he all right upstairs?
He appears to turn from a fairly reasonable jurist, towards age 90, into a cantankerous tyrant who would not follow the law and instead creates some chases - against lawyers across the specter (civil attorneys, and even government prosecutors) and pro se litigants - while completely disregarding applicable law.
Maybe, there is a point to introduce an age limit for federal judges?
So that there is no question whether a certain ruling is made in sound mind, and is not a product of dementia?
The kind #JudgeBrendaWeaver uses taxpayer money to feed judges and their family members
According to the recent news, the Georgia #ThiefCircuitJudgeBrendaWeaver (see my earlier blog posts here, here, here, and here) - who recently orchestrated felony charges, arrest and jailing of a publisher and his attorney with her former employee and now prosecutor Alison Sosebee for seeking public records exposing her shenanigans with court operating account - actually spent thousands of dollars on restaurants for herself, judges and their family members.
Great integrity.
The comment of the Fannin County attorney (who did release some records and was the focus of Judge Weaver's rage in this case) that her own daughter enjoyed the meal, as well as "educational value" of communicating with the taxpayer-fed judges - and that somehow justifies paying for judges and their families' restaurant bills - is no less amazing than Judge Weaver's brazen behavior in using taxpayer money to feed herself, other well-salaried judges and their families.
Let's hope that the federal grand jury that is reportedly investigating the whole mess at this time, will return charges for Brenda Weaver and her accomplices in the theft of public funds.
I will continue to cover this story.
Stay tuned.
Great integrity.
The comment of the Fannin County attorney (who did release some records and was the focus of Judge Weaver's rage in this case) that her own daughter enjoyed the meal, as well as "educational value" of communicating with the taxpayer-fed judges - and that somehow justifies paying for judges and their families' restaurant bills - is no less amazing than Judge Weaver's brazen behavior in using taxpayer money to feed herself, other well-salaried judges and their families.
Let's hope that the federal grand jury that is reportedly investigating the whole mess at this time, will return charges for Brenda Weaver and her accomplices in the theft of public funds.
I will continue to cover this story.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)