#TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial. Part II. The politics of motions to withdraw in Judge John F. Lambert's court

I have written in my previous blog about the disbarment-level misconduct of attorneys David Merzig (City of Oneonta, NY), Mark Oursler (law clerk for Judge John F. Lambert) and of Judge Lambert himself, without whose approval Mark Oursler will not even sneeze:



This is Part II of the blog series dedicated to the Pervu case.

Part I, #TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial, 

can be read here.

Fixing a court case is a federal crime.

Tampering with witnesses and hiding evidence of such a crime are yet additional crimes.

And, there is documentary evidence of tampering and hiding evidence by Judge Lambert.

The "Thursday" meant in the screenshot above is January 24, 2019.

As of that date, Judge John F. Lambert had to recuse himself - because he started to act in the case (if he didn't before) as an advocate for a party, TEACHING, through his law clerk, one of the litigants, the City of Oneonta,

• What to do in the case, and 
• How exactly to do it.

That is "practice of law", prohibited to the Supreme Court judges in New York by the State Constitution, not to mention that giving such legal advice to a party requires an immediate recusal and discipline imposed upon a judge.

But, of course, Melania and Nicolae Pervu's attorneys - one of them a town justice and a law professor - did not bring a motion to recuse Judge Lambert, as they were required by law in order to preserve evidence of the judge's bias for appeal, even after TWO publications describing what Mark Oursler did - thus committing an act of malpractice for which, I hope, the Pervus should sue the hell out of them.

Instead, 5 days after that legal advice was given, AND PUBLICIZED, Melania and Nicolae Pervu's attorneys brought a motion to withdraw from the case IN FRONT of the judge THEY KNEW was working for the opposing party AS AN ADVOCATE, to allow them to withdraw from the case and to leave their clients unprotected from the onslaught by the City of Oneonta, advised by Judge Lambert's law clerk to file yet another contempt proceedings against them, just 5 days prior, and teaching the City of Oneonta how exactly to do it.

I have got my grubby hands on an that document, the application for an Order to Show Cause of Melania and Nicolae Pervu's now-former attorneys requesting permission of Judge John F. Lambert for them to withdraw from representation of Melania and Nicolae Pervu.

What makes me so excited is that it lists, quite frankly, what was happening in the case since its start, and the "achievements" of the attorneys - and asks the court to seal the document, for Melania and Nicolae Pervu's benefit, of course.

Their benefit, right.

Of course, Judge Lambert did not ask the supposed beneficiaries of sealing this document, Melania and Nicolae Pervu, whether they want to have this document sealed or not.

I did.

They do not want to.  They want it public.  And their opinion is the only one that matters in this case - especially since 

the City of Oneonta, its attorney David Merzig, in OPEN COLLUSION with Judge Lambert, and knowing that Melania and Nicolae Pervu can no longer afford counsel, is pushing, with Judge Lambert's law clerk's help not just to dishonor and bankrupt the Pervus, but to put them in jail "for contempt of court". 

Before I start analyzing this exciting document and the wealth of information it offers - in the next blog article to come - here are some politics of this particular presiding judge, specifically on motions to withdraw, that I know of, and certain other interesting points regarding Judge Lambert's decisions on representation in this case.

I.  New York law does violate the 13th Amendment in not allowing attorneys to leave a case on their own if the client does not pay

There is a rule of slavery regarding attorney's work, 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery and forced labor be damned:

CPLR 321 forbids an attorney, once he entered the case, to withdraw from the case even if the client does not pay.

The attorney may do that only if 

• the client agrees to the attorney withdrawing from the case, giving the client's notarized consent, or
• if the judge allows such a withdrawal.

Instead, New York makes permission to withdraw because of the breach of contract/nonpayment of fees, or remain enslaved by a nonpaying client, a matter of judicial "discretion"/ whim.

I will later show that, in this particular case, Melania and Nicolae Pervu not allowing their attorneys to leave their case was not a matter of enslavement, but was a matter of demand to deliver services already OVER-paid for.

II.  The Acting Supreme Court Justice John F. Lambert has a personal history of NOT allowing attorneys to withdraw in the case of a nonpaying client that had extensive resources to pay, and to make attorneys work for free

For example, Judge John F. Lambert forced me personally to conduct a whole trial on behalf of a non-paying client in a divorce case, after being presented evidence that the client has just outfitted a bed-and-breakfast in Stamford, New York, for 16 (!) rooms, but refuses to pay me.

And, Melania Pervu, as far as I understand, has paid the law firm $16,000 and is owing them, at their claim, $21,000 more - for 4 appearances in court, waiving her rights and screwing up her case before withdrawing.

Not to mention that, as far as I know, the law firm did not give their file back to Melania yet, and did not notify her of her right to arbitrate their outrageous fees, 

as the law requires them to do and as is part of their attorney-client agreement.

Note that the law firm of the Honorable Ryan T. Donovan,

also an adjunct professor of law in Albany Law School

who represented Melania and Nicolae Pervu until they sucked them dry on litigation (and, consequently, the Pervus did not have any money left for improvements required of them by the City of Oneonta, conveniently) and charged Melania and Nicolae Pervu $300 per hour for his valuable time, including travel to Cooperstown where the court is, and back to his office at 50 State Street, 2nd Floor, Albany, NY 12207:

• did not guarantee a "favorable result" (which is, yes, part of attorney disciplinary rules, but may be used conveniently to take money and do nothing - or sell out the client, which is what was done here, as I will start showing in this article), and
• is charging its non-paying clients an interest of 2% PER MONTH, or 12% per year - which, in New York is just a split hair short of usury.

Convenient, isn't it.

We will screw you at your own - big - expense.

III.  A judge does not have to sign applications for an order to show cause - he has a discretion to refuse to sign those.

Local judges, including Judge John F. Lambert did that to me multiple times, including regarding motions to withdraw.

You apply for an Order to Show cause, pay a motion fee, and then - silence.  When you ask the clerk, what is happening, the clerk tells you - the judge refused to sign the Show Cause Order, he does not have to.

So - here, Judge John F. Lambert did not have to sign the Order to Show Cause on Melania and Nicolae Pervu's now-former attorneys' motion to withdraw.

But, he did.

Note the timing of response.

Judge Lambert orders 

• attorneys for Melania and Nicolae Pervu (who are immigrants and non-attorneys, thus who may be not only non-sophisticated in the law, but who may have English language difficulties) to serve Melania and Nicolae Pervu, by personal service, by February 1, 2019.

And, Judge Lambert orders Melania and Nicolae Pervu to respond to this motion, pro se, on their own behalf, within 4 (FOUR!) days.

While the very minimum that is usually provided to people to respond to motions, under the CPLR 2214, and that is - including for people represented by counsel, is 8 days (twice more), and Judge Lambert, having been an attorney for 20 years

knew very well what exactly he was doing to the Pervus.

And, knowing what he was doing, he sealed this document under the rule 22 NYCRR 216.1

- without following the procedure that that particular rule requires before sealing

Section 216.1 Sealing of court records.

(a) Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.

There is no written finding of good cause there.

There is no indication of what "statute or rule" was used by Judge Lambert as a ground to seal this document without a hearing.

If that is done to protect rights of Melania and Nicolae Pervu, their rights are better served by SHOWING this document to the public, not by hiding it.

The only people who are protected by the unlawful sealing of this document is Judge Lambert himself and the attorneys for Melania and Nicolae Pervu who wanted to conceal how exactly they have sold out their clients and how badly incompetent and dishonest their so-called (expensive) "services" were.

And, under the 1st Amendment jurisprudence, 

• court proceedings in New York, especially 
• court proceedings started by a public entity, the City of Oneonta, against a citizen and business owner, especially an immigrant business owner, and especially 
• court proceedings where 
• one public entity (the City of Oneonta) asks 
• another public entity (the Court) to put these same business owners in jail for contempt of court, into the jail 
• governed by yet another public entity involved in the whole mess, the Otsego County (Sheriff's Department) - and attorneys withdrawing out of CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS,

such proceedings are PRESUMED open to the public.

Not to mention problem # IV:

Judge Lambert, 

• having accepted, on January 29, 2019, claims of Melania and Nicolae Pervu's attorneys that Melania and Nicolae Pervu can no longer pay their attorney fees, 

AND

• having accepted earlier, on January 24, 2019, through his law clerk Mark Oursler,  the claims by the City of Oneonta that Melania and Nicolae are allegedly non-compliant with making the required improvements to supposedly bring the building up to code,
• and having taught the City of Oneonta, through his law clerk Mark Oursler, HOW EXACTLY to file for contempt of court against Melania and Nicolae Pervu 

Judge Lambert, an attorney of 20 years and a judge of 10 years, allows Melania and Nicolae Pervu's attorneys, after having received, reportedly, 16 thousand dollars and having appeared in court for that money 4 (four) times total, without doing discovery, motions or trials and claiming they are "owed" 21 thousand dollars more - 

• ALLOWS the motion to withdraw to proceed;
• ALLOWS attorneys who still owe Melania and Nicolae Pervu services paid and overpaid for, out of the case;
• SEALS the records of his shameful conduct - without following constitutionally required procedure of how to seal it; 

AND,

reportedly, Lambert did not even so much as ASK Melania and Nicolae Pervu whether they can afford an attorney to address the contempt proceedings that his own law clerk taught the City of Oneonta how to bring against them.

Knowing very well that he, Judge John F. Lambert, 

• ABSOLUTELY MUST make such an inquiry in a case of contempt proceedings, and 
• ABSOLUTELY MUST advise litigants facing contempt proceedings of their RIGHT to FREE COUNSEL, and
• ABSOLUTELY MUST review their application for that purpose, 
• ABSOLUTELY MUST assign counsel to them if they qualify - and, according to what I have heard, they do, and
• ABSOLUTELY MUST give that counsel proper time to prepare for the contempt hearing, and
• ABSOLUTELY MUST 
• provide an EVIDENTIARY HEARING - 
• with witnesses, the City of Oneonta having the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, having to actually 
• TESTIFY THERE, IN OPEN COURT, UNDER OATH, 
• PROVING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Melania and Nicolae Pervu supposedly 
• intentionally, 
• while HAVING MONEY to pay for the changes required by the City of Oneonta (because punishing people for not having money to carry out a court order is unconstitutional in the United States), 
• violated 
• a LEGALLY VALID court order.

Not the way Judge Lambert (and the previous judge, Coccoma) are deciding this case - through "conferences in chambers", off record, without any testimony of any witnesses.

And, there will be a problem proving that

* there was a LEGAL order - see my next articles; that

* there is a violation of that order, and that

* the violation, if it happened, was intentional, not based on lack of money.

And, by the way, the assigned counsel, in order not to commit his or her own malpractice and in order to preserve the issue of gross judicial bias and misconduct for appeal, should start representation of Melania and Nicolae Pervu, with a motion to recuse Judge Lambert - if Judge Lambert does not have the good grace to run from this case himself a.s.a.p.

Instead of doing all of that, Judge Lambert told Melania and Nicolae Pervu, reportedly, to go "FIND" an attorney for themselves.

Nice guy, isn't he?

Lambert should be taken off the bench for this - and Oursler disbarred, and both jailed.

Lambert, on a more practical plane, MUST recuse from this case, given his law clerk's role de facto practicing law and teaching the City of Oneonta when, how and in what way to conduct litigation against the now unrepresented two immigrant respondents.

And, the new judge MUST at least INQUIRE whether Melania and Nicolae Pervu are entitled to an ASSIGNED COUNSEL, for God's sake.

Because if you want at least to pretend to follow the so-called "Rule of Law", try at least to not openly acknowledge corruption - while then sealing documents documenting that corruption and intimidating witnesses with jail time through contempt of court disclosing that document.

Because, remember,

*  fixing court cases,
* theft of honest services of judges,
* tampering and intimidation of witnesses, and
* hiding evidence of court-fixing pertaining to the presumed-open court proceedings

are FEDERAL CRIMES.

#TheCrimeOfBeingNamedMelania. How to steal a lucrative business from an immigrant with the help of a New York court. A tutorial. Part I.

The City of Oneonta's attorney David Merzig appears to not be aware of attorney disciplinary rules prohibiting pre-trial publicity in a court case that may prejudice that court case.

In fact, I am sure he is aware of that rule, but he is simply spitting on it from the roofs of the City of Oneonta.

Because he knows he will never be disciplined no matter what he does.

Like, for example, helping somebody high up to

1. escape liability for certain actions, and to
2. grab a lucrative piece of commercial real estate for peanuts, having conveniently devalued that piece of real estate with the help of the local corrupt court system.

But, as it often happens with corrupt people high up in power - they lose the grip on reality as to what they can and what they cannot say out loud.  They say things that show their corruption in the full and think that nobody will see it and will not be able to put the mosaic together.

Yet, all you have to do is to pick up the details and connect the dots - they are all there.

Which is what I am going to do with a series of articles dedicated with David Merzig's raid upon the Oneonta Hotel at 195 Main Street, and its owners, immigrants Melania and Nicolae Pervu.

David Merzig is leading a relentless publicity campaign against the Pervus - which the Pervus' now-former attorneys refused to seek sanctions for in court despite the obvious prejudice created by it in people's minds, look what a reader "Dave" said in his comment regarding one of David Merzig's publicity stunts that the city inspector was supposedly threatened by Nicolae Pervu in his attempt for inspection:

For "Dave", and, I am sure, for many other readers of publications put in local newspapers by Merzig, everything is clear - there is already 

"only ONE side … the FACTS.  In this case, the facts clearly show this building has not been properly and safely maintained by the current and possibly the previous, owners".

But, that was Merzig's goal all along, wasn't it?

To create in people's mind that there was only ONE side of the story - his client's and employer's, attorney disciplinary rules, ethics and fairness be damned.

Yet, if the so-called "facts" are so important for attorney Merzig, I wonder why he prefers to "try" them in newspapers and fights tooth and claw not to have specifics in his petition, the initial document that started the lawsuit Merzig is writing about in newspapers - and why Merzig thwarted evidentiary hearings in the case, not once, not twice, but three times in a row.

By the way, do not try to complain about David Merzig to the attorney disciplinary committee of the 3rd Department.

Because David Merzig obviously has support of somebody very high-up in the government - as the series of articles shows, the interests of the formerly presiding judge in this case, the Chief Administrative Judge Michael V. Coccoma and his wife, the Otsego County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, is involved in the situation, as well as the financial well-being of the presiding judge John F. Lambert, as a minimum.

And, there is an office of Senator Seward in the City of Oneonta - did you know that?

Rented, for decades, to the good old Senator by the attorney and son of a late judge Richard Harlem - who, as a result, can sue on behalf of non-existing clients, for non-existing causes of actions, and have his personal attorneys sit on disciplinary committees thwarting complaints about himself and destroying the complainants instead.

With the help of Ellen Coccoma, wife of the Chief Administrative Judge.

Now Ellen Coccoma is gone from the attorney disciplinary Committee, but, guess what, Senator Seward former legislative counsel, Judge Robert Mulvey is in, as a judge of that court.

So, complain away about attorney Merzig - and  court attorney Mark Oursler.  

Why about Mark Oursler?

Courtesy of Oneonta City Attorney David Merzig, who, being what he is - brains are not needed to push through corrupt deals on behalf of his powerful client -  has let people see a glimpse of what kind of wheeling and dealing is going on between him and the court by releasing this wonderful piece:

If you did not get the first time that the City of Oneonta has the presiding judge, and his law clerk Mark Oursler, in their pockets, ADVOCATING for them and TEACHING them, openly, what to do (ask for an Order to Show Cause of Contempt) and how exactly to do it - what to attach to the application for such an order - David Merzig put in not one publications about it into the local press, but at least two, here is another one:

All to make you safe, citizens of Oneonta, New York.

The lawsuit is not just bad, but very, very bad.

Apparently, because 

• the owners of the Oneonta Hotel are immigrants, not sophisticated in the law, and h
• appened to have fallen into the greedy grip of an attorney who is also a town justice and an adjunct professor, and both of those positions are not easy to come by and to keep, and because t
• he local press is well in the local government's pocket and WOULD NOT report honestly and diligently on what is A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD and shows very, very clearly the corruption involved in this little scheme designed to take a lucrative business and a lucrative piece of downtown real estate away from Melania and Nicolae Pervu -

because of all of that, Merzig and Co. do not even care to pretend to follow some semblance of the law in doing it and brazenly present their corrupt raid upon Melania and Nicolae Pervu's business as a concern about health and safety of the people of the town of Oneonta.

Since the local press would not do the job of honest journalism, I will do that for them.

Starting with this article, the first one in the series, based on documentary evidence, about the case of Melania and Nicolae Pervu.

Showing judicial corruption, corruption of town public officials and the corruption of Melania and Nicolae Pervu's own former attorneys at their very ugly best.

Is the City of Oneonta asking for yet another lawsuit for discrimination against immigrant business owners?

Are Oneonta taxpayers ready and happy to back up paying for legal defense in such a lawsuit?

Should attorneys Mark Oursler, David Merzig and Ellen Coccoma, as well as attorneys Ryan E. Manley and "The Honorable" Ryan T. Donovan, be disbarred because of this case?

Should judges Michael V. Coccoma, John F. Lambert and the town justice Ryan T. Donovan be taken off the bench, disbarred and charged with federal crimes?

I will publish my opinion on this matter in the articles to come - backed up with documentary evidence.

Stay tuned.

The law I have set in New York at the price of my law license and livelihood - that attorney disciplinary committees are not collection agencies for the "Fund for Client Protection" from civil rights attorneys fighting for their rights in court

In November of 2015, more than 3 years ago now, my law license was suspended for making constitutional arguments in motions to recuse judge Carl F. Becker, who has since run from the bench amid the triple investigation:

1. by the New York State Comptroller;
2. by the State Judicial Conduct Commission, and
3. by the FBI.

The suspension is obscure as to the causes of suspension, only mentioning that I was sanctioned - by Becker - for "frivolous conduct", for those same motions to recuse Becker (Charge IV was dismissed, about that - later in this blog):

This was a cowardly - but very convenient, for the court, move.

Because people believe the government, believe it or not.  The government cannot do anything wrong, right?

And, whenever they cannot provide arguments on the merits, they dive into this case and start bashing me as a suspended attorney - suspended for "misconduct", what misconduct, nobody knows, including myself and the court.

Despite the ancient principle that a judge cannot sit in judgement of his own case,

Nemo iudex in causa sua

 in New York judges are not only allowed to do just that, when dealing with criticism of themselves in motions to recuse - but are given an "absolute discretion" to do whatever they want in such cases, both with the motions and with those who made them.   

Moreover, when they think they were "defamed" by those same motions, that "their integrity were impugned" by those motions, they are allowed, in New York State, something that other residents of New York who are feeling defamed by anybody, are not allowed to do.

When mere mortals must sue for defamation in court, satisfy the elevated pleading standards, and risk sanctions - for that same frivolous conduct - for making a lawsuit that is barred by litigation immunity (where the supposed defamation happened during litigation), and, barred by the constitutional jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court that elevated the bar in such cases for plaintiffs who are public officials - 

judges in New York have invented a different procedure for themselves when they feel "defamed", a sort of "defamation-lite".

They simply start a proceeding-within-a-proceeding, a so-called "frivolous conduct" proceeding when the judge is, at the same time:

• an accuser (the moving party, on his own Order to Show Cause);
• an unsworn factual witness;
• an unsworn expert witness;
• a prosecutor, and
• an adjudicator.

So, there was, of course, 

• no filed court case, 
• no Judge Becker as a plaintiff against me for defamation, 
• no paying of court filing fees, 
• no discovery, 
• no depositions of Judge Becker that I would have been entitled to, 
• no right for me to make a motion to dismiss on litigation immunity and 1st Amendment grounds, as I would have had he sued me for defamation, as he was supposed to, on par with mere mortals, and 
• no right for me to a jury trial where I would be able to cross-examine Becker as to the supposed defamation.

And, this "frivolous conduct" procedure was not even enacted by the Legislature, people's representatives, it was made by courts for their own use, separately from any other litigant.

The mentality of judges is like that: 

• I sit in my own case, 
• as a witness, 
• accuser, 
• prosecutor and 
• adjudicator, 
• I start proceedings within proceedings if I feel a need to punish the critic and destroy her livelihood, 
• I allow myself to punish her, in my own discretions, with "fines" that are at the level of a felony requiring a grand jury indictment and the whole 9 yards of criminal procedure to impose, 
• I allow myself to impose sanctions in various court cases in retaliation for being sued for OUT OF COURT misconduct, and, 
• when I get sued in federal court for that retaliation in addition to state court, I 
• 1. invoke self-given absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, 
• 2. use the State Attorney General (whose law license I control) to DEFEND myself, at taxpayers' expense, and to ADVANCE this argument of my immunity for corruption, instead of prosecuting me for corruption, and 
• 3. I participate, behind the scenes, ex parte, in fixing that same case, through a State-Federal Judicial Council - and do not tell my opponent in litigation that such a thing is even happening.

That is all instead of following procedure required for every other mere mortal and suing the person for defamation if one feels himself defamed - and allow the court (another court, another judge, and the jury) to decide the fate of your claim.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that this combustible combination of functions is unconstitutional, but - might is right, and the practice continues.

After all, judges are "honorable" and have a right to protect their supposed honor by dishonorable means.

I have tried to prove the obvious unconstitutionality of punishing an attorney for trying to secure for her pro bono indigent client, through the ONLY procedural tool provided for this purpose by the State of New York, the client's federal constitutional right for access to court and impartial judicial review, in several courts:

1. The Delaware County Supreme Court;
2. The Appellate Division 3rd Department;
3. The New York State Court of Appeals; then, when the 3rd Department, acting also as a licensing court and a prosecutor of the licensing proceeding (another unconstitutional combination of functions) filed disciplinary charges against me, I
4. removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, when it was remanded back,
5. I appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,
6. on remand to the 3rd Department, that transferred the case to the 4th Department, I filed motions asserting the lack of constitutionality of proceedings against me - that nobody read, since the case was pre-judged from the very beginning;
7. filed an appeal from the suspension to the Court of Appeals; 
8. filed a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

No answer.

With all the ocean of jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, supposedly mandatory and binding on all other courts, prohibiting discrimination of speech based on its content, courts make one exception to that constitutional rules - criticism of themselves.

That is unforgiveable treason.

Several people in New York received promotion for their role in my unconstitutional suspension:

• the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini who was prosecuting me for (1) not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law in 2008 when I was not an attorney, by not appearing, as an attorney, on behalf of clients in a court case, apparently, inability to read is basis for promotion in New York, 
• Judge Eugene Fahey who refused to read my constitutional arguments in a motion, as well as factual exhibits, including affidavits of witnesses - was promoted to the New York State Court of Appeals;
• Judge Robert Mulvey who refused to protect me from retaliation of Carl F. Becker and kept assigning him to my cases, knowing that Becker is bent on revenge for my complaints against him to the Judicial Conduct Commission - was promoted to the Appellate Division Third Department;
• Andrew Ayers - the Assistant Solicitor General who, same as Gasparini, cannot read and, having in the record court documents showing that the deposition where I supposedly failed to appear as an attorney on behalf of clients and the motion that I supposedly did not answer as an attorney on behalf of clients, all happened in 2008 when I was not an attorney and when appearing at a deposition and answering a motion would have been, for me, 2 counts of the crime of unauthorized practice of law - was promoted to the position of the Director of the Government Law center of the Albany Law School.

1 month after my suspension for 2 years that happened 3.5 years ago, without the right of automatic reinstatement, of course, New York State changed the rules of reinstatement, now requiring of me to retake the bar examination.

Oh, well.

But - you know what silver lining I DID obtain for all attorneys in New York through the order of my suspension?

Freedom from harassment of the so-called "Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection" which was founded, supposedly, to protect clients from FRAUD and MALPRACTICE of their own attorneys, but instead became a lapdog of the judiciary in harassing attorneys who faithfully pursue their indigent clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review in court.

That lapdog was actually one of the complainant to the disciplinary authorities about me, that I supposedly did not pay the rain of fines imposed upon me by Becker in several cases right after I sued him on behalf of an indigent client for misconduct.

I stupidly paid some of those fines, which I know regret, because I was threatened to be put in jail for non-payment.  

The Lawyers' Fund still turned me in, because I did not pay - as I was allowed to do by law - while I was appealing the first three fines, while putting the necessary amounts into the court's own escrow, and thus ceding my own control over money.

And, attorney Mary Gasparini (since promoted for her hard work) asserted to the disciplinary court, in earnest, that her function in the disciplinary proceeding is, indeed, not only to prosecute supposed violations of attorney ethics, but also:

• being a criminal prosecutor trying to get me convicted and jailed for, allegedly, recording two conferences before a referee, comparing those recordings with transcripts, finding vast differences showing that the transcripts were cooked, and publishing the recordings online, into public access - she failed in that, but the 4th Department refused to disqualify her for lack of impartiality despite her acting in criminal proceedings instituted by her as the sole witness for her own prosecution;
• A COLLECTION AGENT for the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

She put it right in so many words in her pleadings - that it is her duty to help the Lawyer's Fund collect money from me.

Guess what.

The 4th Department, I do not know what came upon judges who issued that decision on suspension, suddenly saw the light and told Gasparini in their decision to suspend me that she does not actually have authority to act as a collection agency in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

That was the same court that skipped through all constitutional infirmities of the case, and that punished me with the de facto permanent suspension, as a matter of pre-judgment and in retaliation for pointing out the court's own misconduct, that the court, same as Becker did, reviewed in their own case and rejected "as a matter of procedure":

because I "did not admit misconduct" and "did not express remorse" BEFORE they determined my liability in the case.

It is like punishing a criminal defendant for not pleading for leniency in sentencing before he is found guilty of a crime.

And, don't ask me what was meant in this decision by "was not an isolated incident and involved a pattern of abuse of the legal process" - because no such thing was asserted in the disciplinary petition or argued in the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment.

So, I do not know what the court used as grounds of my suspension, and neither does anybody else reading this decision.

But, again, here is my gift to attorneys of the State of New York, that I obtained for them at the expense of my law license:

Attorney disciplinary authorities are not a collection agency for the Lawyer's Fund for "Client Protection" (from civil rights attorneys fighting for their federal constitutional right to impartial judicial review in court).

Enjoy.

The "anti-vaxxers" are the cause of measles outbreaks. Right.

As school year starts, measles outbreaks start.

Who is the cause of it.

The government and media sources that practice "hedging journalism", protecting the paper from possible government backlash - say that "anti-vaxxers" are to blame.

And, people do not want to use their heads and conduct their own research.

Consider just another irresponsible media provocation on the subject by the Oneonta NY's The Daily star - and comments there.

When we are given education and taught how to read, it is not only to read newspapers.

It is to read leaflets of vaccines we are putting into our own, and our children's body, which say that the measles vaccine is a LIVE vaccine.

It is to read enactments of Congress, and the decisions based on them of the U.S. Supreme Court, our servants who have made our children a captive market for the big vaccine manufacturers - and, when mass vaccinations with live vaccines have proven disastrous, are siccing people at one another, and siccing the media at those who retained the ability to think independently for themselves.

Here is why, if your child is injured or killed by the vaccine, the child (or the child's estate if he is killed) IS NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO STATE COURT, 

• as THAT SAME child is allowed if he is injured (or killed) by ANY OTHER MEDICINE, or 
• as an adult is allowed if he is injured (or killed) by ANY medicine, INCLUDING THE VACCINES.

Don't you find this discrimination in blocking access to court only to child victims of negligent design, marketing and application of vaccines suspect and unreasonable?

"In the United States, low profit margins and an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits led many manufacturers to stop producing the DPT vaccine by the early 1980s.^[4] By 1985, vaccine manufacturers had difficulty obtaining liability insurance.^[9] The price of DPT vaccine skyrocketed, leading providers to curtail purchases, limiting availability. Only one company was still manufacturing pertussis vaccine in the US by the end of 1985.^[9] Because of this, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, establishing a federal no-fault system to compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines.^[10][11] "

Not to mention that counter-indications to vaccination with MMR and any other live vaccine are quite wide, and the vaccine is, very obviously, not meant for everyone.

But, of course, the U.S. Congress is a bunch of OUR representatives who WE the people DELEGATE LIMITED POWERS to make laws 

• on our behalf;
• at our expense; and, most importantly 
• for out benefit - and within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution, the main Law of the Land.

And, within these boundaries, the U.S. Congress MAY NOT block access to courts at all, and access to STATE courts - especially, because that would be an infringement upon the rights of the states.

Did you see State Attorneys General suing the United States for that infringement to declare this statute unconstitutional? 

Not at all.

It exists for 33 years - and you, likely, did not even know about it.

Moreover, in 2011 our God-blessed U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed its supposed legality.

6 people, judges:

• Scalia, the author of the decision - the well-known corruptioner who accepted bribes for his decisions, among other ways, in hunting trips from litigants, and even found dead during one of such trips, under interesting circumstances;
• Roberts;
• Thomas;
• Alito;
• Kennedy; 
• Breyer.

Only 2 dissents - by Sotomoyor and Ginsburg.

Kagan "did not participate" - obviously because she recused, likely because she owned stock of vaccine manufacturers.

When you are reading about yet another lawsuit pushed by State Attorney Generals against Trump, claiming, under the 10th Amendment, that federal taxpayers must absolutely complement state and local budgets in sanctuary cities and states, which is 10th Amendment put on its head, remember that these same people did not sue to give BACK to your child what was snatched from your child by the U.S. Congress and by the U.S. Supreme Court - the right for a legal remedy if a grave injury or death occurs because of somebody's product put into the child's body.

Ask yourself - why anybody has access to court and the right to sue everyone in the chain who manufactured and sold the bad product that injured that person, if

•  they eat a bad hotdog in a fast-food joint,
• they are injured in a car accident; if
• they are injured by any household item;
• if they are injured by a drug - even if they obviously did not apply the drug the way it was supposed to - for example, we were given an example in my "Products liability" course in law school that hemorrhoid ointment manufacturers, you know, manufacturing the ointment that is put on the anus to shrink hemorrhoid bulges, were sued because they did not put a proper warning on the ointment not to use it on eyelids to make them look less puffy in the morning;
• if they are injured by any drug - and are adults;
• and, if they are children - if they are injured by any drug other than the vaccine?

Why such a protection of a certain class of product manufacturers from liability in court?

And what is the basis for the U.S. Congress to take away access to court FROM THE MOST VULNERABLE part of the population, the legally incompetents, minors - especially injured minors and estates of killed minors?

Does it make any sense to you?

And, my question is also - did the U.S. Congress, with all of its legal advisers, and did the U.S. Supreme Court, the 6 deciding judges, with 4 law clerks each (that is, 30 people with stellar legal education and training all in all) not know the text of the 7th Amendment that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these 30 people were sworn to uphold as a CONDITION of working where they work?

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

See?

Neither the U.S. Congress, nor the U.S. Supreme Court had a right to take away from children injured or killed by vaccines the right to a jury trial.

But - guess what? - they still did.

In violation of their collective oaths of office.

In order to bow to the drug manufacturers and make their life so much easier.

Imagine - no lawsuits for liability for sloppy design, non-disclosure of dangers and side effects, and for fraudulent marketing, including taking doctors on luxury trips so that they would tell parents and write in medical "professional", "peer-reviewed", journals, that the vaccine is safe when they knew it was not.

Where are State Attorneys General protecting your rights?

Hello?

Where are the Democratic female House Representatives, all dressed in white, fighting to restore your children's constitutional right to a jury trial if they are injured by the poison your doctor puts into your child's body for his own profit and for the profit of the manufacturer, without allowing you to make a truly INFOMRED consent - because you are not given the essential INFORMATION about the dangers of the vaccine?

As one of the opponents of this unconstitutional move by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court reasonably pointed out, if there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers - vaccines may not be mandated by the government.

By the way, you know who pays damages to a person injured by a bad:

• hot dog;
• car;
• hemorrhoid ointment;
• aspirin pill;
• instant pot;
• child pacifier?

The manufacturer and the seller.

You know who pays now into the "no-fault" system for injuries from vaccines - which you will not be able to get anyway, this is how the system set up?

You do, my dear Americans, through surcharges on all vaccines.

In other words, YOU pay for the MANUFACTURERS and SELLERS (doctors') bad, sloppy and fraudulent "work".

It is the concept of legal liability put squarely on its head.

After having read the above, and after having read this, with references:

go ahead and continue to blame the "anti-vaxxers" for measles outbreaks.

Or - maybe, you need to act like a parent and a citizen and demand from your government, your own  "public servants", to:

1. repeal the unconstitutional Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 

2. restore children's right of access to court and to jury trials in such cases.

Because, unfortunately, in the "rule-of-law" United States of America the truth from the powerful, rich and well-connected manufacturers about the true dangers of vaccines can be obtained 

• not from paid-off doctors, 
• not from brainless news sources that repeat anything that grab the eyeballs of the readers, 

but ONLY IN COURT - after extensive discovery of related documents and depositions of people "in the know".

To block disclosure of that truth is the true reason for creation of the Child Injury Vaccine Act - and its upholding by our corrupt U.S. Supreme Court.

Just read.

Just think.

Your child's life and the difference between being permanently disabled or not, may depend on it.

Demand from your doctor to provide to you the information whether he received any financial benefits or benefits "in-kind" from the vaccine manufacturer - trips, free samples, free lunches, endorsements of his articles in medical journals.  Many doctors receive such bribes.

Demand all information regarding the vaccine's side effects.

Demand checking whether your child has any counter-indications for that vaccine.

You informed consent to put that particular poison into your child's body will not be "informed" without it.