Enemies (critics) of the court are not entitled to the rule of law - NDNY and Janet DiFiore jointly strike against the Neronis

I wrote here that in November of 2014 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has imposed an anti-filing injunction on my husband Frederick J. Neroni for filing civil rights lawsuits with constitutional cases, based on five civil rights lawsuits, two of them still pending and counseled (by me) and without notification of counsel.

I blogged here about some circumstances of how that anti-filing injunction was imposed, by a court that stubbornly continues to preside over our cases despite its incestuous relationship with powerful attorneys involved in the other sides of my husband's and my own cases in that court.

As of June of 2015, the injunction has become illegal and unconstitutional because it constituted not only future restraint of protected speech, but also a series of content-based regulations of protected speech, criticism of high-standing public officials, without strict scrutiny, prohibited by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by the new U.S. Supreme Court case Reed v Town of Guilbert.

Not that the NDNY court would be expected to know and/or apply the law, especially if it is in my husband's favor or my favor.

Enemies of the court are not entitled to the rule of law.

Nevertheless, at the time of the injunction, as I said above, there were two pending counseled cases - Neroni v Zayas, Case No. 3:13-cv-127-LEK-DEP and Neroni v Grannis, Case No. 3:11-cv-1485.

On November 13, 2015 my New York state law license was suspended, without a hearing, because of sanctions imposed by the now-retired Judge Carl Becker because:

1) in one case I asked Becker to recuse for bias, misconduct, multiple conflicts of interest and lack of legitimacy (he did not file a certificate of election as required by law at that time); some conflicts of interest were revealed long after the sanctions were imposed, in 2012 and later, and one conflict was revealed in January of 2016, after Becker was no longer a judge and after my suspension;

2) in the second case, I also asked Becker to recuse for bias, misconduct and conflict of interest (Becker's ex parte communication with a party's counsel is part of the transcript, Becker did not disclose that one of the parties is likely his close friend or girlfriend - that was revealed after sanctions were affirmed on appeal);

3) in the third case, I moved to vacate a fraudulently obtained default judgment, where the attorney (who is also a judge in a justice court) concealed the fact and details of a deposition that was contrary to his client's legal theory.

The attorney-judge involved later made claims diametrically opposite from those he made to obtain sanctions against me in that third case (I just wrote about it yesterday, here), but Becker did not vacate the sanction, even after learning that it was made upon a frivolous submission of his fellow-judge and private attorney Jonathan S. Follender (Follender first accused me of allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment, and then, after the judgment was satisfied, Follender turned around and accused me, to the same Judge Becker, behind my back, of fraudulently causing satisfaction of that money judgment "too soon").

All three sanctions of Becker were rendered unconstitutional as a matter of law of June 18, 2015 by Reed v Town of Gilbert as content-based regulation done without application of strict scrutiny.

Yet, the Town of Gilbert decision did not prevent the Appellate Division 4th Department to suspend my law license on November 13, 2015 "for lack of remorse" as to unconstitutional sanctions imposed by Becker.  The suspension was without a public hearing that I requested, and was based entirely on Becker's sanctions rendered unconstitutional as of June of 2015 by Reed v Town of Gilbert.

The Town of Gilbert decision did not prevent the NDNY to take my federal law license "by rule of reciprocity", also without a hearing, on November 18, 2015.

NDNY continues to play games with whether I am or am not a licensed attorney, by the way. 

For example, in my husband's Neroni v Zayas case where he recently filed a motion to recuse and supplemental documents for the previously filed motion to vacate - filed by me before the suspension in October of 2015 - I am still listed, as of today, as my husband's "lead attorney", even though that court suspended me, and my husband already appeared in that case after my suspension pro se.

This is as of today.

By the way, I never registered a "Neroni Law Office" in South Carolina, this is the flight of imagination of the Northern District of New York.  I only had a mailing P.O. Box in my own name, since I lived there.

The Town of Gilbert decision did not prevent the New York State Court of Appeals, Janet DiFiore (as I've learnt only yesterday, through an order received by mail) to dismiss my constitutional appeal of my law license suspension "as of right" because "no substantial constitutional question was involved" on March 24, 2016

(see my blog about illegality of such "substantial-insubstantial" dichotomy of cases by the New York State Court of Appeals, based on a law review article and a dissent from a judge of that same court, published just 3 days ago on March 26, 2016, when, unbeknownst to me, Janet DiFiore's order tossing my appeal "as of right" on unlawful grounds was already made and was in the mail - it takes a long time to get mail from New York to South Carolina, so I am surprised I even got it in four days yesterday, usually it takes a week or more).

Apparently, violation of the 1st Amendment, clearly outlined in my disciplinary case, is not a "substantial constitutional question" for Janet DiFiore.

I will publish DiFiore's order of March 24, 2016, with a comment, in a separate blog.

Here I want to show how Northern District of New York used the anti-filing injunction - illegally, clumsily, stupidly, as is everything that NDNY is doing in our cases - to duck the issues raised in my husband's motion.

Here is what my husband received yesterday in the mail from the Northern District of New York:

But, Mr. Neroni did not file any motions for a LEAVE (permission of the court) to file anything in the "Case No. 3:13-cv-0127", that is Neroni v Zayas.

Mr. Neroni filed:

1) A supplemental Affirmation with exhibits, providing additional support to his earlier-filed Rule 60 motion (which the court acknowledges, is outside of the injunction).

The injunction, as the court concedes, "expressly did not affect" my husband's "rights in any of his currently pending cases", including the Neroni v Zayas case.

So, the supplemental Affirmation with Exhibits had to be accepted by the court.

2) Mr. Neroni's motion was for sanctions for frivolous conduct, to allow him e-filing, to allow him representation by an unlicensed individual (me), for substitution of parties, and to recuse the court.

The motion to recuse was essential for the fair determination of the pending Rule 60 motion, and thus is very much related to jurisdiction and fairness of the court in deciding the Rule 60 motion.

Since some Defendants retired or left the positions in which they were sued in their official capacity, replacement of Defendants was clearly related to determination of the Rule 60 motion.

And, an injunction imposed based on contents of Mr. Neroni's constitutional civil rights cases, has been invalidated by Reed v Town of Gilbert as of June 18, 2015 in the first place.

Not so in the NDNY.

If any law is favorable to Mr. Neroni or myself, it is not to be read.

So, all the motions that I enumerated above, that Mr. Neroni filed, were considered as if they were filed not as of right, but with a request for a leave (permission) to file - to the Chief Judge instead of judge Kahn who was assigned to the case - and such a "leave" was, of course, denied.

And, the supplemental affirmation to Rule 60 motion (that the court said was properly filed and was not within the injunction) also went into the stricken and blocked pile.

How appropriate.

What is also interesting is the timing of these two orders:

1) Mr. Neroni's motion to sanction DiFiore for frivolous conduct in his case was blocked without review on March 23, 2016;

2) DiFiore tossed my constitutional disciplinary appeal "as of right" as if it was discretionary on March 24, 2016, the next day after the motion for sanctions against her made by Mr. Neroni was conveniently blocked.

No retaliation.  No coincidence.

The "honorables" are in their usual glory.

So, when I still had a valid law license and sent a Rule 11 (sanctions) notification in Neroni v Zayas, on behalf of my client Mr. Neroni, to:

1) NYS Attorney General;

2) NYS Governor (DiFiore's friend);

3) NYS Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (then Lippman),

the solution was easy - my law license was suspended before I could file the motion for sanctions.

When Mr. Neroni tried to pick up the torch from where I left it and carry it on his own, making the motion I was going to make when my law license was suspended - against the very government that suspended my license "as a preventive measure" - he was prevented from filing that motion on contrived grounds.

Now, Mr. Neroni has the blessing of having TWO district court judges (Glenn Suddaby and Lawrence Kahn) deciding his pending motion to vacate.

Kahn did not decide the motion yet, but Suddaby already tossed a supplemental part of it, with exhibits, as well as a motion requesting Kahn and Peebles not to decide any motions based on their misconduct and conflict of interest, and to transfer the case to another, neutral and non-conflicted court.

And, of course, when I indicated to NDNY, in a separate affirmation filed in support of Mr. Neroni's motion that, if my representation of Mr. Neroni, despite my lack of license, is permitted, I am willing, able and ready to prosecute the case further.

Court representation on a pending motion and of further possible pending motions to vacate is very definitely related to that same pending motion to vacate.

Not so - says NDNY to Mr. Neroni.

You cannot appear pro se in a pending case where we stripped you of counsel when your counsel was about to make a motion for sanctions against those who regulate law licenses of every single judge of the NDNY court (that fact was also mentioned in Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse).

So - the counsel was stripped of her law license on the verge of a deadline to make a motion.

The party in a case with a pending motion is not allowed to appear pro se.

His filings are transferred to another judge, filed in another case, under another case number - and then denied, because he did not ask for permission.  Permission to make a motion to recuse, so that an impartial judge would review the pending Rule 60 motion?

Permission to have court representation of one's choice?

Permission to e-file?

Permission to file a motion for sanctions?

Where did NDNY get all this brand new law?

Obviously, it was created on the spot, to deal with the "situation" - the irrefutable evidence provided by Mr. Neroni in the stricken pleadings required to apply the law in his favor and grant the motions.

NDNY could not create such a precedent, admitting to massive misconduct of federal and state public officials.

What is the alternative for Mr. Neroni?

It is not clear.

As of today, he is not allowed to appear pro se in a case where a legitimate motion is pending (that the pending Rule 60 motion is legitimate and not blocked by the anti-filing injunction, even the NDNY conceded), his counsel is suspended, even though listed as still his counsel, 

and he is not allowed to have a court representative of his choice, the court refuses to consider his motion on that subject.

When judges are guided by rage alone, decisions that make no sense from the point of view of applicable law, happen.

The decision to strike Mr. Neroni's legitimate pleadings because, even though the pleadings are not covered by the anti-filing injunction, and even though the injunction has become unconstitutional since June of 2015, the injunction was stretched to punish Mr. Neroni...

And the next day after NDNY issued that decision, blocking Mr. Neroni's motion for sanctions against Neroni v Zayas defendants, including NYS Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, DiFiore strikes against me and denies my appeal as of right as if it is discretionary.

Please, don't tell me that there is no collusion between NDNY and New York State public officials sued in Neroni v Zayas to do what is done to me and my husband, our licenses and our lives.

To any reasonable person, the collusion between NDNY and Neroni v Zayas defendants is clear as day.

This blog contains full references to my husband's motion that and supplemental affirmation with exhibits in support of his Rule 60 motion to vacate that was blocked by the two-headed court 

(it is not a usual occurrence where a Chief Judge of the court interferes with a case where another judge is assigned, Glenn Suddaby who tossed the supplemental affirmation to Rule 60 motion pending in Neroni v Zayas case and who said he reviewed the entire docket of Neroni v Zayas case, including the pending motion, is not assigned to that case - Judge Lawrence Kahn is).

It contains all the answers as to why Mr. Neroni receives a medieval treatment as of he is an outlaw.

 Criticism of judicial misconduct in this country is not allowed.  

And critics who violate this taboo (as unconstitutional as it is) are to be viciously punished, as enemies of the court to whom laws simply do not apply.

That's the new law.

Will Judge Jonathan S. Follender the fraudster be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted for repeated and unrepentant fraud upon the court?

This is attorney Jonathan S. Follender, who is also a judge of the Town of Denning Justice Court, Ulster County.

This man is a fraudster.

I have a lot of documentary proof of it.

This is new proof that I learnt about just today.

This is the top of a Notice of Motion that Jonathan Follender filed with the Delaware County Supreme Court.

This is the top of the affirmation sworn by attorney Jonathan S. Follender upon which the motion above was made.  I received it some time ago.  In both the Notice of Motion and the Affirmation Follender makes statement that the motion is made on behalf, among other parties, of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation that he represented at the time he filed the motion - on March 8, 2016, the date when he made his sworn statement.

One correction - Follender calls himself and other Defendants in the action "petitioners".  Petitioner is an equivalent of a Plaintiff in a special court proceedings.

Here, I am the Plaintiff, and Follender is a Defendant.  He tries to impress the court by saying he is a petitioner and to obscure the fact that he is actually a Defendant.

Follender also says that the corporation Jonathan S. Follender, P.C. represents itself pro se - that is not allowed by New York law ("I appear pro se for Follender defendants").

Well, prior to this, Follender sued somebody for loss of companionship of a dog, a non-existent cause of action in New York ("loss of consortium is loss of companionship of a spouse, and a cause of action for loss of companionship of a dog does not exist), 

and made a motion to substitute a "dead client" "nunc pro tunc" when the dead individual was a corporate officer and the client was a corporation - in other words, Follender claimed that a corporation died with the death of its officer, a screaming act of incompetency for an attorney

(the motion was made in M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280, to the now-retired Judge Eugene Pekham, partner in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson;  Judge Peckham granted that insane motion, obiously without looking, which tells you a lot about the competence of both Follender and Peckham).

So, this is the gem of an affirmation upon which Follender based his motion.

In this affirmation, under oath, attorney Follender states the following:

"1. I am the attorney for defendant M & C Bros., Inc." (the full name of the corporate client is "M & C Brothers, Inc., as the caption of the case which attorney/judge Follender is using clearly shows).

So, as of March 8, 2016, the date of the affirmation, Follender claimed, under oath, to Delaware County Supreme Court that he represented M & C Brothers, Inc. 

This is a snapshot from the New York State Department of Corporations database.  I looked it up today, Follender did not notify me of this interesting development in his FORMER client's status.

It shows that M & C Brothers, Inc. has dissolved as of May 2, 2014, nearly 2 years ago, and before the appeal in Neroni v Follender was filed on May 19, 2014.

So, as of May 2, 2014 all courts have likely lost jurisdiction over the case because of dissolution of one of the clients.

Jonathan Follender definitely lost his authority to represent a dissolved corporation, as of the date of dissolution, May 2, 2014, before the appeal was filed on May 19, 2014, Sinnott v. Hanan, 156 A.D.2d 323, 141 N.Y.S. 505 (2d Dept. 1913).

No disclosure was made by attorney/judge Jonathan S. Follender that M & C Brothers, Inc. dissolved as of May 2, 2014, and no disclosure was made to the Appellate Division 3rd Department or to me as a party Plaintiff in the litigation.

Instead, attorney (and judge) Follender continued to claim to Appellate Division 3rd Department in multiple SWORN statements, statements that he sent to me across state lines to South Carolina that he represents M & C Brothers, and is now claiming the same to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

That behavior constituted multiple counts of:

• perjury;
• fraud;
• fraud upon the court;
• mail fraud (a federal crime).

Follender's behavior may be also qualified, in my opinion, as several counts of federal wire fraud.

First, Follender caused a company to e-mail me his Respondent's brief on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc. after the dissolution of M & C Brothers, and after Follender lost his authority to represent M & C Brothers.

Second, Follender sent this extraordinarily stupid and arrogant, not to mention fraudulent, e-mail to Appellate Division 3rd Department as of January 4, 2016, on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation dissolved two years prior.

In that e-mail, Follender 

(1) does not disclose the jurisdictional fact of dissolution of his FORMER client M & C Brothers, Inc. and 

(2) asks Appellate Division 3rd Department to make me come from South Carolina to New York to argue my own appeal that I wanted to submit on papers.

Follender made that claim, which was completely illegal under any circumstances, while Follender knew (but I didn't know until today) that the appellate proceedings were void and that he has no authority to represent M & C Brothers, Inc. because of that dissolution.

Note that in the e-mail, Follender requested the court to "take judicial notice" of my order of suspension - based on Follender's claim that I delayed satisfaction of a money judgment in the case that he calls "Torum".

The case was, in fact, M & C Brothers v. Bradley W. Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum, Tyler Harcott, Genevieve Gorder, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280.

While asking the 3rd Department, without disclosure that the appellate proceedings and Follender's representation of M & C Brothers have been rendered void due to M & C Brothers' dissolution, to take judicial notice of my suspension based on "Torum" - that's the above case, let's call it "Torum-I", Follender omits to mention that in Torum-I I was sanctioned by the now-quickly-retired Judge Carl F. Becker, on request of the same Follender -

for allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment.

Follender also omits to mention that, right after I was sanctioned in Torum-I, at his request, for, once again, allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment, Follender turned around and asked the same Carl Becker, in a case where I was not a party or attorney of record, to sanction me again - now 

for causing SATISFACTION of that same money judgement TOO SOON.

It is all part of court records in M & C Brothers v Bradley Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum (2 defendants instead of 4 as in Torum-I), Delaware County Index No. 2011-884.

What Follender does has many layers of fraud, and I think it's time to have him held responsible for it.

I will, of course, notify the State Commission for Judicial Conduct and other appropriate authorities with request to take, let's say, appropriate actions towards Follender because of his continuous, ongoing and brazen fraud upon several courts.

I will notify you of how this case develops.

I am posting this information for people to be beware of Jonathan S. Follender's tendencies to commit fraud and fraud upon the court when they deal with him as with attorney or with a judge.

The man is dangerous and should be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

Stay tuned.

Janet DiFiore ceremonial fraternity swearing-in gathering at taxpayers' expense - Part II

As promised, I am starting to publish the transcript of the swearing in ceremony of Janet DiFiore into her position of the Chief Judge of the NYS Court of Appeals.

I will go slow.

It's a lot of work - and, as you will see - a lot of information to digest.

I am trying to not just provide a transcript, but to interlink information about each introduced person.

This blog covers only 5 minutes and 16 seconds of the 47 minute 31 second's video of the swearing-in ceremony.

I will transcribe the video further and provide the transcripts, by parts, in my later posts.  

Now, for the transcript (with comments and background information for introduced individuals).

==

This is the NYS Court of Appeals' judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., the chief sycophant at Janet DiFiore's swearing-in ceremony held on February 8, 2016 in Albany, New York, at taxpayers' expense.

In the transcript of the swearing-in ceremony of the now-Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore that will follow, note how many extolling epithets this man lavishes upon those invited by DiFiore to attend her swearing-in ceremony.

I will highlight the epithets in color. 

Judges and lawyers are supposed to use the strict and sometimes boring language of the law.

You do not expect such an outpour of verbal embellishments and flattery from the lips of a hardened trial lawyer and longtime judge.

But here it is.  Nothing like greasing your way into your bosses heart, I guess.

I will highlight Judge Pigott's flattery in pink - an appropriate color for flattery, I think.

Here is the transcript of the swearing-in ceremony:

==
Judge Piggott:  

It's now my duty to call this wonderful session to order.

We are just overjoyed at the thought of having Judge DiFiore as our Chief Judge.

As you can see, Judge DiFiore invited a host of members of her family, a few friends (laughter in audience) to come to this.

She asked me to, please, introduce everyone (laughter in audience, see facial expressions of Pigott, DiFiore and Cuomo at that statement, they are laughing, it's obviously intended to be funny, please, also note that in this COURT "session", Cuomo is sitting on the bench, as part of the court - while he has cases litigated in front of that court as an attorney and a party).

Everyone who needs to be introduced, please stay seated (laughter).

Ok.

First of all, let me acknowledge the family of our new Chief Judge, her husband - and I ask you to, please, stand because we want to see you - husband Dennis Glazer, Dennis, welcome to the Court of Appeals.

(Long applause).

Daughter Alexandra and son-in-law Matthew, please, stand and be recognized (applause).

(Applause).

The handsome groom...

And sons Joseph and Michael (the sons stand).  Welcome.

Your hands are going to wear out, I am telling you, you people applaud like that...

We obviously also have the great Governor of the State of New York here on the right Andrew Cuomo, thank you, Judge .

(Applause).

My favorite Lieutenant Governor ... Judge... Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, Kathy, would you, please, stand and be recognized (she does stand, applause).

Also from the Governor's office we have his counsel Alfonso Davis... David, excuse me (applause).


(Alfonso David is reportedly "the 3rd most powerful person in Cuomo's office, after Cuomo and Hochul - T.N. ).

And William Munrow, Secretary of the Governor.

William, thank you for coming (applause).

Before I get to the other big people there (points into the courtroom), I want to introduce my colleagues up here.

First of all, from the Big Apple, we have Jenny Rivera, Judge Rivera 

(applause, Cuomo turns around to Judge Rivera, and casually stretches out his hand for a handshake with her, which Judge Rivera accepts, Judge Rivera is New York State Attorney General's former attorney, and thus, a former attorney of Andrew Cuomo (who was also an Attorney General), his  former subordinate, and Judge Rivera is also a former law clerk of the now-U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor, the appellate court to the New York State Court of Appeals, and a former clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - which, for the court, covers all bases in lawsuits and appeals, through personal connections).

Judge Rivera is our law professor.  

She keeps tryin' a-drag the law into everything we're doing (laughter).  One of those (laughter)...

Also from New York City, from the 1st Department, the Honorable Sheila Abdus-Salaam, Judge Abdus-Salaam (applause; Judge Abdus-Salaam is Cuomo's recent appointee - T.N.).

Not to worry, we have somebody from Albany, the Honorable Leslie Stein (Cuomo's recent corrupt appointee - T.N.):

Judge Stein... (applause)

And weird or not, we have another Eugene from Buffalo, the Honorable Eugene Fahey, Judge Fahey (applause; Judge Fahey is a recent Cuomo's corrupt appointee - T.N.):

Now a little bit of CLE here, continued legal education...

As most of you, I think, know, the Court of Appeals, is the Administrative Board of the courts, runs the entire court system.

And the Administrative Board is made up of five people:

• our Chief Judge (familiarly and condescendingly taps Janet DiFiore on the shoulder);

• and the four PJ's (I guess, that's the jargon standing for "Presiding Justices of the 4 intermediate Appellate Divisions - T.N.), and I would like them to stand and be recognized.

From the 1st Department, the Honorable Peter Tom, Justice Tom (Justice Tom is one of the judges that did not award back pay to retired judges in the lawsuit where an appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals - T.N.).

From the 2nd Department, Justice Randy Eng,  Judge Eng (Eng is Cuomo's appointee as the Presiding Justice of the 2nd Department - T.N.).

From our 3rd Department, our Senior Presiding Justice Karen Peters, Judge Peters.

And our shining new PJ from the 4th Department the Honorable Gerald Whalen, Justice Whalen.

Now, you may have noticed, when I introduced my colleagues up here, I introduced them as "judges".

When I introduced people over here (points at presiding justices of the 4 Appellate Divisions), PJ's, they are "justices".  

Now, one of the people that I sat with for along time was Judge Samuel Green who was constantly reminding me that there is no justice in the Court of Appeals. (Laughter).

They are the justices, we are the judges.

He also used to say that we were not last because we were right, we are right because we are last. (Laughter).

But, the four PJ's, as you know, they preside... They get 2 000 a year.  

We get 200 and...  (technical glitch in the video ate some words at 4:04).

2000 apiece... 

We get to pick our cases (not true - T.N.), they don't.

They are very tired, and they are very hard-working people.  

And they then work with Judge DiFiore in running the entire court system.  

Now when you have a Board of Directors, an Administrative Board like that, you need somebody who execute (Judge Pigott pronounced the word "execute" with an emphasis and a lop-sided smile, a very funny word, I guess - T.N.) those,

and we have the Chief Judge of the Office of Court Administration, who is also with us this afternoon.  

Judge Larry Marks, Judge Marks.

People who work with the Chief Judge in our Court Administration, we have a number of Administrative Judges, one of them is a former Administrative Judge of the 9th District is with us today, and I would like to recognize Judge Frank Nicolai, Judge Nicolai (smiling and stretching his hand out to "Judge" Nicolai).

(Francis A. Nicolai was not a judge at the time of the ceremony, he was a private practicing attorney working for a law firm that has a large appellate practice division that appears in front of the NYS Court of Appeals - T.N.).

We also have some...

This is a great honor for you (taps Janet DiFiore again)

We also have some former members of the Court of Appeals with us today.

The Honorable Joseph Bellacosa is with us.  That's Judge Bellacosa!  (Applause). 

(Bellacosa is apparently a friend of Cuomo's recently deceased father Mario Cuomo, and at the time Judge Pigott addressed him as a Judge, Bellacosa was as much a judge as you and me, he was a private attorney and a professor of law, he retired from the bench 17 years ago - T.N.).

I told you your hands are going to get tired.

Judge Howard Levine is with us.

(At the time Judge Pigott called Howard Levine "Judge Howard Levine", Howard Levine was a private attorney and a retired judge, appointee to the NYS Court of Appeals by Andrew Cuomo's father Mario Cuomo; 

Howard Levine, as a private attorney working at Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP, where he handles, among other things, appellate practice;  

Levine also admits on the website of his law firm, as part of his and his law firm's attorney advertising, that he was the Chair of the New York State-Federal Judicial Council in 2000-2002, while the New York State Court Administration refuses to satisfy my FOIL request about records of that shadow quasi-governmental organization
by claiming they do not have them.

Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna also appears to be a law firm of choice for the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct - it hires its own attorneys out of that firm:

and has its "founding partner" Michael Whiteman appear for 14 consecutive years from 2014 to 2000 /see the Commission's annual reports/ as a referee of the Commission for Judicial Conduct where his former employee Cheryl L. Randall is the "senior attorney" - not too crooked, right? And I just got the review of referee lists of the Commission of Judicial Conduct until 2000, I have over 30 more years' worth of those lists to go - T.N.).

Judge Levine, thank you so much for coming!

===

Really, thank you for coming - and we will see  how "Judge Levine" and other "honorables" who get to be invited to the swearing-in ceremony of Chief Judge DiFiore, fare with their business in that same court.

I will keep posting transcription, with comments and background information, of the swearing-in ceremony.

JUST FIVE MINUTES:

• of relentless brown-nosing;
• sycophanting to DiFiore, and at the same time male-shauvinist condescension (repeatedly tapping DiFiore, stressing Karen Peters' "senior" age - now, I am far from being a friend of Karen Peters, but I cringed when I heard that she is a "Senior" judge, where there was nothing "Senior" about her position, but her age);
• vulgar jokes about justice;
• "celebrating" private attorneys who practice before the court as "judges";
• celebrating the appointing Governor and his 2nd and 3rd people-in-chief, as well as people appointed by Governor's late father.

JUST FIVE MINUTES of the "cream" floating to the top.

Judge Pigott obviously was in his glory, and was obviously not seeing anything bad in how he was behaving, on video, for the whole wide world.

You might see now why the New York State courts resist so fiercely against videotaping of court proceedings.

Those idiots cannot even behave in a civilized manner for 5 minutes.

There will be more, I will keep transcribing this 9-day wonder.

I would like to end this post with the statement that can be put on top of each court of the New York State "Unified Court System":

"We were not last because we were right, we are right because we are last. (Laughter)."

Stay tuned.