The referee did exactly as Mary Gasparini told him to do - filed a false report claiming there was a hearing and I had a "reasonable notice" of it, and accompanied it with a falsified transcript

The referee filed a report in my case which is practically a word-for-word copy of the disciplinary prosecutor's "Proposed Referee's Report", urging the referee to falsely tell the court that there was a hearing in the case on "reasonable notice" to me, which never happened (and that's why the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini attempted to commence a criminal proceeding against me, for catching her red-handed in offering fabricated court transcripts to the referee and urging him to present that transcript as true to the court).

Compare the "Proposed Referee's Report" by Mary Gasparini

and the actual Referee's Report dated February 17, 2015 and, according to the letter of the clerk of the court, filed with the court on February 19, 2015:

The referee falsely presented to the court, as Mary Gasparini urged him to do, that the transcript of the January 12, 2015 conference claiming that it was a hearing where I appeared as a witness and testified, is a "true and correct" copy of what occurred during that appearance.

I already posted here the two recording of the "scheduled pre-trials", of the pre-trial conference of October 23, 2014, and of the pre-trial conference of January 12, 2015.  The recording of the October 23, 2014 conference clearly shows that I ask the referee whether the next appearance will be a "hearing", and he clearly answers me (which was not reflected in the transcript of that conference) that it will NOT be a hearing.

Yet, the referee submitted to the court a transcript of the next appearance, that occurred on January 12, 2015, which said it was a "hearing" where I was "called as a witness" and "testified" (without a reference, on whose behalf I did that, and without direct or cross-examination).

Apparently, since the court imposes no discipline on its referees and no discipline on disciplinary prosecutors committing fraud upon the court, such cooking of the transcripts and presenting false evidence to the court will continue.

It is interesting to mention that at the very same time that the referee called the January 12, 2015 appearance "a scheduled pre-trial", the referee has made "findings of fact" without holding any evidentiary hearings (trials, not "pre-trials"), and that was exactly as the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini has frivolously and fraudulently urged him to do, in complete defiance of court order of September 30, 2015 directing the referee to "take proof", meaning "to conduct an evidentiary hearing", on notice to me - and that never happened.

So, this is one more count of successful fraud upon the court by disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini.  Apparently, when there is no control or oversight over actions of such public officials, misconduct is, as is expected to be, rampant.

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission - a writing on the wall for the regulation of the legal profession?

On February 25, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, upheld the ruling of the Federal Trade Commission that members of the State Board of Dental Examiners, who are practicing dentists and thus market participants in the market which they are regulating, are not entitled to immunity for their actions stifling competition in the market.

This decision is, in my opinion, a writing on the wall for the regulation of the legal profession the way it exists today in the United States.

As an example, in the State of New York attorney discipline and prosecutions for unauthorized practice of law, is allowed to be handled by market participants, practicing attorneys, who very obviously have a vested financial interest to eliminate competition, especially as the number of paying clients dwindles.

As far as I know from research of disciplinary proceedings against attorneys in other states, it is not much different.  It is practicing attorneys who target other practicing attorneys, their competitors, for discipline.

At least in New York where I researched the subject exhaustively, the "attorney grievance committees" or "professional conduct committees" existing in the 4 appellate division are not explicitly authorized by statute, and are thus within the prohibition as to anti-competitive practices as set in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of February 25, 2015 North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.

What is authorized by statute, Judiciary Law 90(1)(c) are the so-called "character and fitness committees" that appellate divisions are authorized to appoint only and specifically to "investigate the character and fitness of applicants for admission to the bar".

As to investigating and prosecuting of attorney misconduct, Judiciary Law 90(7) authorizes this only for two categories of prosecutors:

(1) "any district attorney within the department";
(2) an "attorney and counsellor-at-law" appointed by the court specifically for a particular investigation or prosecution, since Judiciary Law 90(7) clearly states that the court may fix compensation for such attorneys only "during or upon termination of the investigation or proceedings".

Moreover, since compensation of such an attorney or attorneys prosecuting a disciplinary case against an attorney must be charged against a county, as provided by statute, Judiciary Law 90(7), it is very questionable that such prosecutors are representatives of a state, rather than of a county, and it is very questionable that such prosecutors would be entitled to any kind of "sovereign immunity" for their actions.

By the way, expenses of the office and auxiliary personnel for the "character and fitness committees" to be appointed for verification of fitness of candidates for admission to the bar, are also passed to either the City of New York (in the Appellate Division 1st Department), Judiciary Law 90(1)(f), or to counties (in the Appellate Division 2nd Department) pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(1)(g).

As to the attorney grievance committees of the 3rd and 4th Departments which investigated and prosecuted me (the 4th Department committee continues at this time), Judiciary Law 90 does not provide for an office or support staff for even "character and fitness" committees for admission to the bar, instead providing only for per diems.

Apparently, a taxpayer investigation is in order as to how offices investigating and prosecuting attorney misconduct are funded in New York, because they certainly are not funded in accordance with the statute, Judiciary Law 90.

Instead of following Judiciary Law 90(7), appellate divisions appoint, instead of prosecutors for a particular investigation or prosecution, "committees", investigators and attorneys for such committees, and funds for offices for such committees, none of which expense is authorized by statute, and fix compensation for attorneys for such "committees" before investigation or prosecution, as a set yearly salary, which is similarly not authorized by statute.

Moreover, the "committees" employ their own investigators and several attorneys, none of which is authorized by statute either.

As a New York taxpayer, I am not at all pleased with such a waste of funds.

As an attorney who is prosecuted by an illegal body consisting of market participants I am not pleased either, and there appears to be a new avenue of proving that attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are, on top of being a perfect tool of political oppression of attorneys doing their jobs and criticizing judicial misconduct and misconduct of politically connected attorneys, attorneys working for the government, or of any government officials, this is also a perfect tool to eliminate competition - and, as of now, members of such Committees are no longer covered by immunity if there is no political accountability for their actions by the State.

Since the very existence of the "professional conduct" or "grievance" Committees that investigate and prosecute attorney misconduct is not specifically authorized by statute, at least, in the State of New York, and since all such "committees" consist mostly attorneys, application of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission to attorney disciplinary proceedings is obvious.

Nor is there any supervision of what the committees are doing by the State.  And that is exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Board of Dental Examiners in North Carolina, indicating that such board members are not entitled to the so-called "state-action antitrust immunity".

The bottomline is - members of the attorney disciplinary committees are now, likely, not covered by antitrust immunity either and may be sued for their prosecutions or, rather, persecutions meant to eliminate competition.

I wonder how many attorneys will now be willing to "serve" on these committees.

It is actually a writing on the wall for attorney licensing, the way it exists nowadays.  It is only a matter of time when the axe will fall and the whole scheme of attorney licensing will be pronounced unconstitutional and unlawful under federal laws.

No wonder state bar associations filed amicus briefs in this case in droves - they felt the doom is coming.

And it will come, as it should.

The motion to disaffirm any potential referee's reports in my disciplinary case as made without authority and based on fabricated court transcripts, was posted on Facebook.

Here is the link to the motion.  The motion was posted in 3 parts since my scanner does not allow scanning the entire motion in one step.

Exhibits 3 and 6 are audio recordings of scheduling conferences in my disciplinary proceedings of October 23, 2014 and January 12, 2015 available from my blog posts here and here.  

The disciplinary prosecutor was so upset that she, the referee and the stenographer were caught or fabricating court transcripts (and for my lawsuit against the disciplinary prosecutor for fraud upon the court, bringing fraudulent charges against me) that the disciplinary prosecutor, attorney Mary Gasparini attempted to institute criminal proceedings against me - for waiving my own privacy and for treating proceedings that are open to the public as a matter of Judiciary Law 4, and my waiver of privacy.

A link to the memorandum of law in opposition to criminal contempt proceedings against a civi lrights attorney for waiving her own privacy in her own disciplinary proceedings that were instituted for her criticism of judicial misconduct

As promised in my earlier blog post, I have posted my memorandum of law in opposition to the criminal contempt proceedings by which my disciplinary prosecutor attempts to put me in jail for waiving my own privacy.

The platform of this blog does not allow to post files, so I posted it on Facebook, and here is the link to it.

Porter Kirkwood to Delaware County Judge. His arrogance and incompetence is fitting for the position

I just put a blog regarding dismissal of a case Neroni v. Peebles before I had an opportunity to even file an Appellant's brief.

Defendants did not appear in the court below, as the case was dismissed before it was served.

Therefore, by law, I had no opponents on appeal.

Yet, the 2nd Circuit actively invited defendants to appear as opponents.

Porter Kirkwood "appeared", filing a Notice of Appearance where he failed to even state the name of his client.  And the 2nd Circuit, the same 2nd Circuit that must issue a "defective document filed" notification, accepted that Notice of Appearance "in blank" as if it was good and proper.

So, Porter Kirkwood purported to represent on that appeal - somebody, at least his Notice of Appearance does not disclose who that somebody could have been.

With this staggering level of diligence and competence, the only place which will be right for Porter Kirkwood is - you got it right - the place of Delaware County Judge.

Voters of Delaware County, New York.

You will not find any judicial candidate quite as this one.  

Access to court in a civil rights case for Tatiana Neroni? No issues coming from her can be deemed meritorious

In May of 2014 I have filed a civil rights case Neroni v. Peebles in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The case raised multiple issues of public concern and listed multiple public officials (including judges) and multiple politically connected attorneys as defendants.

The case was dismissed before it was even SERVED, by a judge whose recent law clerk (as I learnt later on) was accepted for employment by the law firm of one of the defendants.

I appealed that "sua sponte" dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

The 2nd Circuit first tried to force me to get admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar while doing a pro se appeal.

I refused.

The 2nd Circuit forcibly "admitted" me to its bar anyway.

Then, the 2nd Circuit engaged in a game of treating defendants in the court below (where the case was dismissed before the action was served and before those defendants appeared in the action and became parties) as proper parties to the appeal.

The 2nd Circuit bent over backwards to call those non-parties "Appellees, invite them to appear in the action, and make me serve papers on them.

The NYS Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General refused to appear in the appeal, practically supporting my argument to the court, with legal authorities, and stating that since their clients were never served before the court below dismissed the case, they are not parties to the appeal.

The court ordered me to make a separate motion to strike the Appellees.

I did.

Today I received a notification that my motion to strike Appellees as parties was denied.

I got curious as to why that happened, even though the 2nd Circuit's own case law provides that defendants who did not appear in the court below before the case was dismissed (as it happened in my case), are not proper parties in an appeal from such a dismissal.

I logged into Pacer.gov and retrieved the following order that the court did not consider necessary to notify me of:

First of all, I must note that, unlike all other civil rights cases where my husband or I were involved with the 2nd Circuit, this is the first time when the "troika court" that made a decision on the appeal did not consist of senior-status judges, and I wonder whether the dismissal was actually a knee-jerk reaction of the judges to my blog here describing there court as the court consisting of people too old to handle the rigorous regiment of constitutional appeals.  

Yet, the senior status judges who are usually assigned to the fast-and-sloppy track deciding constitutional appeals (or, rather, rubber-stamping dismissals of such appeals), at least pretended that they had reviewed the case.

These "active-status" three judges did not even pretend that they reviewed the appeal, because the Appellant's Brief was never filed, nor was I allowed to even set a deadline to file it.

The court dismissed the constitutional civil rights appeal from a case raising issues of denial of access to court, court bias and issues of misconduct of judicial officers and court personnel OUTSIDE of court proceedings and thus not subject to any judicial immunity, without even wanting to see what I MIGHT say in the Appellant's brief - before such Appellant's brief was even filed.

So, when you, ladies and gentlemen, file a constitutional appeal with the 2nd Circuit, you have two options - either a "troika-court" of three senior status judges who pretended to read the case, but rubber stamp a denial of the appeal in a summary "non-precedential decision", or you get an active-duty "troika court" dismissing the appeal without even having an opportunity to review it.

And that is happening while a civil rights litigant has a right to FULL appellate review DE NOVO of all legal issues raised in the lower court.

I guess, the 2nd Circuit is afraid of my ability in raising those legal issues that they dismissed the appeal without allowing me to file an Appellant's brief?

By the way, in that same blog where I provided a table of ages of the judges of the 2nd Circuit, I suggested that instead of appointing 2nd Circuit judges for life, people should change this status quo by introducing to elect federal judges.  That would have been a shock to the system of the 2nd Circuit judges who have become too comfortable in their jobs and allow themselves to do whatever their whims tell them, and not what the law requires them to do. 

I am not at all surprised that the retaliation came, and that the retaliation came, "accidentally", the very next day after I did not appear in the fabricated criminal proceeding in my disciplinary action where my disciplinary prosecutor asked the court to put me in jail for 30 days for violating my own privacy.  

I wonder what the 4th Department's ruling on the criminal proceeding will be, as I obviously was not curious enough to appear there and verify it in person.

As to this decision by the 2nd Circuit "troika court" in Neroni v. Peebles (that I published in this blog above), I will certainly publish the entire "non-meritorious" Neroni v Peebles lawsuit, with exhibits and all, on Facebook, by the end of this week.  

When I publish it, the public will be the judge as to whether there are "no arguably meritorious issues" for discussion, or whether the 2nd Circuit and every one of its judges had an institutional interest to hide these issues as far as possible and prevent any review of issues raised in my lawsuit.

It's funny that what I raise in lawsuits is, first, declared as having no merit, and about 2 years down the road, I hear the same ideas from the speech of some high-and-mighty government official as his own novel and progressive ideas.

While such "noble" tricks makes one puke, the point is that I want the public to know what KIND of ideas our glorious federal courts and judges, sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution and citizens of the U.S. of America from violations of that Constitution, consider so lacking in merit that they dismiss an appeal BEFORE THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF WAS FILED, and without even setting the deadline for filing such a brief.

And that is, after the court below also dismissed the case before it was even served.

And that was after the 3rd Department and its Professional Conduct Committee engaged in an ex parte communication and left my disciplinary case when Neroni v. Peebles was filed and when the requests to waive service were sent out to defendants.

Something is fishy in the state of New York.   Read Neroni v. Peebles and find out what exactly is so fishy and so sensitive that two courts refused me access to the courts with those issues.

As to what I am going to do next with Neroni v. Peebles, I will notify the public through this blog when any next steps will be made.

Please, give me until the end of this week to publish Neroni v. Peebles on Facebook.

I will provide a link to the lawsuit here or will make a short new blog notifying of the update.

Stay tuned.

New documents were filed in my disciplinary case showing prosecutorial and referee misconduct and fabrication of transcripts

Yesterday I did not appear in the purported criminal proceeding fabricated against me by Mary Gasparini, attorney representing the Attorney Grievance Committee who was disgruntled that I sued her for fraud and fraud upon the court.

The proceeding was unlawful, but I had a pattern where that same court granted whatever Mary Gasparini wished, no matter how unlawful, and, therefore, had no trust in the integrity of that court or New York State judicial system as a whole.

Moreover, in the event (no matter how impossible under the current law) that the 4th Department would arbitrarily abuse its power, as it always does with me, and would decide to put me in jail for 30 days (as Mary Gasparini asked) for VIOLATING MY OWN PRIVACY and for TALKING ON THIS BLOG ABOUT MY OWN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS and about PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT in those proceedings, I did not want to run any risk of "accidentally" dying in jail "of natural causes".  

So, naturally, I did not appear personally (nor did I have to, by law), but instead I filed a Memorandum of Law in opposition to the legality of the criminal proceedings.

I also filed today a motion to disaffirm whatever the "referee" could have filed with the disciplinary court without providing to me the court-ordered hearing, and on the basis of two fabricated transcripts and one "Decision" that the referee made, without authority, and without any evidentiary hearings (that he was ordered to conduct).

Both of these documents will be posted today or tomorrow in one of the Facebook groups dealing with court reforms, and links to the group will be provided herein.

Since fabrication of court transcripts is a serious matter of public concern, I will use all available legal remedies to make sure the appropriate authorities learn about such fabrication and take appropriate action.

One thing that people who participate in fabrication of charges against me, fabrication of documents against me, including court records, and opening of safari in courts against me and my husband - I am tenacious.  

I did, am doing and will continue to be doing thorough investigation and research of what is going on and will not relent until people involved in abuse of power and political persecution against me and my husband will be brought to justice by appropriate authorities. 

Stay tuned.