On February 3, 2013, I filed a civil rights action on behalf of my husband Frederick J. Neroni in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The lawsuit was dismissed in two decisions, where the court refused to apply its own precedents and to follow the law, only to prevent a major overhaul in how attorneys in New York are licensed, disciplined and, if disbarred, how they are employed, what activities they may and may not engage in along with everybody else, and how they may be prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law.
State Defendants claim that Mr. Neroni is asking for too much of an overhaul of the attorney disciplinary and criminal justice system.
The court agreed.
The court - and judge - that agreed was Judge Lawrence Kahn, who was interacting with Mr. Neroni's opponents (Hiscock & Barclay, now Barclay & Damon) in another lawsuit in the same court through an organization called American Inns of Court and was likely receiving material benefits from such opponents, as well as had ample opportunities for ex parte communications and for being influenced by Mr. Neroni's competitors, including a disciplinary prosecutor John Casey, partner in the firm, who accepted private representation for money from retired judge Robert Harlem (now deceased) and his son attorney Richard Harlem in order to disbar Mr. Neroni - and escaped intact without criminal liability or discipline.
The interesting point is that the State of New York was handling public hearings in a court-created and court-run (without input by consumers) "Statewide Commission For Attorney discipline" to allegedly make attorney disciplinary process more fair and uniform for attorneys and more efficient for the consumers of legal services - while at the very same time ardently arguing against the overhaul of its attorney disciplinary system by fighting against Mr. Neroni's civil rights lawsuit.
Another interesting point is that New York State was handling those same public hearings while doing nothing to implement the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court to overhaul attorney disciplinary system that is clearly in violation of federal antitrust laws (think Kim Davis times thousands of judges violating U.S. Supreme Court order).
Moreover, at the same time of holding those public hearings allegedly for the benefit of consumers (but without allowing consumers to participate in those hearings in any meaningful way), the State of New York continued to insist in federal court on anti-competitive measures against out-of-state attorneys by filing and prosecuting an appeal in a lawsuit that a licensed out-of-state attorney has won against New York State, declaring New York requirement of a physical office for out-of-state attorneys, but not for in-state attorneys, to be a violation of Privileges and Immunities Clause under the U.S. Constitution (Schoenefeld v State, appeal currently pending in the 2nd Circuit).
I will start publishing in this blog claims that Mr. Neroni has asserted in his civil rights lawsuit back in February of 2013, with an illustration that those same claims were within the trend of how the law develops in this country and around the world, and that Judge Kahn's stubborn and, possibly, financially incentivized, refusal to abide the law and to dismiss Mr. Neroni's civil rights lawsuit, no matter what the law says, constitutes misconduct in office requiring Judge Kahn's removal from the bench, senior status and all.
Case name and number in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is Neroni v Zayas et al., 3:13-cv-00127-LEK-DEP.
Case name and number in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit where Mr. Neroni is appealing pro se is Neroni v. Zayas, Case No. 15-2030.
I will publish a detailed analysis from the case which, I believe, is important not only for attorneys, licensed, suspended or disbarred, but also for the public.
The main issues of public concern as to treatment of disbarred attorneys is the use of criminal laws against such individuals to gag them and prevent them from presenting to the public, under the threat of criminal prosecution, information about judges and judicial candidates, and legal opinions about constitutionality of various existing and proposed laws.
This way the public is disenfranchised by being stripped of information necessary to form an informed decision to vote for a certain judicial candidate and not others, and stripped of opportunity for a full scope of information about validity of existing and proposed laws.
Thus, the issue of discrimination against disbarred attorneys are not only and solely issues of such disbarred attorney's personal aggrievements, but an issue of grave public concern.
Stay tuned as to detailed analysis of Neroni v Zayas claims, as well as background history of participants, presiding judges and those who likely influenced the presiding judges.
No comments:
Post a Comment