Royal Gotti
Highly Suspicious Person
- Messages
- 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________, NEW JERSEY ________
SHAUN ROSIERE :
Petitioner(s) :
:
:
: COMPLAINT / MOTION Pursuant to:
: (a) U.S. is a Party to a Contract, 28 U.S.C.
: § 1346 (a) (2);
: (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1332, New Jersey Law
v. : governs this dispute;
: (c) Allegations of Attorney Misconduct &
: Unethical Conduct Grievance Pursuant to
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : U.S. Dist. Court N.J., Civ.R. 104.1, establishes Respondent (s) : U.S.D.C. of New Jersey Jurisdiction; Judicial : Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BY JOHN H. FEINER, UNLICENSED COUNSEL PRACTCING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSY, CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY
1. The Plaintiff argues that the plea agreement contract should be void because John H. Feiner was practicing in an unlicensed manner as Pro Hac Vice by acting as the sole and only counsel who signed the plea contract in violation of Local Rule 101.1 ( c )(4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES). The plea contract contained waiver stipulation that encompassed Title 18 U.S.C. § 981; In Rem Civil case No. 05-2589. Thus an exclusion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 (a) (5) (B), which excludes any proceeding that would involve; “a civil property forfeiture for violating a federal statute,” from the rules of Fed.R.Crim.P.. Therefore, the civil rules govern counsel’s appearance, in any aspect of the underlining civil case matters (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES).
2. The Plea agreement contract encompasses three separate cases, as such two are criminal and one is civil. Local Civil Rule 101.1 states, in pertinent part: only an attorney at law of this court may file papers, enter appearances for parties, sign stipulations . . . Loc.Civ.R. 101.1 (c). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, “the attorney of record who is a member of the bar of this court shall personally sign all papers submitted to the court or filed with the clerk.” Loc.Civ.R. 11. The remarks stated above are, the general words and remarks of Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.; See In: Receivables Purchasing Co.v. Eng’g & Prof’l Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89334 (3rd Cir.).
BACKGROUND
3. John H. Feiner, an unlicensed New Jersey counsel and non-member of the U.S.D.C. New Jersey Bar, was admitted as Pro Hac Vice in Crim. No. 08-629-5 only (Exhibits C & C-1). He has never been admitted to limited practice of law as Pro Hac Vice and never filed a motion to do so. John H. Feiner was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as made clear in: In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). John H. Feiner, engaged in negotiations with the government AUSA lawyers; encompassed in the September 17, 2009 plea contract Crim. No. 09-720-1 Information charge without being admitted as Pro Hac Vice or in any other capacity for that criminal case. John H. Feiner continued with the deception and represented a federal civil case No. 05-2589 and negotiated waivers. In the civil case he not only failed to file a Pro Hac Vice motion for admittance, he also did not comply with New Jersey U.S. Dist. Court Local Rule 101.1 (c) (2), which stipulates he must, in civil issues, make a payment to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection as provided by New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 (a) (Exhibit B).
4. To reiterate, there are three separate and distinct federal cases in one plea contract, two criminal and one civil. Issues arise in Civ. No. 05-2589 and Crim. No. 09-720-1 where John H. Feiner never bothered to file for Pro Hac Vice status through a proper motion and use the local judicial sponsor. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1 (c) (1), “any member in good standing of the bar of any court in the United States . . . may in the discretion of the Court, on a motion, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case.” The meaning of “particular case” in Local Civil Rule 101.1 (c) (1) is clear, the word “particular,” must be determined in its common meaning. Thus, under Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Ed. 2010, the meaning of “particular” is: “of or belonging to a single”; “separate and distinct . . . item.” As this relates herein, each case requires a particular review, for a motion for Pro Hac Vice being separate and distinct. Additionally, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey’s web page shows that “Filing Fees and Rates” stipulate that
“Admission to appear Pro Hac Vice (each case)” is the sum of $150.00; therefore, the Court itself stipulates that “each case” must be separate and distinct under Pro Hac Vice.
5. Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 101 (c) (2), “the order of the court granting a motion to appear pro hac vice shall require the out-of-state attorney to make a payment to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection as provided by New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 (a).” According to the New Jersey Attorney Index if Mr. Feiner had paid the required fee as stipulated in L.Civ.R. 101 (c) (2) his name would appear on the Index; of which it does not (Exhibit B). This rule was required for the civil case No. 05-2589 litigation and was not addressed.
6. Counsel John H. Feiner signed numerous court documents that were submitted on September 17, 2009 that were related to Crim. No. 09-720-1 and Civil No. 05-2589 (See: doc. 3, Waiver of Indictment; doc. 4, Waiver of Venue; doc. 5, Application to Plea guilty – filled out by Mr. Feiner; doc. 6, Plea Agreement; doc. 112, Certification of Counsel, located in 08-cr-00629-GEB section, and has no case number written in for the 09-720-1 case in item number one). All of these actions were practicing law without the proper license under New Jersey Law. The actions taken on the part of John H. Feiner are a crime in the state of New Jersey pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2C:21-22; the unauthorized practice of law is illegal in the state of New Jersey. Under N.J.R.P.C. 5.5(a): “A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of legal profession in that jurisdiction . . .”. Under N.J.R.P.C. 8.4: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional conduct . . .”. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has stated that, “one is engaged in the practice of law whenever legal knowledge training, skill and ability are required.” See In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). In re Jackman, the court considered whether an out-of-state attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when Jackman interviewed and counseled clients, prepared and signed documents to or on behalf of clients, and negotiated with lawyers. The Supreme Court of New Jersey determined that Jackman the out-of-state attorney, had taken on all the duties of a lawyer rendering legal services to clients and this under New Jersey law was practicing law without the proper license. When John H. Feiner does the same as Jackman, and violates the New Jersey law in the same manner and context to the surrounding elements of the plea contract that relate to the civil In Rem Forfeiture (05-2589) and all aspects of the 09-720-1 case, and the surrounding processes, then he is practicing law without the proper license.
7. The plea agreement contract and the surrounding process where John H. Feiner participated in the unlawful practice of law violates public policy. The entire ordeal generated numerous violations of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct by the following individuals: (a) unlicensed N.J. counsel John H. Feiner; (b) AUSA John Jay Hoffman; (c) AUSA Peter N. Katz. Thus the September 17, 2009 plea agreement contract must be deemed unenforceable. New Jersey Supreme Court’s Ruling that, “Contract that violate the New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct Violate public policy, {777 F. Supp. 2d 830} and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See Jacob v.Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10, 17, 607 A.2d 142 (1992); Chulsky v. HudsonLaw Offices, P.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (3rd Cir. 2011); “Contracts that violate the New Jersey Rules of Professional conduct violate public policy, and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See also generally; Azuna, LLC, v. Netpia.com, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71036 (3rd Cir. 2009).
THE GOVERNMENT AUSA’S WERE AWARE OF LAWYER MISCONDUCT
1. The New Jersey Disciplinary Board for lawyers make it clear; pursuant to Rule 8.3 (a) of the N.J. Rules of Professional Conduct that, “a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate profession authority.” A lawyer under Rule 8.3 (a) must report misconduct upon acquiring actual knowledge of said misconduct. AUSA’s: (a) John Jay Hoffman; and (b) Peter N. Katz; both willfully failed in informing the court of John H. Feiner’s unlicensed N.J. counsel status. Both AUSA’s received his Pro HacVice motion through the court’s ECF system for Crim. No. 08-629-5. Also both AUSA’s who practice within U.S.D.C. of N.J. are legally knowledgeable of the Local Rules and of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) mandates. Both are required to gain legal knowledge pursuant to the congressional mandate set forth in Title 28 U.S.C. § 530 (B) (a), “An attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each state where such attorney engages in the attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in the State.” Enacted Oct. 21, 1998, P.L. 105-277. Div A, Sec. 101 (b) [Title VIII, Sec. 801 (a)], 112 Stat. 2681-118.
2. AUSA Peter N. Katz clearly knew as he stated to the court on September 17, 2009, “In trying to get this all together I did not realize Mr. Feiner wasn’t from the district.” (Plea Proceeding transcript, pg. 2, lines 15-16). Yet, the plea agreement clearly has a California mailing address of counsel typed on it for Mr. Feiner (see Crim. No. 09-720-1, doc. 6, pg. 1). At that moment, AUSA Peter N. Katz knew and chose to remain silent and let John H. Feiner, a non-licensed N.J. lawyer, proceed to sign documents to be submitted to court, sign a plea contract that encompasses three separate cases, two criminal and one civil, and knew or should have known that only one Pro Hac Vice motion had been filed and it was in relation only to Crim. No. 08-629-5, and no others.
3. John H. Feiner has no sponsor for PRO HAC VICE related to the Information charge Crim. No. 09-720-1 or for the civil aspects of waiver stipulations related to Civil In Rem Case No. 05-2589, or the ability to sign any document to court that would relate to any civil issue at all. As previously addressed, the AUSA’s were more than aware of the civil In Rem Forfeiture, as they stipulated that forfeiture in the plea contract/agreement. Being that the forfeiture is considered a civil issue, AUSA should have known that Counsel Feiner lacked the legal authority to act as counsel on ANY civil issues. Lack of motions for Pro Hac Vice for the 09-720-1 case undercuts any possible inference this was a slight oversight for any of the above. The motion must be done through local counsel of record, who was not present. All in violation of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; N.J.R.P.C. 3.3(a) (5) and 8.3(a). Counsel have a continuing duty to inform the court of any development which may conceivably affect an outcome of the litigation. See Fausari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S.379, 391, 95 S.Ct. 533, 540, 42 L.Ed 2d 521 (1975). This concept is not limited to counsel of John H. Feiner, this also includes AUSA’s of the Government and as such they both, John Jay Hoffman and Peter N. Katz had a duty to inform the court of the wrong doing being set forth by John H. Feiner and yet for some unreal reason, that not one logical person could phantom, chose silence.
FAILURE TO MONITOR PRO HAC VICE BY VINCENT J. SANZONE, JR. CONTRARY TO PROPER ROLE OF LOCAL COUNSEL
1. Attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.’s, proper role of local counsel in the underlying litigation was insignificant. John H. Feiner was inadequately supervised and uneducated in Third District case law and the required District Court practice rules that mirror S.Ct. of New Jersey practice rules governing lawyer actions that are in place to safeguard Plaintiff Rosiere’s legal interest. According to the S.Ct. New Jersey practice rules local counsel must do more than merely sign off on a few pleadings or file a few initial documents. Local Rule 101.1 clearly indicates that local counsel is the counsel of record with attendant responsibilities, not out-of-state counsel admitted Pro Hac Vice. Local counsel took a de minimus role in Plaintiff Rosiere’s representation. Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was only in attendance at the bail hearing appearance in relation to any conference with Plaintiff Rosiere. Counsel failed to inquire as to the depth and complexity of the issues surrounding the case, therefore lacked the pertinent knowledge that the case surrounded two cases at that time; one criminal and one civil. Counsel failed to appear in all other conferences or legal proceedings. The court dockets in Crim. Nos. 08-629-5 and 09-720-1 show that only unlicensed New Jersey, out-of-state counsel John H. Feiner was active throughout.
2. The point at hand is that the listed attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was not the counsel who filed and signed and submitted any documents in Crim. No. 09-720-1. John H. Feiner, an out-of-state, unlicensed New Jersey counsel did so of his own accord, without any guidance, in Violation of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Attorney of Record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was not present at the Plea Proceeding, and this is verified by the use of the proceeding transcript, page one (Exhibit D). The only counsel present was John H. Feiner, who at the time in question was performing the unauthorized practice of law. He tried to represent Plaintiff Rosiere in three separate legal cases that were encompassed in the plea agreement; one civil and two criminal. He was only Pro Hac Vice for Crim. No. 08-629-5. Mr. Feiner was not admitted as Pro Hac Vice for the criminal Information charge Crim. No. 09-720-1, nor did he pay the required fees for the civil case issue dealing with Civil No 05-2589, nor did he seek out the attorney of record to sign the required documents; instead he chose not to follow established law and court rules. The Supreme Court of New Jersey made this illegal act clear in: In Re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). Therefore, in Crim. No. 09-720-1, not one document was signed or reviewed by the attorney of record, or by any attorney that had the authority to represent Plaintiff Rosiere.
3. Since the case encompassed civil case No. 05-2589, Mr. Sanzone was required to be in attendance as local counsel and sign any stipulations or any related documents that give rise to the encompassed action. To make this issue clear, a plea agreement/contract that at any time encompassed a civil case and asks anything thereof in relation to it, to include a venue and waiver requirement, have to be in compliance with Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4). Local counsel must supervise the conduct of Pro Hac Vice attorneys and must appear before the court in all proceedings. See Occulto v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 611, 617 A 2 (D.N.J. 1989); Mr. Sanzone did neither.
4. Furthermore, like the U.S. District Court rules, the New Jersey bar has specialized practice requirements for all state licensed attorneys who practice in either court; Federal, or state. New Jersey asserts a strong policy interest in enforcing court rules for Pro HacVice counsel and the federal Third Circuit Courts have always honored New Jersey Practice Rules. Federal Third Circuit Courts have vigilantly scrutinized the practice of law and lawyer conduct, so that it does not degenerate into a jungle. See Vafiades v.Sheppard Bus Service, Inc., 192 N.J. Super. 301, 315, 469 A.2d 971, 979 (1983). New Jersey practice rules ensure that attorneys representing N.J. clients in Federal or State courts are sufficient in current case law precedents and practice and represent clients knowledgeable. New Jersey Federal and State courts rules guard against any out-of-state lawyer holding themselves out as experienced and competent New Jersey counsel when in reality they have zero expertise, thereby jeopardize the Sixth Amendment minimum protections. If attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. would have adequately supervised the uneducated and unlicensed New Jersey counsel, John H. Feiner, and had taken the time to ask a few pertinent questions to derive some basic information about the case at hand, then all of the above issues that establish cause herein would or could have been avoided.
ALEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT & UNETHICAL CONDUCT GRIEVANCE FILING PURSUANT TO D.N.J. CIVIL RULE 104.1
1. A disciplinary proceeding in United States District Court (U.S.D.C.) for the District of New Jersey are under the powers articulated in D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1, which provides, in part, that the court promulgates the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, in furtherance of its inherent power and responsibility to supervise the conduct of attorneys who are admitted to practice before it or admitted for the purpose of a particular proceeding (Pro Hac Vice). D.N.J. Civil Rule 103.1 provides, in part, that the Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association, as revised by the New Jersey Supreme Court, D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 (e) expressly establishes the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey’s jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary supervision of every attorney authorized to practice law or appearing before the court. D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 (e) (1) clarifies, in part, that when allegations of misconduct by an attorney come to the attention of the court, the Chief Judge, shall refer the matter to the appropriate state disciplinary body or, if the Chief Judge, concludes that further investigation is warranted, direct the Clerk to refer the matter for investigation to an attorney admitted to practice before the court in order to determine whether a formal order to show cause should issue [D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 ( e )(2)].
2. All lawyers practicing in the State of New Jersey obligate themselves to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey Rules of Court, a temporary suspension is permissible where an attorney fails to cooperate with an ethics investigation; N.J.Ct.R. 1:20-3(g)(4), or an attorney’s conduct poses a substantial threat of serious harm to an attorney, a client, or the public,; N.J.Ct.R. 1:20-11(a). This is a formal allegation of attorney misconduct and grievance against the aforementioned attorneys upon the filing of this complaint with the court. The attorneys named in this complaint/grievance have violated the standards of ABA and N.J.R.P.C. and are subject to discipline. This is a serious matter, and the proof of unethical conduct is presented throughout this complaint, as well in Federal Civil Case No. 1:14-cv-04373-JBS-AMD, as each case requires disciplinary action.
CHOICE-OF-LAW
Plaintiff Rosiere has exercised his right under New Jersey statute regarding Choice-of-Law; September 17, 2009 contract with respect to the issues presented herein. The Choice-of-Law clearly is New Jersey to the plea agreement contract. The criminal cases arise out of U.S.D.C. of New Jersey, and the contract origin is New Jersey; as well as all events were taken place in New Jersey surrounding the contract formation. The New Jersey State applies the “most significant relationship” test to contract claims. See, Gilbert Sprvance Co., v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass’n Ins. Co., 134 N.J. 96, 629 A.2d 885, 888 (N.J. 1993). Also see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., v. Simmons Estate, 84 N.J. 28, 417 A.2d 488 (N.J. 1980).
NEW JERSEY CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
In New Jersey causes of action for breach of contract, fraud and others are governed by a six year statute of limitations; New Jersey Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1. See, Fox v.Congress Fin. Corp. (in re Target Indus., Inc.), 328 B.R. 99 (3rd Cir. 2005). Within New Jersey the statute of limitations applicable to a recovery upon a contractual claim is six years. See, Lavin v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145, 447 A.2d 516 (1982) (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1). The statute of limitations for legal malpractice is six years; New Jersey Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1. See, McHale v. Kelly, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118888 (3RD Cir.).
CONCLUSION
The court should not condone the unauthorized practice of law by John H. Feiner, which is contrary to the State Law of New Jersey and State Supreme Court decision in, In ReJackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). Unlawful practice of law violates public policy. Thus, the September 17, 2009 plea agreement contract must be deemed unenforceable. See, Jacob v. Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10, 17, 607 A.2d 142 (1992); Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, P.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (3rd Cir. 2011); “Contracts that violate New Jersey Rules of Professional conduct violate public policy, and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See also generally; Azuna,LLC v. Netpia.com, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71036 (3rd Cir. 2009). All other issues raised herein are self-apparent and require the court to address them in the court findings with factual support. Plaintiff Rosiere seeks to be reset to the same legal position he was in prior to unlicensed counsel, John H. Feiner’s, conduct in all areas stated herein and incorporated by reference.
For all the foregoing reasons the Petitioner respectfully request that this Court grant his Complaint/Grievance/Motion.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 21, 2014
Shaun Rosiere, Pro Se
(Signature on following page)
APPENDIX 3
District courts use Restatement (First) of Contracts § 40(1) to legally determine contract structure. See Restatement (First) of Contracts § 40(1), “The power to create a contract by acceptance of an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer.” The following case law supports this legal position:
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________, NEW JERSEY ________
SHAUN ROSIERE :
Petitioner(s) :
:
:
: COMPLAINT / MOTION Pursuant to:
: (a) U.S. is a Party to a Contract, 28 U.S.C.
: § 1346 (a) (2);
: (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1332, New Jersey Law
v. : governs this dispute;
: (c) Allegations of Attorney Misconduct &
: Unethical Conduct Grievance Pursuant to
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : U.S. Dist. Court N.J., Civ.R. 104.1, establishes Respondent (s) : U.S.D.C. of New Jersey Jurisdiction; Judicial : Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BY JOHN H. FEINER, UNLICENSED COUNSEL PRACTCING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSY, CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY
1. The Plaintiff argues that the plea agreement contract should be void because John H. Feiner was practicing in an unlicensed manner as Pro Hac Vice by acting as the sole and only counsel who signed the plea contract in violation of Local Rule 101.1 ( c )(4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES). The plea contract contained waiver stipulation that encompassed Title 18 U.S.C. § 981; In Rem Civil case No. 05-2589. Thus an exclusion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 (a) (5) (B), which excludes any proceeding that would involve; “a civil property forfeiture for violating a federal statute,” from the rules of Fed.R.Crim.P.. Therefore, the civil rules govern counsel’s appearance, in any aspect of the underlining civil case matters (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES).
2. The Plea agreement contract encompasses three separate cases, as such two are criminal and one is civil. Local Civil Rule 101.1 states, in pertinent part: only an attorney at law of this court may file papers, enter appearances for parties, sign stipulations . . . Loc.Civ.R. 101.1 (c). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, “the attorney of record who is a member of the bar of this court shall personally sign all papers submitted to the court or filed with the clerk.” Loc.Civ.R. 11. The remarks stated above are, the general words and remarks of Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.; See In: Receivables Purchasing Co.v. Eng’g & Prof’l Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89334 (3rd Cir.).
BACKGROUND
3. John H. Feiner, an unlicensed New Jersey counsel and non-member of the U.S.D.C. New Jersey Bar, was admitted as Pro Hac Vice in Crim. No. 08-629-5 only (Exhibits C & C-1). He has never been admitted to limited practice of law as Pro Hac Vice and never filed a motion to do so. John H. Feiner was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as made clear in: In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). John H. Feiner, engaged in negotiations with the government AUSA lawyers; encompassed in the September 17, 2009 plea contract Crim. No. 09-720-1 Information charge without being admitted as Pro Hac Vice or in any other capacity for that criminal case. John H. Feiner continued with the deception and represented a federal civil case No. 05-2589 and negotiated waivers. In the civil case he not only failed to file a Pro Hac Vice motion for admittance, he also did not comply with New Jersey U.S. Dist. Court Local Rule 101.1 (c) (2), which stipulates he must, in civil issues, make a payment to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection as provided by New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 (a) (Exhibit B).
4. To reiterate, there are three separate and distinct federal cases in one plea contract, two criminal and one civil. Issues arise in Civ. No. 05-2589 and Crim. No. 09-720-1 where John H. Feiner never bothered to file for Pro Hac Vice status through a proper motion and use the local judicial sponsor. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1 (c) (1), “any member in good standing of the bar of any court in the United States . . . may in the discretion of the Court, on a motion, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case.” The meaning of “particular case” in Local Civil Rule 101.1 (c) (1) is clear, the word “particular,” must be determined in its common meaning. Thus, under Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Ed. 2010, the meaning of “particular” is: “of or belonging to a single”; “separate and distinct . . . item.” As this relates herein, each case requires a particular review, for a motion for Pro Hac Vice being separate and distinct. Additionally, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey’s web page shows that “Filing Fees and Rates” stipulate that
“Admission to appear Pro Hac Vice (each case)” is the sum of $150.00; therefore, the Court itself stipulates that “each case” must be separate and distinct under Pro Hac Vice.
5. Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 101 (c) (2), “the order of the court granting a motion to appear pro hac vice shall require the out-of-state attorney to make a payment to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection as provided by New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 (a).” According to the New Jersey Attorney Index if Mr. Feiner had paid the required fee as stipulated in L.Civ.R. 101 (c) (2) his name would appear on the Index; of which it does not (Exhibit B). This rule was required for the civil case No. 05-2589 litigation and was not addressed.
6. Counsel John H. Feiner signed numerous court documents that were submitted on September 17, 2009 that were related to Crim. No. 09-720-1 and Civil No. 05-2589 (See: doc. 3, Waiver of Indictment; doc. 4, Waiver of Venue; doc. 5, Application to Plea guilty – filled out by Mr. Feiner; doc. 6, Plea Agreement; doc. 112, Certification of Counsel, located in 08-cr-00629-GEB section, and has no case number written in for the 09-720-1 case in item number one). All of these actions were practicing law without the proper license under New Jersey Law. The actions taken on the part of John H. Feiner are a crime in the state of New Jersey pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2C:21-22; the unauthorized practice of law is illegal in the state of New Jersey. Under N.J.R.P.C. 5.5(a): “A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of legal profession in that jurisdiction . . .”. Under N.J.R.P.C. 8.4: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional conduct . . .”. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has stated that, “one is engaged in the practice of law whenever legal knowledge training, skill and ability are required.” See In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). In re Jackman, the court considered whether an out-of-state attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when Jackman interviewed and counseled clients, prepared and signed documents to or on behalf of clients, and negotiated with lawyers. The Supreme Court of New Jersey determined that Jackman the out-of-state attorney, had taken on all the duties of a lawyer rendering legal services to clients and this under New Jersey law was practicing law without the proper license. When John H. Feiner does the same as Jackman, and violates the New Jersey law in the same manner and context to the surrounding elements of the plea contract that relate to the civil In Rem Forfeiture (05-2589) and all aspects of the 09-720-1 case, and the surrounding processes, then he is practicing law without the proper license.
7. The plea agreement contract and the surrounding process where John H. Feiner participated in the unlawful practice of law violates public policy. The entire ordeal generated numerous violations of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct by the following individuals: (a) unlicensed N.J. counsel John H. Feiner; (b) AUSA John Jay Hoffman; (c) AUSA Peter N. Katz. Thus the September 17, 2009 plea agreement contract must be deemed unenforceable. New Jersey Supreme Court’s Ruling that, “Contract that violate the New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct Violate public policy, {777 F. Supp. 2d 830} and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See Jacob v.Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10, 17, 607 A.2d 142 (1992); Chulsky v. HudsonLaw Offices, P.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (3rd Cir. 2011); “Contracts that violate the New Jersey Rules of Professional conduct violate public policy, and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See also generally; Azuna, LLC, v. Netpia.com, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71036 (3rd Cir. 2009).
THE GOVERNMENT AUSA’S WERE AWARE OF LAWYER MISCONDUCT
1. The New Jersey Disciplinary Board for lawyers make it clear; pursuant to Rule 8.3 (a) of the N.J. Rules of Professional Conduct that, “a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate profession authority.” A lawyer under Rule 8.3 (a) must report misconduct upon acquiring actual knowledge of said misconduct. AUSA’s: (a) John Jay Hoffman; and (b) Peter N. Katz; both willfully failed in informing the court of John H. Feiner’s unlicensed N.J. counsel status. Both AUSA’s received his Pro HacVice motion through the court’s ECF system for Crim. No. 08-629-5. Also both AUSA’s who practice within U.S.D.C. of N.J. are legally knowledgeable of the Local Rules and of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) mandates. Both are required to gain legal knowledge pursuant to the congressional mandate set forth in Title 28 U.S.C. § 530 (B) (a), “An attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each state where such attorney engages in the attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in the State.” Enacted Oct. 21, 1998, P.L. 105-277. Div A, Sec. 101 (b) [Title VIII, Sec. 801 (a)], 112 Stat. 2681-118.
2. AUSA Peter N. Katz clearly knew as he stated to the court on September 17, 2009, “In trying to get this all together I did not realize Mr. Feiner wasn’t from the district.” (Plea Proceeding transcript, pg. 2, lines 15-16). Yet, the plea agreement clearly has a California mailing address of counsel typed on it for Mr. Feiner (see Crim. No. 09-720-1, doc. 6, pg. 1). At that moment, AUSA Peter N. Katz knew and chose to remain silent and let John H. Feiner, a non-licensed N.J. lawyer, proceed to sign documents to be submitted to court, sign a plea contract that encompasses three separate cases, two criminal and one civil, and knew or should have known that only one Pro Hac Vice motion had been filed and it was in relation only to Crim. No. 08-629-5, and no others.
3. John H. Feiner has no sponsor for PRO HAC VICE related to the Information charge Crim. No. 09-720-1 or for the civil aspects of waiver stipulations related to Civil In Rem Case No. 05-2589, or the ability to sign any document to court that would relate to any civil issue at all. As previously addressed, the AUSA’s were more than aware of the civil In Rem Forfeiture, as they stipulated that forfeiture in the plea contract/agreement. Being that the forfeiture is considered a civil issue, AUSA should have known that Counsel Feiner lacked the legal authority to act as counsel on ANY civil issues. Lack of motions for Pro Hac Vice for the 09-720-1 case undercuts any possible inference this was a slight oversight for any of the above. The motion must be done through local counsel of record, who was not present. All in violation of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; N.J.R.P.C. 3.3(a) (5) and 8.3(a). Counsel have a continuing duty to inform the court of any development which may conceivably affect an outcome of the litigation. See Fausari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S.379, 391, 95 S.Ct. 533, 540, 42 L.Ed 2d 521 (1975). This concept is not limited to counsel of John H. Feiner, this also includes AUSA’s of the Government and as such they both, John Jay Hoffman and Peter N. Katz had a duty to inform the court of the wrong doing being set forth by John H. Feiner and yet for some unreal reason, that not one logical person could phantom, chose silence.
FAILURE TO MONITOR PRO HAC VICE BY VINCENT J. SANZONE, JR. CONTRARY TO PROPER ROLE OF LOCAL COUNSEL
1. Attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.’s, proper role of local counsel in the underlying litigation was insignificant. John H. Feiner was inadequately supervised and uneducated in Third District case law and the required District Court practice rules that mirror S.Ct. of New Jersey practice rules governing lawyer actions that are in place to safeguard Plaintiff Rosiere’s legal interest. According to the S.Ct. New Jersey practice rules local counsel must do more than merely sign off on a few pleadings or file a few initial documents. Local Rule 101.1 clearly indicates that local counsel is the counsel of record with attendant responsibilities, not out-of-state counsel admitted Pro Hac Vice. Local counsel took a de minimus role in Plaintiff Rosiere’s representation. Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was only in attendance at the bail hearing appearance in relation to any conference with Plaintiff Rosiere. Counsel failed to inquire as to the depth and complexity of the issues surrounding the case, therefore lacked the pertinent knowledge that the case surrounded two cases at that time; one criminal and one civil. Counsel failed to appear in all other conferences or legal proceedings. The court dockets in Crim. Nos. 08-629-5 and 09-720-1 show that only unlicensed New Jersey, out-of-state counsel John H. Feiner was active throughout.
2. The point at hand is that the listed attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was not the counsel who filed and signed and submitted any documents in Crim. No. 09-720-1. John H. Feiner, an out-of-state, unlicensed New Jersey counsel did so of his own accord, without any guidance, in Violation of Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Attorney of Record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was not present at the Plea Proceeding, and this is verified by the use of the proceeding transcript, page one (Exhibit D). The only counsel present was John H. Feiner, who at the time in question was performing the unauthorized practice of law. He tried to represent Plaintiff Rosiere in three separate legal cases that were encompassed in the plea agreement; one civil and two criminal. He was only Pro Hac Vice for Crim. No. 08-629-5. Mr. Feiner was not admitted as Pro Hac Vice for the criminal Information charge Crim. No. 09-720-1, nor did he pay the required fees for the civil case issue dealing with Civil No 05-2589, nor did he seek out the attorney of record to sign the required documents; instead he chose not to follow established law and court rules. The Supreme Court of New Jersey made this illegal act clear in: In Re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). Therefore, in Crim. No. 09-720-1, not one document was signed or reviewed by the attorney of record, or by any attorney that had the authority to represent Plaintiff Rosiere.
3. Since the case encompassed civil case No. 05-2589, Mr. Sanzone was required to be in attendance as local counsel and sign any stipulations or any related documents that give rise to the encompassed action. To make this issue clear, a plea agreement/contract that at any time encompassed a civil case and asks anything thereof in relation to it, to include a venue and waiver requirement, have to be in compliance with Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4). Local counsel must supervise the conduct of Pro Hac Vice attorneys and must appear before the court in all proceedings. See Occulto v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 611, 617 A 2 (D.N.J. 1989); Mr. Sanzone did neither.
4. Furthermore, like the U.S. District Court rules, the New Jersey bar has specialized practice requirements for all state licensed attorneys who practice in either court; Federal, or state. New Jersey asserts a strong policy interest in enforcing court rules for Pro HacVice counsel and the federal Third Circuit Courts have always honored New Jersey Practice Rules. Federal Third Circuit Courts have vigilantly scrutinized the practice of law and lawyer conduct, so that it does not degenerate into a jungle. See Vafiades v.Sheppard Bus Service, Inc., 192 N.J. Super. 301, 315, 469 A.2d 971, 979 (1983). New Jersey practice rules ensure that attorneys representing N.J. clients in Federal or State courts are sufficient in current case law precedents and practice and represent clients knowledgeable. New Jersey Federal and State courts rules guard against any out-of-state lawyer holding themselves out as experienced and competent New Jersey counsel when in reality they have zero expertise, thereby jeopardize the Sixth Amendment minimum protections. If attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. would have adequately supervised the uneducated and unlicensed New Jersey counsel, John H. Feiner, and had taken the time to ask a few pertinent questions to derive some basic information about the case at hand, then all of the above issues that establish cause herein would or could have been avoided.
ALEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT & UNETHICAL CONDUCT GRIEVANCE FILING PURSUANT TO D.N.J. CIVIL RULE 104.1
1. A disciplinary proceeding in United States District Court (U.S.D.C.) for the District of New Jersey are under the powers articulated in D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1, which provides, in part, that the court promulgates the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, in furtherance of its inherent power and responsibility to supervise the conduct of attorneys who are admitted to practice before it or admitted for the purpose of a particular proceeding (Pro Hac Vice). D.N.J. Civil Rule 103.1 provides, in part, that the Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association, as revised by the New Jersey Supreme Court, D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 (e) expressly establishes the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey’s jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary supervision of every attorney authorized to practice law or appearing before the court. D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 (e) (1) clarifies, in part, that when allegations of misconduct by an attorney come to the attention of the court, the Chief Judge, shall refer the matter to the appropriate state disciplinary body or, if the Chief Judge, concludes that further investigation is warranted, direct the Clerk to refer the matter for investigation to an attorney admitted to practice before the court in order to determine whether a formal order to show cause should issue [D.N.J. Civil Rule 104.1 ( e )(2)].
2. All lawyers practicing in the State of New Jersey obligate themselves to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey Rules of Court, a temporary suspension is permissible where an attorney fails to cooperate with an ethics investigation; N.J.Ct.R. 1:20-3(g)(4), or an attorney’s conduct poses a substantial threat of serious harm to an attorney, a client, or the public,; N.J.Ct.R. 1:20-11(a). This is a formal allegation of attorney misconduct and grievance against the aforementioned attorneys upon the filing of this complaint with the court. The attorneys named in this complaint/grievance have violated the standards of ABA and N.J.R.P.C. and are subject to discipline. This is a serious matter, and the proof of unethical conduct is presented throughout this complaint, as well in Federal Civil Case No. 1:14-cv-04373-JBS-AMD, as each case requires disciplinary action.
CHOICE-OF-LAW
Plaintiff Rosiere has exercised his right under New Jersey statute regarding Choice-of-Law; September 17, 2009 contract with respect to the issues presented herein. The Choice-of-Law clearly is New Jersey to the plea agreement contract. The criminal cases arise out of U.S.D.C. of New Jersey, and the contract origin is New Jersey; as well as all events were taken place in New Jersey surrounding the contract formation. The New Jersey State applies the “most significant relationship” test to contract claims. See, Gilbert Sprvance Co., v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass’n Ins. Co., 134 N.J. 96, 629 A.2d 885, 888 (N.J. 1993). Also see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., v. Simmons Estate, 84 N.J. 28, 417 A.2d 488 (N.J. 1980).
NEW JERSEY CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
In New Jersey causes of action for breach of contract, fraud and others are governed by a six year statute of limitations; New Jersey Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1. See, Fox v.Congress Fin. Corp. (in re Target Indus., Inc.), 328 B.R. 99 (3rd Cir. 2005). Within New Jersey the statute of limitations applicable to a recovery upon a contractual claim is six years. See, Lavin v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145, 447 A.2d 516 (1982) (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1). The statute of limitations for legal malpractice is six years; New Jersey Stat. Ann., Section 2A: 14-1. See, McHale v. Kelly, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118888 (3RD Cir.).
CONCLUSION
The court should not condone the unauthorized practice of law by John H. Feiner, which is contrary to the State Law of New Jersey and State Supreme Court decision in, In ReJackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585-86, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000). Unlawful practice of law violates public policy. Thus, the September 17, 2009 plea agreement contract must be deemed unenforceable. See, Jacob v. Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10, 17, 607 A.2d 142 (1992); Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, P.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (3rd Cir. 2011); “Contracts that violate New Jersey Rules of Professional conduct violate public policy, and courts must deem them unenforceable.” See also generally; Azuna,LLC v. Netpia.com, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71036 (3rd Cir. 2009). All other issues raised herein are self-apparent and require the court to address them in the court findings with factual support. Plaintiff Rosiere seeks to be reset to the same legal position he was in prior to unlicensed counsel, John H. Feiner’s, conduct in all areas stated herein and incorporated by reference.
For all the foregoing reasons the Petitioner respectfully request that this Court grant his Complaint/Grievance/Motion.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 21, 2014
Shaun Rosiere, Pro Se
(Signature on following page)
APPENDIX 3
District courts use Restatement (First) of Contracts § 40(1) to legally determine contract structure. See Restatement (First) of Contracts § 40(1), “The power to create a contract by acceptance of an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer.” The following case law supports this legal position:
- Senior Settlements, LLC, v. Growth Trust Fund, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15639 (3rd Cir. 2008, Jerome B. Simandle, U.S. Dist. Judge).
- In re ABC – Federal Oil & Burner Co., 182 F. Supp. 928 (3rd Cir. 1960).
- Chain v. Wilhem, 84 F.2d 138 (CA 4 1936).
- Neff v. World Publishing Co., 349 F.2d 235 (CA 8 1965).