EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).


“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.


This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of
not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for
admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has
many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney
candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of
the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with
the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cos
t.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law.
… The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is
not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become
a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is
to humiliate and degrade it.”


In Re Anastaplo,

18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366
U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.







Monday, August 17, 2015

The missing pages of Judge Guy's decision arrived - and they are even more hilarious...


Update as of 2:32 pm NorthEastern time on August 17, 2015.

While I was writing the previous blog, about pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Judge Guy's unlawful decision, the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse has sent to me pages 2, 4 and 6 of Judge Guys' unlawful decision which I publish, with commentaries, below.



Judge Guy obviously does not comprehend a clear and unambiguous order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 transferring the case to the Supreme Court.  There are no "citations" issued in the Supreme Court.  Different rules apply.  A different court now has jurisdiction.  Judge Guy does not care.  He did not care, when issuing the citations, to even tell me that the case was removed to the Supreme Court, or send to me his own order of assignment, assignment to the Supreme Court only.  That was, in his words, a "miscommunication".  Right.


Judge Guy omits to mention here that on May 6, 2015 I wrote the above letter before I learned that the case was removed to the Supreme Court as of April 3, 2015 and Judge Guy never had jurisdiction to proceed with the case in the Surrogate's Court as if it was never removed.  That is called "omission amounting to misrepresentation".  Judge Guy - you are committing fraud by stating one without the other.  Do you care?


Now we come to the core of the problem.

Judge Guy admits that the case was removed to the Supreme Court - but "perceives no prejudice" to disobey the clear order of removal and assignment TO ANOTHER COURT by the Chief Administrative Judge, directed to Judge Guy - an order that was never changed by Judge Mulvey.

It is no "no prejudice", Judge Guy, it is "no jurisdiction".  Are you able to comprehend the difference?

And, your opinion whether it is better to handle the case in the Surrogate's Court is - guess what - IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW because - guess what - the case was ALREADY REMOVED before you were assigned, and that is the law of the case that you cannot change.

Here I publish a paragraph from page 3 to page 4 showing what was meant by the first abridged sentence on page 4.



The last phrase does not make sense, grammatically or otherwise.  Judge Guy should go back to grammar school to learn English properly before proceeding his shenanigans on the bench.

Moreover, what is wrong with the whole Mokay saga is that every single judge in the case, lawfully or unlawfully proceeding, reviews the Mokay case "in simplistic terms", like Judge Guy did.

And, judging (no pun intended) as to what Judge Guy did, and how he PERCEIVES the case, shows clearly the incompetence of this guy to be even a law student, not a lawyer, not a judge - even a law student.

Look what he writes.

"Following a stipulated settlement, the decedent executed a deed prepared by petition, in contravention of the settlement".

The law of the State of New York is - SO WHAT?  The deed is not valid unless it is validly delivered.   There is no proof in the Mokay case that the deed was ever delivered. End of story.  Title never transferred, fraud was never committed.

Judge Guy does not mention that the deed was delivered.  Good for him, because it wasn't.  But bad for him, because Judge Guy somehow things that when a third party executed a document that is only valid on delivery, without such delivery, it means that the petitioner (Mr. Neroni) did something wrong - even if the law of the State of New York which Judge Guy is sworn to uphold, says otherwise.

Then goes even more stupid rant about "following decedent's death litigation" which makes no sense at all, "resulting in reversal of the deed" which makes no sense at all, because a deed cannot be "reversed", it can be voided, but a deed that was never delivered, is not valid and does not NEED to be voided, it can be simply IGNORED.

Then, Judge Guy correctly states (let's give the poor guy a break and put some sense into Judge Guy's horribly screwed grammar) that Mr. Neroni was disbarred because of what Judge Guy described - that made no sense as a matter of law.  

At least, Judge Guy is honest enough to acknowledge that Mr. Neroni was disbarred as a result of something that does not make sense as a matter of law - execution by a 3rd party of a deed that was never delivered and was thus void.





Lies, lies, lies, Judge Guy.  This issue is NOT before "this Court", the Surrogate's Court.  "This issue" is before a different court, the Supreme Court, the Court you were assigned to and the court to which you blocked transfer of the removed case and blocked clerks of both courts, the transferring court and the receiving court, from doing their jobs and transfer - and receive - the case and allow me to properly prosecute the case in the court where it was removed. 

So the "narrow issue" is the issue of YOUR misconduct, Judge Guy, and YOUR disobedience to a clear court order that requires YOUR disbarment, as a matter of precedent in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division 3rd Department.

And to determine any issues in this case the Surrogate's Court MAY NOT explore any issues - it has only the authority and duty to obey the court order of removal and transfer the case to the Supreme Court where the case must be TRIED and decided - which you did not allow to do, without authority.



Here Judge David H. Guy religiously repeats the lies of Judge Dowd out of the Supreme Court Mokay action - that "petitioner or his counsel did not appear" at the jury trial, and that's why the case proceeded as a bench trial.  Judge Guy made no mention that a represented party MAY NOT appear without his attorney as a matter of law in the State of New York, and that the attorney (me) was on a legitimate, documented medical leave on the date of trial for a back injury not allowing me to move or appear - and that under such circumstances Judge Dowd had no right to proceed to trial, and proceeding to trial ex parte was ILLEGAL.

Since Judge Guy does not care whether his own actions are legal or not, he did not care whether the actions of another judge were legal or not - that's consistent, even though consistently illegal, behavior.


Now, this is hilarious.

Judge David H. Guy, acting in clear absence of jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court, announces a new rule - since a litigant lost in courts previously (and unlawfully, which Judge Guy knows since he quoted only "execution" of the deed, and not delivery, see explanation above), he will most likely lose in all others.

In other words - Judge Guy is convinced that if judges refused to apply the law in clear favor of a litigant previously, they will continue to disregard the law in the future, referencing the Article 14 contribution case, a case where (1) NO JUDGE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED YET, and where (2) Daniel Mokay filed an affidavit, postdating the trial in the Mokay trial, which undid the whole claim of Richard Harlem that he was not disqualified and is entitled to legal fees.

In other words, Judge Guy, in denying relief in a case in the wrong court and without authority, claimed that, based on prior judicial misconduct, it is predictable that Mr. Neroni's current Article 14 case, based on the decision of the Appellate Division that deemed the decedent (The Estate) a co-tortfeasor subject as a matter of law to the CPLR Article 14 contribution claim, will be decided against Mr. Neroni BY THE JURY (!).

Judge Guy clearly has a crystal ball.  Or, maybe, Judge Guy is an honest guy who honestly blunders the way things are - and admits that judges do whatever they want to achieve the necessary result, to give a son-of-a-judge attorney attorney's fees no matter whether they are warranted by law or not (they are not), and to hurt critic of judicial misconduct and THE ONE WHO SUED JUDGES no matter whether the law warrants that or not.



Once again, when the court has no jurisdiction, the court may not make any "findings".  So, what Judge Guy finds, Judge Guy can just as well flush down the toilet - because what a judge "finds" in a case in court from which the case was removed, has no force of law, and even a judge as stupid as Judge Guy appears to be must realize it.

I already pointed out in my previous blog who exactly Judge Guy's "decision" would have hurt had it been a lawful decision, which is what it pretends to be: not just Mr. Neroni, but ALL parties in the Estate proceedings of the Estate of Andrew Mokay.

All parties are interested in stopping distribution from the Estate pending Mr. Neroni's claim, not to grab pieces of the Estate and run, especially that I predict that distribution will not be to creditor David Mokay, not to the disinherited widow Connie Mokay and not to the adult children of the decedent, but will line the pockets of son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem and his law firm, which is what Judge Guy is trying to secure - without authority.


The remaining piece on page 6 is about "standards" and "elements" for preliminary injunction that Judge Guy could not review in the court he reviewed it, because that court no longer had jurisdiction.

So.

I now received the full "decision" of our disHonorable Judge Guy.


Yet, I did not receive any reaction by the court clerk of the Surrogate's Court to my demand to obey the court order of removal that the court clerk has on file since April 3, 2015 and that requires her to transfer the case to the receiving court, the Delaware County Supreme Court.

Here is our correspondence on the subject.







I wonder what is it that the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse fears more - to disobey the order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 that she has on file, the order of removal of the case to the Supreme Court, or the rage of Judge Guy who told her to stay put and disobey the order of the court.

By the way - will Judge Guy be disbarred for disobeying the order of the court?  There is precedent in Appellate Division 3rd Department for such disbarment, even of an unenforceable order of the court with no proof of disobeying - created specifically for Mr. Neroni.

Yet, by rule of precedent, the same law should be applicable to attorney David Guy who, as judge, disobeyed the court order of Judge Mulvey removing a case from Surrogate's Court and assigning Judge Guy (who is also an attorney) to the Supreme Court.

Will Judge Guy be removed from the bench, disbarred and blackballed now from any work in the legal profession - the way Mr. Neroni was, even though there is no proof and no applicable law allowing his disbarment - now that there is PROOF in the form of documentary evidence and Judge Guy's own admission that Judge David H. Guy disobeyed the order of Judge Robert C. Mulvey removing a case to the Delaware County Supreme Court and assigning Judge Guy to the Supreme court case only, and that Judge Guy did it deliberately?

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment