The complaint was asserting that Judge Mulvey was assigning the now-retired Judge Becker to certain cases to fix such cases and have them decided a certain way, against me, my clients and my family members, like my husband Frederick J. Neroni.
The case assignments involved in the lawsuit were Mulvey's assignments of Becker to:
- Mokay v Mokay, Delaware County Index No. 2007-695, where my husband was sued by, purportedly, six plaintiffs, for fraud upon the court - which resulted in my husband's disbarment without a hearing before the end of that litigationl
- other cases involving my husband and myself as parties, or me as an attorney.
Mulvey asserted to the federal court that assignments of cases is a judicial function, and obtained a dismissal of the federal lawsuit against him on grounds of absolute judicial immunity, where the federal court specifically said on this issue the following:
"1. Defendant Mulvey
Plaintiffs "request nominal, actual, special and punitive damages" against Defendant Mulvey. See Dkt. No. 5 at ¶ 322. Further, Plaintiffs request injunctive, declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Mulvey for assigning Defendant Becker to cases where Plaintiffs are parties and where Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni is an attorney. See id. Citing no authority, Plaintiffs argue that these actions are administrative and therefore outside the scope of judicial immunity. See Dkt. No. 15-3 at 14.
Courts have held that the assignment of cases are judicial functions and are therefore protected acts under judicial immunity. See Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 434 (10th Cir. 1985) ("Although it is an `administrative' act, in the sense that it does not concern the decision who shall win a case, the assignment of cases is still a judicial function in the sense that it directly concerns the case-deciding process. . . ."), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Tyus v. Martinez, 475 U.S. 1138, 106 S.Ct. 1787 (1986); Parent v. New York, 786 F.Supp.2d 516, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) ("The assignment of cases and issuance of consolidated orders are judicial functions. . ."); see also Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 Civ. 8308, 2011 WL 779784, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) (holding that the alleged manipulation of the case assignment system is protected by judicial immunity)."
In other words, Mulvey argued to a federal court - and won a dismissal of a lawsuit against him based on that argument - that Judge Mulvey acted in Mokay v Mokay, in a judicial function, at the trial court level.
Bracci v Becker was dismissed on January 9, 2013.
After the dismissal, in April of 2013, information leaked to the press that Judge Mulvey demoted a judge for refusing to decide cases the way Judge Mulvey (an administrative assigning judge) wanted them to be decided, I wrote about that situation in my blog here.
After the dismissal, in April of 2016, I received from New York State Court Administration a document indicating that the judge who decided Bracci v Becker may have been, together with Mulvey, members of a secret organization comprised of federal presiding judges and state judges, defendants appearing in front of such federal judges.
Judge Mae D'Agostino who decided (and, likely, fixed for Mulvey and Becker) the decision in Bracci v Becker, is currently stalling disclosure of lists of members of that organization that I requested through a Freedom of Information Act request more than a month ago.
Yet, whether Bracci v Becker was fixed or not fixed, in that case Judge Mae D'Agostino established as a matter of law, on request of Judge Mulvey, that Judge Mulvey acted in a judicial function in cases he was assigning to Judge Becker, at the trial level, and one of those cases was Mokay v Mokay.
For example, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 47, forbids judges from deciding cases on appeal where judges were deciding the same cases in the courts below:
And, since Judge Mulvey already won a dismissal of a federal lawsuit against himself by claiming that assigning cases in the court below was a judicial function, and especially with the evidence that Judge Mulvey actually expects from assigned judges to decide cases a certain way, as the demotion of the "stubborn" Judge Biaggio DiStefano demonstrates, Judge Mulvey cannot now turn around and claim that assigning cases in the court below was simply an administrative function for purposes of disqualification from the appeal in the same case.
It is a basic due process issue not to have the same judge who decided the case in the court below to also decide the case on appeal.
Yet, that's exactly what Mulvey did.
Here is what I received in the mail directed to me - even though my law license was suspended, and Mr. Neroni prosecuted his appeal pro se:
Mulvey, as part of the panel of 4 appellate judges, conditionally dismissed the pro se appeal perfected by my husband on March 13, 2016, unless my husband "makes corrections to the record" (the specific corrections are not specified in the order).
In making this order, Mulvey, and the rest of the judges, apparently disregarded the fact that Mulvey exercised a judicial function in the case below, and thus was permanently, as a matter of due process of law, disqualified from hearing appeals in that same case.
In making that order, the entire panel wasted taxpayer money to allow Judge Mulvey to promote personal interests of Richard Harlem, who is, quite "coincidentally",
(1) the son of Mulvey's former predecessor in his prior position of the Chief Administrative Judge of 6th Judicial District of New York, Judge Robert Harlem (now deceased); and
(2) a landlord of many years of Judge Mulvey's former high-ranking client NYS Senator James Seward, see biography of Mulvey showing that he was a "Legislative Counsel" of Senator James Seward
For some reason, "Justice" Mulvey does not mention in his official biography that, while he was a "Legislative Counsel" to Senator Seward, he was also a private attorney - how is that combined in New York, where a public employee is also a private attorney, nobody knows, but "Justice" Mulvey sees that there is a problem in that employment and did not advertise that over the same period of time as he was the "Legislative Counsel" to NYS Senator James Seward, he was also a partner in a private law firm Albanese and Mulvey.
Being a private attorney at Albanese and Mulvey, Mulvey obviously may have had financial interests of his other paying clients at stake that he could promote as "Legislative Counsel" for NYS Senator Seward - begging a question of corruption, or at the very least appearance of impropriety right there.
As to the Mokay case, it is quite a coincidence, of course, that Judge Mulvey aggressively strived to assign two judges to the Mokay case in the court below,
Carl Becker and Kevin Dowd, who, first, hated my husband and me with a passion and, second, were known to be obedient and to bow to authority, especially that both Becker and Dowd were close to retirement, and Becker, at the time of assignment, was facing re-election in 2012 and needed support of Senator Seward, friend and former client of Mulvey and tenant of Richard Harlem, attorney for purported plaintiffs,
and then was quickly assigned by Governor Cuomo, who already was aware of case-fixing through four appellate judges he either appointed (Judges DiFiore, Stein, Fahey) or failed to prosecute for case-fixing when he was New York State Attorney General (Judge Lippman).
By the way, Becker did obtain support of Senator Seward in his elections and did have communications with Senator Seward, friend of Mulvey and tenant of attorney Richard Harlem, while he handled the Mokay v Mokay proceeding, see picture taken of Becker and Seward on in May of 2012, during his election campaign and while Becker was still presiding on the Mokay v Mokay case:
At Becker's quick retirement that suggested that Becker was offered a "choice" - to leave "on his own" or be booted for misconduct - it was Richard Harlem's tenant Senator Seward who "sponsored" a bill to honor Judge Becker, "a man of faith", in the NYS Senate - same as Senator Seward previously sponsored a bill to honor Richard Harlem's father retired Judge Robert Harlem, while both Becker and Harlem were caught in egregious misconduct many times and should have been jailed instead of honored.
Becker and Seward, both Republicans, supported one another in their re-election campaigns, so a lot of interests were involved to decide in favor of Senator Seward's tenant Richard Harlem, which had nothing to do with the law.
I wrote about Judge Dowd's egregious misconduct in the Mokay case -
- failing to disqualify himself despite a witness subpoena served upon the judge, his law clerk and his secretary;
- holding an ex parte trial while I was on documented medical leave,
- blocking the public from observing the trial and misleading the public that the trial was adjourned while it was ongoing,
- admitting trial exhibits at the trial in bulk, by boxes, without reading them,
- after the trial, blocking Mr. Neroni and me as his then-attorney, from ever seeing the trial exhibit, even during the pendency of appeal,
- giving away the trial exhibits to Richard Harlem, and thus filibustering the appeal.
The court did not even mention the issue whether Richard Harlem represents David Mokay - David Mokay states under oath that Richard Harlem doesn't, and that, as well as Richard Harlem's accusing of his own purported client David Mokay of perjury through affidavit of his client Daniel Mokay, is a complete and absolute disqualification of Richard Harlem that should have resulted in:
Judge Mulvey is already trying hard to save Richard Harlem from criminal prosecution - after all, the decision to dismiss the appeal despite the obvious and ongoing fraud of Richard Harlem was made by Judge Mulvey just 5 days after I wrote in this blog that what Richard Harlem did (prosecuted a case on behalf of a party who never sued) constitutes a federal crime of fraud, and that the feds just recently obtained a criminal conviction against New York defendants when such defendants fraudulently added parties to litigation.
This blog was reported to Judge Mulvey by attorney Paul Tomkins, then of Binghamton, NY, back in 2014, and since them Judge Mulvey upped his retaliation against me to new levels.
Whichever actions Mr. Neroni is going to undertake in this case, I will continue to cover the story on this blog.
In other words, a kangaroo court is a fairer court - Judge Kozinski's words, not mine.