New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct approves anti-semitic conduct of Judge Kevin Dowd

I received in the mail a letter from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct where I am informed that "upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline" pertaining to my complaints dated March 23, 2015 and April 1, 2015.

Those two complaints were both against Judge Kevin Dowd (the judge who has, after the complaints were filed, held an ex parte trial despite my illness and is now trying to punish me for not appearing at the trial while being injured, ill and on a legitimate medical leave, diagnosed by my primary physician after an in-person evaluation).

The interesting detail is that the dismissal after "careful consideration" occurred the very next day after I filed a new complaint against Judge Dowd, where I documented his continued retaliation against me AND my client and husband Fred Neroni, by holding an ex parte trial against my husband, blocking my access to trial exhibits, and, at this time, attempting to punish me for being sick and not appearing at the trial because I was injured and had a legitimate medical leave from work, issued by my primary physician after in-person evaluation and diagnosis (Dowd never saw me when he rejected that diagnosis).

Appears that the "careful consideration" by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is just words to justify shredding legitimate complaints regarding judicial misconduct.

And that is why I am making these complaints public.

This is the letter of dismissal in full.

Please, note that the only identifying information is the file numbers.

My records show that I filed on those dates complaints against Judge Kevin Dowd.  I make a point of making such complaints only by e-mail, so that there is a record of the filing that the NYS Commission cannot deny, as it can deny ever receiving complaints by mail or fax.

By the way, an investigator from the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct who recently called me to investigate a complaint against Judge Alta Martin (ex parte communication, incompetence), indicated to me that her supervisor prefers her to communicate and receive communications by fax, which, to me, is a problem.  Fax transmissions are unreliable and do not show, as the e-mail does, what exactly was transmitted.  Maybe, that is the reason why the investigator's supervisor "prefers" fax transmissions to e-mail communication?

What was interesting about the phone call by the Commission's investigator was that it was the first and only so far attempt by the Commission to talk to me, and talk to me in a case where I was not even a witness to misconduct, but misconduct was reported to me.  Upon my conversation with the actual witnesses to misconduct, none of them were contacted, even though their contact information is in no way a secret.  Moreover, the "investigated" judge is a village justice.  Statistics of judicial discipline in the State of New York shows that local town/village justices are at least sometimes disciplined, while judges of county and supreme court - and especially of the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals - are never disciplined at all.

Once again, I reported judicial misconduct since 2009, as is my duty as an attorney.  I was the witness in the overwhelming majority of the cases I reported.  At NO time did the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct try to talk to me as a witness to the proceedings or to Mr. Shtrauch as the witness to the other proceeding that was the subject of the March 23, 2015 complaint, before it dismissed all of those complaints "upon careful consideration" - that is the template for shredding the complaints.

Yet, back to the rubber-stamped dismissal "upon careful consideration" dated June 30, 2015 pertaining to my complaint dated March 23, 2015 which I provide below:

Apparently, if the NYS Commission considers retaliation against a pro se indigent litigant, a Jewish immigrant and a foreign national, a person for whom English is not a native language, and retaliation with the help of a known Nazi sympathizer, "insufficient indication" of judicial discipline, first, it sends an undeniable message to all litigants that (1) anti-semitism is endorsed by the State of New York in the court system as the rule of operation, and that (2)

Why I believe that Judge Dowd knew that the armed officer Judge Dowd used to hover behind the back of a pro se litigant who dared to file a motion to recuse in the judge's chambers, search that person's belongings right in the chambers and, after recusal of the judge, to oust the person from the courthouse, was a Nazi sympathizer?

Here is the letter from Judge Robert Mulvey dated October 7, 2014 in response to the pro se litigant's complaint describing the incident with the Nazi sympathizer and asking to investigate:

Dowd put the Nazi sympathizer that he was supposed to investigate as the court administrator, armed, behind his victim's back on November 25, 2014, nearly 2 months after the date of the letter.

Whatever the "investigation" was, Mr. Shtrauch, the witness to the court officer/Nazi sympathizer's behavior, was never interviewed by Judge Dowd as the court administrator.  So, instead of doing his duty as the court adminsitrator, Judge Dowd used his position as the administrator to receive information regarding Mr. Shtrauch's being a victim of a certain court officer's anti-semitic behavior and used that specific court officer to  hurt Mr. Shtrauch even more.

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, by stating that such behavior is "insufficient" to constitute judicial misconduct, endorsed and approved that conduct and allowed it to proceed, repeat itself and multiply in New  York courts.

We'll see what the federal jury will say about the same behavior, since Judge Dowd's conduct is also a part of a pending federal lawsuit, possibly, yet another reason of why Judge Dowd so viciously is trying to hurt me and my husband, and why NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is trying to white-wash Judge Dowd.

It will be interesting, to say the least, if the federal jury in Shtrauch v Dowd finds that Judge Dowd engaged in unconstitutional conduct and in discrimination against a Jewish pro se indigent litigant while NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, "upon careful consideration" no less, found that "there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline".

That was my complaint of March 23, 2015.

My complaint of April 1, 2015 is fully provided here, it is about the Mokay case and Judge Dowd's shenanigans in that case.

Based on dismissal of April 1, 2015 complaint, it is now legitimate in New York for a judge:

1) to preside as a judge over a trial where the judge, his secretary and law clerk are subpoenaed hostile witnesses for a party;

2) delegate judicial duties to a law clerk;

3) allow law clerk to rule while on a vacation (that information was revealed after the trial ,that Judge Dowd was outside of the state of New York on a vacation in Virginia from March 27, 2015 to April 6, 2015 and his law clerk ruled in his stead);

4) to accept filings of motions directly into his chambers bypassing the County Clerk's office.  I do not suggest to try repeating that, since the normal procedure is to file all pleadings with the County Clerk's office and, if you are not a privileged litigant, as the NYS Assistant Attorney General is (especially that NYS AG's office is representing Dowd in a currently pending federal litigation in his individual capacity - a disqualifying factor for the judge to preside over any case where NYS AG is a party, attorney or witness).

As I said before, multiple times, for Judge Dowd the rule of law is nothing, and his own whim and the whims of those who he favors is everything.

Of course, such a judge should not be on the bench.

And in New York, of course, his status of being a judge somehow puts him above the law and prevents discipline or any kind of accountability.

Yet, in its efforts to dismiss complaints agaisnt Judge Dowd, NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has hit the bottom in endorsing vindictive and anti-semitic behavior of this judge - and retaliation against an attorney who exposed that anti-semitic behavior and is prosecuting it in federal court.

Because now, due to dismissal of the complaint against Judge Dowd, New York courts have endorsed anti-semitism as their rule of operation.

Which is beyond disgraceful.

4th of July: fireworks, reunions and barbecues. Where did the independence part go?

Today, across America there will be 4th of July celebrations.

People plan reunions with extended family and friends over the 4th of July weekends.

Highways are packed with bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Tickets to observe 4th of July fireworks in historical locations are sold out.

It is summer, it is time to have a good time on the beach, and with family and friends.

Stores start to cell merchandise with 4th of July attributes long before the actual day.

Yet, with all the summer barbecues and fireworks and family reunion celebrations going on, it is easy to forget what the 4th of July was about  to begin with - the Independence Day.  The day people paid for with their lives.

Independence from arbitrary and absolute power of the government (the King) to do whatever he wants with its subjects.

The King and his men can do no wrong?  Americans rejected that concept and established a Constitution to rule them.

The U.S. Constitution has been proclaimed as a supreme law of the land in its Article VI.  And that proclamation continues to exist.  In the U.S. Constitution.  On paper.

All Americans are taught at school that the 4th of July is about Independence of the nation, about founding of the nation upon the "rule of law" (Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution) and that the 4th of July is the uniting holiday for the entire nation.

It is common, when the history of the holiday is taught, for teachers to teach their students "to remember the sacrifices" that have made independence of this country possible.

"Freedom is not free" has become a common phrase.

It is not free, indeed.

It is true that many men and women of this country have laid down their lives - their only lives - their ultimate sacrifice - to abolish arbitrary and absolute power of the government and to establish the rule of law.

And it is true that that absolute and arbitrary power to do whatever the government wants to do with the people - through its judicial branch - has returned full swing. 

Somehow people now look at what the 5 judges in the U.S. Supreme Court will say about what the U.S. Constitution says, and not what the U.S. Constitution says.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution does not deem judicial decisions as the Supreme Law of the land, yet, the whole nation, from uneducated people to legal scholars, hold their collective breaths to see what the judicial kings of this country will say, then celebrate certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the streets and call it the binding law of the land.

If the ultimate sacrifice of the men and women of this country to make independence of the U.S. from arbitrary power of the King and the birth of the U.S. as a new nation are to be truly respected, then the U.S. Constitution should be trule respected, followed and enforced, and not used to say the oath of office as a meaningless mantra, in order to get absolute power and forget that oath the moment it was taken.

Judicial decisions are not binding when they violate the Supreme law of the land.

It is very simple.

The U.S. Constitution cannot be the Supreme law of the land, if every judge in this country can "overrule" it, after gaining office and privileges of the office, by pledging to follow and enforce it.

Judicial decisions that violate the U.S. Constitution can only be binding if this nation acts like slaves and allows the absolute power of the government to return - without fanfare, without bloody battles, creeping in through words on paper.

Once again, Article VI does not list judicial decisions as Supreme Law of the land, and judicial decisions that run contrary to the U.S. Constitution, of any judge, including those decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, are not "binding" law.

I did not say anything radical, I did not say anything revolutionary, I just referred to Article VI of the Constitution of this country established after this country has declared independence from Britain, Britain's King and absolute arbitrary power of that King, established at the price of many lives.

Celebrating the 4th of July as an annual ritual, while allowing the absolute and arbitrary power of the government to creep in through judicial decisions based on principles that "the King" (the government) and his men, including judges, can do no wrong and that the victims of such absolute arbitrary power do not have a remedy and should be even punished for attempting to get a remedy, is the same as letting that ultimate sacrifice be for nothing.

I am glad that social media, "next door" people, is picking up on the concept that they, the "next door" people, are "the King" in this country, and that their runaway "public servants" should be put back where they belong, in the place of limited power under the full control of the U.S. Constitution they are all pledged to protect, uphold and enforce.

I am glad that social media, the ultimate tool of democractic government nowadays,  is pushing for abolishing of any kind of immunities of "the King and his men" from the rule of law, even when the "mainstream media" is conspicuously silent.

Only when immunities created by public servants (the key word is "servants") for themselves to absolve them from liability to their master - we, the People - are truly placed where they belong, in the waste basket, and are no longer allowed, in real life, is when the 4th of July will regain its original meaning - abolishing absolute and arbitrary power of the government over people and estabilshing the rule of law.

• While such immunities still exist and while American citizens, from uneducated Americans to lawyers and especially legal scholars who know better, slavishly accept them and obey the runaway "servants" to rule their master, the People of the United States,
• while the government, and particularly its judicial branch, have, as it does at this time, absolute and arbitrary power over every aspect of our lives and rule in complete disregard of the same Constitution that every elected and appointed official is pledged to protect, uphold and enforce, 
• while American public officials exercise that arbitrary absolute power much more than it is done nowadays in the original country from which the U.S. gained its independence,

the 4th of July will remain just a glorified barbecue, reunion and fireworks day.

No less.  But no more.

Readers are encouraged to send in stories about "pre-judges" of the State of New York

I've written on this blog about all sorts of pre-judgments of many cases pertaining to myself and my family members, for our stance against judicial misconduct in New York State and federal courts.

The most recent blog post was about Judge Kevin Dowd who states before he began the ex parte trial that it is all clear to him that the plaintiffs (who did not even care to come to the trial) are definitely entitled to damages, before any proof was submitted to the court - and that it is a shame that the case has gotten "so far" and has not settled long time ago.

I've got several responses from readers with stories of prejudgment of their own.

One of the readers suggested a term "pre-judge".

After all, a judge who is pre-judging the case instead of judging the case, is not a judge, but is, indeed, a pre-judge.

I believe the shoe fits, and confer the dishonorary title of prejudge to Judge Kevin Dowd.

If you want your own stories about pre-judges in your life, please, write to me with documents showing the prejudgment.

Something clicked somewhere with Mokay trial exhibits - once yet another complaint against Judge Kevin Dowd was filed

I received today an "index" (list" of trial exhibits for the ex parte Mokay trial.

I received the list 47 minutes (!) after I filed an additional complaint against Judge Dowd with the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct for blocking me from reviewing the exhibits or from seeing even the list of exhibits admitted at trial and influencing the stenographer not to give me the index, and for Judge Dowd's attempt to punish me for being injured and sick and on a legitimate medical leave on the day of trial, and to award against me "costs" of calling jurors to the courthouse.

Here are the scans of my e-mails.

I've sent my complaint by e-mail to the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct at 3:10 pm:

Brenda Friedel wrote to me with the "index" of trial exhibits at 3:57 pm, in 47 minutes:

The stenographer apologized in an e-mail and said that it was (allegedly) entirely her fault that she "forgot" to include the "index" of exhibits into the trial transcript.

At the same time, the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo and her assistant clearly indicated in recorded telephone conversations that Judge Dowd's chambers directed them not to release the list of exhibits to me.

Moreover, the interesting part is that the index is not made a part of the transcript, has separate numeration from numeration in the transcript, and does not have a signature of the stenographer.

For the stenographer who, by the report of seethroughny.net, was earning $105,000.00 a year back in 2008 (and I do not believe that her salary went down in the 7 years since, more likely it went up), such a number of errors in one transcript can hardly be called coincidental.

I understand that Ms. Friedel's professional reputation was simply sacrificed to protect the judge.

Yet, telephone recording speak for themselves - the judge and his chambers gave a direct order to the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk's office (that was not supposed to even have custody of the record - judging by the letter from the NYS Court Administration), but nevertheless had such custody (judging by the direct recorded admission of the Supreme Court clerk Kelly Sanfilippo) to deny me access not only to trial exhibits, but even to the list of trial exhibits from the ex parte Mokay trial.

Apparently, Judge Dowd is becoming an embarrassment to the New York judicial system.

It is interesting to know - will he be dealt with the same way Carl Becker was?

Will Judge Dowd suddenly discover an urge to spend time with his family and that his judicial career interferes with such long-craved communication?

That would be not a second too soon.

The top secret "index", the list of exhibits that Judge Dowd prohibited the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk to release to the attorney of record for the defendant, before and after Judge Dowd made a decision against the defendant Fred Neroni in reliance on exhibits in that top secret list, will be published in one of my next blogposts, with an analysis.

Stay tuned.

Trial rules of Judge Kevin Dowd: you settle - or else

During the ex parte Mokay trial Judge Kevin Dowd has stated, twice, that the case should not have gone "that far" and should have settled long ago.

As you may notice, it is page 5 of the transcript, before any evidence was in, before the trial began.

The case was simply pre-judged by Judge Dowd.  In a litigation that goes on for 8 years, because the defendant keeps trying to have courts follow the law, the defendant should have settled long time ago.  Since he did not - the judge will make sure such a defendant will suffer.

But, coercing a litigant into a settlement, expressing on record the court's opinion, before a bench trial, that the plaintiffs (who did not come to court to attend the trial) are entitled to damages, before ANY proof was in, is not only pre-judging a case in violation of Defendant's due process of law, but also gross judicial misconduct.

Does anybody in the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct care for that?

Trial rules of Judge Kevin Dowd: leave those pesky time-lines and counting skills to 1st graders when another judge's backside must be covered

Below is the table with the list of parties in the Mokay litigation, where there were 5 parties (children of the decedent) between June 2007 and March 2008, and 6 parties (children of the decedent + the decedent/ his Estate from March 2008 to present time).
 

Time period	Names of parties in the Mokay action	Number of parties	Were damages awarded for the period of June 2007 to March 2008 by Judge Dowd in the June 12, 2015 decision?
June 2007 to March 2008	1.       Andrew Mokay 2.       Daniel Mokay 3.       David Mokay 4.       Christine Reed 5.       Patricia Knapp	5 parties	Yes, to 6 plaintiffs
March 2008 to present time	1.       Andrew Mokay 2.       Daniel Mokay 3.       David Mokay 4.       Christine Reed 5.       Patricia Knapp 6.       Estate of Andrew Mokay (father)	6 parties	Yes, to all plaintiffs, including the Estate, for period of June 2007 to beyond the trial date of April 7, 2015

As is evident from the table, the presiding Judge Dowd awarded, as damages, to 6 parties, including the Estate, attorney fees of 5 parties for the period of June 2007 to March 2008, when the 6th party was not a party to the litigation - and awarded those damages to the Estate as treble damages (times three). 

One does not need a full elementary, middle or high school education, a college or a law school education to be able to count on 10 fingers 5 versus 6.

If the 6th party was not there in the Mokay action, it was not represented by Harlem & Jervis there, and it could not claim that it generated legal fees from June 2007 to March 2008 in the Mokay action, while not being a party there - or to ask the court to deem those fees damages of the Estate under an unknown legal theory, and to treble those damages.

In fact, such a claim is an open fraud upon the court, where attorney Richard Harlem who testified at the ex parte trial in the Mokay case, claimed, on behalf of the Estate, that the Estate has somehow managed to generate legal fees in the Mokay case for the period of time when it was not a party in the Mokay case.

Did Judge Dowd punish Richard Harlem for frivolous conduct?

Not at all.

Judge Dowd apologized to Richard Harlem for inconvenience caused when Judge Dowd asked Richard Harlem to make post-trial submissions as to which of the attorney fees Richard Harlem claims as damages - and Richard Harlem claimed the fees for ALL plaintiffs (including the Estate, not a party in the Mokay case from June 2007 to March 2008) for the period including June 2007 to March 2008.

For Judge Dowd, the trial itself was an unnecessary technicality, he knew how he (or rather, his law clerk Claudette Newman) will rule before the trial even started. 

And that technicality was a necessity to cover up misconduct of outgoing judge Carl F. Becker who already GAVE Richard Harlem as the Estate's attorney, through Surrogate's Court, over $48,000.00 for representation of all plaintiffs in the Mokay action - and that was in July of 2011, 4 years before the ex parte Mokay trial.
Look how Judge Dowd rules as to how "plaintiffs" (all of them) are entitled to treble-attorney fees/ damages.

This is the list of plaintiffs, the caption of the decision that arose out of the ex parte trial of April 7, 2015.  The Estate is listed as a party:

This is the excerpt from the decision of January 22, 2015 of the Appellate Division 3rd Department positioning the decedent/Estate as one of the tortfeasors (which means that the Estate must be a defendant in the action, may not be represented by the same attorneys as plaintiffs, and, if it is so represented, attorneys for the plaintiffs forfeited, as a matter of law, all legal fees for the conflicted representation):

Here is the description in Judge Dowd's decision of June 12, 2015 as to how plaintiffs (all of them, including the Estate), suffered damages, even though Dowd recites alleged harm caused only to the children of the decedent were harmed and "had to commence litigation" to redress the harm (omitting that the decedent participated in causing harm and that there is no such cause of action in interference with prospective right of inheritance):

As to "title passed", I will need a separate blog post (to follow) to explain that the record of the Mokay action is completely devoid of any shred, scintilla or speck of evidence that the deeds were delivered - and thus title did not pass, no matter what a CROWD of judges may say.

But, for purposes of this blog post - Judge Dowd's attention to detail are below the kindergarten level.

He simply does not follow the evidence or even the list of parties and the timelines in front of him.

 

Judge Dowd notes that "children of the decedent" "had to commence this action" (which was not true, since the deed was never delivered and the title did not pass, a mere declaration of the surrogate in a case where decedent's children were not represented and incurred no legal fees, was enough that the title is still in the Estate, eliminating the need for the 8-year Mokay litigation).

Yet, somehow the Estate can claim damages for the same period of time alongside with the decedent's children - why, for what reason, nobody knows, and the judge definitely does not care.

So, not only Richard Harlem claimed - and got awarded - attorneys' fees for the same period of time from two separate courts, which definitely constitutes unjust enrichment, but he claimed it on behalf of a party who was not represented by Richard Harlem in the Mokay action for the period claimed - and that is fraud, successful, on two courts.

Moreover, Carl Becker, after he knowingly condoned that fraud and awarded over $48,000 to Richard Harlem without any verifying documents requried by the Surrogate's Court rules, assigned himself to the Mokay action in the Supreme Court and shot down any challenges to his fraudulent ruling.

Now, Judge Dowd joined the pitch and covered up the out-running Carl Becker by, once again, awarding Richard Harlem the same legal fees, awarding them on behalf of a party, the Estate who did not participate in the action at the time the fees were allegedly generated - and Judge Dowd had the audacity and disregard to the law to treble those fees.

So, now Richard Harlem was awarded not treble, but quadruple attorney fees on behalf of Estate for the period when Estate was not even a party in litigation - and that is a true record of judicial misconduct for both Judge Becker and Judge Dowd, acting, no doubt, in concert.

The trial rule of both of these judges - what is in the record does not matter.

Timelines making certain claims of damages impossible, do not matter.

Timelines and lists of parties making certain claims fraudulent do not matter.

What matters is to please a politically connected attorney and to hurt those pesky attorneys and parties, the "disgusting human beings", the "very dangerous persons" (Judge Dowd's words, on record, to another litigant who dared to file a motion to recuse against Judge Dowd - and where Judge Dowd did in fact recuse).

One does not need a high school, college or law school education to be able to discern that a legal fee generated by 5 parties cannot be claimed as damages by the later-joined 6th party in litigation - unless the 5 parties SUE the 6th party and claim those legal fees against that party.

Yet, all 6 parties are peacefully represented by one son of a judge Richard Harlem and his law firm Harlem & Jervis.

Apparently, Judge Dowd simply does not care, what the timelines of the case are, what the lists and numbers and names of parties represented by influential attorneys are, whether certain damages could or could not be claimed by the Estate, whether those damages could or could not be trebled, and whether those same attorney fees were or were not already awarded and paid to these same attorneys, on behalf of that same party.

For Judge Dowd, the law is his word - however freakish, fraudulent or absurd it appears.

I do not expect anything less from a judge who was ranting about a urinal built in his honor at a child custody/visitation proceedings, as Judge Dowd did. 

Yet, litigants and attorneys appearing in the Supreme Court, are entitled to deal with the law and with judges who have elementary competence and integrity.  Judge Dowd, judging by his decisions, have no competence or integrity whatsoever, and that is a big problem, which New York State Court Administration needs to deal with.

And, if a 1st grader would have done a better job in calculating the number of parties in the action for purposes of award of damages and for making timelines - and verifying which parties were ACTUALLY PARTIES IN LITIGATION for a certain perdiod of time, before awarding to them as damages, attorneys fees FOR OTHER PARTIES over that period of time - maybe, we need to put a 1st grader instead of Judge Dowd on that bench?

Will look cute, and will make much more sense.

Shenanigans with trial exhibits in New York courts - a rule and policy of discrimination?

Another case of playing tricks with trial exhibits was reported to me by a reader of my blog.

The reader, a pro se litigant, together with the counsel for the opponent, was directed, after trial, to submit a summation statement to the court, before the court issues a decision.

When the reader tried to review trial exhibits at the Chenango County Supreme court, he was denied access to exhibits.

Yet, when he asked where the exhibits are, he was told that the opposing attorney was given the exhibits - both those submitted by the attorney and those submitted by the pro se party - and has them in her office for review.

So, the claims of the New York State Court Administration that trial exhibits remain at all times in the custody of the county clerk and after trial go directly to the party who submitted them are not what the reality is.

The reality is that trial exhibits are given for review to those attorneys who the court favor and are not given for review to those pro se parties and attorneys who the courts/presiding judges disfavor, even if those exhibits are their own, submitted by them at the trial.

I invite readers of my blog to e-mail me at tatiana.neroni@gmail.com reports of their experience as to access to trial exhibits, whether pre-marked and before trial, or after trial before and after the trial decision, if they were given review of such by New York State courts and if not, about the circumstances and reasoning given by the courts for not giving such access.

If the reporters permit, I will publish their stories.

Stay tuned.