Criminal justice is available, for sure. If the defendant has money for professional defense.

I've just put in a blog about acquittal - after a 4th trial - of Cal Harris in New York, of charges of murder of his wife Michele Harris.

Here is the list of criminal defense attorneys who represented Cal Harris throughout the proceedings:

Joseph Cawley who represented Cal Harris in 2007, who has found an easier job as a judge in 2008, and who now is a supervising judge for county (criminal) courts in New York 6th Judicial District. 

Cawley recently engaged in ex parte communications with the prosecution for which I have documents on file, so I wonder whether he sold his client out as a defense attorney, too.

Another defense attorney for Cal Harris was Albany-based and recently retired veteran criminal defense attorney Terence Kindlon.

Cal Harris also had representing him the law firm of Easton, Thompson, Kasperek & Shiffrin, L.L.P., Rochester that represented Cal Harris 

• on the losing appeal in the Appellate Division 3rd Department in 2011, 
• on the winning appeal in the New York State Court of Appeals in 2012 where Judge Pigott recently said at the swearing-in ceremony of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore on February 8, 2016 that NYS Court of Appeals "gets to pick its cases" - so Pigott "picked" People v Harris and reversed it, that is another "piece of luck" in having the case reviewed by the Court of Appeals that may have been influenced by the wealth of the defendant's family

And, finally, for the last, and successful, trial, Cal Harris hired attorney Bruce Barket and made the last-minute decision to go with the bench trial rather than a jury.

Bruce Barket is a partner in Barket, Marion, Epstein & Kearon, LLP of Garden City, NY, and is famous for his

"booming voice, constant objections and visible outrage" that reportedly "have been constants at the trial".

The defense team also included, a younger female attorney Aida Leisenring (admitted in 2008) and an older female attorney Donna Aldea (admitted in 1999), 

Presence of female defense attorneys was psychologically beneficial, it was balancing out the "booming voice" of Bruce Barket and preventing the impression that female opinions - and lives - do not matter.

By the way, in Delaware County court, when I was present as a second-chair in criminal trials handled by my husband, Frederick J. Neroni, I was constantly shut down by the usually presiding judge Carl F. Becker who complained behind the scenes of our "double-teaming" and introduced his own rule - "no second chairs", only one attorney can do the trial, the other should be silent.

Apparently, such rules were not applicable - fortunately for the criminal defendant - in Cal Harris'  trial.

It is a big relief for Cal Harris, and a big victory (and, no doubt, an extremely lucrative and expensive case) for his defense attorneys.

Once again, the case of Cal Harris shows what CAN be done in a case where supposedly, all is lost - after 2 jury convictions, one affirmed on intermediate appeal - only with one condition: if criminal defendant or his family has money.

But, a situation where justice is available only to wealthy criminal defendants is not justice at all.

An acquittal of murder from the bench - the extraordinary verdict in Cal Harris' case

Recently a criminal defendant charged with murder of his wife was acquitted of that charge - after the 4th trial.

What is significant in this case is that, even though the first 3 trials were trials by jury, the defendant chose to have his 4th trial be decided by a judge - an extremely dangerous decision, even though it played out well for the defendant.

Judge Richard Mott, 

a former public defender and defense attorney, who had a vast experience in defending murder cases

 did acquit him of all charges.

The case was, from the very beginning, circumstantial.

No body of Michele Harris and no murder weapon were ever found.

Cal Harris maintained his innocence for 15 long years, through 4 murder trials.

My take is that it was natural for the court to conclude that circumstantial evidence, where there was no body, no murder weapon found, and where the first conviction was set aside because a witness claimed he saw Michele Harris hours after her alleged murder with somebody else, suggesting that Cal Harris was being framed.

The evidence in the case was, in fact, not so strong, since the previous, 3rd, jury deliberated for 11 days, and were still deadlocked.

Apparently, the judge had every reason to conclude that the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard was not reached.

And, in a bench trial, as opposed to the jury trial, People are at a disadvantage (if the judge is not pro-conviction), because they cannot engage in their usual theatrics meant for lay jurors.

*  *  *

It was definitely a big gamble to let a judge to be a fact-finder in a murder case, because judges are usually pro-conviction, because usually judges come from prosecutors.

But, in this case, by whatever chance, the judge's background was that of a public defender and a criminal defense attorney, and there was so much publicity that the defendant had no way of having an impartial jury that would not know about the case and would not be contaminated by 15-year publicity calling Cal Harris a murderer.

For example, in 2012 the New York State Court of Appeals, while reversing the conviction and sending it back for a new trial, said the following:

"Given the high-profile nature of the case, there was significant media coverage in local newspapers and on television, including two national broadcasts, covering Michele's disappearance and defendant's first trial.  Defense counsel made two change of venue motions prior to the retrial, citing "prejudicial publicity." Each motion was denied, as was a third motion made by defense counsel during jury selection."

Moreover, the prosecution made sure it pointed out the family's wealth as Cal Harris' motive to commit murder.

Cal Harris' family wealth comes from selling cars, and a "car salesman" is a derogatory tag in this country, whether you like it or not.

When a politician is called a "used car salesman", that is already a cliche presupposing that all used car salesmen are crooks and inherently unbelievable.

When many people are hurting from bad economy, having a criminal defendant parade one private attorney after another, can cause resentment in the jury just because his family could afford it.

Where the overwhelming majority of population in rural counties in New York is uneducated and poor - Cal Harris' gamble in having a judge preside over his murder trial does not seem so unreasonable, after all.

I cannot end this post on a positive note.

I cannot say that - see, justice was served.

The acquittal was a result of years of work of multiple private - and expensive - criminal defense attorneys and privately hired experts.

That's where the wealth of the family came in handy, to pay for qualified criminal defense, appellate counsel and for qualified experts.

I will run a separate blog describing the list of criminal defense attorneys who represented Cal Harris in this case, they were all private attorneys,  and all not cheap attorneys.

An average criminal defendant in the same position, especially a poor criminal defendant, with an assigned counsel, would have had no chance.

And it is sad that justice hinges so heavily on money.

The Mokay saga continues: it's tough to be stupid - Judge Kevin Dowd and attorney Richard Harlem are rapidly falling into their own traps

I wrote on this blog recently about how judge Robert C Mulvey has fixed, on request of attorney Richard Harlem, the appeal in the Mokay case.

That Mokay case that was previously fixed in the court below by judges: 

1. Robert C Mulvey, through assignments of obedient judges who Mulvey could rely upon to obey Mulvey's illegal case-fixing policy that a judge Mulvey assigns to the case must rule the way Mulvey wanted the assigned judge to rule, or else ( promoted to the Appellate Division and fixed the Mokay case on that end, too);
2. Elizabeth Garry (promoted to the Appellate Division), 
3. Molly R. Fitzgerald (promoted to Mulvey's prior position as Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District, the position formerly occupied by Richard Harlem's now-deceased father judge Robert Harlem), 
4. Michael V. Coccoma (promoted first to the position of Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District and then to the position of Chief Administrative Judge of Upstate New York, and Chief Fiscal officer deciding issues of lucrative assignments to Surrogate's Court and the no-less-lucrative post-retirement assignments of judges as judicial hearing officers);
5. Carl F. Becker (booted into early retirement, but who knows - I need to check his assignments through FOIL, maybe Becker received some gift for his crookedness, too), and 
6. Kevin Dowd - not yet booted, but not yet promoted either.

But, promotions aside, it does look bad for judges when stupidity of a son-of-a-judge privileged blue-blood attorney who never in his life thought he had to strain a brain to win in court, combined with stupidity of assigned trial court judge, make the Appellate Division look like a bunch of complete idiots.

Which is what Richard Harlem and Judge Kevin Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court accomplished with flying colors, and continue to do at this time.

Let's reintroduce a brief timeline of relevant events.

On June 12, 2015 Judge Dowd issues a decision after an ex parte trial on damages.  Let's leave apart the issue that an ex parte secret trial barring the public held despite the fact that the defendant's counsel is on medical leave, and without participation of even the plaintiffs, is unlawful on many levels, and concentrate on the yo-yo maneuvers of Richard Harlem trying to position the same unlawful decision as either final (so the lower court has no more jurisdiction over the case), and non-final, at the same time, for different purposes.

Of course, the same as a woman cannot be just a little pregnant, a court of law cannot have "a little subject matter jurisdiction" which disappears as a mirage for one purpose, namely, to hurt Mr. Neroni and help Richard Harlem, and reappears in the fevered brain of Richard Harlem and judges favoring him, whenever it is convenient.

In the June 12, 2015 decision, in addition to damages after an ex parte trial without presence of plaintiffs, Judge Dowd granted to Richard Harlem Richard Harlem's request to make jurisdiction of Judge Dowd in the Mokay matter not final (as it is supposed for a decision after a trial on damages), never-ending.

Even though this a trial court has no authority to make its jurisdiction on damages in a civil case never-ending and to decide the issue of damages (1) in an ex parte bench trial and (2) in a series of subsequent motions, there is nothing impossible for Judge Dowd when he is bending backwards to suit a well-connected attorney. 

Ok, so, based on the request of Richard Harlem, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is never-ending as of June 12, 2015.

Good for Harlem?

It depends.

In March of 2016, my husband timely perfects his appeal in the Mokay case.

Richard Harlem files a motion to dismiss the appeal on behalf of Daniel Mokay, Andrew Mokay, David Mokay, Patricia Knapp, Christine Reed, and the Estate of Andrew Mokay Sr. because:

1) my husband did not (and could not) include into the Record on Appeal the trial exhibits that Judge Dowd prohibited to show to my husband and/or to me while I was my husband's appellate counsel, even after the June 12, 2015 decision and during the pendency of appeal, and that Harlem stole from the record with Dowd's help - a blog with transcript and audio recordings of telephone conversations with Supreme Court clerk Kelly Sanfilippo is here; and

2) because, according to Richard Harlem, my husband did not include certain decisions required to be included because the appeal was from a final decision of the trial court.

My husband, naturally, opposed Harlem's motion saying, among other things, that:

1) a victim of theft may not be punished for that theft, and the thief should be rewarded for his theft;
2) Richard Harlem is engaged in a systematic fraud upon the court by claiming that

• he represents the purported plaintiff David Mokay on appeal and that 
• he represented the purported plaintiff David Mokay in the court below and 
• by obtaining allegedly on behalf of David Mokay a $300,000 judgment 
• while David Mokay is claiming in a sworn affidavit that he never sued my husband and never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to do that for him;  
• and while suing on behalf of a non-existing party is a federal criminal offense (recently several New York attorneys were criminally prosecuted and convicted by the feds for that same conduct); and because

3) the Mokay appeal was from a non-final decision of Delaware County Supreme court , made non-final at the request of the same Richard Harlem.  

Yet, as it happens in the cases of nobility, the spoiled son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem cannot have a "no" for an answer, even if that "no" is the result of the law of the case created at his own request.

Apparently, Richard Harlem wanted the best of both worlds - to claim that jurisdiction in the Mokay case in Delaware County Supreme Court is, at the very same time:

1) non-final and never-ending - for purposes of continuing to go back to Judge Dowd and claim more "damages" through a series of motions; and
2) final - for purposes of having the appeal dismissed because the record did not (allegedly) satisfy the rules of appellate court applicable to final decisions of trial courts.

I already described on this blog that Richard Harlem was trying to accuse his purported client David Mokay of perjury to the appellate court with the help of an affidavit from his other client, David Mokay's brother Daniel Mokay.

Daniel Mokay, according to my reliable sources, is the only one of the Mokay children who received anything out of the Estate of their father, and that "something" is $7,000, enough to provide a perjured affidavit against his brother David Mokay on behalf of Richard Harlem.

Accusing one purported client of perjury with the help of another client, in the same case, and on the issue of representation is attorney misconduct, and requires an immediate disqualification of Richard Harlem from representation of anybody at all in the same case, but Richard Harlem is afraid now to lose control over the case, and is digging in. 

But, disqualification is usually obtained in cases where the court's jurisdiction is pending.

Richard Harlem received affidavit of David Mokay on or about April 20, 2016, at the time when:

1) jurisdiction was pending in the Appellate Division - because of Mr. Neroni's perfected appeal; and
2) jurisdiction was pending in the Delaware County Supreme Court - because of the June 12, 2015 making that jurisdiction, at Harlem's request, non-final and never ending.

Richard Harlem did not move to withdraw from the pending appeal, as he was supposed to.

Knowing that his blue blood will carry him no matter what stupidity or fraud he produces, Richard Harlem instead, did the following:

1) On May 9, 2016, during the pendency of his motion to strike the appeal on behalf of David Mokay and other defendants, Richard Harlem files an application for an order to show cause to withdraw in the Delaware County Supreme Court;

2) By filing that motion, Richard Harlem acted as if the order of Judge Dowd of June 12, 2015 made jurisdiction in Dowd's court non-final, and as if Judge Dowd has continued jurisdiction in the Mokay case in the trial court, because when jurisdiction of the court concludes, it concludes for all purposes, there is no point, nor legal grounds in making any motions any more, including a motion to withdraw from representation of anybody at that point.

In his application, Richard Harlem commits yet more fraud upon the court and perjury by claiming, under oath, the following:

Richard Harlem's Affidavit, p. 1:

Richard Harlem continues to claim, under oath, that he is an attorney for David Mokay, while David Mokay stated as of November of 2015, that Richard Harlem is not his attorney, never was his attorney, and that David Mokay never was a party in this action.

Richard Harlem then describes how my husband submitted David Mokay's affidavit to the appellate court - in opposition to Harlem's pending motion to dismiss the appeal on behalf of 6 purported plaintiffs, including David Mokay.

Then, Richard Harlem states, under oath, the following - page 2 paragraph 4:

Of course, signing, under oath, a substitution of attorney, would have been for David Mokay an equivalent of committing a double perjury and acknowledging that 

(1) Richard Harlem, in fact, did represent him, but David Mokay now releases him from that representation, and that 

(2) David is a party in the lawsuit and is going to proceed in the case as a pro se party after David Mokay allows Richard Harlem to withdraw.

Yet, in his affidavit David Mokay provided to Mr. Neroni which Mr. Neroni submitted to the Appellate Division, David Mokay claimed that he has never been a party to that lawsuit and has never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to represent him in the Mokay lawsuit.

I can give credit to David Mokay, a disabled individual without any legal training, who, according to Richard Harlem's affirmation, refused to sign that fraudulent "substitution of attorney".

Richard Harlem continues to lie by stating under oath the following:

page 2 paragraph 5:

Harlem is presenting the situation as if David Mokay is a capricious and stupid client who IS a party in the case, who does not want Richard Harlem to represent him in that case, but is stubborn and would not sign a substitution of attorney - so such substitution is required by court order.

Yet, the affidavit of David Mokay clearly shows that David Mokay asserts he never was a party in that case, and thus the court has no authority to rule that he IS the Plaintiff in the case where David Mokay claims he ISN'T, and NEVER WAS.

Richard Harlem's affidavit was sworn on May 9, 2016:

As I stated above, the problem of an application for an Order to Show Cause (motion) to withdraw at the level of Delaware County Supreme Court is that such motions to withdraw are made only in an ongoing case, in a case with an ongoing subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Which means, that Delaware County Supreme Court must still have subject matter jurisdiction in the Mokay case to review any new motions to withdraw from an ongoing proceeding.

Which means that the June 12, 2015 trial decision on damages by Judge Dowd should not be deemed non-final, in order for Judge Dowd to be able to review and resolve the motion.

But, Richard Harlem was arguing at the same time on a pending motion to the Appellate Division that the June 12, 2015 trial decision on damages IS final.

On May 13, 2016 Richard Harlem won the motion in the Appellate Division, and thus, obtained from the Appellate Division a decision that the June 12, 2015 trial decision on damages by Judge Dowd IS final.

Did Richard Harlem promptly notify Judge Dowd that Judge Dowd has lost jurisdiction over the case as of his decision of June 12, 2015, because of the ruling of the Appellate Division on Richard Harlem's request to the Appellate Division to deem Judge Dowd's June 12, 2015 order final and dismiss Mr. Neroni's appeal unless he corrects the record in compliance with rules applicable to appeals of final judgments?

Of course, not.

Let's look at our timeline again as to the yo-yo efforts to deem jurisdiction in the Mokay case in trial court, alternately, final and non-final - as Harlem did.

June 12, 2015 - Judge Dowd grants Richard Harlem's request to make subject matter jurisdiction of Delaware County Supreme Court in the Mokay case never-ending, non-final;

March, 2016 - Richard Harlem asks the Appellate Division to deem the June 12, 2015 decision of Judge Dowd a final decision in the case, for purposes of striking Mr. Neroni's perfected appeal;

May 9, 2016 - Richard Harlem makes a motion to withdraw from representation of David Mokay in Delaware County Supreme Court, which can only be done in cases with ongoing jurisdiction of the court, so Richard Harlem thus claims that the decision of June 12, 2015 was not final - at the same time as he was claiming in the Appellate Division that it was final;

May 13, 2016 - the Appellate Division grants Richard Harlem's motion dismissing Mr. Neroni's appeal because it did not comply with rules of the court applicable to final judgments;

May 13, 2016 - Judge Kevin Dowd signs the Order to Show Cause, acknowledging the Delaware County Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Mokay case and that the June 12, 2015 decision was non-final;

May 20, 2016 - instead of notifying Judge Kevin Dowd of the decision of Appellate Division granting Richard Harlem's request to deem Judge Dowd's June 12, 2015 decision as the final decision in the Mokay case in the Delaware County Supreme Court, thus ending jurisdiction of the Delaware County Supreme Court in the Mokay case as of June 12, 2015, Richard Harlem serves Mr. Neroni - no, not with the order of the Appellate Division that provided that the June 12, 2015 decision was final (according to request of Richard Harlem), but with the Order to Show Cause of Kevin Dowd which could only be made if the June 12, 2015 decision was non-final.

It is apparent that Richard Harlem, while trying to save his sorry hide and trying to persuade his remaining clients not to sue him for legal malpractice and fraud, trying to persuade disciplinary authorities not to disbar him and trying to persuade criminal authorities not to lock him up, has made complete idiots both of the appellate panel that ruled for him that Judge Dowd's June 12, 2015 decision is a final decision, and of Judge Dowd who ruled that the same decision is a non-final decision - and both courts did that at Harlem's request made in sworn affirmations or affidavits.

I wonder whether Richard Harlem will finally be picked up by the disciplinary authorities and/or by the feds with a criminal investigation and prosecution.

The fraud has to end, no matter how blue is the blood of the perpetrator.

For how long can this attorney be wasting taxpayer money and committing fraud in several courts against several people?

Is the blue blood of his deceased father and his connections so much stronger than the law?

Is the letterhead of Richard Harlem showing that his deceased father was a Supreme Court judge win over law, fairness and common sense?

Will Judge Dowd and appellate judges continue to bow to this completely incompetent attorney and will continue to make fools of themselves in order to please Richard Harlem and Senator Seward, tenant of Richard Harlem, and other political connections of Richard Harlem?

I also wonder whether David Mokay will oppose Harlem's pathetic perjurous affidavit and motion made without jurisdiction, or will he simply let it go and not file any opposition - because his affidavit of November 2, 2015 that Harlem provided for Dowd's review, already said it all, not requiring to add anything else, and because, based on the Appellate Division's decision of May 13, 2016, the Delaware County Supreme Court has no authority to review any motions at this time, because its order of June 12, 2015 was final, and no motion to vacate that order was made yet.

Let's see how Judge Dowd will rule this time.  I will publish his decision in this case, which becomes more and more entertaining.

Stay tuned.

On target practice against female attorneys: bash public defenders and civil rights attorneys, spare female judges who commit crimes, but "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit" in changing illegal rules instituted by men

I just put in a blog describing how female attorneys raising constitutional arguments for the poor are being handcuffed, arrested, embarrassed, humiliated, disrespected and strip-searched in front of male security guards and detainees.

There is a difference in treatment though if a woman commits a crime - but where the criminal is also a judge.

Enters Judge Janet Madonia Calano, an "outstanding woman", a judge and a licensed attorney who committed the crime of fraud and altering public records in 2011 and 2012.

On May 9, 2016, Judge Janet Madonia Calano, a part-time judge of a local court in Westchester County received the discipline of admonishment for delegating judicial decisions to a prosecutor, a local Deputy Town Attorney.

Here are the charges:

Judge Calano is a licensed attorney and remains a licensed attorney "with no record of public discipline", notwithstanding her fraud noted by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct (altering court record during investigation against her, adding her "approvals" to dispositions where she allowed the prosecutor to decide those cases).

Altering court records is a crime.  Doing that in order to create a false impression is also a fraud, which is also a crime

An admonishment?

No records of public discipline?

For committing two crimes?

Just because it is a judge and an attorney, and nobody wants to "mar her reputation" - even if she committed a crime?

And, since the local prosecutor expects the judge to rule in the prosecutor's favor, good luck waiting that Judge Calano will be investigated and prosecuted.

You know who did not investigate or prosecute Judge Calano for committing two crimes of altering court records and doing that with intent to defraud the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct?

Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore, an attorney who was elevated to Chief Judge of New York Courts.

The crime of alteration of public records and fraud was committed in 2012.

Commission of fraud in New York by a licensed attorney is an offense that leads to disbarment.

DA Janet DiFiore did not prosecute Judge Calano for fraud and alteration of public records in 2012, and let that 2-year statute of limitations for such a prosecution lapse.

The NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct was aware of misconduct of Janet DiFiore as a prosecutor, but still endorsed her for the seat of Chief Judge, and recently tossed two meritorious complaints against her without an explanation.

Yet, Judge DiFiore likely committed crimes before her elevation to the position of Chief Judge (and nobody wants to investigate or prosecute that) and did not stop in her corrupt efforts after her elevation.

If Chief Judge of New York State can be allowed to commit crime without any accountability, all other judges can follow suit.

Thanks to DA Janet DiFiore's non-prosecution, thanks to slap on the wrist by NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, thanks to inaction of attorney disciplinary committees, Attorney-Judge Calano can now continue altering court records and lying in court documents, as a judge, or as an attorney.

Judge Calano clearly stated to the Commission, by the way, that she, "as a woman", had other priorities in the first year of her judgeship than to make sure she follows the law:

Judge Calano, a licensed attorney, preferred not to learn what the applicable law is, and to "tread very lightly", "hold back a little bit" with respect of "making changes in the court" (in other words, in following lawful procedure rather than delegating judicial duties to prosecutors), and had "other priorities" than to follow the law, "including improving court security and learning about handling criminal matters".

I wonder whether Judge Calano told voters during her election campaign that making sure she acts lawfully in court proceedings was not on her list of priorities.

And that, being an "outstanding woman", and "senatorial woman of distinction" (according to Judge Calano's resume I will describe below), she would prefer to "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit", not to ire male prosecutors and the fellow male judge - while deciding cases pending in front of her personally.

After all, see what happens to women who do not "tread very lightly" and make pesky constitutional arguments to courts - they are suspended without a hearing, handcuffed, detained, strip-searched, you name it.

No, it's definitely better to "tread very lightly" and "hold back a little bit".

Judge Calano knows what she is talking about.

She is a survivor in the profession still dominated by old white males.

Most likely, Janet Calano's connections in such a lenient disciplinary sentence and in lack of criminal prosecution played a role.

Here is a resume of Judge Janet Calano.

The resume very clearly indicates that, in addition to what Janet Calano did wrong - and what she was admonished for - she also had undisclosed conflicts of interest in presiding over cases prosecuted by a Town of Eastchester Deputy attorney, as a prosecutor, while having ties to the executive and legislative part of the government of the Town of Eastchester, in addition to be the Town judge.

Judge Calano prides herself on having "redrafted" the Zoning Code of the Town of Eastchester and for being an Executive Board Recording Secretary for the "Eastchester School Foundation".

Two many hats for a judge, don't you think?

Calano is also a very "outstanding woman", according to her own resume:

You can't take a "Senatorial Woman of Distinction" and an "Outstanding Woman in the Community" off the bench, disbar her and prosecute her for criminal conduct.

You simply can't.

There are civil rights attorneys and public defenders to be bashed out there, just don't touch connected "outstanding women" committing crimes on the bench.

Protection of the public be doomed.

Bashing attorneys for the poor as a norm in American Courts? #MaleChauvinistPig Galore: handcuffing public defenders, episodes 1 through 3 - and still no disciplinary proceedings for Nevada Judge Conrad Hafen

I wrote two days ago about the outrageous incident where a judge in Nevada, white elderly male (ugly - it's the truth) Christian judge handcuffed a young female beautiful immigrant darker-skin attorney, a public defender, for allegedly "talking over him" when he was "making a ruling",  because she was following her duty and trying to put in additional argument and make the record for appeal against incarceration of her poor client BEFORE the judge made his ruling.

As of today, I did not find any information that any disciplinary proceedings were started against Judge Conrad Hafen.

Yet, there was a report indicating that Judge Hafen never criticized her before he had her handcuffed (while lying that he had problems with her in the previous 6 months), and that Judge Hafen was, in fact, "very complimentary" about attorney Zohra Bakhtary in his conversations with other attorneys.

Reports Judge Hafen's secret compliments to Ms. Bakhtary only confirm my suspicion that having her handcuffed had nothing to do with what she did in court, and had everything to do with her youth, beauty and sex appeal to the aging (and ugly) judge.

Yet, there appeared an article where the author agreed with me that what occurred appeared to be an intentional discrimination against women - and against public defenders - and that the court system thus demonstrated its contempt for the poor through its contempt for those who represent the poor.

The article cites to two other episodes - in D.C. in 2007 and in California in 2015 where the same was done to - "coincidentally" - female public defenders for constitutional arguments in court on behalf of the poor.

Here are the parties in D.C. and California cases.

D.C.:

The judge - John B. Bayly, Jr. 


Judge Bayly is white.

Judge Bayly is Catholic - judging by the Catholic wedding ceremony of her daughter in 2009.


By the way, Judge Bayly was sued, by a dark-skinned man, Henok Araya, for religious discrimination - and the lawsuit dismissed only o contrived judicially created grounds - because in a child custody proceedings he awarded custody to the parent of his own religion, Catholic, specifically allowed questioning about the opposing parent's religion and made his determination of custody, apparently, because he personally preferred children to be raised in his own faith.

Judge John B. Bayly, Jr. is reportedly a member of the American Inn of Court, a secret organization, funded by legal elite, providing free perks to judges.

In 2015 Judge Bayly requested a reappointment as a Senior Superior Court Judge of D.C. Court.

Apparently, Judge Bayly was reppointed - to a misdemeanor court, where he "serves" until present time.

In regards to the case of handcuffing, unlawful detention and strip-search of female public defender Liyah K. Brown, Judge Bayly was only "reprimanded" for that - just reprimanded, for "intemperate conduct".

Judge Bayly's reasons for the order were exactly the same as Judge Hafen's:

So, a public defender was "oppositional and defiant" in arguing about this:

Here is the full order of reprimand of judge John H. Bayly, Jr.  It mentions an "intrusive patdown search", but does not mention that Ms. Brown was actually strip-searched, as her lawsuit against the guard says.  And, even though the guard was less liable than the judge who ordered Ms. Brown's ordeal, the judge escaped with a slap on the wrist and continues to be a judge.


Don't be a bad boy, judge, the order of reprimand for "intemperate conduct" said, don't have those naughty female public defenders handcuffed, detained and strip-searched in the presence of a male deputy marshall.  I wonder whether the creep watched the court security video of the strip-search, too, he certainly had access to it as a judge.  There is no indication that the Judicial Conduct Commission checked into judge's being a potential sexual predator in the courtroom.  Judges who are sexual predators are routinely protected from discipline and are allowed to continue to "serve".

The public defender who "talked over" judge Bayly in making a constitutional argument for her poor and homeless client was Liyah K. Brown, an '04 law school graduate, just 3 years out of law school at the time, reportedly a Soros Criminal Justice Fellow, a young, bright and dedicated public defender.

Her dedication to her homeless client, apparently, earned her a handcuffing, a detention and a strip-search.

I will give credit to her colleagues, attorneys who reportedly started to wear red armbands to the courthouse, in solidarity with Ms. Brown.


Ms. Brown filed a lawsuit against the security guard for strip search and unlawful detention, but the guard died mid-litigation - and, of course, the main culprit, the judge, was unreachable by lawsuit because the judiciary gave itself a gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

It is obvious that the main reason for handcuffing, detaining and strip-searching Ms. Brown, a young woman, in front of men was to humiliate and embarrass her - and, possibly, for the judge to have an opportunity to see her naked body on the court security cameras.

California:

In California, no judge was involved (at least no involvement by a judge was disclosed), but a female public defender Jami Tillotson was arrested by male police officers when she objected to interrogation of her client in protection of her client's 5th Amendment rights.

All of the three attorneys share the same traits:

• they were female;
• they were public defenders;
• they protected constitutional rights of the poor.

Even President Obama has recently succumbed to bashing of public defenders and did not nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court a judge who was a public defender, based on false accusations against her in the press which were easily verifiable as false.

And, in view of what happened to female public defenders Liyah K. Brown, Jami Tillotson, Zohra Bahtary, the recent claim of "Justice" Sonya Sotomayor for the need to mandate pro bono representation of the poor appears as even more of a hypocrisy.  

"Justice" Sonya Sotomayor maintains self-given judicial immunity for herself and for other judges for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, and at the same time wants to mandate representation of the poor by all lawyers, while knowing the degree of contempt, disrespect and attorney-bashing of criminal defense and civil rights attorneys who already represent the poor, and while regularly tossing appeals of such attorneys when they are punished for criticizing such judges and punished for raising constitutional arguments on behalf of the poor in court.

Such behavior by Judge Sotomayor is an act of ultimate hypocrisy.  

What is happening to public defenders, especially female public defenders who are trying to do their jobs for the poor properly - even while being underfunded and overworked - is sending a message that lawyers representing the poor can and likely will be subjected to any kind of embarrassment and humiliation by the courts for doing their jobs properly - and that judges will be "immune" from punishment and protected by the system.

That is not exactly encouraging for attorneys to provide quality representation for the poor.

It is encouraging such attorneys to do the opposite - sell their clients out.  After all, they cannot sue them for malpractice, being the poor.  In New York the poor cannot sue their criminal defense attorney (mainly assigned) unless they overturn the conviction, even if the conviction is obtained through poor representation.  Quite an incentive to sell out poor clients...

At this background, "Justice" Sonya Sotomayor claims that she believes that slave lawyers will still be providing good representation to the poor "out of professional pride", seems like an even bigger hypocrisy.

Try exercising you professional pride and providing proper representation for the poor, for payment or especially for free, knowing that, if you are a female, and especially if you are a young and pretty female, you may be spotted by some old white pig judge, ordered handcuffed, put into a cell, your breasts will be bared in front of men there, and the judge and his whole entourage will be watching your naked body over security cameras.

And, very likely, your law license may be stripped if you persist in your "frivolous" constitutional arguments on behalf of the poor, you will be blackballed from any decent employment for life, as it happens to many attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticizing the judiciary - and any other licensing in the increasingly licensed labor market of this country will be denied to you, too.

And, if your license is stripped,  "Justice" Sotomayor will make it prohibitively expensive and burdensome for you to appeal to her court, even if you are pursued by a creepy judge like judges Hafen and Bayly, and will toss your petition without an explanation, preferring instead to review cases that will get her sensational reviews and gratitude from wealthy parties. 

Knowing all that, I wonder, how much of "professional pride" will motivate you then to properly represent the poor.

What is deemed a grave injustice in Russia is business as usual - for decades - in the U.S. criminal "injustice" system

In 2014, a Russian blogger Andrey Luchnikov wrote an article about the then-pending Legislative Bill to promote the use of plea bargains in criminal proceedings.

Since the article, very critical of that legislation, warns as grave injustice of what is already happening in the United States, for decades, I decided to translate the article for my readers, in full.

For those of my readers who know Russian, here is a link to the original:

Here is the translation.

===
Andrey Luchnikov

PROOF IS NO LONGER NEEDED TO INCARCERATE A CITIZEN OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

January 5, 2014

The government has prepared a legislative bill which experts call "a nail in the coffin" of criminal justice and the entire justice system of this country.

Not many observers, including domestic and foreign political or social science researchers would call the Russian Federation a state that is friendly to its citizens.

There is recurrent criticism in the press toward the Russian courts, the repressive legislation and the "dirty" way cases are decided: the percentage of acquittals by Russian courts is one of the lowest in the world, while the number of convicted inmates in Russia is comparable with the Stalin-time USSR while the current Russian population is nowhere near the USSR's population levels.

Anyway, as an unnamed optimist justly stated, the situation cannot be so bad that it cannot be made even worse.  While the Russian media was informing our citizens about the details of successful preparation for the Olympic Games in Sochi, and about the fight with the propaganda of pedophilia, as well as with the Vietnamese, the Algerians and the Syrians, who suddenly became the main illegals in our country - a legislative bill importance and seriousness of which is difficult to underestimate has been born in the peace and quiet of governmental offices. 

Proof is no longer needed

As it goes with all serious documents, the new law has a deliberately vague name:  "On introduction of changes into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation" - a characterization that says nothing not only to an average lay individual, but also to professional attorneys.  At least, until a person starts to read the text of the new bill.

In the bill, the government proposes to expand through statutory law the use of the "special court procedure", covering with that expansion the majority of the Criminal Code articles of the Russian Federation.  It is being done, as the legislative sponsors of the bill explain, to "cut the costs from the federal budget spent on review of cases on the merits and on court appearances of participants in criminal cases", as well as to "significantly reduce the time spent by courts on review of criminal cases".

In other words, as observers believe, Russian authorities want to save on investigation, the same way as before that they saved on education, science, medical care and some other areas of life.

The special procedure for review of cases is a simplified procedure where a criminal defendant is convicted in one court appearance.  The court does not review the proof collected by the investigation and does not invite witnesses.  The accused, in his turn, agrees with the investigation, acknowledges the accusation in the way it is presented by the investigator and approved of by the prosecutor.  The accused is offered, in lieu of "candy", a more lenient sentence than during a regular court proceedings - not more than 2/3 of the maximum term allowed by the charged criminal statute.

To encourage this practice, the government suggests to cover an expanded list of criminal statutes with the special procedures and to extend such special procedures to cases with maximum terms of incarceration up to 15 years in prison.

At this time, the "ceiling" of such simplified procedure is 10 years. 

Farewell, the Sherlock Holmes-es!

Attorney Sergey Afanasiev believes that "if this law is enacted, 80% of all criminal cases will be reviewed through the "special procedure".  Such a law is a gift to investigation and prosecution: they do no have to bother themselves with tactics, methodologies and problems.  Just get an agreement with the accused - and that's all.  Criminology has ended, cases do not have to be investigated any more."

Attorney Yuri Novolodsky agrees with his colleague.  "If the scope of cases where courts do not have to review the proof is expanded, then, as the authors of the explanatory note for the bill correctly write, there will be a lot of savings of federal monies.  The special procedure allows a court not to review the proof at all", explained the lawyer.

Attorney Novolodsky also notes that the court must take a strict critical position toward every proof produced by the investigation and prosecution.  In this respect, passing the new law, as the criminal defender believes, will become a funeral service to justice.

The special procedure for review of cases was first introduced in the Russian Federation in 2009.  Since then, investigative authorities worked out a special tactic for investigation of "unprovable" cases.  As Attorney Sergey Afanasiev explains, "they caught four people, the investigation does nothing and is waiting who will confess first.  The person who gave testimony because of agreement with the investigators, gets review of his case by special procedure, where the case is severed out into a separate criminal case".  Under such procedure, co-defendants or accomplices are not present at the special proceedings and do not have an opportunity to oppose or rebutt the person's testimony.

After the first court proceedings are over, the investigation returns to the "silent" co-defendants, and the conviction of their co-defendant is used as evidence against them.  Naturally, such defendants have no chance of acquittal under the circumstances.

The observers note that one of the most sensational recent cases - "the case of Kirovles" - was built according to this scheme.  The conviction to the candidate for the Moscow Mayor's position Alexey Navalniy and to businessman Piotr Ofitserov was made on the basis of testimony of ex-director of "Kirovles" Vyacheslav Opalev who was previously convicted through a "special procedure".

Justice through torture is not at all the thing of the past

Some observers give an even grimmer prognosis.  According to them, incentives to get a self-surrender, confession and a plea bargain with the prosecution will lead the Russian court system to a horrible metamorphosis.

As Russian journalist Michael Belyaev writes, "It turns out that the best investigator will be a deranged sadist in whose capable hands anybody will take upon himself all sins of this world.  And the best judge will be the one who will develop a skill of typing up within two minutes' time on his computer the text of a conviction and to sputter it out, not concerning himself in the process about the issues of guilt or innocence.  This is not the end of criminology, as experts say, it is the end of justice.  From the staged Theater of the Absurd, Russian courts will turn into a factory conveyor that rubber-stamps convictions and broken lives every hour". 

Attorneys note that while the new law about special procedures was introduced only in 2009, or relatively recently, already now in provincial areas the majority of criminal cases are reviewed following the "special procedure".  It is not difficult to surmise what will be the result of a law that would allow to resolve practically all cases like that, including murders, criminal enterprises and terrorism.

===

One of the commentators to the article said, in part, this (I will skip the insults in this comment and will translate only what is relevant for the American criminal justice system):

Translation: 

"BECAUSE these changes are taken one-to-one from procedures of American courts and are introduced in Russia as part of American colonial procedures, same as practically all the "reforms".

In the U.S. such a procedure is called "plea bargaining".  The accused is pressured with threats of maximum prison terms for 3 to 4 criminal charges (in the U.S. criminal justice practice such maximum terms are arithmetically added up, and the practice of overcharging is absolutely brazen).  When the accused "admits" his guilt of what the prosecution wants him to admit, he is given a "discount" (as compared with the blackmail), and the judge approves "the bargain" through his decision."

==
Apart from the quite paranoid accusation that anything wrong introduced in Russia which is similar to what we have here in the U.S. must be the "colonial conspiracy" of Americans to enslave Russia, and with the correction that not all maximum terms are "arithmetically added up" - there are consecutive and concurrent prison terms, consecutive when crimes charged were committed on a separate occasion or involve a separate set of elements of the crime, concurrent when several charges are based on the same factual occurrence with overlapping elements - both the article and the comment describes what we already have in the U.S.

No proof is needed for a coerced plea bargain.  The same tactic is used to break up one of the co-defendants, creating a "plea bargain race" - who will rat on the co-defendant first, gets the best break - and courts accepting convictions through plea bargains do not review proof and do not know whether the person who is pleading guilty actually did what he says he did.

Threats to coerce plea bargain are common - most common are threats to ask a maximum incarceration.  For example, a 2-year sentence is offered where the maximum is 15 years in prison, and for some people such a risk is simply too high to take, so the innocent plead guilty without ever having committed any crimes.

According to official statistics in the U.S., 95% of criminal cases in this country are resolved by plea bargaining, so courts never reviewed proof, and we the taxpayers who fund this system, do not know whether the overwhelming majority of those who populate state and federal prisons are actually guilty of the charges.

Add the hugely profitable for-profit prisons, see here and here, to those 95% of people who are in those prisons, but whose guilt was never established through proof in court, and you have the answer why such a system exists - for decades.

Slave labor source.