Maybe, it is a rhethorical question.
Maybe, not - who knows, maybe - just maybe - an honest judge will appear somewhere on the horizon, look at the law, the facts, the court's own precedents and - WOW - do what the court was supposed to do 8 (!) years ago - end the Mokay saga, dismiss the case with sanctions against Richard Harlem, his law firms and his clients for frivolous conduct, and with attorney fees and damages to my husband throughout all related litigations:
1) Mokay v. Mokay;
2) Neroni v. Harlem;
3) Neroni v. Becker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Maybe, finally, somebody will answer for the grief, stress, loss of business and reputation, financial losses caused by this 8-year-long litigation to my husband and to our family?
And maybe - just maybe - Richard Harlem will be disbarred for:
(1) buying my husband's disciplinary prosecutor John Casey by having his law firm accept Richard Harlem and his father retired (now late) judge Robert Harlem as John Casey's law firm's paying clients at the time my husband turned them in for John Casey's Committee's investigation and prosecution;
(2) using his own and his father's political influence to get a frivolous litigation going for 8 years in at least two courts (Delaware County Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Department).
Well, let's hope against hope.
But - I was just alerted to a case where NYS Appellate Division Third Judicial Department made a following decision in 2013, 2 years after disbarring my husband:
- that it is a conflict of interest subject to discipline for an attorney to represent at the same time a trust and trust's beneficiaries.
Richard Harlem, son of a judge, and his law firm Harlem and Harlem, and now somehow Harlem and Jervis (without consent to change counsel, but who cares when it is a retired judge's law firm) represents in Mokay v. Mokay the Estate AND the Estate's beneficiaries.
And it represents the Estate while the beneficiaries claim that the decedent (the Estate) defrauded them in collusion with my husband (so the Estate must be a Defendant in the lawsuit, but was joined as a Plaintiff because Richard Harlem obviously could not represent both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in the same action).
And it represents the Estate and David Mokay while David Mokay is suing the Estate in a related proceedings.
And it represents the Estate and David Mokay while the Estate evicted David Mokay in a related proceeding from the very property that both the Estate and David Mokay claim to the Delaware County Supreme Court my husband stripped him both of title and possession (with no proof that the deeds were ever delivered - so title never passed, and David Mokay was obviously in possession and was dispossessed BY THE CO-PLAINTIFF THE ESTATE).
But, on the other hand - how can we follow the law and dismiss litigation with such glaring conflicts of interest when the only damages claimed are ATTORNEY FEES OF RICHARD HARLEM and his law firm?
If Richard Harlem is conflicted - they can claim no damages, because attorney fees are forfeited, and the case should be dismissed!
How can we stand that?
If the case is dismissed, the premature disbarment will have to be overturned!
Frederick J. Neroni, the leading trial attorney in the area until his disbarment of July 7, 2011 and Richard Harlem main competitor will then have to be reinstated!
Richard Harlem, landlord of NYS Senator James Seward, and son of a judge, cannot have that.
Richard Harlem, the "star" of the Blanding saga who was investigated by the NYS Attorney General for fraud upon the court, along with his father, the retired judge, and who blatantly lied in the recent hearing in Mokay v. Mokay under oath that he was never so investigated - cannot have that!
Kevin Dowd, the presiding judge against whom I recently filed yet another complaint and who my husband sued for misconduct - cannot have that.
Kevin Dowd who thinks that Richard Harlem cannot be impeached as a witness because his word is presumptively credible and controls - apparently, even if he commits open perjury - cannot have that.
That is Kevin Dowd who talks of urinals in his honor during divorce proceedings raising questions about his mental stability - cannot have that, he imposed an anti-filing injunction upon Mr. Neroni to prevent him from being able to make any motions to vacate and to subject him to a gruelling and unnecessary trial in an obviously frivolous litigation.
That is Kevin Dowd who talks about his "meager bucks" as a salary in front of indigent pro se litigants.
That is Kevin Dowd who harasses indigent pro se litigants and calls them "dangerous persons" merely for making a meritorious motion to recuse - while the judge actually recused.
That is Kevin Dowd who will soon retire and needs Judge Michael Coccoma to give him perks like lucrative hearing officer appointment - which will likely not happen if:
- Kevin Dowd does not become Kevin The Closer,
- avenges for Judge Coccoma Mr. Neroni's lawsuit against Judge Coccoma and his wife, as well as my recent complaint against Judge Coccoma;
- brings the frivolous Mokay litigation to a judgment against Mr. Neroni by blocking admissible evidence, harassing Mr. Neroni and his counsel and blocking Mr. Neroni from filing any pre-trial motions, including a motion to vacate based on the new law in the Appellate Division.
What won't judges and their friends - politically connected attorneys - would not do to appease their vengeance and to give each other bounties such as legal fees claimed by Richard Harlem as damages for his conflicted representation.
But - who knows - maybe the law will actually be applied in the Mokay case? Maybe, the conflict of interest of Richard Harlem that a first law student can spot will finally be recognized by the courts? Timely? Before the unnecessary jury trial on damages/attorney fees that Richard Harlem has forfeited by his conflicted representation?
Is the rule of law possible in a case where a son of a judge wants money, no matter lawfully or not, and wants to prevent a professional from re-entering competition against Richard Harlem?