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

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

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

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

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

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Will the Mokay case be reversed and my husband's law license reinstated based on the newly-minted law by the 3rd Department?

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:

  1.  Kevin Dowd does not become Kevin The Closer, 
  2. avenges for Judge Coccoma Mr. Neroni's lawsuit against Judge Coccoma and his wife, as well as my recent complaint against Judge Coccoma;
  3. 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.
That is Kevin Dowd who was re-elected without opposition because no attorney dared to air their concerns for fear of retaliation from Judge Dowd.

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?

No comments:

Post a Comment