"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.

Monday, March 2, 2015

When the NYS Attorney General's hats get confused, or why do taxpayers pay money to the Assistant Attorney General Michael Danaher?

I received recently a transcript from a civil proceeding where I raised an issue of constitutionality of a certain court rule.

When a litigant raises the issue of constitutionality of a statute or court rule, the New York State Attorney General must be given notice of that challenge.

I did serve the New York State Attorney General with that challenge.

NYS Attorney General appeared in the action through his Assistant Attorney General Michael Danaher who, according to data collected by, has a base salary of $123,930.00 per year (not counting benefits) and who has actually received in 2014 (the year when the challenge was heard) $122,401, according to the same source.

Michael Danaher filed an opposition to my motion where he did not even mention the issue of constitutionality, the only reason why the Attorney General was called into that action.

At the oral argument on the motion, Michael Danaher appeared in person (paid for his travel and for his "work" by taxpayers), and presented to the court the following arguments:

Once again, Michael Danaher said that he came to court that day "representing the OCA" (the Office of Court Administration) and "the judiciary" and "to support the integrity of court orders", while he was called into the case for the ONLY reason of supporting or opposing a challenge to constitutionality of a court rule or statute.

Mr. Danaher's office is and has been at the time of the motion hearing, in Binghamton, NY. shows that Michael Danaher had to spend approximately 3 hours roundtrip to come to Delhi, NY to tell the court that he "represents the OCA and the judiciary", has come to "support integrity of court orders" (when the only reason he was brought into the action by notice was a challenge of constitutionality of a court rule), and he came to court without any intention of making any arguments.

So, you, ladies and gentlemen, taxpayers of the State of New York, paid your taxes to fund Mr. Danaher's joy ride over the scenic Catskill mountains in June of 2014, and that included wear and tear on his car, gas, and the high salary that Mr. Danaher paid that day and the previous days when Mr. Danaher put in oppositions to my motion without having a clue as to why he was even called into the case.

Moreover, Michael Danaher made that trip to claim he is there in support of "integrity of judicial orders".

He meant the order by which Judge Becker, after I sued him for misconduct, showered several sanctions upon me, in Neroni v. Harlem included, and in Neroni v. Harlem the sanctions were imposed by a judge who was a witness and a co-conspirator in a case (the case asserted a conspiracy with a judge behind Mr. Neroni's back, during proceedings where Mr. Neroni was not a party, to influence the Mokay v. Mokay proceedings due to which Mr. Neroni was prematurely disbarred in 2011 while the case is ongoing to this day).

It was an order by the judge who already granted to Richard Harlem's client the Estate legal fees from the Mokay litigation claimed as damages in the Mokay action, behind Mr. Neroni's back, so Judge Becker was not supposed to be anywhere near the case involving his own misconduct as a participant in that conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, in that case Judge Becker punished me for - guess - quoting contents of public pleadings of Michael Danaher's colleague from the same office, Mary Walsh, another Assistant Attorney General from the Binghamton office.

The pleadigns referred to the fact that Richard Harlem's and his father Robert Harlem's attempts to commit fraud upon the court are nowhere to be an accident or mistake, but that there is a pattern of similar conduct, as evidenced by Michael Danaher's colleague's investigation of this father-son pair of attorneys in the Blanding case, see the actual open-court pleadings of Michael Danaher's colleague Mary Walsh for quoting which I was sanctioned by Judge Becker as "invading privacy" and "harassing" Robert Harlem and Richard Harlem.

So - the "integrity of the court orders" that Michael Danaher appeared to support (even though he was called into the case for a completely different reason) was to make sure that nobody overturns a retaliatory and unconstitutional order of Judge Becker, a witness in the proceeding over which he was presiding and who sanctioned me for absolutely legal conduct, quoting public records as proof that actions of defendants charged in Neroni v. Harlem (fraud and fraud upon the court) were not an accident or mistake, but happened prior.

If that is how Mr. Danaher and other public servants in the State of New York do their jobs, there is no wonder why New York is in a permanent budgetary crisis.

People of the State of New York need to cut the waste of public funds. 

Start that cut with cutting useless workers like Michael Danaher.

No comments:

Post a Comment