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 seethroughny.net, 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.
The hearing was held on June 19, 2014 at 3 Court Street, Delhi, New York, where the Delaware County Supreme Court is located.
Mapquest.com 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.
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