"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.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Will Richard Harlem NOW be disbarred for fraud upon the court? A stunning sworn confession of a Mokay plaintiff, Daniel Mokay

Today I received a stunning piece of evidence that undermines the Mokay v. Mokay lawsuit.

What I found amazing is the first affirmative defense, paragraph 2 at the bottom:

Even more interesting is that the Verified Answer was verified by Zelda R. Smith, legal assistant to Richard Harlem, on May 6, 2015:

Of course, Daniel Mokay is not a "Defendant" in his individual capacity in this lawsuit, he was brought into the lawsuit only as Executor for the Estate of decedent, and there is no way to sue the decedent for contribution other than through suing his Estate.

Two days before the date when Daniel Mokay made the above shown sworn statement through his attorney Michael Breene, stating under oath that the action in Mokay v Mokay was brought because of wrongdoing of the Estate's decedent Andrew Mokay
Daniel Mokay fraudulently asked another court, through his attorney Richard Harlem, for the following relief (attached is a snippet from the draft of the order proposed by Daniel Mokay through his counsel Richard Harlem):

I say "fraudulently" because the Estate could not possibly incur the same amount of legal fees (claimed as damages) as the other five plaintiffs in the action, for the simple reason that the Estate was not a party to the Mokay action from June 2007 (the commencement of the Mokay action) to March 2008.  

Moreover, on May 4, 2015 Daniel Mokay made yet another sworn statement in his verified response to my husband's petition to stay distribution in the Estate of Andrew Mokay due to Mr. Neroni's action for contribution against the decedent:

This is the statement from the January 22, 2015 decision that Mr. Neroni (and I as his counsel) allegedly misinterpreted:

So, on May 4, 2015 Daniel Mokay made a sworn statement that Mr. Neroni "misinterpreted" the statement in the decision of the Appellate Division 3rd Department clearly describing three people to be part of the alleged conspiracy to commit fraud in the Mokay action, one of them clearly being the decedent:

Yet, on May 6, 2015, through his other attorney Michael Breen, in another action, Daniel Mokay makes a diametrically opposite sworn statement, that it is the decedent's actions, together with the alleged actions of Mr. Neroni that "caused harm to the beneficiaries of the estate", and Daniel Mokay even specified what kind of harm he is accusing his own decedent (and father off) - that his father "took from the beneficiaries property which he was obliged to give them".

In other words, Daniel Mokay both accuses his own father (whose legal representative Daniel Mokay is, as the Executor of his Estate) of stealing property, but he also asserts that the Mokay action was an action for interference with prospective rights of inheritance of the Estate's beneficiaries - a non-existent cause of action in New York.

Also, when Daniel Mokay states that "the Executor and the estate are faultless with respect to the Plaintiff's claims", Daniel Mokay (and his attorney) apparently pretend they do not understand that the Plaintiff has no other way of bringing a contribution action against the deceased but to sue his estate - that is the legal way of how it is done in the State of New York.

So, on May 4, 2015 Daniel Mokay claimed, under oath, in two actions (Mokay and petition-to-stay-distribution) that the decedent did not commit any wrongdoings and was not a tortfeasor in the Mokay action.

Two days later, on May 6, 2015, Daniel Mokay claimed in a third action, also under oath, and without notifying the other two courts of his sudden change of heart, that the decedent did, indeed, commit wrongdoing "against beneficiaries of the Estate".

First, the Mokay action was commenced in June of 2007 on behalf of five children of the decedent as beneficiaries under a contract to make a will, not as beneficiaries of the Estate, and Daniel Mokay's attorney Richard Harlem argued that on Daniel Mokay's behalf to Judge Garry in October of 2007.

By the way, the contract to make a will was, by the time of commencement of the Mokay action, rejected by probate court in May of 2007.

Second, the five beneficiaries under the decedent's oral contract to make a will, Daniel Mokay one of them (which the children are claiming the decedent has breached) sued the decedent's widow Connie Mokay, who was also a beneficiary under the contract to make a will.

So, if Daniel Mokay is now saying that the Estate, represented by Richard Harlem, was suing on behalf of beneficiaries of the Estate, an untenable situation arose where 

  1. the Estate, legal reprsentative of the decedent, could not sue on behalf of the Estate's beneficiaries on the basis of wrongdoing of its own decedent, 
  2. Estate could not sue on behalf of five beneficiaries against its other beneficiary, the decedent's widow; and
  3. if Estate was representing the interests of the estate's beneficiaries in the Mokay action (which was not part of the 2nd Amended Complaint, by the way), then individual lawsuits by the beneficiaries could not be allowed by the court, and ALL of that is new evidence for new motions to be brought in the Mokay action, to vacate any fraudulently obtained judgments.  
And, by the way, since Daniel Mokay now admitted under oath that the lawsuit was on behalf of beneficiaries of the Estate, which included the decedent's widow Connie Mokay, a co-defendant in the action, it appears that Richard Harlem represented in the Mokay action EVERBODY except Mr. Neroni, two defendants and five plaintiffs

I simply don't see how Mr. Harlem can keep his law license after this confession of Daniel Mokay.

And now let's review a sticky equal protection of laws issue.

Mr. Neroni was disbarred for alleged fraud upon the court - without a hearing - with a collateral estoppel attached to a partial summary judgment in an action where the conflict of interest was denied by Judge Fitzgerald, but is now reasserted with new force by the Appellate Division's January 22, 2015 decision and by admission under oath by Daniel Mokay sworn to on May 6, 2015.

So, will Mr. Neroni's order of disbarment will NOW be vacated? 

And will Richard Harlem (and attorneys who helped him) be finally disbarred for openly committing fraud upon the court and for stubbornly pursuing a frivolous lawsuit for 8 years?

No comments:

Post a Comment