I will start with the identity of the chosen trial stenographer, her ties to Judge Dowd's court personnel and interesting omissions the stenographer made in the transcript she provided to me.
Normally, a stenographer in a trial must be a neutral person, for obvious reasons - the transcript, noting testimony and admission or rejection of evidentiary exhibits is the ONLY source of information about the underlying court proceedings available on appeal, and must come from a neutral, disinterested party.
For that reason, the stenographer should not be a friend of any parties in the action - or of a judge or judge's court personnel.
A stenographer should not be a friend of any witnesses subpoenaed in a trial either.
Furthermore, normally, a stenographer must note appearances of parties as well as counsel on the front page of the transcript.
That makes a difference in determining whether a certain party was in default by not coming to the proceedings or not.
Normally, a stenographer must provide the following table of contents as part of the transcript:
- Of any direct or cross-examination of witnesses;
- A list of exhibits introduced at trial with a short description of each exhibit. It is the stenographer's duty to mark each exhibit before it is introduced at trial, and the stenographer makes a list of exhibits for the transcript at trial.
It is the normal practice of stenographers in courts in the State of New York, and I personally observed stenographer Brenda Friedel (as well as other stenographers) create a list of exhibits as she marked exhibits in various trials in which I participated as counsel, and then see the list of admitted exhibits in transcripts created by Brenda Friedel, the trial stenographer in the ex parte Mokay trial.
Something prevented Brenda Friedel from doing her job properly in the Mokay case and creating a list of trial exhibits though - or a table of contents.
In the Mokay case that I've been describing on this blog (see my blog post the Mokay saga, or you can run the work "Mokay" in the search window of this blog) and in several of my previous posts this month, the following "irregularities" occurred:
The stenographer chosen by the judge (because nothing happens in Judge Dowd's court without his permission or choice) was Brenda Friedel.
Brenda Friedel is a Facebook friend of Judge Dowd's law clerk Claudette Newman.
Judge Dowd, Claudette Newman and Judge Dowd's secretary Brenda Beckwith were subpoenaed witnesses at the Mokay trial.
The stenographer Brenda Friedel provided a transcript to me of the Mokay trial that did not contain these required features:
(1) appearances of parties - it contained only appearances of "trial counsel";
Compare with the front page of a hearing in the same Mokay case where appearances of parties were noted as required by law and as is the usual practice of New York courts. The stenographer in June, 2014 trial was not a Facebook friend of Claudette Newman - and she did the right thing by indicating appearances of parties, as well as of attorneys.
Given that a court observer from the public was misled by the court personnel into believing that the Mokay trial is over when she came to the courthouse at 11:00 am when the trial was going on as a bench trial (non-jury trial), and thus was prevented from observing the trial, I have a right to claim that the plaintiffs were not present in the proceedings.
Failure of plaintiffs to show up at their own trial on damages required a dismissal of the case. Not that Judge Dowd cared.
2) Lack of table of contents.
The transcript provided to me by Brenda Friedel, of a trial on damages no less, contained no table of contents whatsoever. In fact, any transcript of any hearing must contain such a table of contents, including a list of exhibits introduced at trial.
3) Lack of the list of exhibits admitted at trial.
You can read in my previous post containing links to audio recordings of my communications with the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk's office that Judge Dowd ordered the court clerk not to release to me the list of exhibits, or disclose to me contents of trial exhibits that were admitted at the Mokay trial - either before he made a decision based on those Exhibits, or after the decision was made.
The exhibits, as I stated in my previous posts, contained of pleadings in the case that were to be marked by the Plaintiffs' counsel and filed with the court several days before trial, and made available for my review - which did not happen.
Apparently, Judge Dowd makes his own rules in "his own" court of which he obviously considers himself a king.
But, a court with the regular rules not followed and with "rules" instead spontaneously made by the judge, and a judge subpoenaed as a hostile trial witness by a defendant is not a court - it is a Star Chamber.
And, the situation with the stenographer, the transcript and with non-reporting and hiding the trial exhibits and their description and contents, indicates that the main trial rule of Judge Dowd is - control the stenographer for the party you are favoring.
Which suggests to me that Judge Dowd had a stake in the outcome of the proceeding, and I am going to ask the feds to investigate, what kind of stake that was.
Apparently, state authorities in the State of New York are unable - or unwilling - to curb judicial misconduct and corruption, so maybe, just maybe, the feds will.
Post a Comment