"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, August 17, 2015

The Mokay saga continues. The hilarious incompetence and misconduct of Judge David H. Guy in admittedly presiding in court to which he was never assigned and from which the case was removed

Today I received by e-mail pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the decision by Judge Guy made in Surrogate's Court in my client's (and husband's) case.  

I will post what I received anyway, and will add pages 2, 4 and 6 when I receive them.

I wrote about this case, with documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy in this case, see here, here, here, here, here and here

The linked prior blogs contain ample documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy attempting to block my husband lawful claim to stop distribution (looting) of Andrew Mokay's Estate pending resolution of his lawsuit against the Estate under Article 14 of the CPLR for contribution, and to make Richard Harlem and his law firm return money they were paid out so far to the Estate to make the Estate be able to meet its obligations TO ALL creditors and beneficiaries including:

1/ Creditor David Mokay - with a claim against the Estate (represented by Richard Harlem) of $95,000 while Richard Harlem claims he represented David Mokay in the Supreme Court in a related action, for which New York law completely disqualifies Richard Harlem (an attorney cannot represent clients who sue one another in related actions) - but who in the judicial system cares about the law when the Neronis are concerned;

2/ Creditor Frederick J. Neroni - since the Appellate Division included the decedent Andrew Mokay into the "trio" of tortfeasors, Mr. Neroni has an absolute right, provided to him by law, to sue the Estate of Andrew Mokay (represented NOT by Richard Harlem in the lawsuit for contribution, please, take notice) for contribution and/or indemnification, Article 14 of the CPLR;

3/ disinherited decedent's widow suing for her elective share provided by law (not represented by Richard Harlem, but Richard Harlem drafted affidavits for her acknowledging her as being one of the tortfeasors, and her own attorney Michael Getman claimed to the Supreme Court, Judge Dowd, that his client is "more aligned with" people who are suing her than with the co-defendant who is being sued;

4/ adult children of the decedent, co-beneficiaries of the Estate seeking to obtain distribution under the will Richard Harlem argued in April of 2015 to the Supreme Court in Mokay v. Mokay was not proper:

  • Daniel Mokay;
  • Andrew Mokay;
  • David Mokay;
  • Christine Reed;
  • Patricia Knapp
Judge Guy did not want to order Richard Harlem to put back the moneys he so far received in order to make the Estate solvent and being able to meet claims of ALL of the above creditors, the disinherited widow and the beneficiaries, not just Mr. Neroni's claim.

I guess, when you are driven with a desire (or somebody's orders) to "get" Mr. Neroni, anybody else who gets hurt by your unlawful "equitable" decisions do not matter.

So, interests of David Mokay, as a creditor or beneficiary of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of Connie Mokay, decedent's widow who, if claims of creditors are satisfied first, will receive nothing out of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of decedent's children 

David Mokay
Daniel Mokay
Andrew Mokay
Christine Reed and
Patricia Knapp

do not matter to Judge Guy.

Judge Guy considered it inequitable to attorneys to take the moneys back from them to make the Estate solvent in view of a potential incoming claim of Mr. Neroni as the Estate's creditor.

In ruling so (without authority, as discussed throughout this blog and referenced prior blog, with supporting documentary evidence) Judge Guy showed that:

  • the rule of law does not matter;
  • lack of jurisdiction does not matter;
  • equity and law requiring the judge to keep the Estate solvent to satisfy creditors first and then beneficiaries, and only then attorneys, does not matter - because there is a need to hurt Mr. Neroni and prevent him from getting any justice and there is a need to satisfy the fraudster Richard Harlem's unlawful claims for attorney fees that Richard Harlem, as disqualified attorney, is not entitled to a penny of, because Richard Harlem is a blue blood attorney, son of a judge to whom laws do not apply.
By the way, as I said before, Richard Harlem learnt at the knee of the greatest, so his fraudulent conduct comes natural given what his father, partner until his father's death, and mentor was caught with.

The above overriding "goals" matter more to Judge Guy than the law, or equity, or fairness - to anyone.

Please, note that on the very first page of the decision made on August 13, 2015 out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court and based on Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, Judge Guy acknowledges that the only case he was assigned to was the Supreme Court of Delaware County to which he was assigned after the case in question was removed out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court, so what you read below is a purely illegal exercise of judicial power without ANY authority and in the wrong court.

As you see, on page 1 Judge Guy acknowledges that the case was removed to the Supreme Court and only then he was assigned - to the Supreme Court - but stubbornly proceeds in Surrogate's court to which he was never assigned and from which court the case is already removed, and by the rules of Surrogate's Court.

In other words, it does not even concern the judge that he is acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, in the court from which the case was removed, with all attendant legal consequences, and to which the judge was never assigned - not in the Surrogate's Court.  Whether it is mere incompetence, or bias, incompetence and disdain to the rule of law, I do not care, but the judge had absolutely no authority to keep the case in the Surrogate's Court and to preside over it when he was assigned to the already removed case in the Supreme Court.

So, guess what - it was a "miscommunication" that I was not notified, as the Petitioner's counsel, of the removal of the case to the Supreme Court and of the specific and exclusive assignment of Judge Guy only to the Supreme Court case - a separate court with its own clerk, its own filing system and its own rules.

After the lip service to the "miscommunication" Judge Guy does the usual lip service as to "searching the conscience" calling himself  "Court" and calling his conscience "its conscience", in an impersonal manner.

While it is correct that New York courts deemed the matter of recusal within the discretion of a judge (incorrectly, in my view, since the judge is not an objective observer of his own behavior and constitutional right to a fair and impartial judicial adjudication is at stake which should not be subject to "judicial discretion", or, in other words, whim), recusal is a function of jurisdiction.  

When Judge GUY ADMITTEDLY was assigned only to the removed Supreme Court case while he stubbornly continued to preside over the Surrogate's Court case while instructing clerks of the Supreme Court that the order of assignment to the Surrogate's Court was "erroneous" - without any basis in law or fact for that contention, he certainly did not have jurisdiction in Surrogate's Court over the case which was removed from that court (by Judge Guy's own admission) as of April 3, 2015.

So, all the usual crap about searching the non-existing conscience of the judge was void, because, once again, there is no discretion where there is no jurisdiction.

Moreover, while Judge Guy correctly invokes Judiciary Law 14 as the only basis in New York for mandatory disqualification of a judge (where courts do not honor the state or federal Constitutions which every judge is sworn to uphold as a condition of coming to the bench), Judiciary Law 14 which requires the judge to recuse when he acts without jurisdiction clearly applies in this case.

Moreover, how much more biased, incompetent or both can the judge be if he KNOWINGLY proceeds without authority IN THE WRONG COURT, where HE WAS NEVER ASSIGNED, and making DECISIONS ON THE MERITS against the party who CAUGHT HIM RED-HANDED and blogged about his misconduct, while admitting that he was never assigned to the Surrogate's Court where he is presiding and ruling?

Did Judge Guy even read the rubbish that he has sent to me posed as a "Decision"?

See how Judge Guy engages in analysis on the merits - once again, in the wrong court, where Judge Guy was never assigned.

After acknowledging that the case has been removed, as of April 3, 2015 to the Supreme Court, Judge Guy rules on August 13, 2015 out of Surrogate's Court that service after April 3, 2015 did not comply with Surrogate's Court rules?

Who gave a law license to this guy?

How does he remain on the bench if he cannot read and cannot apply the law?  A judge really cannot claim stupidity and incompetence as a defense - but there are no other defenses available for this behavior.  It is really the outside of enough.

Once again, analysis on the merits and the claim that the decision as to imposition of the injunction is "within the sole discretion of the Court".  Apparently, Judge Guy does not know the fundamental and basic notion that the discretion is the function of jurisdiction and does not exist in the absence of jurisdiction, and thus no injunctions can be granted or denied in the court from where the case was removed 4 months before Judge Guy made his decision, and by a judge who was never assigned to that court.

If Judge Guy does not know that fundamental and basic notion, I do not understand why this incompetent judge is still on the bench.  By the way, Judge Mulvey whom I notified back in May of this year about Judge Guy's shenanigans in this case and who made no efforts to correct the situation, is no less incompetent than Judge Guy and no less responsible for Judge Guy's misconduct.

So, Judge Guy, a judge without authority to rule in the Surrogate's Court, the judge who blocked even filing the case removed by order of another judge to the court to which he has actually assigned, laments over unfairness to the attorneys who FRAUDULENTLY pursued a case in two courts for 7 years riding contrary to every applicable law, contrary to the facts of the case, but flaunting their pedigrees - of a retired (now late) Supreme Court justice and his son.

Pedigree works, I can tell you.  No law should apply, and, as Judge Guy shows, when you have the right connections, you win even to the point of having a judge holding the case in the wrong court for you, in the court to which the judge was never assigned - and ruling for you and against your opponent where the judge clearly has no authority to be in that court and where the case was long removed to another court.

And, somehow the judge finds, through Surrogate's Court, the court to which the judge was never assigned and from which the case was removed as of April 3, 2015, that the case file of a removed case must be kept in the court from which the case was removed.

Nice job, Judge Guy.  Stupid job - yes.  Unlawful and without authority - yes.  But nice job for Richard Harlem and to prove that the Neronis are outlaws and, as outlaws, are not entitled to elementary application of any rules, any laws, and are not entitled to even adherence to the court orders of removal and assignment.

I will hold my breath as to what the missing pages 2, 4 and 6 contain.

I will publish them as soon as they become available.

And - oh, forgot to tell you - this "decision" that was issued by a judge who was never assigned to the case, out of a court from which the case was removed 4 months prior, is a secret decision that I am prohibited to disclose.

That's what the e-mail of Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse said.

No, Ms. Hulse, it is a public record, and a public record of corruption and misconduct in the New York State Judiciary.  And I will make it as public as I can.

And I demand from you, as I did in my letter, to obey the order of removal that you have on file for 4 months without obeying it, to transfer the case to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

If the case is not transferred, Mr. Neroni will simply resort to the legal remedies remaining to him - and, believe it or not, he still has some legal remedies at his disposal.

Stay tuned as the Mokay saga continues to unfold.

No comments:

Post a Comment