"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.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

For those interested in #NewYorkJudiciaryLaw487 - an appeal of the final judgment in the #MokaySaga has been filed

A pro se appeal to the 3rd Department from a final (ex parte) money judgment was filed by my husband Frederick J. Neroni in the Mokay saga (see my blogs here, here and here).

You can read the Appellant's Brief here.

The table of contents and authorities to the Appellant's brief can be found here.

The record on appeal consists only of the trial transcript herepages in the trial coincide with pages in the Record on Appeal (R-1 is trial transcript, page 1 etc.).

and Judge Kevin Dowd's order after the ex parte trial is here.

You can read about Judge Dowd's shenannigans about blocking Mr. Neroni's access to the trial exhibits after the trial, before and after Judge Dowd made his ex parte judgment, and releasing the trial exhibits (allegedly, hundreds of them, judging by the transcript) to Richard Harlem during the pendency of the appeal, making it impossible for Mr. Neroni to provide an effective representation for himself on appeal, and to see and analyze, for appellate purposes, any flaws in reliance by the trial court on those alleged trial exhibits.

The blogs, recordings of my conversations with the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk's office, and transcripts of those conversations can be found here, hereherehere and here.

At this time, the Mokay trial exhibits are irreversibly spoliated and gone, thanks to Judge Dowd.

The 3rd Department court is stubbornly refusing to recuse from the case, even though it recused from my disciplinary case, after adding my husband to the caption of that case, in June of 2014, 

My husband's appeal has interesting (I think) arguments pertaining to:

1) #JudiciaryLaw487 and the case law interpreting it, including the just-decided Neroni v Follender that gutted Judiciary Law 487 by affirming absolute judicial immunity granted to a private attorney sued under that statute, see also my blogs about Judiciary Law 487  and other legal issues with the Mokay saga: 

2) #InterferenceWithFutureRightOfInheritance;  
3) #ChoiceOfRemedies and #UnjustEnrichment;
4) #CausationOfDamages in a Judiciary Law 487 case;
5) attorney Richard Harlem's (and his law firms') and the trial counsel James Hartmann's fraud upon the court.

I look forward to seeing how Richard Harlem will react to the appeal.

This is the very first and only appeal in the Mokay case - and there were several intermediate appeals - that Richard Harlem did not try to derail by a motion to dismiss made within 2 months after the Notice of Appeal was filed, and several questions arise because of it:

1) Does Richard Harlem have pangs of conscience about his continued fraud?  Well, that is a rhetorical question, so scratch that;

2) Does Richard Harlem see the writing on the wall?

3) Did supporters of Richard Harlem distance from him finally because of his fraud, after my husband has forwarded to the Appellate Division 4th Department Committee the affidavit of David Mokay who Richard Harlem, throughout 8 years of litigation, claimed to have been his client?

Richard Harlem did not acknowledge to the 3rd Department that David Mokay provided to my husband an affidavit denying he ever was a Plaintiff in the 8-year-long litigation in two courts, after the final judgment based on ex parte trial in the Mokay case where no alleged Plaintiffs testifying, and where the only testifying (self-serving) witness was Richard Harlem himself, who testified that all his own bills were legitimate and good.

The appeal points out how Richard Harlem obtained from the Supreme Court what he already obtained previously from the Surrogate's Court, and points out that the whole legal theory of the Mokay case was a sham from the beginning, and continues to be even more of a sham, now that David Mokay came forward with his affidavit.

My husband was unable to raise on appeal the issue of fraud upon the court by attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann, husband of judge Gary Rosa's law clerk Nancy Deming, because it was not part of the record on appeal.

I wonder whether Richard Harlem will actually disclose to the 3rd Department his fraud risking instant disbarment - or will continue to pretend that he represented David Mokay, even against David Mokay's own affidavit that it is not so.

We will know soon, as Respondents will have to - well - respond to that appeal.  

We will see whether Richard Harlem will have the audacity to continue to claim to the Third Department that he represents David Mokay on this appeal and represented him in the previous 8-year litigation, after David Mokay provided his affidavit saying Richard Harlem knew he never represented David Mokay, that David Mokay never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue my husband on his behalf.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment