"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, March 28, 2016

Will Judge Jonathan S. Follender the fraudster be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted for repeated and unrepentant fraud upon the court?

This is attorney Jonathan S. Follender, who is also a judge of the Town of Denning Justice Court, Ulster County.

This man is a fraudster.

I have a lot of documentary proof of it.

This is new proof that I learnt about just today.

This is the top of a Notice of Motion that Jonathan Follender filed with the Delaware County Supreme Court.

This is the top of the affirmation sworn by attorney Jonathan S. Follender upon which the motion above was made.  I received it some time ago.  In both the Notice of Motion and the Affirmation Follender makes statement that the motion is made on behalf, among other parties, of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation that he represented at the time he filed the motion - on March 8, 2016, the date when he made his sworn statement.

One correction - Follender calls himself and other Defendants in the action "petitioners".  Petitioner is an equivalent of a Plaintiff in a special court proceedings.

Here, I am the Plaintiff, and Follender is a Defendant.  He tries to impress the court by saying he is a petitioner and to obscure the fact that he is actually a Defendant.

Follender also says that the corporation Jonathan S. Follender, P.C. represents itself pro se - that is not allowed by New York law ("I appear pro se for Follender defendants").

Well, prior to this, Follender sued somebody for loss of companionship of a dog, a non-existent cause of action in New York ("loss of consortium is loss of companionship of a spouse, and a cause of action for loss of companionship of a dog does not exist), 

and made a motion to substitute a "dead client" "nunc pro tunc" when the dead individual was a corporate officer and the client was a corporation - in other words, Follender claimed that a corporation died with the death of its officer, a screaming act of incompetency for an attorney

(the motion was made in M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280, to the now-retired Judge Eugene Pekham, partner in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson;  Judge Peckham granted that insane motion, obiously without looking, which tells you a lot about the competence of both Follender and Peckham).

So, this is the gem of an affirmation upon which Follender based his motion.

In this affirmation, under oath, attorney Follender states the following:

"1. I am the attorney for defendant M & C Bros., Inc." (the full name of the corporate client is "M & C Brothers, Inc., as the caption of the case which attorney/judge Follender is using clearly shows).

So, as of March 8, 2016, the date of the affirmation, Follender claimed, under oath, to Delaware County Supreme Court that he represented M & C Brothers, Inc. 

This is a snapshot from the New York State Department of Corporations database.  I looked it up today, Follender did not notify me of this interesting development in his FORMER client's status.

It shows that M & C Brothers, Inc. has dissolved as of May 2, 2014, nearly 2 years ago, and before the appeal in Neroni v Follender was filed on May 19, 2014.

So, as of May 2, 2014 all courts have likely lost jurisdiction over the case because of dissolution of one of the clients.

Jonathan Follender definitely lost his authority to represent a dissolved corporation, as of the date of dissolution, May 2, 2014, before the appeal was filed on May 19, 2014, Sinnott v. Hanan, 156 A.D.2d 323, 141 N.Y.S. 505 (2d Dept. 1913).

No disclosure was made by attorney/judge Jonathan S. Follender that M & C Brothers, Inc. dissolved as of May 2, 2014, and no disclosure was made to the Appellate Division 3rd Department or to me as a party Plaintiff in the litigation.

Instead, attorney (and judge) Follender continued to claim to Appellate Division 3rd Department in multiple SWORN statements, statements that he sent to me across state lines to South Carolina that he represents M & C Brothers, and is now claiming the same to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

That behavior constituted multiple counts of:

  • perjury;
  • fraud;
  • fraud upon the court;
  • mail fraud (a federal crime).

Follender's behavior may be also qualified, in my opinion, as several counts of federal wire fraud.

First, Follender caused a company to e-mail me his Respondent's brief on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc. after the dissolution of M & C Brothers, and after Follender lost his authority to represent M & C Brothers.

Second, Follender sent this extraordinarily stupid and arrogant, not to mention fraudulent, e-mail to Appellate Division 3rd Department as of January 4, 2016, on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation dissolved two years prior.

In that e-mail, Follender 

(1) does not disclose the jurisdictional fact of dissolution of his FORMER client M & C Brothers, Inc. and 

(2) asks Appellate Division 3rd Department to make me come from South Carolina to New York to argue my own appeal that I wanted to submit on papers.

Follender made that claim, which was completely illegal under any circumstances, while Follender knew (but I didn't know until today) that the appellate proceedings were void and that he has no authority to represent M & C Brothers, Inc. because of that dissolution.

Note that in the e-mail, Follender requested the court to "take judicial notice" of my order of suspension - based on Follender's claim that I delayed satisfaction of a money judgment in the case that he calls "Torum".

The case was, in fact, M & C Brothers v. Bradley W. Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum, Tyler Harcott, Genevieve Gorder, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280.

While asking the 3rd Department, without disclosure that the appellate proceedings and Follender's representation of M & C Brothers have been rendered void due to M & C Brothers' dissolution, to take judicial notice of my suspension based on "Torum" - that's the above case, let's call it "Torum-I", Follender omits to mention that in Torum-I I was sanctioned by the now-quickly-retired Judge Carl F. Becker, on request of the same Follender -

for allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment.

Follender also omits to mention that, right after I was sanctioned in Torum-I, at his request, for, once again, allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment, Follender turned around and asked the same Carl Becker, in a case where I was not a party or attorney of record, to sanction me again - now 

for causing SATISFACTION of that same money judgement TOO SOON.

It is all part of court records in M & C Brothers v Bradley Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum (2 defendants instead of 4 as in Torum-I), Delaware County Index No. 2011-884.

What Follender does has many layers of fraud, and I think it's time to have him held responsible for it.

I will, of course, notify the State Commission for Judicial Conduct and other appropriate authorities with request to take, let's say, appropriate actions towards Follender because of his continuous, ongoing and brazen fraud upon several courts.

I will notify you of how this case develops.

I am posting this information for people to be beware of Jonathan S. Follender's tendencies to commit fraud and fraud upon the court when they deal with him as with attorney or with a judge.

The man is dangerous and should be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

Stay tuned.

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.