"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.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Attorney Richard Harlem committed yet another set of crimes in the Mokay action

An attorney (and son of a New York Supreme Court justice) sues another attorney, allegedly on behalf of first 5, then 6 clients.

The sued attorney is disbarred mid-litigation without a hearing based on that lawsuit.

After 8 years of litigation and a final money judgment in favor of plaintiffs, one of the purported plaintiffs (who never made written statements over 8 years of litigation, never testified at a pre-trial hearing or at the trial, and was not present at the trial) provides an affidavit indicating that he never hired the attorney and never sued the disbarred attorney, never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue on his behalf, and that Richard Harlem knowingly proceeds on a forged retainer agreement.

By the way, Richard Harlem fought hard to prevent review in discovery of the original of that same Retainer agreement, arguing to Judge Carl Becker (now quickly retired before expiration of his term) that a copy is the same as the original.

For Judge Becker a stepmother was the same as a mother in custody proceedings, and a copy was the same as the original - as long as the right person asks for such a determination.

Richard Harlem was the right person.

Other judges, presiding over the Mokay case before and after Judge Becker - Judge Molly Fitzgerald before and Judge Kevin Dowd after - were very upset that even possibility of misconduct of Richard Harlem was even raised as an issue.

Fitzgerald stated in her decision for a summary judgment on liability that any allegations of misconduct against Harlem are "spurious".

Dowd stated in his decision that it is a shame that I (as my husband's then-attorney) would even raise the issue of misconduct of Harlem "an officer of the court", and later prohibited me to impeach Harlem at a hearing, when he was testifying as a witness.

Well, according to David Mokay's affidavit, Harlem not only lied, but lied systematically, repeatedly, under oath, to many courts, and was proceeding on a forged retainer agreement.

The attorney for the alleged Plaintiffs, Richard Harlem, is famous for his misconduct in the Blanding saga, where Richard Harlem, together with his retired (and now deceased) judge-father, defrauded the Otsego County Surrogate's Court, and both escaped without any attorney discipline, even though the New York State Attorney General turned them both in.

Recently an appeal was filed from the final decision in Mokay, and it was published on this blog.

Richard Harlem filed a motion to strike that appeal.

In that motion, under oath, as of April 1, 2016, Richard Harlem states that he does represent David Mokay, even though David Mokay says he doesn't and never did, in a sworn statement.

I am publishing on this blog the evidence of Richard Harlem's yet-another count of perjury and fraud upon the court (and another crime - tampering with evidence in judicial proceedings, an E felony):

  • Notice of motion,
  • Affirmation, and
  • 7 exhibits

Here is the evidence:

Notice of motion - where Richard Harlem makes a motion on behalf of "above-named Plaintiffs-Respondents":

while the "above named plaintiffs-respondents" include David Mokay who provided an affidavit as of November 2, 2015 that Richard Harlem never represented him and that David Mokay never sued Mr. Neroni.

In that notice of motion, on behalf of a person who claims, under oath, that Harlem never represented him, Harlem asks the court to dismiss the appeal of a $300,000 judgement consisting ENTIRELY of Harlem's legal fees (including his legal fees against David Mokay who never hired Harlem), because, among other things:

Those are the same trial exhibits that RICHARD HARLEM HIMSELF removed from the custody of the court during the pendency of Mr. Neroni's appeal while the court blocked his effort to review those trial exhibits for purposes of appeal.

"Combined Affirmation and Memorandum of law" - where Richard Harlem, under the penalty of perjury, claims that he represents David Mokay, 

compare that statement with the sworn Affidavit of David Mokay saying quite the contrary.


Exhibit 1 - sheets of Delaware County Clerk's office recording NOTHING as of June 19, 2015, the date when I insisted on access to records to prepare the appeal, after the final decision by Judge Dowd was made, and the Delaware County Supreme Court denied me access.

The index of the alleged unidentified trial exhibits (because this is not a proper identification of exhibits) was filed with Delaware County Clerk's office on June 19, 2015, at 03:37:35 pm.

My blog of that same date, June 19, 2015, on the subject of denial of access to those exhibits, has a time stamp of 08:10 am California time (where the blog is hosted), or 11:10 am New York time.

So, at the time Kelly Sanfilippo denied me access to the trial records, even the index of exhibits, however unidentifiable it was, was not filed.

The "index" indicates that it was scribbled in a hurry, possibly, on the same June 19, 2015 date - to justify SOMETHING.

Only it justified the fact that the trial exhibits MUST BE part of the court record - if their index is.

This blog contains transcripts of my conversations with the court clerk's office trying to get access to these mysterious trial exhibits that are entered into the court record as an "index" of unidentifiable "county clerk records", but are not scanned into the record, as required of court records upon which the court relied in arriving at a $300,000 money judgment against a person, in favor of Richard Harlem, made at an ex parte trial.

Interestingly enough, in his affirmation, Richard Harlem requests the court to "assume the truth" of what was in the alleged trial exhibits he removed from the record during the pendency of appeal, precluding Mr. Neroni from contesting the contents of those exhibits.

This is the new rule invented by Richard Harlem, son of a judge - steal and benefit from your theft.  Richard Harlem took a part of the court record that he himself claims is important to determination on the appeal.

It is like saying to the court - "I stole the records, now assume the truth of those records because I stole them and because Mr. Neroni does not have them, never saw them, was prevented from seeing them, since I stole them from the court".

Good logic.

Now he is citing a case saying that where evidence upon which the trial court relies is missing, the truth and authenticity of that evidence must somehow be "assumed" by the appellate court.

It is apparent that Richard Harlem removed a portion of the record during the pendency of the appeal and colluded with the judge (who was interested in not being reversed on appeal) and the court personnel (who had their job security at stake to obey anything the judge orders them to do) while seeking to rely on this case - that in the absence of evidence (that Harlem removed) the truth of the evidence (that Harlem removed) will be assumed (in Harlem's favor).

A great rule, isn't it, by an attorney of great integrity.

Exhibit 2 - for some inexplicable reason, Harlem submits the decision of Judge Becker sanctioning Mr. Neroni and myself for making a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the Estate for lack of standing.

Yet, the trial transcript at the ex parte Mokay trial clearly indicates that the only claim Plaintiffs have is for interference with their prospective right of inheritance - a non-existent cause of action in New York.

Harlem was so glad that he's got to do an ex parte trial, that he forgot to establish damages of the Estate, or causation of those damages - and only asserted claims of Mokay Children, including the claim of David Mokay, who later stated that he never hired Harlem in the first place and never sued Mr. Neroni.

Since the order was obtained on behalf of David Mokay, it is now subject to a motion to vacate at any time.

Since the order sanctioned for making a meritorious motion to dismiss for lack of standing, where the Estate did lack standing, and Richard Harlem failed to even assert, much less prove, standing, damages or causation of damages by the Estate at trial (see the interlinked Appellant's Brief and see the transcript of the trial here), that order is subject to a motion to vacate on the grounds of new evidence, too.

Exhibit 3 - Judge Fitzgerald's partial summary judgment on liability made in 2008, which is now subject to a motion to vacate based on David Mokay's affidavit as new evidence of misconduct of Richard Harlem.

In New York, attorney fees are forfeited by an attorney committing misconduct in court proceedings.

Assuring the court, under oath, that David Mokay is his client and obtaining a summary judgment on his behalf is fraud upon the court requiring Richard Harlem to forfeit all of is legal fees in the Mokay litigation, which constitutes the entire amount of Plaintiffs' claimed damages.

If Richard Harlem forfeited his legal fees, Plaintiffs do not owe him anything, and thus there are no damages to be charged against Mr. Neroni, which is not part of the appellate review, because David Mokay's affidavit came not as part of the record on appeal, but after the final decision in the court below.

Exhibit 4 - Judge Elizabeth Garry's decision which was nullified by Richard Harlem's own decision to file a 2nd Amended Complaint - which superseded and nullified, as a matter of law, all prior litigation.

Of course, the decision of Judge Garry is also now a nullity because it was obtained on behalf of David Mokay, a non-party.

Exhibit 5 - Judge Dowd's decision of 2013 regarding subpoenas duces tecum of purported Plaintiffs' income records.  It is absolutely hilarious, in view of David Mokay's affidavit, that Harlem submitted this particular decision to the court.

Here is a portion of that decision:

Judge Dowd indicated that to even to raise a possibility that, if I reveal the reason for asking for those records, Harlem will improperly coach his witnesses, is not "befitting an officer of the court".

I wonder what, if anything, will Judge Dowd say when he learns that he was duped by Harlem into making a $300,000 money judgment on behalf of a person who never sued.

Quite an embarrassment, isn't it, that Dowd castigated me for trying to protect my client from a possibility of Harlem using my revealed reasons for asking for certain evidence - at the time when Harlem was involved in a full-blown fraud upon the court.

At that time, I was making that statement on behalf of my husband, who was not at that time an "officer of the court", being disbarred by Harlem's shenanigans.

Here is a portion of Judge Dowd's money judgment against Mr. Neroni, consisting entirely of legal fees of Richard Harlem against each purported Plaintiff individually, including David Mokay:

It was incredible that David Mokay, who I knew from records in other courts, was disabled and indigent (he had an assigned counsel in another court), would agree to pay $84,620.02 in "expenses" and $71,670.46 in legal fees of Richard Harlem, while proceeding pro se in the probate proceeding, and trying desperately to obtain $95,000 from the Estate, OPPOSED by the Estate's attorney Richard Harlem.

At the time of opposing my motion for a judicial subpoena duces tecum showing David Mokay's income, for impeachment purposes at trial, Richard Harlem knew that he actually does not represent David Mokay - and yet proceeded opposing the motion, and, of course, won, because for Becker, the only thing needed to make a decision in Harlem's favor is that he is asking for something against Frederick Neroni or Tatiana Neroni.

In fact, since David Mokay was not Richard Harlem (as Richard Harlem knew), I did not have to go into such lengths and undertake such efforts to seek David Mokay's records through a motion for a subpoena duces tecum.

Yet, it was important for Richard Harlem to block my communication, as Mr. Neroni's then-counsel, with David Mokay.

That's why Richard Harlem also withheld the trial subpoena I served upon Richard Harlem's office for David Mokay, and his witness fee.  Harlem sent that witness fee (that did not belong to him) back to me with objections.

Since David Mokay was not his client, he did not have a right to object.

It goes without saying that this order of Judge Dowd, made in favor of David Mokay, among other parties, while David Mokay was not a party in litigation, is void and subject to a motion to vacate.

Exhibit 6 - Dowd's no less hilarious decision to quash the trial subpoena upon the Assistant New York State Attorney General Mary Walsh to testify about her investigation of Richard Harlem and his father retired judge Robert Harlem in the Blanding case, and her investigation of improper billing practices by the Harlem Law office.

It is worth posting it up front in full, it is short.

First, Dowd claims that he held a motion hearing on May 25, 2014, before the subpoena was served and before the motion to quash was made.

Even assuming it is a clerical error, and what is meant is May 25, 2015, so the motion to quash a trial subpoena was heard nearly two months AFTER trial that was, according to the trial transcript, held on April 7, 2015, making any resulting decision illegal and void on its face.

As to NYS Assistant AG's sworn statements that there were "no investigations of the Harlem Law Office 'as such'", she was lying through her teeth, as reflected in her own filings with the Otsego County Surrogate's Court.

Mary Walsh did investigate Richard Harlem and Robert Harlem, did insist on their responses, they stalled her, she complained about it, then she made motions against them where she meticulously stated specifically the improper billing practices of Richard Harlem and Robert Harlem and credibility of Richard Harlem as a witness, which is exactly what I wanted to depose her about at trial.

Here is part of Mary Walsh's pleadings to the Otsego County Surrogate's Court about Richard Harlem's and Robert Harlem's billing practices, credibility and integrity:

 That pleading, and the pleading pertaining to the fraudulent backer to the will that Richard Harlem submitted to the Otsego County Surrogate's Court that Mary Walsh challenged as an effort to "affirmatively mislead" the court shows that Mary Walsh did investigate the Harlems, she just didn't want to testify - and because she didn't want to testify, she lied under oath in her supporting affirmation for the motion to quash, knowing that, given her position as an Assistant Attorney General, she will never be prosecuted for perjury.

Not only Mary Walsh did investigate the Harlems, and even met with them during those investigations, but the Harlems charged a legal fee against the Estate for their time spent defending THEMSELVES in a fraud investigation by the NYS Attorney General's office.

Judge Dowd took judicial notice of these proceedings before he stated that it is not befitting an officer of the court to raise doubts as to integrity of Richard Harlem.  

Possibly, for an officer of the court, it wasn't befitting to question integrity of Richard Harlem.  

For any reasonable - and honest - human being who did not undergo a lobotomy, it was and still is.

I also wonder whether Mary Walsh, who was so feisty during the Blanding proceedings asserting that the retired Judge Harlem committed fraud and must be disbarred for that, along with his son Richard Harlem, was intimidated in any way to do what she did, to preserve her job, pension and benefits, and, possibly, her law license and ability to earn a living in the corrupt New York system.

Exhibit 7 - this is the "judgment roll" that Richard Harlem proudly presents to the 3rd Department on behalf of six purported Plaintiffs, including David Mokay, which can be used in criminal prosecution against Richard Harlem for fraud, perjury and fraud upon the court.

*  *  *

What Richard Harlem does in litigation is usually what mafia does - they kill witnesses to destroy evidence at trial.

In this case, Harlem, in collusion with Judge Dowd and personnel of Delaware County Clerk's office and Delaware County Supreme Court, destroyed evidence pertaining to the pending appeal to prevent prosecution of that appeal.

And, Richard Harlem has the audacity to ask the court to dismiss the appeal because Mr. Neroni did not provide as part of the record trial transcript that:

(1) no are longer on record in Delaware County Clerk's office;
(2) were never scanned into the electronic record, as required by that office's own procedure;
(3) were specifically not allowed to be shown to Mr. Neroni during preparation of his appeal, see my blogs, with audio recordings of my conversations with the court, transcripts of those recordings and detailed descriptions of what was happening, here, here, here, and here
(4) were released to Richard Harlem by the trial judge during the pendency of appeal of the decision of that trial judge - and are now, if they still exist, irreversibly contaminated, destroyed, and their contents are not ascertainable, since an electronic scanned copy was never created by the Delaware County Clerk's office before their release to Harlem.

I must note that New York State Court system cannot even put their concocted story together correctly.

I asked for access to trial exhibits on June 19, 2016, and was denied access to it by Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo on the same day.

By that time, a final decision in the case was already made, and Mr. Neroni, my client at that time, had a right to appeal and was considering it, and was thus entitled to access to the FULL record upon which the trial judge made his determination.

I was denied access to trial exhibits, once again, on June 19, 2016.

I asked Kelly Sanfilippo for a written order denying me access to those records.  She refused to give me such a written order - because there was none, there was only an oral order from Kevin Dowd's "chambers" to block my access to trial exhibits.

On June 22, 2015, New York State Court Administration, by a letter of its "Assistant Deputy Counsel" Shawn Kerby, notified me that my access to court records was not denied on June 19, 2015, because trial exhibits were actually not court records.

Here is the letter once again.

Contrary to what the letter said, I do not know anything that was submitted in an ex parte trial where I was not present because I was on a medical sick leave, and which was conducted without me anyway.

I was not given access to those exhibits before trial either, because trial exhibits, ALLEGEDLY certified by the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk, were in the custody of Richard Harlem who wanted to charge me at $100 an hour for review of those trial exhibits before trial.

That was not an "opportunity" to review court files.  I never saw the trial exhibits.  I certainly did not prepare my opponent's alleged trial exhibits. 

So, the letter of the New York State Court administration establishes that the trial exhibits are NOT part of the court record.

But - look what Richard Harlem is claiming now in his affirmation and exhibit 1 to the appellate court:

1) he seeks to dismiss the appeal because he claims those exhibits ARE part of the court record - and he submits for it an affirmation under oath, and Exhibit 1 indicating that an index of trial exhibits (but not exhibits themselves) was filed with the Delaware County Clerk on June 19, 2015 - exactly on the date when I talked to Kelly Sanfilippo and she denied me access to those trial exhibits at the direction of Judge Dowd, while the New York State Court Administration explained to me that such exhibits ARE NOT part of the court record.

If they are not part of the court record, how can the court rely upon them in arriving at a decision?

If they are not part of the court record, why was it necessary to file with the Delaware County Clerk's office SOMETHING - an "index" of those same exhibits saying that they are some "County Clerk records" with a downward arrow going through page after page after page - which does not identify those exhibits even WHAT KIND of "county clerk records" the alleged exhibits were.

It is indiscernible from the scribble as to who "received" the "index" on June 19, 2015, the date of my blog when the Delaware County Supreme Court clerk's office denied me access to the trial exhibits a week after the final judgment in the case was made.

So, Harlem first steals evidence from the court record, in collusion with court personnel, and then tries to use his own crime against his victim.

And, he is, of course, an attorney "with no record of public discipline".

Of course, having no record of public discipline in New York is not a big achievement where attorneys who committed crimes are listed as having "no record of public discipline" and the only attorneys who are targeted are those who honestly (and often without pay) are doing their work for their clients.

No comments:

Post a Comment