"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, July 11, 2016

#TheMokaySaga continues: fraudster attorney Richard Harlem is unhappy about the "tenor" of argument accusing him and Judge Robert C. Mulvey of fraud and corruption - based on documentary evidence

Today my husband received some pleadings from attorney Richard Harlem in the continued Mokay saga, see my blogs here, here, here, here and here, plus you can enter the word "Mokay" in the search window to see all my blog dedicated to this case.

In short, son-of-a-judge attorney Richard Harlem of Oneonta, NY, the hero of #theBlandingSaga, commenced a lawsuit against my husband in 2007, on the basis of a non-existing cause of action (interference with prospective rights of inheritance camouflaged as fraud upon the court), on behalf of initially five purported plaintiffs:

  1. Daniel Mokay;
  2. Andrew Mokay;
  3. David Mokay;
  4. Patricia Knapp, and
  5. Christine Reed,

 adult children of my husband's deceased client Andrew Mokay (senior).

Even though Richard Harlem claimed, on behalf of those 5 purported plaintiffs, that my husband defrauded them IN COLLUSION WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S OWN FATHER regarding their father's own will, Richard Harlem later joined the Estate of their father Andrew Mokay (senior) as a co-Plaintiff in the action instead of a co-defendant (since he allegedly colluded and participated in the fraud plaintiffs were claiming against my husband and their stepmother Connie Mokay) and continued in that conflicted representation, with a blessing from several courts, until the ex parte trial on damages in April of 2015.

After the ex parte trial where I was threatened to be bodily brought into the courtroom despite my documented medical leave, and where the trial was still held in my own and my husband's absence despite my documented medical leave, by a judge who was my subpoenaed hostile witness in the case, the court engaged in stalling my access to trial exhibits and got rid of the exhibits without documenting their release.

In November of 2015, after 8.5 years of litigation, one of the purported plaintiffs, David Mokay, came forward with an affidavit where he stated under oath that he has never sued my husband, never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue my husband, that whatever retainer with his signature Richard Harlem is showing to the court is a forgery, and that he confronted Richard Harlem about the forgery, and Richard Harlem disregarded it and proceeded prosecuting the case on his behalf.

Of course, Richard Harlem has a personal financial interest in the case, because all of the damages claimed in the case is his two law firms' attorney fees.

Yet, under New York law, an attorney forfeits the entirety of his fees if he commits misconduct in the case.

David Mokay's unsolicited affidavit confirms Richard Harlem's misconduct, turning $300,000 in "damages as legal fees" awarded by Judge Kevin Dowd under the following suspicious circumstances:
  1. Judge Dowd was assigned to the case by Judge Mulvey who has a history of requiring judges to decide the case the way he wants the case to be decided, and demoting judges if they disobey, see my blogs here and here;
  2. Judge Mulvey was the subordinate of Judge Coccoma, both Judge Mulvey and Judge Coccoma were sued by my husband multiple times for fraud and corruption, who escaped liability only by invoking absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, and who recused from the Mokay case in 2007;
  3. it was reported to me by the person who Mulvey tried to bribe that Mulvey tried to bribe a litigant into complaining about me, and when he refused, retaliated by an unfair and harsh decision not based on the law or record of the case;
  4. Judge Mulvey claimed and received immunity from a federal court in Bracci v Becker, based on his "judicial acts" in assigning judges to several court cases, including the Mokay case;
  5. Judge Mulvey was the "legislative counsel" of Richard Harlem's powerful tenant of many decades, Senator James Seward and had to know Richard Harlem personally;
  6. Judge Dowd who Mulvey assigned to the case, was my husband's hostile subpoenaed witness for the trial for damages and was disqualified from presiding over the case;
  7. Judge Dowd gave to Richard Harlem adjournments of the jury trial for the asking, because of the alleged illness of his trial counsel James Hartmann, husband of law clerk to Delaware County Judge Gary Rosa (elected in 2015 and who immediately started to retaliate against me and members of my family, so far issuing two adverse decisions after documented ex parte communications);
  8. Judge Dowd rejected my documented medical leave and thus engaged in practicing medicine without a license, rediagnosing me as not ill at all, and allowed his law clerk to threaten me with an arrest for not appearing in court during my medical leave, see also my blog here;
  9. The law clerk who threatened me with an arrest was criticized by me before she made a threat, for favoring her Facebook friends with job assignments (stenographers), attorney assignments and, likely, court rulings;  after my blogs were posted, the law clerk, #ClaudetteNewman, made the list of her Facebook friends private and inaccessible to the public;
  10. Judge Dowd quashed subpoena against himself as a witness, which he had no authority to do;
  11. Judge Dowd held an entire ex parte trial in the Mokay case, an act of judicial misconduct for which judges are taken off the bench;
  12. Judge Dowd had the court personnel mislead members of the public to inform them that the trial that was conducted by him without a jury behind closed doors in ex parte manner, was not happening and was adjourned;  I have an affidavit of a member of the public who tried to get into the courtroom, and was thus misled;
  13. Judge Dowd had the ex parte trial covered by stenographer Brenda Friedel who was Facebook friend of  his law clerk Claudette Newman, who was also a subpoenaed hostile witness in the case;
  14. Judge Dowd's law clerk Claudette Newman (who I saw carrying Judge Dowd's robe to the courthouse and flicking dust pecks off Judge Dowd in an intimate way) is so dear to his heart that Judge Dowd has recently engaged in an act of violence against a pro se litigant who dared to make a motion to recuse Judge Dowd (a motion that Judge Dowd granted) because of the law clerk's out-of-court interference into a child custody case, specifically, inviting the litigant's children to her home and posting pictures of that visit on Facebook;  Mr. Neroni made a motion to recuse Dowd and subpoenaed Dowd and Newman as hostile witnesses, to testify about their own misconduct at trial - so Newman retaliated by a threat of arrest when I was disabled, and Dowd retaliated with an ex parte secret trial, a $300,000 verdict based on boxes of evidence submitted without review that later disappeared from the record;
  15. Judge Dowd quashed trial subpoenas served upon his own law clerk and secretary;
  16. Judge Dowd allowed Richard Harlem's trial exhibits, allegedly certified court records, to be kept in possession of Richard Harlem, an interested witness in the case, and not have them filed and kept with the court, as the rules and the practice of Delaware County Supreme Court requires;
  17. Judge Dowd admitted the alleged exhibits in bulk, at a lightning speed, without reading them;  the transcript of the ex parte trial reflects that Richard Harlem provided Judge Dowd with a "Readers Digest" of what was in the exhibits, which was similarly not entered into the record and now disappeared;
  18. Judge Dowd blocked my efforts as Mr. Neroni's appellate attorney to review the exhibits when the appeal was filed and ordered their release, over our objection, to Richard Harlem, an interested witness in the case - without creating a paper trail in the court with any identifying information reflecting what the exhibits actually were;
  19. Brenda Friedel, Facebook friend of Judge Dowd's law clerk and the stenographer at the ex parte trial, did not create a list of exhibits as part of the transcript and did not identify exhibits she accepted and entered;
  20. My law license was conveniently suspended before I was able to file the appeal on my husband's behalf in November of 2015 - for criticizing a judge in pleadings which was unconstitutional regulation of political speech based on its content, in violation of the 1st Amendment;
  21. Judge Mulvey who claimed and received immunity for assigning judges to the Mokay case, and who has a history of retaliation against judges who do not want to decide assigned cases the way Mulvey wants them to be decided, was quickly promoted to the Appellate Division in time to kill my husband's appeal, and did "conditionally" dismiss my husband's appeal, allowing the appeal only if my husband can produce copies of trial exhibits which were no longer in the court record;
  22. My husband provided to the Appellate Division the affidavit of David Mokay clearly stating under oath that Richard Harlem was not and has never been his attorney, and that the case was based on a forged retainer agreement;
  23. Richard Harlem failed to provide, and is still refusing to provide to the court the original of the retainer agreement as evidence that it was not a forgery;
  24. In May of 2016 Richard Harlem filed before Judge Dowd in Delaware County Supreme Court a motion to withdraw from representation of David Mokay - while
    1. David Mokay stated under oath that Richard Harlem NEVER represented David Mokay (and there was, thus, nothing to "withdraw" from), and while
    2. Richard Harlem continued to claim to the Appellate Division that he represents David Mokay and all other plaintiffs;
  25. At the same time, Richard Harlem also provided to the Appellate Division an affidavit of his client Daniel Mokay accusing Richard Harlem's purpored client David Mokay of perjury which required an instant disqualification of Richard Harlem from representation of ALL parties in that case because he pitted his purported clients against one another, 
  26. Richard Harlem insisted to continue to represent David Mokay in the appellate court against David Mokay's will, against David Mokay's claim that Richard Harlem never represented him and despite Richard Harlem's own motion to withdraw in the court below;
  27. Richard Harlem obtained a conditional dismissal of my husband's appeal in the appellate court from Judge Mulvey and Mulvey-tainted panel based on his claim that the appeal is from a final judgment, and that my husband's appellate record did not comply with rules of the court pertaining to final judgments, when Richard Harlem was the reason why the judgment was not final because:
    1. the case against Co-Defendant Connie Mokay was not resolved - which was within control of Richard Harlem to do;
    2. Richard Harlem asked, and was granted, permission by Judge Dowd to come back for more damages - making the decision on damages not final, and
    3. Richard Harlem made a motion to withdraw from representation of David Mokay in May of 2016 while claiming to the Appellate Court that Judge Dowd's decision made in June of 2015, a year prior, was a final decision, which means that no further proceedings other than for enforcement of that final judgment, could be  held, and thus the motion to withdraw should have been rejected as without jurisdiction, and Judge Dowd did not reject the motion.

This is a SHORT account of shenanigans of son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem in the Mokay case.

It is apparent that any attorney who is not related to a judge and who is not a tenant to a State Senator would long be disbarred and criminally prosecuted for a fraction of what Richard Harlem did.

Actually, recently, an attorney was, in fact, convicted of a federal crime for adding a non-existing party to a lawsuit.

Yet, when all of those well documented shenanigans of Richard Harlem which are relevant to the case because they invalidate "damages as legal fees" since attorney fees in the case must be forfeited due to misconduct, the court system rushes to the defense of the judge's elderly baby and tries to protect him from the bad wolf Mr. Neroni.

And, Richard Harlem complains to the appellate court about the "quality and tenor" of Mr. Neroni's arguments.

"Quality and tenor".

Apparently, it is inappropriate to raise the issue of Richard Harlem's misconduct - or the issue of rampant judicial misconduct that this case has been "blessed" with for 8.5 years.

Apparently, only a federal grand jury can be expected to be fair in the situation where ALL public officials who have ever dealt with this case, pull wool over their eyes as to the fraud committed by a judge's baby Richard Harlem and disregard ANY law that favor Richard Harlem's opponent.

And, submission of a case to a federal grand jury can be forced by the victim through a court mandamus proceedings.

At this time, Mr. Neroni filed a motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal of his appeal based on issues of:

1) quorum and tainting participation of Judge Mulvey in the case;
2) participation of Richard Harlem on behalf of David Mokay who is a non-party in the case, which the Mulvey-tainted court disregarded when dismissing the appeal;
3) fraud of Richard Harlem which the Mulvey-tainted court disregarded when dismissing the appeal;
4) that the appeal is an intermediary appeal because Richard Harlem ASKED judge Dowd to make the judgment not final and was thus estopped from arguing to the Appellate Division, for purposes of tossing the appeal because the record does not comply with court rules regarding appeals from final decisions.

And, Harlem opposes this appeal as - gasp! - attorney for David Mokay.


After he already moved to withdraw in the court below based on David Mokay's affidavit saying that David Mokay never sued my husband, never hired Richard Harlem and that the retainer agreement with his signature (where Mr. Neroni and I as his then-counsel were only allowed to see a copy) was a forgery.

Richard Harlem also made an interesting argument that "judicial acts" of Judge Mulvey in the Mokay case for which he was given immunity by the federal court are not the same as "judicial decisions" requiring Mulvey's disqualification from presiding over the appeal of the Mokay case.

I will post a separate blog about that particular piece of Harlem's theory distinguishing

  • a "judicial act" subject to immunity from
  • a "judicial decision on the merits" disqualifying the judge from presiding over an appeal from the same case where he made "judicial decisions" in the court below.
Of course, Harlem offered no support for his theory other than his complaints about "quality and tenor" of arguments, including arguments accusing Judge Mulvey and himself of misconduct, based on documentary evidence.

I will also scan and post the choice pieces from Harlem's argument, with comments, at a later date.

As of now, a piece of advice as to how to succeed in the legal profession based on our documented experience with the son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem - get related to a judge.

Marry a judge.

Be born into the family of a judge.

That's your ticket to do anything you want and to hell with the laws.

No comments:

Post a Comment