What do you do if a judge knowingly misleads you about his own authority to decide a case in a particular court?

In view of the fact that on April 7, 2015 a jury trial was scheduled in the case Mokay v. Mokay on damages (Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, see my blog "the Mokay saga" and my blogs for early April 2015), while the Appellate court designated one of the plaintiffs in the Mokay case as a tortfeasor (and thus official party defendant in that same case where his attorneys represent both party plaintiffs and party defendants, requiring them to disgorge all legal fees claimed as damages, see my blog about the "trio" of tortfeasors), I filed two court actions.

First, February of 2015 I have filed a lawsuit against the Estate of Andrew Mokay, one of the Plaintiffs in the Mokay action, in order to determine percentage of guilt, if any of my husband, as opposing to the decedent Andrew Mokay as a tortfeasor; and

Second, on April 1, 2015 I have filed a petition on behalf of my husband Mr. Neroni in the Delaware County Surrogate's court asking the Surrogate's Court to:

1. make Richard Harlem, attorney for the Estate (and attorney for all Plaintiffs in the Delaware County Supreme Court) to disgorge legal fees granted to him by Judge Carl F. Becker on 7/5/2011 and put the money back into the Estate to make the Estate solvent against the claim of my husband as a potential creditor; and
2. to stop disbursing moneys from the Estate, once again, to keep the Estate solvent.

Once again, I filed the Petition in the Surrogate's Court on April 1, 2015.  Here is a scan from the file index of the Surrogate's court's case Estate of Andrew Mokay, File No. 2007-021 from April 1, 2015 to today's date.

The index clearly shows that the filings continue beyond April 3, 2015.

Yet, without notifying me as the attorney of record in the Surrogate's Court case, on April 3, 2015 Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District Judge Mulvey issued an administrative order:

That order was ordering TWO things:

1) REMOVAL of the case from the Surrogate's Court to the Delaware County Supreme Court;

2) Assignment of Judge David H. Guy TO THE SUPREME COURT case.

The order of assignment of April 3, 2015 was never provided to me as the attorney of record for the petition, or to the court to which it was removed - neither the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell, nor the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo were copied on the order, and the order was not filed in the Delaware County Supreme Court, and not assigned an index number or an RJI number up to this day (I checked today when I found the order in the Surrogate's Court file).

The supervising judge Michael V. Coccoma (see my blogs about him and his wife Ellen Coccoma who I caught in committing fraud upon the court and who, of course, was never punished by judges who are all her husband's subordinates) was notified of the removal of the case, clearly saw that the court order was not copied to the court to which the case was transferred, or to the parties in the Surrogate's Court action, but did nothing to intervene and correct it.

While, according to the April 3, 2015 order of assignment, Judge Guy was assigned ONLY to the removed Supreme Court case, Jude Guy acted as if he was assigned to the Surrogate's Court case, and did the following (also see the index scan above):

1) On April 7, 2015, the day when Judge Kevin Dowd illegally started an ex parte trial in Mokay v. Mokay during the legitimate medical leave of the Defendant, Judge Guy, without authority, issued a decision in the Surrogate's court denying my motion to recuse Judge Becker "as moot", and claiming that "[t]he matter has been duly reassigned to the undersigned by the Administrative Judge, but without mentioning that "the matter" was "reassigned" to Judge Guy only after it was removed to the Supreme Court and that Judge Guy had no authority to act as the Surrogate's Court judge.

2) On April 8, 2015 Judge Guy illegally issued "citations" in the Surrogate's Court and illegally scheduled the matter to be heard "on submission" on May 5, 2015 in the Surrogate's Court.

3) My client expended a lot of efforts and money to have the citations properly served, without knowledge that the citations were illegal and proceedings were already removed from the Surrogate's Court;

4) On May 1, 2015 I received a phone call from the Surrogate's Court Clerk Ms. Hulse who told me that Judge Guy rejected service of process upon several people because it was in accordance with the CPLR and not the Surrogate's Court act.

At the time when he rejected service of process in accordance with the CPLR, Judge Guy clearly knew that he was assigned only to the removed Supreme Court case and that he was proceeding in the Surrogate's Court case without authority - but never notified me that the case was a Supreme Court case and directed me to ask him, in a letter, to issue supplemental citations.

I complied, without knowing that Judge Guy has no authority to act as a Surrogate and that the Surrogate Court has lost jurisdiction over the case long time ago, as per the April 3, 2015 order of removal.

Moreover, at that time, Judge Guy clearly knew that, for a case removed to the Supreme Court, service of process must be done in accordance with the CPLR and not the Surrogate's Court act, and thus, requiring me to ask the court for supplemental citations and to re-serve in accordance with the Surrogates' Court Act was not only an act without authority, but also a mere harassment meant to inconvenience me and my client.

On May 5, 2015 Judge Guy illegally issued Supplemental Citations in the Surrogate's Court without having any authority to do that.

David Mokay and Patricia Knapp were served in accordance with the CPLR.

David Mokay was served first by several attempts at personal service, which he ducked, and then by "nail-and-mail" service, after David Mokay's residence address was ascertained and confirmed by his neighbors, co-tenants in the apartment building.

Patricia Knapp was served by a substituted service upon her husband at her residence (and then by mail), which is permissible under the CPLR which governs service in New York Supreme Court.

Judge Guy ordered David Mokay re-served under the Surrogate's Court Act personally, knowing that (1) it was not possible because David Mokay was ducking service and (2) that David Mokay was served in accordance with CPLR at the time when the case was transferred to the Supreme Court and CPLR applied instead of the SPCA (of which I did not know).

After first ordering me to serve Christine Reed on a P.O. Box (which I did by certified mail), Judge Guy ordered me to personally re-serve Christine Reed in "Meridale, NY".  Christine Reed was by that time already served by certified mail, in accordance with SPCA 307, as a person whose domicile in New York was not proven and for whom the court knew only her P.O. Box number in Meridale, which was not good evidence that she resided in that town, in the State of New York, or even in the United States of America.

Judge Guy clearly knew that he (1) had no authority to issue citations in Surrogate's Court (2) issue citations with an incomplete address, ordering me to find a person in the town of Meridale, NY without any assurance that she resides there.  Judge usually do not direct people to search for the persons to be served on the streets or under bridges, but there was no residential address pointed out in the citation, although Judge Guy obviously equated a P.O. Box in a town of Meridale, NY with a residential address and a domiciliary in the State of New York, United States of America, which cannot be discerned from a P.O. Box.

On May 6, 2015 I received "Answers" from attorneys Michael Getman and Richard Harlem.

Richard Harlem was claiming, among other things, that I did not plead the Petition properly in compliance with the Surrogate's Court act.

Of course, by the time of the answer, unbeknownst to me - and hopefully (for Mr. Harlem's sake) unbeknownst to him, Surrogate's Court act no longer applied, as the case was removed on April 3, 2015 to the Supreme Court, of which Jugde Guy did not notify the parties.

On May 6, 2015 I asked Judge Guy for an extension of time to amend the Petition to take care of the claimed pleading deficiencies under the Surrogate's Court Act pointed out in Mr. Harlem's "Answer and Affirmative Defenses".

Judge Guy received that correspondence on May 7, 2015 and it was filed with the Surrogate's Court (because I did not know that the case was a Supreme Court case, and I directed my filings and correspondence to the Surrogate's Court).

Today is May 12, 2015.  I came to work on the file to the Surrogate's Court today and the clerk of the court made no attempt to give me any notifications from Judge Guy that the Surrogate's Court does not have jurisdiction over the case since April 3, 2015, and that I should not waste my time and money of my client preparing amended petitions in the court that lost jurisdiction over the case over a month prior.

Moreover, when I pointed out to Ms. Hulse that, according to the court order, the case has been transferred to the Supreme Court on April 3, 2015, she was surprised.

Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell was no less surprised, stated they did not receive a copy of the order for filing and they cannot assign an index number allowing the case to proceed, until and unless they receive the order of removal dated April 3, 2015, from Judge Mulvey directly.

My husband and client, Mr. Neroni, as well as I, feel that he is the victim of continued harassment of the court system.

Had he known of the order of April 3, 2015, we could have made a motion to consolidate the three related cases in the Supreme Court.  The fact that Judge Mulvey did not even make aware clerks of the court to which the case was removed of his order of removal and assignment of Judge Guy to the Supreme Court, speaks of deliberate actions of Judge Mulvey to deprive my husband of time-sensitive information.

Of course, I am turning in all participants in this "assignment order" and how it was hidden from me and from the clerks of the transferee court, to the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission and to authorities responsible for commencing criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Enough is enough.

You wonder why the feds have to do the job of the New York State Attorney General in investigating and prosecuting corruption and fraud in New York State government? Because the claimed job of the NYS Attorney General is to protect the fraudsters

Two leaders of the New York State Legislature have been indicted this year, Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver.

Why the indictment was by the feds, and not by the New York State Attorney General?

The answer is very clear - because the NYS Attorney General REPRESENTS the State officials, even when they are sued for fraud and corruption.

So, if you have a corrupt legislator - NYS Attorney General defends him and will raise issues of various judge-created "immunities", "deferences", "comities" and what not - and will ask the federal court, likely successfully, to punish the victims of fraud who dared to file a civil rights action, with paying attorney's fees to the corrupt governmental official, for the inconvenience of being sued for corruption, and represented for free by the New York State Attorney General.

Yet, the New York State Attorney General ALSO has, as one of his duties, to protect people of the State of New York, voters who elected him, from fraud.  The NYS AG makes this pledge before every election.

Yet, when it comes to doing his job, when it comes to investigating and prosecuting corruption in the New York State government, the NYS AG's status as the attorney for the corrupt public officials prevents him from doing the job he was elected for.

I bet the public did not vote to have the NYS AG oppose civil rights lawsuits targeting misconduct of governmental officials, on behalf of those officials whose misconduct is the subject of those civil rights lawsuits.

It is time to change the law and eliminate the position of the NYS AG, or to legislatively prohibit NYS AG to represent public officials sued for misconduct in office - because committing misconduct in office is not part of their public duties, and while 80% of taxpayers cannot afford their own attorney, those same taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the legal defense of fraudsters.

As we have it now, the New York State Attorney General is a sworn public official who violates his oath of office as a matter of discharging his duties.

That means - people of the State of New York cannot take care of corruption in their own state government and must ask the feds to do it for them?

A change in the law is overdue.

Mary Gasparini's confession

When Mary Gasparini argues something to the court, and especially on issues in which she has no competency as an attorney, she sometimes makes interesting revelations.

For example, Mary Gasparini, as a criminal prosecutor, argued to the court that exposure of prosecutorial misconduct (her OWN misconduct), is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

I cited a case claiming that it is - that blogging for public interest is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Mary Gasparini attempted to shift the issue and said the following:

Mary Gasparini stubbornly refuses to accept the law of the State of New York that provides that an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding holds the key to the proceeding's privacy and confidentiality - as soon as the attorney waived her own privacy (and I did, in writing, on notice to Mary Gasparini, in December of 2014), the proceeding is DEEMED open to the public as a matter of law.

Thus, Mary Gasparini's claims that anybody "blogged sealed records and documents" are fraudulent and defamatory.

Obsidian (the case sited in the snippet) actually provides that even if statements in the blog about a private person, but on issues of public interest, are FALSE, they are still protected by a higher standard against defamation, under the 1st Amendment of the State Constitution.

Mary Gasparini asserts that Obsidian is a case about defamation, not confidentiality.

To say that is the same as to say that my case is the case about confidentiality, not defamation.

If is it not about defamation, does it mean that Mary Gasparini just acknowledged to what she has been accused on the blog - conspiring to cook court transcript and knowingly submitted fabricated transcripts to get her way?

So, now, as Mary Gasparini argues, it must be illegal in New York to publicly report commission of a crime if it is committed by a prosecutor and a judge in the course of a publicly funded proceeding that is open as a matter of applicable New York law? 

And, as she argues, I must be put in jail for violating the sealing order that was put in place to protect my privacy that I waived?

The word "stupidity" does not even begin to describe what is going on, and that taxpayers money are spent on such prosecutions, done clearly for purposes of personal revenge, should be a subject of criminal investigations by state and federal law enforcement - if they are independent enough and have enough courage and integrity to do investigate public officials for fraud.

Dumber and dumber...

Here is the argument of disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini of Syracuse, NY that attorney disciplinary proceedings - and criminal proceedings that she concocted based on such disciplinary proceedings - should not be open to the public.

Mary Gasparini does not know what all 1st year law students know - that in criminal cases the prosecuted person is a Defendant, not a Respondent.  By positioning a criminal Defendant as a Respondent, Mary Gasparini attempts to confuse the court and shift it toward civil standards of proof and civil procedure, and away from constitutional protections required of all criminal cases.

Judiciary Law 4 provides:

    §  4.  Sittings  of  courts  to be public. The sittings of every court
  within this state shall be public, and every citizen may  freely  attend
  the  same,  except  that  in  all  proceedings  and  trials in cases for
  

divorce, 
seduction, 
abortion, 
rape, 
assault with intent to commit  rape,
criminal  sexual  act,  
bastardy  or  
filiation,  the  court may, in its discretion,  exclude  therefrom  all  persons  who  are   not   directly interested  therein,  excepting  jurors,  witnesses, and officers of the court.





There is a rule of statutory interpretation that is drilled into law students from day one of law school - if a statute contains a list of exceptions, that list is exhaustive and nothing else may be added by interpretation.




Attorney disciplinary proceedings are not part of exceptions where, by New York statutory llaw, the court is given discretion to CLOSE proceedings to the public.




Yet, such a trifle as statutory law will not deter Mary Gasparini.




She stubbornly wants me in jail for breaking my own privacy and confidentiality.




This is what Mary Gasparini argues to the criminal court:











To coerce the court to impose upon me a criminal conviction secretly and without a hearing,Mary Gasparini cites are cases in civil criminal contempt where summary judgments are allowed.




Mary Gasparini also argues that publicly discussing issues of public concern - issues of prosecutorial misconduct and of HER OWN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (using cooked cooked court transcripts) should be punished because the issue there is that I breached "confidentiality".  Whose?  My own, of course - New York State Court of Appeals clearly indicated that confidentiality protected in attorney disciplinary proceedings are designed to protect the attorney who is the subject of those proceedings.




First I was charged in a "civil" attorney disciplinary proceeding and prosecuted for NOT committing a crime of practicing law without a license - and 5 courts ignored that issue.




Now I am charged in a criminal proceeding for violating my own privacy and confidentiality.




We live in an increasingly Orwellian world - and the court will only persuade me what I already know if Mary Gasparini's request for a secret contempt of court finding on papers against me for violating my own privacy...  I know for a long time that, at least in New York courts and in federal civil rights litigation the rule of law is dead.

The Delaware County Department of So-So Services is going to enforce new vehicle use policy after the State Comptroller blasted them? Right!

Couple of days ago all local newspapers covered the scathing criticism of Delaware County vehicle use practices in the State Comptroller's audit report.

Delaware County, through its Chief of the Board of Supervisors Mr. Eisel assured the Delaware County taxpayers that what is going on is not corruption and that Delaware County will sure change their practices.

Well, they are not changing.

Just minutes ago I was walking my dogs (at about 5:10 pm) on the Legion Field in Delhi, NY.

Kids were playing baseball there.

Here we go - the Department of Social Services white car No. 95 came down the road at a high speed, windows down, elbow hanging outside, down a dirt road, stones kicking up, a clear joy ride, no concern for the county-owned vehicle, because if that was his own car, I doubt if he would go that fast with the windows open and the dust and stones coming through.

The car stopped by the baseball field, a heavy-set man in a baseball cap on backwards, black T-shirt, pops out of the car - and stays at the field, watching the game.

I did not have time to stay on and see for how long he was there, but I wonder whether that car is equipped with the "black box" that would show the route.  I will try to obtain it from Delaware County So-So Services on a Freedom of Information request.

It is nice to know my tax dollars work somewhere so "efficiently", as Mr. Eisel recently pledged to Delaware County taxpayers.

I wonder what Mr. Eisel is driving now.

Delaware County and Otsego County taxpayers - take action against misuse of your hard-earned tax money by the privileged politically connected attorney Ellen Coccoma, wife of judge Michael Coccoma

According to my information, Ellen Coccoma, wife of Chief Administrative Judge of Upstate New York Michael Coccoma used the public building at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY for a deposition for her private clients without paying rent to the Delaware County.

I reported this instance to the New York State Comptroller and requested to check how the Delaware County grants free use of public property, on what grounds, and whether grounds upon which such use was granted, were legal.

As far as I know, Ellen Coccoma had no court order granting her FREE use of the public building at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY.

This is not the first time Ellen Coccoma made "arrangements" for free use of public property located in Delhi.

Her first choice was Delhi Town Court, then the Delaware County Courthouse, now Delaware County building.

Ellen Coccoma obtained orders from two judges, both subordinates of her husband, for depositions at public buildings.  Yet, upon close inspection of the orders, none of the orders allowed Ellen Coccoma or her private clients FREE use of such public buildings.

So, as a taxpayer, I call other taxpayers to action:

1) Write, as I did, to the New York State Comptroller to investigate how does it happen that Delaware County gives free use of public property to a private attorney, wife of a powerful judge, on orders made by subordinates of attorney's husband; 

2) How does it happen that Delaware County does not appeal orders of depositions at their buildings made without notice to them or opportunity to intervene;

3) Write, as I did, to the U.S. Attorney General investigating corruption in New York State government who already indicted two top legislators in New York - Majority Leader of the Senate Dean Skelos and (now) former Leader of the Assembly Sheldon Silver, buddy and benefactor of NYS Chief Judge Lippman - ask to investigate the extent of these "free donations" by local counties to politically connected wealthy private attorneys and to their clients.

4) Write, as I did, to the Delaware County Treasurer and DEMAND that the Treasurer should demand payment from Ellen Coccoma.

By the way, Ellen Coccoma is also a full-time (I stress it, a full-time) County Attorney for Otsego County, and all of her daytime belongs to Otsego County taxpayers.  

I am one of at least five witnesses to the fact that at 10:00 am today Ellen Coccoma was in Delhi, NY representing private clients, instead of doing her job as the full-time salaried Otsego County Attorney.

As the full-time Otsego County Attorney of many years, Ellen Coccoma should know better than (1) to work for private clients during her time paid for by Otsego County taxpayers, and (2) to use public buildings in another county for the benefit of her private clients without paying for such use.

So, I believe, taxpayers of Otsego County may also want to make inquiries with its County government to verify how does it happen that the County allows its full-time salaried officers and/or employees to work on private jobs on the side during taxpayer-paid time? 

My belief is that Otsego County taxpayers are entitled to return of the portions of Ellen Coccoma's salary paid to her while she was in court on private cases, and an investigation as to how much of the taxpayer-funded time she spent representing her private clients should start immediately.

PS  This post was written in the State of New York.  The time of postings on the blog is stamped in accordance with the Pacific Time (California), where the blog's host server is located.

So, when this blog post showed that it was posted at 10:18 am, it was posted in reality at 1:18 pm New York time.

General licensing of law practice is a sham

I wrote a lot on this blog that licensing of the "practice of law" is a sham, from many points of view.

First of all, it hurts the consumers and protects the markets (and high prices) in the markets for influential attorneys only, because attorney discipline are only targeted against independent solo and small firm attorneys, predominantly civil rights and criminal defense attorneys.

Over 80% of consumers cannot afford to hire an attorney across the country, and for the legal profession to claim that licensing protects quality of services for the consumers is claiming that 80% of the poorest consumers must pay for the protection of quality of legal services for the remaining 20% of consumers of legal services who can afford to protect themselves.

Moreover, when an attorney is licensed to practice law in the State of New York, he or she is licensed to practice in all possible specialties.

As practice shows, that alone can be detrimental for the consumer, because the consumer relies upon the license as a guarantee of the lawyer's competence while, let's say, criminal law is such a specific area that without specific training in criminal law and especially in criminal procedure (not a required course in law schools), relying on such a presumption of competence of an attorney is foolish.

In my disciplinary case, I became acutely aware how incompetent an attorney who purports to practice criminal law can be.

Mary Gasparini, my disciplinary prosecutor (civil prosecutor) purported to practice criminal law while obviously having no clue about such important issues as:

1. how a criminal case can be brought;
2. what initiating documents for a criminal case are valid;
3. how documents initiating a criminal case must be served;
4. in which courts certain criminal cases may or may not be brought;
5. what constitute territorial jurisdiction of New York state courts and how it is determined;
6. what is presumption of innocence;
7. what is the constitutional right to remain silent;
8. what is the requirement for non-hearsay support for criminal charges;
9. what is the burden of proof in a criminal case;
10. who has the burden of proof in a criminal case and how that proof must be presented;
11. what are the elements of the offense charged and how those elements must be proven;
12. what are the rules of disqualification of a public prosecutor in a criminal case

In other words, Ms. Gasparini has no clue as to A-to-Z of criminal procedure, but boldly proceeds with trying to prosecute a criminal case.

And, I am sure, there are a lot of such Mary Gasparinis out there who boldly proceed to ruin people's lives while having no clue about the applicable law, but their law license serves creates in consumers of their services a false presumption of competence of such attorneys.

It will be lot more honest and will protect consumers of legal services more if licensing of the practice of law is scrapped, the and if people are finally given a free right to choose providers of legal services from who they trust by their own criteria, including by reputation the providers in cases they already handled, whether such providers have a formal legal education or not.

I know a lot of people who did not even finish high school, but who know criminal procedure better far than Mary Gasparini.