Video coverage of what the New York State Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline did not want to hear

Predictably, one cannot expect integrity when foxes are charged with guarding a chicken coup.

According to Long Island reporter Gary Jacobs, of "Long Island Backstory", the NYS Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline does not want transparency of its supposedly "public" hearing supposedly designed as to how to make attorney discipline more effective to protect the public, and more uniform and fair for he attorneys subject to the disciplinary process.

Gary Jacobs' coverage lasts 29 minutes 23 seconds charged with action and is well worth watching.  The report is made on the in front of the building where the office of the New York County Lawyers' Association is located and where the "public" hearings of the Commission were scheduled for August 11, 2015, which were not so public after all - predictably so.

***

There is one error in the report, as a matter of law, that I want to point out - the reporter mentioned that while complainants to attorney disciplinary authorities do not have a right to appeal if the complaint is dismissed (which is correct), attorneys who are disciplined have a right to appeal their disciplinary action.  That is not correct.  New York State law does not give an attorney a right to appeal, a right given to every other litigant in New York.  The only right, which is usually fictional and summarily dismissed by the New York State Court of Appeals without explanation or analysis, is a right to appeal "as of right" based on alleged constitutional violations.

New York State Court of Appeals dismisses such appeals with a rubber-stamp phrase that it reviewed the record and did not find "substantial violations of constitutional rights".  That means, of course, that New York State Court of Appeals picks and chooses, without authority, which constitutional violations are "substantial" and which are not, but that is another story.

The bottom line is that attorneys in New York DO NOT have a right to appeal from their disciplinary sanctions.

And the U.S. Supreme Court, as a matter of rule and policy, usually does not grant petitions for the writs of certiorari in attorney disciplinary actions, so once an attorney is suspended or disbarred at the Appellate Division level, it is final and usually for life.

***

With that exception as to purely legal error, I highly recommend the video report as it shows clearly that, predictably, the Commission is just another smoke screen to prevent addressing real problems in attorney regulation - that attorney regulation by the judiciary strips the public of independent representation in court, and that selective enforcement of attorney discipline by market players do not protect the public from bad attorneys, but protects high-ranking bad attorneys from accountability and allows the disciplinary proceedings to be used to quash critics of judicial misconduct and high-ranking attorneys' misconduct and deprive the public of services of those few attorneys who are courageous enough to do their jobs properly.

Gary Jacobs reported that he requested presence and permission to videotape the "public hearing" and was denied his request by the Commission.

That was in violation of Open Meetings Law, Section 103(d)(2) providing as follows:

           "2.  A public body may adopt rules, consistent with

            recommendations from the committee on open

            government, reasonably governing the location

            of equipment and personnel used to photograph,

            broadcast, webcast, or otherwise record a

            meeting so as to conduct its proceedings in 

            an orderly manner.  Such rules shall be 

            conspicuously posted during meetings and 

            written copies shall be provided upon request

            to those in attendance".

So, the Commission could adopt rules - which it did not - that would "reasonably govern the location of equipment and personnel to photograph, broadcast, webcast, or otherwise record a meeting".

The reasonableness of the rules that the Commission was allowed to adopt, according to law, would be governed ONLY by the necessity "to conduct its proceedings in an orderly manner".

The only "reasonable" way to conduct the Commission's proceedings in an orderly manner that the Commission could offer reporter Gary Jacobs was to disappear completely, from the room where the hearings were scheduled to be held, as well as from the building and from the sidewalk in front of the building.  

Yet, there were no grounds for deeming reporter Gary Jacobs as a threat to Commission's ability "to conduct its proceedings in an orderly manner", and the Commission certainly did not have a right to oust reporters from the building or sidewalk.

The building, belonging or rented by the New York County Lawyers' Association, while being a private property, became by law bound by Open Meetings Law by offering to host a public meeting, so the owners or tenants of the building could lawfully not oust the reporter either.  It is, in my view, a 4th Amendment issue and a due process issue, as well as a 1st Amendment issue, and a lawsuit waiting to happen.  

Given that the overwhelming majority of members of the Commission were attorneys who are presumed and required to know the law, such a lapse not only invalidates findings of the Commission, in my personal legal opinion, but clearly exposes the Commission for what it is - an affiliate of the old boys' club designed to keep the old boys' privileges, to the detriment of the public.

Also, if the Commission even issued a rule as insane as it enforced - for the video reporter to simply disappear from the Commission's life, room, building and sidewalk - that rule, according to law, was supposed to be "conspicuously posted" during the public hearings.  I doubt that any such rules were ever issued or ever posted.  You can trust the old boys' club to act as an old boys' club, the rule of law should not apply.

Reporter Gary Jacobs stoically left the building, but rebuffed the invitation to get lost from the sidewalk by offering the representative of the Commission to call the police.

The police, of course, was never called, but the fact of intimidation is there, and it is showing that the Commission does not want the public at large to know what was going on in the little room reserved for the allegedly "public" hearing, does not want to comply, as I stated above, with Open Meetings Law, and nothing good can come out of these clandestine meetings where, according to accounts of witnesses who were at the hearings, the absolute majority of witnesses invited to give testimony were market players, attorneys.

Speakers on the sidewalk raised important questions that the Commission obviously did not want to hear.

Issues reported by Gary Jacobs and members of the public who spoke to Gary Jacobs on camera, are as follows - and I offer them with my comments:

Issue # 1  Commission's composition as a virtually all-lawyer panel.  Interested players in attorney disciplinary system in determining how to protect the public, and who instead are protecting themselves and their own livelihood

Gary Jacobs:  "The solutions of the lawyers [for the problem with non-enforceability of attorney discipline] is that they are going to appoint a Committee of another bunch of lawyers to determine whether the lawyers are capable of making their decision".

Issue # 2 Commission's pre-screening of testimony of the public and did not invite those whose statements Commission did not want to hear

Gary Jacobs took on the Commission for restricting public testimony at a public hearing to only "testimony-by-invitation", with a prior submission of the testimony, in writing, to the Commission, for the Commission to decide whether it is worth it to invite the author of the written testimony to testify orally.

The screening makes sure that no real issues get orally heard, and what was submitted in writing and not presented at the oral argument, may be quietly buried, because, I am sure, no rules are created to archive such submissions.

In other words, the Commission wants only to hear sterilized testimony from market players that will not ask for any drastic (and necessary) changes in the system and will not address judicial corruption, because licensed attorneys would fear for their own licenses and will not mention that topic.  The Commission will then base its "recommendations" to the Chief Crook (oops, Judge) Lippman as to the necessary changes in the system based on sterilized testimony of interested market players, leaving members of the public to testify to the press on the sidewalk, "off record" to the Commission.

That is exactly the same trick disciplinary committees are using in NOT having any archives of complaints against attorneys - no index numbers are assigned, no history of complaints are created, and when complaints are dismissed, there is no way to ascertain that they were even made against a particular attorney, cleansing history of prominent lawyers who disciplinary committees, comprised of supermajorities of lawyers themselves, seek to protect, often for their own financial gains and to drum up their own business.

Issue # 4 Oversight of the legal profession is too important to be left to the lawyers

A speaker suggested that oversight of the legal profession should be done only by an independent body.

Issue # 5 - Unfair attorney discipline against civil rights attorneys strips vulnerable populations of proper independent legal representation

Linda Gilbow (phonetic), one of the speakers on the video, and African American lady, addressed authorities through the video with an appeal to restore the law license of Alton H. Maddox, Jr., a civil rights African American attorney suspended in 1990 and then in 1994 (according to the attorney registration website) who served the African American community well.  

She, and other speakers, members of the public, was not invited to testify in front of the Commission and had to testify in front of the building, to a reporter who was thrown out of the building and prohibited to video record the "public hearings", contrary to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.

Mr. Maddox also spoke to Gary Jacobs, he was actually (and surprisingly) allowed to testify in front of the Commission.

Alton H. Maddox, Jr. addressed the issue of judicial racism - which,  I am sure, not many attorneys would dare to address openly.

Members of the public speaking to the reporter also mentioned that not all members of the Commission even considered it their duty to be present at the hearing in question.  They were simply absent - and, as one of the speakers correctly pointed out, they will use the "service" on the Commission, even though they did not care enough about that service to attend the hearing, in their resumes to promote their business for their own financial gain.

So.

No surprises there.

Please, note the information from various civil rights groups that appeared on the video that you may want to research.

The groups featured and their representatives were:

1) Elena Sassower, Center for Judicial Accountability - she was allowed to speak to the Commission;

2) Carl Lansiziera, Americans for Legal Reform - not allowed to speak to the Commission;

3) Ray Rogers, Director, Corporate Campaign, Inc.

One of the speakers for one of such groups, Carl Lansiziera of Americans For Legal Reform, indicated that he was there 25 years ago, before a similar commission, and nothing changed - because members of the Commission do not want that change, and the system does not want that change.

So, I personally do not believe that the Commission will be a messiah for problems riddling judicial system in New York that prevent true access to courts and foreclose opportunities for millions of New Yorkers to obtain real effective remedies in court to their problems and injuries, as well as independent legal representation which is the cornerstone of democratic society.

I believe, instead, that the upcoming Constitutional Convention of 2017 may help solve those problems better, and I will soon start publishing appeals to the public as to issues I suggest should be included into the New York State referendum to change the state Constitution in a way that would provide a mechanism for the public to fight judicial corruption and obtain true access to courts and true remedies in court.

Yet, I do believe in the importance of having your voice heard, but I cannot call upon the public to publish their grievances, since such publication may involve defamation liability.  

Center of Judicial Accountability, according to its director Elena Sassower, is willing to publish your written testimonies and your evidence, but you need to consult a lawyer (or laws) specializing in defamation before sending anything for publication, since litigation immunity does not apply when you publish court documents.

Be protected, be heard and stay tuned.

More on U.S. NDNY Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, employment of his sons, conflicts of interest and taints on cases created by such employment, and on media coverage, and lack thereof, contributing to wrongful convictions

I think media contributes to wrongful convictions.

And I think Judge Sharpe and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York should get off cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office and off civil cases defended by the New York State Attorney General's office.  All of them.

And here is why.

Times Union, a major newspaper out of Albany, New York, the capital of New York State, is reporting on a criminal trial.

A reporter that covers a criminal trial must be minimally aware of presumption of innocence of the criminal defendant.

Yet, the report proudly features a picture of a criminal defendant, who is presumed innocent, in shackles.

What for?

To tip "the scales of justice" against the person against whom such scales of justice are already horribly tipped?

And, as always, it is interesting to mention what the same reporter, or Times Union, or any other "mainstream" media outlet, DID NOT report.

That the U.S. Attorney's office employs the presiding judge's son Robert Alan Sharpe.

As well as the New York State Attorney General's office employs the same Judge Gary Sharpe's other son Michael Aaron Sharpe.

Wouldn't you want to have a job where:

1/ you have a "discretion" to retaliate against your enemies;
2/ to make the rules absolving yourself of any liability for your malicious and corrupt acts;
3/ make the rules absolving you of judicial discipline on the bench;
4/ sit on the disciplinary committee where complaint about yourself are heard;
5/ promote your children by having them employed by public offices of attorneys who appear in front of you and
6/ having a "discretion" to not disclose that fact, punish people who point out that fact and ask for your recusal, claim that employment of your sons do not create an appearance of impropriety in the case and does not taint the case.

Well, to me as an objective reasonable observer, as to any other objective reasonable observer, such employment taints the case, big time.

Let me ask any of my readers a question - would you like to be prosecuted by an office employing as an attorney the presiding judge's son?

Would you like to pursue a civil rights claim in a court where your opponent employs the presiding judge's son?

Will you be absolutely comfortable that the judge will not be advancing his or her child's career and job security and will not rule against you and for the judge's employer just to aid the judge's child?

What would you think of your chances in such a criminal or civil proceeding?

Now, WHY would media NOT cover such an issue of public concern and instead reports about pending criminal proceedings by posting pictures of the criminal defendant in shackles?

Is the media afraid that the editor or the reporter will be the next target of the omnipotent judge's ire?

Then do we have a rule of law in this country?

And - last but not least, if the judge thought his children are worth anything as attorneys, why would he allow them to be hired in offices that appear in front of the judge, creating a potential conflict of interest not only for the judge, but, in the case of Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, for the entire court?

And if Judge Sharpe's children, Michael Aaron Sharpe and Robert Alan Sharpe, think they are competent attorneys, why do they need this "little" leg up by being employed by public prosecutors who regularly appear in front of their father - knowing that that will be a factor in their advancement.

An honorable profession.  Honorable people.  Just kidding.

Male chauvinistic pigs on the bench galore

After I've read enough about judges deliberately humiliating women for being women - and for speaking their minds in what judges perceive should be a male-ordered world - I decided to start running reports on my blog about this particular "phenomenon".

The first "winner case" is the 2011 case of a Michigan judge, Judge Robert Hentchel, a Van Buren County judge who (I believe) deliberately humiliated a young mother, Natalie Hegedus, for breastfeeding her baby son in the courtroom.

According to information that is available on the Internet, this male chauvinistic pig is still "serving" the public, and will be "serving" until 2016.

You can see the picture of the male chauvinistic pig here.

Yet another male chauvinistic pig, judge Hentchel's boss, Circuit judge Paul E. Hamre, who "voluntarily" retired in 2013, and whose picture is available here, refused to impose ANY discipline upon Judge Hentchel because, as Judge Hamre stated, "[Judge Hentchel has] done nothing that would remotely appear to be something that I would reprimand him for".

So, Judge Hamre would not consider behavior of his subordinate judge warranting even a reprimand where:

1) a judge first issued a bench warrant for a mother to appear on "contempt of court charges" for, reportedly, "missing an initial hearing on a case from July when she was ticketed for boating too fast in a no-wake zone and failing to produce her boaters safety certificate".

With a bench warrant like this the woman had no choice but to appear.

She had a son whom she breastfed.

She had no choice but to appear with him in court, because the child developed an ear infection and the mother had to pull him from daycare.

2) Judge Hentchel, seeing a young mother with her baby in court, did the following:

• he did not call her case at once;
• made her wait until her baby became hungry and started crying;
• waited until the mother started to breastfeed the baby; and
• THEN called the mother's case, while she was breastfeeding, and
• while the mother asked for some time to arrange her clothing;
• asked the mother if she considered it appropriate to breastfeed in court, and, when the mother said she thought it is because her son was hungry and because it was not against the law, said the following to the mother:
• "my court, my rules, I consider it inappropriate", and
• reportedly told the mother that she needs to understand that in "his" courtroom, the laws do not apply, it's the "judge's law" that applies.

None of that appeared inappropriate to not one, but to TWO male judges who are put on the bench by the people to uphold the rule of law.

It is interesting to mention that people are so afraid of the power of the judge to punish them in contempt of court, even for lawful behavior, that a "nurse-in" protest by breastfeeding mothers was held OUTSIDE of the courthouse, not IN the male chauvinistic pig Hentchel's courtroom, which is not Hentchel's courtroom, but the courtroom of the People of the State of Michigan who conferred upon Hentchel the DUTY to apply the laws and adjudicate in accordance with the law in that building - and not to express to the world what he considers personally appropriate or inappropriate - if it is lawful.

The mother actually indicated in an online discussion that she wanted to feed her sick son at that point openly, but was afraid to be thrown in jail and for her son to be taken away by social services - even though the mother knew the law was on her side.

The mother's fear was repeated by other breastfeeding mothers when they staged only an "outside" nurse-in as a protest for a public humiliation of a woman inside the courtroom, and that fear is exactly what is wrong with our judicial system - the rule of men presented as the rule of law and instead of the rule of law, which people are afraid of to the point of obeying it while knowing that the judge's actions are unlawful.

I am sure that the pig would not have dared to order breastfeeding mothers, members of the public who came to observe open court proceedings, to be incarcerated or removed for breastfeeding.

I encourage breastfeeding mothers to do what is natural to them anywhere - including in courtrooms.  Breastfeed your children.  Do not try to be discreet.  Just feed them.  And let everybody else go read the law.

As to the male chauvinistic pigs, they two "H" judges, Hentchel and Hamre, put themselves down in history as dishonorable jerks.  May at least that be their discipline.

On the other hand, in the state of New York, for example, there is no statute of limitations on judicial discipline, as well as on attorney discipline.

I bet the same rule exists in Michigan.

It is not late yet to discipline pig Hentchel.

My question is - why attorneys of the state of Michigan do not insist that Hentchel be taken off the bench and disbarred?  The honorable profession?

Here is what the woman said on the day of the appearance:

And here is what people's comments say:

VOX POPULI, VOX DEI.

Speak to the insiders - is the new rule of law in the U.S.

I've so far spoken to several attorneys disciplined for misconduct in different states of the United States.

All of their cases, as they related them, were conducted with gross procedural and substantive violations and obviously with a view "to get" them.

Attorneys agreed that the rule of law does not work in the U.S. and that you need to be a local connected counsel to get positive results from the court.

They asked me if I want to consider hiring or consulting with an "insider" attorney who worked previously for the disciplinary committees and is connected to the "disciplinary industry", so that he would be able to "put a word" for me and so that my discipline (if any) would be more lenient in the case which is based on 3 sanctions by a judge after I sued him (and the judge currently left the bench in haste, I understand, forestalling being taken off the bench).

My answer is - NO.

I have adult children.  I raised them not to bend to a lie and not to live a lie.  I owe it to them and to their future not to bend to a lie and not to live a lie myself.

If we all understand that the court system turned into a criminal enterprise where the only way to obtain benefits for yourself and your clients is to be "connected" to the court - we need to fight it, not to bend to it, accept it and "play by the rules", by criminal rules.

I won't bend to criminals and fraudsters.  

And I believe that eventually, not necessarily during my lifetime, justice will prevail.  

The missing pages of Judge Guy's decision arrived - and they are even more hilarious...

Update as of 2:32 pm NorthEastern time on August 17, 2015.

While I was writing the previous blog, about pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Judge Guy's unlawful decision, the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse has sent to me pages 2, 4 and 6 of Judge Guys' unlawful decision which I publish, with commentaries, below.

Judge Guy obviously does not comprehend a clear and unambiguous order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 transferring the case to the Supreme Court.  There are no "citations" issued in the Supreme Court.  Different rules apply.  A different court now has jurisdiction.  Judge Guy does not care.  He did not care, when issuing the citations, to even tell me that the case was removed to the Supreme Court, or send to me his own order of assignment, assignment to the Supreme Court only.  That was, in his words, a "miscommunication".  Right.

Judge Guy omits to mention here that on May 6, 2015 I wrote the above letter before I learned that the case was removed to the Supreme Court as of April 3, 2015 and Judge Guy never had jurisdiction to proceed with the case in the Surrogate's Court as if it was never removed.  That is called "omission amounting to misrepresentation".  Judge Guy - you are committing fraud by stating one without the other.  Do you care?

Now we come to the core of the problem.

Judge Guy admits that the case was removed to the Supreme Court - but "perceives no prejudice" to disobey the clear order of removal and assignment TO ANOTHER COURT by the Chief Administrative Judge, directed to Judge Guy - an order that was never changed by Judge Mulvey.

It is no "no prejudice", Judge Guy, it is "no jurisdiction".  Are you able to comprehend the difference?

And, your opinion whether it is better to handle the case in the Surrogate's Court is - guess what - IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW because - guess what - the case was ALREADY REMOVED before you were assigned, and that is the law of the case that you cannot change.

Here I publish a paragraph from page 3 to page 4 showing what was meant by the first abridged sentence on page 4.

The last phrase does not make sense, grammatically or otherwise.  Judge Guy should go back to grammar school to learn English properly before proceeding his shenanigans on the bench.

Moreover, what is wrong with the whole Mokay saga is that every single judge in the case, lawfully or unlawfully proceeding, reviews the Mokay case "in simplistic terms", like Judge Guy did.

And, judging (no pun intended) as to what Judge Guy did, and how he PERCEIVES the case, shows clearly the incompetence of this guy to be even a law student, not a lawyer, not a judge - even a law student.

Look what he writes.

"Following a stipulated settlement, the decedent executed a deed prepared by petition, in contravention of the settlement".

The law of the State of New York is - SO WHAT?  The deed is not valid unless it is validly delivered.   There is no proof in the Mokay case that the deed was ever delivered. End of story.  Title never transferred, fraud was never committed.

Judge Guy does not mention that the deed was delivered.  Good for him, because it wasn't.  But bad for him, because Judge Guy somehow things that when a third party executed a document that is only valid on delivery, without such delivery, it means that the petitioner (Mr. Neroni) did something wrong - even if the law of the State of New York which Judge Guy is sworn to uphold, says otherwise.

Then goes even more stupid rant about "following decedent's death litigation" which makes no sense at all, "resulting in reversal of the deed" which makes no sense at all, because a deed cannot be "reversed", it can be voided, but a deed that was never delivered, is not valid and does not NEED to be voided, it can be simply IGNORED.

Then, Judge Guy correctly states (let's give the poor guy a break and put some sense into Judge Guy's horribly screwed grammar) that Mr. Neroni was disbarred because of what Judge Guy described - that made no sense as a matter of law.  

At least, Judge Guy is honest enough to acknowledge that Mr. Neroni was disbarred as a result of something that does not make sense as a matter of law - execution by a 3rd party of a deed that was never delivered and was thus void.

Lies, lies, lies, Judge Guy.  This issue is NOT before "this Court", the Surrogate's Court.  "This issue" is before a different court, the Supreme Court, the Court you were assigned to and the court to which you blocked transfer of the removed case and blocked clerks of both courts, the transferring court and the receiving court, from doing their jobs and transfer - and receive - the case and allow me to properly prosecute the case in the court where it was removed. 

So the "narrow issue" is the issue of YOUR misconduct, Judge Guy, and YOUR disobedience to a clear court order that requires YOUR disbarment, as a matter of precedent in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division 3rd Department.

And to determine any issues in this case the Surrogate's Court MAY NOT explore any issues - it has only the authority and duty to obey the court order of removal and transfer the case to the Supreme Court where the case must be TRIED and decided - which you did not allow to do, without authority.

Here Judge David H. Guy religiously repeats the lies of Judge Dowd out of the Supreme Court Mokay action - that "petitioner or his counsel did not appear" at the jury trial, and that's why the case proceeded as a bench trial.  Judge Guy made no mention that a represented party MAY NOT appear without his attorney as a matter of law in the State of New York, and that the attorney (me) was on a legitimate, documented medical leave on the date of trial for a back injury not allowing me to move or appear - and that under such circumstances Judge Dowd had no right to proceed to trial, and proceeding to trial ex parte was ILLEGAL.

Since Judge Guy does not care whether his own actions are legal or not, he did not care whether the actions of another judge were legal or not - that's consistent, even though consistently illegal, behavior.

Now, this is hilarious.

Judge David H. Guy, acting in clear absence of jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court, announces a new rule - since a litigant lost in courts previously (and unlawfully, which Judge Guy knows since he quoted only "execution" of the deed, and not delivery, see explanation above), he will most likely lose in all others.

In other words - Judge Guy is convinced that if judges refused to apply the law in clear favor of a litigant previously, they will continue to disregard the law in the future, referencing the Article 14 contribution case, a case where (1) NO JUDGE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED YET, and where (2) Daniel Mokay filed an affidavit, postdating the trial in the Mokay trial, which undid the whole claim of Richard Harlem that he was not disqualified and is entitled to legal fees.

In other words, Judge Guy, in denying relief in a case in the wrong court and without authority, claimed that, based on prior judicial misconduct, it is predictable that Mr. Neroni's current Article 14 case, based on the decision of the Appellate Division that deemed the decedent (The Estate) a co-tortfeasor subject as a matter of law to the CPLR Article 14 contribution claim, will be decided against Mr. Neroni BY THE JURY (!).

Judge Guy clearly has a crystal ball.  Or, maybe, Judge Guy is an honest guy who honestly blunders the way things are - and admits that judges do whatever they want to achieve the necessary result, to give a son-of-a-judge attorney attorney's fees no matter whether they are warranted by law or not (they are not), and to hurt critic of judicial misconduct and THE ONE WHO SUED JUDGES no matter whether the law warrants that or not.

Once again, when the court has no jurisdiction, the court may not make any "findings".  So, what Judge Guy finds, Judge Guy can just as well flush down the toilet - because what a judge "finds" in a case in court from which the case was removed, has no force of law, and even a judge as stupid as Judge Guy appears to be must realize it.

I already pointed out in my previous blog who exactly Judge Guy's "decision" would have hurt had it been a lawful decision, which is what it pretends to be: not just Mr. Neroni, but ALL parties in the Estate proceedings of the Estate of Andrew Mokay.

All parties are interested in stopping distribution from the Estate pending Mr. Neroni's claim, not to grab pieces of the Estate and run, especially that I predict that distribution will not be to creditor David Mokay, not to the disinherited widow Connie Mokay and not to the adult children of the decedent, but will line the pockets of son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem and his law firm, which is what Judge Guy is trying to secure - without authority.

The remaining piece on page 6 is about "standards" and "elements" for preliminary injunction that Judge Guy could not review in the court he reviewed it, because that court no longer had jurisdiction.

So.

I now received the full "decision" of our disHonorable Judge Guy.


Yet, I did not receive any reaction by the court clerk of the Surrogate's Court to my demand to obey the court order of removal that the court clerk has on file since April 3, 2015 and that requires her to transfer the case to the receiving court, the Delaware County Supreme Court.

Here is our correspondence on the subject.

I wonder what is it that the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse fears more - to disobey the order of Judge Mulvey dated April 3, 2015 that she has on file, the order of removal of the case to the Supreme Court, or the rage of Judge Guy who told her to stay put and disobey the order of the court.

By the way - will Judge Guy be disbarred for disobeying the order of the court?  There is precedent in Appellate Division 3rd Department for such disbarment, even of an unenforceable order of the court with no proof of disobeying - created specifically for Mr. Neroni.

Yet, by rule of precedent, the same law should be applicable to attorney David Guy who, as judge, disobeyed the court order of Judge Mulvey removing a case from Surrogate's Court and assigning Judge Guy (who is also an attorney) to the Supreme Court.

Will Judge Guy be removed from the bench, disbarred and blackballed now from any work in the legal profession - the way Mr. Neroni was, even though there is no proof and no applicable law allowing his disbarment - now that there is PROOF in the form of documentary evidence and Judge Guy's own admission that Judge David H. Guy disobeyed the order of Judge Robert C. Mulvey removing a case to the Delaware County Supreme Court and assigning Judge Guy to the Supreme court case only, and that Judge Guy did it deliberately?

Stay tuned.

The Mokay saga continues. The hilarious incompetence and misconduct of Judge David H. Guy in admittedly presiding in court to which he was never assigned and from which the case was removed

Today I received by e-mail pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the decision by Judge Guy made in Surrogate's Court in my client's (and husband's) case.  

I will post what I received anyway, and will add pages 2, 4 and 6 when I receive them.

I wrote about this case, with documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy in this case, see here, here, here, here, here and here. 

The linked prior blogs contain ample documentary evidence of misconduct of Judge Guy attempting to block my husband lawful claim to stop distribution (looting) of Andrew Mokay's Estate pending resolution of his lawsuit against the Estate under Article 14 of the CPLR for contribution, and to make Richard Harlem and his law firm return money they were paid out so far to the Estate to make the Estate be able to meet its obligations TO ALL creditors and beneficiaries including:

1/ Creditor David Mokay - with a claim against the Estate (represented by Richard Harlem) of $95,000 while Richard Harlem claims he represented David Mokay in the Supreme Court in a related action, for which New York law completely disqualifies Richard Harlem (an attorney cannot represent clients who sue one another in related actions) - but who in the judicial system cares about the law when the Neronis are concerned;

2/ Creditor Frederick J. Neroni - since the Appellate Division included the decedent Andrew Mokay into the "trio" of tortfeasors, Mr. Neroni has an absolute right, provided to him by law, to sue the Estate of Andrew Mokay (represented NOT by Richard Harlem in the lawsuit for contribution, please, take notice) for contribution and/or indemnification, Article 14 of the CPLR;

3/ disinherited decedent's widow suing for her elective share provided by law (not represented by Richard Harlem, but Richard Harlem drafted affidavits for her acknowledging her as being one of the tortfeasors, and her own attorney Michael Getman claimed to the Supreme Court, Judge Dowd, that his client is "more aligned with" people who are suing her than with the co-defendant who is being sued;

4/ adult children of the decedent, co-beneficiaries of the Estate seeking to obtain distribution under the will Richard Harlem argued in April of 2015 to the Supreme Court in Mokay v. Mokay was not proper:

• Daniel Mokay;
• Andrew Mokay;
• David Mokay;
• Christine Reed;
• Patricia Knapp

Judge Guy did not want to order Richard Harlem to put back the moneys he so far received in order to make the Estate solvent and being able to meet claims of ALL of the above creditors, the disinherited widow and the beneficiaries, not just Mr. Neroni's claim.

I guess, when you are driven with a desire (or somebody's orders) to "get" Mr. Neroni, anybody else who gets hurt by your unlawful "equitable" decisions do not matter.

So, interests of David Mokay, as a creditor or beneficiary of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of Connie Mokay, decedent's widow who, if claims of creditors are satisfied first, will receive nothing out of the Estate, do not matter to Judge Guy.

Interests of decedent's children 

David Mokay

Daniel Mokay

Andrew Mokay

Christine Reed and

Patricia Knapp

do not matter to Judge Guy.

Judge Guy considered it inequitable to attorneys to take the moneys back from them to make the Estate solvent in view of a potential incoming claim of Mr. Neroni as the Estate's creditor.

In ruling so (without authority, as discussed throughout this blog and referenced prior blog, with supporting documentary evidence) Judge Guy showed that:

• the rule of law does not matter;
• lack of jurisdiction does not matter;
• equity and law requiring the judge to keep the Estate solvent to satisfy creditors first and then beneficiaries, and only then attorneys, does not matter - because there is a need to hurt Mr. Neroni and prevent him from getting any justice and there is a need to satisfy the fraudster Richard Harlem's unlawful claims for attorney fees that Richard Harlem, as disqualified attorney, is not entitled to a penny of, because Richard Harlem is a blue blood attorney, son of a judge to whom laws do not apply.

By the way, as I said before, Richard Harlem learnt at the knee of the greatest, so his fraudulent conduct comes natural given what his father, partner until his father's death, and mentor was caught with.

The above overriding "goals" matter more to Judge Guy than the law, or equity, or fairness - to anyone.

Please, note that on the very first page of the decision made on August 13, 2015 out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court and based on Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, Judge Guy acknowledges that the only case he was assigned to was the Supreme Court of Delaware County to which he was assigned after the case in question was removed out of the Delaware County Surrogate's Court, so what you read below is a purely illegal exercise of judicial power without ANY authority and in the wrong court.

As you see, on page 1 Judge Guy acknowledges that the case was removed to the Supreme Court and only then he was assigned - to the Supreme Court - but stubbornly proceeds in Surrogate's court to which he was never assigned and from which court the case is already removed, and by the rules of Surrogate's Court.

In other words, it does not even concern the judge that he is acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, in the court from which the case was removed, with all attendant legal consequences, and to which the judge was never assigned - not in the Surrogate's Court.  Whether it is mere incompetence, or bias, incompetence and disdain to the rule of law, I do not care, but the judge had absolutely no authority to keep the case in the Surrogate's Court and to preside over it when he was assigned to the already removed case in the Supreme Court.

So, guess what - it was a "miscommunication" that I was not notified, as the Petitioner's counsel, of the removal of the case to the Supreme Court and of the specific and exclusive assignment of Judge Guy only to the Supreme Court case - a separate court with its own clerk, its own filing system and its own rules.

After the lip service to the "miscommunication" Judge Guy does the usual lip service as to "searching the conscience" calling himself  "Court" and calling his conscience "its conscience", in an impersonal manner.

While it is correct that New York courts deemed the matter of recusal within the discretion of a judge (incorrectly, in my view, since the judge is not an objective observer of his own behavior and constitutional right to a fair and impartial judicial adjudication is at stake which should not be subject to "judicial discretion", or, in other words, whim), recusal is a function of jurisdiction.  

When Judge GUY ADMITTEDLY was assigned only to the removed Supreme Court case while he stubbornly continued to preside over the Surrogate's Court case while instructing clerks of the Supreme Court that the order of assignment to the Surrogate's Court was "erroneous" - without any basis in law or fact for that contention, he certainly did not have jurisdiction in Surrogate's Court over the case which was removed from that court (by Judge Guy's own admission) as of April 3, 2015.

So, all the usual crap about searching the non-existing conscience of the judge was void, because, once again, there is no discretion where there is no jurisdiction.

Moreover, while Judge Guy correctly invokes Judiciary Law 14 as the only basis in New York for mandatory disqualification of a judge (where courts do not honor the state or federal Constitutions which every judge is sworn to uphold as a condition of coming to the bench), Judiciary Law 14 which requires the judge to recuse when he acts without jurisdiction clearly applies in this case.

Moreover, how much more biased, incompetent or both can the judge be if he KNOWINGLY proceeds without authority IN THE WRONG COURT, where HE WAS NEVER ASSIGNED, and making DECISIONS ON THE MERITS against the party who CAUGHT HIM RED-HANDED and blogged about his misconduct, while admitting that he was never assigned to the Surrogate's Court where he is presiding and ruling?

Did Judge Guy even read the rubbish that he has sent to me posed as a "Decision"?

See how Judge Guy engages in analysis on the merits - once again, in the wrong court, where Judge Guy was never assigned.

After acknowledging that the case has been removed, as of April 3, 2015 to the Supreme Court, Judge Guy rules on August 13, 2015 out of Surrogate's Court that service after April 3, 2015 did not comply with Surrogate's Court rules?

Who gave a law license to this guy?

How does he remain on the bench if he cannot read and cannot apply the law?  A judge really cannot claim stupidity and incompetence as a defense - but there are no other defenses available for this behavior.  It is really the outside of enough.

Once again, analysis on the merits and the claim that the decision as to imposition of the injunction is "within the sole discretion of the Court".  Apparently, Judge Guy does not know the fundamental and basic notion that the discretion is the function of jurisdiction and does not exist in the absence of jurisdiction, and thus no injunctions can be granted or denied in the court from where the case was removed 4 months before Judge Guy made his decision, and by a judge who was never assigned to that court.

If Judge Guy does not know that fundamental and basic notion, I do not understand why this incompetent judge is still on the bench.  By the way, Judge Mulvey whom I notified back in May of this year about Judge Guy's shenanigans in this case and who made no efforts to correct the situation, is no less incompetent than Judge Guy and no less responsible for Judge Guy's misconduct.

So, Judge Guy, a judge without authority to rule in the Surrogate's Court, the judge who blocked even filing the case removed by order of another judge to the court to which he has actually assigned, laments over unfairness to the attorneys who FRAUDULENTLY pursued a case in two courts for 7 years riding contrary to every applicable law, contrary to the facts of the case, but flaunting their pedigrees - of a retired (now late) Supreme Court justice and his son.

Pedigree works, I can tell you.  No law should apply, and, as Judge Guy shows, when you have the right connections, you win even to the point of having a judge holding the case in the wrong court for you, in the court to which the judge was never assigned - and ruling for you and against your opponent where the judge clearly has no authority to be in that court and where the case was long removed to another court.

And, somehow the judge finds, through Surrogate's Court, the court to which the judge was never assigned and from which the case was removed as of April 3, 2015, that the case file of a removed case must be kept in the court from which the case was removed.

Nice job, Judge Guy.  Stupid job - yes.  Unlawful and without authority - yes.  But nice job for Richard Harlem and to prove that the Neronis are outlaws and, as outlaws, are not entitled to elementary application of any rules, any laws, and are not entitled to even adherence to the court orders of removal and assignment.

I will hold my breath as to what the missing pages 2, 4 and 6 contain.

I will publish them as soon as they become available.

And - oh, forgot to tell you - this "decision" that was issued by a judge who was never assigned to the case, out of a court from which the case was removed 4 months prior, is a secret decision that I am prohibited to disclose.

That's what the e-mail of Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse said.

No, Ms. Hulse, it is a public record, and a public record of corruption and misconduct in the New York State Judiciary.  And I will make it as public as I can.

And I demand from you, as I did in my letter, to obey the order of removal that you have on file for 4 months without obeying it, to transfer the case to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

If the case is not transferred, Mr. Neroni will simply resort to the legal remedies remaining to him - and, believe it or not, he still has some legal remedies at his disposal.

Stay tuned as the Mokay saga continues to unfold.

A case in Texas further jeopardizes attorney licensing scheme

A case has been decided by the Texas Supreme Court under the Texas Constitution which invalidated state regulation of the profession of "eyebrow threaders" - as "preposterous", irrational and unreasonable.

The concurrence in the case reads like a book of aphorisms and blasts the government in mounting unreasonable bars to people who want to earn an honest living.

The court in Texas referred to the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission and statistical data that provides that 1/3 of workforce in the U.S. must receive some kind of permission from the government, through licensing, certification or other types of permits, to conduct their business, often without any rational basis for it.

Principles announced in the Texas case, same as in the U.S. Supreme Court case, are fully applicable to attorney regulation throughout the country.

I will try to run several blogs in the nearest future, time permitting, with analysis of the decision, dissent and especially the concurring opinion of Judge Willett.

I promise I will run a separate blog just with aphoristic quotations from Judge Willett's decision.

The name of the case is Patel v Texas State Department of Licensing and Regulation.

Am I mistaken or are courts starting to see the light and starting to make rational and fair decisions - finally, after a long span of Dark Ages?

Stay tuned.