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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Harlem was the right person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Harlem filed a motion to strike that appeal.

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

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

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

Here is the evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibits:

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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a portion of that decision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the letter once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York State Bar Association is worried about the disappearing apple pie

In January of 2016, I wrote on this blog about the position taken by the president of the New York State Bar Association David Miranda - that disbundling, separating legal services from legal information is somehow improper and irresponsible to consumers of legal services.

David Miranda was actually concerned not about consumers, but about the dwindling market of paid legal services for the Association's members.

NYSBA now announced that on May 3, 2016, the New York State Bar Association holds a get-together to discuss the fate of the profession - and charges outsiders a fee of $150.00 to listen to what the speakers have to say about the future of the profession.

The get-together will also give the participants 2.0 credits for Continued Legal Education - so, you've discussed the future of your profession (and of your own livelihood) - you satisfied your CLE obligations designed to protect not you, but your clients.

Very traditional approach by the legal profession - do something for yourself and claim that it is for the benefit of the people at large.

Here are the details of the get-together.

Here is more information about the get-together:

You can see the change of stance taken by David Miranda between January of 2016:

and now:

In January of 2016 Miranda's focus was on the alleged impropriety of actions of "entrepreneurs" who act "under the guise" of giving "access to legal services" (which was not even true, because the "entrepreneurs" in question that David Miranda is so irate against are providing information about the law, not opinions to a certain client about how to resolve that client's particular case - and that's not legal services) provide information about the law to the public "without guidance" (without legal services):

In April of 2016 Miranda's focus is now on

As I said above - nothing like talking about your own disappearing profits while trying to present it as if you are fighting "to bridge the serious justice gap" - which you caused by your monopoly for legal services in the first place.

The good thing though - they are worried.

Change is coming.

Fast.

New York State Bar Association discriminates against transgender people?

I looked recently at the page of New York State Bar Association, following a reader's tip, to verify whether NYSBA discriminates against transgender people in how it gathers demographic information from its members.

It actually does discriminate.

Here is NYSBA's webpage guiding new members through the process of joining association ask for certain "diversity" information.

Where asking for gender, NYSBA does not include "other" or "transgender" option.  Apparently, such diversity is not welcome at NYSBA.

I wonder why, at the time of an ongoing and very public scandal with North Carolina and Georgia disciminating against transgender individuals, when the North Carolina State Attorney General took an extraordinary step of refusing to defend his own client the State of North Carolina, if it is sued for discrimination by transgender people, because actions of the State of North Carolina are indefensible, The New York State Bar Association stubbornly continues to make transgender people invisible.

Not enough money to do the corrections?

Or, rather, is it the policy of NYSBA to discriminate against transgender people?

The phenomenon of a crying judge

Here is what you rarely see nowadays - a crying judge:

This is Passaic County Superior Court Judge Joseph A. Portelli, of New Jersey.

Judge Portelli is crying because the disciplinary counsel asked for his removal - reportedly, for "insulting and sexual remarks to attorneys and witnesses who regularly appeared in his courtroom".

Note the word "regularly".

Here is the formal complaint against Judge Portelli.

I can tell you that many judges I know made similar remarks in New York - and are still on the bench, and instead, complaints against them are tossed by the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct and complainants are viciously persecuted.

In Judge Portelli's case, the word "regularly" denotes that what Judge Portelli was doing, was happening for a long time, and it requires courage to finally turn the judge in.

Before Judge Portelli started to cry, Judge Portelli fought to deny the allegations - even though such things happen with multiple witnesses.

Now he is crying.

He was not crying when he was insulting people.

He is crying because he is about to lose his power and his paycheck.

And that's all there is to his "honor" - and to the honor of many others who are not reached or reachable by judicial discipline.

They are just contemptible cowards, hurting those who are weaker then them in status, abusing their power to insult people - and crying crocodile tears at the prospect that such power is about to be removed from them.

No sympathy.

The soap opera with Judge Alan Simon concluded, kind of - other soap operas are going on

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct has published its determination of removal against Judge Alan Simon, "a justice of a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and the Ramapo Town Court,
Rockland County".

I wrote a preliminary blog about discipline against Judge Alan Simon, when his case was just reported, but before the determination was published, here.

The decision reads like a novel about the Wild West.

The only thing that it lacks is horseback chases with shooting.

Otherwise - it is intimidation, yelling at another judge "have a stroke or die", holding a court employee (intern) in contempt for disobeying a "court order" issued orally by Judge Simon outside of the courtroom or any court proceedings, attempting to use for arrest of that employee Judge Simon's personal friend who was off-duty at the time, the list goes on and on - I encourage you to read the decision.

Yet, as I said in my previous blog, while Judge Simon undoubtedly deserved being removed from the bench for his shenanigans, many judges on higher benches remain there despite any shenanigans, because the New York State Commission has an unwritten policy to remove only low-rank jerks.

Higher-rank jerks will remain there and continue to do what Judge Simon was removed for - with impunity - until people of the State of New York vote in 2017 to change to the State Constitution and remove judicial immunity on constitutional level, allowing to sue judges who commit misconduct in office, for money damages.

Only hitting them in the pocket, where it hurts, will work.

And, as to Alan Simon - the "have a stroke or die" former judge is actually an attorney "with no record of public discipline":

Like another removed judge, Diane L. Schilling, who also remains a practicing attorney with "no record of public discipline", see her order of removal here.

Of course, Diane L. Schilling was a "special" counsel for Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma - that may explain that she still does not have a "record of public discipline", despite having been kicked off the bench for misconduct.

Mr. Simon might not be as lucky as Diane Schilling - his looks do not qualify.

My not-so-rhetorical question is - when will attorney disciplinary committees take their collective heads from where they are and start removing licenses of judges disciplined for misconduct?

Isn't it their job to protect the public from the likes of Simon and Schilling?

A suspended attorney working as a judge - an abomination or an inspiration?

It was reported that an attorney whose law license was suspended in the State of Colorado is working as an administrative law judge in the State of New Mexico.

Great news for all attorneys disciplined (suspended and disbarred) for criticism of judicial misconduct.

We can all work as administrative law judges, and try to clean the system from within, by our own example - can't we?

2nd Circuit joins other federal courts in discrimination against criminal defense attorneys

I wrote on this blog about the tendency of federal courts to start blocking certain attorneys of criminal defendant's own choice from representing them.

It happened less than a month ago in two high-profile cases, in Minnesota and in Nevada.

Now it is happening in New York, too.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit banned an attorney from representing clients on criminal appeals because of alleged misconduct in "defaults" on appeals.

Given that the same 2nd Circuit is extremely forgiving to any defaults and mistakes by the government in the role of an appellee (opponent of an appeal), no matter how bad those mistakes are, and that is my own personal experience and my husband's experience with his appeals, going after a criminal defense attorney for alleged "defaults" (failure to meet strict deadlines imposed by the Court of Appeals) to the extent of banning him from court-appointed representation of criminal defendants, appears pretextual to me.

Moreover, research of orders referenced in the "banning order" turned my suspicion of judicial retaliation and discrimination against Mr. Castillo into a firm belief that Mr. Castillo was improperly targeted by the court for something that had nothing to do with his alleged "defaults".

This is Mr. Castillo's banning order, referencing two cases in which Mr. Castillo allegedly defaulted:

1) United States v Morgan, Case No. 12-3231, and
2) United States v. Morales, Case No. 15-438

This is the entire portion of the docket in U.S. v Morgan when Attorney Castillo represented the criminal defendant/Appellant:

There is no indication in Mr. Castillo's notice of appearance in U.S. v Morgan that he was a court-appointed attorney, so he must be a privately hired attorney, chosen by Mr. Morgan to represent him on appeal.

Here is the timeline of Mr. Castillo's participation in the Morgan case:

• March 28, 2013 - Mr. Castillo enters the case;
• April 1, 2013 - Mr. Castillo reports to the court that all transcripts in the case are ready;
• August 16, 2013, September 27, 2013 and November 13, 2013 - Mr. Castillo repeats the report to the court that all transcripts are ready;
• February 18, 2014 - Mr. Castillo is relieved from the case by court order claiming that he failed to submit the appeal despite multiple notifications from the court.

The docket does not reflect any notifications.

The counsel that succeeded Mr. Castillo on the Morgan appeal also filed a defective notice of appearance,

but was not sanctioned for it like Mr. Castillo was in the subsequent US v Morales case.

This is the ENTIRE docket of United States v Morales:

While the "banning order" mentions an order of October 2015 that Mr. Castillo allegedly failed to respond to timely, there is no such order listed in the case docket - the latest filing in that case is of 04/13/2015 - new case manager assigned.

If the rest of the docket in a criminal appeal is secret (which is completely unconscionable, since criminal proceedings must be open to the public), there is no way to discern what the order was about, whether it actually was made, and what did Mr. Castillo did wrong.

As to the "defective documents" that Mr. Castillo allegedly filed which caused the ire of the court to the point of banning Mr. Castillo from court-appointed criminal appeals, Mr. Castillo's problem was that his notice of appearances was not "text-searchable".

I included the full notification to Mr. Castillo in docket 9, about his notice of appearance not being "text-searchable" 

and docket 11, same claim, his notice of appearance is not "text-searchable".

Such "defaults" have, of course, nothing to do with Mr. Castillo's ability to provide effective assistance of counsel to a criminal defendant-appellant, which is all that matters on such an appeal.

Possibly, the reason is not that Mr. Gaspar Castillo is a bad attorney,  but that he is a good one - and the 2nd Circuit resents that criminal defendants would have a good attorney representing them on appeals.   

As a comparison, here is the docket of my husband's appeal of the anti-filing injunction, also in the 2nd Circuit:

 My husband filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2014, and filed his Appellant's brief on April 8, 2015, on schedule.

The Appellee filed their brief only on December 2, 2015, which was late, late despite ability to file instantly, electronically, and was 8 months (!) after the filing date of the Appellant's brief.

The court still allowed the late filing - without any problem:

My husband asked, by motion, to allow him to file electronically, to be on equal grounds with the Appellee.

The motion was denied without an explanation.

Within 16 days of the late filing of the Appellee brief, the decision of the Appellee was affirmed, before Mr. Neroni had a chance to file a responsive brief.

When Mr. Neroni asked the 2nd Circuit to vacate the summary order entered BECAUSE the court did not allow Mr. Neroni's electronic filing, and because Mr. Neroni had to use the U.S. mail overnight service which "misdirected" his pleadings and caused them to arrive late (not Mr. Neron's fault).

Mr. Neroni's motion to vacate and allow late filing of the Reply Brief from him - as the court allowed the Appellee to do - because his delay was not even his delay, but mistake of the post office that "misdirected" OVERNIGHT mail that was supposed to arrive BEFORE the deadline of December 18, 2015, his request to allow late filing and to file electronically, to prevent "misdirection" of overnight mail and to equalize Mr. Neroni's right of access to court with that of his counseled Appellee - that request was denied:

In my own appeal, Neroni v Peebles, Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood appeared on behalf of an unnamed "Appellee" - in a case where there were multiple defendants and no appellees.

Kirkwood's filing was not recognized as "defective" and he was not sanctioned.

It is Mr. Castillo who was sanctioned and banned from criminal cases for filing notices of appearances that were allegedly not "text-searchable" - the horror!

The policy is clear - to discriminate against attorneys and litigants who courts do not like to the point of punishing them for something that is not their fault, or for some petty irregularities that can be easily forgiven, and at the very same time to allow the government late filings, defective filings, filings on behalf of unnamed parties - you name it, the 2nd Circuit allows it.

Attorney Castillo (in the picture on the right, with his client):

 attorney who is now banned from criminal appeals in the 2nd Circuit for 2 years - was actually selected as a top criminal attorney, a "super-lawyer" in the Albany, NY area, for the years 2011-2016:

Maybe - MAYBE - attorney Gaspar Castillo did something wrong, and for that he was banned by the 2nd Circuit.

But, that "maybe" must be clearly identified from the court records, in order to ban a skilled attorney from representing criminal defendants on appeals.

Records referenced in Mr. Castillo's "banning order" refer to cases where there is nothing in official court dockets (that I published above) that would support such a ban.

Thus, the ban must be based on some - as they call it - "extrajudicial" grounds.

Which is illegal.

In case of U.S. v Morgan, the appeal was won by the attorney who came into the case after Mr. Castillo - which says nothing negative about Mr. Castillo, because there was no reason to remove him that I see, preparation of appeals after a jury trial, based on transcripts, may take a long time.

The appeal in U.S. v Morales still continues, and no attorney was substituted there.

Maybe, that case is the key why Mr. Castillo was removed - the government was afraid that he will do a good job on that one?

Because, filing a notice of appearance that is not "text searchable" is a laughable pretense to remove a criminal defense attorney.