The Northern District of New York sets a new precedent chilling civil rights lawsuits against social services - bring such a case to trial, and your attorney will be suspended and screwed out of her fees, so nobody from now on will take such cases

In 2012, I was approached by three prospective clients:

Dara Argro;
Myrna Horshinski;
Cody Fletcher Bess - of Oxford, New York.

They contacted me because I was the only civil rights attorney in the entire State of New York who they contacted (after contacting about 60 other attorneys) who was not afraid to sue Social Services.

They complained to me that Social Services of the Chenango County regularly ransacked their house, see the 2nd Amended complaint here.

I sued on their behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in 2012.  The agreement between us was that my award of attorney fees will come at the end of the action if we prevail (the likelihood of prevailing was strong, with a strong promise of punitive damages).

That was my first mistake.  I couldn't predict in 2012 that disciplinary proceedings will be used against me in order to strip me of my ENTIRE fee in that case, of my 3.5 years of work.

The docket report of the case is included herein in its entirety, as of today.

The case survived (with my help) 3 motions to dismiss and 1 motion for a summary judgment and was scheduled for trial in the summer of 2015.

At that time it became known that one of the Defendants died, and her death was not disclosed to the Plaintiffs.

I requested an adjournment of the trial to get the Estate of the deceased Defendant done, so that my client would receive a better award at trial.

Apparently, feeling for your clients and trying to do what's best for them may be ruinous for a civil rights attorney.

It was for me in this case. 

After I obtained an adjournment, on their authorization, my clients first claimed that they had other, more important things, than to pursue forming the Estate of the deceased individual.

Then, a new trial date was scheduled, on November 13, 2015, see the docket report, Docket entry No. 83.

On the same date, the State of New York suspended my law license.

Previously, the disciplinary prosecutor in the state case Mary Gasparini admitted under oath that she acted as a collecting agency for the initial complainant in the case, the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection (the charge brought in favor of the Lawyers Fund was dismissed by the disciplinary court, by the way, saying that it has nothing to do with attorney discipline).

So, if Mary Gasparini could act as a collecting agency for Lawyers Fund in a disciplinary proceeding, why wouldn't she act for Chenango County Department of Social Services (whose attorney is on the judge-picking committee in the 3rd Department, and thus part of the "brotherhood/sisterhood").

There were two major civil rights cases (Neroni v Zayas and Argro v Osborne) that the State of New York and the Chenango County Department of Social Services filibustered by my suspension.

Get your pick who asked to suspend me on that particular date.

On November 18, 2015 the Northern District of New York allegedly suspended my federal law license, too.

Why I say "allegedly"?

Because normally orders of suspension or disbarment are at least pretended to be a court orders, and court orders imposing public discipline must also be public.

You do not have a criminal conviction that is secret, right?

Same with orders of suspension.

Yet, in my case, you can see from the "attorney lookup" on the NDNY website that I am suspended, but you cannot see on Pacer.gov any indication of any records of any disciplinary proceedings or any order of suspension for my name.

So, I am "kind of" suspended - by a secret order of the court.

Which is, of course, illegal.

But - what happened next is even more so.

We had a written agreement with my clients.

After my alleged suspension (which was reported to me first in a letter of Judge Norman Mordue who obviously knew about a secret order that never appeared anywhere), my clients hired an attorney "on recommendation of the bar association".

That attorney had them sign a quick retainer agreement asking for $500/hr (!) - from indigent clients!

Of course that attorney, Woodruff Carroll, had to use my 3.5 years of work that brought a difficult and acrimonious case to trial, through, once again, 3 motions to dismiss, a motion for a summary judgment, discovery and a deposition.

I had to travel, I invested time and money, my clients could call me at any time of day or night, I sifted through myriad documents that they have been sending me, they told me I am their Godsend.  Ok.

I described Mr. Carroll's "first efforts" on the case in this blog.

He later explained to the court that he took the case because he only saw a potential for a quick settlement.

He settled a multi-million dollar case for $30,000, pushing that my attorney fees should be either part of the settlement, or "not at all".

I refused to participate in Carroll's illegal "motion to fix" my fees.

First, such a motion should be made by me - and there was no fee dispute with my clients.  They told me they will honor our written agreement with an hourly rate.

Second, there is no procedure to fix such fees in federal court, and state court rules and laws do not necessarily apply.

Third, I was trying to not have my indigent clients pay me ANYTHING, instead waiting until the resolution of the case to apply for fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, as allowed in civil rights cases for prevailing plaintiffs.

Since my (now former) clients insisted they wanted an order of protection from social services as part of the agreement, that qualified as a material change for position, prevailing in the action, and I could apply for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.  All that I needed is time to wait and see how the case resolves.

Yet, that was not good enough for Woodruff Carroll, who, as I understand, had a behind-the-scenes agreement with the defendant, possibly for a kickback, to kill my attorney fees, even though his clients had a distinct interest to have my fees paid not by them, but by the defendants.

With the mind to kill my fees, Woodruff Carroll, according to Dara Argro, his own client, asked her for a written retainer agreement that we had between us.

She has sent to him THE ORIGINAL of the agreement (I have another).

Woodruff Carroll then turned around and claimed to the court, on the motion that the three plaintiffs did not initially authorize, that there was NO written agreement between us - while having the original of the written agreement sent to him by Dara Argro.

After I talked to my former three clients and ascertained that Woodruff Carroll coerced them to sign a retainer agreement with $500/hr hourly rate, but assured them that they would not have to pay, because he will be paid "by the state", Woodruff Carroll turned around and will be collecting from the settlement (or from the clients, of course).

After I indicated to the court, in a written JURISDICTIONAL objection sent by mail that:

1) Woodruff Carroll did not have authority to make the motion to "fix" my fees;
2) I have no dispute with the plaintiffs as to my fees, and do not want to make the motion to fix them at this time, and only I can make such a motion;
3) my fees have nothing to do with the settlement, we have a written retainer agreement, I provided services for 3.5 years of litigation when I was perfectly licensed, and my fee award does not depend on the amount of settlement my now former clients are negotiating;
4) 42 U.S.C. 1988 provides for award of attorney fees if the plaintiffs prevail - and there is no conclusion of the case yet, so it is premature to even talk about fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 - and I will wait until the conclusion of the case to apply for fees directly from defendants, so that my indigent former clients would not have to pay a penny.

Fair to the plaintiffs?

I think it was.

Turned out to be not fair to me.

But, this particular court would know a jurisdictional objection when it is screaming in its face.

So, the court proceeded on the merits without deciding the issue of jurisdiction to review such a motion - not from me.

First, Judge David Peebles (who hates me with a passion for criticism in pleadings and on this blog, I pointed out his misconduct), hate and all, makes a recommendation to the judge to pay me $15,000, the decision can be found here.

In that award he reduces the amount that he could discern from the docket report of the case listing what I filed and what I did, because I was "admonished" - by him - for not appearing at a telephone conference because I was sick and on a 3-MONTH documented medical leave.

Of course, such admonishment for being sick was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but when did that stop judges from disciplining an attorney who criticizes them.

Then, Peebles talks a lot about my standing to apply under 42 U.S.C. 1988 which, in his view, is "unlikely" - even though the case was at this time not finally resolved and scheduled for trial.

Then, Peebles applies New York State law about charging liens, admitting that under the same New York State Law the standing to bring a motion to fix MY fees belong - who would guess? - to me only, and certainly not to my clients.

Once again - we have a retainer agreement.

I did work for 3.5 years of litigation.

I brought a difficult civil rights case to the point of trial.

My former clients told me that they were trying to replace Carroll, but couldn't because, even with the case scheduled for trial, attorneys in New York (they called around 50 firms this time) are deathly afraid to be even associated with suing social services.

So, they told me, Carroll is better than nothing, and they needed the money.  I can't blame them - as to that point (they later signed an affidavit, while telling me they didn't, allowing Carroll to do whatever he wants with my fees, while continuing to tell me that they will be fair to me).

Carroll visited their house (to have them sign a $500/hr retainer agreement, to be paid "by the state"), and saw their financial situation.

Carroll, in his electronic submissions to the court that were not properly served to me and that I was able to recently read through downloading them, at my own expense, from Pacer.gov, tried to diminish what I did claiming that I did not do "much of discovery".

That is - while his ENTIRE fee was based on what I did, and he wouldn't have gotten a penny without me first bringing the case to the point of trial, threats from social services and all.

Now, here is the kicker.

Peebles still recommended the judge to "fix" my attorney fees - based on motion brought not by me that I objected to as made without standing - at $15,000.

Judge Norman Mordue rejected that recommendation and awarded me, for 3.5 years of litigation, exactly ZERO.

Because, in his view, on a motion that only I could bring and that I did not authorize Carroll to bring on my behalf, Carroll was still allowed to bring the motion - on whose behalf, I do not even know, because it was for Defendant's benefits and against me who wanted to be paid not by my clients but by Defendants, so Carroll was acting as an attorney for the Defendants and not for his clients, which the court, of course, swallowed - anything against Tatiana Neroni is good.

Judge Mordue claimed that, given all opportunity, I failed to answer the motion.

In the same breath as saying that I was supposed to make that motion, not oppose it - and I didn't yet.

And, did I mention that Woodruff Carroll, on behalf of plaintiffs, who told me that he told them that he will "let the judge decide", opposed ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS my opportunity to collect legal fees FROM DEFENDANTS, so that his indigent clients would not have to pay me anything.

Think about the kickback he must have gotten for that one.

The court swallowed that, too.

So, as of now, a precedent has been created in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, that runs like this.

Civil rights attorneys, beware.

If you take a case of an indigent plaintiff to sue under 42 U.S.C. 1983, here is what may happen.

The case may either be dismissed, under the myriad court-created (illegal under Article III) abstentions, deferences, enhanced pleading standards, comities, and other "doctrines" - and then you will be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous civil rights lawsuit and made to pay multi-thousand dollar attorney fees.  Happens all the time to civil rights attorneys, and at an increasing rate, so taking such a case is a considerable risk from the very beginning.

Yet, if you are successful in jumping through all hurdles - which means that the case is EXCESSIVELY BAD, as one attorney told me "it's a puke standard - the case will survive if it's so bad you want to puke by hearing it".

If you read the 2nd Amended Complaint, you will see that the puke standard was pre-eminently satisfied in the Argro case.

And it was not much reduced after the partial summary judgment either, see it here, a decision so bad that it apparently cost the initial defendants' attorney Maria Lisi-Murray her position Levine, Gouldin and Thompson.

She was immediately picked up though and now toils at the New York State Attorney General's office where, as I learnt over the years as a civil rights attorney, the hiring requirements are (1) complete lack of integrity; (2) incompetence, (3) ability to brown-nose the judge.

On the 3rd one Maria Lisi-Murray failed in Argro, but she immediately got assigned to another civil rights case of mine, where I am a party, and started to ask for sanctions against me from the time she was first assigned.  I guess, being booted from a law partnership was hard to take.  And because of some civil rights attorney, too.

Carroll pounded into his clients who are (1) unsophisticated in law and (2) had hopes for at least some monetary award (naturally) that the only thing they can get is what defendants' insurance would or would not pay.  

Of course, when the case started, Dara Argro told me that they do not care about the money - they cared that they would bring about some change regarding social services.

Dara Argro told me also that Carroll never even touched upon the issue of punitive damages, available in such circumstances and requested in the action - that is why defendants were so frantic to settle in the first place, instead of going to trial, to prevent exposure of issues at trial.

Dara Argro also told me that Carroll adamantly refused to proceed to trial, even though the plaintiffs wanted it, thus coercing the settlement - that may be illegal because of that coercion.

It was insanity anyway and attorney malpractice (in my opinion) to settle a multi-million dollar case with a promise of punitive damages for $30K, that's why it was necessary to remove me first, so that my clients would be stranded and have to hire some clutz who would not want to try the case, would sell his clients out to the defendants and would quickly settle for a quick buck (for himself) and a pittance for them.

So, once again, the rule for the civil rights attorneys here is as follows:

If your case miraculously survived a motion to dismiss and a motion for a summary judgment and is scheduled for trial (and that happens only to a minuscule minority of civil rights cases nowadays) - if you are an attorney for the plaintiffs who secured that victory by endless work, be prepared to lose your license for a contrived reason 

(the reason for my suspension is not clearly stated in my state order of suspension beyond the fact that I was sanctioned by a judge for frivolous conduct, which, in view of a recent declaration of unconstitutionality of a criminal statute with the same language as the rule of frivolous conduct, without more, does not constitute a basis for discipline at all).

Then, be prepared that the clutz who replaces you at the helm of the case, will cut you out of your entire fee, by fraud if necessary (Carroll stated to the court under oath that I do not have a written retainer agreement while having it in his hands).

OF COURSE I will make a motion to vacate this abomination.

But, of course, I realize that making a motion to a court whose attitude is that I have no rights no matter how you look at it, may be futile.

I wonder who, after the decision in the Argro case, would want to represent civil rights plaintiffs against social services at all.

And THAT is the main message meant by what was done to my legal fees.

Social Services are protected by the Northern District of New York, no matter what they do.

That court will bend over backwards, to the point of illegally suspending the plaintiffs' counsel in order to prevent the case from going to trial, with the concurrent exposure of issues involved, and to prevent the award of legal fees against the defendant.

Social Services can do anything to you.

And, with what happened to me as a civil rights attorney suing them, the message of the court is clear - DO NOT TOUCH.  The social services, I mean, not constitutional rights of people violated by social services.

NDNY is the advocate of social services instead of an enforcer of federal laws, as it is sworn to do under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

What else is new.

But - as to my suspension, I did not have my last laugh yet, and, if it is vacated, many things can happen...

At this time I simply warned Carroll that a case for fraud and fraud upon the court has accrued against him because of his sworn statement to the court that I did not have a retainer agreement while he had the original of that agreement in his hands, sent to him by Dara Argro.

And there is 6 years' statute of limitations to sue Carroll for that.

And there are actual and punitive damages for that.

And Carroll "accomplished" cutting me out of much more than $15,000 in legal fees as reasonable value of my services at the time they were provided.

So, since Carroll did not want me to be paid by defendants, I understand he will be happy to pay me himself, with punitive damages and treble damages allowed under Judiciary Law 487 (fraud upon the court).

And, attorneys and parties dealing with attorney Woodruff Carroll, know that he is dishonest - at least based on his tactic to first take from an uneducated client an original retainer agreement and then turn around and tell the court, under oath, that there is none.

If he can lie under oath about that (as he lied before that he was authorized to bring the motion to "fix" my fees), he can lie about anything else.

Richard Harlem's "Senator Seward connection" moved to the Appellate Division in March of 2016 - to fix the Mokay appeal?

As I was advised today in a letter from a court, Judge Robert C. Mulvey, formerly the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District who fought tooth and claw to keep Judge Becker on my cases, and especially the Mokay case, even when Becker's conflicts of interest were apparent, has got a promotion.

Since March of 2016 he is the justice of Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.

Here is his official biography on the site of New York State Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department:

Judge Mulvey as author of opinions on judicial ethics - one of the most unethical judges that I know - that's great.

It is not unusual that Cuomo promoted Mulvey higher - Cuomo needs to surround himself with unethical judges who owe him, just in case he needs to call in a favor.

As Becker called in a favor on Chief Judge Cardona of the same court - in several cases, and proudly told us so on the record.

I wonder how many more cases he talked to Cardona about.

But - most prominently for the coming Mokay appeal of my husband, involving issues of gross fraud on behalf of attorney Richard Harlem - comes the "Senator Seward" connection of Robert Mulvey.

I did not know that Robert Mulvey was "legislative counsel" to Senator Seward.

Richard Harlem actually is Senator Seward's landlord of many years.

Here is the connection.

Since Mulvey worked as a "legislative counsel" for Senator Seward in 1994-2000, and Senator Seward's district office is in Oneonta, NY, where Richard Harlem has been his landlord for decades (I checked through a FOIL request to NY State Senate), Mulvey inevitably knew Richard Harlem and his father Robert Harlem personally.

After all, the connection between Seward and Robert Harlem is unmistakable - given at least the number of Bills that Senator Seward put through the Senate "honoring" or "commemorating" Robert Harlem, without mentioning that he is the father of his longtime landlord Richard Harlem.


So, did Mulvey rush to the Appellate Division to fix the Mokay case, at the request of the cancer-stricken Senator Seward?

To help his recovery by rescuing his longtime friend - or his friend's (late judge Robert Harlem's) child?

Let's wait and see.

Judge Rumsey retaliates for criticism by claiming that a discontinued lawsuit against me is alive - and is warned to cease and desist his criminal activity against me

I criticized a judge on this blog - Judge Rumsey, for his misconduct in a divorce case.

That was in 2015.

Also in 2015, but earlier, a frivolous lawsuit against me and my law office - for "negligent legal advice", brought by an unlicensed real estate company for telling my then-client not to release the escrow money to the unlicensed real estate undisclosed dual agent, but instead to sue them for fraud - which is what she did.

As I mentioned above, the lawsuit was for "negligent legal advice".

Asserted by a third party.

A business.

That failed to present competent evidence that the business and its employees had real estate licenses at the time relevant to litigation.

But still insisted that escrow money was theirs (the Plaintiff still - allegedly - holds the money in escrow, without any proof that the entity was licensed and entitled to that money).

My then-client Beverly Sines since died - on March 10, 2015, 6 days after the action against me was discontinued and at the time when I was a licensed attorney, and when the only remaining defendant in the case was my then-client.

The date of Beverly Sines' death is acknowledged in Judge Rumsey's letter - but not the date of discontinuance of claims against me:

Compare:

First of all, Judge Rumsey misstates the law as to me being Beverly Sines' attorney of record.

New York law strips a perfectly licensed attorney of authority to represent a person on the person's death.

So, I had no authority to represent Beverly Sines as of the date of her death, March 10, 2015, and was certainly not an attorney of record, so there was no need to mention my suspension on November 13, 2015, 8 months after my representation of Beverly Sines ended with her death, other than to harass me.

There was no need to mention me in any way, shape or form, because, as I said above, claims against me personally were discontinued as of March 4, 2015.

Judge Rumsey, pretending he did not read the index of the case he was assigned to by the judge who knew about the discontinuance and made an order of abatement as to Beverly Sines after that discontinuance as to claims against me and Neroni Law Office.

Instead, Judge Rumsey mentions a conference of February 1, 2016 I was never notified about:

Since I was not notified about that conference, it was clear that the previous judge Mulvey knew that claims against me were discontinued, and there was no need to notify me - my authority to represent Beverly Sines ended at her death on March 10, 2015, and I was suspended and could not represent her Estate anyway, even if I would be asked (I wasn't), and claims against me personally were discontinued as of March 4, 2015, nearly a year prior to the conference.

Yet, Judge Rumsey rages on:

and directs the only remaining attorney in the case, attorney for Demeree Realty, to notify "the Neroni defendants" - myself included - why?

Paul Tomkins signed a stipulation of discontinuance, at the time a motion to dismiss, for a summary judgment (for non-compliance with discovery) and for sanctions and attorney fees against him personally was pending.

That signed stipulation was filed with the court on March 4, 2015.

What is Paul Tomkins supposed to notify the "Neroni defendants" of?

I am not a party in the proceeding any more.

I do not need to be notified about the "results of communication" with the family of Beverly Sines.

This whole letter is completely bizarre.

Jurisdiction over the lawsuit against Beverly Sines abated as of the date of her death.

My authority to represent Beverly Sines stopped at her death.

I was never contacted by her Estate and never hired to represent her Estate before my suspension on November 13, 2015.

The frivolous lawsuit against me for giving her a perfectly sound legal advice was discontinued by filing a stipulation of discontinuance on 3/4/2015.

That stipulation is reviewable online for free - see the entire docket of the case here.

With that in mind - the claims against me and my (now former) law firm were discontinued on consent on March 4, 2015 (see docket above), yesterday Judge Rumsey, who is suddenly presiding over the dead case instead of Judge Mulvey who knew about the discontinuance, sends me the following letter claiming that the discontinued claims against me are very much alive - because of a decision of Judge Mulvey on 2014, predating the discontinuance.

It is obvious that the judge pretends he did not read the index of the case before making those allegations in writing, in a letter to all counsel, which is defamation as far as the discontinued claims are concerned, and defamation outside of the court's jurisdiction.

That's tough.

If I could read it online for free from South Carolina, certainly the judge who was allegedly assigned to the case could read what was in it before sending such letters out.

Which brings me to the point - is it done against me in retaliation for criticism of Judge Rumsey in my blogs here and here?

I've sent a letter to Judge Rumsey, copy to my opponent who signed the stipulation of discontinuance in February of 2015, pointing out his mistake, with attached index of the case showing that the stipulation of discontinuance was filed in March of 2015.

I received no apology, of course.

I do not expect it, because, I believe that the reason to send a letter on April 21, 2016 claiming that the claims that were discontinued as of March 4, 2015 are still alive, was to mention my later suspension as of November 13, 2015, harass me and force me to hire counsel for the already non-existing Neroni Law Office.

And that's what I told Judge Rumsey in an e-mail letter - that I consider this letter as harassment, and if he tries to claim that the lawsuit against me is alive once again - I will turn him to criminal authorities, for stalking and harassment.  And that includes wire fraud and mail fraud, because the letter was sent by U.S. Mail and by the Internet.  

And judges lately are being prosecuted and convicted for mail fraud and wire fraud.

So, while I am not expecting an apology from Judge Rumsey, I expect him to leave me alone as to the lawsuit where I am no longer a party or attorney, and I expect a response to my Judiciary Law 255 request asking Judge Rumsey to provide me a copy of Judge Mulvey's (the previous judge's) recusal and of Judge Rumsey's assignment.

I will post these documents when I receive them.

As well as I will post my complaint against Judge Rumsey to the Judicial Conduct Commission that I am planning to file, and any responses to that complaint.

And - please, look at the last filings in the case as of yesterday:

and compare it with Judge Rumsey's letter:

So, two conferences, on February 2, 2016 and on March 1, 2016, were scheduled without reflecting the scheduling orders in the index, and one of them, the conference of February 2, 2015, was held.

Without my presence or notification to me as to both conferences, but with "notes in the chambers file" as to the conference of February 2, 2016.

Which means that Judge Mulvey knew very well that I was not a party in litigation any more, nor am I a licensed attorney, or an attorney of record, so I could not be brought into the case in any way, shape or form.

As to the directive by Rumsey to Tomkins to communicate to me what the family members said about the estate proceedings - why should I care?

I am out of the case, one.

What the family members think is irrelevant to the issue, what is relevant is whether the Estate was done or not, and that is verifiable without inquiries to the family members, with one phone call to the court with exclusive jurisdiction over probate proceedings in the case of a person who died in Chenango County - the Chenango County Surrogate's Court.

Judge Rumsey references Judge Mulvey's oral order not reflected in the index authorizing Attorney Tomkins to speak to family members of the deceased defendant Beverly Sines.

That order, or the scheduling notice for the conference where the order was made, is not reflected in the index of the case.

The last filing in the official index is a "letter" filed on April 14, 2015.

It is interesting to mention that after doing this little secret conference and issuing this little secret order that does not appear anywhere but in the undiscoverable "notes in chambers file", Judge Mulvey quickly recused from the case, got it reassigned to Rumsey, while leaving "notes in the chambers file" about the secret conference, but no notes about the open and public discontinuance of claims against me.

Nice.

Bring that Neroni in - for one reason or another, and rub it into her mentioning her suspension.

Well, the rubbing-in may result in a criminal proceeding now against Judge Rumsey, if state or federal authorities would dare to prosecute a judge, or judges.

And - the appellate process in my disciplinary case is not yet over, and there may be surprises there.

So - stay tuned.

An interesting development in the Mokay saga - Richard Harlem wants to strike a perfected appeal because Richard Harlem stole part of the record

In an amazing display of stupidity - and belief in his own impunity no matter what he does, because he is a son of a judge, Oneonta, NY attorney Richard Harlem asked the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, to dismiss my husband's already perfected appeal in the Mokay case because - gasp - Richard Harlem stole the trial exhibits, in collusion with trial judge Kevin Dowd.

Kevin Dowd specifically prohibited me, as my husband's attorney in the court below and in preparation of the appeal (I was doing that until my suspension on November 13, 2015) to see the trial exhibits, and ordered their release, without ever showing them to me or my husband, to Richard Harlem.

Right now Richard Harlem claims to the appellate court that my husband's Record on Appeal is "incomplete" because it lacks the trial exhibits - which Richard Harlem himself stole.

And, because Richard Harlem stole the exhibits, the remedy is to strike my husband's appeal, not to reverse the case summarily because, again, Richard Harlem stole the exhibits and made them unavailable for appellate review.

That's the logic of sons-of-judges in the State of New York.

And, Richard Harlem made another submission under oath claiming that he represents David Mokay.

The original affidavit of David Mokay was provided to the court by Mr. Neroni in opposition to that submission to show that Richard Harlem NEVER represented David Mokay in the 8.5 years of litigation in the Mokay saga, and that he knowingly proceeded on a forged retainer agreement.

Let's see how the 3rd Department will rule - how much it can stomach from a "son-of-a-judge", without finally doing what is right - dismissing the case with sanctions and attorney fees against Richard Harlem up to the point when I was suspended, from June 2007 to November 2015.

Something is fuzzy about financing of Officer Neron ... oops, Officer Ozzie...

On March 22, 2016 I made a Freedom of Information Request to Delaware County, New York.

The request was for RECORDS - not unsworn testimony of Christa Schafer - and was as follows:

Here is the responses that I got from Christa Schafer about financing of purchase and maintenance of Officer Neron (by pedigree) or Ozzie, as renamed by Delaware County Sheriff's Department - see the previous blog with the invoice for a German Shepherd NERON.  

Good they did not rename him Budweiser. 

Bad that a name is changed for an adult dog, that's psychologically damaging for an animal.

And, again, here are the responses from Christa Schafer that came in two attachments to one e-mail today.

Attachment No. 1:

Attachment No. 2 - uploaded in full here.

Here is a table of what was asked in my FOIL request - and what Delaware County gave me.

No.	What I asked for on FOIL	What I received from Christa Shafer	Notes/Comments
1.	copy of purchase documents (bill of sale) and the title of ownership for the German Shepard Ozzie (records)	Was provided – the dog was purchased under another name (NERON) from a Pennsylvania kennel that imports dogs.	The dog was purchased for $7,000, untrained. That's exactly why I wonder why the purchase was not put up for public bidding, and why Delaware County needed a "dual purpose" imported police dog – and I will verify what "dual purpose" means (attack/drug enforcement?)
2.	approval of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors for purchasing Ozzie (records)	Was provided
3.	budgetary provisions in Delaware County budget for purchasing, upkeep and training of Ozzie, from the date of purchase to the present time (records)	Were provided, but are fuzzy	There are "estimated donations", but there are no names of "estimated donors", even though donations are all "pledged" for the life of the dog
4.	budgetary provisions in Delaware County budget for training of Delaware County employees to handle Ozzie (records)	NONE provided
5.	statistics of how many arrests were effected with Ozzie's help, dates of arrests and names of arrested individuals	Provided by Christa Schafer in a separate letter
6.	public records reflecting days off, other "in-kind" payments or monetary payments provided to John Demeo in return for handling Ozzie	NONE provided	Yet, seethroughny.net reflects a hike in payment of John Demeo at about the time he's got the dog
7.	public records reflecting assignment of John Demeo as Ozzie's handler	NONE provided	Which means, with all the fanfare, there is no official assignment of John Demeo to the K-9 unit
8.	public records reflecting cost of training of John Demeo as Ozzie's handler	A glowing letter of recognition and a certificate of training were provided, not the cost of training Well, I'll just keep digging
9.	any and all contracts or agreements between the Delaware County and John Demeo regarding the ·       use of Ozzie, ·       boarding, ·       handling or ·       caring for Ozzie, or ·       use of Ozzie after Ozzie's retirement	NONE provided
10.	public records reflecting each and every donation from the public for the handling and upkeep of Ozzie since the date of Ozzie's purchase, including, but not limited to:	NONE provided
11.	monetary donations for care, handling, training or upkeep of Ozzie, including the donations obtained from the recent fundraiser handled by a restaurant in Walton, NY that Walton Reporter wrote about, with the identity of each donor and amount of each donation, and copies of financial records from Delaware County Treasurer's office as to when the Delaware County Treasurer received the donation money, what account the money was put in and when, and how and when the money was spent	NONE provided	Since the $7,000+  imported dog officially belongs to Delaware County, there must be records about its upkeep – you know, the elementary stuff, debit/credit: * came in a donation from Mr. Brown – on this date; * paid for food of Officer Neron (Ozzie) – on this date, with entries in the bank account. There is nothing like that, so money, as I understand, changes hands outside of bank accounts and outside of accounting. And when a police officer receives money that is not entered into the County's accounting and are not accounted for through the Treasurer's office (which are all public records that I asked for through FOIL and that were not provided) – that means that those donations from unknown (to us) but already PLEDGED individuals, and PLEDGED for the life of Ozzie – those donations are called BRIBES, because they may lead to leniency towards the donors that we do not know of by our taxpayer-paid police force
12.	Records of all donations in kind, including, but not limited to veterinary care, boarding, training, food and gear donations, identities of donors, dates of donations, as to donated food, amounts of food donated, with specifics as to the brand of foods and the cost of food, and records providing an accounting as to how food donations were registered and used;  for each donation, I request public records reflecting the estimated value of the donation	NONE provided What was provided is Christa Schafer's unsworn testimony (that I did not ask for) as to how much in donations was received (without financial records of receipts) and how much was spent (without financial records, copies of purchases). I definitely did not Christa Schafer's statements - which must be based on review of some records that Christa Schafer does not want to give me. An administrative appeal for denial of my FOIL request is due, then.	This one is REALLY, REALLY strange. It has been reported, with fanfare, that food and vet care was provided for free. Now, why are there no documents about such pledges? It is really important to know the names of "private donors" of the police – we have public police officers, right, not private security guards for those who pay, in money or in kind. Right?
13.	all veterinary records of officer Ozzie since the date of Ozzie's birth, including veterinary records after the date of purchase by the Delaware County; Ozzie's vaccination and treatment documents for his entire life	The only quasi-vet document provided was a "warranty" that came with purchase, it mentions that the dog was "evaluated" by vets in Europe, that's it	No records, in a wooded area infested with ticks, where rabid wild animals surface often, and while the dog has been enforced in at least 71 "law enforcement activities", and, being a "dual purpose" dog, it can be used for apprehension of humans – and thus MUST have all the shots and MUST be vet-checked. Even if vet care is free, the pledge from the vet should be in writing – for purposes of budget approval for the dog, and there must be vet records that the pledge is being honored by the vet
14.	Ozzie's pedigree documents, and documents reflecting his origin (breeder), prior owners and trainers	NONE provided	This is REALLY strange. If an untrained 1-year-old dog is purchased for $7,000, it must be a pup with really good bloodline to justify the price – now where is NERON's pedigree?
15.	records indicating any incidents with Ozzie attacking or biting people or animals;  any records of lawsuits based on Ozzie's behavior, copies of any insurance payouts based on Ozzie's behavior towards people or animals	Christa Schafer claimed in a letter there has been no such incidents
16.	documents reflecting the type of training Ozzie received, as well as the identity of the training facility and the cost of training	Certificate from Syracuse Police Department, not very specific
17.	any public documents providing for publicly bid contracts for training, care and upkeep of Ozzie	NONE provided
18.	any public documents reflecting solicitations of donations for Ozzie or John Demeo as Ozzie's handler	NONE provided
19.	a copy of Delaware County liability policy for actions of its officers and employees	NONE provided	Now that's interesting.  Is it a secret document – what kind of liability policy Delaware County has? Especially given that when Neron  (Ozzie) was purchased, the Board of Supervisors was discussing a "K-9 rider" in that policy as the basis of its decision to approve the purchase I asked Christa Schafer to provide the policy once again – obviously, she overlooked providing it. I will report what she'll answer.

Additionally, this is the salary dynamics of Ozzie's handler John Demeo - obtained outside of the FOIL request from seethroughny.net:

Quite a hike since Demeo got Ozzie, isn't it?

So, Ozzie is not that "free" to Delaware County taxpayers, is he?

I will insist on release of identities of donors that privately pay for expenses of Delaware County Sheriff's Department and publish results of my further investigation.

Stay tuned.

Ozzie was renamed - he was originally .... no, don't laugh, please ...... NERON

Just received a response to my FOIL request about Ozzie from the Delaware County, NY.

Here is the invoice for purchase of that noble animal.  They changed his name to Ozzie.

Because he was... he was .... NERON.

And - Delaware County Sheriff's Department paid $7,000 for NERON.  

I am awed.

What I am not awed with is that there was no public bidding for the purchase of NERON.

And - why did Delaware County have to purchase an IMPORTED dog from Europe?  We do not have good police dogs bred in the U.S.?

I promise I will not die laughing.

Poor dog going through an identity crisis. Why did they do that to you?  We would love having a namesake in the police department, working for such worthy causes :).

And taken care of by John Demeo.

The idea!

And - if you think this is the only "K-9" in the dying county, you are wrong.

According to my information, another K-9 "unit" was "presented" recently in Colchester (the dying town), and, as reports go, judge Yvonne Pagillo's son, who was previously employed with the New Berlin police department in Chenango County, relocated to Delaware County and was dispatched to Texas to pick up another "K-9", also, reportedly, to be "maintained" by donations.

I guess, all drug dealers in several counties put a money pot together to support three K-9 dogs, their handlers and supervisors, to be free of searches.

Here I am, the proud namesake of a Delaware County K-9 unit.

I promise, I will not die laughing.