Attorney Status & Knowing Violations ⚖️ Licensed NY Attorney
Settlement violations are knowing and willful, not inadvertent or uninformed
Ms. Attar holds a Juris Doctor degree and is a practicing attorney in New York. She understands that the Global Settlement Agreement is a binding court order with enforceable obligations.
Why Attorney Status Matters
⚖️ ATTORNEY STATUS = KNOWING VIOLATIONS
| What Rima KNOWS (As Attorney) | What Rima DOES (Despite Knowing) |
|---|---|
|
Settlement = binding court order
So-ordered by Judge Prus Oct 31, 2022 |
Violates 5+ provisions in 4 days
Nov 23-26: Medical info, FaceTime, good faith, PC process, unilateral decisions |
|
Good faith = unconditional
Article XI, §F, p.17 requires cooperation regardless of other parent's conduct |
Admits conditional cooperation
"I will reciprocate what is given to me" (4 admissions in 48 hours) |
|
PC process = mandatory
Article XI, §G, p.17 requires submitting disputes to PC before court |
Refuses PC engagement
"I will no longer be engaging in nonsense" (calls PC process nonsense) |
|
"Forthwith inform" = proactive duty
Article XI, §V, p.27-28 requires immediate medical information sharing |
Forces information extraction
Nov 25: Sam had to ASK for temps, dosages, symptoms (should be provided proactively) |
|
False allegations = misconduct
Attorneys cannot make false statements to tribunal/neutral |
Makes false allegation to PC
Nov 29: "repeatedly telling her to hang up" (recording proves he stayed silent) |
These are not mistakes. These are knowing, willful violations by someone who understands exactly what she's doing.
Legal Training = Heightened Accountability
Attorneys are held to higher standards of conduct, particularly regarding:
- Understanding binding legal obligations - Settlement agreements are contracts
- Good faith requirements - Legal duty to act in good faith
- Dispute resolution procedures - PC process exists for a reason
- Compliance with court orders - Settlement was "So Ordered" by Judge Prus
When an attorney violates these provisions, it cannot be excused as misunderstanding or ignorance.
Pattern of Knowing Violations
1. Uses "Esq." Signature While Violating Settlement
Evidence: Nov 29, 2025 email to PC Jane Pearl signed "Rima Attar, Esq."
Email signature:
"Rima Attar, Esq."
Significance:
- Uses attorney designation while violating settlement - Asserts legal authority in same communication containing violations
- Demands compliance from Mr. Moukdad - While simultaneously violating settlement herself
- Uses legal credentials to assert authority - "Esq." signature emphasizes legal sophistication
- Undermines "I didn't know" defense - Cannot claim ignorance while asserting attorney status
2. Conditional Cooperation Despite Knowing Good Faith Requirement
Legal Training Makes This Willful:
Ms. Attar's Own Words (Four Admissions in 48 Hours):
- "I give the same courtesy I receive" (Nov 24, 2025)
- "When you start acting like a co parent that is when things will change" (Nov 25, 2025)
- "I will reciprocate what is given to me while adhering to the stipulation" (Nov 25, 2025)
- "I reciprocate what I receive" (Nov 26, 2025)
Why Attorney Status Makes This Worse:
- She KNOWS Article XI, §F, p.17 requires unconditional good faith - "Reciprocate what I receive" is textbook conditional cooperation
- She KNOWS "tit-for-tat" violates settlement - Legal training makes this knowing breach, not innocent misunderstanding
- She CHOOSES to violate anyway - Admitted retaliation despite legal knowledge = willful contempt
See Full Evidence: Admitted Retaliation Pattern
3. Refuses PC Process Despite Understanding Its Purpose
Settlement Article XI, §G, p.17: Both parties must submit disputes to PC before court involvement.
Ms. Attar's response to PC escalation (Nov 15, 2025):
"I'm not going to keep engaging with the same issues over and over again"
Why Attorney Status Makes This Egregious:
- She KNOWS PC process is settlement-mandated - Article XI, §G, p.17 requires submitting disputes to PC
- She KNOWS refusal forces court involvement - Violates agreement to use PC for dispute resolution
- She CHOOSES to refuse anyway - Dismissive language toward settlement-mandated process = knowing violation
See Full Evidence: PC Demonization Pattern
4. Demands Compliance While Violating Settlement Herself
Double Standard in Action:
| Ms. Attar DEMANDS From Mr. Moukdad | Ms. Attar's Own Conduct |
|---|---|
| Settlement compliance precision - Cites articles, sections, page numbers when accusing Mr. Moukdad | Admits conditional cooperation - "I reciprocate what is given" violates Art. XI, §F good faith requirement |
| Immediate responses to OFW - Criticizes response time delays | Ignores Mr. Moukdad's communications - No response to 20+ FaceTime requests (Nov 2024-2025) |
| Factual accuracy in allegations - Uses attorney signature to assert credibility | Makes false allegations - Nov 29 email claims Mr. Moukdad "repeatedly told [Isabella] to hang up" (recording shows opposite) |
| PC authority respect - Expects Mr. Moukdad to comply with PC directives | Refuses PC engagement - "I'm not going to keep engaging" (Nov 15, 2025) |
Her legal training makes these double standards particularly egregious - she knows better.
Strategic Implications
Why This Matters for Parent Coordinator Review
1. Eliminates "I Didn't Understand" Defense
Ms. Attar cannot claim she misunderstood settlement obligations. Her legal training and use of "Esq." signature confirm she knows these are binding requirements.
2. Establishes Willful Violation Pattern
Knowing violations are more serious than inadvertent ones. Attorney status proves these violations are deliberate choices, not mistakes.
3. Supports Bad Faith Finding
Settlement Article XI, §F, p.17 requires good faith communication. Ms. Attar's knowing violations despite legal training demonstrate bad faith, not good faith effort gone wrong.
4. Justifies Stronger PC Directives
When violations are knowing and willful (not inadvertent), more stringent directives are appropriate. Ms. Attar's attorney status supports stronger remedial measures.
5. Uses Legal Status While Making False Allegations
Use of "Esq." signature while making false allegations to PC leverages legal credentials to assert credibility for unverified claims. Attorney status should require higher standard of accuracy, not shield false statements.
Summary: Attorney Status + Violation Pattern = Knowing Contempt
Ms. Attar is not an ordinary parent navigating an unfamiliar legal process. She is a licensed attorney who:
- Understands settlement agreements are binding court orders
- Knows good faith obligations are unconditional, not reciprocal
- Recognizes PC process exists for dispute resolution
- Uses "Esq." signature to assert legal authority
- Demands compliance from Mr. Moukdad while violating settlement herself
- Chooses to violate these obligations anyway
The violations documented in this portal are not mistakes. They are knowing, willful breaches by an attorney who understands exactly what she is doing.