At the time of that earlier story, there were angry denials from Cuadra’s former ‘bloggist,’ but today a new spokesperson for Cuadra posted the following to HarlowCuadraOnline.com: “The Document for them [Cuadra and Kerekes] to get the house has been signed by both Harlow and Joe, but needless to say they are loosing [sic.] all of there [sic.] other property to get back this one thing, the state refused to give them back anything else....
“We will hope that the house will sell for something to help pay anything to the attorneys, anything is better then nothing!”
As we reported in July, the house may indeed be worth less than nothing. Publicly available credit records show that, as of now, Harlow and Joe owe approximately $533,400 in primary and second mortgages on the 1028 Stratem Court property. Those records also indicate that primary mortgage payment is 30 days past due, while the second mortgage payment is 60 days overdue.
Clearly, only a quick sale at a premium price will turn the house from a liability to an asset. That’s why the house was to be returned, according to law enforcement sources, speaking last month on condition of anonymity— there is “little, to no equity” in it.
In today’s long statement, the Harlow camp makes other remarkable comments, as well, including sharp criticisms leveled at Virginia authorities for their handling of the forfeiture case, and another utterly outrageous allegation: that the incomplete forfeiture proceedings led to a Catch 22 wherein Harlow and Joe were somehow adjudged too wealthy to qualify for public defenders in the murder case in Pennsylvania, yet still had all of their assets in state hands in Virginia, thus unavailable for use retaining private counsel.
That latter charge of denial of counsel is a serious one— as such a combined action by the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia would be, of course, in total contravention of all court rules, procedures, laws and Constitutional precepts. Such a move by the State—on its own— could constitute reversible error in the Pennsylvania prosecution.
In fact, the ‘Angel’s’ allegation describes a move so extreme and so far outside of ordinary legal practice that one is perhaps excused for wondering if he or she is not somehow mistaken about it.
-Both PC and KM contributed to this story.
