Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who is serving 110 years in prison for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme,
arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012.

U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers

LINK

Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue to recoup losses from lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with the convicted swindler, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

On a 7-2 vote, the court held that lawsuits filed in state courts can go forward. The majority said the ruling would not affect the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to enforce securities law as some had feared.

Stanford's fraud involved the sale of bogus certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. He is serving a 110-year prison sentence.

New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments Co and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

"It's clear the justices understood that ruling for the defendants would create an immunity that Congress never imagined," said Tom Goldstein, a lawyer representing the former Stanford clients.

Representatives from the two law firms said that when the case returns to the lower court the defendants would move to dismiss the suit on other grounds.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security, which is defined as a security listed on a national exchange at the time the alleged unlawful conduct occurred.

As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, "it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be - or should be - concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits," Breyer wrote.

IMPACT ON SEC

The Obama administration, representing the SEC, had sided with the defendants to try to protect the agency's authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.

The administration said the "in connection with" language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion that the ruling would have a negative impact on the SEC because it "casts doubt on the applicability of federal securities law to cases of serious securities fraud." Kennedy was joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.

Securities law experts backed the majority's view that the ruling was relatively narrow.

Donald Langevoort, a professor of law at Georgetown University, said he was "very surprised" the SEC tried to argue that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could diminish the government's enforcement powers.

"The opinion is imminently correct as a matter of common sense and legal policy," Langevoort said.

Charles Smith, of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP who represents clients before the SEC, said the agency would be comforted by the limited scope of the ruling.

"The decision is crafted in a way that is intended not to interfere with the SEC's enforcement authority," he said.

The SEC, via a spokesman, declined to comment.

The defendants had sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.

The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court previously held that similar "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.

The class-action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a SEC probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing byHoward Goller, G Crosse and Amanda Kwan)

Obama Campaign Pocketed Ponzi Schemer Cash

The Center for Public Integrity| Posted 01.23.2014 |Politics

Obama isn't the only politician who has declined to return Stanford campaign contributions to help make Stanford's defrauded investors whole. A total of 39 candidates and committees have kept their campaign funds despite the pleas by the receiver.

Read Whole Story

Ponzi Schemer's Alleged Cohorts Face Charges

Reuters| Posted 10.31.2012 |Business

WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators charged former officials of Stanford Group Co for their role in the demise...

Read Whole Story

VOTE: The Worst Financial Scandal Of All Time

The Huffington Post| Mark Gongloff | Posted 08.13.2012 |Business

Lots of people out there are saying the Libor scandal is the worst financial scandal of all time. But how can we even know such a thing? There's only ...

Read Whole Story

110 YEARS IN PRISON

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 08.14.2012 |Business

HOUSTON -- Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford had plenty of things to say Thursday before a federal judge sentenced him to 110 years in...

Read Whole Story

Convicted Ponzi Schemer Blames U.S. For Destroying His Business

Reuters| Posted 06.14.2012 |Business

Allen Stanford, facing sentencing for running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, on Thursday blamed the U.S. government for ruining his business and said he n...

Read Whole Story

Politicians Won't Return Ponzi Payoffs

Michael Winship| Posted 05.09.2012 |Politics

Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford was convicted on 13 out of 14 criminal counts of fraud. But what most stories failed to mention was the large amount of his clients' cash that was spent on campaign contributions, greasing the corrupt nexus of money and politics for personal gain.

Read Whole Story

Victims: Ponzi Schemer's Conviction Is 'Bittersweet'

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.07.2012 |Business

HOUSTON — A prosecutor asked jurors on Wednesday to allow federal authorities to seize $330 million from nearly 30 accounts controlled by convic...

Read Whole Story

The Wheels On the Justice Bus Go Slowly Round And Round

The Huffington Post| Mark Gongloff | Posted 03.07.2012 |Business

You need eight ounces to make a cup, but only seven and a half things are necessary for knowing each day. Here's your daily allotment: Thing One: S...

Read Whole Story

Houston Financier Convicted Of $7 Billion Investor Fraud

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.06.2012 |Business

HOUSTON — Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford spent more than 20 years charming investors, who handed him billions of dollars they had spent their li...

Read Whole Story

Volcker Rule Limps To Finish Line

HuffingtonPost.com|Marcus Baram| Posted 01.18.2012 |Business

"The Watchdog" is back off the leash, with more bark and bite. After a six-month break to focus on some other duties here at HuffPost, I'm happy to be...

Read Whole Story

SEC Ramping Up Efforts To Stop Hedge Fund Fraud

The Huffington Post| Alexander Eichler | Posted 12.28.2011 |Business

Memo to hedge fund managers: It's a bad time to try to overachieve. The Securities and Exchange Commission is cracking down on hedge fund fraud, and t...

Read Whole Story

Former S.E.C. Official Subject Of Criminal Probe

Reuters| Sarah N. Lynch | Posted 07.14.2011 |Business

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal criminal authorities are investigating whether a former U.S. securities regulator inappropriately represented alleg...

Read Whole Story

PRISON MATES

Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

Jailed financier Allen Stanford has been moved to a prison hospital in Butner, North Carolina, to treat his addiction to anti-anxiety medication, ac...

Read Whole Story

Accused Ponzi Schemer Stanford Sues Fed For $72 Billion

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

HOUSTON — Jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford has filed a lawsuit accusing prosecutors and federal agents of depriving him of his constitutiona...

Read Whole Story

Accused Ponzi Schemer Stanford Heads To Prison Hospital

Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

Allen Stanford, accused of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, is on the way to a prison hospital to receive treatment for addiction to anti-anxiety medica...

Read Whole Story

Alleged Ponzi Schemer Stanford Ruled Unfit To Stand Trial

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

HOUSTON — A judge has ordered that former Texas billionaire and financier R. Allen Stanford, awaiting trial on charges he bilked investors out o...

Read Whole Story

SEC May Charge Allen Stanford's Brokers

Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

HOUSTON: U.S. regulators have notified some brokers who worked for indicted financier Allen Stanford that they may face civil fraud charges, the Fina...

Read Whole Story

Allen Stanford's Execs Knew He Was Bilking Investors, Witness Says

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

HOUSTON — Executives who worked with Texas financier R. Allen Stanford were aware of problems at his now defunct Caribbean bank, including fabri...

Read Whole Story

Madoff: "Screw the Victims"

Norb Vonnegut| Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

I just returned from Nino's in Manhattan, where the authors of The Club No One Wanted to Join gathered to discuss their book. They are a group of twenty-nine investors in Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Read Whole Story

SEC IG's Report On Allen Stanford Investigation Underreported

HuffingtonPost.com|Jason Linkins| Posted 05.25.2011 |Media

As big a fan as I am of strong financial regulatory reform, I'm also something of an SEC skeptic, dating back to that time President Barack Obama appo...

Read Whole Story

Stanford, Texas Billionaire, Attempts To Get Out Of Jail A Third Time

AP| JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

HOUSTON — Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's attorneys said Tuesday that jail has reduced their client to a "wreck of a man" who is severely de...

Read Whole Story

Pete Sessions Spokesman Defends 'I Love You' Email To Allen Stanford

Posted 05.25.2011 |Politics

The Miami Herald reported on Sunday that Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) once penned a love note of sorts to jailed financier Allen Stanford. "I love yo...

Read Whole Story

The Most Scandalous White-Collar Cases Of 2009 (PHOTOS)

Huffington Post| Mallika Rao | Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

Bernie Madoff is only one of the white-collar offenders exposed this year for bilking the country out of millions. Whether stealing from dying family...

Read Whole Story

AP: Ponzi Busts Nearly Quadrupled In 2009

Posted 05.25.2011 |Business

(AP -- CURT ANDERSON) - It was a rough year for Ponzi schemes. In 2009, the recession unraveled nearly four times as many of the investment scams as ...

Read Whole Story

Rep. Gregory Meeks Travelled On Tab Of Conman Allen Stanford

on the tab of con artist| By Greg B. Smith | Posted 05.25.2011 |New York

Queens Democrat, Rep. Gregory Meeks, sometimes accompanied by his wife, Simone-Marie, took six trips to sun-drenched locales from Antigua to St. Lucia...

Read Whole Story

Page: 1 2 3 4 >>

From Betsy Combier:

Why would anyone in NY State want this man to be re-elected Governor? Let's hope the fix is not in yet.

Betsy

A situation Cuomo can’t control anymore

By Blake Zeff 5:34 a.m. | Jul. 25, 2014

LINK

The New York Times A-1 blockbuster that Andrew Cuomo’s team was dreading finally landed on Wednesday, and it wasn’t pretty. It painted a picture of the governor’s dealings—including allegations his administration quashed an anti-corruption panel’s subpoenas to his allies—that even his supporters privately admit doesn’t look so hot.

And with a primary and general re-election campaign and an investigation by the U.S. attorney all looming, this saga has only just begun.

The question now is: How will all this play out for the governor, in terms of both the politics and the law?

On the former, the first place to look is the governor’s response. You can always get a sense of how fearful of a breaking story a politician is by his public schedule immediately afterward.

In this case, Cuomo was slated to appear at the Bronx County Democratic dinner on Wednesday night. But, an insider tells Capital, he quietly backed out in an effort to avoid public attention. Similarly, the source says the governor—who is sitting on a massive campaign warchest and an insurmoutable-looking lead in the polls—had planned events for Thursday, but they, too, were removed before a public schedule went out. (Could we hear from Cuomo today? It would be less surprising, as he knows that comments made on a Friday end up in less-well-read Saturday editions of the paper.)

Another intriguing element of Cuomo’s reaction is the 13-page statement his team provided theTimes in response to its questions. One particularly memorable passage began like this (with emphasis added): "The Governor claimed the Commission ultimately had independent investigative authority through the Co-chairs. The Governor did not and could not mean that the Commission as an entity was legally independent from him."

It’s not every day that your own defense characterizes your public statements as mere "claims" which it then sets out to debunk immediately afterwards. But such is the spot Cuomo is in.

A key issue is whether in fact the Moreland Commission appointed by Cuomo to investigate public corruption was a mere instrument of the governor—with which he could do whatever he pleased—or an independent entity.

When the commission was announced, of course, the governor had publicly trumpeted its independence. As the Times notes, Cuomo said upon its launch that it would be "totally independent," adding in August that "anything they want to look at, they can look at—me, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, any senator, any assemblyman."

But when allegations of interference by Team Cuomo first surfaced earlier this year, the governor’s characterization of the commission changed. Now his contention was that he couldn’t possibly "interfere" with any investigations because the commission was in fact not independent, but controlled by him.

"It’s not a legal question," he told the Crain’s editorial board back in April. "It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission (see picture from the Broadway Show - oops, from the Commission, below - Editor). I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow… So, interference? It’s my commission. I can’t 'interfere' with it, because it is mine. It is controlled by me."

Leaders of the Moreland Commission, front row, from left: Kathleen M. Rice, Milton L. Williams Jr. and
William J. Fitzpatrick, the panel's co-chairs, and Regina M. Calcaterra, its executive director.
Michael Nagle for The New York Times

That was a few months ago. In the lengthy statement to the Times Wednesday, still another shift in the characterization of the commission was detectable. Not only was this no longer an independent commission, but now Team Cuomo added that the Moreland Commission couldn’t possibly investigate Cuomo’s dealings because "it would have been a major problem, " claiming that "a commission appointed by and staffed by the executive cannot investigate the executive."

To do so, Cuomo’s team added, would constitute "a pure conflict of interest and would not pass the laugh test."

If that’s true, someone better tell Mario Cuomo.

Back in 1987, a spate of ethics scandals led the first Governor Cuomo to appoint a Moreland Commission of his own, which he called the New York State Commission on Government Integrity, but later came to be known as the Feerick commission (after the Fordham law dean who chaired it). As Jerry Goldfeder and Myrna Perez noted in theNew York Law Journal:

"The Feerick commission could and did subpoena witnesses; it held public hearings throughout the state; and issued 20 reports prior to its final set of recommendations. Looking to have as broad an impact as possible, the seven-person panel tackled a wide swath of issues. These included campaign finance reform; election of judges; fairer personnel practices; liberalized ballot access rules; neutral contracting procedures; protection for whistleblowers; and forfeitures of pensions."

It also did something else: "After a 40-month, comprehensive and thorough investigation, including scrutiny of campaign finance filings of Cuomo and other statewide officials, a unanimous panel concluded in 1990 that New York’s campaign finance laws were a ‘disgrace and embarrassment’ and the state had ‘not yet demonstrated a real commitment to ethical reform in government.’"

In other words, a Moreland commission appointed by Mario Cuomo investigated the executive and lived to tell the tale. But don’t just take the Law Journal’s word for it.

"The rare appearance of a Governor before a commission looking into campaign financing had all the drama of a preseason game," the Times reported back in 1989 on the commission’s investigation of Albany fund-raising practices. "One item of evidence was a document with shorthand codes for lists of potential contributors drawn up by Mr. [Mario] Cuomo's chief fund-raising assistant, Lucille Falcone."

The commission would go on to castigate the elder Cuomo’s practices, with the AlbanyTimes Union reporting later in 1990 that "Gov. Mario M. Cuomo is still soliciting contributions of up to $25,000 and is well on his way to having a $10 million campaign kitty despite criticism of such fund-raising practices by the Cuomo-created State Commission on Government Integrity."

It appears the younger Cuomo’s story may need some tightening.

But the most obvious source of potential harm to Cuomo’s political fortunes would be legal trouble. And here’s where key bits of the story have remained particularly elusive. However hypocritical and unseemly the behavior by the governor and aide Larry Schwartz may have been, there has been no serious explanation yet about how any of it was illegal. Legal experts differ on whether federal prosecution is even a possibility.

But as I’ve previously written on this site, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara poses potential trouble here for Team Cuomo. He’s smart, politically experienced (he was a senior Capitol Hill aide with me a decade ago), and will not be intimidated by the moment, or by the governor. If the results of his investigation into the disbanding of Moreland suggest that there’s a prosecution to be done, he’ll do it.

In one sense, it would be a stretch: The commission was a state entity, and Bharara’s job is to prosecute federal crimes. He won’t want to stretch and lose.

But while a person typically can’t be charged with federal obstruction of justice for interfering with a state entity, a determined prosecutor could make an argument that the federal rule applies here.

The federal witness-tampering statute (18 U.S. code 1512), for example, applies to "[w]hoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to … influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding" or "cause or induce any person to—"

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process …

The "official proceeding" language here refers to a federal proceeding. But if any of the entities the Cuomo administration reportedly shielded from the Moreland commission’s questions are under investigation by or of interest to any federal office, it could theoretically provide an opening for the U.S. attorney.

That's far from a slam dunk. But the very threat of such legal action could be enough to get people at the bottom and middle of the chain to share what they know, so prosecutors can work their way up.

Bharara may have already offered clues to his intentions.

If a prosecutor is laying the groundwork for possible action, the first step would be to get all relevant Moreland Commission documents (and based on those, see what others are needed), which Bharara has done. Once all the documents are collected, the prosecutor’s office would start at the bottom of the chain, perhaps with an assistant to the commission’s executive director—which Bharara has also just done. (Regina Calcaterra’s assistant Heather Green was subpoenaed and will appear before a grand jury on Monday.)

Lower-level witnesses like Green would be asked to provide any information they might have, including communications, whether they remember any meetings between major players at specific times. The information gleaned would then be waved at players up the chain in an effort to get them to talk, and implicate bigger fish. Obvious subsequent steps would include going to Calcaterra and Schwartz, with the ultimate goal being to nail the most senior target possible.

Depending on the severity of their potential charges, ability to cooperate and relevant knowledge, they could get immunity or a potential reduced sentence to help nab a bigger player.

Of course, the prosecutor could determine there’s not enough to proceed, and, in what would be a best-case scenario for the governor, dissolve the investigation entirely. Another, middle-ground scenario would be the issuance of a grand jury report (a highly unusual occurrence) that lays out for the public an excoriation of the conduct as reprehensible but not criminal.

Whatever happens, one thing is clear: Unlike the Moreland commission’s work, the outcome of Bharara’s investigation is out of Cuomo's hands.

Greg Fischer

EQUAL PARENTING TICKET LOOKS TO CHALLENGE CUOMO IN NOVEMBER
MEDIA ADVISORY…………………………….………….…………..August 11, 2014
CONTACT ADAM WEISS………………………………….…………..917-863-1155

Governor Cuomo has yet another worry in his bid for reelection: A third party ticket that’s picking up steam to challenge him in November.

The Equal Parenting Party will give parents a greater voice in child custody matters, as well as press the governor on key issues including:

·         Albany corruption and the botched Moreland Commission
·         New York’s standing as the highest taxed state with the worst business climate
·         Cuomo’s raid of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds to promote himself
·         Disastrous Common Core roll out

“The Equal Parenting Party will be a powerful platform for reform not just on family issues, but the many other ills Governor Cuomo has perpetuated in our once great state,” said Greg Fischer, a Calverton resident and the new party’s candidate for governor. “A very large segment of the state’s population has been affected by child custody issues and other state government problems and are mobilizing under our banner.”

According to Fischer, over 1,000 volunteers statewide are circulating nominating petitions and should have more than enough to place a full slate on the November ballot, including candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and comptroller.

A father of two, Fischer’s eyes were opened to the injustice of state law when he was embroiled in a child custody case. He’s been an advocate of pending legislation that would require judges to seriously consider giving guardianship to both parents in custody disputes, instead of only one or the other as current law mandates. "This way, extended family ties are more likely to be preserved," Fischer said, adding that states adopting equal parenting are discovering a reduction in crime and government costs as a result.

“In fighting for changes in the child custody law, we found that tens of thousands of residents are impacted by the same issues,” Fischer explained. “These voters are tired of the way Albany operates to the detriment of the taxpayers and have organized to draw attention to any number of issues that are plaguing our state. Unless you have a team of lobbyists in Albany, it’s clear that the only way you’re going to get any attention is at the ballot box.”

Adam Matthew Weiss Public Relations
Office 212-542-3146
Mobile 917-863-1155
www.amwpr.com
222 Broadway Street
New York, NY

LONG ISLAND, N.Y., July 1, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ --

Over 1,000 volunteers stand ready to petition for STATEWIDE NYS Candidates
Parent's group to run a Third Party Line for NYS Governor to draw attention to New York State Family Court crisis
With a strategy in place, over 1,000 NYS voters are organizing a new political party to focus on Family Law reform. The group known as THE EQUAL PARENTING PARTY NYS ("EPP") seeks to introduce its own statewide balloting petitions to put Governor, Lt. Governor, Comptroller, and Attorney General candidates up on it's own ballot line for the November 2014 elections.
The EPP has a central platform issue: the presumption that both parents are equal (especially upon marital separation, divorce, or child custody decisions). In law, NYS currently has a sole-custody presumption --- in the event of any Family Court litigation a judge MUST award sole-custody even if it is against a child's best interest. Judges may, however, "So Order" joint parenting if the parties stipulate to it.
Equal Parenting (a/k/a: "co-parenting", "shared parenting") is a mainstream issue with a slight majority of national equal parenting organizations now led by women.
NYS Equal Parenting legislation has a long history. "Shared Parenting" legislation was passed in the 1980's but was vetoed by then Governor Hugh Carey.
The current 2013 NYS Bills at hand are: S5316 and A6457
"We are a serious effort with a very basic Civil Rights EQUALITY issue. We have every intention of achieving ballot access", said Greg Fischer, one of the original EPP organizers, "We ran a judicial candidate, and if you multiply out the numbers to statewide, we will get more than enough votes to become a statewide official party".
The EPP asserts that "shared parenting" is an issue which is paramount to a large untapped NYS constituency that may number in the millions; they are the divorced, separated, custody-battle victims that may be litigant parents, grandparents, children, or other sensitized family. This is a political issue to awaken a significant "sleeping constituency" of disenfranchised voters to become active. The EPP claims to attract members that are severely emotionally damaged and who are now finding their recovery and self-expression through a channeled and lawful participation in the grassroots political process.
The EPP plans to ask incumbents and challengers to become its cross-endorsed candidates. If any of the incumbent or challenger candidates reject or ignore EPP endorsement offers, the EPP intends to use that rejection in public forums around the state.
The group is being organized on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/EqualParentingParty/ and by "word-of-mouth". Its own website is planned. The EPP also has a candidate's pledge card and plans to publish and praise the names of the politicians that pledge to support parental equality and lambaste those that refuse.
"Strategically, what we are doing is no different than what the Right to Life Party did; we have a central issue but we also support related legislation. We also want to aid grandparent's and other extended family in child access, create better judicial review, have cameras in the court rooms, improve attorney disciplinary procedures, improve oversight of Child Protective Services, and more." said an EPP member.
Press contacts:

Scott Lewis, r.scott.lewis@greenspacepros.com or call 888-653-6204
Andrea Zeledon-Mussio, cleanapothecaries@gmail.com or call 516-637-3832

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EqualParentingParty/

(Release 1, Version 1.4)

Media Contact:Greg Fischer, The Equal Parenting Party, NYS, 6317279637, perfect100@hotmail.com

News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com

SOURCE The Equal Parenting Party

Preet Bharara

Rikers: Where Mental Illness Meets Brutality in Jail

Andre Lane talks about a confrontation he had with correction officers at Rikers. This incident

is one of 129 documented cases of beatings that resulted in severe injuries to inmates

Corruption Sweep at Rikers Island Leads to 22 Arrests

Rikers Island

Rikers Island Struggles With a Surge in Violence and Mental Illness

Inmate Who Fought With Another at Rikers Island Dies After Leaving Hospital

Mentally Ill, and Jailed in Isolation at Rikers Island

Rikers Island Guards Are Found Not Guilty in Prisoner Assault Case

U.S. Inquiry Finds a ‘Culture of Violence’ Against Teenage Inmates at Rikers Island

By BENJAMIN WEISER and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ AUG. 4, 2014

LINK

In an extraordinary rebuke of the New York City Department of Correction, the federal government said on Monday that the department had systematically violated the civil rights of male teenagers held at Rikers Island by failing to protect them from the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by correction officers.

The office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, released its findings in a graphic 79-page report that described a “deep-seated culture of violence” against youthful inmates at the jail complex, perpetrated by guards who operated with little fear of punishment.

The report, addressed to Mayor Bill de Blasio and two other senior city officials, singled out for blame a “powerful code of silence” among the Rikers staff, along with a virtually useless system for investigating attacks by guards. The result was a “staggering” number of injuries among youthful inmates, the report said.

The report, which comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of the jail complex after a stream of revelations about Rikers’s problems, also found that the department relied to an “excessive and inappropriate” degree on solitary confinement to punish teenage inmates, placing them in punitive segregation, as the practice is known, for months at a time.

Although the federal investigation focused only on the three Rikers jails that house male inmates aged 16 to 18, the report said the problems that were identified “may exist in equal measure” in the complex’s seven other jails for adult men and women.

In just one measure of the extent of the violence, the investigation found that nearly 44 percent of the adolescent male population in custody as of October 2012 had been subjected to a use of force by staff members at least once.

Correction officers struck adolescents in the head and face at “an alarming rate” as punishment, even when inmates posed no threat; officers took inmates to isolated areas for beatings out of view of video cameras; and many inmates were so afraid of the violence that they asked, for their own protection, to go to solitary confinement, the report said.

Officers were rarely punished, the report said, even with strong evidence of egregious violations. Investigations, when they occurred, were often superficial, and incident reports were frequently incomplete, misleading or intentionally falsified.

Among more than a dozen specific cases of brutality detailed in the report was one in which correction officers assaulted four inmates for several minutes, beating them with radios, batons and broomsticks, and slamming their heads against walls. Another inmate sustained a skull fracture and was left with the imprint of a boot on his back from an assault involving multiple officers. In another case, a young man was taken from a classroom after falling asleep during a lecture and was beaten severely. Teachers heard him screaming and crying for his mother.

“For adolescent inmates, Rikers Island is broken,” Mr. Bharara said at a news conference announcing the findings. “It is a place where brute force is the first impulse rather than the last resort, a place where verbal insults are repaid with physical injuries, where beatings are routine while accountability is rare.”

Rikers Island emergency services entering the jail's juvenile detention facility. Julie Jacobson/Associated Press

The federal investigation was conducted by the civil division of the United States attorney’s office. Officers involved in specific incidents were not identified by name. But the report listed more than 10 pages of remedial measures, and it warned that if the city did not work cooperatively to develop new policies and procedures, the Justice Department could bring a federal lawsuit asking a judge to order the imposition of remedies. Mr. Bharara said the city had 49 days to respond to the findings.

Joseph Ponte, the city’s new correction commissioner, said in a statement that his agency had “cooperated fully” with the Justice Department, and would work with it to carry out whatever changes were “appropriate and feasible.”

The report, which covers 2011 through the end of 2013, touched on many of the same issues raised in an investigation by The New York Times into violence by guards at Rikers, particularly against inmates with mental illnesses, published last month.

The Times article documented 129 cases in which inmates of all ages were seriously injured last year in altercations with correction officers, including several attacks that were also singled out in the report.

New York is one of just two states in the country that automatically charge people aged 16 to 18 as adults. That population, which averages close to 500 inmates at Rikers Island, is among the most difficult at the jail complex, the report said. In the 2013 fiscal year, about 51 percent received a mental illness diagnosis, compared with about 38 percent for the overall population. And nearly two-thirds were charged with felonies.

Even so, the report found that adolescents were overseen by the least experienced correctional staff members, who, often out of frustration or malice, lashed out violently against them. The violence against teenage inmates has steadily increased year by year, the report found. In the 2013 fiscal year alone, inmates younger than 18 sustained 1,057 injuries in 565 reported uses of force by correctional staff members.

Moreover, the report found, many violent episodes go unreported.

Officers and supervisors used coded phrases like “hold it down” to pressure inmates into not reporting beatings. “Inmates who refuse to ‘hold it down’ risk retaliation from officers in the form of additional physical violence and disciplinary sanctions,” the report said.

One inmate said that he was continually harassed by the correctional staff after reporting that he was raped by a guard and that he was warned by guards not to speak about the episode in an interview with a consultant on the investigation.

The report also found that civilian staff members, including doctors and teachers, also failed to report abuse and faced retaliation when they did.

One teacher told an investigator that when abuse occurs, civilian employees know “they should turn their head away, so that they don’t witness anything.”

Even when abuse was reported, the report found, the investigations typically went nowhere. The federal inquiry was highly critical of the Correction Department’s investigative division, which is overseen by Florence Finkle. The report described the investigative division as overwhelmed, understaffed and reliant on archaic paper-based record keeping. Investigations, which are supposed to take up to five months to complete, often take more than a year.

Investigation Into Violence Toward Teenagers at Rikers Island

The federal government said on Monday that the New York City Department of Correction had systematically violated the civil rights of male teenagers at Rikers Island by failing to protect them from the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by correction officers. The office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, released its findings in this 79-page report addressed to Mayor Bill de Blasio and two other senior city officials. AUG. 4, 2014

I received a letter on August 12 or 13th, certified, from Attorney Ben Manevitz. This is my reply.

August 24, 2014
Dear Mr. Manevitz,
You have ordered me to reply to you within 14 days of your letter dated August 11, 2014, and as I returned late last night from an upstate arbitration, I am posting my letter and yours so that we all know I replied in a timely manner to your demands, which in my opinion are reckless, unthethical, and legally unsound. I will explain.

You sent your demands for money to a private Foundation, The E-Accountability Foundation, a non-profit which assists people who have been wronged by corrupt politicians, judges and lawyers, or....anyone. We do not have a website. The Foundation, of which I am President, has no legal attachment at all to a blog called New York Court Corruption.

As you seem to be linking the Foundation to the blog's use of a photo that has no link whatsoever to the Foundation or to Parentadvocates.org (the Sadowski photo of Attorney Wally Bock is not on the website), you obviously are reckless in your search for money from anyone and decided it should be me..

Again, the E-Accountability Foundation has no connection or liability for anything posted on the blog New York Court Corruption.

Additionally, Parentadvocates.org. is not the website of the E-Accountability Foundation. These are two completely different entities.

Finally, your reckless actions can be seen on the fact that the picture by Christopher Sadowski of Attorney Wally Bock leaving court is, as I stated above, not on the website Parentadvocates.org. There is no connection between the website Parentadvocates.org and the blog New York Court Corruption .

I am theEditor of this blog and Parentadvocates.org and I am an investigative news reporter. As such, I post news stories under "Fair Use". Please see the disclaimer on Parentadvocates.org. As a news reporter, I can, and do, use my rights to publish newsworthy articles from news organizations, TV, magazines, etc., on the internet. As you know, Mr. Sadowski's picture of Wally Bock was published by NBC News on 9/1/2010 by Bill Dedman. I re-posted the article on my blog as a news article of interest, particularly because Wally Bock was the Attorney who did my mom's Will in 1989, and encouraged the Associate Pastor and the music Director of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, John Weaver, to get the Will written and stored at his office, filed, before I filed the last Will of my mom in March 1998. Four years later you are threatening me with a lawsuit, and, you will have to prove that my copying of NBC news led to a loss of income to Mr. Sadowski. I have never been paid a penny for any article on this blog or on my website. I hope you have the data you need to pursue this, if you decide to do so.

Of course I will sue you back as well as Mr. Sadowski for the damages incurred by the writing of the letter published below, your reckless behavior, and demand for money. I was never given any notice about my infringement and I am not an attorney.

I have removed the photo on my blog as a courtesy for now. Anyone may go to the link on my blog to see the original article published by NBC and photo of Wally Bock. Should I find out that your demands and your ordering me to give you $450.00 is indeed arbitrary and capricious, not only will I put the picture back up but I will take legal action against you and Mr. Sadowski.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Betsy Combier
Editor and news reporter for New York Court Corruption.

Attorney Ben Manevitz

MANEVlTZLAwFIRMLLC

IntellectualPropertyCounseling,Prosecution,EnforcementandLitigation

805CliftonAvenue

Clifton,NJ07013-1815

tel:973-594-6529

fax:973-689-9529

http://manevitzlawfirm.com

August11, 2014

The E-AccountabilityFoundation/ParentAdvocates.org Attn:BetsyCombier

315East65thStreetSuite4C

NewYork,NY10021

by:USPSCert/returnreceipt

Re:Unauthorizeduseofphotographs; Referencenumber39140-1156

ToWhomitMayConcern:

Thisfirm representstheprofessionalphotographerMr.ChristopherSadowski.IthascometoourattentionthatyouareusinganimageorimagesownedbyMr.Sadowskionyourwebsite,withoutauthorizationandwithouthavinglicensedsame. Attachedforyourreference is a copy of the image in question as used on your website, found at the url(s):

[http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/ 2012/07Inyc-public-administrator-ethel-

griffin.html].

Asyoumaybeaware,youruseofMr.Sadowski'screativeworkwithoutavalidlicenseisaclear copyrightinfringementinviolationofUnitedStatesCodeTitle17(TheCopyrightAct).Statutorypenaltiesforcopyrightinfringement(whereavailable)rangefrom$200to$150,000perworkinfringed,andundernormalcircumstancesarerarelylessthan$750perwork infringed.Ofcourse,undercertainconditionsdamagesforcopyrightinfringementcanruntoamountssignificantlyhigher.Further,wherestatutorydamagesareawarded,thecourtsalsohavethepowertoorderthatyoupayMr.Sadowski'slegalfeesaswell.

Thisletterisademandletterrequiringyourresponse,andfurtherrequiringyourimmediatecomplianceasfollows. Within 14daysofthedateofthisletter,wedemand:

(a) Youmustprovideprooftotheseofficesofavalidlicenseoftheimageorimagesinquestion,byemailingproofofsametoPhotoLicense@manevitzlaw.com.Pleasemakesuretoincludeyourcompanynameandthereferencenumberaboveinthesubjectline.

(b) If youcannotprovidesuchproofofavalidlicense,thenyoumaycontinuetousetheimagesbyimmediatelyremittingtheongoinglicensefeeof$1125.Thelicenseisfor exactlytheusethatyouarecurrentlymakingoftheimage,andisnottransferableorsubjecttosub-license.Wewillprovideyouwiththeappropriatesettlementandreleaseagreementatyourrequest.

(c) Inthealternative,ifyoucannotprovideproofofavalidlicense,andyoudonotwishtocontinuetousetheimages,youmust immediatelyceaseanddesistuseoftheimages.Inaddition,you mustremitthetermination-licensefeeof$450.Merelyceasinguseoftheimagesdoesnoteliminateliabilityforpaymentoffeesdue.Wewill provideyouwiththeappropriatesettlementand releaseagreementatyourrequest.

Mr.Sadowski'slivelihoodisbasedonhisofferoftheseimagesforlicense,andyourinfringementiscausinghimdirectandimmediateharm.ThelicensefeesquotedhereinarecalculatedbasedonMr.Sadowski'snormalchargesforalicenseforyourtypeofuseandthenumberofimagesyouhaveimproperlyused.

Inanticipationofsomeofthecommonobjectionsand responsesthisfirmhasencountered,itmaybeworthwhiletomakeclearcertainpointsoflaw:

• Undertherelevantstatute,copyrightinfringementisastrictliabilityoffense,whichistosaythatitisnotadefensetosaythatyouinfringedtheimages"byaccident,"orbyautomatedsystem,orwithoutknowledge.

• Resizingthepicturedoesnotmakeyouruse"fairuse."

• Neithercorrectattributiontothephotographernorlinkingbacktotheoriginalsourcelessenstheseverityofthecopyrightinfringement.Infact,itmayservetodemonstrateyourknowledgethat theimagewasnotrightfullyyourstouse.

• Thefactthattheimageisonlylinkedfromyoursiteandisnotstoredonyourserverisnotadefense.

• Animageisnotinthepublicdomainmerelybecauseitisontheinternet.

Pleasebeintouchwiththeseofficesandconfirmyourcompliancewiththedemands herein.Ifwedonothearfromyoupromptly,myclientwillbeforcedtoconsiderallofhisoptionsforfurtherenforcementofhisrights.Wewouldstronglyprefertoresolvethismatterwithoutresorttothemorecostlyandtime-consumingmechanismofbringingsuitinfederal court.

Ifyoufeelthatyouhavereceivedthisletterinerror,pleasecontactmebyemailatPhotoLicense@manevitzlaw.com.Pleasemakesuretoincludeyourcompanynameandthereferencenumberaboveinthesubjectline.Nothinginthisshallbedeemeda waiverofanyofMr.Sadowski'srightsorremediesinconnectionwiththismatter,whetheratlaworinequity,allofwhichrightsandremediesareherebyexpresslyreserved.

Sincerely

Ben D. Manevitz

Sanford Rubenstein

Sanford Rubenstein won't face rape charges, DA Vance decides

Updated January 5, 2015 10:25 PM

LINK

The Manhattan district attorney announced Monday he will not pursue rape charges that were lodged against prominent personal injury lawyer Sanford Rubenstein by a top aide to his one-time patron, activist Rev. Al Sharpton.

The allegations by an executive at Sharpton's National Action Network against the lawyer, who has sued on behalf of police violence victims such as Abner Louima and Eric Garner, made tabloid headlines late last year, but prosecutors said they couldn't be proved.

The woman, who has not been publicly identified, claimed that Rubenstein, 70, assaulted her at his Manhattan apartment after a night of drinking at Sharpton's 60th birthday bash in October. Rubenstein claimed the sex was consensual.

District Attorney Cyrus Vance's office noted the complaint came 36 hours later and could not be corroborated despite a "thorough" investigation that included interviews with 48 witnesses and reviews of video surveillance at Rubenstein's apartment building.

"Neither the provable facts nor the applicable law support a prosecution," said a spokeswoman for Vance, citing among problems the "degree of the complainant's recollection of what happened."

Kenneth Montgomery, the woman's lawyer, said she was "upset" at Vance's decision but the outcome was predictable given Vance's history of declining to file charges, including the high-profile case in 2011 when a hotel maid accused French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape.

"When they've got a powerful suspect, they're going to do everything in the world to punt the case," said Montgomery, who added that he believed there was enough evidence to present to a grand jury indicating that Rubenstein slipped a marijuana cookie to his client.

Montgomery said he filed a civil suit against Rubenstein in Brooklyn immediately after learning there would be no prosecution.

Rubenstein, in a news conference, said he was "pleased" he had been "fully cleared," and his defense lawyer, Ben Brafman, warned that he would file a countersuit for defamation if the woman pursues a civil suit.

"The woman in question was not drunk, she was not drugged and she was not raped," Brafman said. "Rape is undoubtedly a serious offense. To falsely accuse someone of rape is however equally offensive."

After the allegations surfaced against Rubenstein last fall, Sharpton severed ties with him, accusing him of being "disrespectful" toward his organization. Garner's family, whom Sharpton advised, hired Montgomery to replace Rubenstein as their lawyer.

Brafman Monday called on Sharpton to apologize, but Sharpton said he had no plans to do so because he never accused Rubenstein of committing a crime.

"I don't think anyone doing business with an organization they respect will party with a member of the board of directors," he said. "That's my opinion. I think it's presumptuous for someone to call on me to apologize for my opinion."

Re-posted from VERDICT and National Public Voice:

Friday, January 16, 2015

Michael C. Dorf: Civilian Control of the Police

January 14, 2015

MICHAEL C. DORF

Civilian Control of the Police

in NYC

LINK

Roman emperors formally staked their power on Senate recognition, but in practice their authority depended on support from the legions and the Praetorian Guard. Despite its republican traditions, in its imperial phase, Rome was a dictatorship—sometimes a benevolent one, but a dictatorship nonetheless—because truly representative government demands civilian control of state force. For that reason, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes the President, a civilian, Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

As with the nation, so with its parts. Thus, recent actions by a not inconsiderable number of New York Police Department (NYPD) officers to challenge the authority of Mayor Bill de Blasio by refusing to enforce the law should raise loud alarms. Police officers are entitled to express pointed disagreement with their civilian leaders, but when that disagreement crosses the line into defiance, democracy itself is threatened.

The Underlying Dispute

In considering where to draw the line between permissible protest and mutiny, it is important to set aside the substance of the underlying disagreement. That may bedifficult to do in this instance, because the position of protesting NYPD officers is, not to put too fine a point on it, ugly.

Consider the now-infamous statement of NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch that Mayor de Blasio had “blood on his hands” for the murder of officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by a man who may have drawn some inspiration from anti-police-brutality protesters but was clearly a dangerous and deranged criminal.

What, exactly, did de Blasio do to render himself culpable in the killing of Ramos and Liu in the eyes of Lynch and his supporters? In the wake of a Staten Island grand jury’s failure to issue an indictment for the choking death of Eric Garner, de Blasio had the temerity to speak the indisputable truth that young African American men like his own son are at elevated risk in encounters with the police. De Blasio has repeatedly acknowledged the difficult and dangerous work that police do, but that was not enough to satisfy Lynch, who sees police–civilian interactions in Manichean terms: Because de Blasio does not offer all NYPD officers 100 percent backing in everything they do, Lynch denounces him.

Legitimate Speech

Police Chief William Bratton and some supporters of Mayor de Blasio have criticized the NYPD officers who turned their backs on the mayor at the funerals for Ramos and Liu on the ground that they were exploiting a tragedy to make a political point. That is a legitimate criticism of the officers’ judgment, but the officers were within their rights to exercise bad judgment or even to give offense. Although not entirely analogous, the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Snyder v. Phelps underscores the proposition that the First Amendment protects offensive speech, even offensive speech that aims to use a funeral for political purposes.

More broadly, police officers have a right to speak out on matters of public concern, even if doing so could be seen as somewhat undermining the authority of their civilian leaders.

As a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in the 1892 case of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford that a plaintiff who had been fired from his position as a police officer “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Yet constitutional law long ago rejected the Holmesian view that the state may, as a condition of employment, suppress otherwise protected speech.

Under the modern employee speech doctrine, public employees do not forfeit their right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern simply by virtue of accepting a government job. Government may not suppress such speech by its employees unless doing so is necessary to the effective provision of services.

The NYPD officers who turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio were expressing an odious view, but they were nonetheless “speaking” as citizens on a matter of public concern. And while the incidents caused embarrassment to the mayor, the police commissioner, and others, they did not interfere with the provision of police protection in any clear way.

To see why the First Amendment protects NYPD officers in expressing their displeasure with the mayor, imagine that they were making a different point. Suppose that in the wake of the Garner non-indictment, the mayor gave a public speech praising the NYPD for its aggressive use of force, and that some officers turned their backs at that speech. Surely many of the people who now condemn the NYPD officers for their treatment of Mayor de Blasio would praise the hypothetical officers for their courage in confronting their leaders, for speaking truth to power.

An Illegal Strike

Police officers also have a legal right to another kind of speech. They can organize to form a union that, in turn, can collectively bargain on their behalf. Some of the issues that are legitimately subject to collective bargaining are also matters of public policy. For example, whether police must be outfitted with body cameras is both a matter of working conditions for the police and civil rights of the public.

But New York law generally denies to public employees the right to strike. Whatever the merits of the general provision, the reason for the prohibition of police strikes is obvious. A strike in some other sector may cause financial losses and public inconvenience, but a strike by the police threatens the very foundation of government.

The NYPD are not formally on strike, but over the last several weeks, the number of arrests and tickets for relatively minor offenses as well as some not-so-minor offenses (such as gun possession and drunk driving) reportedly declined substantially. Although there is no clear evidence of a coordinated refusal by police to enforce the law, the same report (a New York Timesstory) indicates at least informal coordination. Call it a stealth strike.

Whether overt or covert, a police strike is dangerous and illegal. Where, as appears to be true here, the tacit strike threatens the public safety unless elected leaders give in to the strikers’ policy demands, democracy itself is under attack. There is no place in New York or America for a Praetorian Guard.

[ 6:42 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (76)

Michael C. Dorf, a Justia columnist, is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School and the principal author of The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Constitutional Law. He blogs atDorfonLaw.org.

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2015/01/14/civilian-control-police-nyc#sthash.UhfuNImG.dpuf

Dershowitz Threatens To Sue Victim’s Attorneys For Defamation . . . Attorneys Respond By Suing Him First

1, January 7, 2015 by jonathanturley

LINK

Paul Cassell

Alan Dershowitz

We previously discussed the threat of retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz to sue Utah Law Professor and former federal judge Paul Cassell(and his co-counsel Bradley Edwards) for defamation for papers mentioning him in revelation to the sex trafficking scandal of Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein. The lawyers sought unsuccessfully to depose Dershowitz who has been accused of being one of the men who were given underaged girls to sleep with by Epstein. At the time, I wrote that Dershowitz’s statements themselves could be viewed as defamatory and actionable. It appears that Cassell and Edwards were thinking the same thing. They have now sued Dershowitz for defamation.

Dershowitz also made a rare threat of a bar complaint over his representation of a client in the notorious case of billionaire and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Even more rare is the source of the threatened complaint: retired law professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School. Epstein is good friends with Bill Clinton and Duke of York Prince Andrew, 54, who have been mentioned in litigation over allegations of the use of underaged “sex slaves” and Epstein’s alleged penchant for watching (and filming) people having sex with these girls.

Dershowitz says that the sex claims are a “completely, totally fabricated, made-up story” and that he is an “innocent victim of an extortion conspiracy.” I noted that the reference to extortion itself could be viewed as defamatory since it makes the lawyers active participants in such extortion and any such statements made in public would be unprotected by privilege governing statements in court.

Cassell and Edwards however did not respond in kind and said that they would confine their statements to court filings “out of respect for the court’s desire to keep this case from being litigated in the press.” They noted however that they have “tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to consider any sworn testimony and documentary evidence Mr. Dershowitz would like to provide which he contends would refute any of our allegations.”

As I mentioned, it is hard to see how it is a disbarring offense or defamation for these attorneys to reference the allegations of their client in court papers, particularly given the immunity protection afforded from allegations in court. However, in addition to the extortion reference, Dershowitz said “I’m planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera.” Thus, he has made public comments (outside of protected court statements) linking the lawyers to extortion and unprofessional conduct, both per se categories of defamation. He is also quoted as calling Cassell and Edwards “sleazy, unprofessional, unethical lawyers” who should have known that their client is “lying through her teeth.” Once again, the reference to being “unethical” can be alleged to be more than opinion. It is stating something that can be challenged as factually false and per se defamatory.

Dershowitz claims to be “thrilled” by the lawsuit but I would be less excited.
It would have been better to try to sue for an out-of-court statement for defamation in his own
right. After all, Dershowitz is insisting that he only went to Epstein’s island home once and was
with his family the whole time. That is the type of claim that makes for a serious defamation
action if the flight manifests and other documents support him.
Jane Doe #3 alleges that Epstein ordered her to have “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz on
the businessman’s private plane and on his private Caribbean island. However, she also says
that she was ordered to have sex with Dershowitz at Epstein’s homes in New York City and Palm
Beach.

Now, instead of fighting of the stronger ground of his own claimed innocence, he will have to
defend against raw and frankly ill-considered statements about counsel for the accuser. Moreover, Cassell and Edwards will go get what they long sought: Dershowitz in deposition under oath.

As expected the complaint (below) zeros in on out-of-court (and unprotected) statements,
particularly in a CNN interview. Notably, the complaint takes a minimalist approach and does
not go into detail on the specific statements. While many lawyers prefer to state the minimum,
this is a bit more of a bare bones complaint than most would file in this type of case. The
complaint references the public comments generally as part of Dershowitz’s “a massive public
media assault on the reputation and character” of counsel.”

A review of the CNN interview shows a target rich environment for a defamation action
against Dershowitz. Indeed, I may be playing this interview in this year’s torts class on both
attorney privilege and per se defamation. Here are some highlights (the highlights are my own:

Well, Dershowitz has the “legal forum” that he was seeking, but he will be on defense. There is a material difference in how you attacks such statements and I think this is not the ideal context for Dershowitz. However, it is likely to get rougher before it gets better. Dershowitz will likely feel obligated to follow through with a bar complaint, creating a three-front battle between the original civil action, the new civil action, and the bar action.

Both Cassell and Dershowitz would be considered public figures under New York Times v.
Sullivan. Public officials are placed under a higher standard for defamation in the case: requiring
a showing of actual malice or knowing disregard of the truth. This constitutional-based standard
is designed to protect free speech, particularly when directed against powerful politicians. Of
course, these people are not public figures in the United States and some do not hold public
offices. However, the same standard applies to public figures.

The public figure standard was established in Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967). The case involved
a March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Wallace Butts conspired with University of Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to
fix a 1962 football game in Alabama’s favor. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Warren wrote a concurrence that extended the ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan on public officials to public figures. He found the same reasons for applying the higher standard to public officials as present
in cases involving public figures:

Indeed, the case is filled with public figures and one (Epstein) who could be viewed as so
notorious and sleazy as to be “libel proof” — or someone who has no reputation to lose.

Ironically, Bill (and by extension Hillary) Clinton and Prince Andrew are likely the least thrilled by the new development. These actions mean more depositions and more investigation when they thought that the generous immunity deal had effectively tied off or limited their exposure in this case.

Here is the defamation lawsuit.

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited
multiple times

LINK

Jeffrey Epstein

The former president was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes
A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex slaves'
Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
He hasn't cut ties with that woman, however, and invited her to Chelsea's wedding
Comes as friends now fear that if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, all of their family's old scandals will be brought to the forefront
Epstein has a host of famous friends including Prince Andrew who stayed at his New York mansion AFTER his arrest

By Daily Mail Reporter

Published: 09:06 EST, 19 March 2014 | Updated: 21:10 EST, 5 January 2015

A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton's friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute. Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire's private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves.
The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men's friendship, which seems to have ended abruptly around the time of Epstein's arrest.

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

It is unclear what the basis of the suit is, but they go on to call witness testimony from some of the frequent guests at Epstein's island to talk about the wild parties that were held there in the early 2000s. Flight logs pinpoint Clinton's trips on Epstein's jet between the years 2002 and 2005, while he was working on his philanthropic post-presidential career and while his wife Hillary was a Senator for their adopted state of New York.

'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind fo thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,' one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal backstories were never revealed.
At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly, as the suit identifies a woman as Jane Doe 102.
She 'was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with... politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc,' the lawsuit says according to The Enquirer.

Epstein's sexual exploits have been documented since 2005, when a woman in Palm Beach contacted police saying that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid $300 to massage him and then have sex.

The claim prompted a nearly year-long investigation that led to the eventual charge of soliciting prostitution which came as part of a plea deal. He spent 13 months of a 18-month sentence in jail and remains a registered sex offender.

Now it's time for Andrew Cuomo, too.

Sheldon Silver

Sheldon Silver, Speaker of New York Assembly, Is Arrested in Corruption Case
LINK

The powerful speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, was arrested on federal corruption charges on Thursday, sending shock waves through the political establishment and upending the new legislative session.

Mr. Silver, a Democrat from the Lower East Side of Manhattan who has served as speaker for more than two decades, surrendered to F.B.I. agents early Thursday morning in Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Silver, before entering 26 Federal Plaza, said, “I hope I’ll be vindicated.”

The investigation of Mr. Silver began after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in March abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013.

The federal inquiry, led by the United States Attorney for the Southern District, focused on payments that Mr. Silver received from a small law firm that specializes in seeking reductions of New York City real estate taxes.

Sheldon Silver to be arrested

By Joe Tacopino and Jamie Schram

January 22, 2015 | 2:08am

LINK

Sheldon Silver, the longtime speaker of the New York state Assembly, is expected to be arrested on corruption charges by federal authorities on Thursday after prosecutors subpoenaed records in a probe of undocumented payments he received from a law firm, sources said.

Silver, a Manhattan Democrat who has served as speaker for more than 20 years, is expected to be charged following an investigation sparked when Gov. Cuomo abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013, sources said.

The specific details of the charges were not clear, but sources said that it was related to money Silver received from a small real-estate tax law firm.

The firm, Goldberg & Iryami PC, made the payments over about a decade, but Silver failed to list the income on his financial-disclosure forms, sources told The Post.

As speaker, Silver controls which legislation can be voted on, and has broad powers over the state budget.

Silver, 70, has been criticized by opponents for wielding too much power, and has been ensnared in controversy.

The FBI and prosecutors from Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara’s office began an investigation into the undisclosed money in December.

The prosecutors were looking into exactly what Silver did to earn the money, sources told The Post in December.

The probe came after an investigation by Cuomo’s Moreland Commission panel, which was looking into corruption in Albany when the governor shut it down.

One of the issues that the panel was looking into was how state lawmakers earn income from their non-government jobs.

Silver is a personal-injury lawyer associated with the high-profile law firm Weitz and Luxenberg.

Goldberg & Iryami specializes in an arcane form of law known as “tax certiorari,’’according to the New York Times.

That involves challenging real-estate tax assessments and seeking reductions for developers who own residential or commercial property.

The firm appears to have only two lawyers, according to the Times.

The newspaper said, that since 2001, the firm and its principals have made six donations to Silver, totaling $7,600.

The most recent was in February, when it gave him $1,800, according to the report.

The Times added that the law firm has sought tax reductions for many properties on the Lower East Side, which is the area Silver represents.

In addition the financial controversies, Silver also became entangled in the Vito Lopez sex-harassment case when it became public that the speaker had hired two firms to defend the disgraced former assemblyman, spending nearly $700,000 in public funds.

Silver — who could not be reached for comment early Thursday — was nearly ousted as Assembly speaker by his fellow Democrats in 2000, when they unexpectedly challenged his leadership position. The coup failed.

I hope this starts a radical overhaul of family courts around the country. I had a matter in the Manhattan Surrogate's Court which led to my heart almost failing on July 22, 2006. As I did not die (obviously), I decided I would help anyone fight the RICO in ALL the Courts.

Convicted Late Senator Guy Velella

RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them

Betsy Combier

Chris Christie named in two lawsuits alleging violations by Family Courts

Michael Volpe

January 21, 2015

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Chris Christie has been named as a defendant in two cases that are part of series of lawsuits across the country where serious concerns about violations of citizens’ rights in family courts are under scrutiny.

CALIFORNIA

An upcoming civil RICO lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the watchdog group Family Court Accountability Coalition (FCAC) will allege that a feeder system created by the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Division, in conjunction with several powerful judges, creates a racket which chooses favored divorce lawyers and makes sure those lawyers get favorable rulings in Sacramento County family court rooms.

In 1991, Judges Vance Raye and Peter McBrien, formed the Family Law Executive Committee (FLEC) to help deal with family law cases in Sacramento County family courts. This FLEC would be a group of lawyers, according to the upcoming suit, chosen by the Sacramento County Bar Association’s family law division which would act as judge pro temp on certain family law cases and in exchange, the suit will allege, the lawyers chosen for this task would be given favorable rulings, deserved or not, when they appeared in divorce court in their regular roles.

One of the most high profile case examples of this scheme which will be featured in the suit is that of Ulf Carlsson who appeared in front of Judge McBrien and whose story received significant media attention culminating with a lengthy feature in the documentary Divorce Corp.

Carlsson told RebelPundit his judge was McBrien and that not only did he lose every single motion and hearing in his divorce but the judge awarded his ex-wife all their marital assets.

About five years ago, an appeals court reversed the decision but only because during one hearing the judge simply left the court room while Carlsson’s side was presenting their case, a blatant violation of due process.

Carlsson said while everyone told him the decisions themselves were egregious, the appellate court didn’t have the power to overturn them and only overturned his case on due process violations.

Carlsson said he was forced to move back to Sweden, where he was born, after thirty years in the USA and receiving multiple “credible threats” on his life.

Carlsson said he’s developed PTSD as a result of the corrupt court process.

NEW JERSEY

In New Jersey two concurrent RICO lawsuits will allege systemic bias against women in two counties of that state and Governor Chris Christie will be a named defendant in both cases.

First, in Bergen County a lawsuit led by Karin Wolf, including more than forty women, will allege that courts ignore abuse on a widespread basis–be it sexual, physical, verbal, or emotional–and instead label women making these allegations as parental alienators or as having a variety of mental illnesses or defects.

Wolf told RebelPundit that the purpose of these false diagnoses is to goad protective mothers like herself to fight false allegations in court, creating a perpetual legal process and a plethora of legal fees.

Wolf’s lawsuit will allege that Christie has culpability because he appointed a number of the judges implicated and because he’s been made aware of the widespread abuse but failed to act.

Kevin Roberts, Governor Christie’s Press Secretary, directed all calls to the state’s Attorney General’s (AG) office, which declined comment.

In nearby Monmouth County, another lawsuit, led by Rachel Alintoff will include seven women in total–five of whom spoke with RebelPundit. Alintoff was featured in a 2012 New York Post article in which nine women made allegations of gender bias against Monmouth County Family Court Judge, Paul Escandon. Judge Escandon will be a named defendant in the upcoming lawsuit and his office declined to comment when reached by phone.

In each case the women described a phenomenon psychologists refer to as Gaslighting, based on a 1944 film which won an Academy Award for Ingrid Bergman.

Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFfBB4WCFJY

Gaslighting is “a form of mental abuse where information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.”

Karen Welch told RebelPundit that starting in 1997 and continuing until 2010, she was stalked by an individual associated with her ex-husband. The court, rather than accepting her allegations, said she was making it up because of a mental illness.

In 2010, her alleged stalker, Joe Pate, committed suicide after the FBI filed for an arrest warrant against him. Her story led to New Jersey anti-stalking legislation and was featured on an Investigation Discovery documentary.

In Alintoff’s case, she was diagnosed by the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Patricia Baszczuk, with “cyclical outbursts” disorder, a disorder which appears to have been coined by Basczcuk and has never been used widely. This so-called diagnosis was used to take custody Alintoff’s son away from her.

Alintoff said that Dr. Baszczuk will be a named defendant and she didn’t respond to an email for comment. Alintoff said she had a one-on-one meeting with Governor Christie about a year ago–about her case–in which Christie promised to examine her case personally; Christie’s Press Secretary Roberts didn’t respond for comment on this meeting.

Wolf and Alintoff told RebelPundit they have also both spoken with the FBI.

All of the women interviewed for both New Jersey lawsuits said they believe they suffered from PTSD as a result of their experience.

Susan Skipp, whose story was featured in a previous RebelPundit expose, is the only litigant not to file a RICO suit. She told RebelPundit that based on her research of precedent she didn’t believe it was feasible to prove RICO, and instead filed a civil suit, which alleges civil rights and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations and is seeking $300 million in damages.

Skipp, who has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which she developed as a result of the stress of the legal process, said rather than having those ailments be accepted and receive accommodations, the judge in her case, Lynda Munro, and the Guardian ad Litem, Mary Brigham, accused her in open court of having an unspecified and untreated mental illness.

“The defendant testified that she looked forward to this counseling. If the court takes her at her word then she cannot help herself in her conduct and this is an unaddressed mental health concern,” Judge Munro said of Skipp during one court hearing.

Rather than allowing her to continue treatment with her own therapist, Skipp said that Judge Munro told her that if she saw a psychologist of Munro’s choosing–at a cost of about $3,000 monthly–she’d be allowed to see her children for a few hours a month.

“This is a common scam,” Skipp told RebelPundit, “Order litigant to buddy, buddy gets 175 a week or more- can’t claim on insurance because no diagnosis.” Skipp said, “(It) goes on for years because it’s an order, and also violates ADA law because a person has a right to have a trusting relationship with her therapist.”

Skipp hasn’t seen her children since the end of 2012.

Judge Munro, who retired from the bench in 2014, didn’t respond to an email at her current employer, the Pullman and Comley Law Firm. Ms. Brigham also didn’t respond to an email for comment.

CONNECTICUT AND PENNSYLVANIA

The allegations made by Alintoff and Wolf are similar to an expose in 2012 by Keith Harmon Snow, that included Susan Skipp’s case in which he alleged that Connecticut family courts painted mothers as crazy in an attempt to feed children into a pedophile ring; Snow believes his expose also uncovered a criminal enterprise:

The family court system in Connecticut, as around the country, involves multiple corrupt organizations where profit motives and personal connections dictate how and why decisions are made, and these are decisions that have altered and ruined the lives of many families, esp. many children in custody cases. A racket is ‘a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket were not to exist’ and this is exactly the case with court-related organizations such as Department of Children and Families; National Council of Children’s Rights; the court-sanctioned institution of Guardian Ad Litemand all its related training offices.

While the cases mentioned all involve civil suits, they match up to a Scranton-Wilkes Barre Independent investigation from 2014 dubbed “Custody for Cash,” which led to several court officers facing criminal charges for bribery and other crimes.

The Family Civil Liberties Union also recently had the Federal Trade Commission open a case into family court for racketeering and fraud.

Errol Louis

Sheldon Silver’s army of enablers

Excuses and more excuses from Assembly Democrats

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Monday, January 26, 2015, 6:53 PM

LINK

Far more alarming than the evidence of dedicated, long-term sneak-thievery by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the haplessness of his liberal Democratic enablers — and their inability over many years to denounce shifty, unprincipled behavior even when a loud chorus of public voices has done just that.

Nearly all of state’s editorials boards are crystal clear: Strong calls for Silver’s resignation have been voiced by the News, along with the city’s other major dailies, the Staten Island Advance and papers in Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester. In public opinion polls dating back to 2013, a majority of New Yorkers have said they’d like to see Silver gone.

And that was before his arrest.

But to their lasting shame, many of those who claim the mantle of political leadership have lost their political and ethical bearings, stumbling and grasping in every direction except the right and obvious one: not only deposing Silver as speaker but also swiftly enacting reforms to prevent any repeat of the shame that engulfs the capital.

I recently asked one longtime assemblyman what he thought of the 35-page criminal complaint filed against Silver, which is replete with detailed, credible allegations of extortion and bribery gathered and sworn to by the FBI. We all know that Silver is innocent until proven otherwise, I said; but don’t the accusations bother you?

“I'm not a legal expert,” said the pol, who has spent more than a decade writing laws for the rest of us to follow.

That sad cop-out was scarcely better than the comment from Assemblyman David Weprin of Queens — the son of former Speaker Saul Weprin — who might not have actually read the complaint before offering a novel theory. “In my opinion, it seems to be a financial disclosure mistake,” he told a newspaper.

Give Assemblyman Dick Gottfried of Manhattan credit for at least reading the charges before reaching an equally preposterous conclusion. “I’ve read the complaint,” Gottfried said to City and State newspaper. “To me, it’s distressing that in this country you can end up in handcuffs based on these kinds of flimsy, unsubstantiated allegations.”

Gottfried hinted that Silver is the victim of an unspecified conspiracy. “Many of us, based on decades of political observation, think not only Speaker Silver, but his predecessors, are often easy targets because they challenge entrenched power in New York, whether it’s entrenched economic power or political power,” he added.

Keep in mind that Gottfried and Weprin are concocting defenses that neither Silver nor his attorneys have offered. Silver never claimed to make a “financial disclosure mistake” in explaining why a law firm paid him $3.8 million in referral fees.

Whenever asked about it over the years, the speaker claimed he represented simple folk who needed legal help from time to time — which, according to the U.S. attorney, was a brazen lie; investigators combed a decade’s worth of cases and could find exactly one person represented by Silver.

As for challenging entrenched power: It hardly needs mentioning that Silver is only one year shy of becoming the longest-serving Assembly speaker in New York history, and that he has, from his lofty perch as one of the famed “three men in a room” who negotiate state budgets, personally overseen passage of well over $1 trillion in spending.

Gottfried’s insinuations echo the fanciful notion — put forth by statements of support from the Working Families Party and Mayor de Blasio — that Silver is so indispensable to the protection and advancement of liberal political causes that left-leaning New York simply cannot do without his leadership.

Nonsense. As the old saying goes: The graveyards are full of indispensable people.

More to the point, Silver’s liberal armor has some noteworthy dents. He appears to have worked to keep a 30-acre site, the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area, undeveloped for half a century, after more than 1,000 low-income families, mostly Latino, had been removed.

As a New York Times investigation concluded, actually building long-promised affordable housing on the site “would have altered the demographics of the neighborhood and put Mr. Silver’s political base in question.” So he stalled it.

And there's the infamous deal in which Silver killed the commuter tax in pursuit of a minor political win upstate. Since the 1999 repeal, New York City has lost an estimated $10.6 billion — money that would come in handy to fund public schools and other programs cherished by his liberal supporters.

If ever there was a time to call your local Assembly member and sound off, this is it. They badly need to hear some voices outside the bubble of Albany, where cowardice and confusion reign.

Louis is political anchor at NY1 News.

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo’s two fiscal faces

By E.J. McMahon

LINK

Gov. Cuomo’s combined State of the State message and Executive Budget rollout this week showcased the governor at his best — and worst.

At best, there was Cuomo the fiscal fundamentalist, whose proposed budget for fiscal 2016 would allow state operating funds spending to rise by just 1.7 percent. If he holds his ground, the inflation-adjusted budget trend will be close to flat across his first five years in office.

The governor also pledged to stand behind his signature accomplishment on behalf of local taxpayers — by seeking permanent enactment of the historic 2011 cap on property tax levies outside New York City.

The 2 percent tax-growth cap is due to sunset in June 2016 under a provision linked to the extension of New York City’s rent control laws, which expire this June.

That awkward arrangement reflects the baneful influence of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was the main obstacle to Cuomo’s original proposal for a permanent property tax limit four years ago.

Silver’s arrest Thursday on federal corruption charges could strengthen the governor’s ability to leverage a truly enduring tax cap out of this legislative session.

On a different front, the governor was in fine rhetorical fettle when it came to challenging the notion that pumping more money into the nation’s best-funded public schools will automatically produce better results.

The state aid formula gives significantly more money to “high needs” districts, so the Buffalo system gets double the aid of the average district — yet remains a chronic failure, Cuomo noted.

“So don’t tell me that if we only had more money, it would change,” he added, calling for reform of teacher-evaluation and -tenure laws.

He followed that up by advocating other reforms: more charter schools and a new Education Tax Credit to promote contributions to nonprofit scholarship funds and public schools.

Yet, moments later, Cuomo proposed a further expansion — to cover children as young as 3 — of the state’s dubious and costly commitment to publicly-funded universal pre-kindergarten.

And in the area of tax policy, the governor’s proposed $1.7 billion in “property tax relief” wasn’t really a tax cut but a subsidy, in the form of a credit that would flow to less than half of homeowners.

Once again, he avoided proposing meaningful reforms of collective-bargaining laws and other state mandates that drive up local costs, and so push up local taxes.

This was Cuomo at his worst: pushing hyperbole and gimmickry over substance.

The cynical, political side of Cuomo’s approach to budgeting was exemplified by his plans for the $5.4 billion windfall from bank settlements.

Cuomo announced this month that he’d set aside $1.5 billion in windfall money for an upstate economic development competition.

This is premised on the notion that he can repeat the (as yet unproven) “model of success” of his “Buffalo Billion” package of subsidies to businesses willing to expand or locate in upstate’s largest city.

In reality, the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metro area has been adding jobs at less than half the national pace, and upstate as a whole is barely growing at all.

The governor said he’d deposit another $3 billion of windfall cash into a “new special infrastructure account.”

But barely half that amount — most of it targeted to the Thruway Authority — would be committed to transportation infrastructure, where capital needs are greatest. He’d scatter the rest in smaller pieces among lower-priority projects, including $500 million in matching funds for broadband Internet access.

Cuomo painted this as innovative, saying, “Infrastructure today is less about roads and bridges, in my opinion, and it is more about broadband.” Really? Try driving a car or truck down the information highway.

Speaker Silver’s legal troubles have shaken the state Capitol to its foundations, and this may well strengthen the governor’s hand in the coming budget negotiations. But Cuomo will produce better results if he ditches gimmickry and refocuses on fundamentals.

E.J. McMahon is president of the Empire Center and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.

Tim Hoefer

EMPIRE CENTER

LINK

The corruption case against Speaker Sheldon Silver has prompted more calls for reform of the Legislature, which has seen two dozen-plus members (and counting) leave office under ethical or criminal clouds in the past 15 years.

With US Attorney Preet Bharara hinting that more state officials may be in hot water, the bandwagon is likely to gain even more momentum.

But what, exactly, would effective “reform” entail? Good-government groups such as Citizens Union have a standard checklist, including more thorough disclosure of outside incomes, greater transparency in state grant-making, a ban on the use of campaign funds for legal fees and other personal purposes and tougher penalties for violations of the public trust.

Taxpayer financing of political campaigns is another hobby-horse in some quarters, though campaign contributions had virtually nothing to do with the Silver allegations or with most of the other recent high-profile cases of state legislators who left office accused of some wrongdoing.

Far less attention is given to a reform already embraced by 15 other states: term limits for legislators.

First elected to the Assembly in 1976 and speaker since ’94, Silver owes much of his power to sheer longevity.

If New York had adopted a reasonable term-limits law back in the ’70s — say, limiting legislative service to no more than six terms in either house, or a total of 20 years combined — Silver’s legislative career would’ve ended decades ago.

Term limits would also strike at a problem more pervasive in Albany than corruption: legislative careerism. The longer they serve, the more many Assembly and Senate members naturally seek to preserve their positions.

This, combined with the power of legislative leaders, gives rise to an insular culture that makes individual lawmakers overly reluctant to advance new ideas, challenge entrenched special interests or demand higher ethical standards.

To combat careerism and empower rank-and-file members, term limits should be introduced, along with three other changes:

Close the taxpayer-guaranteed (and longevity-rewarding) defined-benefit public pension for legislators and other elected officials; instead, offer them a defined-contribution plan, such as the one sponsored by the State University of New York.
Eliminate the leader-controlled pay stipends now received by three-quarters of legislators.
Equalize members’ staff budgets.

Of course, there will never be a way to outlaw greed and dishonesty. Term limits alone certainly won’t do it; three term-limited, full-time state senators in California recently became faced criminal charges in the past two years.

But in seeking to minimize public corruption in New York, would-be reformers should remember the famous maxim of 19th-century Tammany pol George Washington Plunkitt: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”

Plunkitt would’ve marveled at the vastly greater “opportunities” created by the huge and complex regulatory state New York lawmakers (and the governor) now control.

For example, some of the most damaging allegations against Silver stem from his power to shape or reshape rent control — a policy that doesn’t even exist in most of America.

Investigators also have focused on the granting of lucrative tax abatements for Manhattan luxury apartment buildings, whose developers promise to set aside a quota of units for “affordable housing.”

This kind of tax break only exists in places where government regulation — controlled, again, largely out of Albany — has distorted housing markets.

Silver is also charged with steering $500,000 in state research grants to an oncologist, who in turn allegedly became a source of lucrative asbestos-lawsuit referrals to Silver’s law firm.

The federal criminal complaint also alleges that the speaker directed a state grant to a nonprofit whose board members include the oncologist’s wife, and that he helpedfind a job for the doctor’s son at one of the countless other social-services groups that perennially benefit from the Legislature’s budgetary largesse.

The bottom line is that New York’s propensity for big-government overreach has helped create and sustain what Bharara has called a “cauldron of corruption” in the state Capitol.

Federal charges aside, Sheldon Silver undeniably had been the leading champion of New York’s worst tax-and-spend habits.

If his successor adopts similar positions — translating into a continuing proliferation of legislatively generated red tape, special preferences, carve-outs, subsidies and pork-barrel grant-making — the cauldron won’t stop simmering.

Silver’s golden parachute

Sheldon Silver

If Sheldon Silver remains a rank-and-file legislator rather than retiring after stepping down as Assembly speaker, he will be losing money on the deal,according to the Empire Center’s pension calculator.

Based on his 38 years as a state assemblyman and the speaker’s salary of $121,000, Silver is now eligible for a pension of $87,120 — $7,620 more than the base pay he will collect as a mere Assembly member with no leadership title. As the calculator shows, Silver’s pension benefit has a net present value of $1.15 million, meaning a 70-year-old man in the private sector would need that much to purchase an annuity yielding the same annual income.

But Silver’s pensionable “service credits” may add to that amount. If he was enrolled as a full-time member of the New York City pension system when he began working as a Civil Court clerk in 1971, he could have ~~Tier 2~~ Tier 1 status, boosting his benefit to as much as $98,010. The~~Tier 2~~ Tier 1 benefit would cost about $1.3 million to replicate as an annuity. (Further details on Silver’s employment status in Civil Court from 1971 to 1976 are not available from biographies posted online.)

Both of these figures assume Silver chooses the “single life option” and doesn’t owe the system money for loans against his pension.

Under current state law, Silver can continue to collect his pension even if he is convicted on the charges filed against him by federal prosecutors last week.

Comments

comments

First Sheldon Silver, Now.....PLEASE let it be Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman who gets arrested.

Betsy Combier

Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them

Trish Lynch Loses Custody of Her 5-Year Old Daughter To Vincent "Vinny" Velella, Her Former Boyfriend, In Westchester County Family Court

Feds investigating Silver’s influence over civil court

Sheldon Silver

By Isabel Vincent, Melissa Klein and Susan Edelman

NY POST, February 1, 2015

LINK
The country’s most important civil court is under federal investigation, an insider says.
The probe is focusing on the state Supreme Court’s civil division at 60 Centre St. in lower Manhattan, where many tentacles reach to disgraced Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the court source said.
Silver was arrested last month on corruption charges, and Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara warned the public to “stay tuned” for more developments.
The case against Silver centers on his freelance legal “work” and the millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks he hauled in from real-estate and asbestos claims, the feds say.
Many of these cases landed in the courtrooms at 60 Centre St., presided over by judges with ties to Silver and his lifelong pal, Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of the state Court of Appeals.
Both men grew up on the Lower East Side, and Silver has been Lippman’s political godfather, pushing him to reach New York’s top judicial post.
“The appointment of Sheldon Silver’s childhood friend, Jonathan Lippman, as the state’s chief judge based on his administrative experience made about as much sense as the Yankees making their accountant the manager of the team,” said Charles Compton, former president of the Supreme Court Officers Association. He added that Lippman was appointed “to protect and promote Silver’s interests.”
At least three judges at 60 Centre St. are connected to Silver from the Lower East Side.

Judge Martin Shulman

Judge Martin Shulman is a former president of Silver’s synagogue, and the two are neighbors in a Grand Street co-op complex. In 1999, the judge was appointed an acting Supreme Court justice by Lippman, then the state’s chief administrative judge.
Shulman has been handling tax-reduction claims at the Centre Street courthouse for at least a dozen years and now presides over most of these cases. Many of these cases were filed by the Goldberg & Iryami law firm.

Judge Jonathan LippmanPhoto: AP

Silver stands accused of raking in $700,000 in secret kickbacks from Goldberg & Iryami. Firm principal Jay Arthur Goldberg had worked for Silver in the Assembly as his counsel.

The indictment accuses Silver of steering billionaire developer Leonard Litwin, pictured at left, the state’s largest political donor, to the firm, along with another unnamed developer. In exchange, Silver reaped referral fees.

Jay Arthur GoldbergPhoto: Gregory P. Mango

The Goldberg firm handled tax appeals for 15 buildings owned by Litwin’s organization, Glenwood Management, and its limited liability companies, prosecutors said.
Court records show that in one case that landed in Shulman’s court — involving a high-rise building on York Avenue — Glenwood won a $3.4 million reduction in the building’s assessment, which is used to determine its taxes.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler

It was settled before trial, and Shulman signed off on the agreement in 2010.

David Bookstaver, a court system spokesman, denied there were conflicts of interest in Shulman’s court.

“The issue of conflict really doesn’t exist as most of these cases in the tax part settle and the ones that go to trial are jury trials. Furthermore, Judge Shulman has no knowledge whatsoever of any compensation to Mr. Silver,” Bookstaver said.

But the apparent ties do not end in Shulman’s courtroom.

Litwin owns a rental building, The Fairmont — the same high-rise where Lippman and his wife rented a one-bedroom apartment between 2007 and 2010, The Post found. And Lippman’s son, Russell, a Harvard-educated lawyer, rented an apartment there between 2003 and 2005, public records show.

Lippman, who earned $156,000 in 2010, moved into the rent-stabilized building in 2007 shortly after he was appointed presiding justice of the Appellate Division in Manhattan and was required to live in The Bronx or Manhattan. He had lived in Westchester.

Bookstaver said Lippman paid market-rate rent of $3,195 for the apartment. He said Lippman rented at the Fairmont because he needed to move quickly and knew of the building because his son had lived there.

He said Lippman did not know Litwin owned the property.

“He has no idea who this guy is,” Bookstaver told The Post.
Silver’s influence was also apparent in another part of the iconic civil courthouse on Foley Square, where the grand entrance has been used as a backdrop for movies including “The Godfather” and
“12 Angry Men” and countless episodes of “Law & Order.”

Weitz & Luxenberg, the law firm where Silver was “of counsel” until he was dumped last week, practically rules a special section of the court dealing with complex asbestos litigation.

Critics say the firm gets the “red-carpet treatment” including a fast track, “better judges” and first dibs on jurors to hear its cases.

Sherry Klein Heitler, the chief asbestos judge, as well as the top administrative judge at 60 Centre
St., has handled dozens of the firm’s cases in what is called New York City Asbestos Litigation or NYCAL.

Last year, at Weitz & Luxenberg’s request, Heitler reversed a 20-year rule barring punitive damages in asbestos cases, paving the way for much bigger jury awards.

Another judge, Joan Madden, consolidated unrelated asbestos cases, which resulted in huge increases in jury verdicts — from an average of $7 million to $24 million per plaintiff between 2010 and 2014, data collected by Bates White Economic Consulting show. In one consolidated case, Silver’s firm won a $190 million award.

Of 15 mesothelioma verdicts in the last four years, Silver’s firm won $273.5 million of $313.5 million awarded by NYCAL juries.

The average award for an NYCAL asbestos case — nearly $16 million per plaintiff between 2010 and 2014 — is reportedly two to three times larger than those in other courts nationwide.

The American Tort Reform Association last year called the asbestos court the nation’s top “judicial hellhole” where plaintiffs’ lawyers are “brazenly favored by the judges.” Silver has been blocking tort-reform bills for decades in Albany.

It’s unclear whether any individual judge is being targeted by the investigation. The US Attorney’s Office said it could neither confirm nor deny any probe. An FBI spokesman would not comment.

“We are not aware of any federal investigation,” Bookstaver said.

De Blasio picks Silver pal to help with city’s 2016 DNC bid

NY POST

NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio

A week after he defended Sheldon Silver following the disgraced Assembly speaker’s arrest on corruption charges, Mayor Bill de Blasio on Thursday officially named a developer at the center of that scandal to help the city’s bid for the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
Big-time political donor Leonard Litwin was on Hizzoner’s 119-member list for the convention host committee, even though Litwin’s luxury apartment-rental company, Glenwood Management, is tied to Silver’s alleged dirty deals.
According to the feds, Silver steered two developers, including 100-year-old Litwin, toward the law firm Goldberg & Iryami, so Silver could rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in referral fees.
Litwin agreed to hire the two-person firm to curry favor with the influential Silver, Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara has charged.
“And that is not surprising, because Silver is a powerful political leader in the state who holds sway over so many laws and policies near and dear to the developers’ bottom lines,” the prosecutor said.
Glenwood hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing — but Litwin found out about the fee-sharing arrangement in January 2012, when the firm sent him a new retainer agreement, court papers say.
Litwin refused to sign the new agreement, although he later signed a “side letter” acknowledging the deal.
De Blasio’s decision to keep Litwin on his list could spell more trouble for the mayor’s bid to hold the convention in the city. It reportedly has already taken a hit among national Democrats because of the mayor’s ongoing feud with cops.
Last August, the Sergeants Benevolent Association took out full-page newspaper ads saying it could not “in good conscience” support his bid to bring the convention to the Barclays Center.
Litwin, who donated $4,950 to de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, was first named a member of de Blasio’s host committee last November.
He is known as one of the top political donors in New York state — and has skirted around caps on campaign contributions by funneling millions of dollars in donations through more than 20 limited-liability companies controlled by Glenwood.

When asked about Litwin’s continued inclusion on the committee, City Hall officials would only say they were proud of all the people chosen.
In the press release, de Blasio also announced his 10 host committee co-chairs, including Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, Vogue editor Anna Wintour and tech giant Sean Parker, who recently gave $250,000 to the mayor’s nonprofit Campaign for One New York.
“As we head into the final weeks of the selection process, it’s more critical than ever that we show the DNC that New Yorkers are enthusiastic and united in our desire to bring the convention back to New York City,” the mayor said in the statement.
As of Thursday, de Blasio’s host committee had raised $20 million in pledges, with $6.5 million in cash on hand, according to the statement.

The Opinion Pages| Op-Ed Columnist

New York’s Real Scandal

LINK
“The scandal isn’t what’s illegal,” goes one of Michael Kinsley’s best-known sayings. “The scandal is what’s legal.” I offer you l’affaire Sheldon Silver as a case in point.

Silver, who for two decades was the all-powerful speaker of the New York Assembly, was indicted last Thursday for a variety of alleged illegal actions. Chief among them was his failure to list outside income on his financial disclosure forms, and his steering $500,000 from a state slush fund he controlled to a doctor who specialized in mesothelioma — a rare, deadly cancer — in return for client referrals. Silver says he’ll be vindicated, but Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney who indicted him, has won the cooperation of a number of key participants, including said doctor, whose name is Robert Taub. We’ll return to him in a minute.

Despite the rather obvious potential for conflict of interest, it’s perfectly legal for a New York legislator to earn outside income. Few took fuller advantage of this than Silver, who for more than a decade was paid millions of dollars by two law firms. One of them was Weitz & Luxenberg, a big-time New York plaintiffs’ firm that specializes in bringing lawsuits on behalf of people with mesothelioma, which results primarily from exposure to asbestos.

Though Silver is a lawyer, he knew nothing about asbestos litigation — nor did he ever do any actual lawyering for the firm. So what did he do? The firm now says it brought him on — at a base salary of $120,000 a year — purely to lend it prestige. But in truth, Silver did much more than that. As speaker of the Assembly he could ensure that the legislature did nothing to clip the wings of the plaintiffs’ bar, like setting a cap on damages.

He could also solicit client referrals, for which he would receive a piece of the action. This is where Taub comes in. Many doctors who specialize in mesothelioma have a pretty explicit tit-for-tat: They refer patients to firms that help fund their research. A legal bribe, you might call it. Before Taub and Silver began doing business, the doctor asked for funding from Weitz & Luxenberg. The firm said no. So instead, Silver instructed the Department of Health to make two $250,000 grants to fund Taub’s research. (In a statement, Weitz & Luxenberg said it had no knowledge of Silver’s quid pro quo.)

When the grant money ran out, Taub began referring most of his patients to Simmons Hanly Conroy, a big asbestos firm in Illinois. But he still made the occasional referral to Weitz & Luxenberg to curry favor with Silver. In return, Silver got Taub’s son a job, and directed $25,000 in state funds to his wife’s charity. Perfectly legal.

There is one other thing Silver could do for Weitz & Luxenberg. He could help make sure that the New York judiciary would look favorably on asbestos cases. The chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman, is a childhood friend of Silver’s. And, in 2008, Lippman placed Silver’s good friend Arthur Luxenberg — yes, the same Luxenberg who was paying Silver $120,000, plus referral fees — on a committee that recommends judicial appointments. Six months later, a judge named Sherry Klein Heitler was assigned to lead New York City’s dedicated asbestos court.

Defense lawyers say that since then, the asbestos court has become the plaintiffs’ bar’s best friend. Prior to Heitler’s appointment, the court had deferred punitive damages claims indefinitely for the sensible reason that since companies stopped making asbestos products decades earlier there was no behavior to correct. But after Weitz & Luxenberg requested that this deferral be lifted, Heitler brought punitive damages back. Mesothelioma cases that had very little in common were consolidated, which pressured defendant companies to settle and, when they didn’t, could lead to huge jury awards. According to a 2013 report by the American Tort Reform Association, the average jury award for an asbestos claim in New York City since 2007 is $21.7 million. That is “roughly seven times the $3.1 million average award in courts throughout the rest of New York State.”

And no firm has had more success than Weitz & Luxenberg. According to the economic consulting firm Bates White, it handles some 53 percent of the city’s mesothelioma filings. The court itself acknowledged Weitz & Luxenberg cases take precedence over others. It has also won the most money. In July 2013, it won $190 million for five plaintiffs, the most awarded in a New York City asbestos case.

Weitz & Luxenberg insists that the judiciary treats everyone fairly, and that it reaps the biggest awards because it does the best job. That may be so. But it couldn’t hurt that Silver also played an important role in setting judicial pay, and that in 2011 his commission appointee cast the deciding vote in getting the state judges a 27 percent raise.

Which, of course, is perfectly legal.

Jonathan Lippman

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Must Be Investigated and Removed From the Bench, for deceiving the public and allowing absolute immunity to cove up and protect the Third Branch of our government.

Lippman Backs Reform of Grand Jury, Attorney Discipline

Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202716663552/Lippman-Backs-Reform-of-Grand-Jury-Attorney-Discipline#ixzz3QW5uubpA

He has allowed the Courts of New York to plunder estates, remove children from their parents, and deny anyone who has no money to pass under the table any due process rights to be made whole.

He is a disgrace to the State. Put him on trial.

Betsy Combier
Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them

Trish Lynch Loses Custody of Her 5-Year Old Daughter To Vincent "Vinny" Velella, Her Former Boyfriend, In Westchester County Family Court

Official Criminal Complaint Against Judge Lippman, Received by Preet Bharara April 6th, 2013

William Galison

                                                               Blackstar News
                                                         32 Broadway, suite 511
                                                           New York NY 10004
To: Preet Bharara
United States Attorney
Office  Southern District of New York 
One St. Andrew’s Plaza 
New York, NY 10007

April 3, 2013

COMPLAINT REGARDING FRAUD IN

                                  THE NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF
                           NEW YORK CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN BY
           MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

This complaint regards crimes and corruption by Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of New York State, members of the NY State Senate Judiciary Committee and members of the NY State Judicial Nomination Committee, with the complicity of other government officials. These acts constitute legislative election fraud among other crimes.

If any of the statements herein are false, Title18 USC; Section 1001, obliges you to arrest me for making false statements to a Federal Officer. Your failure to arrest me will represent your acknowledgment that the statements herein are true, in which case a failure to investigate these allegations would represent a dereliction of your duty.

The NY Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on

Judge Lippman’s Confirmation Was Fraudulent and Invalid.

The process of Lippman’s nomination and confirmation to the Chief Judgeship of New York was illegal; rife with conflicts of interest, official fraud, and rampantviolation of the laws and rules of the Constitution of the State of New York.

The New York Senate Judiciary Committee Failed to Uphold

Any of Its Duties in Regard to the Confirmation of Judge Lippman.

All Senate Committees, whether federal or state, have four cardinal duties in regard to public hearings:

1) to announce hearings to the public with reasonable notice

2) to gather information or evidence from the public and other sources

3) to evaluate the information and evidence and reach findings based thereon

4) to present their findings to the full senate to inform their vote

In their disposition of the confirmation of Judge Lippman, members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee failed to uphold every one of these duties. Specifically:

1) The “Public Confirmation Hearing” was not announced until one day before the hearing, in violation of NY Senate rules which require a five-day notice.The announcement also did not mention that the public was invited, despite its being a “public hearing”.

The NY Senate FAQ page states:

“All Standing Committees may hold public hearings. Assembly rules require that not less than two days notice of such hearings be given, and the Senate rules require five days notice.”

[NOTE: SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS BLOG, THE FAQ PAGE CONTAINING THIS RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED, AS HAS AN ALTERNATE LINK TO THE SAME URL. APPARENTLY ALL MENTION OF THE 5 DAY RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE NY SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. THE RULE HOWEVER STILL STANDS AND CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET ONLY AT THIS ADDRESS:

http://www.abateny.org/leg/confused/details.html

FORTUNATELY, A SCREENSHOT OF THE FAQ PAGE WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE PAGE WAS REMOVED AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE.

The February 11^th, 2009 hearing was announced exclusively on the webpage of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 10^th, 2009 , with no mention that the hearing was public. The hearing was not announced in any newspapers, or any radio or television broadcasts in New York State.

In fact, the February 10^th announcement does not mention that anyone was invited, yet at least ten friendly witnesses were invited by the SJC to testify before the committee - none of them members of the Committee or the Senate - and dozens of Lippman’s supporters were present. Their testimony of the friendly witness unequivocally establishes that this was indeed a “public hearing”, despite the Senate’s violation of applicable rules.

There are two kinds of hearings “Public” and “Not Public”. There is no provision in the Constitution for a hearing that is only “public” to selected individuals.

Tim Spotts, the assistant to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson tried to convince this reporter that Lippman’s confirmation was “not a public hearing”, although the public was invited to testify. He went so far as to say that the confirmation hearing was not even a hearing. “It’s not a “hearing hearing”said Spotts, “it’s just a confirmation”. Spotts was only truthful in his acknowledgement that Lippman’s confirmation was a fait accompli, and the confirmation hearing a sham. As transparent as his ruse was, Spotts must be prosecuted for misleading the public about the nature of the hearing.

The “five-day rule” is no mere technicality; it exists to ensure that the public has enough prior notice to prepare statements and attend “public hearings”; a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

It is in violation of state senate rules to hold a public hearing with less than five days notice, and/or without public invitation. On these ground alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.

2) The SJC failed to investigate allegations by opposing witnesses at the hearing.

Despite the absence of notice, three New York citizens, including Elena Sassower, Director of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), and Will Galison, CJA member and Black Star News Journalist, learned of the hearing two days prior through an inadvertent leak by a Senate employee and attended the hearing as witnesses in opposition to Lippman’s confirmation.

The testimonies of Sassower and Galison were videotaped. and were posted on the NY Senate website, before being expunged from the official record. Fortunately, the videos were copied and are now posted on Youtube and elsewhere. The bias, bullying and intimidation against the opposing witnesses by the SJA are shockingly evident in these clips.

3) Selected Witnesses and reporters “friendly” to Lippman were secretly invited to the hearings in advance of, and to the exclusion of, the general public and press.

As mentioned above; aside from these three citizens, the hearing was attended exclusively by over 50 officials and citizens personally invited by Judge Lippman and Senator Sampson to either testify in Lippman’s favor or to applaud favorable testimony. As the announcement of the hearings did not mention that anyonewas invited, the friendly witnesses must have been personally invited by the Committee in advance of (and to the exclusion of) the general public.

Likewise, there was also no Senate press release informing the media of the hearing. Only journalists from select newspapers were invited, virtually all of whom neglected to report on the testimony or even the presence of the opposition witnesses.

It is unconstitutional to secretly invite “friendly” witnesses and “friendly” reporters to a public hearing without notifying the general press - and the general public - that the hearing is public.

4) The Senate Judiciary was denied access to criminal allegations and judicial conduct complaints against Lippman, which were under investigation at the time of the hearings.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose sole duty is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by NY judges, withheld from the Senate Judiciary Committeepending complaints alleging crimes by Judge Lippman.

At least one and possibly more, judicial complaints against Lippman were pending before the CJC at the time of the hearings. It was the duty of the CJC to inform the SJC that these complaints were pending, and must be adjudicated before a confirmation decision could be reached.

Robert Tembeckjian, the Administrator of the Commission on Judicial Conduct was personally present at the confirmation hearings, but failed to inform the SJC about complaints of criminal acts by Lippman that were pending before his commission, even when they were referenced by the witnesses. [Tembeckjian also applauded at the testimony of the friendly witnesses and mocked the opposing witnesses, in a display of bias in favor of the judge he is required by law to investigate.]

Without the benefit of the officially filed evidence against Lippman, the SJC was unable to render an informed decision on his qualifications for Chief Judge. Hence, their report to the full Senate was incomplete, inadequate and invalid.

[One month after Lippman’s confirmation, the CJC complaint was “dismissed without investigation” by Tembeckjian.]

5) The Senate Judiciary Committee failed to investigate evidence against Lippman which had been submitted directly to all members of the committee priorto the hearing.

Two weeks prior to the confirmation hearings, documents supporting allegations of criminal activity by Lippman were sent to all 21 members of the SJC by opposing witness Will Galison. At the hearing, Galison asked which of the Senators on the SJC had reviewed the documents and allegations. The Senators refused to answer; one Senator leapt from his chair and yelled “That question is inappropriate!”, to which Chairman Sampson added “We’re the ones asking the questions here!”

Moreover, in violation of Senate rules, the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to review or investigate documentation of allegations against Lippman presented by the opposing witnesses who testified at the hearings. In addition to their 5-minute testimonies, the opposing witnesses offered the SJC copious documentation of their allegations against Lippman. In violation of their mandate, the SJC failed to review or investigate any of these documents before voting on Lippman’s confirmation.

No Time Was Allotted to Evaluate Opposing Testimony

In fact, so certain was the SJC that no opposing witnesses would appear or present evidence, (because they were not invited) that they did not allot any period of time to review or investigate potential opposing testimony. The record shows that the hearing was allowed to continue until just before 11:00 - the final speaker being Lippman himself – and that immediately after Lippman spoke, the handful of committee members, Lippman and his admirers marched from the hearing room to the senate chamber, to address the full senate on the findings of the committee. Hence, none of the documentary evidence presented by the opposing witnesses was investigated or considered in the full-senate vote, as required by law..

6) The SJC failed to report the fact or substance of opposing witness testimony to the full Senate prior to the full Senate confirmation vote.

The transcript of Senator Sampson’s presentation to the full senate proves that he failed to inform the senate of any testimony by the opposing witnesses. Hence, the full senate was ignorant of the pending criminal allegations against Lippman and thus voted on incomplete and biased information.

On each and all of the grounds cited above, the NY Senate confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid, hence, Lippman is not the lawful Chief Judge of New York, and is not eligible for nomination for the SJI by the President in that capacity.

The New York Senate Judiciary Committee was Aware of

Fraud in Lippman’s Confirmation and was Complicit in That fraud

Every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that attended the hearing knew that it was in violation of Senate Rules, yet every one went along with the unlawful hearing without objection. Perhaps that is why more than half of the Committee members failed to attend this critically important hearing, and why no quorum of SJC members were present throughout the entire hearing.

The NY Senate Judiciary Committee Also Disregarded

Documented Evidence of Corruption in the Nomination of Jonathan Lippman.

The first step of an investigation into a nominee would be to examine the questionnaires he is required to fill out in application for his nomination. The questionnaire provided by the New York Commission on Judicial Nominations to all nominees asks the following question:

30(a) has any complaint or charge ever been made against you in connection to your service in a judicial office? Include in your response any question raised or inquiry conducted of any kind by any agency or official of the judicial system?

If the answer to subpart (a) is “yes”, furnish full details, including the agency or officer making the inquiry, the nature of the question or inquiry, the outcome and relevant dates

If Lippman filled out this sworn questionnaire honestly, he would have had to report the complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct by Will Galison. Receipt of this complaint was acknowledged by the CJC in a letter of January 28^th, 2009; two weeks before the Confirmation hearing.

The allegations in the complaint that was pending before the CJC at the time of the confirmation hearing are extremely serious. They regard Lippman’s abuse of authority as Presiding Judge of the First Department, and blatant conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in the process of Lippman’s nomination.

The complaint alleges that as Presiding Justice of the First Department, Judge Lippman used his office to illegally protect a lawyer from disciplinary action. The protected lawyer was later found to be an intimate friend and business partner of one of the twelve members of the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC); the body that nominated Lippman.

Corruption of the New York State Judicial Nomination Commission

When this appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest was exposed to all twelve members of the JNC in a letter of 11/20/08, the only response from the commission was a recorded phone message left on Galison’s answering machine by JNC member Fred Brewington: “This is Fred Brewington. You sent me an email concerning… the JNC… Please do not send me any more information concerning this, and the information you did send me I’m going to shred at this point. Thank you.”

The letter that Mr. Brewington shredded alleges that:

- Judge Lippman knowingly violated Part 118 of the New York State Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge and section 90 of the Judiciary law

- Judge Lippman refused to fulfill his duty to oversee the DDC

- Judge Lippman ignored [Galison’s] lawyers’ letter proving that Mr. Friedman lied

to a panel of Appellate Court Judges

- Judge Lippman failed to enforce rules of the First Department which were altered byAlan Friedberg at the DDC.

- Judge Lippman ignored criminal complaints against his Court Clerk, Ron Uzenski

- Judge Lippman’s illegal favors to Leon Friedman were an effort to Influence the Commission on Judicial Nomination which in turn nominated him for the Chief Judgeship.

- CJC Staff member Mr. Richard Emery is also a friend and colleague of Leon Freidman and must be recused from the adjudication of his case.

Why Lippman Needed to Subvert the Confirmation Process

There is a very good reason that Lippman and his conspirators in the SJC had to illegally limit the attendance of his confirmation hearings to Lippman’s friends and colleagues. Had the confirmation hearing been announced to the public, the room would have been packed with citizens testifying of Lippman’s corruption and Lippman would have been rejected.

This was proven on 6/8/09 and 9/24/09, when hearings in Albany and Manhattan respectively were filled to capacity by victims of corruption by the attorney grievance committees and Committee on Judicial Conduct. Dozens of documented complaints were filed against Lippman personally, and hundreds more against the agencies he supervised as Administrative Judge and Presiding Judge of the First Department. These complaints have never been investigated.

In light of the above, your office must undertake and investigation into the nomination and confirmation of Jonathan Lippman as Chief Judge of New York State.

I look forward to hearing your response to my allegations and evidence above.

Sincerely,

Will Galison
Reporter, Truthout.org, Blackstar News

cc: Milton Allimadi, Publisher Blackstar News

Leslie Thatcher, Editor Truthout.org

General Mediahttp://senwww.senate.state.ny.us/sws/aboutsenate/faqs.html

Sheldon Silver

Sheldon Silver's wife Ruth was a public school teacher.

She did not teach, according to my sources. But she received a salary.

What's up with that, Preet?

Betsy Combier

Sheldon Silver: The man Upstaters love to hate

LINK

By Michelle Breidenbach | mbreidenbach@syracuse.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 22, 2015 at 7:36 AM, updated January 22, 2015 at 8:05 AM

This profile of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who is expected to be arrested today for failing to disclose payments from a law firm, was first published Feb. 23, 2003 in The Post-Standard.

Sheldon Silver, speaker of the state Assembly, arrives at the State Office Building in Albany Jan. 8 for Gov. George Pataki's State of the State address.

Known as ''Shelly'' to some colleagues, Silver has been called both a ''tyrant'' and a ''gentleman.''

A Camillus woman whose daughter was murdered called his offer of sympathy cold, insensitive and self-serving.

Assembly Republicans call the state's most powerful Democrat autocratic, aloof and disconnected.

Salina's William Sanford, a Republican Assembly candidate last fall, wagged his finger at a roomful of North Syracuse senior citizens during the campaign and said, ''Sheldon Silver is a bad person.'' Many nodded in agreement.

None of this fazes Silver.

''Sticks and stones. Remember that expression?'' the Manhattan lawmaker said slowly, leaning back in the leather chair in his Capitol office. '''Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.'''

Silver's friends and Democratic colleagues in Central New York describe him as warm, caring, religious, fair, a sports-fanatic, a gentleman who needles with polite jokes, a man they affectionately call "Shelly."

From the Mohawk Valley to the Finger Lakes, critics have called state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver a tyrant, an emperor, a con artist, and a power grabber.

"I think that there's a misconception of the speaker here in Syracuse that he is a tyrant of sorts, " said Assemblyman William Magnarelli, D-Syracuse. "I feel sometimes that he's just not seen the way he is. I think he's a very caring person, one who understands Upstate New York."

Silver says the criticism is Republican spin.

"It's generally, across the board, the Republicans have a stock campaign, and it's always about Upstate versus Downstate, trying to divide the state, " Silver said. "The governor is very, very partisan in this regard. They've used that on me as if I don't represent them."

Silver is now engaged in the role he is best known for Upstate: antagonist to Gov. George Pataki and the Republican-controlled Senate in the annual state budget ritual.

The cast of characters is familiar: Pataki, the Republican governor newly elected to his third term; Joseph Bruno, the Republican leader of the state Senate since 1995; and Silver, who has led the Assembly since 1994. They are the "three men in a room" who battle each other every year over the spending plan - and always manage to deliver it weeks or months after its April 1 due date.

As usual, Silver will champion what is perceived as the liberal, urban, Downstate position.

Asked what he stands for, Silver ticks off a list of programs that could be cut under Pataki's 2003-2004 budget proposal: "I stand for pre-K (kindergarten). I stand for after-school programs. I stand for (school) building maintenance. I stand for taking care of the elderly in their waning years as far as their health care is concerned. I think we should keep people out of nursing homes, in a cheaper way, with personal care, home care. That's what I stand for."

Man of few words

Silver's Capitol office is unmarked, hidden behind the ornate Assembly chamber. In the lobby there are chandeliers, leather chairs, small tables bearing wrapped mints and, for pleasure reading, a thick copy of the 2003 Legislative Digest, a record of the 226th legislative session.

Caught up in the lobby logjam recently were members of the state's most powerful public employees' and teachers' unions - there to "pick Silver's pockets, " as one lobbyist said to another.

Inside, Silver was seated behind a mostly bare desk in his bare-walled office with five phones, a small refrigerator and a cabinet holding two boxes of Raisin Bran.

"They all endorsed the governor in the election last November. The teacher's union. The police union, " Silver said after he had shaken the last hand and posed for the last photo. "They're all here, a lot of them saying, "What a mistake we made."'

Much of Silver's work is done this way, in private meetings and phone calls. Even when the 150-member Assembly is in session, Silver is in his office, while the speaker pro-tem runs the meeting.

Members use their time with him wisely. Constituents do their homework before presenting their proposals.

"He doesn't have a lot to say when you interact with him, but he's very smart. He has a very good sense of reading people and situations, " said Irwin Davis, executive vice president of the Metropolitan Development Association, a Central New York business development group. "At the end, in very few words, he tells you how it is."

As speaker, Silver has tremendous influence over state money and public policy decisions affecting the almost 19 million New York state residents. Yet Silver often fetches his own meals, insists on driving and opens doors for other people.

"You don't see him with an entourage, " said Assemblywoman Joan Christensen, D-Syracuse. "He's a very unpretentious guy. I don't think Shelly has been seduced by the leadership position."

That doesn't mean he's approachable. He speaks in a serious and slow monotone that is impossible for his colleagues not to imitate behind his back. He is formal in his dress and choice of words.

"He does not look like a warm person. So when he tells a joke, everyone looks around like, "What?"' Christensen said.

Silver, a lifelong resident of lower Manhattan, first came to the Assembly in 1976. He moved into various leadership posts dealing with election reform, crime, drug abuse and, finally, taxes and spending. He became speaker in 1994.

By the end of that year, state voters replaced Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo with Pataki. The new speaker emerged from Cuomo's shadow as the new top Democrat in state government. In January, he won his fifth term as speaker.

Silver said his greatest rewards are these: He wins year after year. His Democrats win year after year, and increased their Assembly majority to 103 of 150 in the last election.

"I've obviously done the job successfully, " he said. "We're the largest majority perhaps in the last hundred years, if not longer."

Silver, the son of a Russian immigrant hardware store owner, and his wife of 35 years, Rosa, live in an apartment at 550 Grand Street, on the Lower East Side near the Williamsburg Bridge. They have four grown children - three accountants and a college student studying to be a teacher - and eight grandchildren.

Judy Mitrani has been a neighbor for 18 years and has known the Silvers for longer. If she had a problem with state government, which she hasn't, she said she would not go knock on his door. She would call his staff. That's what most neighbors would do, she said.

A two-minute walk from Silver's home is the Bialystoker Synagogue, where Silver worships. At the Orthodox Jewish synagogue, women sit in the balcony and men worship in pews below.

Religion is a significant part of Silver's life. In keeping with tradition, he does not work or travel on Friday nights or on Saturdays. He keeps kosher, often carting frozen meals to Albany restaurants, where the chefs warm them in their ovens.

Silver is known as a relentless fighter for New York City.

"You don't get elected speaker of the state Assembly until you get elected in your own district, " he says.

Yip Ly, who lives in Silver's district, stood outside Assembly chambers during Pataki's January State of the State address to advocate for rent control for New York City tenants. Here's his "city" view of Upstate:

"If New York City did not exist, New York state would not exist, " he said. "All our excess money from revenues coming out of New York City is coming up there, supporting your real estate, your school base, your tax base and all the municipal services, the library, senior citizens services. It goes on and on. New York City has never gotten their fair share."

Silver in many ways reflects the sentiment of his constituents.

"It's significant that the financial capital of the world happens to be in my district, " he said. "It's significant to the state that the district more than pays for whatever it gets from government."

Quietly helping CNY

When Silver wants to know what's going on in Central New York, he calls Davis, of the MDA; H. Douglas Barclay, the MDA president and a former Republican senator from Oswego County; or Stephen A. Rogers, editor and publisher of The Post-Standard, who heads a governmental relations committee for the MDA.

Silver also calls Syracuse University Chancellor Kenneth Shaw, Syracuse Mayor Matt Driscoll and mall developer Bob Congel of The Pyramid Cos.

Local leaders say Silver's deal-making is not as visible as it could be on some Central New York projects. In some cases, he chooses to keep it quiet. In other instances, he loses center stage to Pataki.

An example: When Excellus and Hartford Insurance threatened last fall to take 1,500 jobs away from downtown Syracuse because of a lack of parking, Driscoll got on the phone to Silver. Driscoll said it was the first time he asked for a favor from Silver.

Silver called Excellus Chief Executive Officer Howard Berman and asked him to call the mayor. He did. A deal was struck.

Pataki, on the election trail, joined Driscoll at a press conference to announce a $7 million state grant to build two parking garage projects that would keep the jobs downtown.

Silver did not attend.

"I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the city of Syracuse is represented by some very capable legislators and they deserve the praise, " he said.

Don't mess with Silver

Silver's bad rap among some in Central New York may stem from Downstate/Upstate prejudices. Maybe it's his personality.

"It might have something to do with a collision course with a man named Michael Bragman, " said state Sen. Nancy Larraine Hoffmann, a Democrat-turned-Republican.

Bragman, of Cicero rose to majority leader in the Assembly and in 2000 unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Silver. Bragman said Silver's leadership was out of date, ineffective and too tightly controlled.

In response, Silver stripped Bragman of his title and cut his office staff and perks.

"What I did to Mike Bragman? That's an old story, " Silver said. "I got more votes than he did. Mike Bragman chose to challenge me as speaker and I got more votes. Plain and simple. It was the end of the day. Mike Bragman was humiliated."

Two years later, the fallout was evident in the race between Sanford and Christensen. The two incumbents wound up in the same district after state legislators - with Silver's blessing - drew new district boundaries.

Sanford pitched himself as a reformer, willing to stand up to Silver.

In a debate, Sanford said, "I am running against Shelly Silver, and by running against Shelly Silver I am running against you. You had a very strong advocate in Mike Bragman, who did a very good job down there, but Mike is gone, and now your advocate is Sheldon Silver."

Christensen fired back, "That is a lie."

For her siding with Bragman, Silver had taken away Christensen's committee assignments and pay bonuses. But she found herself in the odd position of having to defend him. Silver sent her campaign staff and money.

Christensen won the election. Silver had the furniture and office supplies shipped from Sanford's district office to Albany two and a half weeks before his term came to a close.

But Silver still hasn't returned Christensen's committee posts and bonuses.

In 1998, Silver made the news in Syracuse as the man who stalled action on "Jenna's Law, " a bill to curtail parole for violent felons. Janice and Bruce Grieshaber, of Camillus, lobbied for the bill, named for their 22-year-old daughter, who was killed by a parolee in 1997 in her Albany apartment.

Janice Grieshaber said she remembers Silver as the cold man who left them waiting and hoping in Assembly chambers until midnight on the last day of session, while hundreds of other pieces of legislation came up for a vote. Finally, an aide for Pataki passed them a note that said there would be no vote that day on Jenna's Law.

The first time the Grieshabers met Silver, he told them he knew so exactly how they felt.

"He was talking about Jenna, " Janice remembered. "I looked at him and said, "Have you lost a child?' I knew he hadn't. What a stupid thing to say. It's the one thing people know not to say. As a mother of a murdered child, I don't even say that to other parents."

Christensen said Silver, like all leaders, expects a certain amount of criticism. "He doesn't care if people don't like him, " she said. "But he doesn't want people to hate him."

Silver says he is not worried about his image among Central New Yorkers.

"As long as the members keep getting re-elected, " he said. "Obviously, it doesn't affect Bill Magnarelli and it doesn't affect Joan Christensen. That's all that counts."

The man

Age: 59

Home: Lower East Side, Manhattan

Job: Assembly Speaker; personal injury lawyer.

Assembly salary: Base pay $79,500; speaker stipend, $41,500. He has not made his lawyer's salary public.

Political experience: Elected to Assembly in 1976; appointed chair of Assembly Ways and Means Committee in 1992; first elected speaker in 1994. Silver won the last two elections in his district with 93 percent of the vote in 2002 and 85 percent in 2000. He faced Green Party candidates.

Campaign account balance: $2.3 million

Education: Graduate of Yeshiva University and Brooklyn Law School

Family: Wife, Rosa, a public elementary school teacher, four children, eight grandchildren

The opinions

Here is a sampling of what some Central New Yorkers have had to say about Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in letters to The Post-Standard during the past three years:

"Silver has been a part of the troika that has delivered a budget late for 17 years. His heavy-handed control has delivered millions of our tax dollars to the Big Apple at upstate's expense. He appears to have a propensity to punish his fellow legislators for daring to represent their constituencies."

Patrick J. Ryan, Jamesville

"Silver is of that tired old left-wing liberal club that arrogantly believes they know more than we do. Their opinion of us lowly citizens is that we don't have the brains to handle such things as coming up with a good idea to help our state run smoother. Mike Bragman had some new ideas and look what happened to him - and he was one of their fellow Assembly Democrats. The powers that be did everything but order a hit on him."

Bill Iocco, Liverpool

"Sheldon Silver should have been gone years ago."

Thelma H. Snyder, Fulton

"We have to put a stop to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's authoritarian rule and his unwillingness to work with the governor and the state Senate to get things done. Silver is a key barrier to lowering taxes and spending in New York and getting on-time budgets."

Dave Traub, Cicero

"Oh, you foolish people of Central and Upstate New York! Beware of the two greatest con artists who ever prowled New York state: Carl McCall and Sheldon Silver."

Paul Esposito, Manlius

"Does Democracy exist in Albany or in any other form of federal, state, county or city government? I believe that the vile behavior of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has shown us, the taxpayers and voters, that these politicians care only about themselves. They practice and play games to enrich themselves like dictators."

Paolo Saltarello, Auburn

"We do not need a dictator. We want someone working for all the people, regardless of party. The game that Sheldon Silver is playing in Albany is not an example of the way our government should be working."

Ruth Harrison, North Syracuse

The power

Sheldon Silver is one of the three most powerful officials in state government, along with the governor and Senate majority leader. The Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker control the flow of legislation; distribute millions in campaign cash to colleagues; and decide on members' staff and supply allotments, committee chairmanships and lucrative stipends. With the governor, they also essentially decide the annual state budget.

Silver oversees a $102.5 million Assembly budget and shares responsibility with the state senate for a legislative budget of $16.7 million. He employs 26 people in his Albany and district offices and in the Assembly Majority press office. Including his salary, Silver's offices cost taxpayers $1,452,487.46 a year.

That Sheldon Silver has control over NYC courts is nothing new. Is ManhattanSupreme Court Judge Shlomo Hagler a close relative of Silver?

Just askin'

Betsy Combier

Landlords have cases before Silver-linked judge

By Julia Marsh

Sheldon Silver

LINK

Two Lower East Side landlords with ties to outgoing Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have property-tax cases pending before a judge who owes his career to the disgraced Manhattan Democrat, The Post has learned.

Mark Miller and Sion Misrahi are also being represented by the law firm that allegedly funneled at least $700,000 to Silver in illegal kickbacks in a long-running corruption scheme, records show.

The judge presiding over their assessment challenges, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Martin Shulman, is a lifelong pal of Silver. He and Silver live in the same Grand Street building and pray at the same nearby synagogue.

“They’re friends who grew up together. Shelly pushed Shulman through to be a Supreme Court judge,” a judicial insider said.

Shulman also sits on a prestigious appeals court, the Manhattan Appellate Term. He was recommended to the court by a screening committee whose members include a Silver appointee.

Shulman is the lone judge in Manhattan who handles “tax certiorari” cases, in which owners challenge the official value of their real-estate holdings, which is used to calculate tax bills.

Feds say Silver illegally pocketed at least $700,000 in sham “referral fees” by steering business from two leading developers to a law firm specializing in tax-certiorari cases and founded by Silver’s former Assembly counsel.

Silver never listed the payments on disclosure forms, the feds say.

The law firm, identified by sources as Goldberg & Iryami, has 17 cases pending before Shulman, including three on behalf of Miller and Misrahi.

Miller, owner of the Miller Manhattan Property Group and the Mark Miller Gallery, is the second vice chair and former president of the Lower East Side Business Improvement District, which Silver showered with more than $450,000 in public money between 2003 and 2010, state records show.

The funding stopped when Gov. Cuomo began vetoing pork-barrel spending by Albany lawmakers.

When Miller stepped down as the business-improvement district’s president in 2013, Silver presented him with a plaque and an iPad.

He is challenging the $578,000 assessment on his six-story rental building at 256 Broome St.

Misrahi, also a business improvement district member, donated $300 to Silver in 2011 through his Brownstone Management Corp., campaign-finance records show.

He is contesting the $513,000 assessment on an 18-unit building at 188 Orchard St., as well as a $200,000 hike on another property at 11 Essex St.

Shulman didn’t return a request for comment, but court-system spokesman David Bookstaver said the relationship between Shulman and Silver didn’t create a conflict of interest.

“Because someone belongs to the same congregation, it would be far-fetched to say that would be a reason to recuse oneself from the case,” Bookstaver said.

Miller and Misrahi didn’t return messages seeking comment.

Manhattan Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street

ORAL ARGUMENT SEEKING RECUSAL OF JUDGE HAGLER FROM PRESIDINGOVER DR. MEHULIC’s WHISTLEBLOWING ACTION

LINK

Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital Index No.103297-2008

October 27, 2014, at 10 AM. The courtroom of Justice Shlomo S. Hagler (Part 17) in Court

Room 335 at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007.

o I am a physician whistleblower who objected to improper and dangerous medical care that I observed at the labor and delivery department of the New York Downtown Hospital in 2007-2008. Many young mothers and babies died or were severely injured due to negligent care.

o After my multiple objections seeking to stop this negligence, I reported the whole matter several times to the New York Department of Health. Finally, on April 16, 2008, I received an email response from the DOH. That same day I was paged and told to go at once to the office of my boss, Allan Klapper, M.D. He threatened me that I would never practice medicine in this country again. Two days later I was fired by the hospital without explanation.

o Per my report , NBC News broke the story of a 16-year old teenager who was not pregnant but was given a caesarian section by these negligent doctors. Despite corrective measures that the hospital was supposed to implement, patients continued to die and in August of 2012 NBC News broke another story that 14 patients had unexpectedly died at the hospital and that an additional 40,000 medical mistakes made by hospital doctors were reported to the Department of Health and that the DOH was keeping these egregious cases of malpractice secret. In 2012 the hospital ended up with a deficiency of $40 Million. By July 1, 2013, the hospital closed both residency training programs (OBGYN and Internal Medicine) and its financial district and was acquired by the New York Presbyterian Hospital. The Government granted $125 million for the hospital’s reconstruction in 2013.

o I became aware of a long-term friendship and political alliance between Judge Hagler and Sheldon Silver, a member of the advisory board of the hospital and the Assembly Speaker of New York State. Judge Hagler is known as the surrogate son of Sheldon Silver. Moreover, Sheldon has received election contributions from the very same law firm that is representing the hospital in my case (Epstein, Becker &Green, P.C.).

o I also did not have knowledge that Judge Hagler’s brother Mendel Hagler was CEO of Gouverneur Hospital and his close personal and business relationship with Sheldon Silver, and his close ties with New York Department of Health which is involved in this action.

o I was wrongfully fired and unemployed for a year and a half because of the hospital’s slander and misinformation that it was spreading in a vendetta against me. In 2009 the hospital’s actions forced me to change my profession from Obstetrics and Gynecology to Family Medicine. I completed the Family Medicine Residency at the prestigious University of Southwestern Dallas, Texas, from July 1, 2009-June 30, 2012, with great success, awards and accolades.

o As soon as Judge Hagler took over 800 cases from Judge Goodman who retired (March 2012), my case was promptly heard on May 21, 2012. In every single hearing Judge Hagler has threatened me with sanctions and all my motions have been denied while all the defendant’s motions were wholehearted approved. I am the one who did the right thing and tried to protect patients; the hospital bosses are those who were negligent and reckless.

o There are numerous examples of the injustice I suffered in Judge Hagler’s court such as a revived confidentiality agreement that was made invalid ab initio by the prior judge. His actions also improperly placed my complete file under seal. He has unfairly placed me on a Temporary Restraining Order for more than two and a half years. Moreover, Judge Hagler disposed my case on February 6, 2014, and reactivated it only after my intervention. Judge Hagler denied my supplemental discovery which was essential to my case since the hospital closed their financial district and its residency programs. But at the same time per the opposing side’s demand, Hagler on three separate occasions ordered that the hospital could obtain my personnel file from the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital where I worked eight years ago without an issue. It was an unsuccessful fishing expedition on the part of my opponents to find something negative about me. Judge Hagler also ordered a third day of my deposition which is unheard of. I was grilled by the defendant’s counsels who tried to force me to admit to their false allegations.

o Such an amalgam of peculiar circumstances happened in my pending case and it cannot be explained by any reasonable person as anything else than rampant corruption, corruption that is preventing me, the whistleblower, and the public from obtaining justice. I had no choice other than to file a motion and demand Judge Hagler’s recusal since he never disclosed his relationships. His failure to act ethically by recusing himself has resulted in a grievous injustice.

o This is a true David v. Goliath story. Unfortunately as a whistleblower I do not have the legal right to have a jury trial at this time.

o If Hagler does not recuse himself he may stay as the trial judge. In that case, I will be crucified and the former hospital bosses who are responsible for criminal activities will come to the trial to feed him with lies and help him destroy my case.

o All public efforts to support justice are highly appreciated!

Respectfully,

Dr. Sue Mehulic, M.D.

Is Shlomo Hagler related to Sheldon Silver?

Is he double-dipping?

Betsy Combier

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Shlomo Hagler

‘Lot’ of anger: Landmark temple sues over property

By Julia Marsh

LINK

A Manhattan judge was slapped with a $25 million lawsuit for his role in the potential sale of lucrative property adjoining a landmark institution once run by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Bialystoker Synagogue

Fellow board members of the Bialystoker Synagogue are suing their president, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shlomo Hagler, over a dispute involving an L-shaped lot at Delancey Street and Bialystoker Place and that’s been owned by the orthodox congregation since 1987.

In the suit, Baruch Singer and Lenny Greher claim that Hagler, the synagogue’s rabbi, Zvi Romm, and the chairman of its housing fund are barred from selling the property at 15-17 Bialystoker Place based on an April 2012 ruling by a Brooklyn rabbinical court.

A source close to the litigation told The Post the suit comes after the synagogue sold off a 127-unit affordable-housing building it owns on an adjacent lot for $28 million in January.

The orthodox congregation, housed in a 1826 fieldstone building that’s on the National Register of Historic Places, is primarily made up of Polish immigrants. It’s rumored that the building was a stop on the Underground Railroad.

Hagler took over as president when Sheldon resigned in 2010 following a rift in the congregation over women joining the leadership ranks.

Hagler declined to comment. The other defendants did not return calls for comment

Judge Kathryn Freed

Update:

I went to Court for oral argument on February 3, 2015, but Judge Freed called in sick, and all cases were adjourned.

Attorney Tatich from the Corporation Counsel called me at 4:36PM, February 2, 2015 and told me that I misspelled his name on the post!! So sorry (corrected it).

Mr. Tatich then told me that he did not know why Judge Frank Nervo is listed in the eTrack, because evidently the Court has an order wherein Judge Nervo recused himself from my case. I wonder why (next research job).

And, also according to Mr. Tatich, Judge Freed was moved from her current position and is not doing any city cases but she is doing whatever was on her list when she was moved, so she is back in her courtroom until....

If this sounds like it is confusing, it is.

Betsy Combier

Anyone who has tried to file a case pro se in State Supreme Court - or Federal, for that matter, but that's another story - will be subtly or directly denied due process. Judges despise people who do not have lawyers representing them, for any of the following reasons:

1. Judges have a problem understanding a pro se person who does not speak English or who does speak English, but must pretend that they do understand. It isn't a matter of understanding, they are directed not to allow pro se litigants to win, because then there is precedent.

Take Shlomo Hagler, for instance. He plays a game with pro se litigants. We - court watchers - have been gathering information about his pattern and practice of denying pro se litigants their due process. What he does is, and I saw this happening, pro se litigants are coddled into thinking he is preserving their rights, and then he denies their petitions/lawsuits in a one sentence ruling from the bench. I saw this: a pro se person appears before him, and in this case it was a bi-lingual teacher for the Department of Education, asking the judge to grant her petition to overturn the arbitration award of a 3020-a arbitrator who suspended her for 45 days without any probable or just cause. This teacher does not speak English well at all. So Judge Hagler was really, really nice, and said she did not need an attorney, and then told the Corporation Counsel that they had to come back with proof that they honored her due process. The next time they were back before Hagler, he dismissed the case in one sentence.

That is his pattern and practice. A theater performance that does not fool anyone.

2. Judges cannot make secret deals with pro se litigants, as they do with Attorneys.

3. Judges do not believe that pro so litigants know anyone "powerful" enough to make them worried about denying any due process. As I have said many times, assumptions are too dangerous to rely on. Judges should do the right thing the first time, and not be scared straight, as I try to do by writing about them on this and my other blogs.

I have fought for rights since 1999. My church stole my mom's ashes from me when she died on March 15, 1998, then their Insurance Carrier, Guide One, and the Surrogate Court hired an Attorney to harass me for the next 14 years. I had heart failure on July 22, 2006. My Attorney, Jonathan Landsman, tried to fight me on the subway after the trial so that I would not get my mom's ashes. Judge Lottie Wilkins did the trial, and when the jury came out with their verdict, that I must receive $500,000 for my pain and suffering, Wilkins suddenly declared a mis-trial, sent the jury away, and told me and Attorney Landsman that we had to pick a new jury for a second trial and be back in her courtroom in 1 hour.

Luckily, I taped NYPD Detective Ahearne who told me that Supreme Court Judge Karla Moskowitz was paying Attorney Kenneth Wasserman to harass me. I got her - Judge Karla Moskowitz - removed from the Supreme Court 3 days after she finally dismissed with prejudice the case falsely claiming I took money from my grandfather's estate, which did not exist when the case was put into the Court's Computer. Judge Moskowitz was moved to the First Department Appellate Division, and I submitted the tape there, and won there as well. But it almost killed me.

Here is another, very recent incident that I had in the Courtroom of New York State Judge Kathryn Freed:, below. By the way, I am a firm supporter of the rights of Veterans and of the gay/lesbian/transgender groups, so I am not citing Judge Freed for her support for any of these groups, only her attack on pro se litigants, and me in particular:

Judge Freed on her balcony

On July 18 2014 at 11:15AM I went to the NY State Supreme Court to help a teacher friend move his record from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Division, First Department, so that he could perfect his appeal of Judge Kathryn Freed's denial of his case. Judge Freed granted the Corporation Counsel's Motion To Dismiss, as she always did. I decided to do a favor for my friend.

subpoena filled out, ready for Judge Freed's signature in the lower right

With all the papers in hand, plus the subpoena for Judge Freed to sign/stamp (Judges are mandated to sign/stamp subpoenas for pro se litigants who want to appeal the decision made in their court to a higher court), I went to her Courtroom at 80 Center Street on July 18, 2014 to obtain her signature on the subpoena before filing the papers to move the record.(I have deleted the name and Index number).

When I walked in her Courtroom, a man was sitting at the desk, and I went to him (the Courtroom was completely empty) and gave him the subpoena for the Judge to sign. I saw Judge Freed in her Chambers, in shorts, sandals and tee shirt. The man took a look and then handed it back, and said "I will not give this to the Judge, it is all wrong".

I asked him, "What is wrong?"

He said "I cannot tell you, I am not a lawyer, so I cannot give you legal advice".

I said, "So what do I do now?"

He said, "Go to the pro se office".

I said "Thank you." and I left 80 Centre Street, and went across the street to 60 Centre Street, the pro se office. When I went in, I saw a Supervisor I knew, and I said hi, could you please tell me what is wrong with this subpoena???? He looked at it, and said "I don't see anything wrong". He asked me why I was there, in the pro se office. I told him, and he said, oh, just go back to the same man and tell him that the Judge should sign it. He is a relief person, and the actual clerk in Judge Freed's courtroom is away this week on vacation.

So I went back to 80 Centre Street, and went back to Room 280. When I entered the Courtroom, it was still empty, and the man with whom I had spoken earlier was still sitting at the desk. So I went over to him and said that the pro se office had told me to come back and ask for the subpoena to be signed. He asked me who told me that. I gave the Supervisor's name, which actually was his middle name. The man called the pro se office: "Hi, is this Bob (or Bill, I don't remember which)? Ok, this is Larry Russo. I have a person who says she just spoke with a man in your office named _______. Is there such a person? No? Ok, thank you." He hung up.

Russo then told me he was fed up with my trying to get the subpoena signed, I was stupid and should have my friend hire an attorney. He was not going to show the subpoena to Judge Freed. He was talking so loudly in such an abusive way, that Judge Freed came out of her Chambers for a minute (in her shorts and tee) to see what was going on, then turned around and went back in to her Chambers. She left the door open.

I started to leave the room, now convinced that there was a story here, and just before opening the door to the hallway, I turned around and asked Mr. Russo very nicely: "Do you belong to a Union?"

Russo got quite angry and said, "yes, of course I do... The Court Clerk's Association. What is it to you? You don't even have my name."

I said, very nicely, "Oh, I do have your name, it's Larry Russo. Thanks again."

I left. I went back to the pro se office and asked to speak with Bob/Bill. He came over and I handed him the subpoena. I asked him first, did he just speak with Larry Russo? He said yes. Then I asked, what is wrong with this subpoena?? He said "well, maybe you could spell out "New York" at the top instead of "NY". So, I changed it. I thanked him, and went back to 80 Centre Street and Judge Freed's courtroom. It was lunchtime (1PM), so the door was locked. I went to the 4th floor law library.I was getting a little nervous the time to move the record was not going to be met (1:30-2:30PM).

rules to move the record

but I needed the signature of Judge Freed.

At 2:15PM I went back to Judge Freed's Courtroom, and it was still empty except for Larry Russo. I said to him: "Please, Mr. Russo, would you please give this to Judge Freed? I just need her signature at the bottom, so that I could move the record for my friend. I went to the pro se office and the judge must sign it."

Russo said, "who did you speak to?"

I said, "Bob/Bill, the man you called."

Russo said, "what is his last name?"

With that, I said, a little bit louder than I had before, "C'mon, Mr. Russo, I need this signed, and now you are being very verbally abusive. Would you please just show the subpoena to the Judge so she can sign it?"

Russo grabbed the subpoena out of my hand, and told me he would be right back, but he was SURE the Judge would not sign it.

A minute later he came back, threw the unsigned subpoena at me and said, "See???? I told you she would not sign it!"

I left. Now what should I do, I thought. I decided to see the CEO of the Court on the 7th floor, if he would see me. I took the elevator to the 6th floor, told the guard my name, and met the CEO again for the second time. He told me this whole episode was ridiculous. I obtained the signature of Judge Heitler, and moved the record. It was approximately 4:30PM when I left 60 Centre Street.

Now I also have two cases of my own in the Supreme Court. The first, INDEX No. 101748/2005, which concerns theconcussion I received on February 10, 2004. In that case, as with all of my cases, I am on eTrack, which means that I get emails a week before appearances.

Except, pro se litigants don't get notices until AFTER the date of the appearance, which you now have missed. I went to Judge Freed's office the day before the prior appearance in January, (Mr. Russo was not there!!!) and heard that Freed had been moved to non-City cases. I was told that the Court would let me know the new Judge and the new date. See the email below. Not only has the schedule been kept from me so that I missed my appearance, but both cases have been given the same Judge, recently: Judge Kathryn Freed!

I plan to argue against the City's Motion To Dismiss, and appeal any ruling of Judge Freed for prejudicial actions and violations of my due process. Judge Freed, whose office was in the very same building as the NYC DOE 3020-a hearings, 51 Chambers Street, and who now walks to the tune of denying pro se litigants their rights, must be held to a standard of applying the rules of due process and judicial fairness. Stay tuned.

This is how accountability works. The City Attorney on the concussion case has been Attorney Payne Tatich, and now is Kari Heyison from the Bronx where Judge Troy Webber works. She used to be the Surrogate Court Judge interim - while Nora Anderson was on trial for taking money from Attorney Seth Rubenstein - who put me on trial after she told me that if I ever wrote anything about her (Troy Webber) she would never probate my mom's Will (She said this in her Courtroom on April 1, 2009) Within a few days, the story was on my website and I filed a RICO against her on June 8, 2009.

Judge Troy Webber

Judge Webber, angry at me for putting what she did on my website after she locked me in her courtroom and threatened me with never probating my mom's Will on April 1, 2009 if I did write anything, put me on trial without a jury, and then convicted me of abusing my mom, as retaliation. (I had heart failure over this, I never abused my mom).

LinkedIn Page of Payne Tatich

Payne Tatich

NYC Law Department

Location: Greater New York City Area
Industry: Legal Services

Current	NYC Law Department
Previous	Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP, Case Western Reserve University Edit experience
Education	Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Kari Alexandra Heyison, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel-- at Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York

Location: Brooklyn, New York
Industry: Law Practice

Current	Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Previous	Touro Law Center Family Law Clinic, Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Edit experience
Education	Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 11/25/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion --- Information updated
Appearance Outcome: Oral Argument (80 Centre St) --- Information updated
Justice: FREED, KATHRYN E. (DCM) --- Information updated
Part: IAS MOTION 5 --- Information updated
Comments: 9:30 --- Information updated

Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 03/12/2015
Appearance Time:
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: NERVO, FRANK P. (DCM)
Part: COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE 62 DCM
Comments: 2PM

Appearance Date: 03/03/2015 --- Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: FREED, KATHRYN E. (DCM)
Part: IAS MOTION 5
Comments: 9:30

Appearance Date: 01/20/2015 --- Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome: Adjourned --- Information updated
Justice: FREED, KATHRYN E. (DCM)
Part: IAS MOTION 5
Comments: 9:30

U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers

U.S. Inquiry Finds a ‘Culture of Violence’ Against Teenage Inmates at Rikers Island

The woman, who has not been publicly identified, claimed that Rubenstein, 70, assaulted her at his Manhattan apartment after a night of drinking at Sharpton's 60th birthday bash in October. Rubenstein claimed the sex was consensual.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Civilian Control of the Police

in NYC

READ MORE »

Sheldon Silver’s army of enablers

Excuses and more excuses from Assembly Democrats

Comments

New York’s Real Scandal

Sheldon Silver: The man Upstaters love to hate

Payne Tatich

Kari Alexandra Heyison, Esq.