Judge Confiscates Transcripts: Funny Business as Usual (MORE, CLICK HERE)

Unsealed, Uncontested Court Records “Confiscated” by Judge Herman Cahn and withheld by Judge Bernard Fried With the Apparent Collusion of Administrative Judge Jacqueline Silbermann. So Says William Galison. And Mr. Galison has a lot more to say on what appears to be just another miscarriage of justice:

This matter regards the wanton violation of 14th amendment rights and section 216.01 of the Unified Rules for NYS trial courts by Judges Herman Cahn and Bernard Fried, with the apparent collusion of Judge Jacqueline Silbermann, all of the New York Civil Supreme Court, First Department. Specifically, this matter involves the illegal confiscation of public record transcripts from the public record and from one litigant with no due process of law.

The underlying case is a libel lawsuit by William Galison, a professional musician, brought against Jeffrey Greenberg, a lawyer from the firm of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman.

In the course of pre-trial hearings, Judge Cahn held an ex parte conference with Greenberg’s lawyers, and on the basis of that meeting, issued a protective order against Galison. Cahn gave no explanation to Galison as to the reason for the protective order, and despite Galison’s numerous requests has refused to furnish the transcripts of the ex parte meeting to Galison for over two years.

THE CONFISCATION OF UNSEALED PUBLIC RECORD COURT DOCUMENTS FROM ONE PARTY IN A COURT PROCEEDING IS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATE LAW BY JUDGES IN THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT UNPRECEDENTED IN THE HISTORY OF THE COURT.

The motivation of Greenberg’s lawyers in defaming Galison is as transparent as it is reprehensible. Galison sued Greenberg because Greenberg wrote and published the false allegation that Galison had “physically abused” Greenberg’s client. Greenberg made this allegation despite his client’s sworn testimony that Galison never harmed her in any way, and that she had never told Greenberg or anyone else that he had done so. In the ex parte meeting, Greenberg’s lawyers falsely told Judge Cahn that Galison posed a threat to THEM in order to prejudice Cahn against Galison and his libel claim.

Of course, the right to obtain court transcripts in one’s own case is a fundamental pillar of the justice system, especially when those transcripts contain ex parte allegations and evidence that have lead to sanctions. In essence, Mr. Galison was accused, tried, sentenced and punished without knowledge of the charges, the evidence or the argument against him, and with no opportunity whatsoever to defend himself..

THERE ARE NO CONTESTED FACTS IN THIS MATTER

Judge Cahn does not contest the fact that he had an ex parte meeting, that he placed a restraining order on Galison, or that he confiscated the transcripts without due process. In fact, there are NO contested FACTS at issue in this matter. The ONLY question at issue is whether or not New York Supreme Court judges are beholden to the rules of the Uniform Court System and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. Galison contends that they are. Cahn, Fried and Silbermann contend that they are not.

It must be emphasized that the transcripts in question were NEVER SEALED by Judge Cahn against Galison or anyone else. NOT ONE of the rules regarding sealing of court documents was obeyed. Furthermore, the defense lawyers DO NOT CONTEST the release of the transcripts to Galison. In a letter to judge Silbermann they wrote: “If a transcript of the December 7, 2005 conference with Justice Cahn exists, [we] of course have no objection its being released to the parties”.

The fact that the transcripts exist was made clear by a short portion of the transcripts that Mr. Galison was able to obtain from the court reporter, Myron Calderon. Mr. Calderon told Galison that the entire ex parte meeting was recorded, and that Judge Cahn had “confiscated” most of the record from Calderon before he had a chance to transcribe it.

When Mr. Galison complained to Administrative Judge Silbermann about the confiscation of the transcripts, Judge Cahn immediately recused himself from the case without explanation, against Mr. Galison’s expressed wishes. Even after his recusal however, he has continued to prohibit Mr. Galison from obtaining the transcripts for over two years. When Galison appealed to Judge Silbermann, Silbermann refused to direct Judge Cahn to furnish the transcripts and advised Mr. Galison that his only recourse was to file a formal motion before the judge who replaced Cahn: Bernard Fried, whom Silbermann also personally chose to take over the case. Never in the history of the New York Supreme Court, has a litigant been required to file a motion to obtain an unsealed transcript from the court.

Galison made two formal motions before Fried to obtain the unsealed, uncontested transcripts from his own case. Fried denied the first motion without prejudice, and the second WITH prejudice because, as Judge Fried put it: “I did not give you permission to re-file”. (If a ruling without prejudice cannot be re-filed, how is it difference than a ruling WITH prejudice?)

And so, Mr. Galison has now exhausted all of the available recourses for obtaining the UNSEALED, UNCONTESTED transcripts from his own case. To this day, he does not know why a protective order was placed against him, what evidence was presented and what arguments were made.

Judge Fried then dismissed the entire case in favor of Defense, thereby leaving Galison with no further recourse for obtaining the transcripts. Galison, however is appealing the decision, and hopes that Appellate Court will uphold his fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial.

The ex-parte meeting and the unfair judgment are, unfortunately, commonplace events in the Civil Supreme. What is shocking in this case is the cover up, involving three veteran judges, and their coordinated efforts over two years to deprive a citizen of his basic constitutional rights to obtain the transcripts in his own case.

Mr. Galison has now filed complaints against Judges Cahn, Fried and Silbermann with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

For more information please contact: William Galison at wgalison@aol.com

Click here to see our previous post on this story.