A filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says New York’s Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) is a “sham” operation designed to protect certain political insiders, and to target, chill and destroy other “non-player” justices throughout the empire state.
The federal complaint alleges that the SCJC ignores its charge of upholding the ethics of New York judges, all while pursuing a small inside group’s political agenda, and is a fraud upon the citizens, judges and the state’s justice system.
Highlights of the federal filing include:
1. Plaintiff was encouraged when Appellate Division, Second Department Presiding Judge A. Gail Prudenti, directed that the allegations concerning the fraudulent assignment, internet advertising and financial sanctions be formally sent by Chief Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Second Department, James Edward Pelzer to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
2. The Commission on Judicial Conduct sent plaintiff a form letter declining to take any action.
3. Plaintiff has received numerous copies of the same denial letter sent to other complaints from the SCJC.
4. Upon information and belief, and upon a thorough review of dozens of published actions by the SCJC against certain judges, the SCJC improperly advances certain agendas against some judges, while ignoring the outrageous conduct of others.
5. Upon information and belief, the SCJC summarily ignores serious charges against select judges to advance certain agendas and to protect selected judges.
6. Upon information and belief, the SCJC is a partial arbiter of secreted agendas that provides a grossly improper disservice to plaintiff, the general public, the legal community, the system of law and, in fact, the vast majority of honorable justices of the state’s courts.
Plaintiff Discovers that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is a Sham
7. On or about Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 10 o’clock in the morning, plaintiff met at the DDC offices with the newly appointed DDC Chief Counsel, Alan W. Friedberg who, just a few months earlier, had been the longtime Deputy Chief Counsel at the SCJC. Plaintiff had requested a meeting, and Mr. Friedberg scheduled the referenced date and time.
8. Plaintiff possesses an audio tape of the March 5, 2008 meeting with DDC Chief Counsel, and who was the prior Deputy Chief Counsel of the SCJC, Alan W. Friedberg.
9. During the meeting, Mr. Friedberg stated to plaintiff that he was a very “hands-on” type of person, and that he had, in fact been very “hands-on” at the SCJC.
10. Mr. Friedberg took great pride in stating his personal involvement in all matters and did, in fact, voice his pride in being “the person” who put Judge Garson behind bars.
11. Plaintiff did not discuss the common belief that it was Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes who had prosecuted the matter of ex-judge Gerald P. Garson.
12. At no time during the March 5, 2008 meeting did Mr. Friedberg use the words “fair and impartial,” “due process” or “integrity.”
13. DDC Chief Counsel Friedberg again refused to explain to plaintiff how, why or under what authority the McQuade complaint could ever be handled by a non-existent DDC outsider, choosing instead to confront plaintiff, the complainant, personally in order to chill any pursuit of my plaintiff’s right of due process concerning an attorney’s misconduct.
14. Upon information and belief, Counsel Friedberg did concede that plaintiff was entitled to be properly represented by counsel even if, for the sake of argument, plaintiff was a mass murderer, a bank robber, the one who stole the Red Cross 9/11 monies, beat old ladies, harmed defenseless animals or was a litter bug.
15. Though he advised he was a very “hands-on” person, Mr. Friedberg told plaintiff he had never heard about the numerous submissions to the SCJC alleging that numerous judges had been involved in furthering a fraud by an attorney friend where: over $100,000.00 in Red Cross 9/11 donation money had been stolen by the justices’ friend’s client; an insurance company had been defrauded by the scheme the justices advanced; their friend’s client had committed suicide; and, the involved surrogate had confronted the pro se complainant-litigant in the courthouse lobby to voice his anger at being asked to recuse himself.
Inherent Unfairness to Judges, Attorneys and Complainants at the DDC & SCJC
16. Plaintiff’s fully documented March 5, 2008 meeting with Mr. Alan W. Friedberg provides a troubling insight by the current DDC Chief Counsel, and the former SCJC Deputy Chief Counsel, into the lack of due process at both “ethics” entities. Personal agendas and selective enforcement have completely replaced the charge of ethics oversight at the DDC and the SCJC. If, for the sake of argument, Mr. Friedberg was truthful in stating he had never heard of the various issues raised by plaintiff over the past few years, then the issue becomes who is really in charge at the DDC and SCJC.
17. Upon information and belief, lower level employees at the DDC and the SCJC, and who are improperly beholden to political and legal outsiders, advance or thwart selective ethics inquiries without regard to merit.
18. As a result of the March 5, 2008 meeting at the DDC, plaintiff corresponded with Mr. Friedberg of the DDC and with the Chief Counsel of the SCJC (Exhibit “G”). Plaintiff cannot confirm if the SCJC Chief Counsel has personally received the documents as the typical terminating form letter was the only response.
To see the filed federal complaint and exhibits, CLICK HERE