Senator John L. Sampson, Chairman of the New York State Judiciary Committee, heard testimony yesterday on the review of the current process to choose justices of the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The State Commission on Judicial Nomination has been under attack recently for failing to provide the governor with a suitable list of nominees from which to choose.
Initial reports confirm that during open testimony Senator Sampson was asked to hold hearings and issue subpoenas into the corrupt practices of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the statewide attorney ethics committees. It was noted that the Nomination Commission relies upon reports from the various ethics committees in its vetting process in deciding who to place on the list presented to the Governor.
More on this story soon....... below are two stories on yesterday's hearings......
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - January 28, 2009
ALBANY - State legislators were urged yesterday to proceed cautiously as they consider changes in how candidates are selected for the Court of Appeals, despite the dissatisfaction of some with the all-male list of nominees for the next chief judge. New York City Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo and former state Senator John Dunne, speaking at a hearing on behalf of the Committee for Modern Courts, defended the track record of the Commission on Judicial Nomination and argued against making sweeping statutory changes in a system that has been in place for more than three decades. "In my opinion, the system has served the state well and represents a huge improvement over the previous elective system," Mr. Cardozo told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
No minority or woman was elected to the Court of Appeals between the Court's inception in 1846 and 1977, when voters adopted a constitutional amendment halting judicial campaigns to the high court in favor of a system under which governors have picked members from commission lists. Since then, Mr. Cardozo noted, four women, three blacks and one Hispanic have been elevated by governors to the Court. When Mr. Cardozo told Judiciary Committee Chairman John L. Sampson, "We have a huge way to go" Mr. Sampson finished the sentence with, "We have come a long way." "We have come a long way," agreed Mr. Cardozo, "and the fact that until Judith [Kaye] retired, in the last six years there were four women out of seven sitting judges on the Court, a distant cousin of mine name Benjamin Cardozo would have been shocked. So we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water."
Still Mr. Sampson, D-Brooklyn, argued, "Once you've finally arrived, all of a sudden the curve ball is thrown." He said the latest list sent to Governor David A. Paterson by the commission (NYLJ, Dec. 2) represented just such a troubling sign that progress toward diversity on state court benches is not guaranteed. Mr. Cardozo pointed out that barring an unexpected resignation, it will be nearly four years until the next opening will occur with the mandatory retirement of Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick at the end of 2012. He suggested forming a "study committee" to look at what other states have done with appointive judicial systems in recent years to formulate improvements instead of acting precipitously in response to the recent search for a chief judge.
Mr. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo both complained that the commission's list of candidates contained six white males, including chief judge-nominee Jonathan Lippman, presiding justice of the Appellate Division, First Department (NYLJ, Jan. 14). It also included the name of Court of Appeals Judge Theodore T. Jones Jr., who is black. There were no women or Hispanics on the list even though Judge Ciparick, an Hispanic who is senior associate judge on the Court, applied to and was interviewed by the commission. Two other women were among the 12 candidates interviewed by the commission, New York City Civil Court Administrative Judge Fern A. Fisher and Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice L. Priscilla Hall, but they also did not make the final cut. Mr. Sampson said yesterday he would likely schedule Justice Lippman's confirmation hearing before his committee within the next few weeks, but wanted to improve the nomination process going forward.
"The purpose is not to challenge the nomination of Judge Lippman, but to deal with the process so we won't run into problems like this again," Mr. Sampson said as he closed yesterday's hearing. "The system, as indicated, has worked before. We were improving. But now we have hit a bump in the road. Hopefully we can make some modification, whether it be with a rule change or statutorily." Mr. Dunne and Mr. Cardozo both suggested that more diverse candidates would be advanced by the commission if more diverse commission members were selected by state leaders. Four members of the commission are appointed by the governor, four by the state's chief judge and one each by the four majority or minority leaders of the Legislature. Currently, four of the commission members are white women and two others are black men. There are no Hispanics.
"The answer is not to change the system, but for our elected officials, the governor and legislative leaders, who are empowered to appoint members of the Commission on Judicial Nomination, along with the chief judge, to appoint those who reflect the diversity of our state and also make their expectations clear to their commission appointees that diversity considerations must be a factor in the process," said Mr. Dunne, of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany. About 73 percent of the state is white, 17 percent black and 16 percent Hispanic. About 51 percent of the population are women. Mr. Cardozo said he is somewhat biased about the commission because, as a counsel to a task force on court reform appointed by then-Governor Hugh L. Carey in the mid-1970s, he helped write the statute under which the commission was created. He suggested that the commission's proceedings be made more transparent, perhaps by releasing the numbers of applications the commission receives and how many candidates it interviews for openings.
'Lack of Applicants'
Commission Chairman John F. O'Mara said in an interview yesterday that the commission has decided to do just that as part of an effort to open up its process. He declined to give the exact numbers yesterday, but said applications have been declining for years for Court of Appeals openings. "The real problem is the lack of applicants," Mr. O'Mara said. Sources familiar with the 2008 screening process for Chief Judge Kaye's seat said the commission received only about 20 applications. Mr. O'Mara was appointed to the commission by then-Governor George E. Pataki. His term expires at the end of March. As he has since the commission announced its list on Dec. 1, Mr. O'Mara yesterday continued to defend the panel's work.
"I think you'll see a lot of defenders, if you see what the process has produced," said Mr. O'Mara, a partner with Davidson & O'Mara in Elmira. "In spite of the complaints this time about the lack of a woman on our list, under our recent lists, the majority of the Court of Appeals judges have been women. I do believe the process works." Mr. O'Mara said he did not receive an invitation to appear before Mr. Sampson's committee until late on Jan. 22 and could not work it into his schedule. But he said he would be happy to appear before the committee at one of the other public hearings Mr. Sampson said he would schedule in New York City and upstate. "It works," Mr. O'Mara said of the commission. "Without question, I think that any rational person that looks at the process and looks at what's happened under the process would come to the same conclusion."
Mr. Sampson acknowledged that Mr. O'Mara has indicated his willingness to appear before his committee. Still, Mr. Sampson said yesterday he was "disappointed" that neither Mr. O'Mara nor members of the commission appeared at the Albany hearing. "They should have been here so my colleagues could question them," Mr. Sampson said. "But hopefully, within the not-too-distant future, we will have that opportunity." Attorney Ravi Batra, a former member of the Brooklyn Democratic Judicial Screening Committee, told Mr. Sampson's committee that nominating commissions such as Mr. O'Mara's panel can be rife with petty personal or political divisions that can prevent excellent candidates from being recommended for appointment.
The fact that neither Judge Ciparick, now acting chief judge of the Court of Appeals, nor Justice Fisher were on the final list shows how "tainted" the nomination process was, Mr. Batra contended. "Two women, two superstars," agreed Judicial Committee member Ruben Diaz Sr., D-Bronx. "They were called not qualified? The system is broken." Brooklyn Bar Association President John Lonuzzi said that "some eyebrows were raised" within the legal and judicial communities when the commission's list omitted the names of Judge Ciparick and Justice Fisher. "Was this an aberration . . . or was this something that is broken, has failed and now needs to be fixed?" Mr. Sampson asked him. "It's certainly something that's broken," Mr. Lonuzzi replied. "It's certainly something that's failed and it's certainly something that needs to be fixed." Joel.Stashenko@incisivemedia.com
*************************************************************
Lawmakers fault top court selection process
The Albany Times Union by MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press - January 27, 2009
ALBANY -- Several New York senators and attorneys Tuesday urged reform in choosing judges for the state's top court. They criticized the recent closed-door selection of seven potential nominees for chief judge, saying the process lacked diversity, openness and outreach.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson said only 12 candidates applied to the Commission on Judicial Nomination to replace Chief Judge Judith Kaye, and three were women, all qualified. However, the seven names submitted to Gov. David Paterson were all men, only one a minority. Paterson raised the same concern before nominating Justice Jonathan Lippman, a midlevel appeals court judge and the former chief administrative judge of the sprawling court system. "The purpose is not to challenge the nomination of Justice Lippman," Sampson said at the close of Tuesday's hearing, which he said would be followed by others in New York City and upstate. "It's to deal with the process so we don't run into this problem again."
Sampson, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he and other lawmakers will meet with Lippman before the committee holds confirmation hearings he hopes will follow within 30 days. Sampson noted that 18 percent of New Yorkers are African-American, but only 9 percent of its judges are; 16 percent of its people are Hispanic, but only 4 percent of the judges are. He said 18 percent of the state's law students are Asian, but only 1 percent of its judges are. There is a problem of public perception that politics came into play in the judge selection process, he said. Lippman's nomination requires Senate approval. "I'm not talking about any issue of quota," Sampson said. Sen. George Winner, an Elmira Republican, said lawmakers should make sure "the highest qualified individuals" are put on what he called the most important state court in the nation.
Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat, said that while New York now has a black governor who could have appointed a well-qualified and well-prepared woman or minority as the state's top judge, the commission "tied his hands." "Let's untie the governor's hands and give the governor the power to say to the committee what you did was wrong," Diaz said. One applicant was Court of Appeals Acting Chief Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, a longtime associate judge on the Court of Appeals, and a Hispanic woman Diaz said was obviously qualified, but her name wasn't on the list. The other women considered by the commission were Judges Fern Fisher and Priscilla Hall in New York City, both experienced and well qualified, Sampson said.
John Dunne, a former lawmaker who helped author the law that substituted the appointment process for the Court of Appeals instead of elections, urged the senators not to change the system. He said it has worked for 30 years and made the process less political. Dunne said the governor, chief judge and four lawmakers who choose members to the 12-member nomination commission, in staggered terms, can emphasize to those appointees that diversity is important and needs to be considered. Dunne said the court, which until Kaye's retirement had four women, one of them Hispanic, and an African-American judge, became far more diverse with this process. Judge Theodore Jones was on the commission's short list. But Dunne acknowledged the commission's "failure to meet expectations of a great many of its citizens" with a list that included no women.
Attorney Ravi Batra said the system is "badly broken," that the commission approves nominees with a two-thirds majority, allowing a bloc of five to hijack the process. He suggested changing the rules so only a majority vote is enough, expanding the list of nominees to 12, making public the names of applicants, having 15 commissioners, and letting lawmakers choos eight. Brooklyn Bar Association president-elect John Lonuzzi said the commission should include bar association representatives and the number of potential nominees should b expanded. Sampson said he will talk to Commission Chairman John O'Mara to discuss lawmakers' concerns.
Still Mr. Sampson, D-Brooklyn, argued, "Once you've finally arrived, all of a sudden the curve ball is thrown." He said the latest list sent to Governor David A. Paterson by the commission (NYLJ, Dec. 2) represented just such a troubling sign that progress toward diversity on state court benches is not guaranteed. Mr. Cardozo pointed out that barring an unexpected resignation, it will be nearly four years until the next opening will occur with the mandatory retirement of Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick at the end of 2012. He suggested forming a "study committee" to look at what other states have done with appointive judicial systems in recent years to formulate improvements instead of acting precipitously in response to the recent search for a chief judge.
Mr. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo both complained that the commission's list of candidates contained six white males, including chief judge-nominee Jonathan Lippman, presiding justice of the Appellate Division, First Department (NYLJ, Jan. 14). It also included the name of Court of Appeals Judge Theodore T. Jones Jr., who is black. There were no women or Hispanics on the list even though Judge Ciparick, an Hispanic who is senior associate judge on the Court, applied to and was interviewed by the commission. Two other women were among the 12 candidates interviewed by the commission, New York City Civil Court Administrative Judge Fern A. Fisher and Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice L. Priscilla Hall, but they also did not make the final cut. Mr. Sampson said yesterday he would likely schedule Justice Lippman's confirmation hearing before his committee within the next few weeks, but wanted to improve the nomination process going forward.
"The purpose is not to challenge the nomination of Judge Lippman, but to deal with the process so we won't run into problems like this again," Mr. Sampson said as he closed yesterday's hearing. "The system, as indicated, has worked before. We were improving. But now we have hit a bump in the road. Hopefully we can make some modification, whether it be with a rule change or statutorily." Mr. Dunne and Mr. Cardozo both suggested that more diverse candidates would be advanced by the commission if more diverse commission members were selected by state leaders. Four members of the commission are appointed by the governor, four by the state's chief judge and one each by the four majority or minority leaders of the Legislature. Currently, four of the commission members are white women and two others are black men. There are no Hispanics.
"The answer is not to change the system, but for our elected officials, the governor and legislative leaders, who are empowered to appoint members of the Commission on Judicial Nomination, along with the chief judge, to appoint those who reflect the diversity of our state and also make their expectations clear to their commission appointees that diversity considerations must be a factor in the process," said Mr. Dunne, of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany. About 73 percent of the state is white, 17 percent black and 16 percent Hispanic. About 51 percent of the population are women. Mr. Cardozo said he is somewhat biased about the commission because, as a counsel to a task force on court reform appointed by then-Governor Hugh L. Carey in the mid-1970s, he helped write the statute under which the commission was created. He suggested that the commission's proceedings be made more transparent, perhaps by releasing the numbers of applications the commission receives and how many candidates it interviews for openings.
'Lack of Applicants'
Commission Chairman John F. O'Mara said in an interview yesterday that the commission has decided to do just that as part of an effort to open up its process. He declined to give the exact numbers yesterday, but said applications have been declining for years for Court of Appeals openings. "The real problem is the lack of applicants," Mr. O'Mara said. Sources familiar with the 2008 screening process for Chief Judge Kaye's seat said the commission received only about 20 applications. Mr. O'Mara was appointed to the commission by then-Governor George E. Pataki. His term expires at the end of March. As he has since the commission announced its list on Dec. 1, Mr. O'Mara yesterday continued to defend the panel's work.
"I think you'll see a lot of defenders, if you see what the process has produced," said Mr. O'Mara, a partner with Davidson & O'Mara in Elmira. "In spite of the complaints this time about the lack of a woman on our list, under our recent lists, the majority of the Court of Appeals judges have been women. I do believe the process works." Mr. O'Mara said he did not receive an invitation to appear before Mr. Sampson's committee until late on Jan. 22 and could not work it into his schedule. But he said he would be happy to appear before the committee at one of the other public hearings Mr. Sampson said he would schedule in New York City and upstate. "It works," Mr. O'Mara said of the commission. "Without question, I think that any rational person that looks at the process and looks at what's happened under the process would come to the same conclusion."
Mr. Sampson acknowledged that Mr. O'Mara has indicated his willingness to appear before his committee. Still, Mr. Sampson said yesterday he was "disappointed" that neither Mr. O'Mara nor members of the commission appeared at the Albany hearing. "They should have been here so my colleagues could question them," Mr. Sampson said. "But hopefully, within the not-too-distant future, we will have that opportunity." Attorney Ravi Batra, a former member of the Brooklyn Democratic Judicial Screening Committee, told Mr. Sampson's committee that nominating commissions such as Mr. O'Mara's panel can be rife with petty personal or political divisions that can prevent excellent candidates from being recommended for appointment.
The fact that neither Judge Ciparick, now acting chief judge of the Court of Appeals, nor Justice Fisher were on the final list shows how "tainted" the nomination process was, Mr. Batra contended. "Two women, two superstars," agreed Judicial Committee member Ruben Diaz Sr., D-Bronx. "They were called not qualified? The system is broken." Brooklyn Bar Association President John Lonuzzi said that "some eyebrows were raised" within the legal and judicial communities when the commission's list omitted the names of Judge Ciparick and Justice Fisher. "Was this an aberration . . . or was this something that is broken, has failed and now needs to be fixed?" Mr. Sampson asked him. "It's certainly something that's broken," Mr. Lonuzzi replied. "It's certainly something that's failed and it's certainly something that needs to be fixed." Joel.Stashenko@incisivemedia.com
*************************************************************
Lawmakers fault top court selection process
The Albany Times Union by MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press - January 27, 2009
ALBANY -- Several New York senators and attorneys Tuesday urged reform in choosing judges for the state's top court. They criticized the recent closed-door selection of seven potential nominees for chief judge, saying the process lacked diversity, openness and outreach.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson said only 12 candidates applied to the Commission on Judicial Nomination to replace Chief Judge Judith Kaye, and three were women, all qualified. However, the seven names submitted to Gov. David Paterson were all men, only one a minority. Paterson raised the same concern before nominating Justice Jonathan Lippman, a midlevel appeals court judge and the former chief administrative judge of the sprawling court system. "The purpose is not to challenge the nomination of Justice Lippman," Sampson said at the close of Tuesday's hearing, which he said would be followed by others in New York City and upstate. "It's to deal with the process so we don't run into this problem again."
Sampson, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he and other lawmakers will meet with Lippman before the committee holds confirmation hearings he hopes will follow within 30 days. Sampson noted that 18 percent of New Yorkers are African-American, but only 9 percent of its judges are; 16 percent of its people are Hispanic, but only 4 percent of the judges are. He said 18 percent of the state's law students are Asian, but only 1 percent of its judges are. There is a problem of public perception that politics came into play in the judge selection process, he said. Lippman's nomination requires Senate approval. "I'm not talking about any issue of quota," Sampson said. Sen. George Winner, an Elmira Republican, said lawmakers should make sure "the highest qualified individuals" are put on what he called the most important state court in the nation.
Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat, said that while New York now has a black governor who could have appointed a well-qualified and well-prepared woman or minority as the state's top judge, the commission "tied his hands." "Let's untie the governor's hands and give the governor the power to say to the committee what you did was wrong," Diaz said. One applicant was Court of Appeals Acting Chief Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, a longtime associate judge on the Court of Appeals, and a Hispanic woman Diaz said was obviously qualified, but her name wasn't on the list. The other women considered by the commission were Judges Fern Fisher and Priscilla Hall in New York City, both experienced and well qualified, Sampson said.
John Dunne, a former lawmaker who helped author the law that substituted the appointment process for the Court of Appeals instead of elections, urged the senators not to change the system. He said it has worked for 30 years and made the process less political. Dunne said the governor, chief judge and four lawmakers who choose members to the 12-member nomination commission, in staggered terms, can emphasize to those appointees that diversity is important and needs to be considered. Dunne said the court, which until Kaye's retirement had four women, one of them Hispanic, and an African-American judge, became far more diverse with this process. Judge Theodore Jones was on the commission's short list. But Dunne acknowledged the commission's "failure to meet expectations of a great many of its citizens" with a list that included no women.
Attorney Ravi Batra said the system is "badly broken," that the commission approves nominees with a two-thirds majority, allowing a bloc of five to hijack the process. He suggested changing the rules so only a majority vote is enough, expanding the list of nominees to 12, making public the names of applicants, having 15 commissioners, and letting lawmakers choos eight. Brooklyn Bar Association president-elect John Lonuzzi said the commission should include bar association representatives and the number of potential nominees should b expanded. Sampson said he will talk to Commission Chairman John O'Mara to discuss lawmakers' concerns.
I vote and I've written to everyone of the state judiciary committee members. I hope it is true that Senator Sampson was asked in a public hearing to hold public hearings and issue subpoenas into the disgusting corruption throughout the state court system. Now's the time to get involved, the corruption hearings need to be on TV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, I have lived in this society long enough to understand this 'diversity of candidate' issue and were it comes from. On the other hand, it seems like a silly controversy over how New Yorks court system should LOOK while it's collapsing under the weight of it's own hypocrisy. While our courts ROT from the inside out, the question should not be "shall we open our Eggs at the Large.. or the Small end?" but rather "Is JONATHAN SWIFT enough to stop the cancer"?
ReplyDeleteSURVEY WANTS TO KNOW "Are BOYS better than GIRLS"?
Why haven't I been called as a witness?
ReplyDeleteI alerted Senator Sampson to corruption at the Judicial Nomination Commission by sending him this letter to the JNC.
The JNC ignored the letter. Why is Sampson ignoring it too?
Integrity in the Courts
“To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society.” - Honoré de Balzac
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” - Martin Luther King
All Members: State of New York
Commission on Judicial Nomination
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6710 November 20, 2008
FAX (212) 336-2222
Notice of Improprieties and Negligence by Judge Jonathan Lippman and
Apparent Corrupt Influence on a Member of The Judicial Nomination Commission
Synopsis: My organization has compiled overwhelming evidence of Official Misconduct and other improprieties by Judge Jonathan Lippman. Judge Lippman has also ignored and/or abetted systemic corruption in the First Appellate Division, some committed for the benefit of lawyers with intimate ties to a member of the Judicial Nomination Commission, Gerald B. Lefcourt. Judge Lippman’s improprieties must be investigated before he is nominated. Mr. Lefcourt must be removed from the Commission on the basis of the conflict of interest.
Dear CJN Members:
I am a co-founder of the organization “Integrity in the Courts”, a group composed of victims of judicial corruption, who dedicate their time and efforts to exposing and remediating New York State’s notoriously corrupt judiciary. Our members include a six-year veteran Staff Attorney from the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee who was fired for whistle-blowing and has a Federal suit pending against the DDC and the First Appellate Division. We also have affidavits endorsing our efforts from a sitting Supreme Court Judge and a retired Justice of twenty years on the bench.
The Judicial Nomination Commission has been entrusted with the solemn responsibility of choosing nominees for the highest judicial position in the state. The Chief Judge is not only the final arbiter of judicial matters in the State, he is also ultimately accountable for the behavior of every member of the judiciary that serves beneath him, and his ethics set the standards for the entire Judiciary.
Members of my organization possess overwhelming evidence that one of the nominees selected by the Commission- Judge Jonathan Lippman- falls far short of the ethical standards required by the office of Chief Judge. This letter describes one example of abuse by the First
Department Appellate Division under Judge Lippman’s supervision, but my colleagues and I have documented evidence of many more, some of which are pending in federal complaints.
Justice Lippman has Countenanced Rampant Impropriety by
Unethical Lawyers From a Law Firm Connected to a Member of Your Commission
For the past decade, Attorney Leon Friedman has been fraudulently registered in the Second Department, even though his sole law office is at 148 East 78th street, which puts him unambiguously in the jurisdiction of the First Department DDC. Although this may appear to be a trivial infraction, it has serious ramifications, as will be explained. More importantly, Judge Lippman’s consistent failure to hold Mr. Friedman and the DDC accountable is illustrative of a pattern of bending and breaking rules to allow serious ethical and legal infractions by Friedman and his firm, The Law Offices of Richard Ware Levitt.
In July 2006, I filed a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Friedman with the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The claims included destruction of evidence, perjury, conflict of interest and many more serious charges.
In reply, then Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill, wrote me the following: “[Mr. Friedman] does not practice in Manhattan or the Bronx and is, therefore not within our jurisdiction”. This response was so utterly and demonstrably false that the only explanations were corruption or incapacity on the part of Mr. Cahill. It turns out that Cahill based his determination of jurisdiction on Friedman’s fraudulent registration information, rather than the listing of his sole law office address which is found on the internet, phone book, his letterhead and over the door of 148 East 78th street, beside the plaque that reads “Law Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt, Leon Friedman, Richard Ware Levitt…
When Judge Lippman appointed Allan Friedberg to replace Cahill, he wrote: “Alan W. Friedberg’s …commitment to the highest ethical standards render him extremely well prepared to serve as Chief Counsel.” That sounded hopeful, so my first letter to Mr. Friedberg was to confirm the obvious fact that Mr. Friedman practices in, and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the First Department, in order to re-file my complaint.
Over the past year, I have written twelve letters to Mr. Friedberg, asking simply for confirmation of Friedman’s jurisdiction, be it in the First Department or elsewhere. Mr. Friedberg’s has adamantly refused to confirm or deny Mr. Friedman’s jurisdiction, and has ignored my correspondence.
For three years the DDC has obstructed my complaint against Mr. Friedman by refusing to acknowledge their jurisdiction over Mr. Friedman. Moreover, they have denied me my right of redress by effectively banning me from any communication with the Committee. When, after several months of my letters being ignored, I visited the DDC. I was told that Mr. Friedberg had forbidden the entire DDC staff to discuss anything with me, including the status (or existence) of my complaints. When I asked for an explanation, they threatened to have me thrown out by security, a threat they rescinded when told I was recording the conversation. When I tried to make an appointment to see Mr. Friedberg, I was told, without explanation, that I could not make an appointment in person or by phone, and that I would have to make an appointment by mail. Several weeks ago, I sent a letter requesting an appointment by mail, but unsurprisingly, my request has been ignored. Denying me access to a public agency is a violation of my civil rights. Fortunately, all of my interactions with the DDC have been recorded and transcribed.
Clearly, Mr. Friedman’s fraudulent registration is more than an innocent twelve-year oversight. It is a deliberate strategy to obstruct the proceedings of the DDC, and it is abetted by Mr. Friedberg and Judge Lippman for their own advantage as explained below. I have brought these issues to the attention of DDC Chairman, Roy Reardon, but thus far have received no indication of forthcoming investigation or action.
I have hand delivered seven letters to Judge Lippman, complaining about the abuses of his appointee and the DDC in general. Most of my letters have been ignored, and the only responses have been irrelevant “form” letters, signed by his Clerk John McConnell, generally referring me back to Allan Friedberg, as if he were expected to discipline himself.
Several months ago, I wrote a letter to Judge Lippman, explaining that according to the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge PART 118. Registration Of Attorneys, he was personally responsible for holding Mr. Friedman to account:
(e) The registration statement shall be on a form provided by the Chief Administrator and shall include the following information, attested to by affirmation: (7) office addresses (including department); [note the plural] Failure by any attorney to comply with the provisions of this section shall result in referral for disciplinary action by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court pursuant to section 90 of the Judiciary Law.
In other words, the Appellate Division (First Department), of which Judge Lippman is the Presiding Justice, is legally and ethically obliged to turn in renegade lawyers like Leon Friedman to the Disciplinary Committee. If Judge Lippman didn’t know the law before I told him, he knows it now, and yet he willfully chooses to break the law for the sole purpose of protecting Mr. Friedman and his friends.
[It should be noted that Mr. Friedman’s use of the false registration address to avoid a Disciplinary complaint puts him in violation of Penal Code § 210.40 “Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree. A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree when he commits the crime of making an apparently sworn false statement in the second degree, and when (a) the written instrument involved is one for which an oath is required by law, and (b) the false statement contained therein is made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and (c)such false statement is material to the action, proceeding or matter involved. Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree is a class E felony”].
The above is just one of numerous ways that Judge Lippman is helping Mr. Friedman, his partners and his office mates. Mr. Lippman has also ignored written complaints from my lawyers. Neal Brickman and Associates, regarding various infractions by Mr. Friedman, including lying outright to the Appellate Court judges during oral argument. It would appear that at the very least, Judge Lippman is guilty of numerous counts of Official Misconduct and several judicial ethical violations.
Why Judge Lippman Would Break the Law to Help a Lawyer Like Friedman?
Why would a Chief Justice of the Appellate Division break the law and risk losing his job and reputation (and liberty) just to help a five-attorney law office avoid the consequences of their illegal activities? Could it have to do with the fact that Mr. Friedman and his partner Richard Ware Levitt share their offices, secretary, phone number, fax machine, clients and cases with Mr. Gerald B. Lefcourt, and that Mr. Lefcourt is a member of the very Judicial Nomination Commission in whose hands lies Judge Lippman’s potential future as Chief Judge?
Life would be much easier for Mr. Lefcourt and his friends if they had a friend like Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of New York State who would allow them to break ethical rules with impunity, as he has done up to now. And life would be much easier for Lefcourt’s clients, who include gentlemen named Bonnano, Gambino and Gotti and Gigante, among others. My guess is that Mr. Lefcourt is a big proponent of Judge Lippman for the job of Chief Judge. If I am wrong, the myriad improprieties of Judge Lippman on behalf of Mr. Lefcourt’s friends are still a sound basis for his disqualification.
The fact that Judge Lippman has broken the law for the benefit of select lawyers is grounds enough to have him removed for consideration by the Commission and should be grounds for his arrest. The fact that Mr. Lefcourt’s partners are the beneficiaries of Judge Lippman’s illegal largesse is grounds for Mr. Lefcourt’s immediate disqualification from the commission and an investigation into illicit influence on the Nomination process. Mr. Lefcourt should also be required to explain how it is that he is registered in the First Department while his colleague down the hall is registered in the Second. The excuse that Mr. Friedman teaches at Hofstra does not wash, because the registration applies to law practice only, not teaching offices. In any case, registration of all law office addresses are required by §118. It is Mr. Lefcourt’s ethical obligation under the LCPR to report and rectify this fraud.
Clearly, Judge Lippman is totally unaccountable for the abuses of his own appointees in his own Division. His choice of Allan Friedberg as Chief Counsel to the DDC is a testament either to his appalling judgment or corrupt intentions- or both. It would be foolish to expect that he will serve the public any more honorably as Chief Judge.
I have distributed copies of my evidence among numerous people, including law enforcement officials, elected officials and members of the local and national press. My webmaster is preparing a website that will publish all of the pertinent documents as well as the audio and video recordings of official misconduct by Friedberg and others.
I am hoping that at least some members of your Commission have retained an ember of integrity and interest in the well-being of New York State. I urge you all to respond to this letter with any questions or requests for documentation of the complaints against Judge Lippman by me or the other members of Integrity in the Courts. Your failure to investigate our documented claims against a candidate under your consideration would be an obvious dereliction of your duties as Commission members.
Fortunately, the winds in Washington have changed; improprieties overlooked by Mr. Mukasey will not be tolerated by Mr. Holder. Several members of my group and I have connections high in the administration-elect and we are very encouraged by their concern regarding corruption in the New York Judiciary.
It is your Committee’s responsibility and privilege to help select a Chief Judge that will improve the Judiciary for ALL decent New Yorkers, not only a select few.
I look forwards to answering your questions.
William Galison
Integrity in the Courts
917 517 7344
I've seen the corruption in the belly of the beast - the Manhattan Surrogate's Court. I complained and was punished, they have to get even if you cross them, this is a very sick bunch. They do what they want even if you go to the DA, AG, USAtty or the FBI... NO ONE CARES! So what are we paying these people for?
ReplyDeleteThe William Galison post, a story of true corruption along with NO ONE CARES! Why don't the federal authorities do anything since no one in NYS is going to do anything. This story should be on the front page of the NYTimes, Washington Post & LATimes! So why isn't it? Do the corrupt powers that be control the media too? Do the lawyers go around threatening anyone who would expose their corrupt racket? That's what I found! These scum have no ethics!
Remember this could happen to you!
To my above fellow victim, friend and ally....... I KNOW what you are saying and I support you, fully. I haven't got a clue why those empowered to 'safeguard' the People never show up. I have been waiting for Horton to hear us 'Who's for a very, very long time; kept up the pressure on the miscreants every day of my life for countless years. I KNOW why 'We' are never answered, and when 'the People'; enmasse, finally figure it all out, they ain't gonna be happy, and this aint gonna end pretty. A couple years of REAL economic hardship may in fact be a GOOD thing for America. Kapish ?
ReplyDeleteAnd of course HANGING a few miscreants like Benito Mussolini wouldn't hurt either.
ReplyDeleteIn N.Y.C census a few years back showed that thier is 38% Latino/Hispanic and 36% African American. I think the numbers that they give that it is 73% white is not accurate. I wonder were they are getting thier numbers from. That fact should be looked into. It is not shocking that the pannel failed to recomend any minoritys to for Chief Judge
ReplyDeleteYet in the courts in Manhattan I could not find one Supreme
court. You have to go to areas like the Bronx. Thier maybe 1 or 2 I could not find any. Thier are a few in Civil Court. Another question is are minoritys are not
supported by the pollitical parts if they want to run for Supreme Court in New York City.
Thier another issue Mr Sampson should look into.
I am not criticizing Mr Sampson
i think it was a good idea to hold the hearing and i think he should hold more hearings and make the whole thing transparent. No one should be put into that post until
we find out why no minoritys were recomended and who is the best person for the job Lippman should not be put into that position until everything comes out.
The court's judicial selection process must delve into the belly of the corruption first...where the cancers originally manifest...surfacing in the surroundings of the courthouse...the employees!
ReplyDeleteThe court users(public and lawyers) and judges who are elected are not hired by the corrupt, political hack staff of OCA, and are only the visual examples of the disease that faces the public.
The actual birth of the MRSA begins when the business starts at our afflicted courthouses and the employees are sent to do the bidding of the politicians in the courtrooms and offices!Instructions are always given to them by those that politicians have hired to beat then down!
If the judiciary committees...whether they hail from the feds or the state... want action and correction...they must do the following.
1) check all employees for the fear factor. See who and what they fear going to work for and doing the work of.. on a daily basis.
2)Check all judicial robes for frontal tears or rips... especially appearing with stains.
3) check all judicial chambers that are locked...with eyes slightly closed..for a judge and an employee...clothed, but bent over at the waist and interlocked.
4) check all judicial paper bags entering the building...and not for cash..but that would be a success only rarely found these days.
5)check as to why judicial desks are empty and absent of any paperwork in the AM...and by the way look at the judicial bench early in the AM, and batteries in the trash....also.
6)finally check the judicial chamber's cabinet drawers for the liquor and drug supply and all trash bins for all of the above!
7) collect DNA.
If this method is employed, the only other investigatory tools needed WOULD be a few eyewitnesses...not hard to find, if you have DNA. Fingerprints are taken of all government employees.
I assure you that in a day or two, these alleged fraudulent judicial investigating agencies and sickening hot air blowing officials, who are only looking for a process where they are guaranteed they will never undercover the real corruption, will have no choice but to admit and correct this well guarded secret...of JUDICIAL CRIMINAL CORRUPTION... to the worldwide public.
Start with the INTERNAL operation within the system..those that work and attempt to survive there...and you have your case for ethics and everything and anything else that has ruined in- and outsiders, by the politicallly created judiciary. It will certainly include documentation that will blow this wide open and tantilize your mind with appalling appeal. Just make sure the employees are protected and they will sing!
All of the Obama lovers should be jumping for joy. This morning he signed in to law a bill called the lilly ledbetter law. " Its an equal pay law" Its an equal pay law for everyone but white males who it does not apply to. Obama has only been in office for a little over a week and already he has done much damage. Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes.
ReplyDeletePlease...the men I worked with always made the most money and that has been the way for years and years.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it you want...something you already have?
How do you include a clause for the reason for the bill...white men ARE making the money that all of us have not been making Is this a cry for same o, same o no change ever...or are you afraid that we now can work with you and be compensated equally...and the coffee has to be made by both of us.
Obama is an intelligent and understanding man...you need to be more and appropriately tolerant to the new..non- Bush travesty of violations and inequality!
Jonathan Lippman is a political hack who does the fix when asked. That's why they put him in place and everyone is going to make money, that's what the system is about. The little putz belongs in jail.
ReplyDeleteWow, I was just told about this website. WOW. I'm writing to the Senators NOW !!!! thank you!
ReplyDeleteWow. Don't get yer hopes up.
ReplyDeleteWow...it took several decades to create this massive intertwined corruption within OCA, and it will take a bit of time and lots of informed people to nip it... FOR GOOD.
ReplyDeleteThis blog has put a dent in it beyond your comprehension..maybe you never worked for OCA and maybe you never have seen them RUN AND COVERUP... scared and cautious...but I have and it is remarkable.
I have seen some weak (surprisingly) and also important people come forward already. I say it won't be long, but that is because OCA recently got busted doing some very bad... boy and girl things!
Keep feeling the wow...the juice is about to get released.
You know, I like this guy Sampson. Where the hell has he been.... I have been waiting for a guy like this. He's not going to take Shelton Silver's crap any more. JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!
ReplyDeleteGive me an example of an OCA employee. Who are they? What do they do? And why do so many say they've been fukkt over?
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Office of Court Administration wiretapped a private home and used information obtained from those witretaps to create documents using cowardly and gutless employees, who did not sign or date their memeo's) but used their own names in the body of the document, and verified the conversations at an administrative hearing..perjury..expressing that they were the people that overheard the alleged non-existent court conversations. OCA then used their unsigend and un- dated documents and testimony to fire me, the wiretappped employee.... claiming that I used those words in a courthouse setting, against the political hack spervisors , in a public office jammed with waiting public (who did not exist or ever exist at 4:45 pm on a Friday afternoon) alleging the statements were actionable outbursts.... worthy of termination?
ReplyDeleteExcept for one flaw... the laws from the Dept of Labor..who sided with OCA against their own written laws, state that what OCA charged...are not dismissable charges.
What do you think....Jan Plumadore..Judge Sharon Townsend...Kim Delmont...Sharon Thomas and Andrew Eisenberg???
What laws were broken and what charges should be brought? Did you think I would not find out? You should have removed the remnants of the tap from the side of my home when you dismantled the tap, because you no longer heard any converstaions..only problem was, I had the tap..uh..destroyed July 2005!
Did you not know I have ethical friends who saw the travesty and conspiracy all of you were concocting for years...and they had the ability to pinpoint all of you...you know... esp. the lady hack... who hired the man to attach the tap to my home...hmmm?
So the tale goes on and this judge above, should be concerned and curious. Many know this story far from NYC....but just in case, I am attempting to re-create my superb reputation in the legal community of Buffalo and Buffalo City Court, by revealing the truth of SOME of what the 8th district did to me and continues to do so, by stating I just lost it and they had to fire me to get me help?????
I left or was fired because OCA in 2005, and mostly from a distance(NYC) or from unknowns by me in WNY..said I was..uh...maybe crazy and suddenly after 30 yrs, suffered disclipinary problems..lol. Yet amazingly, I continued to dress very well, stay very clean, keep a beautiful home, cook like a chef and get a 'state" paid renowned forensic psychiatrist to believe my story and not theirs, train new judges, work OT on the weekends in a court building alone, and maintain excellent evaluations and work standards right up until the day.... OCA removed me.
OCA found my ethics and integrity got in the way of their agenda of corruption... that would greatly benefit all the crooked judges and lawyers!
Oh also...Yes Judge Chicky...I am doing quite well...so thank you for asking and explaining to some, your take on my situation... if anyone should know crazy...it would be you.
Although, your concern should be with... your removed good friend, ex-judge.. A.P. Lorusso...I heard from the news, that he is in trouble again regarding discrimination with the handicapped at one of his many apartments, your obsession is still with my part in his removal.
OCA has messy, dirty closets and anything they attempt to do to prevent the cleaning lady from coming to work, will surely expose all those that choose to get involved.