First Department Justice Testifies at Trial as Witness
News In Brief, The New York Law Journal - Monday October 26, 2009Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli of the Appellate Division, First Department, made a cameo appearance Friday as a defense witness in the $10 million damages trial brought by Christine C. Anderson, who was fired as a First Department Disciplinary Committee lawyer. Justice Mazzarelli, a member of the liaison committee with the disciplinary body, described herself as "very concerned" about Ms. Anderson's claim that her supervisor had "whitewashed" the report of a probe prepared by Ms. Anderson. In her appearance Friday on the third day of the Southern District trial, Justice Mazzarelli also described herself as "a little confused" because both Ms. Anderson and the supervisor, Sherry K. Cohen, recommended the attorney under investigation be privately admonished. After reading the reports in the matter, Justice Mazzarelli testified that she had found Ms. Cohen's report "more readable, more comprehensive—a better work product" than Ms. Anderson's. She also said Ms. Anderson's proposal that a "Chinese wall" be erected between her and her supervisor reflected "a lack of professionalism." Ms. Anderson's lawyer, John Lovett of Lovett & Bellantoni asked only one question on cross examination. In all, Justice Mazzarelli's testimony took about 10 minutes. - Daniel Wise
Posts
35 comments:
If Naomi Goldstein is "the cleaner" of the DDC, then it was made perfectly clear that David Spokony is "the cleaner" of the appellate division courthouse at 27 Madison Avenue. Judge Mazzarelli was very right to be concerned about the allegations of DDC whitewashing, but she was played like a fiddle when she allowed the same people accused of participating in whitewashing to conduct any further inquiries. Spokony fed Mazzarelli what he and O'Hagan Wolf wanted her to see. Typical OCA move. Spokony is a pro at hiding scandals. (Not this time, Davie)
As established, the Anderson case is about retaliation. (Of course, it was retaliation for Anderson speaking up about corruption, but that's for another day) Lovett was brilliant to ask Mazzarelli only one question about whether anyone, including 1AD cleaner Spokony, ever addressed retaliation against Anderson. And Mazzaarelli was clear: "NO"
The jury has heard enough. Lovett was correct not to torture the jury with a laundry list of people- even if Scheindlin would allow it. The DEFENSE witnesses have supported the Anderson claims at issue: was Anderson retaliated against- YES. Did the assault happen- YES (In drunkard Sherry Cohen's own words she blocked the door and prevented Anderson from leaving her own office; she dug her nails into Anderson's hands. Cohen admitted that she assaulted Anderson; Cohen admitted that she was sorry for it; Cohen admitted that she was forced to go to management training because of it (How about AA, Sherry?!?) Cohen and Spokony also admitted that they then arranged for the "papering" of all of Anderson's activity. Why? So they could build a "paper trail" to get rid of her. And everyone agreed that it was O'Hagan Wolf's idea. The defense has sunk themselves.
Lovett is a very smart attorney by not letting the case become a he-said/she-said. Lovett has used the DDC's own witnesses and defendants to prove the case against them!
I read this blog everyday, and have been able to see two days of the trial. Keep up the good work, people. In the meantime, I would suggest that anyone with a gripe against the DDC to write to Judge Angela Mazzarelli. Tell her she was on to something, that the DDC is corrupt. But tell her to get the U.S. Attorney's office or the NYS AG to fully look into it. If she doesn't, then you know she's totally full of it.
Good observation! Have the two fools from Albany (Alan Friedberg and Marty Gold) been at Anderson's trial? What about Sampson's people?
I'm going to write Mazerlli today. And I have one question for her: Have you, your honor, watched the 3 NYS Senate videos about corruption about, mostly, the horrors at the DDC?
My observation of the Anderson trial..I thought Lovett & Bellatoni were GREAT!!!! They did the right thing in not torturing the jury..LESS IS MORE!!!!
The Jury saw right through those LIARS!!!!
Anderson will PREVAIL and I hope all of the crooks and con-artists get thrown in the clinker for good!!!
LOVETT & BELLATONI ARE MY HERO'S!!
LOVETT & BELLATONI ARE GENIUSES..WOW, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING..I WAS WATCHING THE JURY'S FACES WHEN THE LIARS WERE TESTIFYING..IT WAS VERY APPARENT THAT THEY WERE LYING!!!
I'M SURE THE VERDICT WILL BE GUILTY!!!
LET'S ALL PRAY FOR CHRISTINE ANDERSON.
Lovett and Bellantoni played the RIGHT game. You can see from the record that it was Spokoney who committed the specific ACT of retaliation and Lovett fried him in his cross examination, so much so that Scheindlin had to ask her clerk to get out the bed pans.
However, when it comes to Cahill, Cohen, and Mazzarelli, if you hit these accessories too hard (as in Spokoney) you might get the jury to feel sorry for them.
Lovett played the right game, he hit hard when he needed too. Recruit them for the Esposito State case!!!
Have concerns that the fix is in at the Anderson Corruption trial. Milt Williams made an appearance on Friday afternoon which is a problem.
Perhaps sometimes you cannot see a freight train until after it rolls over you but I felt the fear in all those she accuses, I tasted their destiny, I devoured their souls, now I will use that as a springboard for my actions. Christine and her family and her attorneys are already heroes for exposing the criminal elements, brave angels on the side of good. Now the question is where the criminal investigators are, who the criminal investigators will be and when will they have all the fingerprints necessary to take the legally disguised criminal enterprise down in total. I love fingerprinting, I am in no hurry until the last rotten apple is removed from the bunch but that is not Christine’s job or her attorneys. Scheindlin has undeniable liability if she tries to cover her own claims of Whistleblowing up, she knows the jury cannot resolve that matter, not this jury perhaps the criminal case jurors. The case for me is over, it was over the minute we had evidence of criminal activity that may have affected our cases. It is our job of the related cases now to bring our cases forward to ferret out those answers and maybe a few more parties to add as defendants for criminal prosecutors and to force prosecutors to act where they have failed, especially where they are now LEGALLY OBLIGATED by SCHEINDLIN and ANDERSON's actions, not ours. May Christine get 10 million for pain and suffering and 100 more for heroic efforts, all I know is it will come around as good karma does and as Cahill and Cohen will tell you so does evil.
Hey where is the NEW YORK TIMES OR POST OR DID INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING DIE IN NEW YORK TO BRAINWASH NONSENSE. NO HEADLINES ON CLEANER IN ETHICS DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK. Is Dan Wise missing the point here that CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CLAIMS OF A CLEANER ARE NOW MANDATORY AND JUDGE MAZZAROINI MAY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO COVER HER ASS BY JOINING THE GANG BANG OF ANDERSON AFTER SHE WHISTLEBLEW ON THEM. MAZORONNI FIRED ANDERSON TO PREVENT HER SCAM FROM EXPOSURE, THAT WAS OBVIOUS!!! FRIED MOZARONNOI ANYONE. As always, frying pans free @ iviewit.tv
More people to get rid of for failing to do their jobs
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine
Eliot Bernstein
Mad Inventor and Soul Collector
iviewit@iviewit.tv
For related cases with skin in game (active federal complaint) we won!!! Already!!! I wish Christine the best with the rest of her case and pray for a money settlement times three for her and her lovely and strong family. For her heroic efforts on all of our behalf, kudos, an example set for my children in a world where again, hero’s are hard to find. I remind everyone, we WON!!! How you ask? Christine’s case is a civil case at this moment and is for money damages and some fixing of the cause as part of the settlement. If Christine loses, jury probably fixed it or something else like that and quite personally, I do not really care other than for my already stated favor for Christine and her family. Christine’s efforts on my behalf have taken me to a completely new level and all of you who want criminal prosecution of these dirty rotten bstards too. That resolution will more likely be in United States v. State of New York relating to the CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AND WHISTLEBLOWER charges now factually alleged in a FEDERAL US COURT. The word WHISTLEBLOWER coming from a FEDERAL judge, not Eliot or Christine. The allegations coming against all those who fingerprinted themselves by coming to Christine’s civil party and submitting letters against her in her case to prevent being exposed, they call it the paper trail, I call it the fingerprinting trail, either way we now have a whole lot of it on record. Now the question we must ask is not of Christine’s civil lawyers doing criminal prosecutorial corruption work but more, now that the CAT IS OUT, where the proverbial FUCK is the US Attorney, DA and ADA and Sherry Cohen, Mazerrelli, Spamoni, et al. calling in Investigators to investigate the claims of FEDERAL JUDGE SHIRA SCHEINDLIN of WHISTLEBLOWER or Christine’s allegations of FELONY DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION AND WHITEWASHING, etc. Now they cannot deny they have not heard claims of such crimes in the department and all are obligated to report and investigate. This is not Christine’s job or her civil attorneys, so where are they, the investigators? Well the NYAG is on the guilty side having a hard time putting up any defense to the real meat let alone against Anderson and worried more about showing they fired her for good cause, still even if the jury gives them that, it will not relieve anyone’s duty to investigate the claims she has made that are CRIMINAL. HMMMM, wonder why Scheindlin sent related cases to US Attorney, Supreme Court, etc. to see who would act on her (SCHEINDLIN’s) call of WHISTLEBLOWER but none have, perhaps because according to Anderson they had cases fixed for themselves including US Attorney, DA, ADA, so how could they run to investigate themselves?
I watched a whole bunch of GUILTY, EVIL, NOW SOULLESS PEOPLE put on the stupidest charade ever in defense of themselves, the whole while exposing who is involved in the fingerprint trail, so many more souls to collect.
I think Christine’s attorney were already brilliant for me as they already gave me everything I need to appeal every level of the complaints I have, based on what has come out already, actually in day one or two. What the jury decides in NO WAY can affect that. Nothing can relieve SCHEINDLIN of her duty to act on the allegations SHE herself calls WHISTLEBLOWERS with criminal investigations, the investigators cannot deny that a FED JUDGE has called it that, unless of course they were guilty or call SCHEINDLIN A LIAR AND CONSPIRACY THEORIST. I am sure the chain goes up and down the courts, the court of appeals probably has some rot, etc. still needing to be addressed but the ankles bleed bad and so I taste jugular, my favorite. Let the fingerprinting continue, when it stops I will have reached my goal in at minimum naming the guilty destroying the courts, etc.
I attended the first and last days of the trial, and missed the two in between.
I was not impressed by the approach of Anderson's lawyers, and felt that CORRUPTION is the key, not whether Cohen yelled at Anderson or mere;y "raised her voice" which took up about ten precious minutes of questioning.
I wanted to jump up and yell 'BUT THEY'RE ALL FUCKING FELONS!!!! I'VE GOT THE PROOF IN MY BAG!!!! AND IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, I'VE GOT TEN FRIENDS WITH MOR PROOF!!!!
But Lovett went on to grill Cohen about how far she stood from the door when she was raising her voice at Anderson.
Just hope I missed something
Perhaps my missing the middle days skewed my opinion.
I only pray that on those days were more Lovitt was more effective than on the first and last days.
I would like to mention that I respect the opinion of the writers above, and hope they are right and that I am wrong.
As I said, I missed two crucial days out of four.
Perhaps my frustration clouded my assessment of the strategy.
w
Cohen and Cahil did not even look like they were totaly aware of what was going on. Cahill looks like he should have reired long ago. the 2 of them looked like retirement should have been about 20 years ago. Thier is no way that those 2 could have ran a department that size. Those 2 looked like they could not have run a sidewalk hot dog cart.
They were perfect for the job, do nothing but collect a paycheck.
The last woman that testified, I think she said the staff was something like 50 people. It is more like 140+/-. She was only of by about 2/3. Other # she gave were also wrong. I have heard that some are no and sometimes show up jobs. Maybe that is why her # were so far of.
Sampson`s people, the FBI and the AG should have all been thier to see if peoples Civil rights were being violated
good luck Christine
I have a question... Legal Theory..
If so many New York Judgments were obtained by a Fraud Upon the Court..
doesn't case law say... That Judgments obtained by a Fraud Upon the Court.. can and must be set aside, by any Court, anywhere...
If New York will not clean up its act...
Is it possible to go to "Cleaner" States with better Courts...
to set aside the dirty New York Judgments????
I am so ashamed of this State that I've called home for all of my life...
Send for the cleaner Goldstein, she does a great job at all times.
The attys for Ms. Anderson are not fighting a corruption trial but a federal workplace retaliaton trial....so the attys examining the deft's witnesses will only address that issue extensively.
When Anderson testifies, she can outline all the corruption she has knowledge of and has uncovered, which she believes has led to her termination....and that is why her attys aptly ask questions repeatedly about the hostile actions of her supervisor against her.
Remember this is not a corruption trial, as Eliot pointed out....but a trial where corruption can be revealed in the context of the civil rights violation.
The hope for a corruption action may come out of this proceeding.
To the above:
When Anderson testifies WHEN?
Yeah, WHEN - will any of us be alive?
Federal Court cases run quickly...they demand that...so I imagine she will testify very soon.
I am not from NYC so I cannot say how the case is going and who is next..but I do know her attys will have her testify to actions she has observed that have created her job loss...and that can include coverups, white washes and illegal acivities performed by the DDC with the knowledge of OCA, which she attempted to circumvent......which then brings these actions to the forefront .....exposing NY state judicial corruption.
This is why I am perplexed OCA went to trial, as they do not try cases because their house is a disasterous criminal mess...detrimental to eventual public exposure.
Watch for her part of the case to be the bombshell you desire.
To the writer that is surprised the OCA brought this to trial: I think in this case the OCA could not have offered a settlement to Ms.Anderson because there is no room to dance around the issue where the defendant (OCA)can not possibly expose itself because of the nature of that organization.
I also believe that the money is not the primary reason why Ms.Anderson brought this charge before the federal courts. If Ms.Anderson wins, the amount of her judgment will only serve as an indicator of the seriousness of the wrongdoing done to her.
This case is far from over if Ms.Anderson wins. The OCA will file appeals upon appeals until the matter is forgotten.
What surprises me about this case is the media seems not to be interested in writing about it. This is big news no matter which way the case goes.
My concern is this.
If there was no corruption, then Anderson was simply making stuff up to cause trouble and she deserved to be fired. It is perfectly proper to fire someone for being a troublemaker.
If there was corruption going on, and Cohen and Cahill knew about it (which I could have proved in ten minutes) then Anderson was not retaliated against for being a trouble maker but for being a whistleblower.
THAT is why the JUDGE said this is a CORRUPTION case, not an employment case.
The whole case rises and falls on whether Anderson was referring to real corruption or not, or more precisely, whether there was a reasonable chance that the corruption was real.
Did Lovett establish THAT beyond a reasonable doubt?
If Anderson loses it is because he did not.
From what I saw, he did not, but I missed two days.
If Lovett had asked me for my letters from Cohen and Cahill from 2004 to 2006 in which I accuse them of whitewashing and document same, there would have been no issue.
The jury could have decided whether sending an answer from the respondent to the complainant with 24 out of 27 pages redacted counts as corruption.
The jury could have decided whether Sherry Cohen's taking a case away for another staff reporter and changing the disposition on that case, is corruption or not.
The jury could have decided whether Tom Cahill's letter insisting that the respondent "does not practice in Manhattan", when he has practiced nowhere else for twenty years, and then refusing to answer a dozen letters questioning that determination counts as corruption.
It would have been definitively proven that Cohen and Cahill were actively whitewashing cases in exactly the way that Anderson described.
But Lovett never bothered to ask me for my documents.
Enlighten me someone.
Naomi Goldstein, and David Spokany were the "Dastardly Duo" regarding my case..Apparently, Goldstein had Spokony subpoena me and Judge Lippman witnessed the subpoena, regarding (Docket No: 2005.3074).Subsequently, I submitted a package of evidence to Judge Lippman, David Spokony and Naomi Goldstein requesting that they QUASH their subpoena. This Grievance Complaint is still open and pending against Attorney Allen H. Isaac, Esq.
If the opportunity arises the only question I would ask each of these clowns for defendants is simply, "Do you have any current ongoing disciplinary complaints or lawsuits against you, if so, who and what do they involve, where are they in status, what are the charges, how much money (liability) is involved." This should force in all the cases by their admissions of them, opening cans and cans of worms for state and federal criminal authorities to begin investigating. Making sure the state is properly accounting to the citizens for these liabilities created by the criminals running (ruining) the system.
From my letter to Sampson today:
On a more damning note, in Federal Court, under Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin whom herself called the Anderson case a Whistleblower suit, information alleging criminal activities by Thomas Cahill, Sherry Cohen, Naomi Goldstein and others has now been entered in sworn testimony of Anderson in the matters. Based on the allegations that Goldstein ILLEGALLY fixes complaints for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney through criminal Whitewashing, Document Destruction and more, which in turn cause Obstruction, make it now MANDATORY by Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law that the appropriate authorities begin immediate investigation into these matters. Investigations should include the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, the Inspector General or other such regulatory bodies for the New York Supreme Court, the New York Attorney General and the District Attorney or any other investigatory body you may convene or summon.
The NYAG is probably a bit conflicted at this point however due to the conflicts caused by his representing the Anderson state defendants, instead of investigating them based on Whistleblower (again as defined by Federal Judge Scheindlin) allegations, as his public office responsibilities dictate through the Public Integrity Unit. Yet, it may be a bad idea to summon the NYAG now to investigate their current clients. The NYAG’s prior failure to initiate investigations knowing of these Whistleblower claims may make it more applicable to begin formal investigations of the NYAG as part of the ever-growing cover up at the highest level of the New York Courts and Prosecutorial Offices.
NY Executive Law: § 63. General duties. The attorney-general shall:
1. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state…
The NYAG instead of advising their state defendant clients to get counsel due to the Conflict of Interest and Legal Obligations to Protect the Public instead has failed to do anything but put up a sham defense in Federal Court to protect the accused, failing his duties to the Public and failing,
Public Officers Rule 17 2(b)
(b) Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by the attorney general, provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to representation by private counsel of his choice in any civil judicial proceeding whenever the attorney general determines based upon his investigation and review of the facts and circumstances of the case that representation by the attorney general would be inappropriate, or whenever a court of competent jurisdiction, upon appropriate motion or by a special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice.
In fact, this conflict is further insipid in that it blocks due process and investigation by criminal investigators in the Anderson matters, as the NYAG has conflicted his offices from their public obligation to investigate. This block acts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE through CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES & REGULATIONS and LAW.
and concluding the Sampson letter,
Therefore, to Preclude further violations of law, I, Eliot I. Bernstein, make the following formal requests to your offices for action to stop this outrageous, unethical and illegal behavior by:
1. Compelling the NYAG to convene a Grand Jury to investigate the NYAG, the US Attorneys, the District and Assistant District Attorneys fingered by Anderson.
2. Compelling the DA and ADA offices to convene grand juries to investigate their offices.
3. Beginning a Senate Judiciary Committee Task Force IMMEDIATELY to begin investigation and review of all those courts and court personnel who are implicated in these matters, including but not limited to:
a. The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department
b. The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee
c. Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the DDC
d. Sherry K. Cohen, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC
e. Naomi Goldstein ~ “The Cleaner”, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC
f. David Spokony, Deputy Clerk First Department
g. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Former Clerk of the First Department and current Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals Southern District
h. Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli of the Appellate Division, First Department
4. Forcing the removal of all of my disciplinary complaints for IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION by NON-CONFLICTED INVESTIGATORS this time, especially where Anderson named my companies and my complaints filed with the DDC. Especially, where prior misconduct by DDC Officers led to Unanimous Consent by Five First Department Justices for INVESTIGATION of CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS & THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY several years ago, revolving around these same matters, which were further BURIED and COVERED UP by CONFLICTED members of the SECOND DEPARTMENT DDC and the SECOND DEPARTMENT.
5. Beginning similar investigations into the Second Department for their illegal obstructive behavior in defiance of the First Department Court Orders.
6. Immediately, suspending all First Department Officers from handling any complaints against themselves or related cases to Christine C. Anderson’s, so legally related by Judge Scheindlin.
7. Immediately oversighting the US Federal Court of Scheindlin to force compliance with Judicial Cannons and Law that compel her to notify the proper authorities of the severity of the Anderson claims and need for immediate investigation by all applicable oversight authorities.
Please formally and in writing respond to this letter with exact language as to what your offices can do to intercede in these matters.
Again federal court likes their proceedings short and sweet and to follow the charges outlined in the summary judgment.
If her counsel is a well acknowledged discrimination atty...then you should know he is following the rules of federal court and you don't want to upset this court with items and issues that would be significant for a charge that was not approved by the court in the summary judgment.
OCA could not settle this case without admitting complicity in many things criminal and civil, and it appears it had no intention of doing so...esp since the pltf and the parties she is accusing are all attys...so power disparity becomes an issue with only supervisory insubordination as equals, and as OCA sees it....her insubordination created her termination and not the power of an atty supervisor over a lower level insubordinate employee....a charge harder to overcome in retaliation....for a deft. The less power an employee has in this type of case the better chances of success.
OCA still loses in the fact that they are being exposed to the public at trial, as criminal, whitewashing and in violation of several civil rights statutes....posing as an entity that protects citizens against this behavior but now revealing that they are the biggest offenders.
OCA would have been wise to settle and correct, rather than expose and embarrass...as the media must make public any settlement/verdict that is reached in this case...as settlements or verdicts are publically funded and must be reported to the taxpayers.
why did Christine get fired and the real criminals continue to be gainfully employed at the DDC and AD1? EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE!!!!
They should have a sexual offender registry just for the DDC---the swine will be arrested.
Sheri Cohen should not be blamed for her actions- it was the alcohol which made her do it.
The rest of the group from Lippman down to the CCF and DDC have been allowed to free range our legal system unchecked.
We are all to blame for that- because most of us did nothing and now look at what's happened.
Christine Anderson- you are a very brave lady and there are many behind you!
The Silver/Lippman/Neri/Nicolai/Scarpino/Spano/DiFiore CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE featured at www.exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com now until Election Day...the proverbial onion continues to peel.
Thursday is "D Day" - Deliverance Day from corruption in the Anderson Trial.
By now, most if not all of you have heard that the jury came back with a not guilty verdict for the State defendants, and in doing so all this jury said was there was no retaliation; they didn't say that the DDC isn't corrupt.
Let's see how Dan Wise chooses to spin it in the morning, which might be telling.
In the meantime, keep your eye on the ball.
To Quietly Smiling:
I suspect you are quietly smiling because you are brain damaged.
There was no GENIUS here. Only stupidity, carelessness and complicity.
Christine was set up. We know that Brewington was a plant, Berenbaum was either stupid or complicit, and Lovett and Bellantoni totally dropped the ball.
The question is: who advised Anderson to get these lawyers? They have some explaining to do.
The crux of Anderson's case was our corroboration, but NOBODY ever asked me what damning evidence I posess re corruption at the DDC up to Lippman.
The DDC is partying tonight, my friends. Champagne for everyone, Cahill, Spokony, Cohen, Friedberg, Reardon. They are laughing at us.
We need a Federal criminal corruption case, we need to cooperate more, and we need to get off our lazy asses.
Did the jury come back with a complete no cause for action in the retaliation trial for Anderson.... or just with cause for violation of the 1st amendment?
This is not an actual vindication for DDC...it just states that the jury believed that the DDC did not terminate because of her whistleblowing...meaning that she had not proven that their actions caused her loss of employment, without addressing that the DDC is corrupt, but not in NYC and not privy to the trial testimony so it is hard to assess!
Corruption at the DDC appears must be brought to trial supported by federal agents in reponse to an investigation of their.. DDC.. corruption. Employment cases are a difficult route to expose this crime. Lawyers also came at the end and after the depositions and discovery opportunities.
Hard to win against OCA..DDC unless you supply evidence that is more dramatic and more vicious than what they these 2 groups can muster, as most people in a jury want to believe that their justice system is following the law and acting to protect them....but that concept is eroding with sites like this.
You cannot follow just the law in trying cases against the court system in a federal law suit(because they don't)...you have to supply strong and multiple examples of evidence of their criminal behavior that you, the pltf, personally have in this type of case and I am not certain that Anderson had that type of heavy proof to supply. Lots of dirt paves that road to success.
Many counsel practicing in federal court are too intimidated to attack the court and related agencies properly, even with the evidence to bring them to their knees...for reasons that it may offend the federal robes also, and thus tamper with their own careers...which they are not willing to do in any contigency case.
Best to continue to press the feds to investigate as this success for the DDC is only the beginnng of the fight that will weaken their defenses!
To Quietly Smiling
I apologize for my mean comment. It was inappropriate.
I was quite upset about the outcome, and felt frustrated that my colleagues and I were not called to testify.
I just hope that we can all find more effective representation in the future.
wg
Post a Comment