MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

New Trial Sought in NY State Corruption Case, AG Blasted for Massive Conflicts

New Federal Trial Requested in NY State Corruption Case, AG Blasted for Massive Conflicts

Christine C. Anderson yesterday filed a Motion for a New Trial in Manhattan's federal district court. The case is again before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin after an October 29, 2009 jury found against Anderson. The motion for a new trial includes startling revelations including the fact that the District Court failed to take appropriate action after learing that there had been threats made against at least one witness in the federal proceeding. The largest problem for those involved appears to be the little tested issue of the usually-accepted widespread conflicts of interest inside the New York State Attorney General’s office.

Highlights from the motion for a new trial include:

  • Apparent abuse of discretion by the District Court Judge.
  • A new trial to “avoid a miscarriage of justice.”
  • Correction: “the district court possesses the power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.”
  • “Irregularity of Proceedings: The State of New York Attorney General's Representation of Defendants Unduly Prejudiced Plaintiff and Denied Her Due Process Rights.
  • Anderson was confronted with an unquestionably unfair set of circumstances as the defendants were defended by the New York State Attorney General; and while the plaintiff charged the defendants with serious violations of law, the Attorney General stood before the jury defending these very same actions as proper and within the law. This arrangement seriously prejudiced plaintiff Anderson, as jurors could and most likely did conclude that the State of New York supported fully the conduct of the defendants.
  • Not only did the Attorney General’s representation of the defendants unduly prejudice the Anderson, it also raised serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the defendants themselves. To protect their own rights, each of the defendants should have had their own attorneys in order to permit them to cross claim or make admissions.
  • VIOLATIONS OF ETHICS RULES: Under New York State and federal conflict of interest rules, each of the defendants must be free to undertake these independent actions. To do so, they must have their own counsel. (See NYS Code of Professional Conduct Cannon 5 Conflict of Interest Rules.) The Attorney General as a state attorney is bound by these rules as well. New York State law requires that the attorney who violates these safeguards to be immediately removed from the case.
  • CONFLICT - As a result of these conflict of interest issues, the Attorney General cannot properly represent the defendants, either as a group or individually. Each defendant must have the right to cross-claim against the others, and to bring a counterclaim against the State. These actions most certainly could not be undertaken in a case where the Attorney General represents all the named defendants. Without question, the Attorney General violated its ethical rules and the public trust in undertaking to represent all of the defendants.
  • The involvement of the New York Attorney General in refuting plaintiff's allegations, which involved serious violations of federal and state law and ethical standards, and in presenting the case of each defendants, denied plaintiff's due process and equal protection guarantees, and right to a fair and impartial trial.
  • WHY DIDN”T THE NYS ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATE?? - The conflict here is particularly acute given the nature of the claims brought by plaintiff Anderson. Plaintiff’s charges warranted an independent investigation by the New York State Attorney General Office to review the basic claims given that Anderson was formerly a Departmental Disciplinary Committee staff attorney with considerable experience. The fact is that these are not allegations from a lay person.
  • While at the DDC, Plaintiff Anderson was charged with investigating cases involving possible criminal and civil misconduct. She carried out her duties as a duly authorized officer of the Court. The New York State Attorney General Office was therefore obligated to protect her and to investigate her claims of serious misconduct against the named parties. For no reason, the New York State Attorney General Office failed to do so.
  • The Attorney General is a publicly funded arm of the State. It was conflicted from the outset of this case because it could not possibly defend any of the defendants, while simultaneously investigating plaintiff ’s claims of serious ongoing misconduct by the defendants. Indeed, no explanation has ever been provided as to why the Attorney General did not represent plaintiff Anderson against any of the original defendants. This was itself a misappropriation of public funds by a state investigatory agency with prosecution powers.
  • Federal law mandates that a special prosecutor be substituted into the case, and this was not done. The actions of the Attorney General here confused, misled and confounded the jury, by creating a false impression that the acts were officially sanctioned by the state.
  • Christine Anderson’s allegations have substantial impact on the public, the bench and bar, and cannot be ignored by the New York State Attorney General Office just because they were motivated to defend this lawsuit. This serious conflict demanded independent counsel for the defendants as a matter fairness and high ethical conduct to all involved, particularly to Christine Anderson.
  • Having denied independent counsel to the defendants, the Attorney General prejudiced plaintiff by making it appear to the jury that the State of New York and the New York State Attorney General Office supported defendants’ conduct. This was a burden Christine Anderson could never overcome and, at a minimum, warrants a new trial.
  • The Court was concerned about the aforestated conflict of interest and in one of its last instructions to the jury, the Court warned the jury not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their joint representation by the New York State Attorney General Office. That instruction was injurious to the plaintiff, Christine Anderson, in that it prejudiced the jury against her and in and of itself warrants a new trial.
  • It was one of the last instructions to the jury and was thus ingrained in the minds of the jury as a lasting impression. Furthermore, as one of the last instructions to the jury, it elevated its importance over and above all prior instructions as something that had to be considered in deference to all else.
  • There was no countervailing instruction to the jury not to draw a negative inference of the joint representation by the New York State Attorney General Office adverse to the plaintiff. This failure prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff by implying at a minimum, that the state supported all of the defendants’ conduct and found that it was within the bounds of the law.
  • By the Court issuing the jury instruction not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their joint representation by the New York State Attorney General Office, the court preserved the argument to be raised in this motion and/or appeal.
  • Allowing all of the defendants to be represented jointly by the same counsel and by the New York State Attorney General Office created an impermissible conflict of interest. Indeed, the conflict was so strong, that had the jury ruled against any one or all of the defendants, they would have been entitled to seek a new trial for impermissible conflict of interest, as they would be entitled to their own independent counsel.
  • The court is thus faced with the fact any unsuccessful litigant in this case could be expected to move for and would be entitled to a new trial because of the impermissible conflict of interest, as all of the defendants are required to have their own independent counsel, and to not be represented by the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
  • The American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility elaborates on the duty of a public prosecutor such as the New York Attorney General to seek justice as follows: "This special duty exists because: (1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; (2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all ...."
  • A prosecutor's duty of neutrality is born of two fundamental aspects of his employment. First, the prosecutor, in this case the Attorney General, is a representative of the sovereign, and consequently must act with the impartiality required of those who govern. Second, the Attorney General can at all times call upon the vast power of the government, and therefore must refrain from abusing that power by failing to act evenhandedly.
  • These key duties are not limited to criminal prosecutions, but must also be observed in civil cases as well. These safeguards are included in the ABA Code. "A government lawyer in a civil action or administrative proceeding has the responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record, and he should not use his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust settlements or results."
  • In the present case, the Attorney General was under the ethical duty to withdraw in order to preserve plaintiff's right to a fair and impartial trial. In a case such as this, not only is the Attorney General's neutrality essential to a fair outcome for the plaintiff, it is critical to the proper function of the judicial process as a whole. Our system of justice relies for its validity on the confidence of society. Without a continuing belief by the people that the system is just and impartial, the concept of the rule of law cannot survive.
  • The New York State Attorney General is a public official elected by statewide ballot . The American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility addresses the special considerations applicable to a lawyer who is also a public official as follows: "A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part-time, should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties." The government's investigative and prosecutorial interests must be balanced against the public interest in insuring that the individuals and organizations receive effective representation, and are accorded their full constitutional rights and protections.
  • There are at least two reasons why a court should satisfy itself that no conflict exists or at least provide notice to the affected party if one does. First, a court is under a continuing obligation to supervise the members of its Bar.(district court obligated to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in proceedings before it). Second, trial courts have a duty "to exercise that degree of control required by the facts and circumstances of each case to assure the litigants of a fair trial."
  • Occupying a position of public trust, the Attorney General, as any public prosecutor is 'possessed ... of important governmental powers that are pledged to the accomplishment of one objective only, that of impartial justice.' The duty of a government attorney has been characterized as 'a sober inquiry into values, designed to strike a just balance between the economic interests of the public and those of the landowner,' is of high order."
  • Central to the issue of preventing prejudicial influence of government attorneys on court proceedings, it is common for states to adopt statutes or regulations that prohibit those holding the office of Attorney General, as well as their deputies and staff attorneys, from participating as attorneys in private litigation matters. The reason for adopting these restrictions is most obvious. For the Attorney General or any member of the staff to participate in a civil trial involving a private litigant will create the prejudicial inference that the state has reviewed and approved the position advocated by the government attorney. Such an inference can and likely will influence the outcome of the matter to the detriment of the opposing party. It is for the stated reasons that no Attorney General or staff member should be permitted to represent a private litigant in any adversarial proceeding. Only such an outright prohibition will properly preserve the standards of fairness and impartiality guaranteed to all litigants under federal and state constitutions. The present lack of statutory and/or ethical policy guidelines barring the participation of state law officers from representing private litigants in civil proceedings which must be addressed by courts and policy makers.
  • Irregularity of Proceedings: Confusing, Misleading and Prejudicial Instructions to the Jury.
  • The Court issued detailed Verdict Sheets to the jury addressing the plaintiff's allegation of retaliation and the related issues of deprivation of a federal right and plaintiff's acts of speech. During the jury's deliberation, the foreman submitted a question to the court for review. The question (SEE EXHIBITS) sought the Court's guidance with respect to instruction number 1b which was described as “ambiguous.” The Court provided an answer (SEE EXHIBITS) to the question which addressed the fact that the plaintiff had made certain statements rather than the way in which the “DDC responded (investigated) properly to the statements [plaintiff] made.”
  • In answering the jury, the court addressed only the initial question, which dealt with the critical issue of the lawsuit, i.e., whitewashing. This key issue was specifically removed from consideration by the jury, when the Court circled the question as to whether the plaintiff had made statements to her superiors and not whether those statements averred that the DDC was not diligently prosecuting allegations of misconduct by respondent attorneys.

 Having circled that question for consideration, the succeeding questions were dealing only with plaintiff's statements [not defined] and NOT with issue of whitewashing. Thus, the succeeding questions were asked in a vacuum and expected to be answered in a vacuum.

 Also, by structuring the questions as the court did, the jury never reached other issues of retaliation or damages, even after it found in plaintiff’s favor in Question 1. The jury was confused by the unclear, very puzzling and convoluted nature of the instructions.
  • This confusion on the part of the jury resulted in a verdict which is in a word repugnant.
  • By eliminating whitewashing from Question 1, the court effectively excised the key gravamen of the complaint , i.e., retaliatory discharge, as a result of plaintiff's complaints of whitewashing and corruption. This constitutes judicial error of the highest order.
  • Juries only get to see and use the instructions for a short time, thus it is crucial that they be clear and understandable to the laymen and laywomen. The court and counsel have the luxury of days to craft and understand the instructions as professionals. The instructions presented in this case are unclear, quite confusing and simply impossible to apply to the facts adduced at trial.
  • There is also no record that the role of the Attorney General as defense counsel was properly and adequately explained to the jury. This also constitutes another reversible error by the Court which could have been rectified.
  • Newly Discovered Evidence
  • The court gave the jury above-referenced instructions and its members adjourned to the jury room to deliberate at approximately 1:25 pm on Thursday, October 29. After the jury left the courtroom, Judge Scheindlin first announced that she had denied the defendants’ pending motion for a directed verdict. She next stated words to the effect that she found that , "....Cahill was aware of the whitewashing allegations..." The judge read this statement related to defendant Cahill’s conduct into the record as part of her order denying defendant's directed verdict. This fact alone requires a new trial.
  • In addition, Courts have an obligation to report and order investigation into official and at times criminal misconduct. This is a duty of the Court. There is no record to date as to any action having been undertaken by the Court regarding this central question. The Court’s finding of culpability on the part of Defendant Cahill constitutes newly discovered evidence, which directly supports the fundamental allegations of Plaintiff.
  • Clearly the newly discovered fact that defendant Cahill, as the head of the DDC and supervisor of the other named defendants, had full knowledge of whitewashing activities would in all likelihood have changed the outcome of the case. This central fact establishing the liability of all named defendants could not have been discovered earlier and is not merely cumulative or impeaching.
  • The new evidence establishes that in the view of the Court, Defendant Cahill, the head officer of the DDC and the supervisor of Cohen, had full knowledge of the practice of whitewashing as alleged by Plaintiff, leading to the parallel conclusion that whitewashing was accepted as a common practice by the defendants, and presumably other staff members of the DDC. Had such facts been confirmed during the trial stage, the jury would have come to know and understand the illegal activities that were accepted as everyday practice by the DDC staff, a finding totally consistent with a main element of Plaintiff’s case.
  • The Court’s statement after the close of trial accepting the establishing the whitewashing activities by Defendant Cahill must be found to constitute grounds for granting the instant motion.
  • Witness Tampering – Threat on Witness in a Federal Proceeding
  • Based on information submitted in the proceeding, the court is aware that one of Plaintiff’s witnesses, DDC staff attorney Nicole Corrado, was confronted by her DDC supervisor on the street just prior to her deposition in this proceeding.
  • As the court was also aware, plaintiff’s former counsel, John Beranbaum, advised the court of this incident in a letter to the court dated October 24, 2008. (SEE EXHIBITS) In the Beranbaum submission, it was made clear to the court that Ms. Corrado was given a ‘“warning’ about the testimony she was to gave at the deposition[,]” and further advised that “Ms. Corrado is very upset about the entire experience.”
  • Mr. Beranbaum again raised the issue on the record four days later on October 30, 2008. (SEE EXHIBITS– Transcript of October 30, 2009 hearing, Page 26 (lines 17-25), and page 27 (lines 1-8)). The court, in responding to the letter advising of the threat on plaintiff’s witness, commented, “You [Mr. Beranbaum] seem to want to tell me something or report it to me. Okay. You reported it to me.”
  • It is plaintiff’s belief that the court had an obligation to report the matter to federal agents and, further, to interview Ms. Corrado concerning the incident. Plaintiff believes she has been severely prejudiced by the threat upon witness Corrado, and, as the court is aware, Ms. Corrado did not appear at a witness in this proceeding.
  • While plaintiff is aware that counsel within the Office of the New York Attorney General’s office offered to “fully” compensate Mr. Beranbaum for ALL of his legal fees, expenses, etc., if plaintiff settled her case, I am unaware of the exact timing of when the compensation offer, believed to be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00, was actually made.
  • Conclusion
  • For the reasons set forth in detail herein, Movant respectfully requests that this Court in the interest of justice grant a new trial. As noted, the participation of the Attorney General in failing to investigate the charges submitted by plaintiff against the defendants, and subsequently representing these same persons in the instant court proceedings, denied plaintiff’s constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial. This denial of basic rights was compounded by unclear, confusing and convoluted instructions to the jury, discovery of new evidence and serious allegations of intimidation of witnesses, which all support the instant motion for a new trial. For all of the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff is entitled and warrants being accorded a new trial. Furthermore, Movant is Ready willing and able to go to trial immediately and no delay, harm, or prejudice will occur to the other parties as a result of Movant's motion. Inasmuch as the Attorney General should even be denied the opportunity to answer, and as justice demands, the court should sua sponte, grant the herein sought relief.

Christine C. Anderson

56 comments:

Manhattan attorney said...

I've been practicing in New York for over 30 years and believe the issues now raised by Anderson should result, finally, in the clean up of this state's attorney general's office. No longer should the AG's office act like a band of "guns for hire," beholden only to the political pressures of the day. The rule of law really does mater to a lot of people. Yes, even lawyers.

Spitzer brought the AG's office to the depths of hell. Does Andy know exactly what his underlings have been up to? Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

The DDC did not even hide it.
I knew what they were up to as sone as i started dealing with them. Cumo will do nothing if he wants to run for Gov.
It is sad Anderson only brought the facts out into daylight.
I think someone should look into that judge and how she is always getting theses type of cases, is it because she is seekin pollitical favors in the future?

Wish Amderson the best of luck

Anonymous said...

Anderson got her papers in just in the nick of time. My friend in the AG's office said they were counting the days. I just checked. Anderson had 10 days to file a motion for a new trial. And since the order was signed on October 30th, you start counting only the business days (Monday-Friday). But since last wednesday was a federal holiday, Anderson got until Monday, November 16th- yesterday. I read her motion. It's pretty good!

oca empl said...

I hope Judge Scheindlin does the right thing here with the Anderson papers. Things have changed. No longer can judges, even federal judges, ignore the law. The public is just sick and tired, and they just won't sit back and take it anymore.

Anonymous said...

thanks for text notice frank brady! looks like comprehensive motions and start to truly cleaning up ny justice!!

nocanreadthemotion said...

why does the link never work for me?

Anonymous said...

I also had trouble earlier seeing the motion. But I just got on to it. WOW, it's great. OK, Scheindlin, do something....

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious that a group of NY judges need to be arrested. What is less obvious is that some federal judges need to be arrested too!

Anonymous said...

My prayers have been answered, I knew she was ST Christine.....
great job at using the system to get to the system........

hey AG in Buffalo, why didn't you call in the Hippa Violaters last February, why are you allowing people to be threatened......
who are you protecting, a bunch of prositutes with political ties..............I told you I have been threatened since 2001 and they made the threats come true..........

ST Christine! knock em dead!

Anonymous said...

Cuomo better do something, because the wars will begin.........

Anonymous said...

I am so excited I will not be able to sleep!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I am so excited I will not be able to sleep!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

some Senators need to be arrested...........
53 years to be exact!

Anonymous said...

that is years in prison!

Anonymous said...

On December 11th, a former NYS Attorney General will appear in an upstate court to explain what is actions were about in a case that he initiated against a defendant where he apparently had no jurisdiction to do so.

I think we all know where this former AG wound up and where he is now. The problem is that the current AG, Andy Cuomo will have to defend that former AG. In doing so, I believe he could expose his own wrongdoing, assuming he has done wrong in the many cases he has plastered over the media - as his predecessor did.

T Finnan said...

I haven't yet received an answer to my letter below. I wonder what's the delay. "DO YOUR DUTY"
October 30, 2009
To: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: “We, the people, expect the Hon. Judge Scheindlin will do her duty under Canon 3D(5).” Anderson Trial, Protecting the People

Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin;
Possibly due from failure to plea, the jury’s charge did not include the 1st amendment right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Neither were punitive damages mentioned, although “The majority of courts of appeal agree punitive damages may be appropriate even where only nominal damages are rewarded.” King v. Macri, 993 F2nd 294, 297, 298 (2nd Cir. 1993) (citing cases).
The crimes exposed at trial were not addressed in this civil action. These crimes are my grievances and the grievances of the class of people whose complaints were “cleansed,” and those of the class “The People of NY.”
We were harmed when the 1st Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee violated Federal Criminal Law § 241 Conspiracy against rights and when the NY Attorney General failed his duty under NY Executive Law § 63 “...to protect the interest of the state...” The State’s interest naturally conflicts with the interest of corrupt lawyers and corrupt government lawyers.
This petition to you, Hon. Scheindlin, mirrors Lord Nelson’s semaphore signal to his ships, "England expects that every man will do his duty.”
“We, the people, expect the Hon. Judge Scheindlin will do her duty under Canon 3D(5).” Act against attorneys, including the NY Attorney General’s Office for violating DR 1-102 A (1), (3), (4) and (5) of the NY Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility and NY penal laws: § 195.00, § 195.05, § 175.20, §175.25,and NY Executive Law § 63

Sincerely yours,

Anonymous said...

T Finan, I have been trying to reach you
How did they know you were in the hospital?
Did you use a Volunteer Ambulance Service and are you from a small town?
where the uneducated and ignorant live.......is this from your town?

Anonymous said...

hey Volunteer guys, your number is up!!!!!!!!!!

OfficerofaHigherCourt said...

now i'm curious...

what was reported to the Judge in 2008, ... that she didn't feel necessary to report somewhere?

Anonymous said...

what was reported to the judge?
hmmm....
I was subjected to a witch hunt in 2001-02, then again in 2008 and told the last person they did that to committed suicide, trust me, I was close and sometimes still am.....
what was reported to the judge, obviously false information and a lot of it to violate my rights again.........
did they think they could falsely and selectively prosecute me,again......
hey judge, get that Senators prostitutes, do you need names!
these are Hate Crimes by low life's using lawyers judges for their personal vendettas that make no sense....because they are mentally ill................
get them the help they need before they harm others!

Anonymous said...

or before wars start, that is easy enough to do Andrew!

Anonymous said...

Oh wow...great Motion to the Court..I hope Judge Scheindlin does the right thing for Anderson..I will be praying for you Christine..God Bless

T Finnan said...

To 7:38 Dear Homo Stupidus Feminnazi, A different action, Finnan v Finnan, Breckenridge et al. was scheduled on that date. The action which Judge Kevin K. Ryan moved up was scheduled for April 24 and not April 10. Where I live there are many intelligent people and probably many morons like you. I know as a fact that you are uneducated and ignorant by your slur you placed on the Plattsburgh Medical Emergency Responders. I was in the Hospital with irregular heart rhythms and chest pain and Judge Kevin K. Ryan said I was seen leaving the parking lot in an ambulance, before I ever entered the Courthouse (Although, I doubt that the swine Judge ever saw me go into the ambulance).

Anonymous said...

Ms Anderson, you are our hero, and you are even bigger hero after this last trial.
Don't worry Ms Anderson the new trial is going to show clearly the reason why they wanted you to get fired, even after Shery Cohen took the class for anger management

it all was part of their plan, how they continued to harrsing you, hoping you will resign, and at this same time they were planing to fired you and to make Kosher

Anonymous said...

I am not a lawyer.
I am not a fan of class action lawsuits because the mojority of the recovery goes to the lawyers.
In states like California they sue lawyers like you sue a doctor.
They get a % of the recovery.
In N.Y they stick together so tightly they will not sue each other.
But on the other hand a class action lawsuit even brought by an out of state lawyer would force them to give details about how the DDC runs. Then if the DDC lost, the state would have to pay out.
N.Y.State would throw them under the bus rather than repeatedly paying out clams against members of the DDC

Anonymous said...

I just read the Motion for a new trial. I am stunned after seeing the lawyer's letter to Scheindlin and the transcript. Scheindlin should be removed from the bench. Does anyone know how to file a complaint against a federal judge?

Anonymous said...

T Finan, you have that comment wrong, I live in a small town where the uneducated and ignorant live, they try to look up information on people and they use their medical records, hence they got the wrong person when they were spewing their sickness, they also use Volunteer Ambulance records to get information on you,
they call around to all these non credible sources to say sick things about you, some are "friends" of my Senator!
so they are being protected!
Did you take the Volunteer Ambulance Service, how did they know you were in the hospital, are you from a small town?

Anonymous said...

see The Plattsburgh Emergency Medical Responders, our volunteers report their sickness to my Senator and friends, they do not know what mental illness is, they like that stuff............
that is how sick things get to judges and judges believe them!

Anonymous said...

is Judge Ryan part of Volunteer Service or his friends, family?

Eliot Ivan Bernstein said...

The NYAG, pathetic, causes OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE through CONFLICT OF INTEREST. OBSTRUCTION IS A CRIME. NYAG SHOULD BE CHARGED, HAS ANYONE FILED A BAR COMPLAINT AND COMPLAINTS WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL?
This NYAG situation should be instantly petitioned by all related cases where the NYAG is representing state defendants publically and privately or where for example he is representing everyone including his own offices in my Amended Complaint response.
How's Tommy Cahill, Sherry Cohen, Spicoli (dude that was my shoe) and the NYAG (Criminal cloaked as Public Official) are feeling today. I shall begin tying The Scaffold Knot or Gallows Knot (no we are not going fishing). As always Nooses free @ www.iviewit.tv

Eliot I. Bernstein
Mad Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
---
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
( ) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

eliot said...

just finished reading anderson's motion and anderson, kevin mckeown aka ?, scheindlin, lovett and bellantoni are still all my heroes and heroes are still hard to find.

Anonymous said...

hey AG why didn't you call the HIPPA Violaters in last February, why tell me to get another lawyer, so the next lawyer can cover it up like they did years ago, oh yeah, and ask me for money to violate my rights.............

Anonymous said...

hey AG who set up that judge and jury with false information?

Anonymous said...

hey Napolean, bite me!

Anonymous said...

I have a FEDERAL employmen lawsuit in upstate WNY.
This case is my second against OCA and has been stalling through federal court since 2005.
The first case was settled by oca IN 1997 after a 4 yr battle.... relative to civil rights and title vii.

That case was handled by the AG's office and OCA'S counsel office...yes.... OCA uses their own counsel's office...paid by taxpayers in conjunction with the taxpaid AG'S office to pounce, trounce and destroy a single employee revealing the truth about OCA'S massive and continuous.... bias and discrimination operation, lingering behind the scenes and utilized against their female and minority non-political employees!

After 1997, I still had to seek continued assistance to quell the constant hostility and RETALIATION against me for the next 7 yrs(mostly by female supervisors and employees who often asked...why didn't the judge want me...fact)....dealing with downstate's OCA's Alice Chapman's political and biased anti-discrimination panel, th 8th district's administraive judges, and 3 female supreme court judges who headed her panel in WNY, the executive director for all the administrative judges who admitted my complaints were valid..but sided with OCA in covering them up to avoid renewed publicity, as the 1990's were a publicity nightmare for OCA, with the judge removal case....and permitting OCA to continue against me, as a vendetta for having sexual harassment added to the charges of judicial removal by the CJC...when of course they desire to oust another political pirah!

MY second federal filing came about because my fight to work in peace within the NY courts was negated and attacked....and I was told by the colluding CSEA to file my complaint with the OCA'S OIG..since CSEA failed at addressing it. Because of this advice....I was fired during the middle of the investigation by the seriously corrupt OIG OCA!

After I submitted names and charges of violations of the involved employees, against my will but mandatory for an OIG investigation, OCA turned my requested investigation against me using false charges and allegations of defamation, slander and libel!

My second case is of course being handled by the AG'S office and again.....the very same atty from OCA'S counsel's office who settled my 1997 original discrimination case! OCA counsel's office settles the discrimintion case, but when I state the discrimination continues ... the very same OCA atty is now employed to conduct an all out war against me and that truth.... to prevent exposure to the public! This atty makes all the decisions for the AG and operates fully from his downstate office..... only appearing upstate once, in over 15 meetings or depositions! Why is the AG NOT investigating my proof driven allegations of discrimination and criminal activity relative to same.....since I made them first, foremost and forever!

WHY does OCA.... the court system with all the free taxpayer legal minds, a 2 1/2 billion dollar budget, and influence that goes beyond politicians,Washington DC, and the FBI .....get free and extensive legal counsel from multiple sources...and the poor single employee that they bankrupted...has no counsel to date.... to bring forth the ugly truth of judicial discrimination and criminal conduct...that OCA, NY state, the media and this entire country...is afraid to have revealed!!!

Ms. Anderson...ask federal court why OCA does not represent themselves with their own in house citizen paid counsel...that is workng fully on my case in the Western District....silently in the background and controlling the AG'S every move? How many lawyers throughout this state.... must be hired to fight to keep the truth from the public?

No need for the AG in any of these cases, since OCA has attys to fight for them right in their own offices...as the AG should be representing myself and all 3 of my fired and OCA threatened witnesses, who cannot find counsel courageous enough to go against the world renowned AMERICAN court system!

Anonymous said...

she is right, they get free legal and ask those whose rights have been violated to pay, then they use one delay and lie after the next, they will even make sure your medical care is denied and it will cost you!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

she is right, they get free legal and ask those whose rights have been violated to pay, then they use one delay and lie after the next, they will even make sure your medical care is denied and it will cost you!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

hey, Napolean & friends, did you think your peeps and lieu tenants would not get out, we have been on your butts for 10 years
this is diabolicial, using the law to harm others

for those who do not know what lieu is, it is the English word for toilet!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

hey FBI guys, I had you checked out years ago, time to come clean!
tell the truth, this is diabolical!

Anonymous said...

This case is dirty right from the start and it hasn't gotten any better. It's a big cover up.

Anonymous said...

hey AG guys, did the Atty Grievance contact you, how about the US Atty, wouldn't it be all of your duties to investigate why someone is falsifying my medical information, filing false bill of particulars, subjecting me to witch hunts, they have all been notified to call the appropriate authoritative agencies and why haven't they?

I just proved what this site has said all along........

if NYS does not want to pay for the DDC or OCA's actions,
we have an idea
throw them all out of their offices!!!!!!!

let the Christians reign!
it would be a wonderful
Christ mas present for all of them!

Anonymous said...

once again, Napoleon and friends
bite me!!!!!!!!!!
the rectal society is on its way in!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know where you go to file a grievance against the AG Office?

Anonymous said...

you can try and call Washington, I just did, they will not return my calls, hey Georgie, you gang bang friends are out you will no longer harm me or my friends.......
for what reason are you doing this to people?
so I do not tell about the orgie queens or your psychiatric patients that are your friends, to keep up the lies told many years ago......
incest, orgies and drunks insurance cheats all friends of my Senator!
check out ECMC make sure you do not touch anything in the ER!

Anonymous said...

here is an idea for those who know our entire Court System is corrupt-
find a friend or family member who has connections to the
- FEDS OR HIGHER OUTSIDE THIS STATE
- ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIMS IN THIS STATE
- AND REPORT IT TO WASHINGTON

it is obvious, even Washington is trying to figure out how to stop all this...........

Anonymous said...

Fed guys time to come clean,
you have been checked out!!!!!!
a long time ago,,,,,,,,,,

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't wait for anyone in Washington to do anything.

When our dear President decided to meddle in the internal politics of the state, and tell us who should and shouldn't run for state offices, like for the New York Senate seat that Clinton left, and that who can an cannot run for Governor, I think it was clear that we cannot count on anyone in Washington looking out for our interests.

They have their own agenda, and it is not to do what is right for the citizens of NYS.

Galison said...

FBI AGENT ROBERT HENNIGAN

Who has had a negative experience with FBI agent Robert Hennigan- public corruption division?

We have several complaints against him and are looking for more. We are in touch with a certain US Senator (on the JC) re having Henigan investigated and busted. The more evidence we have, the quicker that will happen.

Hennigan is a primary reason that our issues are not being addressed by the NY Bureau. He deep sixes them. He is corrupt.

Please contact me at 917 517 7344, or at wgalison@mac.com

or by mail:

217 thompson st. #349
New York N 10012

Anonymous said...

Georgie Forgie hoodlum & lie
kissed the girls and made them cry
when the boys came out to play
Georgie Forgie ran away...........

here's to you Ms Repubican
Heaven holds a place for you to hate............

Anonymous said...

is Johh Humphries of Buffalo related to this guy, Robert Hennigan.....who is Hennigan related to......there was a judge Hennigan at one time........
hey John, thanks for telling me I am seeing a psychiatrist, I didn't know they would forge paperwork all the way to the FBI!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

thanks for letting me know I had no rights, I will turn all of you in!!!!!!!!!! you killed the last person you did it to!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

hey Andy & FEDS this blog is stating if we have a corrupt
lawyer
sheriff
DA
Judge
Senator
Atty Grievance
Attorney General
FBI
US Attorney and even
Washington,
there is no recourse, except it will cost you if you want to retain corrupt counsel again.....

I just wonder when the wars will start...........
thanks for you help in the matter!

Anonymous said...

Senator on the JC why hasn't my Senator on the JC turned them in.............
why hasn't he invited me to the hearings.............
why is he allowing a psychopath to harm me for 15 years......
or is he culpable?

eliot bernstein said...

Deprivation of a Federal Right: Plaintiff's Acts of Speech:
I. Has plaintiff proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she made statements that the DOC failed to diligently prosecute
complaints of misconduct made by the public against attorneys?
YES / NO
Answer YES!!!!

Anybody want to legally interpret this from Anderson's verdict?

Anonymous said...

Ms Anderson will be still keeping her job if she would:
engaged in covering up,
if she would committed crimes as they do,
if they would have found that she is also have blood on her hands as they do, that she is "one of them" -

but of course she is none one of those, and therefore, they knew she was not belong in their corrupted DDC office, and she must be out.

the next goal the DDC and all their corrupted network was preparing is a plan to get red of Ms Anderson but make it looks that it is completly justify.

they took their time to acomplish their goal, they were harrasing her on a dialy basis, they were hoping that it will be so imposible for her to stay in the DDC office and eventually she will resign
at the same time they were working on decomented some of their "make believe efforts", in order to use it as their evidence to make thier final step and to termainiate her job.

ms Anderson stood by her priniceples, took a lot of their abuse, and knew that she is maybe one of the few in the DDC who is left to protect the public, until they got red of her.
Ms anderson we - the victims of the justice system , appriciate what you did for us,
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Ms Anderson, the above writer is explaining the same methods used throughout some small towns, by some Senators and friends.....
KEEP YOUR COURAGE!!!!!!

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2