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

Saturday, May 15, 2010

PJ Prudenti: Lawyer Ethics Guided By Core Principles

Lawyer Ethics Guided By Core Principles
The New York Law Journal by Appellate Division, 2nd Department Presiding Justice A. Gail Prudenti - May 03, 2010

Our constitutional democracy flourishes when our society continues to believe in the rule of law and the viability of its judicial system.As attorneys, we play a vital role in fostering trust and confidence in our legal institutions through interactions with participants in the legal process with the public at large. This trust and confidence is enhanced by our adherence to the core principles that have guided our professional ethics, including competence, loyalty, professional judgment, fairness to participants in the judicial process, and truthfulness in dealing with others. The vast majority of New York's attorneys have a tradition of practicing ethically and honorably. However, as the modern practice of law continues to present new challenges, we must ensure that our system of lawyer regulation continues to adapt to the changing legal environment, while remaining faithful to these core principles. By virtue of Judiciary Law §90, the Legislature has entrusted lawyer regulation to the Appellate Division in each of the four judicial departments. Under the guidance of the Administrative Board of the Courts, and in cooperation with bar associations and individual practitioners throughout the state, the disciplinary rules that ensure compliance with our core ethical principles have been revised to meet the needs of modern day practice.

Beginning in June 2005, the Administrative Board initiated a study of the disciplinary rules governing lawyer advertising, resulting in significant changes and improvements. In all, the Administrative Board adopted nearly 50 new or amended rules, which became effective Feb. 1, 2007.1 Many of these provisions were designed to keep pace with the explosive advances in modern communications technology, extending the realm of advertising and solicitation to "computer accessed communications" such as Web sites, blogs, e-mail, chat rooms, meta tags, domain names and other Internet presences.2 As a further step toward modernizing our lawyer regulatory system, the Administrative Board recently authorized a complete restructuring of the disciplinary rules into the Model Rules format of the American Bar Association. This initiative, effective April 1, 2009, brings New York into harmony with the standardized format now followed in 48 other states.3 The change not only provides New York practitioners, prosecutors and judges with access to a nationwide source of ethics law, but will serve to integrate New York with emerging trends in the profession that transcend state and national boundaries. Consistent with the practice followed by all other model rules states, New York's version of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules) is unique to our state's needs, striking a balance between the implementation of new approaches and the preservation of the trust-based nature of the traditional lawyer-client relationship. For example, in the area of conflicts of interest, the New York version of the Rules adopts the model rules approach for identifying and organizing various categories of conflicts, including an entirely new category addressed to conflicts involving "prospective clients."4 At the same time, the Rules retain the existing "differing interests" standard for assessing concurrent conflicts, preserving the mandate that New York lawyers exhibit the highest degree of loyalty to their clients.5 Similarly, the Rules adopt, in part, the model rules approach governing lawyer candor before a tribunal, offering greater guidance for lawyers confronted with issues involving false evidence. However, the model rules provision governing lawyer candor toward third parties was not adopted since it applies only when a lawyer knowingly makes a "material" false statement. Instead, the prohibition against knowingly making a false statement, regardless of materiality, was retained, requiring New York lawyers to adhere to the core principle that they exercise the highest degree of truthfulness in the course of representing their clients.6

Enforcement Also Crucial


The recognition of our need to adapt and modernize applies equally to enforcement procedures. When lawyer conduct is called into question, the legal profession is permitted great independence and the privilege to self-regulate. Effective regulation requires attorneys and complainants to have trust and confidence in a fair and just attorney disciplinary system. With nearly 50,000 lawyers now registered to practice, the Second Department alone has disciplinary jurisdiction over a lawyer population larger than that of 40 states. To meet the challenges of this ever-growing constituency, the system of lawyer regulation in the Second Department has undergone a substantive review over the last eight years, resulting in meaningful revision. Early in my tenure as Presiding Justice, I established a committee under the leadership of former Associate Justice Gabriel M. Krausman to review the practices and procedures of the Second Department relating to attorney admission, discipline and reinstatement. The Krausman Committee was comprised of a wide array of judges, court personnel, disciplinary staff counsel, bar leaders, grievance committee members and private practitioners. As a result of the Committee's work, numerous recommendations for improvement were implemented.7 Among these was the adoption of a rule permitting "diversion" in certain grievance matters involving lawyers impaired by substance abuse or the disease of addiction. Similar to rules in place in the Third and Fourth departments, the new diversion rule is designed to foster early identification of, and treatment for, impaired lawyers before they cross the line into serious misconduct.8

The implementation of this rule reflects the growing awareness of the need to address the challenges of substance abuse among the members of the bar and their families, and to enhance the dedicated efforts of the network of lawyer assistance programs and other related support groups. Also in accordance with the report of the Krausman Committee, the Second Department has been engaged in an ongoing effort to improve and streamline the practices and procedures of its three departmental grievance committees with a view toward achieving departmental uniformity wherever possible. In pursuing this goal, the Second Department will continue to ensure that every participant in the lawyer disciplinary process is treated with dignity and respect, and that our grievance committees carry out their mission fairly, expeditiously, and with departmental consistency. A hallmark of this approach has been the practice of ensuring that every attorney accused of misconduct is afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard, on both the merits and the issue of sanctions, before a final determination is made. In the case of private discipline issued by a grievance committee, the attorney may exercise the right to a hearing, at which the grievance committee bears the burden of establishing the charges, and the attorney is afforded a full opportunity to address all issues. Another opportunity to be fully heard may be afforded yet again, should the attorney choose to seek further review before the court. Likewise, in formal disciplinary proceedings, the attorney is afforded a full, plenary hearing before a special referee appointed by the court to hear and report. At the conclusion of the hearing, both the special referee and the grievance committee refrain from making any recommendation as to sanctions, leaving the accused attorney the widest latitude to address this issue, virtually unfettered, in written submissions to the court. Only then does the court deliberate and render its determination, judging every disciplinary case individually, each according to its own unique facts and circumstances. As the Second Department fulfills its mandate in these matters, it will continue to be guided by this enduring tradition of fairness. New challenges no doubt will arise as the practice of law continues to evolve in an ever-changing world, and we must remain vigilant in our efforts to adapt our lawyer regulatory system accordingly. In confronting these challenges, it is wise that we remain rooted in the core principles that have so nobly served our profession. A. Gail Prudenti is Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department

Endnotes:


1.
Four of these new or amended rules, and part of a fifth, have since been adjudged unconstitutional under the First Amendment (see Alexander v. Cahill, 2010 WL 842711, 2010 US App LEXIS 5253 [2d Cir 2010]). The remaining rule changes are unaffected by this decision, and remain viable.
2. 22 NYCRR Part 1200, sections formerly designated as 1200.1(L), 1200.6(f), 1200.6(g)(2), 1200.6(k), 1200.7(a)(e) and (f), 1200.8(a)(1), and 1200.8(c)(5)(ii); now designated respectively as rules 1.09(c), 7.1(f), 7.1(g)(2), 7.1(k), 7.5(a)(e) and (f), 7.3(a)(1), and 7.3(c)(5)(ii).
3. Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), Rules 1.0 through 8.5.
4. Id. Rules 1.7 through 1.12, and 1.18.
5. Id. Rules 1.0(f) and 1.7.
6. Id. Rules 3.3 and 4.1.
7. "Report to Public and Bar on Admission, Discipline, and Reinstatement of Attorneys," http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/publicnotices.shtml (July 27, 2005).
8. 22 NYCRR 691.4(m).

30 comments:

A Very Disgusted 2nd Dept. Attorney said...

I admired Gail Prudenti when she first took over the 2nd Department. Perhaps I let my friendship with her father, a fine upstanding individual,cloud my reasoning. In my 30 years of practicing law I have never seen such poor leadership as what I've seen and experienced under Gail Prudenti. I read this website and it makes me especially sad because I know most of what I read is true. And a lot of the lawlessness is happening under PJ Prudenti. I will be retiring soon and I can only hope that Gail Prudenti stops writing fiction and that she begins to get her own house in order. She knows how bad the legal profession has become and she has chosen to stick her head in the sand. SHAME ON YOU PRUDENT!

Manhattan attorney said...

It's kind of a toss up which department is worse: the 1st or 2nd. Maybe there should be a contest: Gonzalez v. Prudenti. Apologizes to the 3rd and 4th departments, who are also corrupt, but the 1st and 2nd take the cake in the corruption department! Shame on Preet Bharara for not doing anything.

Anonymous said...

write it and they will not follow it, they will not succumb, not when theres free money,payola, in it or a better job!!!!
nice try, we like shoot to kill better!
although this blog does help, cement somes destiny!

Anonymous said...

and we like the quick dry stuff too!

Anonymous said...

hello Andy,
do you remember what happened to our deregulated banks, the same thing happens with lawyers, only if you are a real crook will you win, start regulating our lawyers and disbarring them, scare the begebbers out of the rest of them!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

You can write all the rules and regulation you want, but no one follows them, so who cares, it all just wallpaper. Gail Prudenti is a lying dirtbag harlot along with her con artist husband Falcon.

Themis unblinded said...

"that our grievance committees carry out their mission fairly, expeditiously, and with departmental consistency."
Fairly to the corrupt, expeditiously harm the innocent and consistently nurture corruption.
To issue this with full knowledge of the corruption allows the judge to meet the descriptive standards from Juvenal,
"Quid Agas, cum dira et foedior omni crimine persona est?"
"What to do, when the person is more foul than any slander you throw at her?"

Anonymous said...

Too bad The Law Journal didn't have a section for the Funny Pages. The Prudenti letter would have gotten a big play for the paper.

Anonymous said...

Name Recognition
By Heidi Bruggink
hbruggink@judicialstudies.com
Posted 01-30-08

Appellate court leader Gail Prudenti benefited early on from family political connections, but today her record speaks for itself.



For a public official whose surname is entwined with political brawling, Second Department Presiding Judge A. Gail Prudenti counts a surprising number of admirers — on both sides of the aisle.

The secret, according to the recipient of these platitudes, is simple: “I try to treat everyone as I’d like to be treated.”

Prudenti served as the first person simultaneously to hold the positions of Surrogate Judge and Administrative Judge in Suffolk County. That was in the late 1990’s before her ascent to the Appellate Division, a post she has found “a very humbling experience.”

But striving to be known for her accomplishments alone was an issue for Prudenti in her early career. The judge has been dubbed part of a political aristocracy,” according to a 1991 Newsday article. Her husband, Robert Cimino, served as Suffolk County Attorney for many years, and her father, Anthony Prudenti, was a Suffolk Republican leader during the late 1970s.

Prudenti’s landslide election to the Supreme Court in 1992 was backed by Suffolk GOP leaders, including party chief John Powell, who told Newsday that the then-probate attorney was “very qualified and well respected in legal circles . . . and she is my son's godmother."

FAMILY TIES

In a January interview in her chambers reflecting back on that watershed, Prudenti conceded that her family connections gave her a leg up — but only that.

“Do I think that my father and friends and my husband have helped open doors for me?” she asked rhetorically. “Yes. But I think at this point it’s been a long time now, and I’m judged by my record and how I conduct myself.”

The thought is echoed by none other than Rich Schaffer, Chairman of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee. “She has the name ‘Prudenti,’ which helped,” he said. “But once she got in, a lot of it had to do with how she handled herself.”

Prudenti recalls her father warning against a premature campaign for Supreme Court because he thought she needed more experience. A year after his 1990 death, however, she finally ran for the post and won in a landslide election in Suffolk — despite initially having had doubts about the race.

“In1991, I didn’t want to be a Supreme Court Judge,” she said. “All I wanted was to be a Surrogate, but people said if you really want [that position] you have to run for elected office.”

However, political consultant Jerry Skurnik offered a larger context for that analysis.

“In most cases people think Surrogate is a more prestigious position,” he said. “The Surrogate is his or her own boss. They hire their own staff and are in charge of a court, as opposed to a Supreme Court Justice.”

But, he added, “In Suffolk they actually have contested elections for Supreme Court, unlike in New York, so one theory is you run for Supreme Court, get your name out there, show you can raise money and run a decent campaign, then run for Surrogate.”

EARLY CAREER

Anonymous said...

Prudenti’s two years on the Supreme Court were generally unremarkable; her most newsworthy case involved denying a motion to shut down a “family farm stand” operating across the street from a vacation home in East Hampton.

Elected Surrogate Judge in 1994, Prudenti initially managed to avoid the scandals plaguing many other Suffolk Republicans. Newsday wrote at the time that she “is popular among leaders, lawyers, and party rank and file. She's considered a high-powered campaigner.”

But the judge’s fundraising soon came under fire, when Democratic attorney Jack Braslow assailed a letter she sent “for identifying people on her campaign committee as lawyers, contrary to bar association rules . . . and [for] including among her list of backers a member of the Suffolk County Bar Association's screening committee, which rates candidates as qualified or not.”

John Gross, then-bar association president, also told Newsday that the listing of people on Prudenti's committee "as attorneys . . . is inappropriate."

At the time, Prudenti's campaign coordinator, Vincent Berger, told the paper that though the name of a bar association screening committee member did appear on the letter, the person in question “was not a member of the campaign committee.”

In that race, Prudenti’s campaign also took Surrogate Judge opponent James F. X. Doyle, now an Acting Supreme Court Justice in Suffolk, to court to remove his name from the Right to Life Party ballot, raising objections to a duplicate signature on his petitions. But she withdrew the action, after it was discovered that the repeat signature stemmed from “a legally blind nun who asked someone to sign for her because she didn't have her magnifying glass handy — then later signed herself.”

Yet Doyle downplayed the run-in, and he is another Prudenti booster.

“Part of the sequence of primaries, at least in Suffolk, involves litigation over whether the technicalities were met,” said Doyle. “That’s not unusual at all, that’s par for the course. It really was no big deal.”

Anonymous said...

And Prudenti herself? “I think Gail is terrific,” he added. “I like her, I liked her then, I like her now. She manages to have an equanimity of temperament and treats people well, I give her an ‘A.’ ”

This from a candidate against whom Prudenti took 64 percent of the vote.

OF CONNECTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES

Only two months after taking the position, however, Prudenti had to recuse herself from the multi-million dollar estate probate of deceased real estate investor Aaron Rimland — because Powell had signed a lease for one of his properties For Prudenti’s campaign headquarters. The case expanded that summer when Rimland’s sister, Marilyn Waxman, filed a RICO lawsuit alleging that Rimland had given Prudenti and Powell free or reduced rent to buy influence.

Asked about the Rimland case, Prudenti looked blank.

“I don’t remember dealing with those people!” the judge said. “As with all campaigns, you protect yourself — I personally had no knowledge of anything.”

According to the state’s ethical guidelines, Prudenti’s lack of knowledge is actually required: “Judges are not supposed to know who’s financing their campaign,” said Skurnik, the consultant. “They appoint a treasurer, who keeps track of campaign finance rules.”

“There is a theory that if someone in her camp did something wrong, she’s ultimately responsible, but not necessarily,” he added.

Prudenti immediately recused herself from the case, which was transferred to Magistrate Arlene Lindsay before being moved to the Bronx.

Prudenti came under fire later that year for hiring Suffolk County Executive Robert Gaffney's wife as her law secretary to replace Teresa Powell, the mother of the Suffolk GOP leader. She had previously held the position and was moving to a more lucrative job as principal court analyst.

"If it were a television show it would be 'All in the Family' meets 'Let's Make a Deal,' " East Hampton Supervisor Tony Bullock told Newsday. The issue splayed over the papers the following year, when Prudenti promoted Powell’s mother to deputy public administrator, and county officials filed objected, citing nepotism laws.

The judge told The New York Times, "I chose Teresa because I truly believe she is the best person for the job," and the appointment was ultimately approved by the County Legislature.

“It’s very difficult, “ said Prudenti, reflecting on the negative media attention. I’ve tried to learn from my mistakes and realize that not everyone is going to think you’re right. You just have to have confidence in yourself and your abilities.”

Anonymous said...

Prudenti made headlines for something other than her connections in November 1995, when she ruled that “some civil laws override doctor-patient confidentiality,” according to Newsday. At issue was her order for a doctor to testify in a lawsuit brought by a deceased patient’s sons; Prudenti wrote that the new laws were “based upon the notion that the decedent would expect the seal of confidentiality to be lifted in the interests of resolving disputes over his will.”

Subsequently, Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman appointed Prudenti the county’s Administrative Judge in 1999, making her the first woman to hold the post, as well as the first Surrogate in county history to fill the dual role.

Prudenti confirmed her initial hesitation at accepting the administrative post. “I’d always wanted to be Surrogate,” she said. “Then I realized that my talent lies in administration.”

Newsday reported that many lawyers praised Prudenti for having “the personality to cajole often intractable judges.”

Which means what? Lippman, now an appellate judge, recalled that Prudenti, after creating a matrimonial division in Islip, “got senior judges, new judges, to be assigned there, and to Matrimonial – which is not the most popular assignment. They went, liked it, and felt they were doing something important. . . . They ended up thinking it was a prime assignment.”

That praise is a common accolade echoed by many who have worked with the judge. Supreme Court Justice Gary Weber, who served as Acting Surrogate with Prudenti, taking some of her caseload to allow her to fill both roles, said, “She’s got a way with people that I’ve never seen. She can defuse the worst situation and get people going to put forth their best efforts.”

“She’s truly terrific – the best I’ve ever seen,” he added. “Her big thing was continual communication with judges, geared toward finding the best way to resolve things in best way and keep cases moving.”

Of her time as Administrative Judge, Prudenti said she was most proud of eliminating the court’s backlog, her comprehensive civil case program, expanding the county’s dedicated matrimonial parts and guardianships, preparing for a dedicated commercial part, and implementing mental health, domestic violence, and drug treatment courts. She won praise for “making the courts more accessible to the public,” according to Newsday, and she cited that as one of her priorities in all her judicial posts.

Lippman confirmed Prudenti’s accomplishments, saying, “There was a huge backlog when she came in, and — by getting people to sit in conference parts, getting law clerks involved with motions, getting judges based in Riverhead to tackle it — she ended up getting rid of it so fast that by the end people were complaining because you walked in the door and you got a trial.”

“Prudenti was one of the most outstanding jurists and humanitarians who’s ever been on the bench,” said Lynne Adair Kramer, Supervisor of the Court Observation Program at Touro Law School. “I don’t think you’ll find anyone here in this county who doesn’t like Gail Prudenti. I can’t say a bad word about her, and I don’t know anyone who will.”

Schaffer, the Democratic chair, gives the judge credit for “reaching out to the minority parties,” adding, “she’s very good at herding cats, being the administrative judge, keeping everybody happy, and she seems to do a pretty good job at that due, I think, to her personality.”

Anonymous said...

MOVING ON UP

Only midway through her term as Surrogate Judge, Prudenti mounted a 2000 run for the State Supreme Court to devote herself solely to the administrative position.

As a full-time Supreme Court Justice, as Newsday noted, “she could also be in contention for a gubernatorial appointment to the Appellate Division” following the much-anticipated retirement of two Brooklyn judges.

When she received a call from the governor’s office regarding the Appellate Division appointment, Prudenti said, “Did I think I’d get it? Probably not. Did I want to be considered? Absolutely.”

Prudenti did, in fact, receive the appointment, and only months after ascending to the appellate bench, the Governor named her the first female Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division's Second Department.

As Presiding Judge, Prudenti formed an advisory panel to examine a proposed departmental ban on allowing 18-b attorneys representing the indigent from representing their assigned clients for a fee. She also held hearings on Staten Island for the first time ever, citing the court's "continuing outreach efforts in bringing the court to the people whenever we can."

“I’m a firm believer that the courts need to be restructured,” she said, stressing the need for a fifth appellate division — a change she stressed “is going to take legislation — we have to give everyone on both sides a comfort level.”

“It would have to be part of an entire restructuring package to do with selection of judges. . . .and the discussion of appointed versus elected judges,” she said. “But right now [the Second Division] is almost like running on a treadmill just to keep cases moving in a timely fashion.”

Prudenti was nominated by the Commission on Judicial Nomination for the State Court of Appeals in 2006 but failed to receive the post. The justice – who called herself the ‘poster child’ for judicial selection, having been through a variety of processes — feels strongly that the commission system is a model for judicial selection.

“The Commission system is so varied,” she said. “It takes away some of the appearance, as in the appointed system, that the system is not impartial.”

Prudenti expressed happiness in her current position, but said, “I have seven years left on my term. At that point I’ll be 62 — and looking for new challenges.”

Anonymous said...

"Prudenti’s two years on the Supreme Court were generally unremarkable; her most newsworthy case involved denying a motion to shut down a “family farm stand” operating across the street from a vacation home in East Hampton. "

WHAT IS TRULY 'REMARKABLE' ABOUT PRUDENTI'S CAREER IS HOW 'UNREMARKABLE IT TRULY IS.

Anonymous said...

About three years ago I filed a complaint with the 10 Judicial District DDC, a complaint against a Suffolk County attorney in that he had a serious conflict of interest by representing his latter client against the interests of his former client. That attorney did so, IMO, in furtherance of conspiring with the Suffolk County District Attorney to convict an innocent man of crimes he did not commit.

That attorney replied to the DDC that he did not represent the former client, he only acted as a consultant for the lead attorney in the latter's newest case before the Suffolk Court.

In that case, the former client was identified as a 'unindicted codefendant' in the case of the innocent man that was subsequently convicted, in part, due to his alleged connection to the former client of the attorney I so charged in my complaint.

The attorney received a retainer of $5,000.00 to review wiretap evidence in his previous case.

In that attorney's reply to the DDC, he went further and stated that while he was acting as a consultant for the client, he also represented another client that was involved in that case, and thought it might be useful to his other client to review wiretap evidence to determine if it would be helpful to his other client.


continued.

Anonymous said...

In effect, IMO, this attorney was in conflict not once, but with three different clients in a case that was related to each other.

The complaint to the 10th DDC was at first denied by the 10th. After including a letter to the 10th, with an attachment of a letter from Chief Judge Judith Kaye, advising me my complaint would best be referred to the DDC, the matter was transferred to the 9th Jud.Dist.

In my attempt to flesh out my allegation that there was a comspiracy afoot between the attorney and the district attorney, I provided the 9th with a narrative of the trial and offered exhibits to make my case.

In that narrative I stated that the district attorney knowingly and willingly allowed his witness to give false testimony to the court, and did nothing to correct it when it was said. I did not request the DDC to investigate the district attorney as the matter of the conviction was before the 2nd Department. But the allegation against the private attorney was not dispotive to the case, and, therefore, the DDC should investigate this matter only to the actions of the private attorney.

A week of so later I received the letter from the attorney that was sent to the DDC as an offer of explanation as to why he was not conflicted as I charged.

To my pleasant surprise, one week later I received another letter from the DDC that was submitted to the DDC from the assistant district attorney that I stated knowingly let false testimony to stand and did nothing to correct it. I was under the impression that the DDC Investigator, an attorney named Forrest Strauss was so outraged by my charges against the district attorney that the Investigator took it upon himself to open a separate investigation on the assistant district attorney. I mistakenly believed that my complaint would get a fair hearing.

I also realized that the DDC is not the final word on a complaint against an attorney, it is in the province of the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court had already affirmed one part of the conviction by allowing one of the top charges of three to be affirmed. That, I believed placed the appellate court in a difficult situation: How do we take appropriate action on this case without a formal appeal being filed? No appeal, and there would be no favorable decision. It had to be as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

The readers might be asking if all this is so, then why didn't the defendant file an appeal? Justice isn't cheap. More than $100,000.00 had already been spent. The Court of Appeals refused to hear the case. The defendant had 2/3 of his case vacated, or a 5 to 10 year sentence reduced to 1 2/3 to 5, and it would have to go back to the same court that refused to vacate the entire indictment. There comes a time when even the most hearty give up and accept their fate and move on with their life. Spending another $40,000 or so with an unceratin outcome, and bringing it back to the same court for review is a longshot at best if you believe our Noble Judges are capable of admitting their mistakes.

Anonymous said...

What may have complicated this case even further is the fact the assistant district attorney that started this abomination rolling in the first place is ADA John Scott PRUDENTI. He has been reported to be a relative of Judge Prudenti.

It was ADA Prudenti that went to Florida with 3 SCPD detectives to bring back a suspect in a murder of a man that at first gave detectives, and then the district attorney, and was found murdered (9/24/03) after being brought to the district attorney's office and signed an agreement to give evidence against that individual in a widespread drug and burglary ring operating in Suffolk County.

When the suspect was confronted by Prudenti, he invoked his rights to an attorney. That attorney would be the same attorney I filed the complaint against with the DDC.

That suspect would then go from a principa suspect in the murder of a police/DA witness to allocuting to 38 violent felonies, and still a suspect in the murder of a witness giving the district attorney evidence against him. In less than 3 weeks the scope of the investigation changed from his being a suspect, and an admitted felon, to a cooperating witness against an innocent man.

The FACTS of the case and the testimony would leave no reasonable and sensible person to believe that the defendant was not guilty of the crimes charged. But Suffolk County is another world with another group of people that are ready to believe and convict any charges the district attorney will make despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It is also no small coincidence (IMO) that the suspect brought in by Prudenti was the neighbor of DA Spota's Chief Investigator and SCPD Police Inspector that investigates cases of interest to the district attorney. That Chief Investigator was the neighbor of the witness from 1998 to 2002, and now gets a free walk with 5 years probation for his 'truthful testimony' in the case I speak of.

It is also no small coincidence that the Chief Investigator was once a critical witness in the murder of John Pius in 1979, and the now Chief Investigator, then a 14 year old boy was able to seal the fate of at least one innocent teenaged boy (IMO) and had him sent to jail for 19years.

One can only assume that Mr.Spota knows 'talent' when he sees it.

Judge Prudenti has been made well aware of this, and she did nothing other than to suggest to file an appeal.

Yes, I know there are rules and procedures that must be followed, but I also believe that when an officer of the court, a PJ, now less, is advised that something is very wrong with the Criminal Justice System and the courts that she presides over, and takes no pro-active action other than hiding behind the rule of law, then I have to think something is very wrong with the system of justice in NYS.

Anonymous said...

FYI - Each Summer Season, ADA Prudenti throws a gala event on his 47' boat docked next to the Oalkland Marina, Hampton Bays. This years event began at about NOON,or during working hours, on 8/26/09.

It has become known to me that Mr.Prudenti invites a group of 'good ole boys' to partake in his generosity. I have been also been told that it is that unnmamed attorney I mentioned in my DDC complaint that springs for the drinks and refreshments.

Judges, district attorneys, DA detectives, and others are invited to partake in this version of The Suffolk County's Star Chamber.

A requirment to receive an invitation that you must be known as "one that works well with them."

I just happened to be passing by at the last time the gala event was hosted and I was seen by one of Tom Spota's 'friendlest judge that works well with the DA office."

Trust me when I say that from what I saw that day was the least of their troubles.

Themis unblinded said...

We're getting to them. Their apologists have posted their apologies and their canned praise. This poor blind judge is unaware of the rampant corruption? Is deaf, dumb and blind to crooked lawyers and corruption, a virtue for an administrative judge? Themis wears her blindfold to not judge litigants on their appearance, this judge turns her blind eye to lawyer corruption. Ugh, the stench of nepotism and legacy for judges in Suffolk County is rising.

Anonymous said...

The competition for a slot on The Court of Appeals must have been fierce at the 2nd Appellate Court.

You have Steven Fischer, a self described intellectual being nominated for Chief Judge. Then there is Judge Peter Skelos, who I believe is the brother of Dean Skelos, now minority leader of the NYS Senate, and our newest lobbyist by virtue of the law firm he is associated with. Let us not forget A Gail Prudenti. She got a nomination a few years back. She has said she hopes to meet new challenges in the future. She is the PJ of one of the busiest judicial districts, if not the busiest in NYS. How did she miss the nomination for U.S. Supreme Court.

Her most notable case as a NY Supreme was about a farm stand in the Hamptons that was across the street from a private residence.

And is there really a ADA in Suffolk that she is supposed to be fond of?

The corruption in the criminal justice system in Suffolk is rampant. If Judge Prudenti is truly interested in matters of corruption she should take a walk up the block and visit Federal Judge David Trager. It was Judge Trager that commented after the 1989 NYS SIC Report was released when he chaired the SIC that if things don't change and change fast in Suffolk County the entire system of justice risks being infected. Wiser words were never spoken and ignored.

Now that Tom Spota is the district attorney everything goes in Suffolk County.

Spota got an 'honorable mention' in Judge Trager's scathing report. That conflicted attorney I was mentioning in my previous posts, he got a whole chapter and more devoted to his time in the DA office.

Spota helped get rid of Judge Namm, or after Judge Namm caused that SIC investigation to done, or after he wrote a letter to Andrew's father Mario and told him the corruption and misconduct is rampant in Suffolk County.

Jim Catterson, the DA before Spota, and the opponent in the 2001 DA election began changing his attitude towards police misconduct,and poof he was gone, too. Maybe Catterson finally woke up one day and said enough is enough, and he signed his death warrant.

Anonymous said...

The competition for a slot on The Court of Appeals must have been fierce at the 2nd Appellate Court.

You have Steven Fischer, a self described intellectual being nominated for Chief Judge. Then there is Judge Peter Skelos, who I believe is the brother of Dean Skelos, now minority leader of the NYS Senate, and our newest lobbyist by virtue of the law firm he is associated with. Let us not forget A Gail Prudenti. She got a nomination a few years back. She has said she hopes to meet new challenges in the future. She is the PJ of one of the busiest judicial districts, if not the busiest in NYS. How did she miss the nomination for U.S. Supreme Court.

Her most notable case as a NY Supreme was about a farm stand in the Hamptons that was across the street from a private residence.

And is there really a ADA in Suffolk that she is supposed to be fond of?

The corruption in the criminal justice system in Suffolk is rampant. If Judge Prudenti is truly interested in matters of corruption she should take a walk up the block and visit Federal Judge David Trager. It was Judge Trager that commented after the 1989 NYS SIC Report was released when he chaired the SIC that if things don't change and change fast in Suffolk County the entire system of justice risks being infected. Wiser words were never spoken and ignored.

Now that Tom Spota is the district attorney everything goes in Suffolk County.

Spota got an 'honorable mention' in Judge Trager's scathing report. That conflicted attorney I was mentioning in my previous posts, he got a whole chapter and more devoted to his time in the DA office.

Spota helped get rid of Judge Namm, or after Judge Namm caused that SIC investigation to done, or after he wrote a letter to Andrew's father Mario and told him the corruption and misconduct is rampant in Suffolk County.

Jim Catterson, the DA before Spota, and the opponent in the 2001 DA election began changing his attitude towards police misconduct,and poof he was gone, too. Maybe Catterson finally woke up one day and said enough is enough, and he signed his death warrant.

Themis unblinded said...

What I remember I heard in Suffolk County back in 1983. Judge DeLuca was suspended by the then Commission on Judicial Conduct for trying to reduce the sentence for a mob crony before a black judge. I heard the attorneys loudly cheer when Judge DeLuca returned in Special Term to the bench after his suspension ended. (Was it cowardly fear or their innate evil?) Suffolk still suffers from the legacy judges, I.E., Doyle, Baisley, etc. Should we rejoice that the judges and ADA's and DA'a are relatives? Or is Suffolk choking on the corruption of the degenerate offspring of politicians and judges?

Anonymous said...

THEMIS, if I told you who told me that the CJC is a joke I would have to tell you while you were sitting down and had a doctor present.

What a Merry Old group of misfits they are in Suffolk County.

The DA brings in a serial criminal before Judge James C Hudson. The criminal will allocute to the Pontifical One to 38 violent felonies, and do this while he should still be a suspect in the homicide of a witness that was giving testimony against him.

OK, I understand that a DA will often deal with the Devil to snare another Devil. I may understand it but I don't often agree with it.

That being said, the least the judge should do to maintain whatever dignity they have left in Suffolk County is to do his job, keep his stupid mouth shut, and not treat the criminal like the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt.

The man before the judge is nothing but pure scum. The man before him LIED. That was proven at trial - a HUGE LIE. The judge told the defense lawyer after the witness left the stand: "Well, this isn't the first time the DA sold me a false bill of goods."

The judge just could have done his job, BUT know he had to add in his own show. It was sickening. It was in a sealed courtroom. That didn't stop him because he likes to hear his own words. He praised the lawyer that represented the micreant (the same lawyer I filed charges with the DDC) and told the witness he was lucky to have one of the finest attorneys in the nation. Maybe the Judge wanted to send a message to the lawyer's client that maybe an extra bonus to the attorney would be warranted in this case. The defendant would be allowed to return to Florida, where he would steal millions while waiting to testify. He would tell another victim in florida that 'there are people out there that depend on me to make money. I can't go to jail." and tell him that after he threatened to kill him and his family.

That disgusting display of the judge was made on 7/2/04, or a little more than one month before the gala event in the Hamptons. Who knows that maybe this year they wanted lobster and Dom P on the menu.

Eliot Bernstein - Iviewit said...

Gail Prudenti is center stage in a 12 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit that has been legally related by Judge Shira Scheindlin to a NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson, a NY Supreme Court staff attorney for many years. Her friend, Nicole Corrado, another NY Supreme Court attorney was threatened by NY Supreme Court Court Officials on her way to testify in Anderson.
Anderson claims the NY Attorney General is representing state defendants illegally while failing to investigate them which is his primary responsibility to the People of New York.
Prudenti, Kaye, Cuomo and many more, who are all sued in my 12 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, along with NY AG Office and the Courts have been hiding this legal LIABILITY from State Auditors which may result in CATASTROPHIC DAMAGES to the State due to their misuse of PUBLIC OFFICES TO COMMIT CRIMES.
For more info, see below sites and links.

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, 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
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot

Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.changecourtsnow.com
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com

Themis unblinded said...

The CJC was begun as a cover for corruption to make the suckers,oops, voters think the system was effectively policed. The immense blob, Gov. Carey, made sure CJC got off on the wrong foot. Is it a badge of Honor for so many Suffolk Judges to have been whitewashed by the CJC? DeLuca, Jones, Doyle, Baisley,...

Anonymous said...

How do you make a complaint to the CJC accusing a judge of changing the trial record in a significant way and not get a fair hearing on it?

How do you NOT even get a name or a title of a person you spoke to in CJC, other than their first name?

How do you make a complaint against a judge, and quote the passages deleted in the official record and not be asked for a confirmation on that charge?

How do you tell the CJC that a passage on a sidebar where the ADA was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial near the end of a month long trial is purged from the official record?

Judge Hudson: Mr.Timmons, I know where you are going with this and if you do so I am going to call a mistrial. You do so at your own peril.

ADA Timmons: I understand your instructions, Judge, and I am going to do so anyway?

Defense lawyer: Judge, may I have an opportunity to speak to my witness so that he doesn't utter the remarks he is clearly being goaded into saying.

ADA Timmons: Objection.

Judge Hudson: Sustained.

I was there and saw and heard in part the sidebar taking place. I read the daily sheets that the court reporter supplied us with and that statement intact. I also read the official transcript produced (at great expense to the defendant) by the same court reporter and there is NO mention of that conversation taking place.

The fact of the matter is that this spread throughout the entire courthouse..... news like this travels fast, and from what I hear it is still being talked about in the courthouse, now 4 years later.

Never did I receive a request for the daily sheets. A simple reading of the 'official' transcript would have been obvious to anyone reading it that there was a gap in the conversation. I suggested the CJC bring in the court reporter for her version of the events. I doubt if that happened.

I have a very strong reason to believe that the defense attorney has never been asked by the CJC of this most delicate situation. I often speak with him and he has not told me he was asked to provide a statement to the CJC.

In addition, the defense attorney, a most reputable attorney that I hold in high regard is the Vice-Chairman of the 10th DDC. He has told me that he has never been asked for his account of the charges I made against the attorney that had a serious conflict. The DDC in the 9th, the DDC that was given the case by the 10th., appears not to have called the vice chairman of the 10th for his account of the events leading to my charges.

Both cases, the CJC and DDC were dismissed without comment other than short letters informing me that my charges had no merit.

Senator Sampson, now that he has a high paying job with a major law firm seems to have lost his vim and vigor with those much heralded State Hearings. No need to conclude the 4th part of the Hearings. Justice, and the bonus to Sampson has been satisfied.

Anonymous said...

The morning line is for the number of mob types that will show up for the boat party. Gail and her hubby are a well oiled machine. Will former Judge Underwood (Underworld) be show along with the federal photographers?

Anonymous said...

Maybe this summer the boat will be taken out and somebody will sink it. Maybe one of those terrorists that Congressman King was talking about with Newsday earlier today.

Anonymous said...

why not replace Prudenti with Judge Skelos? His brother ? is the minority leader of the NYS Senate. That makes the judge well qualified.

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