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, May 29, 2012

Federal Judges Direct Anderson in New Witness Tampering Filing

Federal Appeals Panel Directs Anderson to Judge Scheindlin in New Witness Tampering Filing
May 29, 2012

United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of May, two thousand twelve.  Present: Chester J. Straub, Robert D. Sack, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges - FILED MAY 11, 2012

Appellant, pro se, moves to recall the mandate. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Appellant has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances that would entitle her to the requested relief. See British Int'l Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 354 F.3d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 2003). Moreover, the argument in Appellant's motion, which relies on "newly discovered evidence," is more appropriately raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 18-19 (1976) (holding that a party may pursue in the district court a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a judgment that an appellate court has upheld, because the district court "is not flouting the mandate by acting on the motion" where "the appellate mandate relates to the record and issues then before the court, and does not purport to deal with later events"); DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1270 (2d Cir. 1994) (interpreting Standard Oil to stand for the proposition that "a district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion when 'later events' arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court").  FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

RELATED BACKGROUND STORY:

Attorney for Department Disciplinary Committee Sues Court System
The New York Law Journal by John Caher - May 16, 2012

An attorney for the Appellate Division, First Department's disciplinary committee alleges in a federal lawsuit that she was sexually harassed by two now-retired officials at the watchdog agency while a third retaliated against her for complaining. Nicole Corrado also suggests that after she lodged a complaint officials retaliated by targeting her attorney in an unrelated property matter. She claims that the committee launched an investigation into allegations of bribery and forgery against her attorney, and then suddenly dropped the matter when he abandoned her case. Additionally, Corrado claims she was punished for supporting a lawsuit brought against the court system by a colleague. Corrado v. New York State Unified Court System, 12-cv-1748, filed in the Eastern District on April 10, alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Corrado, who has served as a principal attorney at the disciplinary committee since 2006, claims she endured years of harassment by her supervisor, Andral Bratton, and that the committee's chief investigator, Vincent Raniere, touched her inappropriately and forcibly kissed her on several occasions. According to the complaint, when Corrado reported the "pattern of sexual harassment" by Bratton and Raniere in 2008, the court system referred the matter to its inspector general. However, only the allegations against Bratton were investigated, the complaint claims. The complaint states that Bratton admitted during the Office of the Inspector General probe that he was "smitten" with Corrado and crossed "an emotional boundary." Bratton was transferred to another unit at the same salary and Corrado was simply told to "avoid" him, according to the complaint. Corrado alleges that while her sexual harassment complaint was pending, she retained an attorney to represent her in an unrelated action involving a property dispute. She claims the disciplinary committee instigated an investigation into that attorney—who is not named in her complaint—involving allegations of bribery and forgery. Corrado contends that after the attorney withdrew from her case and her claim was dismissed, all of the ethical charges against her lawyer were dropped. She claims that because of her attorney's abrupt withdrawal, her civil case was dismissed and she was "ultimately forced to settle her case for a fraction of its value." Bennitta Joseph of Borrelli & Associates in Great Neck, who is representing Corrado in the civil rights claim, declined to identify the allegedly intimidated attorney who represented her client in Corrado v. East End Pool & Hot Tub. Corrado also claims in her complaint that she was retaliated against for supporting the claim of a colleague who accused the agency of racial discrimination.

The complaint does not identify that employee, but Joseph confirmed in an interview that it was Christine Anderson, a former staff attorney who alleged she was wrongfully discharged in June 2007 on a pretext of insubordination after she revealed that the panel was protecting well-connected attorneys. A jury rejected her claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the verdict (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2009). Corrado contends that after she agreed to corroborate Anderson's allegations of "racial discrimination and other improper conduct" by the disciplinary committee, Alan Friedberg, the committee's chief counsel, threatened her and gave her an unreasonable workload. Additionally, Corrado says Bratton threatened her. In light of Corrado's complaint, Anderson has asked the Second Circuit to reinstate her claim. Anderson contends in her petition that Corrado, who testified on her behalf at a deposition but not at trial, "was threatened and chilled into not testifying" at her trial, constituting a "manifest attack on our system of law and a clear denial of appellant's right to a fair trial." Corrado claims that because of the anxiety and stress from the harassment she endured at the disciplinary committee she took a two-year unpaid leave of absence between 2009 and 2011, returning only after Bratton, Raniere and Friedberg had left. According to the Office of Court Administration, all three took advantage of an early retirement incentive in the fall of 2010. "She feels like she has to do something," Joseph said. "She took a two-year leave of absence because the environment had become so toxic, and then once all the offending parties left, she came back." Raniere said the allegations are false. "I didn't do a damned thing," he said. Friedberg declined to comment. Bratton could not be reached. David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, declined to respond, noting that the court system does not comment on pending litigation. John Caher can be contacted at jcaher@alm.com.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The DDC must be closed down. An independent non-attorney orgaization to deal with the thousands of complaints must be set up. Andrew Cuomo has remained silent on the issue long enough.

Anonymous said...

The Second Circuit clowns toss the hot potato back to the Scheindlin clown at a lower level. No law or decency, just corruption and a clown show.

Searching For Rule Of Law In America said...

this is one that really gnaws at the core of my soul...

Christine's fate was cast as soon as she decided to challenge the unethical and unlawful practices of an entrenched regime...

from within the system, a person of integrity stood up to expose the systematic whitewashing of complaints against certain "connected" parties at the DDC...

and for that, she was made to pay...

as i sat through the proceedings i began to realize just how the cards were being stacked against Ms. Anderson... but, in spite of this, she managed to show that the very allegations she made were true... and in turn she should've been afforded the protections of the law born out of legislative action, designed to protect such persons...

she was not...

as i sat there i was witnessing a "court" in which the laws designed to shield this person was about to be sidestepped, and something even more despicable than the actions of the defendants was about to replace it...

i was being made witness to something so frightening and so potentially destructive to the entire system of juris prudence that defines the Courts in the state of NY as well as the Courts throughout this country, as to make me shiver...

when a jury trial can be so deftly manipulated, and when those proceedings can be so subtly directed in a manner that is practically unnoticeable... and when such is done by a certain group as to produce a predetermined outcome... then there is no longer any justice in our courts, and the confidence of the public in the integrity of the process is all but lost...

but... if that wasn't enough, we now present, for you un-amusement... the post proceedings acts...

the center ring of the circus of the insidious, in which the ringmasters offer up their twisted rationale to "justify" to a gullible public... as explanations for their unlawfulness...

exception circumstance!!! not flouting the mandate!!

don't make me fucking laugh...

WAKE UP NYer's... you're being played like a an old violin...


--Mike Hense is Searching For Rule Of Law In America

Anonymous said...

Why are they protecting Scheindlin and her good friends at NY's OCA (including Katherine O'hagan Wolfe)????

1 of the Related Cases/Witness to the Coruption at the DDC!! said...

This is so beyond corrupt..Anderson, Corrado and the rest of the related cases have enough proof to shut down that flee and rat infested DDC...once again, where the frig are the FEDS!!

Anonymous said...

@10:30 Scheindlin's charge to the jury was improper and should have been complained about in the presence of the jury and for later appeal. Juries are gullible and believe the judge is neutral and must be enlightened.

one of the related cases said...

What ploy will Shira use this time to send people on their way? We now have Anderson and Corrado standing up and saying the 1st Dept. is corrupt. But, we know its the complete DDC all over the State. How many complaints have been buried all over the State? Complaints were filed in the 1st Dept. and first Cahill and then Friedberg said there was nothing to anything. The complaints involved White Shoe attorneys and their minions. Its Cover UP time!

Kris Sergentakis said...

Nothing changes...money has the loudest voice in the corrput 2nd Circuit

Anonymous said...

And if you're a standup attorney you get hammered...the Judges and the politics.

Kris Sergentakis said...

Ms. Anderson should be made a modern day Saint. She continues to fight these demons who call themselves the DDC.

Come on Pope make her a living Saint.

Shame on the Second Circuit a sewer of Corruption. Al Capone and Adolf Hitler are so proud of the lowlifes.

Anonymous said...

WHERE ARE THE FEDS ?? YOU ASK
JERKING OFF TO YOUR SNUFF FILM !!!
START SHOOTING !!!!!!!!

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