For Immediate Release: Committee Formed to Review NY "Ethics" Committees

Litigation Recovery Trust
515 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022
Tel: 347-632-9775 email: lrtinformation@gmail.com
Fax: 801-926-9269 email: pcacinformation@gmail.com

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release

Ad Hoc Public Committee On Attorney Conduct Formed to Review Actions of New York State Ethics Committees

New Bar Oversight Committee Being Organized by the Litigation Recovery Trust and Integrity in the Courts and Expose Corrupt Courts Blog Organizations With Objective to Replace Existing Grievance Committee Structures

New York, New York. June 17, 2008. Litigation Recovery Trust, a New York based rights administration organization, and Integrity in the Courts and Expose Corrupt Courts, two Internet blogs focused on judicial and attorney disciplinary process and procedures, have announced joint plans to form an Ad Hoc Public Committee On Attorney Conduct (PCAC) to oversee the New York State Attorney Departmental Disciplinary Committees. The Ad Hoc bar oversight committee is being headquartered in New York City.

In announcing plans for the new oversight committee, William J. Hallenbeck, executive director of Litigation Recovery Trust, stated that this action was being taken as a direct result of the recent filing of a growing number of federal lawsuits against the statewide attorney grievance committees and their parent organization, New York State Office of Court Administration. Mr. Hallenbeck noted, “Clearly, as suits against the attorney disciplinary committees continue to be filed on a weekly basis, the time has come for a top to bottom review of the fatally flawed process by which attorneys in New York oversee the conduct of other attorneys. We must make sure that the public becomes the controlling part of the lawyer oversight process.”

Since late last year, over a dozen federal suits have been filed with the U.S. District Courts in New York by numerous plaintiffs, citing illegal actions on the part of the various statewide grievance committees (Anderson v. New York State 07 CV 9599) (SDNY). Some suits cite efforts designed to cover up misdeeds on the part of large New York law firms. Other allegations involve the issuing of rulings by the attorney disciplinary committees victimizing both clients and certain attorneys, usually from small firms and sole practitioners. One lawsuit has been brought by a former employee of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in Manhattan, which charges widespread corruption on the part of the committee, and seeks the appointment of a Federal monitor to supervise the operations of the organization. Subsequently filed lawsuits also seek the appointment of federal overseer.

Frank Brady, chairman of Integrity in the Courts, also issued the following statement: “On a daily basis, we report on outrageous conduct on the part of the grievance committees in New York State. Well documented complaints of malpractice, personal attacks and even theft, filed by individuals victimized by attorneys, are regularly disregarded and covered up by the ‘ethics’ committees. Other situations involve large law firms using the committees to threaten and harm other lawyers. In short, the attorney grievance review process is corrupt to the core, and in need of immediate replacement by a public review board. The establishment of the Ad Hoc Public Committee On Attorney Conduct is the first necessary step in such a replacement process. Legislative action is also being planned.”

Expose Corrupt Courts blog also issued the following statement: “The cumulative efforts of our organizations’ joint efforts recognize that the vast majority of judges are attorneys first, and accordingly, they must be included within this new ethics umbrella that’s being established."

Under the plan put forth by LRT, Integrity in the Courts, and Expose Corrupt Courts, the newly formed Ad Hoc Public Committee On Attorney Conduct will review both past and present cases brought before the grievance committees to provide an independent review and analysis of the facts, and issue proposed findings. With respect to past cases, the committee will be particularly interested in hearing from persons who maintain that they have been treated unfairly and unjustly by the disciplinary committees. As part of its initial efforts, the new committee will actively seek documentation of all complaints against any attorneys dating to January 1, 1988.  

According to the founding organizations, the Ad Hoc Public Committee On Attorney Conduct will include as members individuals, who through their personal and professional lives have established a reputation of responsibility and fairness. While attorneys will be available to the PCAC as advisers, all voting members issuing formal reports and decisions will be non attorneys.  

In commenting on the structure of the ad hoc committee, Mr. Hallenbeck noted that this will be the first time in the United States that a review body made up entirely of non attorneys will be assembled to oversee the professional practices of lawyers. He added, “By initially establishing a parallel committee structure to the New York State grievance committees, we will have the opportunity to determine that a bar review process made up entirely of non attorneys can achieve the desired result. We should make it clear that our immediate goal here is to create a practical, working model to replace the attorney grievance committees.”

Mr. Hallenbeck also confirmed that efforts have begun to recruit members for an executive board to direct the operations of the Ad Hoc Committee, as well as practice review and public affairs committees. Among those being sought as members are active and retired senior business executives, government officials, educators (primarily business faculty at colleges and universities, as well as law schools), business consultants and clergy, particularly with training in business ethics. Mr. Hallenbeck added, “We are in search of a committee to be made up of members with broad and diverse business experience and expertise, as well as impeccable records of fairness and sound judgment to review breaches of attorney ethics and rulings which can be classified as highly suspect.”
                                                                                 ##### 30 ####

For additional information please contact:
William J. Hollenbeck
Executive Director
Litigation Recovery Trust
515 Madison Avenue 
New York, New York 10022
Telephone 347-632-9775
E-mail: lrtinformation@gmail.com
Web: litigationrecoverytrust.8k.com

Frank Brady
www.IntegrityintheCourts.wordpress.com
Email: integrityinthecourts@gmail.com

Expose Corrupt Courts
Email: corruptcourt@gmail.com
Web: www.exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com


About Litigation Recovery Trust

Founded in 1995, Litigation Recovery Trust is a New York based claims and rights administration organization. LRT pursues claims and causes of action worldwide, and processes single and group litigation claims, as well as general rights fees and awards. LRT also participates in legislative and administrative initiatives designed to protect or advance individual claims and rights.


About Integrity in the Courts Blog

Integrity in the Courts is a daily blog, which focuses on ethical and legal issues related to the administration of justice nationwide. Issues impacting both the judiciary and the bar are investigated, including compliance with a codes of judicial conduct, the codes of professional responsibility. Violations of law and failure to abide by codes of conduct are monitored, together with actions leading to disciplinary rulings, including admonishment, reprimand, censure, suspension or loss of licenses to practice law.


About Expose Corrupt Courts

Since beginning publication in March 2007, Expose Corrupt Courts has become one of the leading sources of both public and inside information concerning bench and bar misconduct. While the blog focuses primary attention on the court system of New York State, it regularly covers stories of interest throughout the U.S. Expose Corrupt Courts has led coverage of the massive corruption charges that have been filed against the attorney grievance committees in New York that have resulted in the filing of over a dozen law suits with the federal district court in Manhattan.

NY Sun Editorial on Judge Ordering Himself a Raise

The Wrong Defendants
Editorial of The New York Sun - June 12, 2008

For those of us who savor constitutional debate it was hard to imagine on Monday that the dispute over judges' pay in New York could get any more delicious than the point to which it has been brought by in the suit by Chief Judge Kaye and her lawyer, Bernard Nussbaum. But yesterday Judge Lehner, acting in a separate suit brought by four state judges seeking huge pay increases, actually took the first step toward ruling that the legislature and governor will have to pay our state judges more money — and lots of it, perhaps as much as $600,000 each in back pay to compensate them for the erosion of their pay because of inflation. This could easily add up to hundreds of millions of dollars before the judges finish with the taxpayers' wallets.

To get to this order the judge had to find a way to get past the separation of powers argument, in that it's the governor who writes the budget under New York law and the legislature that approves it. It seems, however, that the judge has concluded that the Assembly won't pass a raise for the judges until a raise is put through for the Assembly members. That linkage might seem a normal part of politics to most New Yorkers, but Judge Lehner concluded that is a constitutionally impermissible entanglement of the interests of the two branches.

One of the questions New Yorkers will want to ask was where in Sam Hill was Andrew Cuomo? He is the attorney general who was supposed to be representing the governor and the legislature. Yet he doesn't seem to have made much, if anything, in the way of response to this line of reasoning, even though it strikes us as likely, even certain, that a lack of compensation for themselves wasn't the only reason the Assembly hasn't acted on judges pay. The fact of the matter is, the kinds of payout the judges are looking for will strike many taxpayers as outrageous and there would be plenty of backlash for any legislator who supports it.

But there is one important point that is moving to the fore in this — the notion that inflation has, in effect, reduced the pay of judges as the years have gone by. Reducing a judge's pay is not allowed under the Constitution and has been a concern of constitutionalists going back to the founders of America. One can see why. But it strikes us that if it is a reduction of pay due to inflation that the judges are worried about, the defendant should not be the governor or the state legislature but the United States Federal Reserve. That is to say, Ben Bernanke is the right defendant in this case — and any former governor would say that the Fed chairman would probably be easier for the judges to push around than Sheldon Silver.

N.Y. Judge Orders Himself a Raise

N.Y. Judge Orders Himself a Raise
Could Cost Taxpayers $700 Million
The New York Sun by JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - June 12, 2008

Setting the stage for a showdown among the three branches of government, a state judge has ordered Governor Paterson and the Legislature to start paying him and his 1,180 fellow state jurists more money. If each judge on the state bench received the $600,000 sought by the four plaintiffs, the state's taxpayers would be on the hook for more than $700 million. The order by Judge Edward Lehner of state Supreme Court in Manhattan appears to instruct the Senate and Assembly to pass a law upping judges' pay within 90 days, which could prove an impossibly fast time frame for slow-moving Albany. The decision also raises constitutional questions about the authority of judges to perform the legislative job of setting salaries and deciding how best to spend tax dollars.

Governor Paterson's office released a statement yesterday saying that the court order "flies in the face of the State Constitution which makes clear that only the Legislature has the power to set judicial salaries." The speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, was reviewing the decision, a spokesman said. Judge Lehner ruled that it was the other two branches of government that had violated the state constitution by denying judges any pay raises or cost-of-living adjustments for nearly a decade. The judge characterized Albany's unwillingness to raise judicial pay as "an unconstitutional interference upon the independence of the judiciary." Judges on the state's main trial court make $136,700 a year, plus benefits.

Even though salaries for New York state judges are close to the national average, the judges say that the cost of living in New York is higher, and they argue that federal judges and corporate lawyers are paid more. New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, filed a suit on behalf of the entire judiciary in April seeking a pay raise order of the type Judge Lehner issued yesterday. But yesterday's decision came in an earlier lawsuit filed jointly by four judges seeking more than $600,000 each. That money, the say, represents the cost-of-living increases that they haven't received over the years , plus interest.

Judge Lehner's decision, however, applies to the entire judiciary, not just the four judges who are plaintiffs. He ordered that judges receive a pay increase commensurate with cost-of-living adjustments over the last decade, which would bring state judge salaries close to their federal counterparts. In addition, Judge Lehner ordered that the judges all receive an "appropriate provision for retroactivity." He did not give any indication of how much that might be, in his view. Judge Lehner's decision focused less on the dollar amount that judges get paid than on the horse trading that goes on in the legislature every time the pay issue arises. Legislators in the Assembly have only been willing to give judges a raise if they themselves receive a raise. Because Governor Spitzer, and now Mr. Paterson, have been unwilling to agree to a pay raise for legislators, judicial pay has been stuck at its present rate. What violated the state Constitution, Judge Lehner said, was linking judicial salaries to all that political dealing. Linking the salaries of judges to the salaries of legislators, Judge Lehner wrote, "is an abuse of power by the defendants." Doing so undermined the independence of the judiciary, Judge Lehner wrote, and "is repugnant to our tripartite form of government and the liberties intended to be secured thereby."

Governor Paterson and the Legislature were represented in this case by lawyers from the office of Attorney General Cuomo. Mr. Cuomo declined to provide representation to Mr. Paterson or legislative leaders in the suit brought by Chief Judge Kaye. A lawyer for the four judges, George Bundy Smith, said that there have been similar suits in Ohio and Pennsylvania that have also resulted in favorable rulings to judges. Mr. Smith, who was once a judge on New York's highest court, said that he has received inquires from representatives of state judiciaries in "the Middle West and mid-Atlantic" soliciting advice about bringing similar pay raise suits.It is not clear whether Attorney General Cuomo will appeal. Governor Paterson's statement said his office is "exploring its legal options." Some judges expected the issue to drag on in the appellate courts. If the Legislature does decide to order a judicial pay raise going forward, the judiciary could still push the issue of retroactive cost-of-living increases in court.

"I admire Judge Lehner's decision, and I think it's beautifully, brilliantly done, but I don't anticipate an immediate increase," one state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan, Emily Jane Goodman, told The New York Sun. "No one knows better than we know how long litigation goes on. My position is still, show me the money." Judge Lehner is also hearing the suit brought by Chief Judge Kaye. Lawyers for Chief Judge Kaye have demanded that Governor Paterson, as well as the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, and Mr. Silver all be forced to stand trial regarding the issue. It is not yet known whether Judge Lehner's decision yesterday will lead him to decide that such a trial is unnecessary. "We are pleased with Judge Lehner's thoughtful decision, and we now trust that the governor and the Legislature will do the right thing," the lawyer for Chief Judge Kaye, Bernard Nussbaum, said. Of the judges who brought the suit decided yesterday, two are from New York: Susan Larabee of Family Court and Geoffrey Wright of Civil Court.

Order-Self-Raise Judge Known for Pooper-Scooper Law

Lehner: Known For 'Pooper-Scooper Law'
By Special to the Sun - June 12, 2008

A state Supreme Court Judge, Edward Lehner, who will retire in 2009 due to age limits, is making headlines this week for ordering Albany to raise state judges' wages. But until now, he has been best-known for a law he co-wrote as a young state assemblyman 30 years ago, which changed New York City's streets. The law is popularly known as the "pooper-scooper law," requiring citizens to clean up after their dogs. Shortly after that success, he went on the bench in 1980 as a civil court judge and was elevated to the state Supreme Court in 1987.

Judge Lehner's more recent cases include Donald Trump's failed suit for control of the Empire State Building in 1999. The judge also allowed construction of a New York University dorm in 2006 against the wishes of nearby residents. A year later, he issued an important ruling that reduced the number of co-op shareholders who were exempted from typical rules such as sublet fees. And in January, he sided with pedicab owners in a dispute with the city over who should be allowed to apply for pedicab licenses. According to the legal Web publication Judicial Reports, Judge Lehner's decisions have been appealed over 300 times in the last seven years, making him one of New York's most appealed judges. He was reversed only a third of the time, however, a relatively low rate.

1st Issue of NY Commission on Public Integrity !

LOBBYIST SPENDING RISES $20 MILLION

Spending within the lobbying industry increased by more than $20 million last year, according to figures the Commission released in its 2007 Annual Report. In 2007, $171.2 million was spent, up from $151 million spent the previous year. These expenses were disclosed in reports filed by 3,271 clients represented by 5,357 lobbyists and 57 public corporations. For the eleventh straight year, the firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, reported the highest lobbyist compensation, totaling $9.6 million for 2007; Patricia Lynch Associates, Inc., is the second highest earner, at $6.7 million, followed by Bolton St. Johns, Inc. at $5.7 million. Health and Mental Health organizations reported the highest expenditures from special interest groups, spending $26.7 million. Real Estate and Construction follow at $21.3 million, with Education at $13.2 million. Clients ranked by highest expenditures are Verizon at $3.2 million, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York at $2.2 million, and New York State United Teachers at $2.1 million.

O'Brien & Gere Limited had the largest lobbying contract, valued at $1,547,812. The firm lobbies on its own behalf. Forest City Ratner Companies, a commercial real estate company, had the second largest contract with Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, valued at $771,170. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York had contracts with Bill Lynch Associates LLC valued at $636,560; with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPvalued at $496,368 and Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLPvalued at $492,155. New York State Capitol 

The report also noted the amount of training done, with 217 ethics training sessions for 8,653 employees in 2007. Staff also conducted 16 sessions of a two-credit continuing legal education course entitled "Public Section Ethics for Lawyers" which were attended by 460 people. At the request of the agencies involved, the Commission provided additional training about the electronic filing system on-site. In addition, staff worked with the Governor's Office of Employee Relations to provide information about the post-employment requirements of the ethics laws to approximately 450 State employees.

On the lobbying side, the Commission conducted training sessions for 63 lobbyists and clients and used "electronic blasts" to distribute information to lobbyists and clients more effectively. These "e-blasts" are essentially a monthly newsletter that includes a topic of relevant interest, report due dates, and other news regarding the Commission. The e-blasts are e-mailed monthly to all lobbyists and clients who have signed up to receive this alert.

The Ethics Commission opened 38 cases in 2007 and issued three Notices of Reasonable Cause, a public document alleging a violation of the law. The Commission collected $16,780 from those cases. The Lobbying Commission opened 54 investigations in 2007 and closed 60. The Commission reached 172 settlements for a total of $51,600, and conducted 17 hearings that resulted in civil assessments of $9,000. The report is available on-line in the Publications section of the Commission's website at www.nyintegrity.org.

http://www.nyintegrity.org/pubs/news/CPI_Newsletter_Issue_1.pdf

Actor Joins Abuse of Dead in New York

Celebrities seek change in New York State law
Newsday by JAMES T. MADORE (james.madore@newsday.com) - June 11, 2008

ALBANY- Actor Martin Sheen, who played the president on the hit television drama "The West Wing," was expected Thursday to bring his star power to the state Capitol on behalf of controversial legislation that aims to protect the reputations of dead celebrities. New York is one of only two states where a famous person's photograph, voice or signature can be used for commercial purposes after they die without permission from their heirs or estate. More than a dozen celebrities, including singer Liza Minnelli, actor Al Pacino, and relatives of baseball legends Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson and Mickey Mantle, are lobbying for protections against a flood of tacky T-shirts and coffee mugs.

But the bill faces opposition from photographers, cable TV systems, motion picture producers and publishers of newspapers, magazines and books, which said the proposed restrictions violate First Amendment rights and could potentially impact newsgathering. Sheen has been enlisted by the estate of film icon Marilyn Monroe to press for action before the state Legislature adjourns June 23. "My understanding is Martin Sheen will be visiting legislators and expressing his support for the post mortem right of publicity bill," said William T. Cunningham, a spokesman for the celebrity lobbyists. A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) confirmed that he would be meeting with Sheen.

The driving force behind the bill has been Monroe's estate, which lost several court cases trying to defend her reputation from unauthorized merchandise such as T-shirts. Monroe's heirs, along with other notables, approached state Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) and Assemb. Helene Weinstein (D-Brooklyn) about legislation, which was introduced May 31, 2007, but went nowhere because the Legislature recessed a few days later. Despite its glamorous backers, the bill faces an uphill fight for adoption. "It's a difficult bill to get a consensus on. ... We'll be negotiating with the various parties for the next week or so," Golden said. The bill's language is too broad and shouldn't apply to celebrities that have already died, according to the American Society of Media Photographers.

Diane Kennedy, president of the New York Newspaper Publishers Association, agreed, saying that unless the bill was amended, it would invite "frivolous lawsuits" that would "impinge on newsgathering." Newsday is an association member. The legislation received a boost last fall when California lawmakers strengthened a law adopted in 1984 at the behest of the estate of actor John Wayne and others. In Albany, rumors have swirled around the Capitol that film star Sophia Loren recently called Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick) about the bill. Asked about Loren's involvement, Cunningham said he believed the call had been made. But Loren's publicist, Carlo Giusti Productions in Italy, couldn't provide confirmation, and Bruno's office declined to comment.

****end of Newsday article ****


For actor Martin Sheen, Albany trip stirs memories of Island The star, who lived in St. George, meets borough lawmakers while lobbying for 'dead celebrities' bill
The Staten Island Advance by KAREN O'SHEA - June 13, 2008

STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE -- "West Wing" star Martin Sheen went to the state Capitol yesterday to lobby for the "dead celebrities" bill, which would protect deceased stars from unauthorized, commercial use of their image, but he ended up reminiscing with a delegation of Staten Island lawmakers about the time he lived in this borough. Sheen recalled watching movies at the St. George Theatre, playing golf at the Silver Lake course and delivering his second son, Ramon Estevez, in 1963 in the living room of his apartment at 30 Daniel Low Terr. Sheen and his wife, Janet, are also the parents of actors Emilio ("The Mighty Ducks") Estevez, Charlie ("Two and a Half Men") Sheen and Renee Estevez. "We talked about how (Silver Lake) is still the same course and how he loved Staten Island and how he'd like to come back at some point -- so we extended the invitation," said Assemblyman Michael Cusick (D-Mid-Island), who lives next door to the city golf course.

According to an article on Sheen's Web site, the actor, one of 10 children, lost his mother when he was 11 and spent much of his youth working as a caddie in Ohio. He said the experience forced him to see the differences between the "haves and the have-nots." He has refused to join a private club ever since, opting instead to golf at public courses and carry his own bag.
"I let him know that he has to come back to see the renovated St. George Theatre," added Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-North Shore), who also met with Sheen. Titone, a lawyer, is a member of the Assembly Judiciary Committee that is considering the actors' legislation. Assemblywoman Janele Hyer-Spencer (D-Mid-Island/Brooklyn) also serves on the committee and conferred yesterday with Sheen. Titone lived briefly during the 1980s in Sheen's former apartment building, the same place actor Paul Newman called home for a time.

Titone said Sheen was in town to lobby for a bill to protect the images of celebrities after they die. New York law protects most living celebrities from the unauthorized use of their images, but Titone said there is nothing on the books that clearly delineates what the rights and limitations are when it comes to deceased celebrities. Sheen, best known for his role as American President Jed Bartlet on NBC's "The West Wing," and other big-name stars are lobbying the state to change state law to require approval from a deceased celebrity's estate before an image can be used for commercial purposes. Karen O'Shea is a news reporter for the Advance. She may be reached at oshea@siadvance.com.

More on Picking the Bones of the Dead

Dead Man's Hand: NY Lawyer Fighting Suspension Wins High Court Jackpot
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - June 13, 2008

New York's Dead Man's Statute does not bar an attorney from defending himself against disciplinary charges for allegedly raiding escrow account funds of a deceased client, the state Court of Appeals held Thursday. The judges found that attorney Richard A. Zalk was attempting to clear himself of charges by describing an oral agreement he had with his client to keep the escrow funds, not testifying "against the executor, administrator or survivor" of the dead person, as the Dead Man's Statute prohibits. The New York statute, CPLR §4519, was enacted in 1851. It prohibits the living from testifying about personal transactions with dead people that the decedents cannot refute in court. One of its main purposes, the court noted, was to protect estates and the survivors from the claims of others. Zalk is contesting a ruling by the Appellate Division, 1st Department, that he be suspended for two years for allegedly using the escrow funds of his late client, Ruth Gellman.

A referee for the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial District held that the Dead Man's Statute does not apply to Zalk's testimony about the agreement the attorney said he had with Gellman. But the 1st Department found that the statute does apply and suspended him for two years without considering his testimony about the oral agreement he insists he had with Gellman prior to her 2000 death. The Court of Appeals held in Matter of Zalk, 98, that the referee was correct. "We therefore look to the language of section 4519, and reach the same conclusion as did the referee: although Zalk 'testified as a witness in his own behalf or interest,' ... he did not testify 'against the executor, administrator or survivor' of Mrs. Gellman," the court held in a per curiam ruling. "Rather, he testified against the Disciplinary Committee, which is none of these latter."

The court sent the matter back to the 1st Department for further deliberations. The disciplinary committee had recommended that Zalk be publicly censured, a sanction that was modified by the 1st Department panel in its 4-1 ruling. Zalk, a solo practitioner in Manhattan specializing in matrimonial, trust and estates and real estate law, was admitted to the Bar in New York in 1969. He secured a stay of the 1st Department's suspension and has continued to practice as his appeal is being heard. Zalk has an unblemished disciplinary record except for the allegations of wrongdoing in the Gellman matter. Gellman's two daughters, as administrators of her estate, had challenged Zalk's personal use of the escrow funds in 2003. They argued that they did not know of any oral agreement their mother had made with the attorney before her death allowing him to keep $200,000, which represented a downpayment on a 1998 sale of an apartment house in Westchester County owned by Gellman. Zalk, who had long done legal work for Gellman and her late husband Arthur, had handled the $2 million sale of the apartment house for Gellman.

Zalk testified before the disciplinary proceeding that he would typically perform legal work for the Gellmans and then charge them afterward for his services. He said he tried to turn down the $200,000 from Gellman, but that she insisted he keep the money and even joked with him a few months before her death about what he was going to spend it on. According to the court Thursday, Zalk ultimately withdrew about $100,000 from the escrow account for his own use. Zalk conceded that he did not have an agreement in writing with Gellman to keep the escrow funds, and his attorney Richard Supple acknowledged during oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that it would have been wiser for him to have done so. The disciplinary committee argued that allowing Zalk to testify about his oral agreement with Ms. Gellman was prohibited by the Dead Man's Statute because it was against the "vital interests" of her daughters. Among those interests is their possible attempt to seek restitution of the escrow account funds through the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection or a civil suit.

The court ruled that the daughters' interests in a possible later proceeding against Zalk do not preclude his testimony at this point in the disciplinary case about his purported deal with Gellman. "The Dead Man's Statute only applies to testimony 'against the executor, administrator or survivor' of the deceased," the court ruled. "It does not foreclose testimony that potentially cuts against these parties' interest in a contingent future proceeding." Supple, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, said Thursday in an interview that, "We're pleased by the Court's ruling that the Dead Man's Statute should not have been used to preclude consideration of Mr. Zalk's credited testimony that he had a fee agreement for the money at issue with his close friend and client." Naomi F. Goldstein of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee argued against Zalk in the case. She did not immediately return a telephone call for comment Thursday.

Federal Judge Asks to Be Removed

Judge Asks to Be Removed From Trial
The Associated Press - June 14, 2008

LOS ANGELES, June 13 -- A federal judge under scrutiny for posting sexually explicit material on his own Web site declared a mistrial Friday in an obscenity trial over which he was presiding. Judge Alex Kozinski said he would ask that the case be assigned to another judge. Kozinski, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, was serving as a trial judge in a federal prosecution of a man who distributed videos showing bestiality and extreme fetishes. "In light of the public controversy surrounding my involvement in this case, I have concluded that there is a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial," Kozinski wrote in his order. The postings on the judge's Web site came to light earlier this week when opening statements were underway. The trial was suspended Wednesday after jurors had already watched some of the videos.

Kozinski on Thursday asked an ethics panel of the 9th Circuit to investigate his own conduct, and he pledged to cooperate fully. He also asked United States Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to assign the inquiry to a panel of judges outside the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction of nine Western states. In the obscenity case, the Justice Department is prosecuting Ira Isaacs, 57, on four counts, including importation or transportation of obscene material for sale. He faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and forfeiture of assets if convicted. Defense attorney Roger Jon Diamond said he is upset about the mistrial and is considering his options. He said it is unclear whether the case can proceed with the same jury and a new judge. Diamond accused the Justice Department of "intimidating Judge Kozinski into doing this." Justice Department attorneys are trying the case.

Lawyer in judicial bribery case objects to report

Lawyer in judicial bribery case objects to report
The Oxford Eagle by Alyssa Schnugg - June 13, 2008

An attorney involved in a judicial bribery case has objected to a pre-sentencing report designed to assist U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. in calculating his sentence. Sidney Backstrom, former law partner to Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, filed an objection Wednesday to the report prepared by probation officials, claiming the report exaggerates his role in the bribery case. The report alludes to Backstrom having control or a supervisory role over codefendants Timothy Balducci and former state auditor Steven Patterson.

“Mr. Backstrom is a worker who takes on the yeoman task of getting work out. It is consistent with his role generally in the firm as a roll up the sleeves worker, that Mr. Backstrom performed tasks at the direction of Balducci,” the objection reads. Backstrom, Scruggs, his son, Zach Scruggs, Balducci and Patterson were charged in November for offering $40,000 to Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey to send a lawsuit against Scruggs to arbitration. The lawsuit, Jones v. Scruggs, is a dispute over $26.5 million in attorney fees. All but the younger Scruggs have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe a judge. Zach pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misprision of a felony — which means he had knowledge a felony occurred but didn’t report it to an official. The elder Scruggs and Backstrom are set to be sentenced on June 27. Zach’s sentencing is slated for July 2.

Backstrom also objected to the amount of the “benefit” of the bribe being $5.3 million — a fifth of the $26.5 from the lawsuit and what the codefendants may have gained if the Lackey had taken the bribe and ruled in Scruggs’ favor. Backstrom says the $40,000 amount should be used by Biggers to calculate the sentence. Local attorney Tom Freeland, who has followed the case closely, said the sentencing guidelines are not clear as to how to calculate the amount involved in some kinds of financial transactions. “When the issue is not a simple one of ‘how much money was taken,’ there are commonly arguments about what numbers to use for the calculations required by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.”

Washington Post: Judge Assailed Over Sexually Explicit Images on Web Site

Judge Assailed Over Sexually Explicit Images on Web Site
The Washington Post by Carrie Johnson - June 12, 2008

A federal appeals court judge came under fire yesterday after a news report disclosed that he was presiding over a criminal obscenity trial even as graphic, sexually explicit material appeared in what he thought was a hidden part of his own Web site. Alex Kozinski leads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, one of the nation's largest and most prestigious legal assignments. For years, the judge has drawn notice for his wide-ranging, irreverent intellect and his vocal support for the First Amendment.

The Romanian immigrant was named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, when he was 35 years old. Since then, Kozinski has made appearances on short lists of candidates for the Supreme Court, as well as a legal blog contest seeking "the #1 male super hottie" of the federal judiciary. Kozinski nominated himself for the latter post, and he won. The judge did not return calls for comment yesterday. But he told the Los Angeles Times, which reported the incident, that he did not think the public could have viewed the explicit photos and videos, available on a subdirectory at Alex.Kozinski.com. The material included a picture of naked women painted to look like cows, a short video of a man with a sexually excited farm animal, and images of masturbation, contortionism and transsexuals, the newspaper said. Access to the site has since been blocked, though records confirm it dates back to 2004.

Cathy Catterson, the executive who manages the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said the computer server at issue is private property, maintained by one of Kozinski's sons, who downloaded "some but not all" of the images in question. "The bottom line is: The server and contents are a private matter, and it was not meant to be accessed by others," Catterson said. "Had he known, he would have been more careful of its contents." Legal ethics experts predicted that the disclosure of Kozinski's Web site would draw formal complaints from members of the public. But the code of conduct on Internet postings by federal judges is far from clear.

As a federal judge confirmed by the Senate, Kozinski has lifetime tenure and could be removed from office only for an impeachable offense. Historically, a small number of judges have been publicly reprimanded and had their caseloads reduced as punishment for various infractions. The issue came into focus on the same day that Kozinski heard opening arguments in the obscenity prosecution of Ira Isaacs, a self-described "shock artist" who peddled movies that portrayed bestiality and sexual incidents involving urine and feces. Kozinski later yesterday granted a motion to suspend the trial until Monday after prosecutors said they need time to look into the Web site issue.

Judge orders raises for New York judges

Judge Orders Pay Raise for State Bench
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - June 11, 2008

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner today gave the Legislature and Governor David A. Paterson 90 days to adjust the pay of the state’s 1,300 judges to reflect the rise in the cost of living since their last raise nearly 10 years ago. Justice Lehner found that the Legislature and the governor had “unconstitutionally abused their power” by neglecting to raise judicial pay. He concluded in Larabee v. Governor, 112301/07, that the executive and legislative branches had violated the separation of powers doctrine by linking judicial pay to extraneous legislative issues such as raises for the legislators themselves and campaign finance reform. While the lawsuit was brought by individual judges and is not a class action, Justice Lehner noted that “it has at all times been recognized by the parties that the issue with respect to constitutionality affects all members of the judiciary who are part of the Unified Court System.” Justice Lehner also ordered the defendants to include “an appropriate provision for retroactivity.” The Legislature and governor are to proceed in “good faith,” he wrote, inviting the four judges who brought the lawsuit to seek additional relief if an adequate remedy is not in place within 90 days. The ruling represented a sweeping victory for the judges. The plaintiffs, with the support of their judicial associations, contend that the cost of living has increased 30 percent since the state’s judges received their last pay raise in January 1999. According to data they submitted, that would have Supreme Court justices boosted to a salary of $175,264 in 2007. They now receive $136,700.

The four Larabee plaintiffs—Manhattan Family Court Judge Susan Larabee, Cattaraugus County Family Court Judge Michael Nenno, Manhattan Civil Court Judge Geoffrey Wright, and Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Patricia Nunez—claim that a retroactivity award would entitle them collectively to $651,000. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye has filed a separate lawsuit seeking to compel a pay raise to make the salaries of state judges comparable to those paid to federal district court judges, retroactive to April 1, 2005 at a total cost of $148 million. Under that formulation, the salaries of Supreme Court justices would be raised to $169,300 a year and the salaries of judges sitting in other courts would be adjusted proportionately. Chief Judge Kaye’s suit, Kaye v. Silver, 40076/08, has also been assigned to Justice Lehner. Yesterday, the Legislature and governor filed a motion to dismiss that case using many of the same arguments as the attorney general’s office used against the claims in Larabee. A third pay action, Maron v. Silver, 4108/07, is pending in the Appellate Division, Third Department. New York’s judges have gone longer without a pay raise than the judges in any other state in the nation. Since 1999, the value of their salaries, when cost-of-living is taken into account, has slipped to 49th in the nation. —Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.

********************** THE AP REPORT ****************************************

Judge orders raises for New York judges
Associated Press - Last updated: 2:09 p.m., Wednesday, June 11, 2008

NEW YORK -- A judge has ordered New York's governor, Senate and Assembly to raise the pay of the state's judges within the next 90 days. State Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner in Manhattan says the defendants unconstitutionally abused their power by depriving judges of a pay hike for almost 10 years. He says state legislators illegally linked a judicial salary increase to one for themselves. Lehner has ordered the state to raise judicial pay to reflect cost of living increases since 1998. He was ruling on a lawsuit brought by four judges and acknowledges he would be affected by his own decision. Chief Judge Judith Kaye is leading a different lawsuit against the Legislature to secure raises. But she has warned judges not to protest through action from the bench.

U.S. Attorney: "Justice Not for Sale" in Lawyer Obstruction of Justice case

Two Lawyers Plead Guilty to Selling Phony "Get Out of Jail Free" Card
New York Lawyer - June 11, 2008

Two R.I. lawyers plead guilty to obstruction of justice, other charges By Sheri Qualters The National Law Journal

Two Rhode Island lawyers, including the brother of Providence's mayor, and a legal assistant pled guilty in U.S. District Court in Boston recently to charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice and making false statements. Criminal defense lawyers Joseph A. Bevilacqua Jr. and John M. Cicilline, the brother of Providence's mayor David Cicilline, and legal assistant Lisa Torres all pled guilty on June 6 to conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the U.S. Cicilline and Torres also pled guilty to obstruction of justice and making false statements. USA v. Cicilline, No. 1:07-cr-10008 (D. Mass.) The trio allegedly promised clients information they could give to the government to avoid prison sentences in exchange for payments of tens of thousands of dollars.

"[The] guilty pleas should make it clear that justice is not for sale," said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Michael Sullivan. "It is especially troubling that these allegations involve attorneys — who are expected to hold to the highest ethical standards and conduct themselves with honesty and integrity." Cicilline's lawyer Richard M. Egbert of the Law Offices of Richard M. Egbert in Boston declined to comment prior to the sentencing hearing. Torres' attorney Miriam Conrad, a lawyer in the federal defenders' office in Boston, also declined to comment. Bevilacqua's lawyer Thomas A. Tarro III did not respond to requests for comment. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, Bevilacqua and Cicilline started representing a couple charged with drug trafficking and money laundering in 2002. The couple faced minimum 10-year prison sentences if they didn't cooperate with the government.

Bevilacqua allegedly offered the couple information they could give to the government in exchange for $220,000. The couple ultimately paid Bevilacqua and an assistant $100,000, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. When Bevilacqua and the assistant did not produce the information, Cicilline told the couple he would make sure Bevilacqua and the assistant followed through with their promise, or help them himself, for an extra $50,000. Cicilline then brought Torres into the scheme. Under the terms of the plea agreements, Bevilacqua will serve a 21-month sentence and Cicilline will serve an 18-month sentence and pay restitution of $15,000 and a $4,000 fine. Both will give up practicing law. Torres' sentence is 18 months. At the end of their sentences, each of the three will be subject to two years of supervised release.

FBI Removes Files from Albany Office of Ex-GOP Boss

An Albany Times Union Exclusive: FBI removes files from office of ex-GOP chief Powers

By BRENDAN J. LYONS and JAMES M. ODATO, Staff writers Last updated: 2:02 p.m., Tuesday, June 10, 2008

ALBANY -- FBI agents removed files last Friday from the State Street offices of William D. Powers, a lobbyist and the state's former Republican chairman. Powers, of Chatham, has been a lobbyist since he stepped down as state GOP chairman in 2001 after holding the position for 11 years. It's unclear why the FBI took files from Powers' office at 90 State St., or, whether it is part of a criminal investigation.

"The FBI conducted investigative activity at that location last week relating to an ongoing investigation. No other details are available at this time,'' said Paul Holstein, the FBI's chief division counsel in Albany. Powers had been credited in the 1990s with reviving the state's GOP from bankruptcy and turmoil. His most notable achievement came in 1994 behind the successful inaugural campaign of former Gov. George Pataki's victory over then-Gov. Mario Cuomo. A person familiar with the circumstances of the FBI's raid said it does not appear to be connected to an ongoing federal grand jury investigation of Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, R-Brunswick. Powers could not be immediately reached for comment. An attorney for Powers said he is not a "target'' of the FBI and that he is cooperating with the investigation. The attorney declined further comment.

Russia Trumps U.S. in Cleaning Up Court Corruption

Hopes for Court Reform Stir in Russia
Judge's Testimony Describing Political Pressure Seen as Hint of Medvedev's Intent
The Washington Post Foreign Service by Peter Finn - June 9, 2008

MOSCOW -- Yelena Valyavina, a senior judge at the Federal Arbitration Court, electrified a Moscow courtroom last month when she stated openly what had long been unspoken, at least by influential insiders: The Kremlin has pressured and threatened the Russian judiciary to secure favorable rulings.

The testimony by such a senior judge was cause for some cautious optimism that calls by Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, for an independent court system might actually be genuine. Valyavina's boss, Chief Justice Anton Ivanov, is one of Medvedev's oldest and closest associates, and that connection was lost on no one. During the eight-year presidency of Vladimir Putin, courts were politicized as part of a broad centralization of power in the Kremlin that also brought controls on the news media, the effective renationalization of strategic industries and the marginalization of opposition political parties. With the formal handover of power now a month old, Russians are watching to see if the country will head in a new direction.

During the election campaign and since becoming president, Medvedev has stressed the primacy of the law as a guarantor of democratic rights and an antidote to endemic corruption, themes that carry implicit criticism of Putin's rule. "Our main goal is to achieve independence of the courts as a reality," Medvedev said at a meeting last month in the Kremlin with senior judges and legal officials. He added that unjust decisions "come as a result of different kinds of pressure like telephone calls and, there's no point in denying, offers of money." Putin's public statements have a different tone. Now prime minister, Putin said last week that the "judicial system is developing and proving that it is viable."

Medvedev's predecessor has often appeared to overshadow him in his first days as president. Putin symbolically sat in his own old seat at the Kremlin when the two met. He has held forth on foreign policy -- the president's prerogative, according to the Russian constitution. And in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, Putin appeared to forget momentarily that he is no longer president. When he was asked whether he could convince the French president that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, Putin said: "I assure you that the president of France is no less well informed than the president of Russia." He paused before adding, "Let alone the former president of Russia." So far, there has been little daylight between Putin and Medvedev on economic, social or foreign policy issues. The new president, like Putin before him, has rejected any further eastward expansion by the NATO military alliance or the stationing of a U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But legal reform could be a key mechanism through which Medvedev could distinguish himself. And, according to political analysts, it could siphon to the new president some of Putin's popularity because the public is disillusioned with the legal system, whether it's the traffic police or the Supreme Court. "It was not the rule of law, it was the rule of fear," said Yevgeny Kiselyov, who hosts a political talk show on Echo Moskvy, a Russian radio service. "Everyone feared that the present system could crush him. Ordinary people feel defenseless and frustrated. But if the idea appears that because of Medvedev's decisions there is suddenly a place to go in Russia to protect your rights, his popularity will grow."

Judges long associated with Kremlin justice are suddenly looking over their shoulders, Kiselyov said. He noted what he called credible reports that Olga Yegorova, who turned the Moscow City Court system into a crude extension of the Kremlin's rule, is being pushed out. But legal reform is one of Russia's oldest empty promises. Putin, too, spoke about the rule of law, but in practice it meant the supremacy of the Kremlin in all matters. "I pray for Medvedev, but I'm reserved," said Sergei Pashin, a former judge and a professor at the Moscow Institute of Economics, Politics and Law. "We have often heard the correct words and seen no action. There is great resistance." So far, there are plenty of examples of the old style of law enduring.

In a speech in Moscow this week, Tony Hayward, chief executive of the British-based oil giant BP, called for the "consistent application of the rule of law" after the head of BP's joint venture in Russia, TNK-BP, was called before the tax authorities. That followed a raid on the company's offices by the security services and the withdrawal of visas from some of its foreign employees. The various investigations appear to be linked to a struggle between BP and its Russian partners for control of the venture. The probes illustrated the continuing ability of connected insiders to mobilize the police and other legal structures to press private disputes.

The legal system under Putin was often a weapon to neutralize business or political enemies, most famously the tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is serving eight years for tax evasion and fraud. His oil company, Yukos, was broken up. Courts in Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Cyprus, Liechtenstein and Lithuania described the Yukos proceedings as politically tainted when they rejected motions from Russian prosecutors seeking the extradition of Yukos officials or material for trials in Russia. Khodorkovsky's lawyers say their client's fate could become the measure of Medvedev's reform agenda. During a visit to Berlin on Thursday, Medvedev was pressed on the issue by German leaders and appeared to tamp down speculation that he might pardon Khodorkovsky. "The issue of a pardon shouldn't be discussed at an international level, or by politicians," Medvedev said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "The procedure of a pardon, for which any convict can appeal, including Khodorkovsky, should rely on Russian law."

Yuri Schmidt, one of Khodorkovsky's lawyers, said the issue of a pardon is a red herring because Khodorkovsky will never apply for one. Such an application, he said, requires an admission of guilt on the part of the petitioner, which is anathema to the jailed businessman. "We've been watching Medvedev's statements attentively, not about the pardon, but that court procedures should be used to resolve the Khodorkovsky case," Schmidt said. He said Khodorkovsky's attorneys were working on an application for early release, which Khodorkovsky now qualifies for after serving nearly five years in prison, including his pretrial detention. "The application to the courts will be sort of a test, and I'm cautiously optimistic," he said. "For the legal community, Valyavina's statement, in particular, was a hopeful sign that change is possible."

Valyavina made her statement as a defense witness in a libel case. Valery Boyev, a Kremlin official, had sued Vladimir Solovyov after the broadcast journalist said that "there are no independent judges in Russia. There are judges who depend on Boyev." Valyavina told a Moscow court that Boyev came to see her in 2005 after she handed down a ruling against the Federal Property Fund. "He spoke about state interests, saying that apparently I did not understand clearly what those interests were," said Valyavina, who was in her first six-year term. "I was told directly that if I was going to request reappointment for the second term, I would have problems." After Valyavina's testimony, Boyev withdrew his suit before three other judges could testify. "This case is a vivid example for the community of judges and society that you should and you can tell the truth," said Shota Gorgadze, Solovyov's attorney. "And the fact that it coincided with statements by Dmitry Medvedev confirms, in my view, that the time has come when words and the deeds coincide."

Daily News Editorial: Green light for corruption

Green light for corruption
EDITORIAL - The New York Daily News - June 8, 2008

The sleaze that is the New York State Legislature continues to reveal itself in new and astonishing ways. The latest specimen is Democratic Assemblyman David Gantt of Rochester, Transportation Committee chairman. He pulled a maneuver so lousy, his Albany cohorts are running away from him as fast as they can. This is the Mr. Gantt who has for the last seven years singlehandedly blocked plans by numerous cities, including New York, to use cameras to enforce traffic rules. Speed cameras? Gantt said no. Additional red-light cameras? Gantt said no. Cameras to snag drivers who hog bus-only lanes (Mayor Bloomberg's fallback after the Assembly killed congestion pricing)? Gantt said no. He explained his opposition as a matter of high principle. He said cameras would violate privacy. "It's the old Big Brother watching," he said.

But all of a sudden, Gantt has begun to love Big Brother. He introduced a bill that endorsed red-light cameras, writing that his measure was "aimed at helping reduce a major safety problem at urban and rural intersections." But Gantt wasn't interested in letting cities like New York and Buffalo buy the red-light cameras of their choice. His bill mandates cameras that use a technology marketed by just a single upstate company. And that firm happens to employ Gantt's former Transportation Committee counsel Robert Gaddy as an $80,000 lobbyist. The fix was in. Caught in flagrante, Gantt admitted to Newsday that he had introduced the bill as a "favor" to Gaddy, adding: "He's like a son to me. I don't know the company, never talked to them." That should be no surprise. This same Legislature made a routine business of passing fraudulent pension bills for politically powerful unions.

The law requires legislators to project the costs of retirement sweeteners. No problem. Lawmakers let the unions pull numbers out of the air and write them into legislation. They claimed the tab was zero or close to it when actually they were draining the city treasury of a half-billion dollars. There is no other conclusion but that Albany is for sale. Bloomberg railed that the pension bills were far more expensive than advertised. The Legislature dismissed him as a tightwad given to exaggeration. But he was right, while Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Majority Leader Joe Bruno and their troops were in the tank. When Bloomberg pleaded for the authority to expand traffic cameras, Silver gave Gantt veto power - no hearings, no debates. Posturing as a champion of privacy rights, Gantt told Bloomberg to stuff it - until, that is, Gantt's pal got paid to help things move in Albany. If a member of Congress tried a stunt like this, there'd be criminal and ethics investigations out the wazoo. But we're talking Albany, where the DA is a dud and where Silver rules the Ethics Committee like he rules everything else in the Assembly.

Update on Westchester Surrogate's Court's Dastardly Deeds

Update: Nothing new- Attorney employed by NY State still enjoying Scarsdale home "purchased" under questionable circumstances from 88-year-old widow's estate.... official complaint to be refiled.....

Here's the original Posting from Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Westchester Surrogate’s Court’s Dastardly Deeds
by Frank Brady © 2007

When 88-year-old Berta M. Murray died on August 12, 1997, she probably had not previously considered that the Scarsdale home built by her father, and that had been in her family for decades, would soon be occupied by a Westchester County Surrogate’s Court attorney-referee who worked in the very same court’s law department charged with the duty to oversee the affairs of the deceased-- A fact that has been secreted from her surviving relatives, until recently.

But Westchester Surrogate’s Court employee, attorney-referee Jody B. Keltz and her attorney-husband, Carl T. Peluso of Peluso & Touger in Manhattan, really liked that house at 168 Gaylor Road in Scarsdale, so in they moved in the Spring of 1998. And the two attorneys still call it home, even now as questions swirl as to just how they came to own the dead lady’s house.

By all accounts, the Keltz-Peluso attorneys never knew Berta, and they had most likely never invited the elderly widow to their prior home located at 75 Third Place in Brooklyn, New York.

“It’s outrageous that a Surrogate’s Court lawyer bought Berta’s house,” said an 80-plus-year-old cousin of Berta, and who only recently learned that Ms. Keltz was a lawyer in the Westchester Surrogate’s Court. “This stinks to high heaven, and I’m mad. It’s just not right, I don’t like this at all!” she added.

The real estate deal by the Keltz-Peluso team is reminiscent of a Brooklyn Surrogate Court “arrangement” in 2002 where, as the Village Voice described it, Judge Scholnick’s clerk “…snatched up the 11-room brownstone…of 85-year-old Elsie Perry…in a move that would make Donald Trump proud…” Honorably, Brooklyn Chief Court Clerk, George Crowley, refused to keep quite, saying publicly that, “If I did this, I would expect to be fired. The whole thing was unethical…the judge shouldn’t have allowed it…”

Brooklyn senior court official Crowley was so outraged by the cozy inside real estate deal that he took the highly unusual step of placing a note about it in the decedent’s Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court case file. But in the Westchester Murray-Keltz-Peluso transfer, no such concern has ever been voiced or documented by Surrogate’s Court Chief Clerk John Kelly or Surrogates Emanuelli or Scarpino. “Isn’t a Surrogate Court supposed to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, and handled properly?” asked Berta’s cousin, adding, “I knew Berta over seventy years, and everyone knew she wanted that house to stay in the family.”

Berta’s Dead: Enter The Vultures

A cursory review of Berta Murray’s estate file appears that it is largely normal, according to legal experts engaged to analyze the Murray estate transactions, and who are familiar with New York estate law, ethical obligations and the specific practices of the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court. However, they noted, the complete absence of any estate file “accounting” is quite unusual. And though not required, the name of Surrogate’s Court attorney-referee Jody B. Keltz, is nowhere to be found in the estate file. However, a review of the property Deed on file in the Westchester County Clerk’s office memorializes the transfer of ownership of 168 Gaylor Road in Scarsdale from the “Estate of Berta M. Murray…by The Bank of New York…to Carl T. Peluso and Jody B. Keltz, his wife.”

In a recent telephone conversation, a court employee confirmed that Ms. Keltz was still employed as an attorney-referee in the Surrogate’s Court’s law department. When asked to comment about the Keltz property transfer, she advised that, “If you want to keep your job around here, you keep your mouth shut.” When asked her name, the telephone connection ended.

A quick review of Berta’s estate file also shows a relatively standard probate proceeding, and it is quickly observed that The Bank of New York is the fiduciary and that the house was valued at $350,000.00--approximately one half of the total estate value of $742,968.00.

But an in-depth analysis reveals some eyebrow-raising facts, including that Berta’s last will was substantially different than her stated wishes as expressed to friends and relatives since her husband Elmer died in December of 1982. “In Westchester, everyone gets a crumb,” one estate lawyer noted. But those associated with the “new” wishes of Berta Murray EACH received “crumbs” worth tens of thousands of dollars: (1) attorney W. Rowland Miller of the Judy, Miller & O’Connor law firm in Scarsdale, and who drafted the Will for Berta (and in which The Bank of New York is named as the new fiduciary), and who was then retained as the attorney for the fiduciary, The Bank of New York; (2) attorney Samuel S. Yasgur, then of the Hall Dickler law firm, and who was appointed by former Hall Dicker lawyer and then-Judge Emanuelli to represent “unknown heirs”; and (3) real estate agent Camille Paradise of Claire D. Leone Real Estate, who lived in Berta’s neighborhood and who was the realtor that handled the sale of the house to court employee Keltz and her husband.

“Judges and attorneys have an obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,” observed one White Plains estate attorney who asked that his name be withheld, adding, “But that ethical requirement doesn’t apply here-- every player gets their piece of the pie-- that’s how court business is done in Westchester County.” He conceded that, “On its face, this doesn’t look good-- a state-employed attorney-referee working in the Surrogate’s Court shouldn’t be purchasing a house from any estate her court is overseeing.”

Under Westchester County Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino, court attorney-referee Jody B. Keltz continues her work insuring a high level of integrity in the administration of estate proceedings, also while holding professional fiduciaries, such as banks, to a high set of ethical and performance standards.

The biggest “crumb” from the Estate of Berta M. Murray went to Westchester County Surrogate’s Court attorney-referee Jody B. Keltz and her attorney-husband Carl T. Peluzo. That “crumb” -- the house and property located at 168 Gaylor Road in Scarsdale is, according to the village of Scarsdale tax office, now conservatively valued at $950,000.00.

www.ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com © 2007
Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 11:32 PM  

27 comments (as of June 7, 2008):

Anonymous said...
Great Blog, will spread the word. I know people that work in the county that get sick over what they see. Some of them will talk. Very good story. When someone is in a postion of trust they should not take advantage of it as Jody Keltz clearly did. No one is above the law including lawyers and Judges. Of course you know the reason they steal from the dead is obvious, they can not complain. I can imagine what other corruption is going on in the Surrogate's Court.  This story should be on TV and in the papers. I wonder why it isn't?  -  March 22, 2007 10:34 AM

Anonymous said...
As a neighbor of Jody and her family we didn't know all of this and if this is all true it is definitely wrong. We were friends of Berta Murray she was a good woman. Where is the supervision in the Courts? We know that Jody and Carl have a place up in Dutchess County, how did they get that? Disgusted  -  March 22, 2007 5:56 PM

Anonymous said...
This is simple! THIS WAS A PAYOFF FROM THE BANK OF NEW YORK. The bank deals with the Surrogate's Court all the time and they don't want any trouble. This means nothing to the bank. Why should they care? Who will expose them?  -  March 23, 2007 12:44 PM

Anonymous said...
I dealt with Jody Keltz invoving a family member's estate and did not have a good feeling if you know what I mean. Good blog, we need more stories like this. The is the only voice we have.  -  March 23, 2007 4:54 PM  

Anonymous said...
Emanuelli had a friend Nicky Cockeyes Rattenni (Genovese Capo)
Jody/Carl have a friend
Scarpino a former FBI Special Agent has a friend
Everyone needs a friend  -  March 24, 2007 8:43 AM

Anonymous said...
Someone better put a lien on her house so she doesn't sell it and leave the county with the money!!!  -  March 24, 2007 2:29 PM

Anonymous said...
These pilagers are not out to help the folks that pay them---they're out to help themselves at everyone's expense. The grave robbing gonifs are runing the store. For another chapter look at Phil Reisman in today's paper.  -  March 25, 2007 11:12 AM

Anonymous said...
More stolen with a pen then ever with a gun  -  March 26, 2007 11:01 AM

Anonymous said...
IT'S A STEAL - "KULTZ STEALS" HOME AND IS SAFE!
The House that "Kultz Built" with a lot of help from her friends in the Westchester Surrogate's Court. The fox is in charge of the Surrogate Court picking the bones of the dead and the live flesh of the heirs. What else has Kultz and her friends stolen? She should be in JAIL for a long time.  -  March 27, 2007 5:03 PM

Anonymous said...
Does anyone know that the Bank of New York entered into a "Non-Prosecution Agreement" with the US Attorney's. This involved criminal acts. Google this for the press release dated 11/8/05. I missed this fact in their promotional materials. So what's a house to them, if someone has to be greased?  -  March 30, 2007 12:28 AM

Anonymous said...
So where is the pistol packing Surrogate Judge Tony Scarpino in this?  -  March 30, 2007 12:47 PM

Anonymous said...
Disbar her and all her friends!  -  March 30, 2007 10:10 PM  

Anonymous said...
Carl & Jody are not friendly in the neighborhood, they don't want to talk, they seem nervous and the kids are inside more. Maybe it's all true?  -  March 31, 2007 10:53 AM

Anonymous said...
Enough already, why don't they just sell the house, get the money along with whatever else is under the mattress that they stole and move to Florida. Let them do another swindle down there. What do you expect, that's what lawyers do!  -  April 2, 2007 3:34 PM

Anonymous said...
Is she still working there?  -  April 3, 2007 3:57 PM

 
Anonymous said...
What's the deal with the Bank of New York? They engaged in felonious acts and should not be in the Surrogate's Court. Where is Judge Anthony J. Scarpino on this?
/s/an appalled attorney  -  April 3, 2007 8:04 PM  

Anonymous said...
This is material for a Federal Grand Jury along with the other stories on this blog.  -  April 4, 2007 1:57 PM  

Anonymous said...
In "IT'S A STEAL" think someone meant "KLUTZ" not KULTZ.  -  April 5, 2007 10:29 AM  

Anonymous said...
Tried to call Jody Keltz at the Surrogate's Court, was told she was not there?  -  April 5, 2007 1:06 PM  

Anonymous said...
do the right thing Jody  -  April 5, 2007 2:00 PM

Anonymous said...
can you still make a deal? time maybe running out babe?  -  April 5, 2007 7:50 PM  

Anonymous said...
As a former court officer I have seen things happen that you would never believe. People get screwed all the time by the lawyers and Judges, they don't care its all about money.  -  April 5, 2007 11:32 PM

Anonymous said...
Have read the prior stories and left comments. I want to know where the accountability is? Someone has to know what is going on. Or is everyone getting paid off!  -  April 7, 2007 7:23 PM

Anonymous said...
Again, Keltz is a skel and belongs in jail.  -  April 8, 2007 1:54 PM  

Anonymous said...
Yasgur - Amilicke? of Hall Dickler now out of business were Al Emanulli's favorites along with his former partner D. Geiss. A lot of people suing Hall Dickler including an attorney who worked for them. Yasgur has retreated to his roots in Sullivan Co.  -  April 8, 2007 9:28 PM  

Anonymous said...
What is the Court's Inspector General doing about this!?!?!?!?  -  April 21, 2007 8:43 PM  

Member of Real World said...
The I.G. is doing nothing, and will never do anything. Cheryl Spudtz is prevented from doing his job by the powers that be. But one thing's for sure, I.G. Spudtz will keep collecting a paycheck.
Hey, where do I get a job for getting paid for doing nothing?  -  April 23, 2007 9:46 PM

Federal Judge: "But you destroyed the faith of the people in their government."

Worthy of Review is the Posting from Super Bowl Sunday, February 3, 2008:

Federal Judge Michael Mills: "But you destroyed the faith of the people in their government."

It takes a little longer for a big city investigation to come to light than it would in a smaller locale. But in addition to being patient, New Yorkers should be encouraged by the recent words of Federal U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mills, notably this Super Bowl day from the town that brought New York Eli Manning- Oxford, Mississippi. There are many issues common to little Oxford, Mississippi and big New York, New York: a need for federal intervention over state corruption; conspiracy; public corruption; and the destruction of the faith people have in their government.

Nowlin to serve thirty months in prison
The Oxford Eagle - by Alyssa Schnugg - February 1, 2008

Despite numerous letters from prominent community members and a glowing report of cooperation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, insurance agent Ken Nowlin was sentenced Thursday to spend 30 months behind bars in a federal prison for conspiracy.

Nowlin was charged in June with conspiracy for paying former Lafayette County Supervisor Gary Massey a “commission” during Massey’s term as supervisor.

In late July Nowlin pleaded guilty to the charge and had been awaiting his sentencing hearing which was held Thursday afternoon at the Federal Courthouse in Oxford before U.S. District Judge Michael Mills. The Ecru insurance agent told Mills he was sorry for his actions.

“I’d like to apologize to you, Judge (Glen H.) Davidson, the court, Lafayette County, my family and colleagues,” Nowlin said before the judge. “I’m sorry I made this terrible mistake ... I know I broke the law ... Somehow I was mislead.”

“Who mislead you?” Mills asked.

“An elected official, your honor,” Nowlin replied.

U.S. Assistant Attorney Dave Sanders told Mills that Nowlin has fully cooperated with the investigation by supplying documents and testifying before a grand jury against Massey.

“Mr. Nowlin has met with us on several occasions and sat down and clarified some things,” Sanders said. “It’s a complicated case and he’s always been cooperative.”

According to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Nowlin faced up to 30 months in prison. The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion for downward departure in Nowlin’s favor, asking the court to consider a sentence less than the guidelines stipulate since Nowlin was so cooperative.

But despite the request and his cooperation, Mills sentenced Nowlin to the maximum sentence of 30 months.

“Up until this offense your record was exemplary,” Mills said to Nowlin. “I’ve received many letters from some impressive people on your behalf ... But you destroyed the faith of the people in their government.”

Nowlin was also sentenced to pay $275,942 in restitution back to Lafayette County. Nowlin’s attorney, Tony Farese, told Mills that Nowlin had already paid the full restitution on Tuesday.

Mills allowed Nowlin to remain out of custody on bail until March 31 when he will have to report to a prison facility that will be determined at a later date.

Massey and Nowlin were originally charged in June for conspiracy, public corruption and money laundering in a 53-count indictment, which alleged Massey accepted payments in excess of $827,000 during his term as supervisor from 1996 -2003, for the Lafayette County Employee Health Care Contract paid through Nowlin, the agent of record at the time.

Massey pleaded guilty in September to one count of conspiracy and two counts of public corruption. He is still awaiting a sentencing date.

Sanders announced during Thursday’s hearing that the remaining 52 counts against Nowlin will be dropped by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Before he became a supervisor in 1995, Massey was the insurance agent of record for Lafayette County. Federal prosecutors claim Massey used his influence to get Nowlin the job as insurance agent of record in exchange for the commission.

Prosecutors said Nowlin would receive payment for services in two checks made out to his office from plan administrator Total Plan Services. Nowlin took the checks and told his office to write a separate one to Massey for a “consulting fee.”
Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 8:48 AM


11 comments (as of June 7, 2008):

from white plains new york said...
Very powerful stuff. Yes, the corrupt scum bastards have destroyed the faith I once had in my state and my government. Please bring that MS judge to NY. - February 3, 2008 9:26 AM

nyc resident said...
any faith I had in government disappeared along time ago what with all the corrupt Judges and their toadies - February 3, 2008 1:40 PM

taxpayer said...
I hope most people know better that to have any faith in their Government because the Govenment is always ripping them off... - February 3, 2008 6:45 PM

Anonymous said...
What do you mean you have destroyed the faith...who has faith in the government? What are you crazy? Screw you!!!!!!!!!!!! - February 3, 2008 7:41 PM

Eliot Bernstein / Iviewit / Bat out of hell said...
Would the outcome have been the same if this were a judging ruling on the sleazy attorney who probably was in the background hiding behind the agent and the gov official with judge almost in pocket. I mean if this were a case were the inbreeding of lawyers or judges were on the line for the same crime, they would get a raise and a job at Proskauer Rose with partnership in their IP department. The judge would have closed his eyes, ah but an insurance agent, sucked in by a scumbag politician gets the maximum. I guess we must read between the lines on these crumbs. It is good to see a judge actually doing anything but joining public corruption on the bright side.  Bat out of hell - February 3, 2008 7:42 PM

robin from gotham said...
hey, we all know that if the vermin proctologists of PROSKAUER ROSE had been involved the matter would have been WHITEWASHED & FIXED!!!!! - February 3, 2008 11:38 PM

Anonymous said...
HEY, PEOPLE WAKE-UP THESE BUMS DO NOT CARE ABOUT DESTROYING THE FAITH PEOPLE HAVE IN GOVERNMENT, ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS HOW MUCH CASH THEY CAN STEAL - February 4, 2008 9:23 AM

Anonymous said...
I wish my parents were alive....i would love to discuss NY corruption that existed back in the 50's and 60's....want to know if that was the beginning! would love to know when or if ordinary people saw judicial corruption back then! anyone in their 70's. 80's or 90's...please write in and let me know. need to trace something for a case...thanks! - February 4, 2008 10:27 AM

Anonymous said...
these bastards have killed us! - February 4, 2008 7:37 PM

Anonymous said...
We are a awake...we just don't have a solution for dealing with the complex and intense judicial system, that has embedded itself in not only the criminal element, but the massive and extensive billion dollar law enforcement and political agendas! Got any suggestions for exposing it all?!!!! - February 4, 2008 8:18 PM

Anonymous said...
this agent that sells insurance reminds me of that corrupt ford man from the tennessee waltz case. He might as well took the money from the taxpayers of lafayette county. No wonder why my taxes are so high!!!!!!!!!!! - February 16, 2008 10:57 PM

Court System, not Judge, has 'irretrievably lost' public's confidence

For Whom the Bell Tolls: NY Judge Ousted After Meltdown Over Cell Phone Ringing in Court
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - June 6, 2008

ALBANY - The state's highest court yesterday upheld the recommended removal of an upstate judge for sending 46 defendants to jail when no one would admit to possessing the cell phone that rang in his courtroom. City Court Judge Robert M. Restaino of Niagara Falls has "irretrievably lost" the confidence of the public in his community due to his actions on March 11, 2005, a 6-0 Court of Appeals concluded in Matter of Restaino, 82. "By indiscriminately committing into custody 46 defendants, petitioner deprived them of their liberty without due process, exhibited insensitivity, indifference and a callousness so reproachable that his continued presence on the Bench cannot be tolerated," the Court held in a per curiam ruling.

The Court affirmed the removal recommendation contained in a 9-1 decision by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission similarly found that Judge Restaino had irreparably damaged public confidence in his ability to serve as a judge because of his 2005 tirade. The judge had urged both the commission and the Court to allow him to stay on the bench by finding that censure was the proper punishment. Judge Restaino became a part-time judge in Niagara Falls in 1996 and joined the bench full time in 2002. His current term would have ended in 2011. He had been suspended with pay from the $113,000-a-year job since he formally appealed the conduct commission's determination to the Court of Appeals in December.

The defendants detained by Judge Restaino appeared before him in a domestic violence session of Niagara Falls City Court. Signs in the courtroom warned visitors that cell phones must be turned off. When no one claimed ownership of the ringing phone, Judge Restaino declared, "Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now." He then systematically began to call defendants before him and to order them into custody when they denied knowledge of the cell phone, according to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Fourteen of the defendants were unable to post bail at the city jail and were ultimately taken to the Niagara County Jail. They were all released by the end of the day, after Judge Restaino had reconsidered his actions.

Civic and governmental groups in Niagara County, including several local bar associations and the Niagara Falls Boys' and Girls' Club, filed 10 amici curiae briefs before the Court of Appeals urging the judges to reduce the sanction against Judge Restaino to censure. The judge's attorney, Terrence M. Connors, asked the Court during oral arguments in the case not to force Judge Restaino to forfeit an otherwise stellar judicial career because of his aberrant behavior on one day. Mr. Connors said the judge reacted inappropriately to the ringing phone because of marital problems and to a judicial caseload that Mr. Connors called one of the heaviest in the state. Mr. Connors estimated that Mr. Restaino was responsible for some 90,000 cases between 1996 and 2006.

The Court yesterday acknowledged Judge Restaino's "notable contributions to the administration of justice." The amici curiae briefs reflect how "well-respected" he is in his community, the Court noted. But the judges added that there are simply some "truly egregious circumstances" in which judicial misconduct cannot be excused, no matter the mitigating factors offered by judges. "Significantly, petitioner had more than 46 chances to correct himself and failed to do so," the Court declared. The judges also rejected the argument Mr. Connors made on Judge Restaino's behalf that to impose the most severe sanction for actions the judge attributed to extreme "psychological stressors" would discourage other judges from seeking help for psychological problems.

"The State has been proactive in ensuring that members of the Bench and Bar have access to critical services in strict confidence," the Court observed. "The New York State Lawyers Assistance Trust works closely with local bar associations to ensure that members of the Bench and Bar have ready access to early intervention and assistance to ensure that they do not reach a critical stage in their personal dilemmas." Mr. Connors, of Connors & Vilardo in Buffalo, said in a statement that Judge Restaino's removal "is a great loss to the bench, bar and western New York community." "During his years of service, he made significant contributions to the administration of justice in western New York," Mr. Connors said. Judge Restaino declined through Connors & Vilardo to comment on yesterday's ruling.

Robert Tembeckjian, the conduct commission's administrator, declined comment on the Court's decision. The ruling was the 64th time the Court of Appeals has upheld a removal recommendation by the commission. In nine other cases, the Court reduced recommended removals to censures. Court of Appeals' Judge Eugene F. Piggott Jr., a former presiding justice of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in which Niagara Falls is located, took no part in yesterday's decision. Judge Restaino, a graduate of Buffalo Law School who was admitted to the bar in 1986, had a private practice from 1986 to 2001.