Is Worldwide Corruption on the Rise?
Time Magazine by ALEXANDRA SILVER - December 9, 2010
People seem to think so. Right on time for International Anti-Corruption Day, the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer has been released. Some 90,000 people in 86 countries were surveyed for the Transparency International (TI) report that gauges public opinion on shady dealings. And public perceptions are pretty pessimistic. According to TI, nearly six out of 10 people say corruption has increased in their country over the past three years … which the global financial crisis probably had a little something to do with. The rate is higher among Europeans (73%) and North Americans (67%)… though people there also reported paying fewer bribes than residents of other regions. Globally, one out of four people surveyed said they paid a bribe in the last year. And it seems the police were usually the ones taking them. Respondents, however, do not consider the police the most crooked institution: that dishonor belongs to political parties (which about 80% regard as corrupt). And it's religious institutions that saw the biggest jump in perceived corruption: while only 28% of people considered them corrupt in 2004, 53% do so now. The prevalence of bribery varies greatly around the world. 89% of Liberians surveyed reported paying bribes — a higher proportion than any other population. Apparently, however, there is nothing rotten in the state of Denmark. It was the only nation that did not report any bribery (meanwhile, just 1% of respondents in both Norway and the UK said they'd paid a bribe. In the U.S., it was 5%). Significantly, people with lower-incomes report paying more bribes—not just to the police, but also to providers of such basics as medical services, utilities, and education. As TI notes, “The 2010 Barometer shows again that poorer people around the globe are more frequently penalized by bribery.” When it comes to bribing the judiciary, though, a higher percentage of those with higher-incomes say they've done it. TI's report explored the motivations behind bribery by asking respondents the purpose of the latest bribe they'd paid. In sub-Saharan Africa, 67% did so to “avoid a problem with authorities.” In the Middle East and North Africa, 48% said they paid bribes to “speed things up.” And in North America and Europe, 10% and 12%, respectively, said they “don't remember." It's only slightly less disturbing than the fact that 59% of the respondents from those regions said they “don't know.”
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
U.S. Senate Ousts Federal Judge
Senate, for Just the 8th Time, Votes to Oust a Federal Judge
The New York Times by JENNIFER STEINHAUER - December 8, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC — The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades. Judge Porteous, the eighth federal judge to be removed from office in this manner, was impeached by the House in March on four articles stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, used a false name to elude creditors and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings. The behavior amounted to a “pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him,” according to the articles against him. All 96 senators present voted “guilty” on the first article, which concerned his time as a state court judge and his subsequent failure to recuse himself from matters involving a former law partner, with whom he was accused of trading favors for cash. Tapping his fingers nervously on the table as he looked at the paper where his lawyer kept track of each vote, Judge Porteous waited in vain for a “not guilty” vote. As the last of the senators stood to formally render a decision, a lawyer for the judge reached over to squeeze his arm in consolation. On the other three articles, some senators did support Judge Porteous, with 27 voting in his favor on the article concerning meals, trips and car repair he was accused of receiving from a bail bondsman. The senators also voted 94 to 2 to disqualify him from holding future federal office. “I am deeply saddened to be removed from office but I felt it was important not just to me but to the judiciary to take this fight to the Senate,” Mr. Porteous said in a statement. The statement added, “While I still believe these allegations did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as a constitutional matter, I understand how people of good faith could disagree.” The process was meant to be as solemn as it was unusual. Still, it often seemed as if members were struggling to pay attention. Some fiddled with their smart phones, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California had to be poked in the arm by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, a fellow Democrat, to get her to vote on the third article. Mr. Porteous, 64, was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been suspended with pay since 2008. As a result of his removal from the bench, which took effect immediately, he will not receive his annual federal pension of $174,000. In 1989, Judges Alcee L. Hastings and Walter M. Nixon were impeached, found guilty by the Senate and removed from office.
The New York Times by JENNIFER STEINHAUER - December 8, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC — The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades. Judge Porteous, the eighth federal judge to be removed from office in this manner, was impeached by the House in March on four articles stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, used a false name to elude creditors and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings. The behavior amounted to a “pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him,” according to the articles against him. All 96 senators present voted “guilty” on the first article, which concerned his time as a state court judge and his subsequent failure to recuse himself from matters involving a former law partner, with whom he was accused of trading favors for cash. Tapping his fingers nervously on the table as he looked at the paper where his lawyer kept track of each vote, Judge Porteous waited in vain for a “not guilty” vote. As the last of the senators stood to formally render a decision, a lawyer for the judge reached over to squeeze his arm in consolation. On the other three articles, some senators did support Judge Porteous, with 27 voting in his favor on the article concerning meals, trips and car repair he was accused of receiving from a bail bondsman. The senators also voted 94 to 2 to disqualify him from holding future federal office. “I am deeply saddened to be removed from office but I felt it was important not just to me but to the judiciary to take this fight to the Senate,” Mr. Porteous said in a statement. The statement added, “While I still believe these allegations did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as a constitutional matter, I understand how people of good faith could disagree.” The process was meant to be as solemn as it was unusual. Still, it often seemed as if members were struggling to pay attention. Some fiddled with their smart phones, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California had to be poked in the arm by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, a fellow Democrat, to get her to vote on the third article. Mr. Porteous, 64, was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been suspended with pay since 2008. As a result of his removal from the bench, which took effect immediately, he will not receive his annual federal pension of $174,000. In 1989, Judges Alcee L. Hastings and Walter M. Nixon were impeached, found guilty by the Senate and removed from office.
*******************************************
Senate votes to remove Louisiana judge from federal bench
The Associated Press by Ben Evans - December 8, 2010
The Senate on Wednesday convicted U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana on four articles of impeachment, making him just the eighth federal judge in history to be removed by Congress. Porteous, who sat before senators in the well of the chamber as they voted separately on each count, declined to comment as he left the chamber. "We're obviously disappointed with the result," said Daniel Schwartz, one of his lawyers. House prosecutors laid out a damaging case against Porteous, 63, a New Orleans native who was a state judge before President Bill Clinton appointed him to the federal bench in 1994. The prosecutors said gambling and drinking problems led him to begin accepting cash and other favors from lawyers and bail bondsmen with business before his court. He also was accused of lying to Congress during his judicial confirmation and filing for bankruptcy under a false name. The Senate voted unanimously to convict on one count and with a strong majority for each of the other three. Porteous's lead lawyer, Jonathan Turley, acknowledged much of the behavior, saying the judge made mistakes but arguing that they were mostly personal failings that didn't meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard for impeachment. Turley also argued that many of the practices - such as accepting favors and expensive meals - were common in the Louisiana legal community. But House prosecutors said the evidence showed a decades-long pattern of corruption. They told senators that allowing Porteous to remain on the bench would erode public confidence in the courts and make a mockery of the federal judiciary. The Senate closed the chamber for more than two hours Tuesday night to deliberate on his fate, then made its decision Wednesday in a solemn ceremonial vote in which senators sat at their desks and rose when called, saying "guilty" or "not guilty." Porteous offered little reaction as the decision became clear, mostly looking down at papers before him on which one of his lawyers kept a tally of the votes. In earlier hearings, two lawyers who once worked with Porteous had testified that they gave him thousands of dollars in cash, including about $2,000 stuffed in an envelope in 1999, just before Porteous decided a major civil case in their client's favor. They also said they paid for meals, trips and part of a bachelor party for one of Porteous's sons in Las Vegas, including a lap dance at a strip club. Another witness, New Orleans bail bondsman Louis Marcotte, described a long-standing relationship in which Marcotte and his employees routinely took Porteous to lavish meals at French Quarter restaurants, repaired his automobiles, washed and filled his cars with gas and took him on trips. In return, Porteous manipulated bond amounts for defendants to give Marcotte the highest fees possible, said Marcotte, who served 18 months in prison on related corruption charges. Porteous was caught up in a 1999 FBI investigation that found widespread corruption in Louisiana's Jefferson Parish. The sting netted more than a dozen convictions, but Porteous was never charged with a crime, in part, authorities said, because statutes of limitations had expired.
The Associated Press by Ben Evans - December 8, 2010
The Senate on Wednesday convicted U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana on four articles of impeachment, making him just the eighth federal judge in history to be removed by Congress. Porteous, who sat before senators in the well of the chamber as they voted separately on each count, declined to comment as he left the chamber. "We're obviously disappointed with the result," said Daniel Schwartz, one of his lawyers. House prosecutors laid out a damaging case against Porteous, 63, a New Orleans native who was a state judge before President Bill Clinton appointed him to the federal bench in 1994. The prosecutors said gambling and drinking problems led him to begin accepting cash and other favors from lawyers and bail bondsmen with business before his court. He also was accused of lying to Congress during his judicial confirmation and filing for bankruptcy under a false name. The Senate voted unanimously to convict on one count and with a strong majority for each of the other three. Porteous's lead lawyer, Jonathan Turley, acknowledged much of the behavior, saying the judge made mistakes but arguing that they were mostly personal failings that didn't meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard for impeachment. Turley also argued that many of the practices - such as accepting favors and expensive meals - were common in the Louisiana legal community. But House prosecutors said the evidence showed a decades-long pattern of corruption. They told senators that allowing Porteous to remain on the bench would erode public confidence in the courts and make a mockery of the federal judiciary. The Senate closed the chamber for more than two hours Tuesday night to deliberate on his fate, then made its decision Wednesday in a solemn ceremonial vote in which senators sat at their desks and rose when called, saying "guilty" or "not guilty." Porteous offered little reaction as the decision became clear, mostly looking down at papers before him on which one of his lawyers kept a tally of the votes. In earlier hearings, two lawyers who once worked with Porteous had testified that they gave him thousands of dollars in cash, including about $2,000 stuffed in an envelope in 1999, just before Porteous decided a major civil case in their client's favor. They also said they paid for meals, trips and part of a bachelor party for one of Porteous's sons in Las Vegas, including a lap dance at a strip club. Another witness, New Orleans bail bondsman Louis Marcotte, described a long-standing relationship in which Marcotte and his employees routinely took Porteous to lavish meals at French Quarter restaurants, repaired his automobiles, washed and filled his cars with gas and took him on trips. In return, Porteous manipulated bond amounts for defendants to give Marcotte the highest fees possible, said Marcotte, who served 18 months in prison on related corruption charges. Porteous was caught up in a 1999 FBI investigation that found widespread corruption in Louisiana's Jefferson Parish. The sting netted more than a dozen convictions, but Porteous was never charged with a crime, in part, authorities said, because statutes of limitations had expired.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Newspapers Starting To Wake Up About Widespread Corruption
Leibell's fall shows need for,limits of reform
The Journal News - EDITORIAL - December 8, 2010
Vincent Leibell, certified Monday as an unambiguously crooked politician, was well aware by late fall that federal investigators looking into public corruption had hit pay dirt with his office. We now know that while Leibell was running for county executive of Putnam, a race he won in November, he also was running from the truth. The latter finally overtook him in the frigid morning, when he pleaded guilty to two charges of corruption, shredding any doubt about the ex-senator's place in the county's history of political infamy. The man long regarded as the most powerful politician in Putnam has now been revealed as a mong the dirtiest — and going back to 2003. He pleaded guilty to charges that he pocketed $43,000 in kickbacks from attorneys doing business with the Putnam Community Foundation, the nonprofit senior-housing organization Leibell funded through legislative grants. He joins a growing list of state lawmakers who have succumbed to the slack oversight and, perhaps, the sense of entitlement associated with so-called member items, the taxpayer-funded grants doled out by legislators. Sen. Pedro Espada, D-Bronx and Westchester, gained widespread attention in 2010 for allegedly siphoning off millions from a health-care concern funded with member-item funds. Espada was defeated in a September primary and still faces a bevy of inquiries. Leibell won his primary and general elections with relative ease.
"Someone make it stop!" the good-government group NYPIRG — New York Public Interest Research Group — said in a statement released after Leibell entered his guilty pleas. "The governor and legislators should not hide behind this time of transition and their 'lame duck' status. It would be truly lame for them to duck ethics reform when yet another scandal confronts them and further antagonizes the public. The time to act is now." In recent years, legislators have tightened reporting and disclosure rules for member items, but those changes hardly go far enough. Legislators still manage to turn what should be arm's- length relationships with recipient organizations into opportunities for individual financial enrichment. Real reform would do away with member items altogether: worthy causes would be made to compete for funding, just as other pressing needs must. But no package of reforms would protect the public from those truly committed to abusing their trust. "Business is not slow" in the corruption- fighting department, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said. According to court documents, Leibell engaged in a transparently clumsy deceit aimed at covering up his demand and receipt of kickbacks. He was caught on hidden microphones issuing instructions on how the deceit should be masked. "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period. ... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn't happen." But it did, again and again, as Leibell's guilty pleas made plain. Leibell also addressed the corruption case when he appeared before the Editorial Board in September, along with Putnam Legislator Mary Ellen Odell, his opponent in both the primary and general election. Odell hinted at the scandal now unfolding, saying: " There is something abuzz in Putnam County." Leibell, for his part, denied any wrongdoing and spoke glowingly of the work of the Putnam Community Foundation. They were just more lies on top of the others.
Vincent Leibell, certified Monday as an unambiguously crooked politician, was well aware by late fall that federal investigators looking into public corruption had hit pay dirt with his office. We now know that while Leibell was running for county executive of Putnam, a race he won in November, he also was running from the truth. The latter finally overtook him in the frigid morning, when he pleaded guilty to two charges of corruption, shredding any doubt about the ex-senator's place in the county's history of political infamy. The man long regarded as the most powerful politician in Putnam has now been revealed as a mong the dirtiest — and going back to 2003. He pleaded guilty to charges that he pocketed $43,000 in kickbacks from attorneys doing business with the Putnam Community Foundation, the nonprofit senior-housing organization Leibell funded through legislative grants. He joins a growing list of state lawmakers who have succumbed to the slack oversight and, perhaps, the sense of entitlement associated with so-called member items, the taxpayer-funded grants doled out by legislators. Sen. Pedro Espada, D-Bronx and Westchester, gained widespread attention in 2010 for allegedly siphoning off millions from a health-care concern funded with member-item funds. Espada was defeated in a September primary and still faces a bevy of inquiries. Leibell won his primary and general elections with relative ease.
"Someone make it stop!" the good-government group NYPIRG — New York Public Interest Research Group — said in a statement released after Leibell entered his guilty pleas. "The governor and legislators should not hide behind this time of transition and their 'lame duck' status. It would be truly lame for them to duck ethics reform when yet another scandal confronts them and further antagonizes the public. The time to act is now." In recent years, legislators have tightened reporting and disclosure rules for member items, but those changes hardly go far enough. Legislators still manage to turn what should be arm's- length relationships with recipient organizations into opportunities for individual financial enrichment. Real reform would do away with member items altogether: worthy causes would be made to compete for funding, just as other pressing needs must. But no package of reforms would protect the public from those truly committed to abusing their trust. "Business is not slow" in the corruption- fighting department, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said. According to court documents, Leibell engaged in a transparently clumsy deceit aimed at covering up his demand and receipt of kickbacks. He was caught on hidden microphones issuing instructions on how the deceit should be masked. "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period. ... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn't happen." But it did, again and again, as Leibell's guilty pleas made plain. Leibell also addressed the corruption case when he appeared before the Editorial Board in September, along with Putnam Legislator Mary Ellen Odell, his opponent in both the primary and general election. Odell hinted at the scandal now unfolding, saying: " There is something abuzz in Putnam County." Leibell, for his part, denied any wrongdoing and spoke glowingly of the work of the Putnam Community Foundation. They were just more lies on top of the others.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
At Least One NY Attorney Respects "Misprision of Felony" Law
THE LAW: TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 1 - § 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
MISPRISION - In its larger sense, this word is used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in the law; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In its narrower sense it is the concealment of a crime. Misprision of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed; to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision. Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, for example, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.
MISPRISION OF FELONY - Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after the fact.
Source: Leibell was "set up" by friend
The Journal News by Michael Risinit - December 9, 2010
CARMEL, NY — A friend, not an enemy, is the unidentified attorney that snared disgraced former state Sen. Vincent Leibell for federal investigators, at least three sources said. Leibell was "set up" by former Putnam County Attorney Carl Lodes, a Carmel lawyer whose relationship with Leibell stretches back to the 1970s, said a source who has known Leibell throughout the former lawmaker's career in public life. In court this week, federal prosecutors said they recorded and videotaped Leibell and Attorney No. 1, who is described as providing legal services to Leibell's nonprofit housing foundation and to "Putnam County government," walking and talking on a Carmel street. Prosecutors said Leibell urged that lawyer to lie to a federal grand jury about the cash kickbacks he gave the senator.
While federal prosecutors won't reveal Attorney No. 1's identity, two Putnam County officials also said it is Lodes. "Lodes cooperated with the investigation," said a county official with knowledge of the investigation. On Wednesday, Lodes, 62, wouldn't talk to a reporter or comment on whether he was the person who wore the wire that recorded Leibell. He was approached as he walked from his Volvo sedan to his Route 6 law office in Carmel. "I don't care why you're here. I'm not talking," he told a reporter. Leibell, a 28-year Albany politician, admitted in federal court Monday that he filed false tax returns and tried to influence a grand jury investigating him for corruption. Aware in April he was under investigation, Leibell met several times with Attorney No. 1. The attorney was subpoenaed May 17 to appear before the grand jury, according to court papers. The person who has known Leibell throughout his public life said Lodes appealed to their long-standing friendship and told the senator they needed to talk again. After several requests, he said, Leibell met June 6 with Lodes, who "got wired up." "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period. ... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn't happen. ... All I know is, as long as you and I are consistent, I'm fine, you're fine. There was never any cash between you and I, OK?" Leibell said, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in White Plains. Leibell said in court that he failed to report $43,000 in kickbacks from attorneys who did business with the housing organization he founded in 1999 as well as from a partner in a Westchester County law firm that "provided legal services to the Putnam County government." Those outside legal contracts were executed by Lodes. "Apparently, Lodes paid Vinnie some cash," said the source who has known Leibell throughout his public career. Leibell's lawyer, David L. Lewis, didn't return a telephone message about Lodes' wearing the wire.
Lodes was county attorney from 1991 to early 2008, which covered the period federal investigators say Leibell extorted money from the unidentified lawyers. In June, investigators ordered the Putnam County Attorney's Office to turn over all records pertaining to hiring outside counsel and served a subpoena on Carmel for all documents related to legal services provided by Servino, Santangelo & Randazzo. The former law firm, which was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Putnam taxpayers, was based in Hawthorne. Anthony Servino's lawyer, Kerry Lawrence, declined to comment Tuesday, when asked if Servino was the lawyer whose firm made payments to Leibell. A second Putnam County official who has long known Leibell said he spoke with the senator following his court appearance, and the senator said Lodes was the person who wore the wire. "I didn't think he was angry. It was kind of just matter-of-fact," the second official said. Both Leibell and Lodes served as assistant district attorneys in the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. After the District Attorney's Office, Leibell became an assistant county attorney in Putnam before going into private practice about 1980. For 30 years, he shared a Church Street office with Carmel attorney Timothy Curtiss. Their firm went through several incarnations over the years, and Leibell's name was removed from their shingle in mid-November. That was in anticipation of his taking office as county executive Jan. 1, Curtiss said. Leibell won the executive race last month. Lodes for a time had an office inside the Church Street house where Curtiss and Leibell practiced.
The source who has known Leibell throughout the former lawmaker's career said Leibell and Lodes that spring day talked about their offices and how work was often referred to Lodes. Curtiss said Wednesday that work was sometimes sent to Lodes, but he had no idea of any of the dealings outlined by the government. "The only thing I've done is read the newspapers," Curtiss said. Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi appointed Lodes as county attorney, a move he stood by Wednesday. Bondi said he knew only the information he read in Leibell's court documents. But William Spain of Mahopac, Lodes' predecessor , questioned Putnam's costly use of outside attorneys. "As Putnam County attorney from 1987 to 1991, with the exception of insurance defense cases, we handled all matters in-house. That was also the practice of my predecessors. In 1991, (Lodes) started referring out most of the cases to Westchester County law firms who would pay lawyers on an hourly basis to drive to Putnam County and handle routine and simple cases. When I asked elected officials about this practice, I could never get a straight answer. Perhaps County Executive Bob Bondi knows," Spain said. Bondi said he couldn't "agree or disagree" with Spain's statement. State law prohibits the county from geographically restricting its search for vendors or materials, he said. The same should apply to attorneys, he said. MRISINIT@LOHUD.COM
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
DISCUSSION:
MISPRISION - In its larger sense, this word is used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in the law; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In its narrower sense it is the concealment of a crime. Misprision of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed; to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision. Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, for example, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.
MISPRISION OF FELONY - Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after the fact.
The Journal News by Michael Risinit - December 9, 2010
CARMEL, NY — A friend, not an enemy, is the unidentified attorney that snared disgraced former state Sen. Vincent Leibell for federal investigators, at least three sources said. Leibell was "set up" by former Putnam County Attorney Carl Lodes, a Carmel lawyer whose relationship with Leibell stretches back to the 1970s, said a source who has known Leibell throughout the former lawmaker's career in public life. In court this week, federal prosecutors said they recorded and videotaped Leibell and Attorney No. 1, who is described as providing legal services to Leibell's nonprofit housing foundation and to "Putnam County government," walking and talking on a Carmel street. Prosecutors said Leibell urged that lawyer to lie to a federal grand jury about the cash kickbacks he gave the senator.
While federal prosecutors won't reveal Attorney No. 1's identity, two Putnam County officials also said it is Lodes. "Lodes cooperated with the investigation," said a county official with knowledge of the investigation. On Wednesday, Lodes, 62, wouldn't talk to a reporter or comment on whether he was the person who wore the wire that recorded Leibell. He was approached as he walked from his Volvo sedan to his Route 6 law office in Carmel. "I don't care why you're here. I'm not talking," he told a reporter. Leibell, a 28-year Albany politician, admitted in federal court Monday that he filed false tax returns and tried to influence a grand jury investigating him for corruption. Aware in April he was under investigation, Leibell met several times with Attorney No. 1. The attorney was subpoenaed May 17 to appear before the grand jury, according to court papers. The person who has known Leibell throughout his public life said Lodes appealed to their long-standing friendship and told the senator they needed to talk again. After several requests, he said, Leibell met June 6 with Lodes, who "got wired up." "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period. ... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn't happen. ... All I know is, as long as you and I are consistent, I'm fine, you're fine. There was never any cash between you and I, OK?" Leibell said, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in White Plains. Leibell said in court that he failed to report $43,000 in kickbacks from attorneys who did business with the housing organization he founded in 1999 as well as from a partner in a Westchester County law firm that "provided legal services to the Putnam County government." Those outside legal contracts were executed by Lodes. "Apparently, Lodes paid Vinnie some cash," said the source who has known Leibell throughout his public career. Leibell's lawyer, David L. Lewis, didn't return a telephone message about Lodes' wearing the wire.
Lodes was county attorney from 1991 to early 2008, which covered the period federal investigators say Leibell extorted money from the unidentified lawyers. In June, investigators ordered the Putnam County Attorney's Office to turn over all records pertaining to hiring outside counsel and served a subpoena on Carmel for all documents related to legal services provided by Servino, Santangelo & Randazzo. The former law firm, which was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Putnam taxpayers, was based in Hawthorne. Anthony Servino's lawyer, Kerry Lawrence, declined to comment Tuesday, when asked if Servino was the lawyer whose firm made payments to Leibell. A second Putnam County official who has long known Leibell said he spoke with the senator following his court appearance, and the senator said Lodes was the person who wore the wire. "I didn't think he was angry. It was kind of just matter-of-fact," the second official said. Both Leibell and Lodes served as assistant district attorneys in the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. After the District Attorney's Office, Leibell became an assistant county attorney in Putnam before going into private practice about 1980. For 30 years, he shared a Church Street office with Carmel attorney Timothy Curtiss. Their firm went through several incarnations over the years, and Leibell's name was removed from their shingle in mid-November. That was in anticipation of his taking office as county executive Jan. 1, Curtiss said. Leibell won the executive race last month. Lodes for a time had an office inside the Church Street house where Curtiss and Leibell practiced.
The source who has known Leibell throughout the former lawmaker's career said Leibell and Lodes that spring day talked about their offices and how work was often referred to Lodes. Curtiss said Wednesday that work was sometimes sent to Lodes, but he had no idea of any of the dealings outlined by the government. "The only thing I've done is read the newspapers," Curtiss said. Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi appointed Lodes as county attorney, a move he stood by Wednesday. Bondi said he knew only the information he read in Leibell's court documents. But William Spain of Mahopac, Lodes' predecessor , questioned Putnam's costly use of outside attorneys. "As Putnam County attorney from 1987 to 1991, with the exception of insurance defense cases, we handled all matters in-house. That was also the practice of my predecessors. In 1991, (Lodes) started referring out most of the cases to Westchester County law firms who would pay lawyers on an hourly basis to drive to Putnam County and handle routine and simple cases. When I asked elected officials about this practice, I could never get a straight answer. Perhaps County Executive Bob Bondi knows," Spain said. Bondi said he couldn't "agree or disagree" with Spain's statement. State law prohibits the county from geographically restricting its search for vendors or materials, he said. The same should apply to attorneys, he said. MRISINIT@LOHUD.COM
Another NY Attorney's Guilt Shows Widespread Corruption in Legal Community
Another Politician Falls, and Earth Barely Shakes
The New York Times by Peter Applebome - December 9, 2010
The New York Times by Peter Applebome - December 9, 2010
CARMEL, N.Y. - About four years ago an unsigned postcard arrived at the Albany bureau of The New York Times. Written in permanent marker on an unlined notecard were the words “Ask about Leibell,” with the name underlined. In truth, even absent the heads-up, if you wanted to ask almost anything about Putnam County, the postcard-size stretch of subdivisions, reservoirs, steep slopes and small towns squeezed between the suburbs of Westchester County and the rural precincts of Dutchess County, you would probably have found some reasons to ask about Vincent L. Leibell III. Mr. Leibell, 64, son of a mob-busting New York City prosecutor, a Republican state legislator for 28 years, guiding hand behind powerful government-supported, nonprofit foundations that brought millions of dollars into the county and recently elected county executive, was the most powerful person in Putnam. So in lots of ways, the suggestion to “Ask about Leibell” came with the turf.
But when Mr. Leibell toppled to earth this week, yet another crooked New York pol pleading guilty to obstruction of justice and tax charges, what’s most striking is how nonseismic it felt. A few people expressed surprise, but they must not have been paying attention after an F.B.I. investigation that became an issue in his campaign for county executive, his sudden decision to quit the State Senate a month early and his announcement that he would not assume the county executive job. You might have expected his allies in this staunchly Republican county with 100,000 residents to offer profoundly mixed expressions of betrayal and recognition. But there is no hate like intraparty hate, and Putnam County Republicans of various stripes have been at one another’s throats publicly for years. (Hence, one assumes, that postcard.) There were statements of personal regret for him and his family, some that rang true, some that didn’t. But when the king goes down, the king goes down. “We’ll have to purge the county of a lot of his stooges,” Anthony Scannapieco, the Putnam Republican election commissioner, told The Journal News. “It’s a little turmoil, but I think we’ll be fine in the long run.” As for shaking up the political landscape in the only downstate county besides Staten Island to support John McCain, that has already happened with the rise of Tea Party types like Greg Ball, the ambitious and polarizing former Air Force officer who will succeed Mr. Leibell in the Senate. It’s a statement on how Republican Putnam is, that any vacuum is already being filled by the Tea Party from the right, not the Democrats from the left. Mr. Leibell, as might be expected, has many friends, fans and admirers, not least because at a time when railing against illegal immigration in a county that’s 93 percent white has been the fastest road to political prominence, he never played that card. But there is really only one political story, told from “The Last Hurrah,” to “All the King’s Men,” from Tammany Hall to Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada Jr. — too much power and too much temptation. Which is why the cynicism in this sparsely populated county, with its ancient courthouse and the historical marker noting the hanging there in 1844, was palpable long before Mr. Leibell’s fall. The same people keep getting elected — congressmen unless the political earth moves, Mr. Leibell for almost three decades, County Executive Robert J. Bondi for 20 years. It’s not because they’re beloved, but because they’re the ones with the juice. If you want to understand the Tea Party, this is one place to start. In the end, everything about Mr. Leibell is now being questioned: that $1.4 million mansion with the adjacent land declared parkland, the foundations with the extravagant legal bills that turned out to be paths toward kickbacks, the remarkably low land price he managed for the senior housing his foundation is planning, the kingmaker role now up for grabs. Few think he’ll be the only one implicated as prosecutions go forward. But the main taint isn’t here, where Mr. Leibell was recorded cooking up an alibi to obstruct the investigations with one of the lawyers he was accused of conspiring with. It’s 100 miles away in Albany, where he mastered the levers of power in the form of member items or legislative spending dedicated to nonprofit groups that members control like private bank vaults. “Someone, make it stop,” the New York Public Interest Research Group said after Mr. Leibell’s guilty plea in calling for a special session before the end of the year to pass ethics reform. But no one ever does, which is why we’ve heard this story before and will, no doubt, hear it again. E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
But when Mr. Leibell toppled to earth this week, yet another crooked New York pol pleading guilty to obstruction of justice and tax charges, what’s most striking is how nonseismic it felt. A few people expressed surprise, but they must not have been paying attention after an F.B.I. investigation that became an issue in his campaign for county executive, his sudden decision to quit the State Senate a month early and his announcement that he would not assume the county executive job. You might have expected his allies in this staunchly Republican county with 100,000 residents to offer profoundly mixed expressions of betrayal and recognition. But there is no hate like intraparty hate, and Putnam County Republicans of various stripes have been at one another’s throats publicly for years. (Hence, one assumes, that postcard.) There were statements of personal regret for him and his family, some that rang true, some that didn’t. But when the king goes down, the king goes down. “We’ll have to purge the county of a lot of his stooges,” Anthony Scannapieco, the Putnam Republican election commissioner, told The Journal News. “It’s a little turmoil, but I think we’ll be fine in the long run.” As for shaking up the political landscape in the only downstate county besides Staten Island to support John McCain, that has already happened with the rise of Tea Party types like Greg Ball, the ambitious and polarizing former Air Force officer who will succeed Mr. Leibell in the Senate. It’s a statement on how Republican Putnam is, that any vacuum is already being filled by the Tea Party from the right, not the Democrats from the left. Mr. Leibell, as might be expected, has many friends, fans and admirers, not least because at a time when railing against illegal immigration in a county that’s 93 percent white has been the fastest road to political prominence, he never played that card. But there is really only one political story, told from “The Last Hurrah,” to “All the King’s Men,” from Tammany Hall to Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada Jr. — too much power and too much temptation. Which is why the cynicism in this sparsely populated county, with its ancient courthouse and the historical marker noting the hanging there in 1844, was palpable long before Mr. Leibell’s fall. The same people keep getting elected — congressmen unless the political earth moves, Mr. Leibell for almost three decades, County Executive Robert J. Bondi for 20 years. It’s not because they’re beloved, but because they’re the ones with the juice. If you want to understand the Tea Party, this is one place to start. In the end, everything about Mr. Leibell is now being questioned: that $1.4 million mansion with the adjacent land declared parkland, the foundations with the extravagant legal bills that turned out to be paths toward kickbacks, the remarkably low land price he managed for the senior housing his foundation is planning, the kingmaker role now up for grabs. Few think he’ll be the only one implicated as prosecutions go forward. But the main taint isn’t here, where Mr. Leibell was recorded cooking up an alibi to obstruct the investigations with one of the lawyers he was accused of conspiring with. It’s 100 miles away in Albany, where he mastered the levers of power in the form of member items or legislative spending dedicated to nonprofit groups that members control like private bank vaults. “Someone, make it stop,” the New York Public Interest Research Group said after Mr. Leibell’s guilty plea in calling for a special session before the end of the year to pass ethics reform. But no one ever does, which is why we’ve heard this story before and will, no doubt, hear it again. E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Federal Judge's Impeachment Trial Begins in Senate
Judge's Impeachment Trial Begins in Senate
BACKGROUND:
The Washington Post - December 7, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC—The attorney for a federal judge facing removal from office argued Tuesday at a rare Senate impeachment trial that Congress is pursuing vague and unconstitutional charges against his client and would be breaking with precedent by convicting him. Defense attorney Jonathan Turley told senators assembled in the chamber for the historic proceeding that some of the articles facing Judge G. Thomas Porteous are subjective and that others involve conduct that occurred before Judge Porteous was appointed to the federal bench. "In the history of this republic, no one has ever been removed from office on the basis of prefederal conduct," Mr. Turley said, urging the senators to dismiss some of the most serious allegations. Mr. Turley's arguments came as the Senate began the final stage of the case against Judge Porteous, a U.S. district-court judge from Louisiana. The House voted unanimously in March to bring four articles of impeachment against him. A two-thirds Senate vote is needed to convict. The proceeding is just the 16th impeachment trial before the Senate, and Judge Porteous could become just the eighth federal judge to be removed from office. House prosecutors allege that Judge Porteous was racking up debt as he struggled with drinking and gambling problems. They say he began accepting cash, meals, trips and other favors from people with business before his court, beginning as a state judge in the 1980s and continuing after he was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. During previous evidence-gathering hearings, two attorneys who once worked with Judge Porteous said they gave him thousands of dollars in cash, including about $2,000 stuffed in an envelope in 1999, just before he decided a major civil case in their client's favor. They also said they paid for meals, trips and part of a bachelor party for one of Judge Porteous's sons in Las Vegas. One of the attorneys said they paid the judge in cash to avoid a paper trail and that some of the transactions probably amounted to illegal kickbacks. Another said Judge Porteous's requests grew so common that he started trying to dodge the judge. Another witness, New Orleans bail bondsman Louis Marcotte, described a longstanding relationship in which Mr. Marcotte and his employees routinely took Judge Porteous to French Quarter restaurants, repaired his automobiles, washed and filled his cars with gas, and took him on trips. In return, Judge Porteous manipulated bond amounts for defendants to give Mr. Marcotte the highest fees possible, said Mr. Marcotte, who served 18 months in prison on related corruption charges. Judge Porteous, who sat with his attorneys Tuesday before the chamber, also stands accused of filing for bankruptcy under a false name and lying to the Senate during his judicial confirmation. Mr. Turley has argued that Judge Porteous may have made poor decisions but that his actions don't rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanor" standard required by the Constitution for impeachment. He has sought to portray much of the judge's behavior as business as usual in the New Orleans-area legal community. The Senate is planning to vote on the case Wednesday.
WASHINGTON, DC—The attorney for a federal judge facing removal from office argued Tuesday at a rare Senate impeachment trial that Congress is pursuing vague and unconstitutional charges against his client and would be breaking with precedent by convicting him. Defense attorney Jonathan Turley told senators assembled in the chamber for the historic proceeding that some of the articles facing Judge G. Thomas Porteous are subjective and that others involve conduct that occurred before Judge Porteous was appointed to the federal bench. "In the history of this republic, no one has ever been removed from office on the basis of prefederal conduct," Mr. Turley said, urging the senators to dismiss some of the most serious allegations. Mr. Turley's arguments came as the Senate began the final stage of the case against Judge Porteous, a U.S. district-court judge from Louisiana. The House voted unanimously in March to bring four articles of impeachment against him. A two-thirds Senate vote is needed to convict. The proceeding is just the 16th impeachment trial before the Senate, and Judge Porteous could become just the eighth federal judge to be removed from office. House prosecutors allege that Judge Porteous was racking up debt as he struggled with drinking and gambling problems. They say he began accepting cash, meals, trips and other favors from people with business before his court, beginning as a state judge in the 1980s and continuing after he was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. During previous evidence-gathering hearings, two attorneys who once worked with Judge Porteous said they gave him thousands of dollars in cash, including about $2,000 stuffed in an envelope in 1999, just before he decided a major civil case in their client's favor. They also said they paid for meals, trips and part of a bachelor party for one of Judge Porteous's sons in Las Vegas. One of the attorneys said they paid the judge in cash to avoid a paper trail and that some of the transactions probably amounted to illegal kickbacks. Another said Judge Porteous's requests grew so common that he started trying to dodge the judge. Another witness, New Orleans bail bondsman Louis Marcotte, described a longstanding relationship in which Mr. Marcotte and his employees routinely took Judge Porteous to French Quarter restaurants, repaired his automobiles, washed and filled his cars with gas, and took him on trips. In return, Judge Porteous manipulated bond amounts for defendants to give Mr. Marcotte the highest fees possible, said Mr. Marcotte, who served 18 months in prison on related corruption charges. Judge Porteous, who sat with his attorneys Tuesday before the chamber, also stands accused of filing for bankruptcy under a false name and lying to the Senate during his judicial confirmation. Mr. Turley has argued that Judge Porteous may have made poor decisions but that his actions don't rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanor" standard required by the Constitution for impeachment. He has sought to portray much of the judge's behavior as business as usual in the New Orleans-area legal community. The Senate is planning to vote on the case Wednesday.
BACKGROUND:
.
New York Attorney Gets 10 to 20 Years for Adoption Scam
Attorney Gets 10 to 20 Years for Adoption Scam
The New York Law Journal by Andrew Keshner - December 8, 2010
Long Island lawyer Kevin Cohen was sentenced today to a prison term of 10 to 20 years after being convicted of stealing more than $300,000 from families who were expecting his help in arranging the adoptions of children who actually did not exist. Inside a Nassau County courtroom filled with news media and some of Mr. Cohen's victims, the Roslyn attorney apologized for "any and all hurt" to the families who sought his services and wished them "some degree of solace, calm and healing." Last month, a jury found Mr. Cohen guilty of 37 counts that included second- and third-degree grand larceny. The felony convictions of Mr. Cohen will result in his automatic disbarment. Mr. Cohen had used faked sonograms and non-existent birth mothers to convince 13 families he could help them with adoptions. The sentence by County Court Judge John Kase includes stay away orders for all the victim families, restitution of about $300,000 and $60,000 in fines. Before sentencing today, three victims told the court of Mr. Cohen's impact on their lives. "Your honor, Mr. Cohen is a true villain," said Milton Josephs, 42, of Port Washington, who lost $60,000 to the lawyer. During the trial, Mr. Cohen tried to use an insanity defense, which Judge Kase rejected. Mr. Cohen plans to appeal the rejection of his defense, according to Adam Moser, a Rockville Centre attorney who was appointed Mr. Cohen's legal adviser. After the sentencing, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice told reporters that Mr. Cohen still was not taking responsibility for his actions. "He stood in court today and tried to say everything he could to escape responsibility," she said.
The New York Law Journal by Andrew Keshner - December 8, 2010
Long Island lawyer Kevin Cohen was sentenced today to a prison term of 10 to 20 years after being convicted of stealing more than $300,000 from families who were expecting his help in arranging the adoptions of children who actually did not exist. Inside a Nassau County courtroom filled with news media and some of Mr. Cohen's victims, the Roslyn attorney apologized for "any and all hurt" to the families who sought his services and wished them "some degree of solace, calm and healing." Last month, a jury found Mr. Cohen guilty of 37 counts that included second- and third-degree grand larceny. The felony convictions of Mr. Cohen will result in his automatic disbarment. Mr. Cohen had used faked sonograms and non-existent birth mothers to convince 13 families he could help them with adoptions. The sentence by County Court Judge John Kase includes stay away orders for all the victim families, restitution of about $300,000 and $60,000 in fines. Before sentencing today, three victims told the court of Mr. Cohen's impact on their lives. "Your honor, Mr. Cohen is a true villain," said Milton Josephs, 42, of Port Washington, who lost $60,000 to the lawyer. During the trial, Mr. Cohen tried to use an insanity defense, which Judge Kase rejected. Mr. Cohen plans to appeal the rejection of his defense, according to Adam Moser, a Rockville Centre attorney who was appointed Mr. Cohen's legal adviser. After the sentencing, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice told reporters that Mr. Cohen still was not taking responsibility for his actions. "He stood in court today and tried to say everything he could to escape responsibility," she said.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Lawyer Shakesdown Attorney
The shakedown lawyer and "officer of the court" is also a former Westchester County Assistant District Attorney, a former New York State Senator, grandson of SDNY federal district court judge, St. John's law school graduate, and had won election as a county executive...
The Albany Times Union by CASEY SEILER - December 7, 2010
ALBANY, NEW YORK -- A state senator demanded a kickback from an attorney, and then instructed him to lie to federal investigators about it. "You and I say there was never any cash relationship -- period," former Sen. Vincent Leibell told the attorney in June, according to court documents. " ... All I know is, as long as you and I are consistent, I'm fine, you're fine." Instead, the Putnam County Republican pleaded guilty Monday morning to federal charges of obstruction of justice and tax evasion. Leibell also admitted to filing false tax returns between 2003 and 2006, failing to declare $43,000 in "consulting fees" from a local law firm that did business for Putnam County. Leibell, a former assemblyman who entered the Senate in 1995, faces 18 to 24 months in prison and up to $40,000 in fines, plus restitution. He said, "Guilty, your honor" when the charges were read in a federal courtroom in White Plains. He apologized to family, friends and constituents, saying "I deeply regret these actions." Leibell, 64, gave up the position of Putnam County executive, to which he was elected last month. He'll remain free on $100,000 bond until his sentencing, scheduled for March 7. Court documents describe Leibell's shakedown of an attorney who had done work for a not-for-profit housing organization. The senator threatened an outstanding legal bill would not be paid unless it was split with him. After Leibell learned the attorney -- unnamed by prosecutors -- had been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, the senator met with him several times between April and June 2010, and told him to lie about the payments. In a June 6 conversation that was recorded by the attorney, Leibell told the attorney to tell investigators that the large sums he was withdrawing were intended to pay for family medical expenses, or were being set aside in case of terrorist attack. In a news conference, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara would not comment on whether the investigation involved the $1.4 million home Leibell built in Patterson after buying the land for $110,000 from the family of "Bewitched" actress Elizabeth Montgomery. Leibell acknowledged in June that the FBI had subpoenaed building records for the home. Bharara also would not say how Leibell used the kickback money. And he would not comment on whether Leibell was cooperating with prosecutors in a larger probe. Leibell's retirement from the Senate took effect on Friday. Regardless of his sentence, he'll continue to receive a state pension worth around $70,000 a year. "Vinny Leibell will be paying his debt to society," Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos said in a brief statement. "My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family during this difficult time." The Associated Press contributed to this report. Casey Seiler can be reached at 454-5619 or cseiler@timesunion.com.
*******************************************
Courtesy of The New York State Unified Court System
VINCENT L. LEIBELL III
Attorney Detail as of 12/07/2010
Registration Number: 1098532
VINCENT L. LEIBELL III
CURTISS & LEIBELL, P.C.
20 CHURCH ST., CARMEL, NY 10512-2105
United States (914) 225-5500
Year Admitted in NY: 1975
Appellate Division Department of Admission: 2
Law School: ST JOHNS UNIV
Registration Status: Currently registered
Next Registration: Aug 2012
*******************************************
Vincent L. Leibell (December 10, 1883 – September 22, 1968) was a United States federal judge. Leibell was born in New York, New York. He received a M.A. from St. Francis Xavier College in 1905. He received an LL.B. from Fordham University School of Law in 1908. He was in private practice in New York City from 1909 to 1936. Leibell was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Leibell was nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 8, 1936, to a seat vacated by Francis A. Winslow. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 16, 1936, and received his commission on June 20, 1936. He assumed senior status on January 1, 1954. Leibell's service was terminated on September 22, 1968, due to death. He died in New York, New York. He was the grandfather of New York State Senator Vincent Leibell III (1946-)
*******************************************
From Wikipedia:
Vincent L. Leibell (born August 6, 1946) is a former New York State Senator and former County Executive-elect of Putnam County in New York State. A Republican, Leibell decided not to seek re-election to the New York State Senate in 2010 and successfully won the race for Putnam County Executive in the same year.[1] [2] [3] On December 6th, 2010, Leibell plead guilty to felony bribery, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice charges related to $43,000 in cash kickbacks he took from 2003 to 2006. As part of the deal, Leibell resigned immediately from the State Senate, where his term would have extended to the end of the month, and agreed not to take office as Putnam County Executive on January 1st. He faces up to 13 years in prison at his sentencing on March 7th. Leibell was born in New York City. He was first elected to the New York State Senate in 1994 when he defeated former New York State Lieutenant Governor Alfred DelBello. Previously, he had worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the Westchester County District Attorney's office and served six terms in the state Assembly, where he had risen to the position of Assistant Minority Leader pro tempore. He is a member of the Republican party and represents New York's 40th District which includes Putnam County and parts of Southern Dutchess and Northern Westchester Counties. While serving in the Senate, Vincent Leibell has held the chairmanships of the following committees: Housing, Construction and Community Development; Corporations, Authorities and Commissions; Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs; Civil Service and Pensions.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Westchester "Officers of the Court" Sweating Bullets
Putnam County pol Vincent Leibell pleads guilty to tax evasion
The New York Post - December 6, 2010
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Former state legislator Vincent Leibel pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. The ex-state senator admitted in court that he tried to influence a grand jury investigating corruption in Putnam County. He also admitted filing false tax returns for 2003 through 2006, failing to report a total of $43,000. He said “guilty, your honor” to each of the two counts. "I knew there was a pending federal investigation, and I told the attorneys to not tell federal agents that I was receiving cash payments from them," Leiabell said. "I told one attorney to say that the cash withdrawals were to take care of his aging mother." Sentencing was scheduled for March 7, 2011. Prosecutors said based on federal guidelines, Leibell’s sentence would be between 18 and 24 months. The 64-year-old Leibell had spent 28 years in the Senate and Assembly before resigning last week with a one-sentence letter that gave no reason for leaving. He had a month left in his term. Last month he was elected Putnam county executive but he will not take office. Leibell was released on a $100,000 unsecured bond. The AP and staff writer Rebecca Harshbarger contibuted to this story.
For Immediate Release
December 6, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600
The New York Post - December 6, 2010
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Former state legislator Vincent Leibel pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. The ex-state senator admitted in court that he tried to influence a grand jury investigating corruption in Putnam County. He also admitted filing false tax returns for 2003 through 2006, failing to report a total of $43,000. He said “guilty, your honor” to each of the two counts. "I knew there was a pending federal investigation, and I told the attorneys to not tell federal agents that I was receiving cash payments from them," Leiabell said. "I told one attorney to say that the cash withdrawals were to take care of his aging mother." Sentencing was scheduled for March 7, 2011. Prosecutors said based on federal guidelines, Leibell’s sentence would be between 18 and 24 months. The 64-year-old Leibell had spent 28 years in the Senate and Assembly before resigning last week with a one-sentence letter that gave no reason for leaving. He had a month left in his term. Last month he was elected Putnam county executive but he will not take office. Leibell was released on a $100,000 unsecured bond. The AP and staff writer Rebecca Harshbarger contibuted to this story.
********************************************
Department of Justice - Press ReleaseFor Immediate Release
December 6, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600
Former New York State Senator and Putnam County Executive-Elect Pleads Guilty in White Plains Federal Court to Obstruction of Justice and Tax Charges
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and CHARLES R. PINE, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Criminal Investigation Division, announced that VINCENT L. LEIBELL, III, pled guilty today in White Plains federal court to obstructing a federal grand jury that was investigating whether he had extorted cash payments from lawyers working in Putnam County and to failing to report on his income tax returns tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments he had received from those lawyers. Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: "This is a sad day for the citizens of Putnam County and a scene that has become all too familiar in New York state. Vincent Leibell betrayed the trust of his constituents and now stands convicted of two federal felonies. Leibell has only himself to blame for the fact that, after 28 years in public office, this conviction will be the capstone to that career. He is the latest in a long line of public officials who have placed themselves above the law and have been brought before the bar of justice in the Southern District of New York. Along with our law enforcement partners, we will fight corruption wherever we find it and prosecute those who abuse the public trust wherever we find them." FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK said: "It is inexcusable when public officials abuse the trust that the public has placed in them to make our communities better. Mr. Leibell made it very clear that he did not have the public’s best interest in mind when he repeatedly took part in the activities that led to today’s charges. The FBI remains committed to investigating and bringing to justice all corrupt public officials, whose actions tarnish their offices and undermine public confidence." IRS Special Agent-in-Charge CHARLES R. PINE stated: "Receiving corrupt payments in the form of cash and then getting others to lie about and cover up the true reasons they were obtaining large sums of cash is a classic technique that tax evaders use to cover up criminal activity. What is truly astonishing is that an elected official who has been in politics for many years, and has known about other elected officials arrested and convicted for financial related crimes, has not learned the lesson that crime does not pay."
According to the Information filed in White Plains federal court and statements made during the plea proceeding:
Since April 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York, the FBI, and the IRS had been investigating allegations that, as a New York state senator, LEIBELL had unlawfully extorted cash payments from attorneys doing business in Putnam County under color of official right. The investigation focused on whether LEIBELL had demanded and received cash payments from an attorney, described in the Information as Attorney #1, who provided legal services to a Putnam County based not-for-profit organization (the "NFP") that received millions of dollars in New York state senate member item grants that LEIBELL sponsored as a state senator. According to the Information, the investigation focused on whether LEIBELL had threatened to cause the NFP to refuse to pay the invoices ATTORNEY #1 submitted to the NFP for legal services that ATTORNEY #1 had rendered to the NFP unless ATTORNEY #1 agreed to give half of the invoiced amount of money to LEIBELL in cash. LEIBELL became aware of the investigation in late April 2010 when FBI and IRS agents began approaching, subpoenaing, and interviewing witnesses about the allegations. After LEIBELL learned about the investigation, he began meeting with ATTORNEY #1 to discuss what ATTORNEY #1 should say when approached by federal agents. On June 6, 2010, at LEIBELL’s request, ATTORNEY #1 met with LEIBELL on a street in Carmel, New York, to discuss the pending federal investigation. During the June 6, 2010 meeting, LEIBELL repeatedly directed ATTORNEY #1 to lie to federal investigators about the cash payments ATTORNEY #1 had previously made to LEIBELL. LEIBELL instructed ATTORNEY #1 to falsely say: (1) that he had never made cash payments to LEIBELL; (2) that when investigators question him about cash withdrawals ATTORNEY #1 made from his bank account to pay LEIBELL, ATTORNEY #1 should falsely say that he withdrew the money to have around in case of a national or family emergency and that he used the money for living expenses, including caring for his elderly mother. During the meeting, LEIBELL repeatedly urged ATTORNEY #1 to maintain their false denials: "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn’t happen... All I know is, as long as you and I are consistent, I’m fine, you’re fine. There was never any cash between you and I, Okay?"
During the plea allocution, LEIBELL also admitted to filing false federal income tax returns with the IRS for the tax years 2003 through 2006. LEIBELL acknowledged that he failed to report at least $43,000 in cash he received during these years from ATTORNEY #1 and ATTORNEY #2, also mentioned in the Information, both of whom did business in or for Putnam County. LEIBELL also acknowledged that he failed to advise the accountant preparing his income tax returns that he had received the cash payments. LEIBELL, who resigned his New York state senate seat effective on December 3, 2010, is scheduled to be sworn in as Putnam County Executive on January 1, 2011. LEIBELL pled guilty today before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge GEORGE A. YANTHIS to a two-count Information charging him with actively obstructing a pending Southern District of New York grand jury investigation involving special agents of the FBI and the IRS. The grand jury was investigating allegations of extortion by public officials in Putnam County and LEIBELL’s failure to report all his income. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge WARREN W. EGINTON and sentencing has been set for March 7, 2011. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for the crimes to which LEIBELL pled guilty today is 13 years. Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the FBI and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. He added that the investigation is ongoing. This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant U.S. Attorneys PERRY A. CARBONE and JASON P.W. HALPERIN are in charge of the prosecution.
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and CHARLES R. PINE, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Criminal Investigation Division, announced that VINCENT L. LEIBELL, III, pled guilty today in White Plains federal court to obstructing a federal grand jury that was investigating whether he had extorted cash payments from lawyers working in Putnam County and to failing to report on his income tax returns tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments he had received from those lawyers. Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: "This is a sad day for the citizens of Putnam County and a scene that has become all too familiar in New York state. Vincent Leibell betrayed the trust of his constituents and now stands convicted of two federal felonies. Leibell has only himself to blame for the fact that, after 28 years in public office, this conviction will be the capstone to that career. He is the latest in a long line of public officials who have placed themselves above the law and have been brought before the bar of justice in the Southern District of New York. Along with our law enforcement partners, we will fight corruption wherever we find it and prosecute those who abuse the public trust wherever we find them." FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK said: "It is inexcusable when public officials abuse the trust that the public has placed in them to make our communities better. Mr. Leibell made it very clear that he did not have the public’s best interest in mind when he repeatedly took part in the activities that led to today’s charges. The FBI remains committed to investigating and bringing to justice all corrupt public officials, whose actions tarnish their offices and undermine public confidence." IRS Special Agent-in-Charge CHARLES R. PINE stated: "Receiving corrupt payments in the form of cash and then getting others to lie about and cover up the true reasons they were obtaining large sums of cash is a classic technique that tax evaders use to cover up criminal activity. What is truly astonishing is that an elected official who has been in politics for many years, and has known about other elected officials arrested and convicted for financial related crimes, has not learned the lesson that crime does not pay."
According to the Information filed in White Plains federal court and statements made during the plea proceeding:
Since April 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York, the FBI, and the IRS had been investigating allegations that, as a New York state senator, LEIBELL had unlawfully extorted cash payments from attorneys doing business in Putnam County under color of official right. The investigation focused on whether LEIBELL had demanded and received cash payments from an attorney, described in the Information as Attorney #1, who provided legal services to a Putnam County based not-for-profit organization (the "NFP") that received millions of dollars in New York state senate member item grants that LEIBELL sponsored as a state senator. According to the Information, the investigation focused on whether LEIBELL had threatened to cause the NFP to refuse to pay the invoices ATTORNEY #1 submitted to the NFP for legal services that ATTORNEY #1 had rendered to the NFP unless ATTORNEY #1 agreed to give half of the invoiced amount of money to LEIBELL in cash. LEIBELL became aware of the investigation in late April 2010 when FBI and IRS agents began approaching, subpoenaing, and interviewing witnesses about the allegations. After LEIBELL learned about the investigation, he began meeting with ATTORNEY #1 to discuss what ATTORNEY #1 should say when approached by federal agents. On June 6, 2010, at LEIBELL’s request, ATTORNEY #1 met with LEIBELL on a street in Carmel, New York, to discuss the pending federal investigation. During the June 6, 2010 meeting, LEIBELL repeatedly directed ATTORNEY #1 to lie to federal investigators about the cash payments ATTORNEY #1 had previously made to LEIBELL. LEIBELL instructed ATTORNEY #1 to falsely say: (1) that he had never made cash payments to LEIBELL; (2) that when investigators question him about cash withdrawals ATTORNEY #1 made from his bank account to pay LEIBELL, ATTORNEY #1 should falsely say that he withdrew the money to have around in case of a national or family emergency and that he used the money for living expenses, including caring for his elderly mother. During the meeting, LEIBELL repeatedly urged ATTORNEY #1 to maintain their false denials: "You and I say there was never any cash relationship. Period... Since you and I are in agreement, it didn’t happen... All I know is, as long as you and I are consistent, I’m fine, you’re fine. There was never any cash between you and I, Okay?"
During the plea allocution, LEIBELL also admitted to filing false federal income tax returns with the IRS for the tax years 2003 through 2006. LEIBELL acknowledged that he failed to report at least $43,000 in cash he received during these years from ATTORNEY #1 and ATTORNEY #2, also mentioned in the Information, both of whom did business in or for Putnam County. LEIBELL also acknowledged that he failed to advise the accountant preparing his income tax returns that he had received the cash payments. LEIBELL, who resigned his New York state senate seat effective on December 3, 2010, is scheduled to be sworn in as Putnam County Executive on January 1, 2011. LEIBELL pled guilty today before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge GEORGE A. YANTHIS to a two-count Information charging him with actively obstructing a pending Southern District of New York grand jury investigation involving special agents of the FBI and the IRS. The grand jury was investigating allegations of extortion by public officials in Putnam County and LEIBELL’s failure to report all his income. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge WARREN W. EGINTON and sentencing has been set for March 7, 2011. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for the crimes to which LEIBELL pled guilty today is 13 years. Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the FBI and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. He added that the investigation is ongoing. This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant U.S. Attorneys PERRY A. CARBONE and JASON P.W. HALPERIN are in charge of the prosecution.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Focus on New York's Center of Corruption Worries Legal Community
The Troubled 9th Judicial District, encompasses Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange and Dutchess Counties.....
The Journal News by Timothy O'Connor - December 5, 2010
A few weeks before FBI agents seized building records for state Sen. Vincent Leibell's home, they served a subpoena on the town of Carmel looking for records related to legal services provided by a White Plains law firm. And they served a subpoena on Putnam County looking for similar records for the firm — Servino, Santangelo and Randazzo. One of its lawyers was politically connected attorney Anthony Mangone, whose guilty plea in federal court Nov. 29 to corruption and tax charges is seen as a precursor to the expected guilty plea of Leibell. The now-defunct firm and its successor, Santangelo, Randazzo and Mangone, contributed more than $28,000 to politicians and political groups between 2001 and 2007, state records show. But the law firm was not a household name for every politician in January 2004 when the Carmel Town Board named it to replace its longtime attorney, Thomas Costello. "I bitterly, tremendously, vocally opposed it," said Robert Ravallo, a Republican member of the town board for 23 years. "I was totally unfamiliar with that law firm and felt we had a very good attorney who should be re-appointed." But Ravallo said the majority faction on the all-Republican Town Board led by then-Supervisor Robert Pozzi wanted the Servino firm. Ravallo said he was not sure why Pozzi wanted to switch. Pozzi, who served as supervisor from 2004 to 2006, could not be reached for comment Friday. He told The Journal News in 2004 that he didn't have a working relationship with Costello, but knew Servino's firm from his time as a Putnam County legislator.
Legal Duties
Servino, Santangelo, and Randazzo had handled most of the county's outside legal work since 2000. Servino, Santangelo and Mangone have all been registered Republicans; voter records for Randazzo were not available. In 2004, the firm would go on to bill the county for $365,515 — more than any other law firm for the county. The federal subpoena served on the town in May also demanded Pozzi's financial disclosure reports. Mangone joined the Servino firm some time in early 2002, the same year he admitted under oath he opened sealed absentee ballots and wrote in the names of state Sen. Nicholas Spano, R-Yonkers, and another Republican candidate on the Green Party line. Mangone was the Republican Westchester County deputy election commissioner as well as the chief of staff and campaign manager for Spano. Mangone was never convicted of any crime. He had struck a secret deal with the office of Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor to satisfy any indictment lodged against him. But a grand jury that heard evidence in the case voted not to indict him.
More Political Ties
He was not the only member of the firm with political connections. Servino had served as an assistant district attorney and was a colleague of then-Putnam County Attorney Carl Lodes, through whom the firm received its county work. Santangelo was close to Albert J. Pirro, the Republican lawyer and husband of the district attorney. Santangelo represented Pirro during his federal tax fraud trial in 2000. Pirro was convicted and served 11 months in a federal prison. In 2006, Jeanine Pirro admitted she was under federal investigation for trying to plant a listening device on her husband's boat. She thought he was cheating on her. Published reports said the suspected other woman was Michael Santangelo's wife, Lisa. Santangelo, who now has his own law practice in White Plains, did not return calls seeking comment. Pirro and Randazzo, who has a firm in Rye Brook now, also did not return calls seeking comment. Servino could not be reached for comment. In January 2006, Servino left the firm to rejoin the district attorney's office, signing on as Janet DiFiore's chief of the appeals and special litigation unit. He left the office this summer, taking a buyout. Three days after Servino's appointment was announced, the firm was re-christened Santangelo, Randazzo and Mangone. It continued to support Republican candidates. Between 2001 and 2006, the firm gave $8,300 to Nicholas Spano. Leibell received $4,825 in contributions.
Pleading Guilty
Leibell, a Republican from Patterson, resigned from the Senate on Thursday night. He also will not be sworn in as Putnam County executive next month, the office to which he was elected in November. A source close to him said he is going to plead guilty this week to federal corruption charges. He was spotted Friday at the federal courthouse in White Plains. If he does plead guilty, he will become the second political conviction in a federal investigation that began nearly four years ago as a probe into the Yonkers City Council's handling of the controversial $630 million Ridge Hill development project. Mangone, former Yonkers GOP Chairman Zehy Jereis and former Yonkers Democratic City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi were indicted in January. At Mangone's guilty plea Nov. 29, a federal judge sealed his plea agreement with prosecutors at the request of Mangone's lawyer, leading to speculation that he had signed a cooperation deal with federal investigators. He pleaded guilty to giving Jereis $30,000 in the spring of 2006 that he believed was going to be passed on to Annabi as a bribe to get her to switch her vote on the Longfellow School redevelopment project. That same year, Mangone was appointed special counsel to Patterson Town Planning Board for the Patterson Crossing project, a 410,560-square-foot shopping center planned for the Patterson-Kent border. In June 2008, he wrote a letter in support of his firm's reappointment to the $175-an-hour contract. "Our firm … serves as counsel to several real estate developers and as such, we have a unique familiarity with the vast array of issues associated with the planning and development process," he wrote. The board unanimously approved his reappointment. TPOCONNOR@LOHUD.COM
Legal Duties
Servino, Santangelo, and Randazzo had handled most of the county's outside legal work since 2000. Servino, Santangelo and Mangone have all been registered Republicans; voter records for Randazzo were not available. In 2004, the firm would go on to bill the county for $365,515 — more than any other law firm for the county. The federal subpoena served on the town in May also demanded Pozzi's financial disclosure reports. Mangone joined the Servino firm some time in early 2002, the same year he admitted under oath he opened sealed absentee ballots and wrote in the names of state Sen. Nicholas Spano, R-Yonkers, and another Republican candidate on the Green Party line. Mangone was the Republican Westchester County deputy election commissioner as well as the chief of staff and campaign manager for Spano. Mangone was never convicted of any crime. He had struck a secret deal with the office of Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor to satisfy any indictment lodged against him. But a grand jury that heard evidence in the case voted not to indict him.
More Political Ties
He was not the only member of the firm with political connections. Servino had served as an assistant district attorney and was a colleague of then-Putnam County Attorney Carl Lodes, through whom the firm received its county work. Santangelo was close to Albert J. Pirro, the Republican lawyer and husband of the district attorney. Santangelo represented Pirro during his federal tax fraud trial in 2000. Pirro was convicted and served 11 months in a federal prison. In 2006, Jeanine Pirro admitted she was under federal investigation for trying to plant a listening device on her husband's boat. She thought he was cheating on her. Published reports said the suspected other woman was Michael Santangelo's wife, Lisa. Santangelo, who now has his own law practice in White Plains, did not return calls seeking comment. Pirro and Randazzo, who has a firm in Rye Brook now, also did not return calls seeking comment. Servino could not be reached for comment. In January 2006, Servino left the firm to rejoin the district attorney's office, signing on as Janet DiFiore's chief of the appeals and special litigation unit. He left the office this summer, taking a buyout. Three days after Servino's appointment was announced, the firm was re-christened Santangelo, Randazzo and Mangone. It continued to support Republican candidates. Between 2001 and 2006, the firm gave $8,300 to Nicholas Spano. Leibell received $4,825 in contributions.
Pleading Guilty
Leibell, a Republican from Patterson, resigned from the Senate on Thursday night. He also will not be sworn in as Putnam County executive next month, the office to which he was elected in November. A source close to him said he is going to plead guilty this week to federal corruption charges. He was spotted Friday at the federal courthouse in White Plains. If he does plead guilty, he will become the second political conviction in a federal investigation that began nearly four years ago as a probe into the Yonkers City Council's handling of the controversial $630 million Ridge Hill development project. Mangone, former Yonkers GOP Chairman Zehy Jereis and former Yonkers Democratic City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi were indicted in January. At Mangone's guilty plea Nov. 29, a federal judge sealed his plea agreement with prosecutors at the request of Mangone's lawyer, leading to speculation that he had signed a cooperation deal with federal investigators. He pleaded guilty to giving Jereis $30,000 in the spring of 2006 that he believed was going to be passed on to Annabi as a bribe to get her to switch her vote on the Longfellow School redevelopment project. That same year, Mangone was appointed special counsel to Patterson Town Planning Board for the Patterson Crossing project, a 410,560-square-foot shopping center planned for the Patterson-Kent border. In June 2008, he wrote a letter in support of his firm's reappointment to the $175-an-hour contract. "Our firm … serves as counsel to several real estate developers and as such, we have a unique familiarity with the vast array of issues associated with the planning and development process," he wrote. The board unanimously approved his reappointment. TPOCONNOR@LOHUD.COM
Saturday, December 4, 2010
All Jonathan Lippman Wants is Fair Treatment
NY Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman On "Inside City Hall"
New York 1, NY1 Online - December 3, 2010
Lippman on the NY State Judicial Salary Commission:
New York 1, NY1 Online - December 3, 2010
Lippman on the NY State Judicial Salary Commission:
- "…all we [judges] ask, is fair treatment… not asking to become rich…. we don't want that….."
- "There's a non-system…"
- "…we have to attract the best to the judiciary…. and that's not happening…."
- "…the judiciary deals with the most vital issues to our society…."
- "…think about the responsibilities that judges have…."
Friday, December 3, 2010
Backdating Court Documents by Lawyers OK in NY, But Not in PA
Judge Chews Out Lawyer, Firm for Backdated Filings. Lies
The Legal Intelligencer by Zack Needles - December 3, 2010
PHILADELPHIA, PA - The chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has publicly admonished Philadelphia attorney Leslie A. Puida and her firm, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever, for filing backdated documents in a foreclosure proceeding and then lying to the court in an attempt to cover it up. But despite having found their actions sanctionable following a hearing on the matter, Chief Judge Thomas P. Agresti decided not to impose any penalties on Puida or the firm, instead letting his findings serve as a "public reprimand" and requiring the parties to report to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the American Bankruptcy Institute. Agresti said in his Nov. 24 memorandum order in Hill v. Countrywide Home Loans that Puida and her firm had either intentionally or recklessly filed payment change letters that were doctored to look as if they had been sent to the debtor's attorney years earlier even though they hadn't. Agresti added that Puida and the firm later "made inaccurate oral statements in response to the court's inquiry regarding when Leslie Puida told the debtor's attorney that the three payment change letters were not what they purported to be, but instead were memoranda created years after the event." But Agresti denied a bankruptcy trustee's request to impose monetary sanctions on Goldbeck McCafferty, a 10-attorney real estate law boutique, saying instead that his Oct. 5 memorandum opinion and order and his Nov. 24 order should serve as public reprimands of the firm. Agresti noted in his Nov. 24 order that Michael McKeever, one of Goldbeck McCafferty's two principal shareholders, testified during a Nov. 22 sanctions hearing that the firm had incurred $400,000 in out-of-pocket attorney and expert fees in this matter that would not be reimbursed by insurance. According to Agresti, McKeever also testified that two large clients had discontinued referrals to the firm because of the matter. Because of these financial losses, Agresti said, imposing a $50,000 sanction on the firm as suggested by the trustee is "unlikely to have any significant further deterrent effect" on the firm. In addition, Agresti said imposing a significantly higher sanction could cause the firm to dissolve, "possibly threatening the livelihoods of innocent employees who had nothing to do with the violations." Agresti also declined to require mandatory CLE or ethical training."
The Legal Intelligencer by Zack Needles - December 3, 2010
PHILADELPHIA, PA - The chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has publicly admonished Philadelphia attorney Leslie A. Puida and her firm, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever, for filing backdated documents in a foreclosure proceeding and then lying to the court in an attempt to cover it up. But despite having found their actions sanctionable following a hearing on the matter, Chief Judge Thomas P. Agresti decided not to impose any penalties on Puida or the firm, instead letting his findings serve as a "public reprimand" and requiring the parties to report to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the American Bankruptcy Institute. Agresti said in his Nov. 24 memorandum order in Hill v. Countrywide Home Loans that Puida and her firm had either intentionally or recklessly filed payment change letters that were doctored to look as if they had been sent to the debtor's attorney years earlier even though they hadn't. Agresti added that Puida and the firm later "made inaccurate oral statements in response to the court's inquiry regarding when Leslie Puida told the debtor's attorney that the three payment change letters were not what they purported to be, but instead were memoranda created years after the event." But Agresti denied a bankruptcy trustee's request to impose monetary sanctions on Goldbeck McCafferty, a 10-attorney real estate law boutique, saying instead that his Oct. 5 memorandum opinion and order and his Nov. 24 order should serve as public reprimands of the firm. Agresti noted in his Nov. 24 order that Michael McKeever, one of Goldbeck McCafferty's two principal shareholders, testified during a Nov. 22 sanctions hearing that the firm had incurred $400,000 in out-of-pocket attorney and expert fees in this matter that would not be reimbursed by insurance. According to Agresti, McKeever also testified that two large clients had discontinued referrals to the firm because of the matter. Because of these financial losses, Agresti said, imposing a $50,000 sanction on the firm as suggested by the trustee is "unlikely to have any significant further deterrent effect" on the firm. In addition, Agresti said imposing a significantly higher sanction could cause the firm to dissolve, "possibly threatening the livelihoods of innocent employees who had nothing to do with the violations." Agresti also declined to require mandatory CLE or ethical training."
Honesty and truthfulness are matters of character that cannot be taught, if at all, in a few hours of CLE training," he said, adding that he likewise would not impose sanctions requiring the firm to do pro bono work because it should already be voluntarily doing that, nor would he mandate that the firm act as a pro bono mediator, as the firm's professional reputation is currently too damaged to allow it to be an effective mediator. Agresti also rejected the trustee's suggestion that Puida be suspended from practicing in the Western District bankruptcy court for one year. "Puida has already, in a sense, been suspended from practice in this court," he said. "The firm has taken her off assignment to any cases filed in this district, and it seems highly unlikely that is going to change anytime soon." Agresti also refused to impose monetary sanctions against Puida, saying she has already suffered financially because of this matter and such sanctions "would be unnecessarily punitive and could harm her family." Agresti said Puida and her firm must forward the Nov. 24 order along with an Oct. 5 order detailing their misconduct to both the Disciplinary Board and the ABI by Dec. 3. Larry Fox, a former chair of the American Bar Association's standing committee on ethics and professional responsibility, said that while Puida and her firm committed a "very serious offense," he believes Agresti chose not to impose harsher penalties because the parties still have to face the Disciplinary Board. "Whatever the judge does is not the end of the story," Fox, of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Philadelphia, said.
The matter stemmed from Hill v. Countrywide Home Loans , in which, according to Agresti's Oct. 5 order, the debtor, Sharon Diane Hill, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Western District bankruptcy court on March 19, 2001. In April 2001, National City Mortgage Company asserted $7,210.89 in arrears on Hill's home mortgage and in June 2001, Hill hired attorney Kenneth Steidl of Steidl & Steinberg in Pittsburgh, who put her on a 45-month plan to pay off her debt, according to Agresti. In March 2007, the Western District bankruptcy court found that Hill had, through a trustee, successfully completed her payments under the plan and granted her a discharge, according to Agresti. But that same month, Countrywide performed a discharge audit on Hill's loan and incorrectly determined that she had missed several months' payments, Agresti said. Countrywide immediately re-initiated the foreclosure of Hill's home that had been paused by her bankruptcy proceedings, according to Agresti. In April 2007, Steidl sent a letter to Countrywide informing the company that Hill's mortgage was current but the foreclosure process continued, Agresti said. In June 2007, Hill moved to reopen her bankruptcy case by filing a motion to enforce and the parties engaged in efforts to settle the matter in October of that year, according to Agresti. It was around this time that McKeever and his firm's other principal shareholder, Gary E. McCafferty, became directly involved in the Hill matter, corresponding with Puida and Countrywide employees throughout the litigation. During the settlement negotiations, Puida forwarded to Steidl copies of the payment change letters that were purported to have been sent years earlier, Agresti said.
A Countrywide employee later testified at trial that she discovered in October 2007 that those letters were never actually sent and informed Puida almost immediately, according to Agresti. The case did not settle that month and in November 2007 Countrywide responded with a motion to quash Hill's motion to reopen her bankruptcy case, according to Agresti. But just before the start of a status conference on Dec. 20, 2007, Hill's counsel, Julie Steidl — Kenneth Steidl's law partner at Steidl & Steinberg and wife — discovered that one of the purported payment change letters listed Steidl & Steinberg's current address despite the fact that the letter predated the firm's move to that location by several years, according to Agresti. In the hall outside the courtroom before the hearing, Julie Steidl asked Puida about the letters and Puida said they had never been sent, Agresti said. During the hearing, Steidl informed the court about what Puida had told her, but when questioned by the court, Puida testified that she had already told Kenneth Steidl in a conversation during settlement negotiations that the letters had never been sent, according to Agresti. During the December 2009 trial on the Hill matter, however, Puida testified that there had actually been two separate conversations: One in which Kenneth Steidl told Puida that he did not have the letters and a later one where Puida contacted Steidl to inform him that the letters had never been sent, Agresti said. Puida said at trial that she "should have been more precise" in her answer at the Dec. 20 hearing, according to Agresti. "In other words, it appears that Puida seeks a conclusion that she may have acted carelessly, but innocently, in responding to the court, with no intent to deceive," Agresti said. "After careful consideration the court rejects such a conclusion." McKeever was the only witness to corroborate Puida's testimony at trial but was "very vague" about when the conversation between Puida and Kenneth Steidl supposedly took place, according to Agresti. Agresti said in his Oct. 5 order that he was skeptical either of Hill's attorneys had been informed prior to Dec. 20 that the letters had never been sent. "A bombshell going off during settlement negotiations to the effect that the letters were actually 'phonies' would be expected to leave some evidence behind — an expression of outrage from debtor's counsel at having been misled, a sudden change in settlement posture — but the court sees none in this record, "Agresti said. "The most logical explanation for the absence of any such evidence is that the bombshell never went off." Neither Puida nor her attorney, Robert E.J. Curran of Media, Pa., were available for comment at press time. Jeffrey A. Lutsky, managing partner of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in Philadelphia, was also listed as Puida's and Golbeck McCafferty's attorney, but could not be reached. McCafferty and McKeever were also unavailable for comment at press time.
The matter stemmed from Hill v. Countrywide Home Loans , in which, according to Agresti's Oct. 5 order, the debtor, Sharon Diane Hill, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Western District bankruptcy court on March 19, 2001. In April 2001, National City Mortgage Company asserted $7,210.89 in arrears on Hill's home mortgage and in June 2001, Hill hired attorney Kenneth Steidl of Steidl & Steinberg in Pittsburgh, who put her on a 45-month plan to pay off her debt, according to Agresti. In March 2007, the Western District bankruptcy court found that Hill had, through a trustee, successfully completed her payments under the plan and granted her a discharge, according to Agresti. But that same month, Countrywide performed a discharge audit on Hill's loan and incorrectly determined that she had missed several months' payments, Agresti said. Countrywide immediately re-initiated the foreclosure of Hill's home that had been paused by her bankruptcy proceedings, according to Agresti. In April 2007, Steidl sent a letter to Countrywide informing the company that Hill's mortgage was current but the foreclosure process continued, Agresti said. In June 2007, Hill moved to reopen her bankruptcy case by filing a motion to enforce and the parties engaged in efforts to settle the matter in October of that year, according to Agresti. It was around this time that McKeever and his firm's other principal shareholder, Gary E. McCafferty, became directly involved in the Hill matter, corresponding with Puida and Countrywide employees throughout the litigation. During the settlement negotiations, Puida forwarded to Steidl copies of the payment change letters that were purported to have been sent years earlier, Agresti said.
A Countrywide employee later testified at trial that she discovered in October 2007 that those letters were never actually sent and informed Puida almost immediately, according to Agresti. The case did not settle that month and in November 2007 Countrywide responded with a motion to quash Hill's motion to reopen her bankruptcy case, according to Agresti. But just before the start of a status conference on Dec. 20, 2007, Hill's counsel, Julie Steidl — Kenneth Steidl's law partner at Steidl & Steinberg and wife — discovered that one of the purported payment change letters listed Steidl & Steinberg's current address despite the fact that the letter predated the firm's move to that location by several years, according to Agresti. In the hall outside the courtroom before the hearing, Julie Steidl asked Puida about the letters and Puida said they had never been sent, Agresti said. During the hearing, Steidl informed the court about what Puida had told her, but when questioned by the court, Puida testified that she had already told Kenneth Steidl in a conversation during settlement negotiations that the letters had never been sent, according to Agresti. During the December 2009 trial on the Hill matter, however, Puida testified that there had actually been two separate conversations: One in which Kenneth Steidl told Puida that he did not have the letters and a later one where Puida contacted Steidl to inform him that the letters had never been sent, Agresti said. Puida said at trial that she "should have been more precise" in her answer at the Dec. 20 hearing, according to Agresti. "In other words, it appears that Puida seeks a conclusion that she may have acted carelessly, but innocently, in responding to the court, with no intent to deceive," Agresti said. "After careful consideration the court rejects such a conclusion." McKeever was the only witness to corroborate Puida's testimony at trial but was "very vague" about when the conversation between Puida and Kenneth Steidl supposedly took place, according to Agresti. Agresti said in his Oct. 5 order that he was skeptical either of Hill's attorneys had been informed prior to Dec. 20 that the letters had never been sent. "A bombshell going off during settlement negotiations to the effect that the letters were actually 'phonies' would be expected to leave some evidence behind — an expression of outrage from debtor's counsel at having been misled, a sudden change in settlement posture — but the court sees none in this record, "Agresti said. "The most logical explanation for the absence of any such evidence is that the bombshell never went off." Neither Puida nor her attorney, Robert E.J. Curran of Media, Pa., were available for comment at press time. Jeffrey A. Lutsky, managing partner of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in Philadelphia, was also listed as Puida's and Golbeck McCafferty's attorney, but could not be reached. McCafferty and McKeever were also unavailable for comment at press time.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Disaster Hits New York Statewide Judicial Ethics
The Commission on Judicial Conduct, headed by corrupt Robert Tembeckian, has announced the following disaster:
Alan W. Friedberg has returned to the Commission as Special Counsel in the New York City office. He previously served as Chief Counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee and as Deputy Administrator for the Commission's New York City office.
Alan W. Friedberg has returned to the Commission as Special Counsel in the New York City office. He previously served as Chief Counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee and as Deputy Administrator for the Commission's New York City office.
MORE SOON.........
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Honest Judges Deserve Big Pay Increase; Corrupt Judges Must Be Removed
Legislation Creates Judicial Pay Commission
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - December 1, 2010
ALBANY, NEW YORK - The frustration of New York state judges who have gone without a raise since 1999 came a step closer to ending yesterday after lawmakers approved the creation of a commission to recommend new salary levels once every four years. The judicial pay commission—if approved as expected by Governor David A. Paterson—would represent the best prospect for a salary increase for some 1,300 state-paid judges since their last pay hike nearly a dozen years ago. The commission would be created once every four years, beginning April 1, 2011, and recommend within 150 days salary adjustments for the next four years. The earliest the first raise could take effect would be April 1, 2012, under the legislation (A42010/S68010) approved Monday evening by the state Senate and a few minutes after midnight yesterday by the Assembly. Under the measure, commissions will consider the "prevailing adequacy of pay levels and non-salary benefits" of judges and whether "any such pay levels warrant adjustment." The legislation does not set new salary levels for the judiciary. Rather, it empowers the seven-member commission to consider inflation and the state's ability to increase compensation as well as the salaries of federal judges, judges in other states and officials in other branches of state government, among other factors. Unless the Legislature specifically votes to oppose the commission's recommendations, increases would become effective each April 1 under a schedule laid out by the panel. Proposals by the Unified Court System have generally sought to bring the $136,700-a-year salaries of Supreme Court justices in line with federal district court judges, who earn $170,000 a year, with other state judges receiving proportional increases.
The commission would disband after making its recommendations next year and a new panel would form on April 1, 2015, and every four years after that to reconsider the compensation question. Mr. Paterson urged lawmakers to consider the pay commission bill during the session that started Monday. "The Governor proposed this bill because he believes it is critical to keep New York's judicial system competitive with systems in other states by working to attract and retain top talent within our judiciary," Jessica Bassett, a Paterson spokeswoman, said yesterday. The Senate approved the measure 57-0. The Assembly, whose Democratic majority has balked in recent years at passing a judicial pay bill without also hiking state legislators' pay, passed it 99-22. Proponents say the commission will remove consideration of judicial salaries from politics. And judges have argued that they can only mount feeble lobbying efforts with the other two branches of government to get higher pay. In the meantime, bar and judges' groups say the level of pay has forced good judges to leave the bench in search of higher-paying jobs and deterred talented lawyers from seeking judgeships. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who has lobbied hard for a pay raise, as did his predecessor Judith S. Kaye, called the commission's passage a near "miracle" given the perilous condition of the state budget and the shaky economy. "It is a magnificent day," Judge Lippman said in an interview. "I think that this is, for us, the Holy Grail." A recurring mechanism to determine judicial salaries "takes us out of politics forever so that we never have to go through what we have gone through for the last decade. It is so important for the institution of the Judiciary. Now we have a future," Judge Lippman said. Former Chief Judge Kaye first brought up the idea of a pay commission in her State of the Judiciary address in February 2006 as a way of preventing raise droughts and taking the issue out of politics. Her inability to gain a raise for the Judiciary was a frustration in the final years of her record-long 15-year tenure as chief judge. She eventually sued the governor and Legislature to force them to grant an increase. Victor Kovner, chairman of the pro-raise Fund for Modern Courts, called a commission a "rational solution" to a logjam in Albany that will "once and for all remove judicial compensation from the political process." Stephen P. Younger, president of the New York State Bar Association, said that "an independent, well qualified judiciary must be compensated in a fair, consistent manner that is as free from political interference as possible." The New York City Bar, the New York County Lawyers' Association and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., among others, publicly urged lawmakers to back a commission once Mr. Paterson put it on an agenda of items he would like to see the Legislature address during its session this week.
Seven-Member Commission
Under the bill, three members of the seven-member commission are to be appointed by the governor, one each by the Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader and two by the chief judge. The governor will designate the chair. Members will not be paid, but will be reimbursed for expenses. The formation of a pay commission may cause the plaintiffs in suits designed to compel the Legislature to take up a judicial pay raise bill to back off their litigation. Judge Lippman, the plaintiff in Chief Judge v. Governor, said the removal of the pay question from the political realm was "our main objective" in bringing the suit, which was initiated by Ms. Kaye and taken over by Judge Lippman when she retired at the end of 2008. Bernard W. Nussbaum of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Judge Lippman's attorney in Chief Judge v. Governor, called the legislation "major" and "historic."
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - December 1, 2010
ALBANY, NEW YORK - The frustration of New York state judges who have gone without a raise since 1999 came a step closer to ending yesterday after lawmakers approved the creation of a commission to recommend new salary levels once every four years. The judicial pay commission—if approved as expected by Governor David A. Paterson—would represent the best prospect for a salary increase for some 1,300 state-paid judges since their last pay hike nearly a dozen years ago. The commission would be created once every four years, beginning April 1, 2011, and recommend within 150 days salary adjustments for the next four years. The earliest the first raise could take effect would be April 1, 2012, under the legislation (A42010/S68010) approved Monday evening by the state Senate and a few minutes after midnight yesterday by the Assembly. Under the measure, commissions will consider the "prevailing adequacy of pay levels and non-salary benefits" of judges and whether "any such pay levels warrant adjustment." The legislation does not set new salary levels for the judiciary. Rather, it empowers the seven-member commission to consider inflation and the state's ability to increase compensation as well as the salaries of federal judges, judges in other states and officials in other branches of state government, among other factors. Unless the Legislature specifically votes to oppose the commission's recommendations, increases would become effective each April 1 under a schedule laid out by the panel. Proposals by the Unified Court System have generally sought to bring the $136,700-a-year salaries of Supreme Court justices in line with federal district court judges, who earn $170,000 a year, with other state judges receiving proportional increases.
The commission would disband after making its recommendations next year and a new panel would form on April 1, 2015, and every four years after that to reconsider the compensation question. Mr. Paterson urged lawmakers to consider the pay commission bill during the session that started Monday. "The Governor proposed this bill because he believes it is critical to keep New York's judicial system competitive with systems in other states by working to attract and retain top talent within our judiciary," Jessica Bassett, a Paterson spokeswoman, said yesterday. The Senate approved the measure 57-0. The Assembly, whose Democratic majority has balked in recent years at passing a judicial pay bill without also hiking state legislators' pay, passed it 99-22. Proponents say the commission will remove consideration of judicial salaries from politics. And judges have argued that they can only mount feeble lobbying efforts with the other two branches of government to get higher pay. In the meantime, bar and judges' groups say the level of pay has forced good judges to leave the bench in search of higher-paying jobs and deterred talented lawyers from seeking judgeships. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who has lobbied hard for a pay raise, as did his predecessor Judith S. Kaye, called the commission's passage a near "miracle" given the perilous condition of the state budget and the shaky economy. "It is a magnificent day," Judge Lippman said in an interview. "I think that this is, for us, the Holy Grail." A recurring mechanism to determine judicial salaries "takes us out of politics forever so that we never have to go through what we have gone through for the last decade. It is so important for the institution of the Judiciary. Now we have a future," Judge Lippman said. Former Chief Judge Kaye first brought up the idea of a pay commission in her State of the Judiciary address in February 2006 as a way of preventing raise droughts and taking the issue out of politics. Her inability to gain a raise for the Judiciary was a frustration in the final years of her record-long 15-year tenure as chief judge. She eventually sued the governor and Legislature to force them to grant an increase. Victor Kovner, chairman of the pro-raise Fund for Modern Courts, called a commission a "rational solution" to a logjam in Albany that will "once and for all remove judicial compensation from the political process." Stephen P. Younger, president of the New York State Bar Association, said that "an independent, well qualified judiciary must be compensated in a fair, consistent manner that is as free from political interference as possible." The New York City Bar, the New York County Lawyers' Association and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., among others, publicly urged lawmakers to back a commission once Mr. Paterson put it on an agenda of items he would like to see the Legislature address during its session this week.
Seven-Member Commission
Under the bill, three members of the seven-member commission are to be appointed by the governor, one each by the Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader and two by the chief judge. The governor will designate the chair. Members will not be paid, but will be reimbursed for expenses. The formation of a pay commission may cause the plaintiffs in suits designed to compel the Legislature to take up a judicial pay raise bill to back off their litigation. Judge Lippman, the plaintiff in Chief Judge v. Governor, said the removal of the pay question from the political realm was "our main objective" in bringing the suit, which was initiated by Ms. Kaye and taken over by Judge Lippman when she retired at the end of 2008. Bernard W. Nussbaum of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Judge Lippman's attorney in Chief Judge v. Governor, called the legislation "major" and "historic."
"This takes judicial pay out of the realm of politics where it does not belong," Mr. Nussbaum said yesterday. "This could have major impacts around the country and for the federal government." Two weeks ago, Thomas E. Bezanson of Cohen & Gresser and George Bundy Smith of Chadbourne & Parke asked the Court of Appeals to, in effect, enforce its ruling from February 2010 in the pay cases and force the Legislature to consider the raise issue independently of other legislation (NYLJ, Nov. 19). Mr. Bezanson called the pay commission legislation a "good first step," but said yesterday he and Mr. Smith will continue to pursue their case. "If this achieves what they say it will achieve, it will extend an 11-year pay freeze to 13 years," Mr. Bezanson said in an interview. "There has been really punishing harm done to the judges. So the litigation will have to proceed." The lawyers, representing the plaintiff judges in Larabee v. Governor, said they were also seeking to have the judges collect damages from the state for the Legislature's refusal to approve a pay bill. The Court of Appeals made its ruling in Chief Judge v. Governor, Larabee v. Governor and a third case brought by judges, Maron v. Silver. Joel Stashenko can be contacted at jstashenko@alm.com.
Monday, November 29, 2010
New York Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Public Corruption
Lawyer Mangone pleads guilty in Yonkers public corruption case
The Journal News by Timothy O'Connor - November 29, 2010
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK — Lawyer Anthony Mangone said today that he paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to a go-between to bribe former Yonkers Councilwoman Sandy Annabi. Mangone, 37, of Purchase, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to public corruption charges stemming from the investigation into the city council's handling of the Longfellow School project, a housing re-development plan involving two shuttered city schools. The one-time protege of former state. Sen. Nicholas Spano, R-Yonkers, also pleaded guilty to tax charges in a separate case, admitting that he hid more than $120,000 in income from the IRS in 2006 and 2007. He faces up to 45 years in prison when he is sentenced in the two cases March 18. Annabi and former Yonkers Republican Party Chairman Zehy Jereis have pleaded not guilty in the case. They were indicted along with Mangone on Jan. 6. Their charges also include accusations that Jereis and Annabi conspired to sell her vote on the controversial $630 million Ridge Hill project. Annabi was a vocal opponent of the project but switched her vote allegedly at Jereis' behest. Federal prosecutors said Jereis paid Annabi $160,000 in bribes between 2004 and 2008. Annabi's vote was decisive in getting the council to approve the project. In the Longfellow School project, Mangone said he gave $30,000 to Jereis in 2006 to give to Annabi to change her vote on the project. Mangone represented the developer in the project, Milio Management. "I told my client that he would have to pay the cash to Sandy Annabi to get her to switch her vote," he said. tpoconnor@lohud.com
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK — Lawyer Anthony Mangone said today that he paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to a go-between to bribe former Yonkers Councilwoman Sandy Annabi. Mangone, 37, of Purchase, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to public corruption charges stemming from the investigation into the city council's handling of the Longfellow School project, a housing re-development plan involving two shuttered city schools. The one-time protege of former state. Sen. Nicholas Spano, R-Yonkers, also pleaded guilty to tax charges in a separate case, admitting that he hid more than $120,000 in income from the IRS in 2006 and 2007. He faces up to 45 years in prison when he is sentenced in the two cases March 18. Annabi and former Yonkers Republican Party Chairman Zehy Jereis have pleaded not guilty in the case. They were indicted along with Mangone on Jan. 6. Their charges also include accusations that Jereis and Annabi conspired to sell her vote on the controversial $630 million Ridge Hill project. Annabi was a vocal opponent of the project but switched her vote allegedly at Jereis' behest. Federal prosecutors said Jereis paid Annabi $160,000 in bribes between 2004 and 2008. Annabi's vote was decisive in getting the council to approve the project. In the Longfellow School project, Mangone said he gave $30,000 to Jereis in 2006 to give to Annabi to change her vote on the project. Mangone represented the developer in the project, Milio Management. "I told my client that he would have to pay the cash to Sandy Annabi to get her to switch her vote," he said. tpoconnor@lohud.com
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
New Law School Class: How To Fake Billing Under Assumed Names
Ex-BigLaw Associate Who Faked $500,000 in Billables Loses Law License
The National Law Journal by Leigh Jones - November 23, 2010
A former Greenberg Traurig associate has surrendered his law license to the Supreme Court of Georgia following a finding that he billed nearly $500,000 under assumed names. The court on Nov. 22 accepted Michael Shaw's petition for the voluntary surrender of his license, noting that it was "tantamount" to disbarment. The court previously rejected petitions by Shaw to suspend his license. According to court records, while he was an associate at Greenberg Traurig from 2003 to 2009, Shaw used the fictitious name of an independent investigator to submit invoices for work on bankruptcy cases. He also submitted invoices for fake title-examination services. Greenberg Traurig fired Shaw in June 2009 when it learned of his conduct. Shaw had moved for a six-month suspension and, after the court rejected that petition, for a two- to four-year suspension, which it also denied. In ordering his removal from the state's attorney roster, the court observed that Shaw used someone else's Social Security number, obtained from bankruptcy filings, and submitted fake tax forms. The court said that Shaw had admitted most of the allegations and that he had repaid the firm $527,000. Shaw could not be reached for comment.
The National Law Journal by Leigh Jones - November 23, 2010
A former Greenberg Traurig associate has surrendered his law license to the Supreme Court of Georgia following a finding that he billed nearly $500,000 under assumed names. The court on Nov. 22 accepted Michael Shaw's petition for the voluntary surrender of his license, noting that it was "tantamount" to disbarment. The court previously rejected petitions by Shaw to suspend his license. According to court records, while he was an associate at Greenberg Traurig from 2003 to 2009, Shaw used the fictitious name of an independent investigator to submit invoices for work on bankruptcy cases. He also submitted invoices for fake title-examination services. Greenberg Traurig fired Shaw in June 2009 when it learned of his conduct. Shaw had moved for a six-month suspension and, after the court rejected that petition, for a two- to four-year suspension, which it also denied. In ordering his removal from the state's attorney roster, the court observed that Shaw used someone else's Social Security number, obtained from bankruptcy filings, and submitted fake tax forms. The court said that Shaw had admitted most of the allegations and that he had repaid the firm $527,000. Shaw could not be reached for comment.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Corrupt Ethics Lawyers Friedberg and Cohen Forced To Retire
Much To Be Thankful For: Alan W. Friedberg and Sherry K. Cohen Forced To Retire.....Both to be gone for Thanksgiving!!
3 High-Level Officials At First Department to Retire
The New York Law Journal by Noeleen G. Walder - News In Brief - September 22, 2010
Three high-level officials in the Appellate Division, First Department, have given notice that they plan to retire in November, Presiding Justice Luis A. Gonzalez announced yesterday. David Spokony, the court's clerk, Alan Friedberg, chief counsel to the Disciplinary Committee, and James Shed, secretary to the Committee on Character and Fitness, are among 1,650 non-judicial personnel who have informed the court system that they intend to take advantage of an early-retirement program being offered to state employees. Mr. Spokony joined the First Department in 1978. He served as a supervising appellate court attorney and a deputy clerk before assuming his current title earlier this year. Before becoming chief counsel in 2007, Mr. Friedberg, who began his career as a staff attorney at the New York City Board of Education, was deputy administrator in charge at the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Shed worked as a staff attorney at the disciplinary committee before being appointed as a secretary of the character committee. In a statement, Justice Gonzalez said the three officials' decades of valuable experience will be missed by the bench and bar alike."
**********
Note: Sherry K. Cohen, deputy chief counsel, is also retiring and taking early-retirement, and as previously posted here on September 16, 2010, "Corrupt Ethics Attorney Sherry K. Cohen Departing, Finally"
The New York Law Journal by Noeleen G. Walder - News In Brief - September 22, 2010
Three high-level officials in the Appellate Division, First Department, have given notice that they plan to retire in November, Presiding Justice Luis A. Gonzalez announced yesterday. David Spokony, the court's clerk, Alan Friedberg, chief counsel to the Disciplinary Committee, and James Shed, secretary to the Committee on Character and Fitness, are among 1,650 non-judicial personnel who have informed the court system that they intend to take advantage of an early-retirement program being offered to state employees. Mr. Spokony joined the First Department in 1978. He served as a supervising appellate court attorney and a deputy clerk before assuming his current title earlier this year. Before becoming chief counsel in 2007, Mr. Friedberg, who began his career as a staff attorney at the New York City Board of Education, was deputy administrator in charge at the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Shed worked as a staff attorney at the disciplinary committee before being appointed as a secretary of the character committee. In a statement, Justice Gonzalez said the three officials' decades of valuable experience will be missed by the bench and bar alike."
**********
Note: Sherry K. Cohen, deputy chief counsel, is also retiring and taking early-retirement, and as previously posted here on September 16, 2010, "Corrupt Ethics Attorney Sherry K. Cohen Departing, Finally"
Iviewit Shows Federal Court Exceptional Circumstances
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT
-against-
APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moved this Court for an order reopening the above captioned case, Docket No. 07-Civ-11196 (SAS), based upon exceptional circumstances that ensued after the Court’s granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and its Opinion and Order of August 8, 2008 (“Order”). Respectively, Plaintiffs have been properly served with answers that oppose such Motion to Reopen by the Proskauer Defendants, the Foley Defendants, Raymond A. Joao Pro se, the Virginia Defendants, the Florida Bar Defendants, and the New York State Actors (collectively, “Reopen Oppositions”). Additionally Plaintiffs have been properly served with an answer by the State Actors that opposes the removal of the Office of the Attorney General from representation of the State Actors (“Disqualification Opposition”). The Meltzer Defendants did not answer Plaintiffs’ Motion.
In each and every instance, the Reopen Oppositions singularly point to Plaintiffs’ lack of standing to challenge attorney discipline complaints. Such a defense erroneously interprets Plaintiffs’ singular claim: it is not the disposition that Plaintiffs claim is a violation per se, but it is the method employed to reach that disposition that clearly and convincingly gives exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (which this Court likened to Plaintiffs’ direct constitutional claims in its Order and Opinion) and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs claim that the State Actors committed all methods employed to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC. Respectfully, in skewing from the actual claim (method employed), this Court erroneously concluded Plaintiffs’ lack of standing in its Order, but made no mention of the methods employed to reach said racketeering dispositions.
The Reopen Oppositions make no mention, lest no defense of: After four and one half years of handling the Plaintiffs’ grievance complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Defendant Martin R. Gold suddenly reached a disposition exactly seven (7) business days after Plaintiffs filed their motion with the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”) requesting an order requiring the immediate investigation of Thomas J. Cahill (“Cahill”); and When after said disposition, Defendants Hon. Andrias and Hon Saxe sat on a panel in the First Department Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
These circumstances are exceptional instances in the pattern of racketeering and are direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 that continue along with, and of which no statute of limitations may belie, the seminal instances as follows: Deposition testimony will show evidence that dismissed Defendant Joseph Wigley stated “Mr. Cahill has taken the Rubenstein complaint away and is handling the complaint on his own,” or words to these effects. The handling of a grievance complaint by the Chief Counsel himself is quite inapposite to the testimony offered in Anderson v. The State of New York (S.D.N.Y. filed October 26, 2007). This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that in the filing of a response to a grievance complaint against Rubenstein by a referee, the late Steven C. Krane, where, the former Clerk of the First Department Court, dismissed Defendant Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, stated “Steven Krane? Of course, he is a referee, and I have a meeting with him tonight along with a few others folks,” or words to these effects. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that the State Actors caused the merging of the Rubenstein complaint with the grievance complaint against Raymond A. Joao that was filed in another Disciplinary Department so as to impart a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in light of the Krane response. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. That in making no mention, lest no defense of these exceptional circumstances of 1 and 2 above, Plaintiffs maintain that skirting the issue and providing no defense, clearly and convincingly gives further exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, all methods employed by the State Actors to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC.
Plaintiffs argue that, as to the Foley Defendants, the Virginia Defendants, and the Florida Bar Defendants, further deposition testimony will show evidence which will further define the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims which will become more fully evident, as to whether they acted in collusion with the State Actors in clearly and convincingly acting to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices and/or whether they contrived their own racketeering scheme for securing the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1961 – Definitions
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B) section 1503 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to relating to obstruction of justice, section 1511 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and section 1952 defines a catch all as activities relating to racketeering.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4) defines “enterprise” that includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
Deposition testimony will show evidence from a one Wayne Smith, former intellectual property counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment, a unit of Time Warner, Inc. as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will further show evidence from a one Gregory B. Thagard, one of the principal inventors and proponents of the DVD6c Licensing Group as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will conclusively show evidence from the intellectual property department of Greenberg Traurig LLP (counsel to the Florida Bar Defendants herein), who conducted a full review of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in or about Spring 2002 as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affects interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery1 to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 – Civil Remedies
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) grants the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 by issuing appropriate orders, and by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), Plaintiffs injured in their business and property by reason of a violation of section 1962 provides civil remedies by instituting the action prayed to reopen herein, including the recovery of threefold damages the Plaintiffs sustained and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 – Standing
Where 18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 provides that any civil action under §§ 1961 to 1965 by Plaintiffs’ may be instituted against Defendants in this Court or in any district in which such Plaintiffs reside.
That in making no mention, lest no defense, counsel to the State Actors do not plead the existence of an ethical barrier between different departments of the Attorney General’s office (“AG”) to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, in complete separation of such bilateral functions, but suffices to regurgitate this Court’s Order. Where no defense is pleaded, this Court must conclude that there is no existence of an ethical barrier between different departments of the Attorney General’s office to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, and must immediately disqualify the AG.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this Court to: (i) reopen the action and grant relief from the Court's August 8, 2008 Order; (ii) deny any Defendants’ request for leave to file a sur-reply; (iii) disqualify the AG’s office in representing the State Actors; and (iv) grant Plaintiffs leave to retain counsel and file an Amended Complaint within one hundred and eighty days (180).
Attorney for Plaintiffs, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580, Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 14nd day of November 2010. Defendants are served by facsimile as opposed to hand delivery to the Court for the sake of Pro se expediency.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Joanna Smith/Gregg M. Mashberg Proskauer Rose LLP
Counsel for the Proskauer Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
Monica Connell, Esq., Office of the New York State Attorney General
Counsel for the New York State Defendants Facsimile: (212) 416-6075
Kent K. Anker, Esq., Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Counsel for the Foley Larder LLP Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 373-7944
Raymond A. Joao, Pro se, c/o Fried & Epstein LLP
Counsel for Defendant Joao, Facsimile: (212) 268-3110
Stephen H. Hall, Office of the Virginia State Attorney General
Counsel for the Virginia Defendants, Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
Richard Howard, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone
Counsel for Meltzer Defendants, Facsimile: (516) 747-0653
Glenn T. Burhans/Bridget Smitha, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel for Florida Bar Defendants, Facsimile: (850) 681-0207
ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDERS OF IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs,
-against-
APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants.
DOCKET NO: 07Civ11196 (SAS)
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN BASED ON
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moved this Court for an order reopening the above captioned case, Docket No. 07-Civ-11196 (SAS), based upon exceptional circumstances that ensued after the Court’s granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and its Opinion and Order of August 8, 2008 (“Order”). Respectively, Plaintiffs have been properly served with answers that oppose such Motion to Reopen by the Proskauer Defendants, the Foley Defendants, Raymond A. Joao Pro se, the Virginia Defendants, the Florida Bar Defendants, and the New York State Actors (collectively, “Reopen Oppositions”). Additionally Plaintiffs have been properly served with an answer by the State Actors that opposes the removal of the Office of the Attorney General from representation of the State Actors (“Disqualification Opposition”). The Meltzer Defendants did not answer Plaintiffs’ Motion.
REOPEN OPPOSITIONS
The Reopen Oppositions make no mention, lest no defense of: After four and one half years of handling the Plaintiffs’ grievance complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Defendant Martin R. Gold suddenly reached a disposition exactly seven (7) business days after Plaintiffs filed their motion with the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”) requesting an order requiring the immediate investigation of Thomas J. Cahill (“Cahill”); and When after said disposition, Defendants Hon. Andrias and Hon Saxe sat on a panel in the First Department Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
These circumstances are exceptional instances in the pattern of racketeering and are direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 that continue along with, and of which no statute of limitations may belie, the seminal instances as follows: Deposition testimony will show evidence that dismissed Defendant Joseph Wigley stated “Mr. Cahill has taken the Rubenstein complaint away and is handling the complaint on his own,” or words to these effects. The handling of a grievance complaint by the Chief Counsel himself is quite inapposite to the testimony offered in Anderson v. The State of New York (S.D.N.Y. filed October 26, 2007). This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that in the filing of a response to a grievance complaint against Rubenstein by a referee, the late Steven C. Krane, where, the former Clerk of the First Department Court, dismissed Defendant Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, stated “Steven Krane? Of course, he is a referee, and I have a meeting with him tonight along with a few others folks,” or words to these effects. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that the State Actors caused the merging of the Rubenstein complaint with the grievance complaint against Raymond A. Joao that was filed in another Disciplinary Department so as to impart a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in light of the Krane response. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. That in making no mention, lest no defense of these exceptional circumstances of 1 and 2 above, Plaintiffs maintain that skirting the issue and providing no defense, clearly and convincingly gives further exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, all methods employed by the State Actors to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC.
Plaintiffs argue that, as to the Foley Defendants, the Virginia Defendants, and the Florida Bar Defendants, further deposition testimony will show evidence which will further define the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims which will become more fully evident, as to whether they acted in collusion with the State Actors in clearly and convincingly acting to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices and/or whether they contrived their own racketeering scheme for securing the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
STANDARDS OF PLEADING
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B) section 1503 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to relating to obstruction of justice, section 1511 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and section 1952 defines a catch all as activities relating to racketeering.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4) defines “enterprise” that includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as requiring at least two acts of racketeering activity, where the exceptional circumstances of Section I subsection (a) and (b) and the seminal circumstances of Section I (c), (d), and (e) meets Plaintiffs’ standard of pleading in obstruction of justice, obstruction of State or local enforcement, and the catch all of racketeering.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 – Prohibited Activities
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d) Defendants’ pattern of racketeering clearly and convincingly acted to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants. The Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices contrived their racketeering scheme to sabotage the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom from competing in, and affecting, interstate or foreign commerce for such technologies from the original encoding of video and images and downstream to display on any screen device by an end user.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d) Defendants’ pattern of racketeering clearly and convincingly acted to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants. The Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices contrived their racketeering scheme to sabotage the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom from competing in, and affecting, interstate or foreign commerce for such technologies from the original encoding of video and images and downstream to display on any screen device by an end user.
Deposition testimony will show evidence from a one Wayne Smith, former intellectual property counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment, a unit of Time Warner, Inc. as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will further show evidence from a one Gregory B. Thagard, one of the principal inventors and proponents of the DVD6c Licensing Group as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will conclusively show evidence from the intellectual property department of Greenberg Traurig LLP (counsel to the Florida Bar Defendants herein), who conducted a full review of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in or about Spring 2002 as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affects interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery1 to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1963 Criminal Penalties
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1963 attaches criminal penalties to the actions of Defendants to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to bring such actions to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a full investigation.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1963 attaches criminal penalties to the actions of Defendants to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to bring such actions to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a full investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 – Civil Remedies
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) grants the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 by issuing appropriate orders, and by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), Plaintiffs injured in their business and property by reason of a violation of section 1962 provides civil remedies by instituting the action prayed to reopen herein, including the recovery of threefold damages the Plaintiffs sustained and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 – Standing
Where 18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 provides that any civil action under §§ 1961 to 1965 by Plaintiffs’ may be instituted against Defendants in this Court or in any district in which such Plaintiffs reside.
DISQUALIFICATION OPPOSITION
CONCLUSION
Attorney for Plaintiffs, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580, Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 14nd day of November 2010. Defendants are served by facsimile as opposed to hand delivery to the Court for the sake of Pro se expediency.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Joanna Smith/Gregg M. Mashberg Proskauer Rose LLP
Counsel for the Proskauer Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
Monica Connell, Esq., Office of the New York State Attorney General
Counsel for the New York State Defendants Facsimile: (212) 416-6075
Kent K. Anker, Esq., Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Counsel for the Foley Larder LLP Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 373-7944
Raymond A. Joao, Pro se, c/o Fried & Epstein LLP
Counsel for Defendant Joao, Facsimile: (212) 268-3110
Stephen H. Hall, Office of the Virginia State Attorney General
Counsel for the Virginia Defendants, Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
Richard Howard, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone
Counsel for Meltzer Defendants, Facsimile: (516) 747-0653
Glenn T. Burhans/Bridget Smitha, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel for Florida Bar Defendants, Facsimile: (850) 681-0207
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
NY Lawyer Walks Out of Congressional Hearing, Guilty Anyway
Charlie Rangel and the farce known as congressional ethics
The Washington Post by Dana Milbank - November 16, 2010
Charlie Rangel's trial began with an admonition from House ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that the matter should be conducted "with the dignity and decorum befitting any proceeding before the House of Representatives." Talk about setting a low bar. Within minutes of its opening Monday morning, the trial degenerated into exactly the level of dignity and decorum we have come to expect from our lawmakers. Rangel immediately requested a postponement of the trial - never mind that the New York Democrat had spent the last three months demanding that the trial be expedited. The man who until recently had sway over hundreds of billions of dollars as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was now claiming that he was too indigent to hire a lawyer. Half an hour into the public hearing he had demanded for so long, Rangel announced that he was leaving. "I object to the proceedings, and I, with all due respect, since I don't have counsel to advise me, I'm going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings," he told his eight colleagues, who wore expressions of surprise and amusement. Rangel, in his agitation, stepped away from his microphone as he berated the panel members. This forced the C-SPAN sound man to rush forward with a boom microphone, and caused problems for the stenography services, one of which transcribed the beginning of Rangel's diatribe this way: "RANGEL: (OFF-MIKE) On several occasions I've spoken with (inaudible). I've spoken with the chair. And I have (inaudible). . ." After Rangel departed, he treated reporters who chased him down the hall to more of his treatise on fairness and justice. The committee members huddled in private, then decided to proceed with the trial of Rangel in absentia, as if they were a Hague tribunal judging an at-large war criminal.
This was but the latest act in the ongoing farce known as congressional ethics. Rules are so flexible, and enforcement so lax, that even instances that look like outright influence-buying don't get prosecuted. And there's no sign that the situation will improve, as key figures make noises about abolishing the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body designed to make ethics investigations more transparent. Now comes Rangel, who seems determined to take down with him any remaining credibility of the ethics committee. "I am being denied a right to have a lawyer," he informed the committee with righteous indignation. "You may hire whoever you wish as a lawyer," the chairwoman told him. "That is up to you." There is some truth to Rangel's complaint. His law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, withdrew from the case after his trial date was set, and after Rangel had paid them at least $1.4 million. (The firm says it "did not seek to terminate the relationship.") Rangel, after a tough reelection campaign (and the loss of fundraising clout associated with his committee chairmanship), has little campaign money left to pay another lawyer, and House rules prevent him from accepting pro bono help. (Celebrated criminal lawyer Abbe Lowell, seated with Rangel's family in the hearing room Monday morning, was willing to take the case for a pittance.)
Still, it's difficult to feel sorry for Rangel. He could pay for lawyers by selling off his villa in the Dominican Republic (the one for which he's accused of avoiding taxes - one of the 13 charges against him). Or he could have maintained better relations with his legal team, rather than publicly rejecting their advice in a speech on the House floor. Rangel sauntered into the hearing room - a chamber much less grand than his former Ways & Means lair - wearing a striped tie as loud as the TV test pattern. Rangel smiled as if arriving at a cocktail reception, then stood at attention at the defense table until the committee members walked in, five minutes later. After opening statements, Lofgren asked Rangel, alone at the defense table, if he was represented by counsel. The 80-year-old lawmaker interpreted this as an invitation to make a speech. He delivered a lengthy complaint about the process and a reaffirmation of his innocence. After several minutes of this, the chairwoman interrupted. "Mr. Rangel?" "If the chair is suggesting that I conclude my remarks," Rangel said - Lofgren nodded her agreement - "then I would do that." But not before he made another statement, this one invoking his wartime service and his work for the New York state legislature in the 1960s. The prosecutor attempted to enter his 549 exhibits into the record. "Is there objection?" Lofgren asked. Rangel took this as a cue to make another lengthy speech. Lofgren eventually interrupted. "Mr. Rangel, if you could be seated," she requested. Rangel, ignoring the chairwoman, remained on his feet - the preferred position of a man about to stage a walkout. danamilbank@washpost.com
Charlie Rangel's trial began with an admonition from House ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that the matter should be conducted "with the dignity and decorum befitting any proceeding before the House of Representatives." Talk about setting a low bar. Within minutes of its opening Monday morning, the trial degenerated into exactly the level of dignity and decorum we have come to expect from our lawmakers. Rangel immediately requested a postponement of the trial - never mind that the New York Democrat had spent the last three months demanding that the trial be expedited. The man who until recently had sway over hundreds of billions of dollars as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was now claiming that he was too indigent to hire a lawyer. Half an hour into the public hearing he had demanded for so long, Rangel announced that he was leaving. "I object to the proceedings, and I, with all due respect, since I don't have counsel to advise me, I'm going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings," he told his eight colleagues, who wore expressions of surprise and amusement. Rangel, in his agitation, stepped away from his microphone as he berated the panel members. This forced the C-SPAN sound man to rush forward with a boom microphone, and caused problems for the stenography services, one of which transcribed the beginning of Rangel's diatribe this way: "RANGEL: (OFF-MIKE) On several occasions I've spoken with (inaudible). I've spoken with the chair. And I have (inaudible). . ." After Rangel departed, he treated reporters who chased him down the hall to more of his treatise on fairness and justice. The committee members huddled in private, then decided to proceed with the trial of Rangel in absentia, as if they were a Hague tribunal judging an at-large war criminal.
This was but the latest act in the ongoing farce known as congressional ethics. Rules are so flexible, and enforcement so lax, that even instances that look like outright influence-buying don't get prosecuted. And there's no sign that the situation will improve, as key figures make noises about abolishing the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body designed to make ethics investigations more transparent. Now comes Rangel, who seems determined to take down with him any remaining credibility of the ethics committee. "I am being denied a right to have a lawyer," he informed the committee with righteous indignation. "You may hire whoever you wish as a lawyer," the chairwoman told him. "That is up to you." There is some truth to Rangel's complaint. His law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, withdrew from the case after his trial date was set, and after Rangel had paid them at least $1.4 million. (The firm says it "did not seek to terminate the relationship.") Rangel, after a tough reelection campaign (and the loss of fundraising clout associated with his committee chairmanship), has little campaign money left to pay another lawyer, and House rules prevent him from accepting pro bono help. (Celebrated criminal lawyer Abbe Lowell, seated with Rangel's family in the hearing room Monday morning, was willing to take the case for a pittance.)
Still, it's difficult to feel sorry for Rangel. He could pay for lawyers by selling off his villa in the Dominican Republic (the one for which he's accused of avoiding taxes - one of the 13 charges against him). Or he could have maintained better relations with his legal team, rather than publicly rejecting their advice in a speech on the House floor. Rangel sauntered into the hearing room - a chamber much less grand than his former Ways & Means lair - wearing a striped tie as loud as the TV test pattern. Rangel smiled as if arriving at a cocktail reception, then stood at attention at the defense table until the committee members walked in, five minutes later. After opening statements, Lofgren asked Rangel, alone at the defense table, if he was represented by counsel. The 80-year-old lawmaker interpreted this as an invitation to make a speech. He delivered a lengthy complaint about the process and a reaffirmation of his innocence. After several minutes of this, the chairwoman interrupted. "Mr. Rangel?" "If the chair is suggesting that I conclude my remarks," Rangel said - Lofgren nodded her agreement - "then I would do that." But not before he made another statement, this one invoking his wartime service and his work for the New York state legislature in the 1960s. The prosecutor attempted to enter his 549 exhibits into the record. "Is there objection?" Lofgren asked. Rangel took this as a cue to make another lengthy speech. Lofgren eventually interrupted. "Mr. Rangel, if you could be seated," she requested. Rangel, ignoring the chairwoman, remained on his feet - the preferred position of a man about to stage a walkout. danamilbank@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
