DEVELOPING.......FOLLOW UP SOON......In a letter delivered to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer in Albany on Friday, April 27th, the niece of ice cream magnate Tom Carvel has made an urgent plea for the immediate appointment of a Special Inspector General to oversee, investigate and prosecute, if necessary, the alleged wide spread corruption in the Surrogate's Court of Westchester County.
Since the plea to Governor Spitzer was made public on Saturday, the ECC (ExposeCorruptCourts) Blog has been inundated with emails and court-filed evidence which, according to the providers, support the Carvel kin's request. Many, and who call themselves "victims" of Westchester and other Surrogate's Courts in New York, promise to send letters to Governor Spitzer in support of his immediate intervention. "This is long overdue," says one trust and estate attorney who asked not to be named and who refuses to appear in contested estates in Westchester or Manhattan. "Only with a [Governor] Sptizer and [Attorney General] Cuomo combination is there hope that the corruption will be stopped."
"Tom Carvel was a beautiful man, and who intended to provide for his widow Agnes upon his death," says Pamela Carvel. Instead, she says, Agnes Carvel never received a dime during the eight years she survived her famous ice cream magnate husband.
See the April 26, 2007 dated letter from Pamela Carvel to Governor Spitzer (Click on page to the right)
To see Tom Carvel's Last Will (Click on page to the right)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Digging Up More Than Tom Carvel's Body !
Startling Allegations in Carvel Federal Court Filing -- Follow-up story soon -- Click on Page to the right to see.....
Friday, April 20, 2007
Judicial Destruction of Court Records...(CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)
Most court employees adhere to directives from New York State's Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, Jan H. Plumadore. There are only a few people more powerful in this state than Judge Plumadore, and as a state court employee, when the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge says to do something, you make sure you do it. Unless, according to the latest allegations, you are operating from state and county courts in Westchester County....MORE...
In March of 2006, Duputy Chief Administrative Judge Plumadore advised all state District Administrative judges that, "Members of the media have complained that they are being denied access to records in some courts where the practice is for the parties to submit court papers directly to the judge rather than file them first with clerk's office."
By all accounts, most of the state's 12 judicial district administrative judges complied with the further directive from Judge Plumadore, "Please advise your judges that…the Rules for the Supreme and County Courts…each require that papers submitted to a judge must be filed with the clerk of the court "at the first available opportunity" so as to become part of the record accessible by the public."
But according to the latest allegations, not only was Judge Plumadore's directive ignored in Westchester County, certain deliberate actions were taken to systematically destroy court documents that were placed in many case files.
"Judge Plumadore's directives may have force in other judicial districts around the state," says one insider, "But what [Judge] Plumadore thinks doesn't matter in the 9th Judicial District, [9th Judicial District Administrative Judge Francis A.] Nicolai listens to no one, and [Judge] Nicolai does what he wants," the source says.
(The state's 9th Judicial District encompasses Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties.)
One judge, and who will not be identified for this article, says that Judge Nicolai gathered all Westchester county and supreme court judges shortly after Judge Plumadore's March 2006 directive. Notably, it is alleged, the "Plumadore March 2006 Memo" had not been copied, or referenced in any subsequent memo, to any of the justices.
The meeting was short and, according to one judge in attendance, consisted of Judge Nicolai screaming, "I never fixed any case. I NEVER told you what to do in a case." The allegation suggests that all the judges "got the message." Another judge, and who also attended the meeting, viewed Judge Nicolai's advisement as a "threat."
It would later be revealed that around the time period involved, that not only had he received the Plumadore March 2006 Memo, Judge Nicolai had also been advised that nearly a half dozen official complaints had been filed against him, including charges of judicial steering and improperly attempting to influence the outcome in specific cases.
Three individuals familiar with the allegations confirm that there had been a brewing concern around the Westchester courts concerning Judge Nicolai's improper interjection of himself, and his desires, in certain court cases. They also confirmed that many Westchester judges had themselves placed "cover your ass" memos in the court case files.
"The judges assigned to a particular case would put a memo in the file to protect themselves," they say. "The memos said "Admin. Judge [Nicolai] says to take case and send it back to Judge so-and-so" or "Admin. Judge says to have Judge so-and-so decide contempt motion"."
Exactly what happened next is unclear, according to the allegations, however it is known that many dozens, and possibly hundreds of Westchester court files then found their way to a shredder.
According to informed sources, at least two Westchester judges, three law clerks and numerous other court employees have come forward to confirm the troubling series of events and have provided additional evidence. "This is very upsetting," says one employee. "Things have just gotten totally out of control in the courts here [Westchester]. What happened is illegal, and it's just wrong."
In March of 2006, Duputy Chief Administrative Judge Plumadore advised all state District Administrative judges that, "Members of the media have complained that they are being denied access to records in some courts where the practice is for the parties to submit court papers directly to the judge rather than file them first with clerk's office."
By all accounts, most of the state's 12 judicial district administrative judges complied with the further directive from Judge Plumadore, "Please advise your judges that…the Rules for the Supreme and County Courts…each require that papers submitted to a judge must be filed with the clerk of the court "at the first available opportunity" so as to become part of the record accessible by the public."
But according to the latest allegations, not only was Judge Plumadore's directive ignored in Westchester County, certain deliberate actions were taken to systematically destroy court documents that were placed in many case files.
"Judge Plumadore's directives may have force in other judicial districts around the state," says one insider, "But what [Judge] Plumadore thinks doesn't matter in the 9th Judicial District, [9th Judicial District Administrative Judge Francis A.] Nicolai listens to no one, and [Judge] Nicolai does what he wants," the source says.
(The state's 9th Judicial District encompasses Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties.)
One judge, and who will not be identified for this article, says that Judge Nicolai gathered all Westchester county and supreme court judges shortly after Judge Plumadore's March 2006 directive. Notably, it is alleged, the "Plumadore March 2006 Memo" had not been copied, or referenced in any subsequent memo, to any of the justices.
The meeting was short and, according to one judge in attendance, consisted of Judge Nicolai screaming, "I never fixed any case. I NEVER told you what to do in a case." The allegation suggests that all the judges "got the message." Another judge, and who also attended the meeting, viewed Judge Nicolai's advisement as a "threat."
It would later be revealed that around the time period involved, that not only had he received the Plumadore March 2006 Memo, Judge Nicolai had also been advised that nearly a half dozen official complaints had been filed against him, including charges of judicial steering and improperly attempting to influence the outcome in specific cases.
Three individuals familiar with the allegations confirm that there had been a brewing concern around the Westchester courts concerning Judge Nicolai's improper interjection of himself, and his desires, in certain court cases. They also confirmed that many Westchester judges had themselves placed "cover your ass" memos in the court case files.
"The judges assigned to a particular case would put a memo in the file to protect themselves," they say. "The memos said "Admin. Judge [Nicolai] says to take case and send it back to Judge so-and-so" or "Admin. Judge says to have Judge so-and-so decide contempt motion"."
Exactly what happened next is unclear, according to the allegations, however it is known that many dozens, and possibly hundreds of Westchester court files then found their way to a shredder.
According to informed sources, at least two Westchester judges, three law clerks and numerous other court employees have come forward to confirm the troubling series of events and have provided additional evidence. "This is very upsetting," says one employee. "Things have just gotten totally out of control in the courts here [Westchester]. What happened is illegal, and it's just wrong."
Monday, April 9, 2007
Judicial Destruction...2 Sets of Books (case files) !!
Developing, troubling story...Sources: One Supreme Court Judge Law Clerk SCARED...nearly a dozen State employees seeking WHISTLE BLOWER status... Summary on right: " JUDICIAL DESTRUCTION" View some photographs obtained....details coming.....
Friday, April 6, 2007
FBI Swamped with Bank of New York Violations
FBI Swamped with Bank of New York Violations of Non-Prosecution Agreement
by Frank Brady © 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
In November of 2005, the Bank of New York in a Non-Prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors was required to pay $38 million to settle various criminal charges. Those crimes involved fraud, money laundering, reporting failures and cover-ups over a ten-year period. And as admitted to by the bank, those criminal acts were committed by Bank of New York executives, officers and employees. During its investigation, federal agents found evidence of $7 billion in underground Russian monies, phony import/export businesses, fraudulent medical equipment leases, elaborate cover-ups, wire fraud and tax evasion. One Long Island Bank of New York branch manager admitted that she improperly executed escrow agreements to assist highly valued customers.
The current allegations include the continuation of the illegal activity by the Bank of New York to improperly assist its highly valued customers, according to informed sources. Those “highly valued customers” include numerous law firms that are on the bank’s approved preferred list who, it is alleged, have been illegally favored by certain courts and specified judges in at least four different counties.
“Most of the malfeasance stems from the Surrogate’s Courts, though various New York State Supreme Courts are also named,” according to one source familiar with the filings and who asked not to be identified. If the allegations are true, those acts would appear to be in violation of the 2005 Non-Prosecution agreement.
When the Bank of New York admitted its criminal conduct and forfeited $26 million to the Federal Government, it also agreed to pay another $12 million in restitution to its victims and to refrain from unlawful activity for three years. The federal government’s press release in November of 2005 noted that, “Should the Bank of New York violate the terms of the agreement, or commit any other crimes, it shall be subject to prosecution, including prosecution for the criminal conduct described in the agreement.”
“I can tell you that top executives at the Bank of New York are frantic over the current allegations that they have violated the Non-Prosecution agreement,” said a New York attorney who requested that he not be identified. “The current inquiries could lead to dozens of indictments, and would surely involve court employees and a few judges. You don’t have to be James Bond to find out what judges are allowing lawyers for the Bank of New York to get away with everything- the question is WHY. Oddly, the Non-Prosecution agreement was meant to bring closure and so they could get back to business as usual. Instead, the agreement brought other long-time and on-going illegalities to light.”
One employee, who asked not to be identified in this article, says that he has provided information showing how “illegal activity by law firms are overlooked by judges who have close ties to those lawyers.” “It’s frightening. I know lawyers in estate cases involving this bank who admit they’ve handed over envelopes full of cash.”
One Manhattan trust and estate attorney says that he has learned to live with “bank-controlled biased courts.” “I flatly refuse to take any contested estate case outside of Manhattan,” he says. “I don’t waste my time going to courts in counties where the Bank of New York owns the court.” He declined to specify about which counties he was referring.
In 2005, United States Attorney Rosylynn R. Mauskopf called the Non-Prosecution agreement with the Bank of New York one of this nation’s largest settlements with a financial institution. “When that trust is knowingly violated at the highest levels of a financial institution, as happened here, fraud and other criminal activities continue unabated, victims suffer staggering losses, and the integrity of our financial systems is seriously undermined. This agreement fixes responsibility for the illegal conduct by bank executives, officers, and employees, secures immediate compensation for victims, and ensures accountability going forward in the exercise of an essential public trust.”
“When the Bank of New York admitted to its criminal activity, I’m sure the U.S. Attorney’s office thought the matter was largely resolved,” says the estate attorney. “But with the onslaught of new complaints against the bank, federal investigators are only now seeing just how deep these frauds go. It’s as simple as the lawyers getting a judge to approve the Bank of New York as a fiduciary, executor, guardian, etc., and then the bank hires that lawyer as its legal counsel in that matter. Lawyers tell everyone that this is the custom to get around any conflicts that are raised.”
“After all that’s happened, the Bank of New York has to be characterized as factually dishonest,” says the veteran estate attorney. And he asks an intriguing question, “How does any Court of Law approve a position of trust- as fiduciary, executor, guardian- to a petitioner like the Bank of New York who has admitted to criminal acts involving fraud, money laundering and cover-ups, and who has paid $38 million to avoid criminal prosecution?”
Good question.
Laughing, the estate attorney asks one last question. “Enough said?”
Hardly.
The FBI will not comment on the current investigation, but has acknowledged that a special unit was created to monitor the Bank of New York and investigate the allegations pertaining to violations of the Non-Prosecution agreement.
Frank Brady © 2007
www.ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com © 2007
by Frank Brady © 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
In November of 2005, the Bank of New York in a Non-Prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors was required to pay $38 million to settle various criminal charges. Those crimes involved fraud, money laundering, reporting failures and cover-ups over a ten-year period. And as admitted to by the bank, those criminal acts were committed by Bank of New York executives, officers and employees. During its investigation, federal agents found evidence of $7 billion in underground Russian monies, phony import/export businesses, fraudulent medical equipment leases, elaborate cover-ups, wire fraud and tax evasion. One Long Island Bank of New York branch manager admitted that she improperly executed escrow agreements to assist highly valued customers.
The current allegations include the continuation of the illegal activity by the Bank of New York to improperly assist its highly valued customers, according to informed sources. Those “highly valued customers” include numerous law firms that are on the bank’s approved preferred list who, it is alleged, have been illegally favored by certain courts and specified judges in at least four different counties.
“Most of the malfeasance stems from the Surrogate’s Courts, though various New York State Supreme Courts are also named,” according to one source familiar with the filings and who asked not to be identified. If the allegations are true, those acts would appear to be in violation of the 2005 Non-Prosecution agreement.
When the Bank of New York admitted its criminal conduct and forfeited $26 million to the Federal Government, it also agreed to pay another $12 million in restitution to its victims and to refrain from unlawful activity for three years. The federal government’s press release in November of 2005 noted that, “Should the Bank of New York violate the terms of the agreement, or commit any other crimes, it shall be subject to prosecution, including prosecution for the criminal conduct described in the agreement.”
“I can tell you that top executives at the Bank of New York are frantic over the current allegations that they have violated the Non-Prosecution agreement,” said a New York attorney who requested that he not be identified. “The current inquiries could lead to dozens of indictments, and would surely involve court employees and a few judges. You don’t have to be James Bond to find out what judges are allowing lawyers for the Bank of New York to get away with everything- the question is WHY. Oddly, the Non-Prosecution agreement was meant to bring closure and so they could get back to business as usual. Instead, the agreement brought other long-time and on-going illegalities to light.”
One employee, who asked not to be identified in this article, says that he has provided information showing how “illegal activity by law firms are overlooked by judges who have close ties to those lawyers.” “It’s frightening. I know lawyers in estate cases involving this bank who admit they’ve handed over envelopes full of cash.”
One Manhattan trust and estate attorney says that he has learned to live with “bank-controlled biased courts.” “I flatly refuse to take any contested estate case outside of Manhattan,” he says. “I don’t waste my time going to courts in counties where the Bank of New York owns the court.” He declined to specify about which counties he was referring.
In 2005, United States Attorney Rosylynn R. Mauskopf called the Non-Prosecution agreement with the Bank of New York one of this nation’s largest settlements with a financial institution. “When that trust is knowingly violated at the highest levels of a financial institution, as happened here, fraud and other criminal activities continue unabated, victims suffer staggering losses, and the integrity of our financial systems is seriously undermined. This agreement fixes responsibility for the illegal conduct by bank executives, officers, and employees, secures immediate compensation for victims, and ensures accountability going forward in the exercise of an essential public trust.”
“When the Bank of New York admitted to its criminal activity, I’m sure the U.S. Attorney’s office thought the matter was largely resolved,” says the estate attorney. “But with the onslaught of new complaints against the bank, federal investigators are only now seeing just how deep these frauds go. It’s as simple as the lawyers getting a judge to approve the Bank of New York as a fiduciary, executor, guardian, etc., and then the bank hires that lawyer as its legal counsel in that matter. Lawyers tell everyone that this is the custom to get around any conflicts that are raised.”
“After all that’s happened, the Bank of New York has to be characterized as factually dishonest,” says the veteran estate attorney. And he asks an intriguing question, “How does any Court of Law approve a position of trust- as fiduciary, executor, guardian- to a petitioner like the Bank of New York who has admitted to criminal acts involving fraud, money laundering and cover-ups, and who has paid $38 million to avoid criminal prosecution?”
Good question.
Laughing, the estate attorney asks one last question. “Enough said?”
Hardly.
The FBI will not comment on the current investigation, but has acknowledged that a special unit was created to monitor the Bank of New York and investigate the allegations pertaining to violations of the Non-Prosecution agreement.
Frank Brady © 2007
www.ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com © 2007
Part II- Westchester Surrogate's Court's Dastardly Deeds
Westchester Surrogate's Court's Dastardly Deeds – Part II
by Frank Brady © 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
After the death of Scarsdale resident Berta Murray, the next owner of
the 88-year-old widow's home turned out to be Westchester Surrogate's
Court employee, court attorney/referee Jody Keltz and her
attorney-husband, Carl Peluso. And as earlier reported, that
Westchester County Surrogate's Court court attorney/referee worked in
the very same court's law department charged with the duty to uphold
the integrity of Berta's affairs.
"It's outrageous that a Surrogate's Court lawyer bought Berta's
house," said an 80-plus-year-old cousin of Berta, and who first
learned in February of this year that Ms. Keltz was a lawyer in the
Westchester Surrogate's Court. "This stinks to high heaven, and I'm
mad. It's just not right, I don't like this at all!" she added.
As a named beneficiary, the cousin was to receive a third of the
house, and she did receive a check and release in the mail but never
an accounting of the financial transactions. "They never gave me
papers with all the figures," and she now asks, "Where did the rest of
the money go?"
In March of 2007, the Inspector General of the New York State Office
of Court Administration began an investigation into the circumstances
as to how the Surrogate court attorney/referee and her
attorney-husband came to own the widow's home in 1988.
In a related inquiry, the 1988 sale of Berta's home at 168 Gaylor
Road, has now become part of an investigation into the executor of
Berta's estate, The Bank of New York.
None of Berta's relatives can figure out how or why the Bank of New
York became the executor of Berta's estate. And they believe the fact
that a Surrogate's Court court attorney/referee employee's purchase
of that home is highly improper.
"The lawyers pulled as fast one," Berta's cousin says. "This is awful."
The FBI has been investigating allegations against the Bank of New
York that they violated terms of a 2005 non-prosecution agreement
where the bank admitted to criminal conduct involving fraud, cover-ups
and money laundering, and paid $38 million to the federal government
in settlement. In March of this year, the dealings surrounding the
ownership of the deceased widow's home was added to the inquiries by
the FBI into the activity of the Bank of New York.
See Related Story dated Wednesday, March 21, 2007:
“Westchester Surrogate's Court's Dastardly Deeds” (Part I)
www.ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com © 2007
by Frank Brady © 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
After the death of Scarsdale resident Berta Murray, the next owner of
the 88-year-old widow's home turned out to be Westchester Surrogate's
Court employee, court attorney/referee Jody Keltz and her
attorney-husband, Carl Peluso. And as earlier reported, that
Westchester County Surrogate's Court court attorney/referee worked in
the very same court's law department charged with the duty to uphold
the integrity of Berta's affairs.
"It's outrageous that a Surrogate's Court lawyer bought Berta's
house," said an 80-plus-year-old cousin of Berta, and who first
learned in February of this year that Ms. Keltz was a lawyer in the
Westchester Surrogate's Court. "This stinks to high heaven, and I'm
mad. It's just not right, I don't like this at all!" she added.
As a named beneficiary, the cousin was to receive a third of the
house, and she did receive a check and release in the mail but never
an accounting of the financial transactions. "They never gave me
papers with all the figures," and she now asks, "Where did the rest of
the money go?"
In March of 2007, the Inspector General of the New York State Office
of Court Administration began an investigation into the circumstances
as to how the Surrogate court attorney/referee and her
attorney-husband came to own the widow's home in 1988.
In a related inquiry, the 1988 sale of Berta's home at 168 Gaylor
Road, has now become part of an investigation into the executor of
Berta's estate, The Bank of New York.
None of Berta's relatives can figure out how or why the Bank of New
York became the executor of Berta's estate. And they believe the fact
that a Surrogate's Court court attorney/referee employee's purchase
of that home is highly improper.
"The lawyers pulled as fast one," Berta's cousin says. "This is awful."
The FBI has been investigating allegations against the Bank of New
York that they violated terms of a 2005 non-prosecution agreement
where the bank admitted to criminal conduct involving fraud, cover-ups
and money laundering, and paid $38 million to the federal government
in settlement. In March of this year, the dealings surrounding the
ownership of the deceased widow's home was added to the inquiries by
the FBI into the activity of the Bank of New York.
See Related Story dated Wednesday, March 21, 2007:
“Westchester Surrogate's Court's Dastardly Deeds” (Part I)
www.ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
