The allegations against the judges include the organized stifling of justice- and for one reason: to protect their political friend and supporter, attorney Frank W. Streng of McCarthy Fingar, LLP, who drafted and filed the alleged fraudulent instrument in November of 2003. The allegations include: judicial steering, corruption, denial of due process and obstruction of justice.
Surrogate Scarpino, who handled the Harry Winston estate and is currently hearing the Brooke Astor estate, refused to remove himself from the Tom Carvel estate proceeding when it was found that he had loans from one of the parties. Also, it was reported that for over 4 years attorney Frank Streng advertised on the internet, and his law firm website, the fact that he was on Surrogate Scarpino’s election transition committee- a fact that angered many as Streng and McCarthy Fingar implied he had an "in" with the court.
Mr. Streng, in various capacities, has also been involved in the Astor and Carvel estates. And as reported in the New York Law Journal last year, allegations of judicial steering are nothing new to the Westchester County courts under Administrative Judge Nicolai. That brouhaha resulted in a large court organizational shake-up in Westchester.
The underlying matter, The Estate of Margaret A. McKeown, has lingered in the Westchester courts since 2003, and the related 9/11 Red Cross donation fraud was subject of an April 28, 2006 article in The New York Times article, though the judges' names nor the allegations against them were not mentioned.
And though the alleged fraudulent assignment was filed in November of 2003, it would take until
for the Westchester County Surrogate's Court Chief Clerk, Charles T. Scott, to “locate” the assignment papers and place them in the court’s estate case file. Oddly, and also in July of 2007, Chief Clerk Scott advised in writing that he had corrected the three and one-half year “administrative oversight” by "back-dating" the filing date in the court’s computer. Surrogate Court court attorney Joseph M. Accetta, and who has close ties to Streng and McCarthy Fingar, has been recently implicated in the cover-up.
1.0 NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
Gross Misconduct
Public Injustice & Corruption
Denial of Due Process
Obstruction of Justice
2.0 COMPLAINTANT:
Kevin McKeown, P.O. Box 616, New York, New York 10156, 212-591-1022 tel 212-591-6022 fax, kmck22333@aol.com
3.0 COMPLAINT AGAINST:
3.1 Hon. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., Westchester County Surrogate
3.2 Hon. Francis A. Nicolai, Westchester County Civil Court Judge
3.3 Hon. Gerald E. Loehr, Westchester County Civil Court Judge
(hereinafter collectively as “The Justices”)
4.0 OVERVIEW:
4.1 The Justices fully considered and furthered financial sanctions against me in favor of attorney Frank W. Streng, who at all times relevant was simultaneously advertising his (Streng’s) implied favoritism with the Surrogate Court on his McCarthy Fingar LLP law firm website, and on the internet. Specifically, attorney Frank W. Streng was advertising the fact that he (Mr. Streng) had served on Surrogate Scarpino’s Election Transition Committee. In addition, The Justices were aware at all times relevant through court filings and correspondence that allegations were made that Mr. Streng drafted, executed and filed a fraudulent assignment of an approximate $200,000.00 estate related asset concerning a pending claim over $100,000.00 in stolen Red Cross 9/11 donation monies. Also, The Justices were knowledgeable that the “assignment” was executed by an impaired person who had been ordered by a criminal court judge to in-patient and out-patient care and who, in fact, committed suicide shortly after the purported “assignment” was executed (See attached New York Times Article)
5.0 DETAILS:
5.1 All Times Relevant- The Justices were aware that attorney Streng had served on the Surrogate’s Election Transition Committee when the Court considered and subsequently granted monetary sanctions to Mr. Streng on June 8, 2004 and on June 1, 2005. It is notable that from at least early 2004, Surrogate Scarpino continuously failed to present for remittal, or to disqualify or recuse himself while he was considering the thereto related filings and issues which resulted in the June 8, 2004 and June 1, 2005 decisions.
5.2 June 8, 2004- Surrogate Scarpino granted monetary sanctions to attorney Streng at the same time Mr. Streng was advertising on the internet and the McCarthy Fingar firm website that he served on the Judge’s Election Transition Committee.
5.3 June 1, 2005- Surrogate Scarpino again granted monetary sanctions to attorney Streng at the same time Mr. Streng was advertising on the internet that he served on the Judge’s Election Transition Committee.
5.4 All Times Relevant- The Justices denied all requests to address the “fraudulent assignment” prepared, executed and filed by the same person who was advertising his implied favoritism with the court on the internet, Mr. Streng. In fact, Judge Scarpino denied without prejudice to renew , indicating that the issue could be raised at a future time in the estate accounting phase. But in that very same ruling Judge Scarpino imposed a motion prohibition. And acting-surrogate Loehr immediately imposed a total ban of any motions at his first hearing. Notably, Judges Scarpino and Loehr knowingly and purposely avoided ruling on the fraudulent assignment prepared by their close political associate Frank Streng.
5.5 April 7, 2005- Judge Scarpino again chose to ignore his duty to remit, disqualify or recuse himself on his own initiative when he signed an April 7, 2005 Order to Show Cause, which sought to have Mr. Streng and his law firm disqualified for advertising its implied favoritism with the Court, wherein documents were presented showing that Mr. Streng was in fact actively advertising on his law firm website and on the internet the fact that he was a “[m]ember, Transition Committee of Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., Surrogate of Westchester County (2001)” Notably, and as also presented in the April 7, 2005 OSC, one website posting listed, “serves on the Transition Committee of Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., Surrogate of Westchester County (March, 2001 – present).” (emphasis added) Subsequently, and at all times relevant, Judges Nicolai and Loehr would also ignore their duty to remove themselves from any involvement in the proceedings
5.6 June 3, 2005- In his Decision and Order denying, without prejudice to renew, the disqualification of the McCarthy Fingar law firm and Mr. Streng, Surrogate Scarpino again ignored his own obligation to sua sponte disqualify or recuse himself, or to on his own initiative, present the matter for remittal. Notably, in the June 3, 2005 order, Judge Scarpino denies the requested relief without prejudice to renew (See attached June 3, 2005 Decision and Order, page 9)
Most Notably, and less than one page later on page ten, Surrogate Scarpino
pre-conditions his own without prejudice to renew, and orders,
…on its own motion the court hereby prohibits
any of the parties and/or counsel from filing any
additional motions/applications or commencing
any additional proceedings in connection with this
estate without the court’s prior approval (i.e., by
order to show cause) (see e.g. Matter of Brown,
NYLJ, June 28, 1999, at 32, col 4 [Westchester]).
5.7 August 3, 2005- Westchester Surrogate Anthony Scarpino finally recuses himself from The Estate of Margaret A. McKeown, not on his own initiative but only after being requested to do so by the herein movant. (Note #1: on the record in open court on August 3, 2005, Judge Scarpino specifically voiced that the case may not be transferred outside of Westchester County) (See Court Transcript of August 3, 2005 Surrogate Scarpino Recusal Hearing) (Note #2: Judge Scarpino recused himself from my Order to Show Cause which pointed to the Surrogate’s bias concerning attorney Frank W. Streng, who in these proceedings the Surrogate twice awarded financial sanctions to while attorney Streng was simultaneously advertising on the internet and his law firm website the fact that he was on Surrogate Scarpino’s election transition committee. Judge Scarpino had denied motions without prejudice to renew concerning Mr. Streng’s drafting, executing and filing of a fraudulent assignment in the estate proceedings concerning stolen Red Cross 9/11 donation monies, but before any motions could be renewed Surrogate Scarpino Sua Sponte ordered that no parties could file any additional motions. There is clear bias here by Judge Scarpino to protect a member of his Election Transition Team by denying my right to due process, and by obstructing justice concerning fraudulent assignment inquiries.
5.8 On August 8, 2005, I overnighted a letter, with material attachments, to the 9th Judicial District Administrative Judge Nicolai specifically advising him of the troubling facts concerning the handling of my mother’s estate, and I specifically requested that the case be transferred to another county. I had been mindful of Surrogate Scarpino’s now-confirmed prophetic statement during the August 3, 2005 hearing that the case may stay in Westchester County. (See Transcript of August 8, 2005 recusal hearing)
5.9 My August 8, 2005 letter, with material attachments, to Judge Nicolai specifically advises:
5.9.1 “During oral argument on August 3rd , Surrogate Scarpino mentioned that the case may stay in Westchester County. I respectfully wish to bring to your attention certain facts that highlight the very troubling and unique circumstances surrounding this matter that strongly, I believe, suggest that this matter should be transferred to a county outside of Westchester.” See available August 8, 2005 dated two-page letter to the Hon. Francis A. Nicolai, which contains the following attachments:
(i) August 3, 2005 Decision and Order of Recusal (3 pages);
(ii) November 4, 2004 letter from Gary L. Cassella (1 page);
(iii) June 13, 2005 letter from Westchester Public Administrator (4 pages); and
(iv) April 25, 2005 e-mail from Public Administrator’s attorney (1 pages)
5.10 Judge Nicolai, I have since been informed, has had a long-standing political relationship with attorney Streng. And at all times relevant, Judge Nicolai failed his duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Subsequently, Judge Nicolai refused to transfer the matter outside Westchester County, choosing instead to assign the proceeding to the most junior county court judge, and longtime political associate, Justice Loehr.
5.11 At all times relevant, Judge Loehr was fully knowledgeable of issues concerning the fraudulent assignment and, sua sponte, directed his own motion prohibition so that the issue against attorney Streng could be litigated.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 I believe The Justices have not only failed at all times during the estate proceedings to Avoid the Appearance of Impropriety by not presenting for remittal the known issues as presented herein, or by disqualifying or recusing themselves. But they collectively participated in a scheme to cover the misdeeds of their political friend, Mr. Streng. At no time did any of The Justices act in a way to assist in the $100,000.00-plus repayment of the stolen 9/11 donations. The Justices grossly failed their duty to insure judicial integrity and impartiality of court proceedings in the Westchester County Surrogate Court.
6.2 I believe The Justices knowingly failed their judicial oath by denying due process and, remarkably, concerning an issue where their own close associate, attorney Frank Streng, filed papers meant only to prohibit the return of over $100,000.00 in 9/11 donations stolen from the American Red Cross.
6.3 I believe appropriate inquiry and action is necessary as The Justices knowingly and with purpose chose to ignore their judicial obligation to submit for remittal, recuse or disqualify, or to correct any of the troubling acts against due process and justice. In fact, while ignoring their duty to avoid even the appearance of bias and impropriety, The Justices took deliberate action to thwart the right of due process, obstruct justice and disgrace simple decency by their acts against 9/11 victims.
DATED: September 11, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin McKeown
Enclosures:
April 28, 2006 New York Times article
June 3, 2005 Decision and Order
April 7, 2005 Order to Show Cause
August 3, 2005 Transcript
April 21, 2005 Internet Archive Affidavit
Posts
