US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit - Anderson v The State of NewYork, et al.
Letter from Eliot I. Bernstein, Founder and Inventor - I-view-it Technologies to Senator John L. Sampson Chairman and to ALL members of the New York Judiciary Committe.
Oct. 2009
Click Here for the Document
... US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599)
Anderson v The State of New York, et al.
Criminal Allegations Requiring
Senator John L. Sampson's Immediate Attention.
In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's US Federal Court
Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals
a "Cleaner", Naomi Goldstein, at the
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly
Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA's and more,
Inventor Eliot Bernstein's Family Minivan Bombed in US
Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally "related"
by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of
Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).
Where was the Press through all this, the Right Arm of Anarchy, not a single
report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up
three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story?
Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of
Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District
Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street
Lawyers? ....
more at www.Iviewit.TV and at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Showing posts with label Senator John L. Sampson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator John L. Sampson. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Time To Expose the Secrets of Corrupt Lawyers -
" Gov bids to expose lawyer pols' Secrets
January 6, 2010
ALBANY -- Legislators who moonlight for fat-cat law firms, such as top Dems Sheldon Silver and John Sampson, would be forced to make their client lists public under an ethics-reform package unveiled yesterday by Gov. Paterson.
The governor's proposal would, for the first time, require the state's 212 "part-time" lawmakers to detail all outside business relationships, including those who perform legal work on the side.
The plan comes two days after The Post revealed that Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, recently joined a Manhattan personal-injury law firm with ties to the powerful trial lawyers lobby. Silver, the Assembly speaker, also has an oft-criticized side job as "of counsel" to a top law firm.
Paterson's ethics bill, which he plans to highlight in his State of the State Address today, rejects arguments that disclosing more about those relationships would violate attorney-client privilege.
"The general rule would be that clients would have to be disclosed," said Paterson's chief counsel, Peter Kiernan. "Just as when you get in court, it's all a matter of public record. We're just making it public somewhat earlier."
While lawyer-legislators don't have to reveal their clients, private businessmen serving in the Legislature must disclose with whom they do business if they are receiving checks directly from those clients.
However, a businessman could incorporate as a "consulting firm," for instance, in order to hide his clients, who make payments to the firm and not directly to the lawmaker.
A 2008 study by the New York Law Journal found 39 members of the 150-seat Assembly and 19 members of the 62-seat Senate have law degrees.
The sweeping legislation also would throw out the current ethics monitoring system and create a new commission to investigate everything from campaign-finance scofflaws to violations of open meetings law.
It contained two proposals similar to reforms advocated by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo: Giving the AG authority to probe corruption cases and creating a board to oversee the state's pension fund.
The bill would also strip pensions from public officials who have been convicted of a felony.
Lawmakers said the plan was unrealistic and faulted Paterson for not taking part in recent ethics talks. "If the governor is going to continue down this path, he's going to go down it alone," said one Senate Democrat.
Lawmakers have been scrambling to come up with an ethics deal since former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's federal corruption conviction last month.
Bruno had taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from companies with interests before the state -- but would not have been required to reveal his clients had he been a lawyer.
Proposals backed by Silver and Sampson would require lawmakers to provide greater detail about outside earnings, but would exempt lawyers -- the job held by the vast majority of legislators with outside work -- from detailing clients.
The governor's plan would allow the new ethics board to shield the names of clients in circumstances where disclosure might jeopardize their safety or right to fair representation."
January 6, 2010
ALBANY -- Legislators who moonlight for fat-cat law firms, such as top Dems Sheldon Silver and John Sampson, would be forced to make their client lists public under an ethics-reform package unveiled yesterday by Gov. Paterson.
The governor's proposal would, for the first time, require the state's 212 "part-time" lawmakers to detail all outside business relationships, including those who perform legal work on the side.
The plan comes two days after The Post revealed that Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, recently joined a Manhattan personal-injury law firm with ties to the powerful trial lawyers lobby. Silver, the Assembly speaker, also has an oft-criticized side job as "of counsel" to a top law firm.
Paterson's ethics bill, which he plans to highlight in his State of the State Address today, rejects arguments that disclosing more about those relationships would violate attorney-client privilege.
"The general rule would be that clients would have to be disclosed," said Paterson's chief counsel, Peter Kiernan. "Just as when you get in court, it's all a matter of public record. We're just making it public somewhat earlier."
While lawyer-legislators don't have to reveal their clients, private businessmen serving in the Legislature must disclose with whom they do business if they are receiving checks directly from those clients.
However, a businessman could incorporate as a "consulting firm," for instance, in order to hide his clients, who make payments to the firm and not directly to the lawmaker.
A 2008 study by the New York Law Journal found 39 members of the 150-seat Assembly and 19 members of the 62-seat Senate have law degrees.
The sweeping legislation also would throw out the current ethics monitoring system and create a new commission to investigate everything from campaign-finance scofflaws to violations of open meetings law.
It contained two proposals similar to reforms advocated by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo: Giving the AG authority to probe corruption cases and creating a board to oversee the state's pension fund.
The bill would also strip pensions from public officials who have been convicted of a felony.
Lawmakers said the plan was unrealistic and faulted Paterson for not taking part in recent ethics talks. "If the governor is going to continue down this path, he's going to go down it alone," said one Senate Democrat.
Lawmakers have been scrambling to come up with an ethics deal since former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's federal corruption conviction last month.
Bruno had taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from companies with interests before the state -- but would not have been required to reveal his clients had he been a lawyer.
Proposals backed by Silver and Sampson would require lawmakers to provide greater detail about outside earnings, but would exempt lawyers -- the job held by the vast majority of legislators with outside work -- from detailing clients.
The governor's plan would allow the new ethics board to shield the names of clients in circumstances where disclosure might jeopardize their safety or right to fair representation."
Source
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/
local/gov_bids_to_expose_lawyer_pols_ecrets_tKr9BJdmvVleAWgaR4k8yO
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
G M G Publishing Corp and Senator L. Sampson
Web Stats
New York, United States
G M G Publishing Corp (67.90.54.130)
4 Hours
New York, United States
G M G Publishing Corp (67.90.54.130)
4 Hours
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Honorable Senator John L. Sampson - From Eliot Bernstein
The Honorable Senator John L. Sampson
Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary
New York State Senate
NYS Senate Judiciary Committee
Monday, October 05, 2009
Re: Submission of Prepared Statement Regarding Testimony of Eliot I. Bernstein at September 24, 2009 Public Hearing, For Inclusion in The Public Record for the Hearings Regarding the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Dear Honorable Senator John L. Sampson,
Thank you for your courage in conducting the first Hearing on June 08, 2009 and the second Hearing of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2009 regarding the NY Judicial and Attorney Disciplinary processes.
Enclosed please find a Written copy of the Prepared Statement and Exhibits that accompanies my testimony for the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in the public records of the hearings. As you may recall, I flew to Albany on June 8, 2009 from Boca Raton, Florida to provide testimony yet denied the opportunity to testify that day because of the now infamous Senate Coup in Albany that took place in the Capital Building, shutting down the hearings immediately prior to my testifying.
Again, on September 24, 2009, I appeared at the second hearing in Manhattan at 250 Broadway in New York and testified but was unable to finish my testimony before the Committee, yet I am most thankful for even the limited time I had, as already it yielded the Committees interest and intervention in certain matters.
As you may recall, interruptions occurred through parts of my Testimony while you discussed issues with William Galison who was videotaping Mr. Alan Friedberg, current head of the First Department Appellate Discipline Committee and Mr. Alan Tembeckjian, Chief Counsel of the current NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. Several minutes of my testimony interrupted as Friedberg and Tembeckjian became very uncomfortable with videotaping at a Public Hearing, which I found highly unusual for Public Officials.
In the event that a third hearing is scheduled, if the Committee would be so kind and has available time resources, as I know many victims lined the room hoping to testify at the last hearing, I request additional time for further testimony to be publically entered into the record. I hereby request that my Prepared Statement be accepted for the Record of these Judiciary Hearings before the NY State Senate, as I was promised by both Timothy Spotts and Lisa Lashley that the Prepared Statement and all exhibits would be submitted to the entire Committee and for inclusion into the record.
I therefore respectfully request an Acknowledgement notice from your Office as current Chair of the Committee that this letter and the attached Prepared Statement were docketed officially in the record.
As captured in the live testimony provided on September 24, 20091, I asked the Committee to determine the status and location of my complaints against Alan Friedberg, current Chief Counsel of the First Department Appellate Division Discipline Committee and Roy L. Reardon Partner at Simpson Thacher appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the Appellate Division, First Department Disciplinary Committee, the complaints now falling far outside the procedural response time.
May the Committee also take formal notice that the complaints against Friedberg and Reardon arose from their handling complaints filed against Lawyers in Conflict in my Federal Lawsuit and where the First Department and First Department Disciplinary Committee are both Defendants in the same Lawsuit, again conflict beyond belief.
Arrangements were made with Monica Connell of the New York Attorney General’s Office who is representing the First Department Defendants, to have the complaints moved prior to any action by the First Department, to a Non-Conflicted Third Party prior to even reviewing them. Instead, the First Department ignored the requests and decision of their representative counsel, the NYAG and moved to Dismiss the Complaints against other Defendants in the Lawsuit that they are Defendants in as well.
Defendants, dismissing complaints against other Defendants, complaints directly related to the Lawsuit they are Defendants in, creating overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety through violations of Title 18 and State Obstruction Laws, Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes and Violations of the Rules and Regulation of the First Department Disciplinary itself.
The Dismissals instantly appealed, yet again, we have still heard nothing back from the First Department or their counsel the NYAG and certain procedural rules appear broken. At the same time the appeal was timely filed, formal written complaints were lodged against Friedberg and Reardon, again requesting, no demanding, the complaints be moved to a Non-Conflicted third party by the NYAG from the First Department.
Complications also arise since the NYAG is also a Defendant in the Lawsuit and thus calls then were made to the NYAG’s office whereby Steven M. Cohen2, Andrew Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, claimed that neither he nor Andrew Cuomo was aware of the situation unfolding and that he would personally look into the matters.
The original call to the NYAG’s office prior to Cohen’s involvement was made to ascertain whom to file Title 18 Obstruction charges with against the NYAG and First Department.
I await the formal response from the NYAG and again urge this Committee to intercede and find out exactly who will be investigating the matters and complaints in a situation where it appears almost everyone involved or who is supposed to be protecting citizen’s rights have Conflicts of Interest in New York concerning these matters.
It should be noted that similar to the Whistleblower Anderson, central to this Committees investigation, the NYAG is representing the State Defendants against the Plaintiff, not vice versa.
Especially twisted in this scenario is there is a Whistleblower exposing Public Office Corruption, which should legally obligate the NYAG to represent the Whistleblower through its Public Integrity Division responsible for investigating corruption by Public Officials, therefore the NYAG should be representing the Whistleblower, the Legally “Related” Lawsuits and the Public Interest and not the accused Public Officials.
Yet we find the NYAG representing the accused Public Officials they should be investigating in the Anderson Whistleblower Lawsuit and the lawsuits Legally “Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, despite the fact that Scheindlin has referred the related cases to the NYAG.
This leaves the question of just who is representing the People and are the People paying for the defenses of the accused Public Officials on the Public Dime and finally does this not put the NYAG in a Conflict of Interest that acts to Obstruct Justice by preventing Prosecution.
The NYAG’s Conflict of Interest is more insipid, as it also acts to Obstruct Justice as the conflicted representation makes it impossible for the NYAG to investigate and prosecute those they are representing, representing on STATE TAXPAYERS money.
Absolutely obscene and as the citizens of New York discover that the NYAG is representing, not prosecuting Public Officials in allegations of Public Office Crimes by Whistleblowers, which they are charged with investigating, the Public will Lose Faith in the Public Offices designed to protect them.
It will make them sick when they find that this illegal representation is on Public Finances and there will be hell to pay for those involved who have created this nifty shield from prosecution. I remind this Committee of New York Penal Code §195.00 that states:
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
As the video tapes of the hearings reveal, upon request for the Committee intervention, you Senator Sampson asked Mr. Friedberg to look into where the missing complaints were and inform the Committee of the Status and Mr. Friedberg claimed he would look into them.
Not that his representative counsel in my Lawsuit against the First Department would look into them but that he personally would look into them, which again would violate entirely rules regarding Conflicts, yet it was very revealing of how things operate now at the First Department. Respectfully, I await the Committee’s determination as to the location and status of these Complaints and what non conflicted third party the complaints should transfer too. The complaints against Reardon and Friedberg and the others footnoted herein3.
As a final matter, I look forward to timely receiving a signed copy of my Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form, attached to the Prepared Statement from yourself and the other members of the Committee or any other person this Committee may join to investigate the matters further. I also respectfully request that all information and testimony I have rendered the Committee be turned over to the Task Force the Committee is starting as stated in the hearings for immediate review and investigation.
I again thank you for your courageous efforts in the face of Corruption and more respect you for your upfront disclosure in the hearing that you previously worked for the main accused in my allegations, the Proskauer Rose law firm.
Respectfully Yours,
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Link To Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+question&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
p
p
Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary
New York State Senate
NYS Senate Judiciary Committee
Monday, October 05, 2009
Re: Submission of Prepared Statement Regarding Testimony of Eliot I. Bernstein at September 24, 2009 Public Hearing, For Inclusion in The Public Record for the Hearings Regarding the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Dear Honorable Senator John L. Sampson,
Thank you for your courage in conducting the first Hearing on June 08, 2009 and the second Hearing of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2009 regarding the NY Judicial and Attorney Disciplinary processes.
Enclosed please find a Written copy of the Prepared Statement and Exhibits that accompanies my testimony for the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in the public records of the hearings. As you may recall, I flew to Albany on June 8, 2009 from Boca Raton, Florida to provide testimony yet denied the opportunity to testify that day because of the now infamous Senate Coup in Albany that took place in the Capital Building, shutting down the hearings immediately prior to my testifying.
Again, on September 24, 2009, I appeared at the second hearing in Manhattan at 250 Broadway in New York and testified but was unable to finish my testimony before the Committee, yet I am most thankful for even the limited time I had, as already it yielded the Committees interest and intervention in certain matters.
As you may recall, interruptions occurred through parts of my Testimony while you discussed issues with William Galison who was videotaping Mr. Alan Friedberg, current head of the First Department Appellate Discipline Committee and Mr. Alan Tembeckjian, Chief Counsel of the current NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. Several minutes of my testimony interrupted as Friedberg and Tembeckjian became very uncomfortable with videotaping at a Public Hearing, which I found highly unusual for Public Officials.
In the event that a third hearing is scheduled, if the Committee would be so kind and has available time resources, as I know many victims lined the room hoping to testify at the last hearing, I request additional time for further testimony to be publically entered into the record. I hereby request that my Prepared Statement be accepted for the Record of these Judiciary Hearings before the NY State Senate, as I was promised by both Timothy Spotts and Lisa Lashley that the Prepared Statement and all exhibits would be submitted to the entire Committee and for inclusion into the record.
I therefore respectfully request an Acknowledgement notice from your Office as current Chair of the Committee that this letter and the attached Prepared Statement were docketed officially in the record.
As captured in the live testimony provided on September 24, 20091, I asked the Committee to determine the status and location of my complaints against Alan Friedberg, current Chief Counsel of the First Department Appellate Division Discipline Committee and Roy L. Reardon Partner at Simpson Thacher appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the Appellate Division, First Department Disciplinary Committee, the complaints now falling far outside the procedural response time.
May the Committee also take formal notice that the complaints against Friedberg and Reardon arose from their handling complaints filed against Lawyers in Conflict in my Federal Lawsuit and where the First Department and First Department Disciplinary Committee are both Defendants in the same Lawsuit, again conflict beyond belief.
Arrangements were made with Monica Connell of the New York Attorney General’s Office who is representing the First Department Defendants, to have the complaints moved prior to any action by the First Department, to a Non-Conflicted Third Party prior to even reviewing them. Instead, the First Department ignored the requests and decision of their representative counsel, the NYAG and moved to Dismiss the Complaints against other Defendants in the Lawsuit that they are Defendants in as well.
Defendants, dismissing complaints against other Defendants, complaints directly related to the Lawsuit they are Defendants in, creating overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety through violations of Title 18 and State Obstruction Laws, Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes and Violations of the Rules and Regulation of the First Department Disciplinary itself.
The Dismissals instantly appealed, yet again, we have still heard nothing back from the First Department or their counsel the NYAG and certain procedural rules appear broken. At the same time the appeal was timely filed, formal written complaints were lodged against Friedberg and Reardon, again requesting, no demanding, the complaints be moved to a Non-Conflicted third party by the NYAG from the First Department.
Complications also arise since the NYAG is also a Defendant in the Lawsuit and thus calls then were made to the NYAG’s office whereby Steven M. Cohen2, Andrew Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, claimed that neither he nor Andrew Cuomo was aware of the situation unfolding and that he would personally look into the matters.
The original call to the NYAG’s office prior to Cohen’s involvement was made to ascertain whom to file Title 18 Obstruction charges with against the NYAG and First Department.
I await the formal response from the NYAG and again urge this Committee to intercede and find out exactly who will be investigating the matters and complaints in a situation where it appears almost everyone involved or who is supposed to be protecting citizen’s rights have Conflicts of Interest in New York concerning these matters.
It should be noted that similar to the Whistleblower Anderson, central to this Committees investigation, the NYAG is representing the State Defendants against the Plaintiff, not vice versa.
Especially twisted in this scenario is there is a Whistleblower exposing Public Office Corruption, which should legally obligate the NYAG to represent the Whistleblower through its Public Integrity Division responsible for investigating corruption by Public Officials, therefore the NYAG should be representing the Whistleblower, the Legally “Related” Lawsuits and the Public Interest and not the accused Public Officials.
Yet we find the NYAG representing the accused Public Officials they should be investigating in the Anderson Whistleblower Lawsuit and the lawsuits Legally “Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, despite the fact that Scheindlin has referred the related cases to the NYAG.
This leaves the question of just who is representing the People and are the People paying for the defenses of the accused Public Officials on the Public Dime and finally does this not put the NYAG in a Conflict of Interest that acts to Obstruct Justice by preventing Prosecution.
The NYAG’s Conflict of Interest is more insipid, as it also acts to Obstruct Justice as the conflicted representation makes it impossible for the NYAG to investigate and prosecute those they are representing, representing on STATE TAXPAYERS money.
Absolutely obscene and as the citizens of New York discover that the NYAG is representing, not prosecuting Public Officials in allegations of Public Office Crimes by Whistleblowers, which they are charged with investigating, the Public will Lose Faith in the Public Offices designed to protect them.
It will make them sick when they find that this illegal representation is on Public Finances and there will be hell to pay for those involved who have created this nifty shield from prosecution. I remind this Committee of New York Penal Code §195.00 that states:
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
As the video tapes of the hearings reveal, upon request for the Committee intervention, you Senator Sampson asked Mr. Friedberg to look into where the missing complaints were and inform the Committee of the Status and Mr. Friedberg claimed he would look into them.
Not that his representative counsel in my Lawsuit against the First Department would look into them but that he personally would look into them, which again would violate entirely rules regarding Conflicts, yet it was very revealing of how things operate now at the First Department. Respectfully, I await the Committee’s determination as to the location and status of these Complaints and what non conflicted third party the complaints should transfer too. The complaints against Reardon and Friedberg and the others footnoted herein3.
As a final matter, I look forward to timely receiving a signed copy of my Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form, attached to the Prepared Statement from yourself and the other members of the Committee or any other person this Committee may join to investigate the matters further. I also respectfully request that all information and testimony I have rendered the Committee be turned over to the Task Force the Committee is starting as stated in the hearings for immediate review and investigation.
I again thank you for your courageous efforts in the face of Corruption and more respect you for your upfront disclosure in the hearing that you previously worked for the main accused in my allegations, the Proskauer Rose law firm.
Respectfully Yours,
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Link To Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+question&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
p
p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)