MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of May 15, 2014, we've received over 137,835 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

NY Law Journal on Court Corruption Trial

Trial Begins in Case of Attorney Fired From Disciplinary Committee
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - October 21, 2009

In low-key opening statements to a Southern District jury yesterday, the two sides presented starkly different portrayals of the reason an attorney with the Appellate Division, First Department, disciplinary committee was fired in 2007. John Lovett, the lawyer for the fired lawyer, Christine C. Anderson, told the six-member jury that his client had been fired in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights in complaining to court officials that well-connected attorneys received preferential treatment and that the committee had "whitewashed" certain cases. But Assistant Attorney General Wesley E. Bauman insisted the firing had nothing to do with Ms. Anderson's exercise of her free speech rights but instead was a result of her "unprofessional conduct and refusal to have any contact" with her supervisor. The one thing both sides agreed on was that Ms. Anderson and Sherry K. Cohen, who became the committee's first deputy counsel in 2003, had an exceptionally tense and difficult relationship.

In his half-hour opening, Mr. Lovett, of Lovett & Bellantoni in Hawthorne, N.Y., described Ms. Anderson, now 64, as having a good relationship with her immediate supervisor from the time she began work at the committee in 2001 until August 2005. Although Ms. Cohen became deputy counsel in spring 2003, Mr. Lovett said that Ms. Anderson had the same immediate supervisor until Ms. Cohen demanded that Ms. Anderson "sanitize" the factual findings in one of her cases where she had concluded that an attorney had lied to committee personnel. Mr. Lovett said that a finding that an attorney under investigation had lied to the committee was "a giant no-no." In August 2005, he said, Ms. Cohen told Ms. Anderson that she wanted her to drop her conclusion that the lawyer, only identified as R.N., had been untruthful. When Ms. Anderson objected to taking out the finding that the lawyer had made "misrepresentations" as a move that "would dictate the outcome of the investigation," Mr. Lovett said, Ms. Cohen took over the file and rewrote the recommendation herself. Both Ms. Cohen and Ms. Anderson agreed that the attorney should be privately admonished. After taking control of the R.N. case, Mr. Lovett said, Ms. Cohen took over as Ms. Anderson's immediate supervisor and "began micromanaging and harassing her." Mr. Lovett said that in subsequent conversations with Thomas J. Cahill, then the committee's chief counsel, and other court officials, Ms. Anderson complained that certain lawyers got "the soft touch, another form of corruption" at the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, where "who you know and what your connections are" influenced investigations. Mr. Lovett said that Ms. Anderson had complained to Mr. Cahill that prosecutors and lawyers with connections to members of the committee's policy committee or with lawyers who had previously worked for the committee had received preferential treatment.

'Detail-Oriented' Supervision

Mr. Bauman laid out a different timeline, saying that Ms. Cohen took over as Ms. Anderson's direct supervisor shortly after becoming deputy counsel in 2003, and brought a more "detail-oriented" style of supervision. She became directly involved with staff attorneys' cases to provide them "with her 15 years of experience and best judgment," Mr. Bauman said during his 15-minute opening. Mr. Bauman said Ms. Anderson "resented" the more-detailed approach, but "there were many opportunities to repair the supervisory relationship." Instead, he said, Ms. Anderson demanded that she have no direct contact with Ms. Cohen. Confronted with Ms. Anderson's refusal "to repair the continuing hostility," Mr. Bauman said, the "court reluctantly fired" Ms. Anderson in June 2007. Mr. Lovett countered that the reason Ms. Anderson demanded that she have no direct contact with Ms. Cohen was that she was afraid of the deputy clerk, primarily as a result of an incident in August 2005. He said that was when Ms. Cohen had entered Ms. Anderson's office to speak to her, but Ms. Anderson said she had to leave to meet a complainant in a conference room. When Ms. Anderson sought to leave the office, Mr. Lovett said, Ms. Cohen leaned against the door to prevent the lawyer from exiting. As Ms. Anderson reached for the door knob, Ms. Cohen grabbed her hand and scratched her, he said. Mr. Bauman referred to the incident briefly in his own opening, saying, "It was not an assault." Former Westchester County Court Judge Rory J. Bellantoni is also representing Ms. Anderson. In addition to the court system, Mr. Bauman and Assistant Attorney General Lee Alderstein are representing three individual defendants: the First Department's deputy clerk, David Spokony, Mr. Cahill and Ms. Cohen. All three were at the defense table yesterday. John McConnell, the clerk of the First Department, and Roy L. Reardon, the chairman of the 64-member disciplinary committee, attended yesterday's session as spectators.

The trial, which is expected to last about one week, is being presided over by Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Judge Scheindlin denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in April. She ruled that Ms. Anderson could proceed with her $10 million claim for compensatory and punitive damages on the ground that the committee had retaliated against her for expressing her view that it had whitewashed as many as nine cases. In her opinion, Judge Scheindlin noted that a "host" of e-mails had made evident Ms. Anderson's "hostility" toward Ms. Cohen and her "refusal to cooperate" with her supervisor (NYLJ, April 30, 2009). But Judge Scheindlin also noted that "a reasonable jury could find that the defendants refused to remove [Ms.] Cohen as [Ms.] Anderson's supervisor so they could use [Ms.] Anderson's inevitable resistance to [Ms.] Cohen's continuing supervision as pretext for firing her." After the opening statements, Ms. Anderson took the stand. Her cross examination is set to continue this morning. About 10 people dissatisfied with the way the disciplinary committee had handled their complaints against their attorneys also attended yesterday's session. Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.

21 comments:

Manhattan Attorney said...

PJ Gonzalez should be ashamed of himself for doing nothing. He should be dragged in front of a federal grand jury for his knowing inaction against the criminal actions that exist at the DDC.

victim of ddc said...

You have to love the fact that the truth about Judith Stein came out yesterday at the public Anderson trial.

On the record it was revealed that DDC attorney Judith Stein is known at the DDC as "THE CLEANER." Is this an ethics committee or bad movie about corruption?!?

What does PJ Gonzalez and Chairman Roy Reardon think about this?

Anonymous said...

How about a little shame for OCA Inspector General Spatz and the head banana Jonathan Lippman. Well-deserved shame.

ad empl said...

The only thing Sherry Cohen is "detailed" about is FREE DRINKS- and lots of them!

Lippman is on the State's witness list. I bet he doesn't have the balls to show up. He's hiding under a desk somewhere.

ddc victim said...

Could never understand what happened to my complaints. Now I understand - the fix was in! The whole thing is a sham! Another fraud by the Judiciary establishment!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

OH My.......OCA female employees can only be described within these 2 groups...socio and psychopaths...and those who wish only to do their job, live in peace and go home to loving families...but the monsters in lipstick have all those exits blocked!

This scenario between Ms Anderson and Cohen plays out in every courthouse in NY state daily..... and is applauded by OCA as the correct method of functioning within corrupt court practices...... as the deranged make for extremely willing participants....esp in high stakes corruption.....like judicial politics and financial and freedom manipulatons..... of NY state citizens.

Ms Anderson will be successful in this trial because OCA has so much ciminal corruption in their operation...that any jury will definitely hear something about it, as they then become startled into outrage.... and then wonder how OCA...a state judicial, criminal punishing agency...not only continues in this crime syndicate.....but they will question why no media outlet or FBI has investigated or alerted the public to its operation and existence.

Ms. Anderson...keep up the strong fight...you are well supported!

Anonymous said...

why doesn't the media cover it,
why isn't this televised

our prayers are with you

ST Christine
ST Nicole!

Anonymous said...

The judge sitting on this case will take Cahill and Cohen`s side.
It is called job security, ruling against the DDC will mean her carear is finished. She already too a stance against Anderson about the E-mails.
I hope Anderson wins the cards are stacked against her.

Anonymous said...

The judge sitting on this case will take Cahill and Cohen`s side.
It is called job security, ruling against the DDC will mean her carear is finished. She already too a stance against Anderson about the E-mails.
I hope Anderson wins the cards are stacked against her.

Anonymous said...

When are the feds coming in?!?*

Anonymous said...

if the judge is Christian she will not care if she looses her job,
she will take the facts and make her decision for all.......

otherwise she is just a priest protecting a perverted priest

and hell will be in her agenda

Anonymous said...

What exactly is the Ethnic/Racial/Religious makeup of the New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Department? Does it accurately reflect the Ethnic/Racial/Religious makeup of the New York City community that it supposedly serves, or is it only made up of the "Chosen People?"

One of ManyVictim's of DDC said...

Christine Anderson will prevail....the JURY can see right through the DDC's LIES!!! I can't wait until Lovett and Bellatoni cross-examine CAHILL, COHEN and SPOKONY.

I was there yesterday and witnessed some of the DDC's testimony, I wanted to shout out....you're nothing but a bunch of liars.

Praying that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL SOON!!!

DDC victim said...

Attended yesterdays' Anderson trial and witnessed the dasterly actions of the AG's Office towards Christine Anderson. These empty suits have circled the wagons to protect their corrupt and fraudent Judiciary system. The truth means nothing. The DDC & AG's motto is that the ends justifies the means.

Anonymous said...

your statements about the AG office may be true, every complaint I sent implicating certain lawyers for falsifying records, those lawyers have moved or changed positions since I have implicated them...
hmmm....coincidence?

Anonymous said...

you dirty bastards you are not forgiven for lying to judges..

Anonymous said...

Saint Andrew, Patron Saint of Crooked Lawyers and Judges, protects his supplicants. This is our opportunity to see into the heartless soul of Saint Andrew, as he serves his Master and tends his flock. Oh, his father, Mario, must be so proud.

Anonymous said...

The coverup is always worse than the crime...and if the truth doesn't matter to the AG and OCA...it does matter to this case....and Christine's telling of it.

The real and slickest weapon to use against both enemies..is her truth.....as neither know how to deal with that.

It will work for her no matter the outcome....as the truth in the near future holds for OCA and the AG some very telling and damaging aspects of their operation...as her case is not exclusive to their process of criminality... but she will be looked upon as a hero no matter what.

Christine.....reveal the facts and and endear the jury....I trust your integrity will be your success.

Anonymous said...

I just viewed the videos on the right. I'm shocked. Why isn't the FBI doing something about this?

Anonymous said...

To 12:08am--the ethnic/racial/religious makeup of the DDC does NOT even come close to be representative of the community it serves.
1. Chief Counsel--Jewish white male
2. 1st Deputy Chief Counsel--Jewish white female (Sherry Cohen)
3. Deputy Chief--Jewish white female
4. Deputy Chief--Jewish white female
5. Deputy Chief--Cuban American white male.

Only 1 part time African American lawyer on staff.

Anonymous said...

The power to open up a Docket Number against a Lawyer is the Power to Destroy.

Frivolous complaints against Attorneys are, and should be, dismissed at the outset of receiving a complaint by DDC Personnel when it is on its face merely a Fee Dispute or someone just pissed off by not winning their case.

Frivolous allegations of Ethics violations are rampantly and flippantly used by Clients who may always have ulterior motives for filing nonsensical complaints against good Attorneys.

The problem is, the DDC has the absolute and undisputed right to decide who gets a Docket Number and an investigation against them, and who doesn't even get a copy of the Complaint because it's dismissed outright.

Too bad that all of the evidence on these discussion boards, and in Christine Anderson's Federal Lawsuit, prove that if you are a minority Attorney with a small practice, every frivolous and nonsensical complaint will hit you hard right between the eyes, even if you are innocent, but if you are a White or Jewish Attorney, or from a Big Law Firm in Manhattan, even if you freaking raped someone or stole escrow funds, nothing will happen to you, not even the opening up of a Docket Number by this absolutely satanic and racist den of Jewish vipers known as the DDC Cabal, one of the last vestiges of Jewish Mafia organized crime in this country.

They also have this monopoly and stranglehold to do this on the Medical Licensing and Ethics Boards as well, to both keep out, stamp out, and drive away the competition, all at the expense of the Consumer, just so that they can preserve their own wealth and power.

I sincerely hope and pray that the FBI Office of Public Corruption, the New York Attorney General's Office, and the Office of Senator John Sampson of New York clean the shit out of that Jewish hornets' nest known as the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Department, of Manhattan New York, a truly un-American, racist, and repressive regime.

These sons of bitches are as much, if not even more secretive and more corrupt, and more harmful to the American people than the Federal Reserve.

An FBI sponsored enema is absolutely necessary here.

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2