The information on this blog about the corruption in America's courts will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier
For the past year, Social Services has been probing how DiFiore’s housekeeper was suddenly approved for welfare benefits after having been previously denied three times for inconsistencies in her applications, The Post has learned.
“Okay we got to the bottom of this case. This was a political favor for Janet DiFiore’s maid. It is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE,” Dhyalma Vazquez, a county anti-fraud investigator, wrote in an internal e-mail June 30, 2011.
Vazquez, who also chairs the Yonkers Independence Party, alleged in the e-mail to Department of Social Services Commissioner Kevin McGuire that DiFiore’s housekeeper, Jamaican immigrant Marina Buchanan, should never have received benefits.
In a series of e-mails from June and July of last year, Vazquez claimed that DiFiore, a Republican-turned- Democrat, had Buchanan’s case file improperly re-opened after the Yonkers branch office denied benefits.
Buchanan, 58, was paid $200 a week in cash by DiFiore and got $315 a month in Social Security disability benefits, according to documents obtained by The Post.
It is unclear from the documents if Social Security taxes were paid on Buchanan’s wages.
Buchanan, who claimed she was a nanny and housekeeper for DiFiore since 1987, also didn’t disclose receiving the Social Security disability benefits while still working up to 18 hours a week for the DA.
Further, she had a credit card with a $55,000 limit, sources said, yet still sought county benefits.
“The question is why the special favor. Why are cases being opened in Central Office . . . Just because she is the District Attorney does not mean she is above the law!” Vazquez wrote.
County investigators are looking at the actions of a former Social Services official who is active in local Democratic politics, sources said.
Reached by phone, Vazquez, who has been with Social Services for 20 years, cited the ongoing investigation and declined to comment.
DiFiore’s spokesman, Lucian Chalfen, said, “It is a personal issue that is related to her and her husband and I can’t comment.”
Her three children are now all in their 20s. It’s unclear if Buchanan still works for DiFiore, who was first elected DA in 2005.
Buchanan, who could not be reached for comment, wrote in documents that she left the DA’s employ in May 2010.
NEW YORK — The New York State Court Officers Association filed suit last week in Manhattan federal court, seeking to enjoin the state from enforcing what the Association claims is an unconstitutional law that allows its collective-bargaining agreement to be “unilaterally” altered.
The lawsuit filed on Thursday in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks “to protect the constitutional rights of the Association and its current and retired members,” it says.
The lawsuit claims that new legislation — Chapter 491 of the N.Y. Laws of 2011 — improperly permits the state to unilaterally change the Association’s collective-bargaining agreement and to implement one-sided cuts to health-insurance and prescription drug benefits that Association members and their families have been receiving for nearly 28 years.
“The state has used this new law to reduce its share of the payments towards health-insurance premiums in direct violation of the rights of the Association and its members,’ states the Association in a press release last week. “The lawsuit filed [Thursday], which the Association brought under the Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, seeks to stop the state from employing this law to make changes that should be the subject of collective bargaining with the union.”
Manhattan attorney James E. Tyrrell, Jr.
Dennis Quirk, president of the Association, claims that allowing this law to be in effect could have a chilling effect on future court-officer recruitment.
“The consequences of the state’s reduction of its share of these premiums should not be underestimated — the recruitment of new court officers could be adversely affected while existing court officers may need to consider other employment options,” Quirk said. “We are therefore deeply concerned about the chilling effect that these cuts likely will have upon the access to and use of the courts by all New Yorkers. We are simply seeking for the state to honor its commitments and make any changes through the collective bargaining process.”
Brooklyn attorney Bruce Baron, of Baron Associates P.C., is special counsel to President Quirk.
James E. Tyrrell, Jr., a partner
New York Court Officers Assoc. President Dennis Quirk
at Patton Boggs LLP is the lead attorney for the Association in this case.
“The Contracts Clause exists in the U.S. Constitution to protect against just this type of self-interested state action,” Tyrell said. “If states had free reign to enact legislation impairing and redefining the terms of their own contracts, public employees’ rights to collective bargaining would be rendered meaningless.”
The New York State Court Officers Association is an employee organization under the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act. For the past several decades, it has served as the sole, exclusive and recognized bargaining representative for collective negotiations on behalf of non-judicial employees of the State of New York Unified Court System, within the City of New York.
Corrupt Manhattan 'Ethics' Attorney Sherry K. Cohen Available for Hire May 23, 2012
In the'Personal Notes on Lawyers'section ofThe New York Law Journal, published February 24, 2012, the legal community was advised that, "Sherry K. Cohen has joined the Law Firm of Richard M. Maltz as counsel focusing on attorney disciplinary cases, ethics consultations, admission for law graduates and attorney reinstatements. She was the first deputy chief counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee."
On March 5, 2012, aNew York Law Journalprivate ad/announcement was printed, "The Law Firm of Richard M. Maltz, PLLC is very pleased to announce that SHERRY K. COHEN former first deputy chief counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee has joined the firm as counsel - Ms. Cohen will focus her practice on attorney disciplinary cases, ethics consultations, admission for law graduates and attorney reinstatements. Ms. Cohen will also work with Richard M. Maltz, Esq. on partnership issues and litigation between lawyers and their former law firms; litigation between clients and lawyers; ethics opinions; sanction and disqualification motions and, law firm risk management issues. - Sherry K. Cohen, Esq. Richard M. Maltz, PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 212.705.4804 firstname.lastname@example.org"
In allowing Anderson to proceed
with her retaliation claim, New York District Judge Shira Scheindlin
found that her contention that the committee had "whitewashed" as many
as nine cases touched upon a subject of public concern and was protected
under the First Amendment. Can New York State residents now hope to see
the start of an end to the NYS corrupt courts that harm, neglect, and
harass the innocent?
Staff Attorney's $10 Million Lawsuit Proceeds Against Discipline Committee The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - April 30, 2009
An attorney who was fired after working six years as a staff lawyer (see the roster of names on the left) at the 1st Department's disciplinary committeemay proceed with a $10 million damage lawsuit that she was discharged in retaliation for claiming her superiors were "whitewashing" cases, a Southern District of New York judge ruled Monday. However, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin,
threw out the attorney's claim that she had been fired because she is
black, in ruling on a summary judgment motion brought by the Office of Court Administration. Christine C. Anderson
contended that her June 2007 firing was in retaliation for complaints
she made to her superiors at the disciplinary committee that at least
nine cases had been handled too leniently because the lawyers being
investigated were politically connected or were represented by attorneys
who had previously worked for the committee (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2007).
Anderson, who was born in Jamaica, also claimed the committee had
discriminated against her on the basis of race, color and national
The disciplinary committee operates under the aegis of the Appellate Division, First Department,
and Anderson sued the OCA; Thomas J. Cahill, the committee's chief
counsel during the years Anderson was employed there; Sherry K. Cohen,
who became deputy chief counsel and Anderson's supervisor in 2003; and
David Spokoney, the 1st Department's deputy clerk. With the exception of
Cahill, who resigned in 2007 after 10 years in the post (NYLJ, July 23,
2007), the other individual defendants remain at their jobs. The 1st
Department's disciplinary committee polices the conduct of attorneys
practicing in Manhattan and the Bronx.
In allowing Anderson to
proceed with her retaliation claim, Scheindlin found that her contention
that the committee had "whitewashed" as many as nine cases touched upon
a subject of public concern and was protected under the First
Amendment. A jury will have to determine whether the defendants fired
Anderson because of the concerns she raised or because she had been
insubordinate, as the defendants contend, Justice Scheindlin concluded
in Anderson v. State of New York, 07 Civ. 9599. Scheindlin noted that
Anderson in a "host" of e-mails had made "evident" her "hostility
toward" and "refusal to cooperate" with Cohen, her supervisor.
Nonetheless, Scheindlin ruled that "a reasonable jury could find that
the defendants refused to remove Cohen as Anderson's supervisor so they
could use Anderson's inevitable resistance to Cohen's continuing
supervision as a pretext for firing her."
In concluding that Anderson's complaints touch upon matters of public concern, Scheindlin rejected OCA's argument that Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410,
a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court precedent, was controlling. The attorney
general's office, which represented OCA and the individual defendants,
contended that Anderson's First Amendment claim must be rejected under
the authority of Garcetti. The Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment
retaliation claim brought by a deputy district attorney who claimed he
was fired because he recommended the dismissal of a case. The prosecutor
had urged dismissal because a flawed affidavit was used to obtain a
search warrant. Rather than raising an issue of public concern, Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a 5-4 ruling in Garcetti that the prosecutor
was acting as a public employee with regard to an internal matter when
he "fulfill(ed) a responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best
to proceed with a pending case." Scheindlin found Anderson's case to be
"patently distinguishable" from Garcetti. "The prosecutor in Garcetti
spoke about a single case pending in his office," she wrote, while "Ms.
Anderson spoke out about systemic problems at the [disciplinary
committee], thereby making her speech protected." "Where a public
employee's speech concerns a government agency's breach of trust, as it
does here," she wrote, "the speech relates to more than a mere personal
grievance and therefore falls outside Garcetti's restrictions."
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FAIL
found that none of the three remarks that Anderson alleged Cohen made
had any bearing on her bias claims. One alleged remark -- that the
homeless are "smelly" -- did not reflect upon a group protected by
federal civil rights laws, the judge ruled. The other two alleged
comments -- that there are too many blacks in the subway and blacks were
moving near Cohen's vacation home -- were not "directed" at Anderson,
"unrelated to her discharge" and allegedly uttered about one year before
her firing, Scheindlin wrote.
Anderson also presented deposition
testimony from three present or former minority employees who had
expressed views that Cohen was biased. Two of those witnesses, one of
whom was a lawyer, expressed views that reflected subjective beliefs
that are "devoid of any factual circumstances linking Cohen to any
discriminatory conduct," Scheindlin found. The testimony of the third
minority witness, Kenneth Van Lew, an investigator who left the office
at the time of his deposition, provided "concrete instances in which he
believes he was treated less favorably by Cohen than similarly situated
Caucasian employees," Scheindlin wrote. But even though Van Lew's
testimony provided "some credible evidence" of discrimination, the
bias-based claims had to be dismissed, Scheindlin concluded, because
"there is simply no evidence" that any alleged bias had tainted the
decision of the ultimate deciding authority, the 1st Department's
justices serving upon the court's Departmental Disciplinary Liaison
Committee. The state defendants were represented by Assistant Attorneys
General Lee A. Alderstein and Wesley E. Bauman. The attorney general's
office did not respond to a request for comment. Anderson was
represented by John A. Beranbaum of Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher &
State Claims Attorney Violated Superior's Orders
York state, in a motion for summary judgment filed last week, portrayed
an attorney who sought $10 million damages for her firing by the First
Department's Departmental Disciplinary Committee as violating the direct
orders of her superiors. The lawyer, Christine C. Anderson, filed the
lawsuit in 2007 claiming she was fired after six years as a staff
attorney because she complained the committee's chief counsel and his
top deputy were "whitewashing" complaints against "certain select
attorneys" (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2007). A brief filed for the defendants - the
state and three committee officials - stated that instead of following
her direct supervisor's orders, Ms. Anderson engaged in "an eight month
campaign to circumvent and berate" the supervisor, Sherry K. Cohen. The
brief, which was written by Assistant Attorneys General Lee Alan
Alderstein and Wesley E. Bauman, also contended that the "highest
officers" in the First Department courthouse were aware of Ms.
Anderson's "acerbic and posturing conduct." Ms. Anderson's attorney,
John A. Beranbaum, retorted that the defendant's brief is using an
"employers' time-honored technique of trying to trivialize a valid
whistle-blowing claim" by labeling it "a disgruntled employee's personal
grievance." Mr. Beranbaum, of Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman,
added, "at the end of the day, this tactic will prove unsuccessful." -
Chief Counsel for First Department Set to Retire New York Law Journal Newsbriefs, July 23, 2007
J. Cahill, chief counsel to the disciplinary committee of the Appellate
Division, First Department, will soon retire, Presiding Justice
Jonathan Lippman announced Friday. Mr. Cahill will continue to head the
committee until his replacement is appointed. He was named chief counsel
in 1998. Individuals interested in applying for the position may send
resumes to David Spokony, Deputy Clerk of the Court, 27 Madison Avenue,
New York, N.Y., 10010. Mr. Spokony is also accepting resumes for the
position of secretary to the court's committee on character and fitness.
The position became vacant when Sarah Jo Hamilton retired last month.
Ethics Complaints Against Some NY Lawyers Whitewashed, Attorney Alleges New York Lawyer, October 30, 2007 By Daniel Wise New York Law Journal
former staff attorney at the First Department Disciplinary Committee
has filed a federal lawsuit charging she was fired in June in
retaliation for complaining that her superiors had engaged in a "pattern
and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing complaints
against certain select attorneys."
Christine C. Anderson, who had
worked for six years at the disciplinary committee, seeks $10 million
in damages, claiming retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment
rights and discrimination because she is of Jamaican origin and black.
Ms. Anderson also asks for the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee operation of the disciplinary committee.
Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said it
would be "inappropriate" to comment on pending litigation.
Anderson alleged two instances in which her recommendations had been
overridden or changed by her superiors at the committee.
Ms. Anderson charged in her complaint, she discovered that the chief
counsel of the disciplinary committee, Thomas J. Cahill, and Sherry K.
Cohen, its first deputy counsel, were "apparently engaged in a 'numbers
game' and practice" of "selectively" dismissing complaints against
attorneys for their "own personal and political reasons."
possible second, or alternative reason for the dismissals, the complaint
stated, was that the prosecutions of the complaints would be
"burdensome or otherwise 'unworthy' of prosecution."
also charged that in one incident, in July 2006, Ms. Cohen physically
blocked her from leaving her office and, in so doing, had dug her nails
into the plaintiff's hand, causing scratches.
Mr. Cahill declined to comment on the allegations; Ms. Cohen did not return a call for comment.
addition to suing Mr. Cahill and Ms. Cohen, Ms. Anderson named as
defendants Justice John T. Buckley, who was presiding justice of the
Appellate Division, First Department, until May; former Clerk of Court
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who resigned in April to become clerk of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and the Office of Court
The case, Anderson v. State of New York, was
filed on Friday in the Southern District, according to Ms. Anderson's
attorney, Frederick K. Brewington of Hempstead.
Mr. Cahill's retirement was announced in July, though he is remaining as chief counsel until a successor is chosen.
first instance of a "whitewash" alleged in Ms. Anderson's complaint
occurred "in or about 2003" in "a highly sensitive investigation," which
had uncovered "overwhelming concrete evidence of misconduct" by an
attorney, Ms. Anderson alleged.
The matter was dropped despite her recommendation that a formal complaint be filed against the lawyer, Ms. Anderson alleged.
She also charged that a large file she had amassed containing "indisputable evidence of misconduct" had been "gutted."
The second instance in which Ms. Anderson's handling of a case was overridden occurred about two years later, she alleged.
that case, she stated, Mr. Cahill had asked her to write an
introductory paragraph to the policy committee, explaining her
recommendation that an attorney be given a non-public admonition rather
than be the subject of a formal proceeding that could lead to a public
sanction. Ms. Anderson explained in her complaint, that, although the
results of a "complex investigation" of the attorney "argued strongly
in favor of charges," there was "lack of actual proof of a conversion."
She also stated there had been an "initial lack of cooperation" from the
client complaining against the lawyer.
Ms. Anderson stated that
she wrote an introductory paragraph explaining the gravity of the
attorney's conduct, but that Ms. Cohen had rewritten it, "deleting
facts" Ms. Anderson had uncovered during her investigation and
conclusions she had reached.
Ms. Anderson quoted Ms. Cohen as
saying the reason she had rewritten the paragraph was to avoid having
the policy committee send the matter back to staff for the preparation
of a formal complaint.
Ms. Anderson further charged that Ms.
Cohen had done this because "she had a prior working relationship" with
the attorney for the lawyer under investigation and sought to avoid
having his client formally charged "as a favor."
did not identify the two lawyers who were the subjects of the
proceedings cited by Ms. Anderson. Mr. Brewington said in an interview
that he would not name them "at this time."
COMMENTS TO EXPOSE CORRUPT COURTS Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 10:59 AM 53 comments:
NYC attorney said...
It's about Time! October 31, 2007 11:16 AM Anonymous said...
Let's make a copy of this complaint and file it for the ninth
judical grievance committee. You would just need to change the address
and a few names. October 31, 2007 12:02 PM NY bar member said...
After reading the article the terms Cover-up and Obstruction come to
mind. These are also the same things that took Nixon down. October 31, 2007 12:41 PM Anonymous said...
a few years ago i got a copy of the Annual report. Then I called the census And got a breakdown of the local population it was roughly 10% for Asian 28% for Latino/Hispanic 26% for African American
That would mean that by the number of employes that were working thier would have had to been +/- 33 Latino/Hispanic employes and i think it was something like +/- 12 Asians Thier was only 1 Asian, 3 maybe 4 Latinos/Hispanic
I started wondering because i went to the office. In front of me
thier was 2 Asian woman. The mother did not speak english and the
daughter did not speak to much english either. They had hired a lawyer
for an imigration problem. The lawyer did nothing but took thier
money. the lady behing the desk handed her a lawyer complaint form
written in english. She did not understand. The Asian very politly
pleaded with the woman if they could speak to someone. ( i think it was
time sensitive) the employee ignored her. The 2 women left in the same
elavator I did. They were crying was worst. i spoke to the woma about my complaint and got the blow off answer also. I speak english. I went to the EEOC office in downtie I found that i did not have enough proof to file a complaint. I told a lawyer I know he thought that the ratio were really bad. He was shocked when i showed him the numbers.
Their are so many problems over thier that you need the Federal
goverment to look into it. Maybe even local law schools and minority
Cahill Should not be the only one fired they all should.
Also they get about 2,000 complaints a year. Therefore how many
complaints were ignored over the years. Even if you were not friends
with Cahill what about the other people that work thier burrying
complaints against thier friends. October 31, 2007 1:36 PM court officer said...
The Courts/Judiciary are a cesspool operated by rats...I work there, I know and I can't wait to get my pension. October 31, 2007 1:53 PM court officer said...
The Courts/Judiciary are a cesspool operated by rats...I work there, I know and I can't wait to get my pension. October 31, 2007 1:53 PM shocked ! said...
Am I dreaming? So, the people at the top of the group that oversees ethics are themselves crooked?!?
Immediately arrest this nitwit Cahill!
I can't believe this !!
Bring in the feds !!!! October 31, 2007 4:41 PM Anonymous said...
Cahill, Cohen et al. go directly to jail and do not stop. October 31, 2007 8:48 PM Anonymous said...
Ethics WHAT ETHICS? They got caught, the fix is in that's how they have controlled things for soooo looong. October 31, 2007 9:26 PM the shadow said...
FLASH - IMPORTANT NEWS BULLETIN
Please be advised that today - Wednesday, 10/31/07 was the last day
of taking up space at the Un-Ethics Group for our good friend Thomas
Cahill. We all know that he will be sorely missed by all of his dear
friends along with all the bartenders that he knows all too well. The
WAKE will be held tomorrow at Moran's (Broadway & Thomas St.),
flowers requested. As part of this devastating news Tom's
sidekick/drinking compatriot Sherry K. Cohen had the chutspah to
formally apply for Tom Cahill's position, beleive it or not!
Unfortunately, she recently received a telephone call from the First
Dept. rejecting her. She is not taking it well. Too bad, you know how it
is, things happen Sherry. The buzz now is, how long will Sherry K.
Cohen last? However, all is not lost, reliable sources have stated that
Sherry K. Cohen will grace the WAKE for Tom Cahill in her official
capacity as the authorized libation sampler at the open bar. Everyone is
encouraged to bring your cameras for one last photo op of Tom and
Sherry together. The question for Tom will be where in CT will he be residing, could it be Danbury? Let's all give Tom a big sent-off and don't forget to pass the word we want a big showing. October 31, 2007 11:44 PM Anonymous said...
they neeed to get rid of more people. Rebecca Taub-Rubber stamp rejection letters without even reading the complaint. Marci Sterling- does nothing but collect a pay check.
How about hiring people based on thier QUALIFICATIONS and not thier conections. The Feds neeed to be brought in. To try protect people`s Civil rights. What about ensuring N.Y that they will get competent council.
If you are a doctor and you found incompotent or unqualified to do
what you are doing. You will probably lose your license and go to jail.
How about holding Cahill liable. Cahill has been collecting pay
for years. What about making him pay it back. Put it towards the clients
they screewed. November 1, 2007 1:24 AM nyc atty said...
This story is in the NYTimes today, maybe the Federal people will
see it and do something so the honest atty's don't get tarred with what
is coming. November 1, 2007 10:16 AM insider said...
The PJ's phone has been ringing without stop about this. Jonathan Lippman is not a happy person. Watchout below November 1, 2007 10:23 AM Anonymous said...
The fly on the wall must have been partying with Sherri Cohen when
the posting was made. Moran's is located at 103 Washington St. @ Rector
St., have been told that the party starts at 4 PM. See you all! November 1, 2007 10:32 AM another insider said...
Forget the flowers at the party, that was someone's idea of a joke.
Be advised that Sherry Cohen was going to be the one to collect all the
envelopes for Tom, however, apparently due to circumstances, Sherry has
thought better of that, assigning the task to a secretary. So you know
who you are, all of Tom's good friends from all the big law firms be
sure you are there and do the right thing. Remember we will be watching.
Also, somebody might consider employing the very talented Tom Cahill,
that's the least someone could do after all he's done for people. Don't
forget now we want to see plenty of big fat envelopes containing the
President's pictures. Let everyone know and see you all at Moran's. November 1, 2007 1:08 PM federal employee said...
The NYT story is very interesting, we didn't know these things. November 1, 2007 1:30 PM westchester victim said...
FBI agent O'Connor is tight with Judge Scarpino who is an ex-FBI agent November 1, 2007 1:38 PM Anonymous said...
This is to all the attorneys and court personnel who post. I want to
thank you all for not only reading this blog but responding with
comments and information. It is the victims of the courts that complain,
but get dismissed with the "disgruntled litigants" tag. I know
that there are some honest attorneys out there. Once I was in an
elevator in the 111 MLK courthouse, when a group of four or five
attorneys from some big firm got on and were incredulous at how the
opposing counsel outright lied in court and got away with it. It was
surprising and interesting to see their reaction. Obviously the
insiders are the ones who know how all the fixing is done and it is left
to the victims to complain. But without more specific information on
how the courts and cases are corrupted and fixed, those complaining just
sound like losers. Many of the small changes that are taking
place is only the result of insiders providing information and then the
litigants making a stink about it that anything has changed. Keep
leaking information and others will follow. Since this blog was first
started the numbers of insiders posting keeps increasing. A very good
sign. Again, thanks for coming forward and keep posting. November 1, 2007 2:02 PM media person said...
Like the blog much information - the Times called it a Cover-up! And what a Cover-up. November 1, 2007 6:55 PM Anonymous said...
the times nailed it, it is a BIG COVER-UP November 1, 2007 8:26 PM the insider said...
Everyone is having a good time at the party for Tom, but at the same
time everyone is concerned. This is much bigger that anyone knows, Tom
got out at a very good time, now everyone has to watch their back. November 1, 2007 8:46 PM a judge said...
My sincere compliments to Ms. Christine C. Anderson as an attorney
and former employee of Disciplinary Committee for her ethical and moral
integrity in placing this critical issue in the public forum where I
believe it belongs at this time. Since there has been no replacement
named for Thomas Cahill's position, I would like to suggest Ms.
Christine C. Anderson since she is intimately acquainted with the
situation of this scandal in the Judiciary system. November 2, 2007 6:49 AM Anonymous said...
Well Judge, you are right it is a SCANDAL and you probably don't
know 10% of it! Obstruction of Justice is a crime, as you know! November 2, 2007 7:01 AM victim of Pirro's gang said...
could someone provide the NY Times link to the story, thanks, November 2, 2007 12:36 PM Anonymous said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin November 2, 2007 3:39 PM ny lawyer said...
Bravo to Ms. Anderson for her courage. There are lawyers that are
not happy with the OCA and the disgrace that we have to bear. November 2, 2007 6:09 PM Anonymous said...
Hey, Sherri baby, are still screwing people? Better be careful you
will wind up getting screwed yourself. You know what I mean, hon! November 2, 2007 7:49 PM an insider said...
the buzz is deafening on this one, the word is that things that were
deeped sixed will be - repeat - will be looked at hard again - no free
pass anymore November 2, 2007 9:13 PM lawyer victim said...
I filed papers with the OCA on my lawyer and just got jerked around,
now I know why. Would like to sue them all but I don't trust lawyers
(including Judges) after what I've been through. The whole system sinks. November 3, 2007 9:59 AM Anonymous said...
As far as OCA hiring ms. Anderson for any job..no way! OCA does not
approve of employees with integrety and ethics. Their own counsel's
office is loaded with mediocre, unethical, butt kissing lawyers!
Especially under judy kaye, even the lowest paid employees must never
address any thing biased or discriminatory, even though OCA'S handbook
demands that said behavior be immediately brought to the attention of
OCA and they should be given the opportunity to address
SAME.....AKA.....silence you, using any means! I would love an
opportunity to discuss this with any OCA superior. So as long OCA
remains uncertain about their future, the same hiring and reporting
methods stay in place...i know i worked for them for 30 years! November 3, 2007 10:10 AM lawyer victim said...
I what to continue and say, yes I'm DISGRUNTLED and why shouldn't I
be after enduring a corrupt system run by con men and fraudsters. When I
went to the newspapers they didn't want to touch it. Their lawyers told
them not to run it. Again, the iron grip of control, one lawyer protect
another. Maybe the newpapers have change their minds now, we'll see. November 3, 2007 10:16 AM Anonymous said...
The Times story headline is "Suit Accuses Court Panel of Cover-up" -
this is a SCANDAL and COVER-UP so where is Judge Kaye & Lippman?
What are they doing about it? Answer nothing, since they are part of it.
A new broom sweeps clean. Get rid of the permanent Judiciary, NOW. November 3, 2007 10:47 AM disgruntled said...
I too was called "DISGRUNTLED" by attorneys and a Judge. I told them
all that I was not "DISGRUNTLED" to use their term, they were
"DISGRUNTLED" that I figured out the fraud that they had pulled. They
all didn't say a word after that. I am disapointed that the system has
clearly failed. Still fighting.... November 3, 2007 10:55 AM Anonymous said...
With the cover-up in OCA of regular complaints, you can only imagine
what has happen to all the compaints that were filed against Judges.
That's another big cover-up. November 3, 2007 1:56 PM Anonymous said...
The NEW STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT has covered up stories
about judges they don't want to investigate, esp. chief administrative
judges and elected officials of most, but generally higher courts. I
know this factually, because i know members of the commission and they
covered up something i attempted to report and they know my credibility!
That is all OK FOR NOW, because the story will come out and the
commission will have to explain to investigators et al shortly, their
reasons for not even inquiring about the facts of the new complaint,
knowing they had 2 yrs of knowledge of another complaint that was
heavily related and they had investigated! Anything that says STATE you
must be suspect of...they ALL covering for each other! November 3, 2007 5:26 PM Anonymous said...
yeah, the judges are guilty too another cover-up November 3, 2007 6:30 PM attorney said...
I've had a Judge tell me that if I fought on an issue that the Judge
wanted a certain way, not to ever come back to his court because I was
dead meat, he would screw me. I filed a complaint, it went to the black
hole and I have stayed away from that Judge. Investigate all the Judges. November 3, 2007 8:20 PM Anonymous said...
The cover-up on the Judges must be wild! November 3, 2007 8:44 PM retired court officer said...
They should look at the Judges, if they really investigated them the whole thing will come apart...... November 3, 2007 9:07 PM a victim said...
I learned the trick the Judges do when you don't do what they want,
first they rule against you. Then knowing that you are right, you want
to appeal which your lawyer encourages. Meanwhile, the meters are all
running and the lawyers are making big bucks. So you go through the
appeal process and get beat-up and also lose, but everyone is making big
bucks except you. Later you learn that at least 85% (maybe 95%) of
Judge's decisions are not reversed, of course, no one ever informs you
of that fact. Then much later you see a Judge (Sonda Miller who voted
against you in favor of the Judge) becomes a partner in the law firm of
McCarthy Fingar (Frank Streng) who have extremely close ties to Judge
Anthony J. Scarpino. It comes full circle back to where it all began
with Judge Scarpino, now it all makes sense. It is a game to seperate
you from as much of your money as they can, it has nothing to do with
JUSTICE or RIGHT. It's a big CON GAME on the public run by the lawyers
and Judges in their black robes. But it is all legal because their all
lawyers and Judges. November 4, 2007 9:58 AM Anonymous said...
The only time the commission on judicial conduct examines a high
powered judge ( someone they consider elected by the people (they are
screwing)is if it makes the media! A public story is how they
operate...fact! Their judicial investigating panel has many political
members on it...check your city and see. These members also do their own
little investigation with or without the commission's knowledge,
because they can. However they are picked for this panel , i do not
know, but i would love to see an ordinary citizen or two on it and then
you will see the same expose/ as MS ANDERSON brought forward. The state
comm. on judicial conduct should be part of the entire NY court
investigation! November 4, 2007 10:12 AM
Faulting City's 'Cavalier Attitude,' Judge OKs Stop-and-Frisk Class
New York Law Journal
Alluding to what she called "overwhelming evidence" that the New York
Police Department is running a centralized stop-and-frisk program that
has led to thousands of unconstitutional stops, a federal judge
yesterday certified a 2008 class action suit challenging the
In the process, Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin (See Profile)
said she found New York City's attitude toward the suit to be "deeply
troubling." She criticized the city's Law Department for stating that a
court order to block the practice would amount to "judicial intrusion"
and arguing that no injunction could guarantee that suspicionless stops
would never occur or would occur in only a certain number of cases.
The judge observed in Floyd v. City of New York,
08 Civ. 1034, that what was important at the class certification stage
was "the substantive question of whether or not the unlawful stops of
putative class members result from a common source: the department's
policy of establishing performance standards and demanding increased
levels of stops and frisks. The preponderance of the evidence shows that
the answer to that question is yes."
She noted that the vast majority of New Yorkers who are unlawfully
stopped will never file a lawsuit in response, and class-action status
was created for just these kinds of cases. Read the city's brief and the plaintiffs' brief.
The lawsuit alleged that the NYPD purposefully engaged in a
widespread practice of concentrating its stop-and-frisk activity in
black and Hispanic neighborhoods based on their racial composition
rather than legitimate non-racial factors. The lawsuit said officers are
pressured to meet quotas for stops, and they are punished if they do
Assembly Committees to Hold Hearings
Several Assembly committees will hold a hearing tomorrow in Manhattan
on the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policies. The
hearing will be held from 10:30-1:30 p.m. in the Assembly's hearing
room, Room 1923, at 250 Broadway.
The committees organizing the hearing are Codes and Correction. Also
participating is the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and
Asian Legislative Caucus.
To testify, contact Dee Levy, senior analyst to the Assembly Committee on Codes, at email@example.com or 518-455-4313.
The Law Department had been fighting an uphill battle to block class
certification, which has seemed virtually certain since Scheindlin
rejected the city's motion for summary judgment in September (NYLJ,
Sept. 1, 2001).
In her 57-page opinion, Scheindlin wrote that "Defendants' cavalier
attitude towards the prospect of a 'widespread practice of suspicionless
stops' displays a deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most
fundamental constitutional rights."
And, she said, "if the NYPD is engaging in a widespread practice of
unlawful stops, then an injunction seeking to curb that practice is not a
'judicial intrusion into a social institution' but a vindication of the
Constitution and an exercise of the court's most important function:
protecting individual rights in the face of the government's
A Law Department spokeswoman said yesterday, "We respectfully disagree with the decision and are reviewing our legal options."
Lawyers for the named plaintiffs in the case expect Scheindlin's
certification decision to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Darius Charney and Sunita Patel of
the Center for Constitutional Rights; Jonathan Moore and Jennifer
Borchetta of Beldock Levine & Hoffman; and Eric Hellerman, Philip
Irwin and Gretchen Hoff-Varner of Covington & Burling.
Charney said in a statement that the judge's ruling means that "those
for whom this practice is a daily reality will now have an opportunity
to challenge it as a violation of their fundamental constitutional
rights and to ask the Court to order real changes in NYPD stop-and-frisk
According to the decision, more than 2.8 million stop-and-frisks were
conducted between 2004 and 2009. Half were of blacks, 30 percent were
of Latinos and only 10 percent were of whites.
The lawsuit charges the practice violates the Fourth Amendment's
right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures and the 14th
Amendment right to be free of discrimination based on race.
The numbers were worse last year, the plaintiffs charge, as a record
685,724 stops were made, an increase of 600 percent since Raymond Kelly
was named police commissioner in 2002. Of those stopped in 2011, 84
percent were black or Hispanic and 88 percent of those stopped were not
arrested and did not receive summons.
In denying the city's summary judgment motion in September,
Scheindlin said that "the increasingly widespread use of this policing
tool in New York City is not to be taken lightly, even in those cases
where the individuals are not detained for more than a few minutes, and
even if the practice causes some reduction in the City's crime rate."
The judge followed that opinion with another in April, when she ruled
plaintiffs' expert, Jeffery Fagan, a Columbia Law professor and
director of the school's Center for Crime, Community and Law, could
testify at trial about his conclusions on racial disparities in the
stops (NYLJ, April 17).
Scheindlin found Fagan's report, which analyzed 175,000 stops and
focused on racial disparities and the extent to which they complied with
the Fourth Amendment, was "methodologically sound," rejecting the
city's challenge to his expertise.
The Law Department's Heidi Grossman wrote that Fagan is not a lawyer,
"has never worked in a law enforcement field, has never completed a
[stop-and-frisk] form, never conducted a Stop, Question & Frisk
(SQF) and never observed more than a few SQF's or gone along with an
NYPD officer to observe an SQF."
Scheindlin said in Wednesday's ruling that five nonprofit
organizations have filed amicus briefs saying the stop-and-frisk
practices are "harmful, degrading and demoralizing for too many young
people in New York," and 27 of 51 New York City Council members filed a
second amicus saying the practice "reinforces negative racial
stereotypes" and have created "a growing distrust on the part of Black
and Latino residents."
But the city shows no indication of backing down on a practice that
the Bloomberg administration insists is an effective crime-fighting
tool. It has contended from the beginning that it is not engaged in
racial profiling but conducts the lion's share of stop-and-frisks in
high crime areas, a contention disputed by the plaintiffs and Fagan.
Just last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that, over the past
decade, stop-and-frisks deserve much credit for the dramatic drop in the
city's murder rate, as 5,600 fewer people were killed compared with the
"That's 5,600 men, women and children who are alive today who would
not be" if the police did not engage in stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg said.
"We know that 90 percent of the murder victims in this city are black
and Hispanic. So 90 percent of those 5,600 probably would have been
In certifying a Fourth Amendment class, Scheindlin said that, in 6
percent of all documented stops, the officers' stated reasons for the
stops were facially insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion:
"That is to say, by their own explanations for their actions, NYPD
officers conducted at least 170,000 unlawful stops between 2004 and
In 62,000 of those cases, she said, officers cited no more than a
"furtive movement" to justify the stop, and in over 4,000 stops gave no
reason other than "high crime area."
Certifying a Fourteenth Amendment subclass, Scheindlin cited the
Fagan report as saying blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely
to be stopped and frisked than whites "even after adjusting for local
crime rates, racial composition of the local population, police patrol
strength, and other social and economic factors predictive of police
Moreover, she again cited Fagan for the notion that blacks and
Hispanics "are treated more harshly during stop-and-frisk encounters
with NYPD officers than whites who are stopped on suspicion of the same
or similar crimes."
The city reached a settlement in 2003 on its stop-and-frisk policy in Daniels v. City Of New York,
99 Civ. 1695, agreeing to enact a policy against racial profiling,
revise the form police use when they conduct a stop and conduct regular
audits of those forms.
Scheindlin currently has two other, related stop-and-frisk cases, Davis v. City of New York, 10-cv-699, which challenges stops in New York City public housing, and Ligon v. City of New York,
12-cv-2274, which challenges stops in private buildings under the
NYPD's "Operation Clean Halls" program. The program allows private
landlords or building managers to enroll and have police patrol their
The city settled a fourth stop-and-frisk case this week, agreeing to
cease the practice of stopping and frisking passengers of livery cabs
whose drivers are part of a voluntary police safety program that allows
police to stop livery cars without probable cause (NYLJ, May 16). @|Mark Hamblett can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
Attorney for Department Disciplinary Committee Sues Court System The New York Law Journal by John Caher - May 16, 2012 An attorney for the Appellate Division, First Department's disciplinary committee alleges in a federal lawsuit that she was sexually harassed by two now-retired officials at the watchdog agency while a third retaliated against her for complaining.
Nicole Corrado also suggests that after she lodged a complaint officials retaliated by targeting her attorney in an unrelated property matter. She claims that the committee launched an investigation into allegations of bribery and forgery against her attorney, and then suddenly dropped the matter when he abandoned her case. Additionally, Corrado claims she was punished for supporting a lawsuit brought against the court system by a colleague. Corrado v. New York State Unified Court System, 12-cv-1748, filed in the Eastern District on April 10, alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Corrado, who has served as a principal attorney at the disciplinary committee since 2006, claims she endured years of harassment by her supervisor, Andral Bratton, and that the committee's chief investigator, Vincent Raniere, touched her inappropriately and forcibly kissed her on several occasions.
According to the complaint, when Corrado reported the "pattern of sexual harassment" by Bratton and Raniere in 2008, the court system referred the matter to its inspector general. However, only the allegations against Bratton were investigated, the complaint claims. The complaint states that Bratton admitted during the Office of the Inspector General probe that he was "smitten" with Corrado and crossed "an emotional boundary." Bratton was transferred to another unit at the same salary and Corrado was simply told to "avoid" him, according to the complaint. Corrado alleges that while her sexual harassment complaint was pending, she retained an attorney to represent her in an unrelated action involving a property dispute. She claims the disciplinary committee instigated an investigation into that attorney—who is not named in her complaint—involving allegations of bribery and forgery.
Corrado contends that after the attorney withdrew from her case and her claim was dismissed, all of the ethical charges against her lawyer were dropped. She claims that because of her attorney's abrupt withdrawal, her civil case was dismissed and she was "ultimately forced to settle her case for a fraction of its value." Bennitta Joseph of Borrelli & Associates in Great Neck, who is representing Corrado in the civil rights claim, declined to identify the allegedly intimidated attorney who represented her client inCorrado v. East End Pool & Hot Tub. Corrado also claims in her complaint that she was retaliated against for supporting the claim of a colleague who accused the agency of racial discrimination.
The complaint does not identify that employee, but Joseph confirmed in an interview that it was Christine Anderson, a former staff attorney who alleged she was wrongfully discharged in June 2007 on a pretext of insubordination after she revealed that the panel was protecting well-connected attorneys. A jury rejected her claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the verdict (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2009). Corrado contends that after she agreed to corroborate Anderson's allegations of "racial discrimination and other improper conduct" by the disciplinary committee, Alan Friedberg, the committee's chief counsel, threatened her and gave her an unreasonable workload. Additionally, Corrado says Bratton threatened her. In light of Corrado's complaint, Anderson has asked the Second Circuit to reinstate her claim. Anderson contends in her petition that Corrado, who testified on her behalf at a deposition but not at trial, "was threatened and chilled into not testifying" at her trial, constituting a "manifest attack on our system of law and a clear denial of appellant's right to a fair trial."
Corrado claims that because of the anxiety and stress from the harassment she endured at the disciplinary committee she took a two-year unpaid leave of absence between 2009 and 2011, returning only after Bratton, Raniere and Friedberg had left. According to the Office of Court Administration, all three took advantage of an early retirement incentive in the fall of 2010. "She feels like she has to do something," Joseph said. "She took a two-year leave of absence because the environment had become so toxic, and then once all the offending parties left, she came back." Raniere said the allegations are false. "I didn't do a damned thing," he said. Friedberg declined to comment. Bratton could not be reached. David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, declined to respond, noting that the court system does not comment on pending litigation. John Caher can be contacted at email@example.com.