Thursday, June 28, 2012

DDC Whistleblower Attorney Christine Anderson Is Back In Federal Court

NY Legal Ethics Scandal Whistleblower Back in Federal Court
Witness Tampering Brings NY Attorney Christine Anderson Back to Federal Court
An Ethics Rouser EXCLUSIVE by Abe King - June 27, 2012 
Widespread 'Ethics' Corruption Now Includes Threat on Witness in a Federal Proceeding

The Corruption at Manhattan's so-called 'Ethics' Oversight Committee is again before Federal District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Christine Anderson, a New York attorney for nearly 30 years, filed her latest papers on June 25, 2012.  Anderson has requested that Judge Scheindlin reopen her case as details recently revealed in another federal proceeding showed that an Anderson witness was threatened. It was a federal crime to engage in witness tampering or to threaten a witness in a federal proceeding.

Recently, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals guided Anderson to the District Court:  "At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of May, two thousand twelve.
 Present:Chester J. Straub, Robert D. Sack, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges - FILED MAY 11, 2012 Appellant, pro se, moves to recall the mandate. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Appellant has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances that would entitle her to the requested relief.See British Int'l Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 354 F.3d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 2003). Moreover, the argument in Appellant's motion, which relies on "newly discovered evidence," is more appropriately raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 18-19 (1976) (holding that a party may pursue in the district court a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a judgment that an appellate court has upheld, because the district court "is not flouting the mandate by acting on the motion" where "the appellate mandate relates to the record and issues then before the court, and does not purport to deal with later events"); DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1270 (2d Cir. 1994) (interpreting Standard Oil to stand for the proposition that "a district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion when 'later events' arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court")."


Many will argue that positive changes have come to the Manhattan legal ethics committee under First Department Presiding Justice Gonzalez and Chief Counsel Jorge Depico- both appointed after the Anderson scandal first went public. But long-standing questions remain unanswered: exactly how corrupt was the Manhattan attorney 'ethics' department,  why were serious ethics complaints involving  favored attorneys improperly whitewashed, and why hasn't any corrective action resulted. The widespread allegations of cover-up, favoritism and retaliation within and about Manhattan's 'ethics' oversight system were, in minute measure, secretly addressed, but public confidence in the legal ethics oversight body remains non-existent.

Endless Whitewashing

Attorney Anderson filed her federal lawsuit against The New York State Office of Court Administration on October 26, 2007, in The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The allegations by Christine Anderson, a respected insider, revealed a previously hidden look into systemic corruption within the statewide court system and, most horrifically, concerned the very body charged with overseeing ethics and integrity within the state's courts. The named defendants originally included The State of New York's Office of Court Administration (OCA), and the Hon. John Buckley, Thomas J. Cahill, Sherry K. Cohen, Catherine O'Hagen Wolfe and David Spokony- then all senior level state employees involved with the 1st Judicial Department's Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC), which is charged with overseeing the ethics of attorneys in The Bronx and Manhattan. The papers filed in federal court included, "Plaintiff requests the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee the day-to-day operations of the DDC for an indefinite period." Alan Friedberg, formerly the deputy counsel at the statewide Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC), became Chief Counsel at the DDC until pushed out, and has since returned to the CJC. Mr. Friedberg has himself become a lighting rod for corruption allegations along with his former, and now-again, associate Robert Tembeckjian who runs the statewide judicial 'ethics' group as Chief Counsel.

An October 30, 2007 article in the
 New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise described Anderson's firing, "... in retaliation for complaining that her superiors had engaged in a 'pattern and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing complaints against certain select attorneys'" and noted that Christine C. Anderson had worked for the disciplinary committee for six years. The article revealed that Ms. Anderson asked that a federal monitor be appointed to oversee the disciplinary committee's operations, and explained that, "In 2005, 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." Sherry Cohen, now in private practice specializing in ethics, was also accused of digging her nails into Anderson's hands- an admitted event that led to Cohen's attendance in an appropriate anger management type program. The New York Law Journal also reported that that the first 'whitewash' alleged by Anderson involved 'a highly sensitive investigation,' which had uncovered 'overwhelming concrete evidence of misconduct' by an attorney. Cohen made the complaint disappear despite the recommendation that a formal complaint be filed against the lawyer.  Anderson also claimed that a large ethics complaint file containing "indisputable evidence of misconduct" had been 'gutted.'" And another incident involving Sherry Cohen saw a complaint whitewashed because Cohen said, "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.'"


Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Disrespecting Dads In Culture and The Courts

A Father's Day downer

How courts and the culture disrespect dad

Dustin Hoffman in 1979's "Kramer vs. Kramer."


From the loving, engaged portrayals of fathers featured in recent popular movies like “The Descendants,” “Moneyball” and “A Better Life” — all three performances were nominated for Academy Awards — one might conclude American dads are culturally valued.
Look again. The mothers in these films are comatose, divorced or dead. It’s no coincidence. From Atticus Finch to today, there’s an unspoken Hollywood rule that fathers can’t shine too brightly in the face of active mothering. Dads are more likely to be accorded respect when they are “coping” — in effect, when they are surrogate mothers.
Sadly, it is not only in Hollywood where fathers get the short end of the stick. The culture reflects a painful and pervasive social reality: For all we talk about the value of fathers, we have been devaluing and discarding them for decades.
We must first diagnose this cancer. Then we must systematically work to cure it.
Why do fathers matter so much? Because fatherhood makes men out of boys, for one thing. And because typically they offer children a just as necessary but different kind of love and guidance from what mothers bestow.
Mothers give their children unconditional love. It can be argued that children need their mother’s love more in infancy and very early childhood than they need their father’s.
But from the moment they step into the world beyond their doorstep, their need for a father or father figure grows exponentially. They need his protection and guidance in handling the complexities and competing demands of school, adult authorities and sometimes difficult peers. Fathers give boys a role model for manliness and girls respect for themselves. Fathers give children strategies for negotiating their way in the world. They set standards to be respected. Their love may even seem conditional on those standards being met. That’s a good thing.
Father absence is devastating for children. Exhaustive peer-reviewed research confirms that the absence of a father is the single most reliable predictor for a whole roster of negative outcomes: low self-esteem, parental alienation, high school dropout (71% are fatherless), truancy, early sexual activity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, gang membership, imprisonment (85% of jailed youth are fatherless), drug abuse, homelessness (90% of runaway children have an absent father), a 40 times higher risk of sexual abuse and 100 times higher risk of fatal abuse.
Today, 84% of custodial parents in America are mothers, a figure that hasn’t budged in three decades. Forty percent of the 236,000 children (in the 2009 census) whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them. The other 60% had contact an average of 69 days in the last year.
These figures represent human tragedy on a massive scale for both disenfranchised fathers and their children.
Fathers suffer terribly when their children are wrenched from their lives. It’s no coincidence that men’s suicide rates skyrocket after divorce, while women’s rates stay flat.
This isn’t to say that every father is like the heroic father of the 1979 film “Kramer vs. Kramer,” a coping dad who, when forced to assume single parenthood, sheds his arrogance and workaholism to become feminism’s New Man — domesticated, patient and sensitive. Some men are immature jerks and mothers are right to sue for sole custody; some fathers have no instinct for fatherhood and mothers are forced to bring up children alone.
But the many good guys should not be obliged to pay for the sins of the losers.
Twenty years ago, Dan Quayle stepped into the crosshairs for questioning Murphy Brown’s choice to have a child on her own. But he was fundamentally right. Children need fathers. Our defensive, reflexive attacks on anyone who points this out — our suggestion that to say this is somehow to disrespect millions of hardworking single mothers — only makes the problem worse.
Why haven’t the facts around fatherlessness made a dent in the family law system? In a word, ideology. Judges aren’t trained in sociology or psychology, but they take courses in “social context” — and the people who write their training manuals toe the feminist line that where children are concerned, mothers mainly have rights, while fathers mainly have responsibilities.
Divorce is initiated by women 70% of the time. From the day they make that decision, the system colludes with them in gaining control of the children. Women can falsely allege violence or sexual abuse of children without having to prove it (unscrupulous lawyers often advise their women clients to do this). When they do, the father is often removed from the home while trying to prove his innocence.
The court will assign financial support obligations to the father. If the father fails to pay his support, even if he can’t, the heavy hand of the law will punish him instantly. But if the mother arbitrarily denies rightful access to the father, the court is reluctant to penalize her. As one Canadian judge told a family lawyer arguing for his client’s continually denied access rights, “It’s not my job to punish mothers.”
It is part of his job, actually, but this view is representative of most family court judges: Whether through a chivalric view of women as vulnerable creatures in need of their protection, or cowed by feminists into believing their mantra that men only want to “control” them, judges reflexively privilege mothers as the natural owners of children, and fathers as accessories to their lives.
And yet there are about four million lone fathers in America — through widowhood, or because their ex-wives didn’t want to mother, or were too dysfunctional to share parenting. This is an enormous control group about which we can learn much.
If mothers were better at parenting than fathers, surely we would be aware of indicators that motherlessness causes more problems than fatherlessness. But there is no such evidence. Nevertheless, female superiority in parenting remains an article of faith amongst intellectual elites, and through trickledown effect, to judges who simply channel their bias.
To see how superfluous men have become in our cultural view of families, one has but to look at President Obama’s much-hyped interactive web-based campaign ad, “The Life of Julia.” The ad, which tracks the stages of one single woman’s life, is aimed at a rising demographic (there are 10 million more single women in America than there are single men). One quarter of the population, they trend leftward in their voting patterns.
Julia has a child. But there is no father in the ad. The ad implies that with the aid of government, women can enjoy secure lives as single mothers at no cost or personal sacrifice. Implicit too is the assumption that Julia’s child won’t suffer either.
Welcome to Obama’s “hubby state,” a particularly cynical policy path given the personal experience and knowledge of a President who was abandoned by his own father as a child.
The state as mate may be appealing to single moms, but the state makes a lousy father.
The good news is that ordinary Americans know this. Polls show that most people dislike the adversarial court system and its winner-take-all mentality. Fathers’ rights groups are better organized and more vocal than they used to be, and more people are listening to them. There are encouraging signs that the pendulum is beginning to swing back to reason and fairness.
One such sign comes from across the pond. In the U.K., the government has come to its senses, because the social costs of fatherlessness there can no longer be borne. This week, the British government announced that from this point forward, the preferred option in family court will be “the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents.” In the absence of abuse, equal parenting will be the default custodial arrangement.
In the United States, such a move would mark a seismic shift. And it would be a welcome one — for men, women and the children they need to raise together.
Equal shared parenting as a default in custody disputes is the logical and ethical choice: a win-win for fathers, for children and the nation. Let tomorrow be Day One of family law reform in America.
Kay is a columnist with the National Post of Canada.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Disbarred Attorney Ed Fagan Tries To Represent Czech Plaintiffs

from Betsy Combier:
My question is this: Why dont people research their lawyers before hiring them? See articles at the end of the TPMMuckraker post.


Disgraced Lawyer Attempts Return To World Of Nazi Art Theft


Ed Fagan, the lawyer who once won big settlements for Holocaust survivors and South African apartheid victims and was later disbarred in New York and New Jersey, is attempting a comeback. Kind of.
In April, Fagan filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Florida on behalf of the Victims of Holocaust Art Theft against the Czech Republic, the National Gallery in Prague, and the Museum of Decorative Arts of Prague. The suit seeks the recovery of valuable artwork owned by Richard and Regina Popper, prominent Czech-Jewish art collectors who were deported from Prague to the Lodz Ghetto, where they were killed in early 1940s.
This week, U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn in Florida wrote an order stating that the case cannot proceed without a proper attorney involved.
The April complaint said that Victims of Holocaust Art Theft “is a business registered in Florida and in this judicial district, is an owner of certain interests in The Popper Collection, [and] is a limited partner with and has limited but express authority [of] Michal Klepetár, one of The Popper Heirs.” It also said that the group’s formation “is the result of agreements, cooperation and partnering between / of Edward D. Fagan and Michal Klepetár.” In his order this week, Cohn wrote that although it is clear Fagan filed the complaint as a “pro se” representative of the group, a licensed attorney is required to represent corporations, partnerships, or associations in federal court.
“If no attorney appears on Plaintiff’s behalf by [July 5, 2012], the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and close the case,” Cohn wrote.
Fagan was disbarred in New York in 2008, and in New Jersey in 2009, for misappropriating client funds. Last month, Fagan exchanged emails with The South Florida Sun Sentinel about his new case.
“I am not the Ed Fagan of years ago, about whom some people complained, and on whom other people gave accolades. They took my license, but not my brains,” Fagan wrote from Prague. “I am very proud of what I am now doing and hopefully I can be judged by who I am and what I am doing today — not based on the past.”
Fagan did not return an email Thursday from TPM seeking comment.

Edward Fagan Begs the New Jersey Supreme Court To Allow Him to Keep His License
Sanctioned Attorney Nicholas Penkovsky Tries To Resurrect His "Rubber Room" Case in New York State Court of Appeals, Loses Again
 New Jersey Attorney Ethics Committee Recommends the Permanent Disbarment of Attorney Edward Fagan
Con Man and Snake Oil Salesman Ed Fagan Tries To Shut Down, Lewenstein Serves Subpoena on Gizella Weisshaus

Edward Fagan - Wikipedia 


  1. ^ a b c Matter of Edward D. Fagan, M-2732, M-3148, M-3193. Supreme Court. Appellate Division. First Judicial Department. Retrieved on October 15, 2009
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Walder, Noeleen G. (December 12, 2008). "Lawyer Disbarred for Failing to Pay Sanctions, Fees in Holocaust Case". New York Law Journal. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  3. ^ a b c d Fuchs, Mary (June 24, 2009). "Lawyer Edward Fagan is disbarred in N.J. for misusing Holocaust victims' funds". New Jersey Real-Time News. Retrieved on October 14, 2009.
  4. ^ Rostron, Bryan (August 12, 2002). "The business of apartheid". New Statesman. Retrieved on January 31, 2010.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Meier, Barry (September 8, 2000). "An Avengers Path: A Special report.; Lawyer in Holocaust Case Faces Litany of Complaints". New York Times. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  6. ^ a b c d Ross, Brian (September 8, 2000). "Holocaust Claims Lawyer Accused". ABCNEWS. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  7. ^ Original Letters. Fagan. Lieberman. Re: Attorney Ethics Complaint by Gizella Weisshauss.
  8. ^ Kleiderman, Alex (August 23, 2004). "The vexed question of paying for slavery". BBC. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  9. ^ "Swiss jeer apartheid claim lawyer". CNN, June 17, 2002. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  10. ^ "Workers Sue Companies Over Apartheid". New York Times, April 6, 2003. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  11. ^ Shah, Saeed (April 5, 2003). "South African mining giants face $6bn law suit". The Independent. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  12. ^ Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP. Apartheid Case. Documents. 2007. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  13. ^ Association of Holocaust Victims for Restitution of Artwork & Masterpieces, a/k/a "AHVRAM" v. Bank Austria Creditanstalt, No. 04 Civ. 3600.
  14. ^ Maull, Samuel. Lawyer for Holocaust victims disbarred. The Associated Press. November 12, 2008.
  15. ^ "Slave descendants to sue Lloyd's". BBC News, March 29, 2004. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  16. ^ Australian Associated Press. "Victims to sue over Asian tsunami". The Sydney Morning Herald, March 6, 2005.[dead link]
  17. ^ Pancevski, Bojan (November 20, 2006). "Villagers to sue 'Borat'". LA Times. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  18. ^ Associated Press (December 5, 2006). "NYC Judge Questions Viability Of Villagers' 'Borat' Lawsuit". Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  19. ^ Lin Anthony (August 12, 2004). "Personal Injury Client Wins Malpractice Award Against Holocaust Victims' Lawyer". New York Law Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
  20. ^ "Holocaust-Entschädigung: Schwere Vorwürfe gegen Star-Anwalt Fagan". Der Spiegel, February 18, 2005.
  21. ^ a b Popper, Nathaniel (October 7, 2005). "Holocaust Lawyer Fights Accusation He Hired Underage Austrian Hooker". The Forward. Archived from the original on June 22, 2008.
  22. ^ Klenk, Florian (September 9, 2005). "Mit Vollendung? Die Callgirlaffäre erreicht das Parlamen (German)". Der Falter. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  23. ^ Nachrichten, Salzburger (September 4, 2005). "Fagan soll unter Freiern in Callgirl-Affäre sein" (German). Salzburger Nachrichten. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  24. ^ "Callgirl-Ring: Ed Fagan weist Vorwürfe zurück" (German). Österreichischer Rundfunk, September 4, 2005. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  25. ^ "Callgirl-Ring: Prominenten Freiern drohen Ermittlungen" (German). Österreichischer Rundfunk, August 31, 2005. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  26. ^ "§ 207b Sexueller Missbrauch von Jugendlichen". Strafgesetzbuch (StGB): Besonderer Teil: Zehnter Abschnitt (German). University Salzburg. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
  27. ^ Covaleski, John (January 20, 2005). "Ethics Charges Leveled at Lawyer Who Fostered Holocaust Settlement". New Jersey Law Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
  28. ^ "Lawyer's 'hero' image tarnished".[dead link]
  29. ^ Covaleski, John (January 20, 2005). "Ethics Charges Leveled at Lawyer Who Fostered Holocaust Settlement." New Jersey Law Journal.
  30. ^ Weimar, Carrie (March 22, 2007). "Holocaust lawyer eyes bankruptcy". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.

External links

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Redford Township: Judge Karen Khalil Jails Court Observer For 30 Days

Contact: David Lonier                                                              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel: 248-373-9111

Judge Karen Khalil

Court Observer Jailed for up to 30 days for remaining silent
Redford Township – June 8, 2012  A Novi man was ordered by Judge Karen Kahlil of the 17th District Court to spend up to 30 days in jail for refusing to disclose his name.  While sitting quietly observing a friend’s property rights case, Judge Karen Kahlil demanded he stand and disclose his name.  Other witnesses were shocked when the judge ordered him arrested for refusing to disclose his name.

He was cited with contempt, hand cuffed and hauled off to the Redford police jail and later transferred to a Midland County jail.  He, along with 4 other court observers were ordered to stand and give their names, but only the Novi man was arrested and jailed.  

Prior to Friday’s  arrest, the Novi man had criminal complaint, judicial misconduct, malfeasance of office and deprivation of rights charges filed against Judge Kahlil and it is suspected that she was using her authority in retaliation for his legal action against her.  He has commenced a hunger strike. 

Here’s Trish’s

Press Release

Contact: David Lonier 
Tel: 248-373-9111 

Redford Township – June 8, 2012 A Novi Township man was ordered by Judge Karen Kahlil of the 17
th District Court to spend 30 days in jail for refusing to give her his name. He was cited with contempt, hand cuffed and hauled off to the Redford police jail and later transferred to a Midland jail. He was in court to witness another case when he, along with 4 other court watchers were ordered by the judge Kahlil to stand and give their names. After the Novi Township man was arrested, the other 4 court watchers were asked to do the same. All complied for fear that they too would receive jail time. 
The court watchers witnessed the court officials assault the Novi man. When one of the court watchers attempted to leave the room he was detained against his will. The court officers used threat and intimidation to hold the entire body of court watchers hostage. 
Judge Kahlil in an uncontrollable rage she began to call out, “We got a group of Moors in here!” She continued her comments towards the court watchers “Are you a part of that group? Who here is a part of that group the Moors group!” 
Prior to his Friday arrest, the Novi man has several criminal complaints, judicial misconduct, malfeasance of office and deprivation of rights charges filed against Judge Kahlil and it is suspected that she was using her authority in retaliation for his legal action against her. No such order was issued for the other four court watchers. 
The Novi Township man has commenced a hunger strike.  
4 P.M. EDT, June 9, 2012

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Westchester Family Court Cited As Not Looking At The Best Interests of The Child

Please see the article below for the improper political intervention of the Velella family with Family Court Judge David Klein: case of Tricia Lynch v Vincent Velella.


Courts Consider the Effect an Award of Custody to One Parent Might Have on a Child's Relationship with the Other Parent