Friday, July 2, 2010

Who's Who On The Judiciary Committee


The Confirmation Process: Is this the Judiciary Committee We Deserve?
By Elie Mystal, Above The Law
LINK

A lot of ink (virtual and otherwise) has been spent the last couple of days grading Elena Kagan’s performance at her Senate confirmation hearings. If confirmed, this week is the last time Kagan has to talk to the people, so it’s right to focus on how she did.

But there seems to be a media blind spot when it comes to grading the Senate Judiciary Committee itself. These 19 elected representatives are entrusted with the awesome responsibility of being the people’s voice in a process that ends with a lifetime appointment; yet few seem to care if these guys are doing a good job — or if they even know what they are talking about. Sure, we’ve got to live with confirmed SCOTUS Justices for the rest of their lives, be we have direct electoral control over the Senators who do the confirming. Is it too much to ask that we find 19 people in the entire U.S. Senate that actually understand what judges do for a living?

Let’s get this ball rolling. Which Senator best fulfilled his or her duty to all of us, and which ones need to be transferred to Foreign Relations — where only our enemies and allies have to suffer under their stupidity?

Let’s take a look at all 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and grade how they did during the Kagan confirmation hearings. (Ed Note: A+ is a grade that is as stupid and redundant as an F-. Neither will be used below.)


Pat Leahy (D-VT): Grade B
As committee chair running the hearing for a nominee from his own party, Leahy’s job was to keep things moving while making sure the opposition party had enough freedom to make all of their points. He did that well with a kindly, grandfatherly approach to the proceedings. In fact, most of the time you didn’t even know Leahy was in the room. Like any good umpire, that’s a good thing.


Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Grade D
While Sessions did a great job of getting on television with his criticism of Kagan’s stance towards military recruiters while she was at HLS, the political points he was trying to score were totally irrelevant to his actual job during these hearings. Sessions tried to paint Kagan as a person who hates the military — she doesn’t but even if she did it’s hard to see what that has to do with her judicial philosophy? The real issue with HLS military recruiters was Kagan’s stance on don’t ask, don’t tell which might have actually been relevant. But Sessions could never get there because he was too busy trying to rile up the troops. Pandering at its worst.

I’d give him an F but undoubtedly there are some Americans who’d feel underrepresented if they didn’t have a Senator like Sessions up there, defending their right to totally mangle a set of facts.


Herbert Kohl (D-WI): Grade F
It would be hard to believe that any American over the age of five wanted to know the answer to any of Sen. Kohl’s questions. His very first question — after Sessions screamed at Kagan for half an hour — was something like “why do you want to be a Justice?” Simply awful.


Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT): Grade A
You could argue that all the other Republicans should have ceded their time to Hatch and just let the man do his work. Every Democrat, from the President on down, has been bashing the Court over the Citizens United decision. Hatch used his 30 minutes to take America to school about the case. Then on day 2 he hammered Kagan so hard on partial birth abortions you could almost see her crawling up under Bill Clinton’s apron for cover.

The only criticism one could level is that Hatch’s speeches didn’t at all require Elena Kagan to be in the room. But in a world where Kagan is going to get confirmed anyway, at least Hatch used his speechifying to good effect.

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): Grade B+
Feinstein had a technically difficult role. As the first of only two women on the committee she had to do the whole “yay, women on the Court” thing. She had to rehabilitate the liberal problem with Citizens United after Sen. Hatch destroyed it for 30 minutes. And she had to give the liberals that are uncomfortable with Kagan a little red meat — given that during Leahy’s questions I thought he and Kagan had a date to go shoot some deer. She also got Kagan to explain the Chevron doctrine — right in Kagan’s wheelhouse. Quality all around from Sen. Feinstein.

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Grade C
Chuck Grassley is “not a lawyer.” He said so. He certainly acted like he wasn’t a lawyer. He seems very proud of this fact. Funny then that he’s in charge of being one of the people’s representatives when it comes to voting for lawyers.

Oh, and the next time I want Mr. Not-A-Lawyer from Iowa bitching about the first year curriculum at Harvard Law School will be the first time.

Russ Feingold (D-WI): Grade C
Did you like Diane Feinstein’s questions? Do you just want to hear them again? At some point we have to start docking more junior Senators who just want to repeat everything that’s already been said just so their constituents can hear them say it.

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Grade B
Say this for Senator Kyl, he knows something about past Supreme Court Justices. He didn’t seem to know very much about the person sitting in front of him, but that Thurgood Marshall guy, yeah, Kyl’s definitely heard of him before.

Intellectually, trying to figure out which Justice the current nominee would most be like isn’t the dumbest way to approach this process. He didn’t do it particularly well, but at least he tried.

Arlen Specter (Whatever He’s Calling Himself Today-PA): Grade D-
I won’t give Specter an F out of respect to his fine service to the country and this committee over many, many years.

But this week Specter made himself look like an imbecile. At one point on day 2 he actually asked the nominee why she should have to study something before she could form an opinion. He was OBSESSED with how much time he had to talk, asked convoluted questions that took minutes to form, and then got pissy when Kagan didn’t answer in “yes/no” fashion. I could go on and on, but Specter has had more than enough time on the political stage. Good Day, Sir.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Grade A-
I docked Lindsey Graham a third of a grade for his unbelievably condescending tone. It is insufferably grating. But I can’t dock him more for that because I know in some parts of the country this kind of grating, paternalistic egomania is what passes for “hospitality” and “charm.”

Otherwise, Graham was perfect. He knows the difference between statutory law and judge-made law — and respects both equally. Sure, he has an agenda, so do the judges, and he tries to get to that agenda without seeming offended that judges have to interpret the often nonsensical crap that comes out of Congress.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Grade C
During these hearings Sen. Schumer didn’t help me understand the nominee in any way. Nor did he make a particularly good speech about some area of the law that he is passionate about. Schumer could have been replaced by nearly any Democrat in New York City and nobody would have noticed the difference. If you gave Chuck a VORP score, it’s be a perfect zero — no value over a replacement “democrat.”

John Cornyn (R-TX): Grade C-
Cornyn talks a big game on television. But when he gets into the hearing room, he adds no value. He does absolutely nothing to resolve the issues he’s been gnashing his teeth about on television the day before.

His questioning might as well be paraphrased to this: I want Justices who agree with my political agenda. Do you agree with my political agenda?

Dick Durbin (D-IL): Grade C
If Chuck Schumer were from Illinois, he’d be Dick Durbin. We didn’t need two people to ask the same set of questions.

Tom Coburn (R-OK): Grade D
Tom Coburn read the Federalist Papers AND HE WANTS YOU TO READ THEM TOO. On day 1 Coburn spent a lot of time on a convoluted vegetable analogy about what would happen if Congress forced people to eat three vegetables a day. On day 2 he revealed that this analogy had everything to do with Health Care. Somewhere in between, we found out that Coburn thinks the Court’s interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is over-broad.

I was thinking of giving Coburn a C- but dropped him down to a D for this reason: people who are actually conversant with the federalist papers don’t refer to “the federalist papers.” They refer to a specific federalist paper. Perhaps Federalist 41 if he was trying to say that Congress had overstepped its enumerated powers, or maybe Federalist 51 if he wanted to say that the judicial branch had overstepped its power? I don’t really know, I don’t know what the man was trying to say, but specificity would have been more helpful than a prop. Political Science FAIL, Sen. Coburn.

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD): Grade C-
Ben Cardin used his time to explain his life story to a country that doesn’t know who the hell he is. Note: Nobody knows who you are, Senator “Oh that guy” from Maryland or Montana or something.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Grade C+
Sheldon Whitehouse does not think the Court should overturn previous precedent based on 5-4 decisions. He’s cool with 7-2, but 5-4 just has too much of a taste of, oh what’s the phrase, MAJORITY RULE.

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Grade A-
Here’s the bottom line with Senator Klobuchar — you could argue that the Twilight reference was one of the dumbest things ever said in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but the mere mention of Twilight captured the attention of popular culture. Young girls who watch these movies and probably couldn’t identify Elena Kagan if she was coaching their softball team, suddenly had something to care about. If you are not going to ask the nominee anything legally relevant (and Klobuchar did not), doing something that makes the process seem accessible and interesting to young people is probably the most valuable way to spend your thirty minutes.

Ted Kaufman (D-DE): Grade B-
Ted Kaufman knows about corporate law. He has to, it’s part of the job of the Senator for Delaware. Sure, he wasn’t able to communicate this expertise in a way that could possibly keep a person awake for 30 minutes, but style isn’t everything.

Al Franken (D-MN): Grade D-
Al Franken was caught napping and doodling. When he finally got to talk, he engaged in speechifying about arbitration clauses in contracts, and more stuff about Citizens United. He gave Kagan a case synopsis, screwed it up, asked Kagan to pretend that he didn’t screw it up and engage in a hypothetical, and then went back to speechifying.

Just one man’s take.

What do you think? Please vote in the polls below on who you think acquitted themselves well, and who needs to make way for more competent Senators.

Attorney-Client Privilege Is Examined In Gucci v Guess?

Judge Says No Attorney-Client Privilege for Gucci's Non-Licensed GC
By Noeleen G. Walder, New York Law Journal, June 30, 2010

Gucci America Inc. cannot "cloak itself under a veil of ignorance" to avoid handing over to a competitor communications with its former chief in-house counsel, an attorney who was not licensed to practice law, according to a magistrate judge.

After Guess? Inc. sought discovery of the communications in a trademark infringement suit, Gucci claimed that communications with Jonathan Moss were protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Gucci executives insisted that they considered Mr. Moss to be a lawyer, even though they never confirmed his bar status.

In denying Gucci's motion for a protective order, Southern District Magistrate Judge James L. Cott held that Gucci could not justify its "mistaken belief" since the company "was plainly in a position to confirm the extent of [Mr. Moss'] qualifications as a legal professional and failed to do so."

"Gucci cannot now cloak itself under a veil of ignorance to avoid its discovery obligations," Magistrate Judge Cott wrote in Gucci America Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 09 cv 4373. The order, which can be challenged by either party, also directed Gucci and Guess to further brief the issue of whether the attorney work-product doctrine applies to any of the communications at issue.

Mr. Moss, a graduate of Fordham University School of Law, passed the California bar exam in 1993 but went on inactive status three years later.

He was referred to Gucci by two of its outside counsel from Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C., and joined the company's Secaucus, N.J., office in 2002 to analyze real estate financials.

Just months after joining the company, Mr. Moss, who maintains he was hired as a "legal associate," filed a pro hac vice motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District to represent Gucci, according to Magistrate Judge Cott's decision.

In 2003, Gucci promoted Mr. Moss to in-house counsel. In that position, Mr. Moss filed trademark applications in which he was labeled an "attorney-at-law and member of the Bar of California," represented Gucci in employment matters, and appeared before courts and administrative agencies on the company's behalf. In 2005, Gucci once again promoted Mr. Moss, this time appointing him director of legal services. Three years later, Mr. Moss was appointed vice president and director of legal and real estate.

In an affidavit, Mr. Moss said, "I did not believe that my inactive status in California limited my ability to practice law in any other jurisdiction where such practice was permissible."

Mr. Moss insists that no one ever brought up the issue of his inactive status during his eight years at Gucci.

For its part, Gucci has maintained that it "perceived" Mr. Moss to be an attorney authorized to practice law.

In an affidavit, Christy Leleck, a director of Human Resources at Gucci during Mr. Moss' tenure, said she never thought to confirm Mr. Moss' qualifications since "he was already perceived by senior management as the company's lawyer."

It was not until December 2009 that Gucci launched a "preliminary investigation" into Mr. Moss' status.

Gucci terminated Mr. Moss on March 1, a month after he reactivated his bar status in California.

In court papers filed in April, Guess maintained that Gucci could have discovered "with a few clicks of the mouse" that Mr. Moss was not licensed to practice law.

"Gucci could have readily learned that Jonathan Moss was not authorized to practice law simply by asking him whether he was an active member of the California Bar… And this is what Gucci never did in all these years as Gucci's legal counsel."

Magistrate Judge Cott agreed.

"Had Gucci visited the California State Bar website and conducted an attorney search for 'Jonathan Moss,' it would have discovered that Moss had been an inactive member since 1995," he wrote.

Due Diligence Required
However, despite promoting Mr. Moss to legal positions on three occasions, Magistrate Judge Cott found "the record devoid of evidence that, during Moss's eight years of employment with the company, Gucci made any effort to ascertain his qualifications as an attorney."

Even if Gucci hired Mr. Moss to perform administrative work, "once it promoted Moss from a non-legal to a legal position, Gucci was obligated to conduct some due diligence to confirm his professional status as an attorney," Magistrate Judge Cott concluded.

Pointing out that Gucci was "apparently" paying the fee for Mr. Moss' inactive status, the magistrate judge noted that the company could have required Mr. Moss to transfer his inactive status to active as a condition of employment.

Magistrate Judge Cott said Gucci could not justify its "mistaken belief" on the fact that Patton Boggs had recommended Mr. Moss, since he never worked at the firm and was merely "the son of a friend of the firm."

"Gucci itself bears responsibility for allowing its counsel to represent its interests without ensuring that he was authorized to do so," he concluded.

Gucci also has suggested that some of Mr. Moss' communications could be shielded by the work-product doctrine, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, §26(b)(3), which protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Magistrate Judge Cott said that he lacked sufficient information to determine whether the doctrine applied in this case.

In a separate ruling, Magistrate Judge Cott found that he lacked sufficient information to determine whether communications of non-party Vanni Volpi, Guccio Gucci S.p.A's in-house intellectual property counsel, were privileged.

He ordered Gucci to submit a revised privilege log by July 6.

The lead attorney for Guess, Robert Welsh of O'Melveny & Myers' Los Angeles office, declined to comment.

Louis S. Ederer of Arnold & Porter represents Gucci. He did not immediately return a call for comment.

The trademark dispute is before Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Decision

Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 09 Civ. 4373
U.S. District Court, Southern District


Magistrate Judge James L. Cott
LINK

Decided: June 29

Plaintiff Gucci America, Inc. ("Gucci") commenced this action against defendant Guess?, Inc. ("Guess") and other named parties, asserting trademark infringement and related claims arising out of Guess's use of certain trademarks, logos, and designs (Dkt. # 1).1 On April 2, 2010, Gucci made two separate motions for protective orders against the disclosure of the communications of its in-house counsel Jonathan Moss ("Moss"), and the communications of non-party Guccio Gucci S.p.A.'s ("GG") in-house counsel Vanni Volpi ("Volpi"), pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. #62-77). During the course of discovery, Gucci produced a privilege log reflecting, as amended, numerous communications involving Moss and Volpi. This Memorandum and Order principally addresses the motion for a protective order against the disclosure of the Volpi communications. A separate memorandum and order addressing the motion for a protective order against the disclosure of the Moss communications is also being issued today.

With respect to the Volpi motion, the amended privilege log reflects two groups of communications: (i) an investigation between March and June, 2007 of Guess's use of the "Twirl" mark (a mark owned by GG); and (ii) an investigation between March 2008 and May 2009 of Guess's use of Gucci marks and designs that are the subject of this litigation. The Twirl mark is the subject of a lawsuit pending in Milan, Italy between GG and Guess's Italian affiliate, Guess Italia. The Italian lawsuit was commenced approximately four days before this suit was filed. Recognizing that the Volpi communications implicate foreign law, the parties have briefed choice of law. Gucci urges the Court to apply American law to resolve this dispute. Gucci further asserts that Volpi, though not a bar-admitted attorney, acts as an agent or representative of a bar-admitted attorney and therefore under American law the attorney-client privilege extends to his communications. Gucci adds that, even if the Court were to find that Italian law applies, the result should be the same on public policy grounds.

In contrast, Guess argues that the Court should apply Italian law because the Volpi communications "touch base" with Italy. Guess further asserts that, under Italian law, the attorney-client privilege does not extend to a non-attorney professional such as Volpi, and consequently such communications would be subject to disclosure in an Italian litigation. In the alternative, Guess submits that, even under American law, Volpi's communications are not privileged because GG had no reasonable expectation of privacy in its communications with him.

Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that questions of privilege are "governed by the principles of common law." Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 501). The common law includes "choice of law" questions. Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92, 97 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Accordingly, the Court must conduct a choice of law analysis. Courts in this district adopt the comity or "touching base" approach to determine the law that applies to claims of privilege involving foreign documents. The "touching base" analysis focuses on the jurisdiction with the "predominant interest," "the place where the allegedly privileged relationship was entered into," Golden Trade, 143 F.R.D. at 521-22, or "the place in which that relationship was centered at the time the communication was sent." Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 92 Civ. 0381 (WK), 1994 WL 705331, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2004). See also In re Rivastigmine Patent Litig., 237 F.R.D. 69, 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Under this analysis, "'any communications touching base with the United States are governed by the federal discovery rules while any communications related to matters solely involving [a foreign country] are governed by the applicable foreign statute." Golden Trade, 143 F.R.D. at 520.

Applying this standard, the challenged documents seem to implicate both the laws of Italy and the United States. However, the evidentiary record is inadequate to determine which country has a "predominant interest" in the specific communications and, therefore, which law applies to each set of documents. It may be that the same country's laws apply to each of the Volpi communications, but the descriptions provided in the amended privilege log, such as "Guess Twirl Watch," "Investigation into Guess Products," and "Strategic Review and Preparation of Evidence," are insufficient for the Court to determine whether American or Italian law applies.

With respect to the Moss communications, as noted, I have today issued a memorandum and order denying Gucci's motion for a protective order on the basis that the attorney-client privilege applies to those communications. However, Gucci requests, in the alternative, that the Court consider the applicability of the work product doctrine. Just as it is deficient on the choice of law issues, the amended privilege log also provides insufficient information for the Court to determine the basis of Gucci's invocation of the work-product doctrine. Specifically, the Court lacks evidence "as to which of the documents and oral communications…covered by the work-product rule were in fact made principally in anticipation of litigation and which were made principally for other purposes." Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

To facilitate its determination of privilege, a court may require "an adequately detailed privilege log in conjunction with evidentiary submissions to fill in any factual gaps." Bowne, 150 F.R.D. at 474; accord United States v. Constr. Prods. Research. Inc. 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996). At a minimum, a privilege log must "describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Rule 26(b) is supplemented by Local Civil Rule 26.2(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the specific information that must be disclosed when documents are withheld on the ground of privilege. Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Although Gucci's privilege log establishes that Volpi and Moss participated in communications regarding this litigation, the issues raised in both motions require further particularization of the communications.

Accordingly, Gucci is directed to revise its amended privilege log as follows: (i) identify with specificity which of the Volpi communications relate to the instant litigation and which communications relate to the Italian litigation so that the Court can determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies; and (ii) provide a detailed description, beyond the subject matter of the document, sufficient to indicate Gucci's basis for designating each of the communications—involving both Volpi and Moss—as protected from disclosure pursuant to the work-product doctrine. Gucci is further directed to submit the revised amended privilege log to the Court in 12-point font, with a copy served upon all counsel of record, by July 6, 2010.

In revising its privilege log, Gucci is reminded that "neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product privilege protects underlying facts." SR Int'l Bus. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. World Trade Center Prop. LLC, 01 Civ. 9291 (JSM), 2002 WL 1455346, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2002). As the Supreme Court instructed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396(1981), a client "may not refuse to disclose any relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he incorporated a statement of such fact into his communication to his attorney." Gucci is further advised that if it fails to "provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all of the legal requirements for application of the privilege, [its] claim will be rejected." Bowne, 150 F.R.D. at 474 (citing cases).2

Following the production of the revised amended privilege log, the parties are directed to meet and confer promptly to determine if they can agree as to whether any of the documents at issue are protected under the work product doctrine. The parties should advise the Court by letter no later than July 9, 2010 which documents on the revised amended privilege log remain in dispute. In addition, by July 16, 2010, the parties may submit additional memoranda of law, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the work product doctrine issues raised with respect to both the Moss and Vanni communications.

SO ORDERED.

1. Gucci has twice amended its complaint. See Second Amended Compl. (Dkt. #101).

2. While there has been discussion by the parties of in camera review of the documents, at this stage of the proceedings, it would be premature to do so. As Magistrate Judge Dolinger noted in Bowne, such review is not "to be routinely undertaken, particularly in a case involving a substantial volume of documents, as a substitute for a party's submission of an adequate record in support of its privilege claims." 150 F.R.D. at 475. In camera review may be useful if there is "a genuine dispute between the parties as to the accuracy of the withholding party's description of certain documents." Id.

Gucci Fires Lawyer...
LINK

BAR FIGHT: The trademark skirmish between Gucci and Guess Inc. offered up a side dish last week when the luxury firm revealed it recently fired an in-house lawyer after learning he wasn’t an active member of any state bar. According to court documents filed Friday, Gucci America Inc. terminated Jonathan Moss on March 1. Gucci said it discovered in January that Moss’ status with the California bar had been inactive for the whole of his seven-year run as legal counsel with the firm. Guess has sought access to Moss’ communications regarding a trademark infringement lawsuit Gucci brought against it in U.S. District Court in Manhattan last year. Gucci’s disclosure came in a memo backing a motion that the attorney-client privilege should still apply to his involvement in the case. In the memo, Gucci argues Moss is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law and passed the California state bar exam in 1993. In what the company’s lawyer called a “ministerial” change, Moss voluntarily switched his status with the bar from “active” to “inactive” in 1996 because the latter was less expensive to maintain. In invoking attorney-client privilege, Gucci argued that Moss was still a member of the bar despite the status change and that he has been a member of the bar for two of California’s federal courts since 1994. According to the memo, Gucci hired Moss in 2002 in a nonlawyer position and promoted him to in-house legal counsel the next year. The company said it placed him on administrative leave in January after learning of his bar status and later fired him with cause after he admitted he had not been forthcoming. Gucci’s attorney said the company had no comment. — Matthew Lynch

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Stephen Krane, Partner at Proskauer Rose, Dies


Stephen C. Krane, Proskauer Rose General Counsel, Dies
By the Staff of the New York Law Journal

Steven C. Krane, the general counsel of Proskauer Rose and a former state bar president who was instrumental in a wide-ranging reformulation of the state's attorney ethics rules, died of a heart attack Tuesday. He was 53.

Mr. Krane collapsed at the conclusion of a business lunch at a restaurant near Proskauer's office at 47th Street and Broadway. He was pronounced dead at Roosevelt Hospital at 2:19 p.m.

As president of the New York State Bar Association, Mr. Krane spearheaded a new compilation of New York's Rules of Professional Responsibility in 2009. He also led the American Bar Association's legal battle to exempt lawyers from the Federal Trade Commission's "red flag" rule to prevent identity theft.

Mr. Krane was co-chair of Proskauer's law firm practice group, specializing in legal ethics. He was an expert in cross-border legal practice issues. In that area, he worked with both the state bar and ABA in their efforts to persuade foreign governments to liberalize restrictions on lawyers.

Mr. Krane was the youngest person to serve as president of the state bar when he was elected in 2001. As president, he coordinated the efforts of the organized bar to provide legal advice to the families of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Also during his two years as bar president, Mr. Krane established, and then later served as chairman of, a program that provides grants to young lawyers who take public interest jobs to help them pay off student loans.

Last year, Governor David A. Paterson appointed Mr. Krane to the 13-member New York State Commission on Public Integrity. Two years earlier, in 2007, former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye

(pictured at left) appointed him co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law.

Mr. Krane did his undergraduate work at State University of New York at Stony Brook, where he graduated Phi Beta Kapa in 1978. He received his juris doctorate from New York University School of Law in 1981.

Later that year he joined Proskauer as an associate. He was made a partner in 1989.

Ms. Kaye said yesterday in an interview that Mr. Krane, one of her first clerks, was "like a son" to her. She added that Mr. Krane worked closely with her late husband, Stephen R. Kaye, a former Proskauer Rose partner. After Mr. Kaye died, Mr. Krane moved into his office and sat "at the table where Stephen practiced law," she said.

Allen I. Fagin, Proskauer's chairman, said in an interview that Mr. Krane was "a beloved individual, a remarkable human being and lawyer."

Mr. Krane is survived by his wife, Faith, and two children, Elizabeth and Cameron.

The family has not yet announced arrangements.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Amicus Curiae Filed In Anderson v First Department Disciplinary Committee

Iviewit Patentgate Fraud Jumps Into Anderson Appeal
09-5059-CV
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY, Defendants-Appellees


MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038

P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the instant appeal of Christine C. Anderson v. Thomas J. Cahill, et al. (CA2 Docket No. 09-509-cv, filed November 25, 2009). Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption. Additionally, Amicus Curiae have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the relief requested in instant appeal herein, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications.

Date: June 22, 2010

Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
(914) 217-0038

*******************************************
09-5059-CV

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY,
Defendants-Appellees

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038
Table of Contents

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
INTEREST IN THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
A. DISTRICT COURT’S RELIANCE ON ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE
B. IMMUNITY ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ORDER
1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief
2. Explicit §5 Override
3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity
CONCLUSION

Table of Authorities

Cases

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) 9
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983) 7
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 8 -- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908) 8
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) 7
Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) 9
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972) 9 -- U.S.C. 28 §1331 6

Constitutional Provisions

§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 7, 8 -- Eleventh Amendment 7, 8

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1291 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1331 6 -- U.S.C. 42 § 1983 9


IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Amicus Curiae parties in this instant action are Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellants, and Petitioners in the following cases:

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (07-cv-11196, S.D.N.Y filed December 12, 2007), Opinion and Order filed August 8, 2008 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008), Opinion and Order filed January 5, 2010 dismissing appeal, Opinion and Order filed January 22, 2010 denying Motion for Reconsideration.

Lamont, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (Docket No. _____________, U.S., filed April 22, 2010).

INTEREST IN THE CASE

Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption.
Additionally, Amicus Curiae, have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit, whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the Inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the instant appeal, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications. Amicus Curiae’s interests may not be adequately represented by Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson. Thus, Amicus Curiae’s interests, as a practical matter, may be impaired or impeded by its inability to protect these interests without supporting the appeal, particularly given the fact that an adverse ruling by the Court could result in the continuation of the patent sabotage conspiracy, countless unpaid royalties to Amicus Curiae, and the resultant unwillingness of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue patents to Amicus Curiae based on the inventions. It remains at best uncertain whether the current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson’s request for relief will encompass all possible issues related to the whitewashing and corruption in hearing attorney disciplinary complaints. It is much more likely that current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson in this case will only develop the limited issues pertaining to her individual situation and therefore only seek the relief that would provide her individual remedy. Amicus Curiae will bring to the case a variety of fact patterns involving both conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints and the occurrences of civil racketeering among the same group of Defendants, in part; thus, Amicus Curiae’s support sharpens the argument on both sides and provides the Court with a more useful framework of advocacy from which to issue its decision.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
The District Court had jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1331, and issued its Opinion and Order on August 8, 2008. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on August 18, 2008, and the District Court denied the Motion on August 19, 2008. A Notice of Appeal was filed on September 4, 2008, and the Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 § 1291. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on January 5, 2010. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on January 12, 2010, and the Court of Appeals issued its final judgment on January 22, 2010. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on April 22, 2010, and the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1254(1).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Is a fundamental underpinning of Rooker-Feldman doctrine that the proper forum to appeal State court decisions is in State court (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005))?

2. Does §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grant Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment, and if so, does this Amendment abrogate the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment?

3. Is the purpose behind the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure the protection of Plaintiff-Appellant’s constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law?

ARGUMENT

Amicus Curiae maintain the following:

A. District Court’s Reliance on Rooker-Feldman Doctrine - In Amicus Curiae’s proceedings, the District Court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a means to support its Order in granting Amicus Curiae’s Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), makes clear that claim preclusion is a separate doctrine entirely. Exxon stipulates the requisite elements that must be met for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply (See also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983)). None of the factors of Exxon are present in the instant appeal; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine simply does not apply.
B. Immunity Analysis within the Order Regarding Immunity, Amicus Curiae’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, Opposition Memorandums, Appellant Brief, and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari pray for injunctive relief; this was clearly stated.

1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief - The District Court’s bald assertion that in Amicus Curiae’s proceedings the Complaint lacked any foundation upon which the District Court can grant legal relief is clearly erroneous. The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suit against State officers for the kind of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue here. If a State official acts in contravention of the Constitution, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, or in a manner that violates an individual's constitutionally protected rights, suit to enjoin the offending behavior is proper and does not run afoul of a State's sovereign immunity. (See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). Additionally, Ex Parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan provide that the District Court could have provided retroactive monetary relief against an officer sued in his individual capacity, as bringing an action against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate State sovereignty.

2. Explicit §5 Override - §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment; courts have recognized that this new Amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), this Court said that Congress can use its Fourteenth Amendment power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment protection.

3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity. - Furthermore, in their proceedings, the District Court cannot allow Amicus Curiae’s Respondents to use the guise of State authority as a license for violating Amicus-Curiae’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the entire purpose behind the enactment of U.S.C. 42 § 1983 was to secure the protection of individuals' constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law; Section 1983 creates a private cause of action for damages (as well as injunctive relief) against those "persons" responsible for the deprivation (See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972)).
In Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997), the court determined that declaratory and prospective injunctive relief are available, and that the Plaintiff-Appellants' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curaie respectfully supports that this Court reverse the judgment entered herein, with a finding of fact in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant; or if the Court does not feel that it would be justified by the facts in so doing that it should remand the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury, on proper evidence, and under correct instructions as the law may deem just and proper.

Date: June 22, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: (914) 217-0038

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P. RULE 32(a)(7)

The undersigned, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se, furnishes the following in compliance with F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7): I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7) for a brief produced with a proportionally spaced font. The length of this brief is 1365 words.

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: 914) 217-0038

Sunday, May 30, 2010

2d Circuit Issues Summary of Motion To Dismiss Standards Under Iqbal

Adjunct Law Prof. Blog
LINK

I bring Sanders v. Grenadier Realty, Inc, ____Fed. Appx. _____, 2010 WL 605715 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 2010), because it contains a nice concise summary of the new motion to dismiss standards under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). As the court explained:

To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In considering whether a claim is facially plausible, we do not accept legal conclusions as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Thus, the conclusion that defendants discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race and national origin in violation of . . . section[] 1982” does not state a plausible claim to relief. While paragraph 17 does allege facts consistent with a discrimination claim, i.e., that non-black residents were granted subsidies, it nevertheless “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief,” id. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (internal quotation marks
omitted)), because plaintiffs do not allege any facts supporting an inference of racial animus. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the § 1982 claim.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Saturday, May 15, 2010

DA Investigates Claims $40 Million Business "Stolen" With Forged Contracts

Businesswoman Says American Dream Turned to "Nightmare"
LINK

Part One of a Series

Following inquiries by The Black Star News, the District Attorney in Queens County has confirmed that his office is investigating allegations by a Guyanese immigrant that forged signatures on contracts she never signed were used to wrest control of her multi-million dollar businesses by a money lender who was at one time a prospective partner.

The immigrant, Christine Persaud, who's in her 40s, says she never signed partnership agreements with the prospective partner because of several clauses she didn't like in the proposed agreement, including one in which the money lender wanted future disputes to be arbitrated before an individual who had done some work for him in the past.

"Why would I sign a contract where someone says disputes should be taken to someone who has done some work for his family in the past?" says Persaud. She says control of her businesses, which brought in more than $10 million annually, was fraudulently snatched from her.

What's more, even though the prospective investor had only filed a claim for 50% ownership of one business, Caring Home Care, the arbitrator awarded him 100% ownership, more than $2 million in cash, and claims against a second Persaud business, records show.

"They don't even have original copies of these alleged contracts I signed," Persaud adds, referring to the documents used at arbitration to take away her businesses. "I challenge them to produce them so a forensics expert can review them."

"This is robbery," Persaud says, in an interview with The Black Star News. "I will not stop fighting until I expose the robbery and get my businesses back. This can't be allowed to happen in America. They are trying to turn my American dream into an American nightmare," she says, adding that she reported the alleged forgeries to the DA's office a year ago and provided documentation to Jonathan D. Scharf, an assistant district attorney in the Economic and Environmental Crimes Bureau.

She says her former finance manager also misappropriated nearly $200,000, according to an accountant Persaud hired; this manager is now working for the money lender who now controls the businesses Persaud founded.

"There is an ongoing investigation into the Christine Persaud case," says Helen Peterson, spokesperson at DA Richard Brown's Office, when asked about Persaud's allegations of the use of forged contracts to steal her business. "But it would be inappropriate to comment at this time."

Peterson declined to say whether the DA's office had already interviewed Persaud, the forensics expert who compared her signatures to those on the contracts, or any of the lawyers who have handled the case for her. "I am ready and willing to cooperate with the District Attorney or the U.S. Attorney," Persaud says.

Persaud estimates that her three businesses, which she built from scratch, are worth over $40 million. Caring Home Care, which provides nursing and home care services for the elderly, sick people, or those incapacitated, was founded in 1997. Persaud later started Liberty Home Care, as the business expanded, and Christine Nursing Center, for training home care
and nursing aides.

She says she now regrets the day she placed an advertisement in The New York Post in 2007, seeking payroll funding for Caring Home Care. Through the ad placement, she was introduced to a businessman named Abraham Klein.

Even though Caring alone brought in almost $9 million a year, payments for her clients took several weeks; in the meantime there was pressure to meet bi-weekly payroll, she says.

Persaud, a single mother, says at the time she was introduced to Klein, she had a new born --she now has a two and a half year old, and six month old twins, born by a surrogate mother-- so much of the negotiations for the payroll funding was done between Klein and Melquisedec Escobar, Caring's financial manager, a Philippines native whom Persaud sponsored for work papers, records show.

Klein agreed to fund the payroll, retaining 66% of the profit after all expenses cleared, while Persaud got 33%. Some financiers familiar with this line of business say these terms were overly-generous in Klein's favor.

Persaud says things initially went smoothly so she and Klein started negotiating a possible 50/50 partnership in Caring, which had about 300 employees. In addition to the payroll funding, Klein injected $100,000 as down payment on the proposed partnership, Persaud says. Since the health care industry is highly regulated, the partnership was contingent upon
Klein getting licensed by the State Department of Health, Persaud says.

However, if Klein wasn't licensed by the DOH within two years, then his $100,000 would be returned, with a 4% interest, Persaud says, and a copy of the proposed partnership agreement she says she never signed, shows.

Klein then brought his son Joel Klein and brother in law, Philip Gottehrer, to work at Caring, at his own expense, Persaud says. "I did not know they were planning to take my businesses," she says.

Persaud claims even Klein's attorney, Mendel Zilberberg, of Mendel Zilberberg & Associates, P.C., knows that the agreements enforced at arbitration were forgeries because she and an attorney who represented her during the negotiations, Samuel Rieff, had gone to Zilberberg's office at one point to sign the papers; she says she ultimately declined when Zilberberg wouldn't remove the terms she objected to.

When contacted by The Black Star News, Zilberberg declined to speak and through a spokesperson said: "We don't comment about ongoing cases." Through the spokesperson, he also declined to have questions submitted via e-mail message.

Persaud says her dispute with Klein began when he approached her in October 2008, for a $7 million line of credit through Caring Home Care, to finance expansion of a business he said he operated in China. Since she knew nothing about the business, she declined, she says.

A few months later, she learned that Klein had contacted some of her clients and identified himself as Caring's owner, she says. When she objected, he sent her a letter asking that the pair appear before the arbitrator named by Klein in the proposed contract, she says. "I was shocked when I then received the letter. I would have been happy to return his $100,000 with interest. He was not a partner or owner."

Klein has claimed the parties had signed one of the agreements on May 11, 2007, court papers show.

Rieff, the lawyer who represented Persaud during contract negotiations with Klein, later submitted an affidavit dated April 20, 2009 stating that he represented her and Caring Home Care through the end of 2008, during which time she never signed a partnership agreement.

"I was still negotiating terms of a proposed Agreement after May 17, 2007. These negotiations lasted an additional several months without an Agreement being signed," Rieff, the lawyer who represented Persaud, wrote in his affidavit.

Rieff, when contacted by The Black Star News on April 28, 2010, declined to comment about his affidavit, saying: "I don't represent her any longer and I don't comment to the media. I'm not going to answer any questions."

At the time the dispute started, Persaud had also hired another lawyer, Queens-based Eugene Levy, to handle Klein's attempt to take her to the arbitrator, Marvin Neiman, of Neiman & Mairanz, P.C., in Manhattan, whom she says Klein had proposed.

Neiman did not return a telephone message from The Black Star News seeking comment.

Levy had raised questions about the arbitration clause on what Persaud maintains was merely a proposed contract, records show. That section, referring to Persaud and Klein, said that the "parties acknowledge that Mr. Nieman represented some members of the Klein family in the past and hereby waive any conflict of interest." In yet another version of what Klein claims was also a signed document --and Persaud refutes-- the arbitration clause states that the "members acknowledge that Mr. Neiman may have represented some members of the Klein family in the past, and thereby waive any conflict of interest."

"Who in her right mind would sign a contract with that kind of language?" Persaud says. "I'm not that stupid."

Levy, the Persaud attorney wanted the issue addressed. "Unless there is a full disclosure as to your firm's representation of the Klein family we again strongly object to any 'arbitration proceeding' being held," Levy wrote to Neiman, in a letter dated March 17, 2009, and added, "There are serious jurisdictional and ethical issues involved in these contemplated
proceedings. Until the jurisdictional defects of this arbitration have been resolved our client does not submit to the authority of your office as arbitrator."

Nevertheless, in a letter dated March 18, 2009, Neiman countered: "I have reviewed the contents thereof and discovered that the statement in the arbitration clauses of the parties' agreement, that I represented members of the Klein family was incorrect as related to the Klein family in this matter, and was based on a similarity of names with former clients of
mine, so that when the issue was broached to me to serve as arbitrator in this matter, I informed the parties that I believed that I represented the Kleins in the past and that this should be known to all of the parties at the time of the execution of the agreement."

"So first he had represented the Klein family then, after my lawyer objects, suddenly he discovered that he had not represented Abraham Klein's family but another Klein? Who can believe that?" Persaud says.

Neiman also warned Levy in his letter that "if your letter is meant to convey to me that you will default in appearing at the arbitration, please be advised that you do so at your client's peril. The matter will proceed tomorrow as scheduled."

The records show that the arbitration hearing did proceed the next day, on March 19, 2009, at the offices of Neiman & Mairanz. In attendance were Neiman; Abraham Klein and his attorneys, Mendel Zilberberg, and Marvin L. Tenzer, of Tenzer & Lunin, LLP; and, by telephone was Paul Salazar, also of Zilberberg's firm.

The records also show that Zilberberg had asked that the transcripts be sealed. Persaud and her attorney Levy, who had challenged Neiman's qualification to be a neutral arbiter, were not there.

In addition to being awarded control of Caring, the most lucrative of Persaud's three businesses, Klein was also awarded $2,172,607.58, which he claimed he was owed by Caring even though he testified that he had put in about $800,000 in Caring and about $180,000 in Liberty Home Care, records show.

Klein was also awarded 50% claim on Liberty Home Care; he told Neiman during the arbitration that Persaud had also verbally agreed that he would be a partner in Liberty.

"Liberty was not even part of the dispute," Persaud says. "Klein loaned me about $150,00 to launch Liberty when things were still going well. There was no partnership agreement for Liberty because it was a loan. But Neiman gave him Liberty too, without even the benefit of a forged contract," Persaud says. "At least Caring was taken away with forged contracts. This is not nice."

During the arbitration, according to the transcript, Neiman had asked Klein how the money he said he took from Caring to give Persaud, for Liberty, was accounted for, the record shows. Neiman said, "if the money came out of Caring, how is it recorded on Caring's books? Is it recorded as an accrual of your--as a reduction of your liability or is it recorded as investment from Caring?"

"I don't exactly know" Klein had responded.

At the arbitration, three documents were presented as constituting the partnership agreement.

The Black Star News has reviewed copies of the disputed documents. Non of the three documents' signature page refers to an agreement between Klein and Persaud; but rather, Persaud and "X1". Presumably the signatures next to "X1" belongs to Klein.

On the final page of one of the documents, "Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors of Better Hope Home Care Agency, Inc." the typed entity above Persaud's purported signature is identified as "Better Hope Home Care Agency, Inc" and not Caring Home Care.

Even Better Hope is then crossed out with a pen and substituted with "All Borough Community Home Care Inc." Then, there's a signature Persaud maintains is not hers; and there is a signature next to "X1"; presumably Klein's. The space underneath "Attest," presumably where a witness would have signed, is blank. There is no date; there is no notary stamp or
signature.

What's more, the three signatures attributed to Persaud, in the three different documents, all look different from each other. "Maybe they were forging by committee," Persaud says.

Robert F. Bey, president of ALR Forensics, in Rockville Centre, New York, examined the three documents against samples of her signature provided by Persaud and wrote, in a report dated May 11, 2009, that the "range of variation" in
the signature on the documents "contains some significant differences" compared to Persaud's known handwriting, he said.

He concluded, after reviewing additional Persaud signatures that it was "probable" that Persaud was "not the author of the signature" on the documents.

Bey also wondered, in an interview, why no originals of the three documents exist. "These are pretty important documents I must say--all of a sudden all three of them disappear and we just have copies? That's not logical to me."

"There are some indications in the questioned signatures that there may be some hesitation; maybe some slow writing which would be indicative of a forged signature," he said.

Bey, has been subpoenaed by Klein's attorney, Zilberberg, to produce the notes of all the work he's done on behalf of Persaud, on May 18, 2010 at Zilberberg's offices. He said when he asked Zilberberg about originals of the disputed documents, he was told they would be produced if needed.

Separately, Persaud says she informed the Department of Health (DOH) about the alleged fraud but that officials she spoke with took no action. Since Klein wasn't licensed by DOH, Neiman granted him power of attorney to sign Persaud's name, on documents that required DOH licensing, and for anything that he required to operate Caring.

"I'm sorry, but at this time we at the State Health Department will not be able to comment on the questions you have raised about Caring Home Care," said Tom Allocco, a department spokesman, when told by The Black Star that Persaud's allegations about the forged contracts was being investigated by the DA in Queens County.

With respect to the licensing, the Public Health Council had approved a change in Caring's ownership from Persaud to Caring LHCSA, LLC dba Caring Home Care "with Abraham Klein as the sole member of the LLC." He declined to comment when asked how the DA's probe might affect the matter. "How can they make such an approval based on fraud and while my case has now been appealed?" Persaud says.

After the March 19, 2009 session before Neiman, he returned his ruling in Klein's favor on March 31, and Klein moved to have the award confirmed in State Supreme Court in King's County. A hearing date of April 17 was set before Justice Arthur M. Schack.

On April 15, Levy, the Persaud attorney, left a message on the voicemail system in Zilberberg's office, which was closed for Passover observance, asking for an adjournment because he had another case to handle on April 17.

On the day before the hearing before Judge Schack, Levy had his secretary April Fischer, fax an affirmation of actual engagement to the judge's chambers stating that Levy was arguing another case, Pena vs. Occhiogrosso, on April 17, in State Supreme Court in Queens. (It later turns out that Levy had made a mistake; the proper title on his case was actually Pena vs. Pena, a matrimonial matter, on that same date before Judge Sidney Strauss, Index 025075/2006, records show).

Fischer later filed a sworn affidavit stating that she spoke with a member of Judge Schack's staff and was told that the proceeding would be adjourned until June 19, 2009.

Records also show that Zilberberg knew of Levy's request for an adjournement by the morning of April 17; he told his secretary to inform Levy that he was declining.

So, on April 17, 2009, the hearing did proceed before Judge Schack; a judgment was entered on default. Schack later wrote that Levy's affirmation of actual engagement had been defective because it had the incorrect case, no caption, and it didn't provide the name of the judge on the case.

Levy filed a motion to have the default vacated, with corrected papers; Judge Schack declined.

"So I lost my business, twice, without even having my day in court," says Persaud. "Why are they afraid of the evidence? Why not let it be decided on its merits through a trial?"

The Black Star News did not get a response to questions sent via e-mail message to the Unified Court System's spokesperson.

Persaud believes that Klein was assisted in seizing control of her business by Melquisedec Escobar, her former financial manager. She says an accountant discovered that Escobar, who wrote an affidavit claiming that he witnessed Persaud signing a partnership agreement with Klein, had allegedly embezzled at least $191,573 from Caring and Liberty. "Based on
the results of our examination, these actions, if proved in a court of law, could constitute a violation of criminal and/or civil law," the certified public accountant, Ibe Moses Nwankpa, wrote in a report dated March 19, 2009.

According to the accountant, Escobar had been authorizing checks and withdrawal slips to himself. The accountant wrote that Escobar had allegedly diverted $45,073 from Caring; $125,000 from Liberty; and an additional $21,500 were payments made to himself through an account he opened at Citibank, Liberty Ave., Richmond Hill, N.Y., 11419, under the name Mel Escobar/Caring. Most of these alleged thefts occurred between January 2007 and December 2008, the accountant wrote.

Nwankpa did not return a phone message seeking comment from The Black Star.

Escobar was made monitor at Caring by Neiman, and given a raise; he now works for Klein at Caring. Separately, Rabbi Jacob Spitzer, who is heavily involved in healthcare issues, was made the receiver shortly after the Neiman award.

"I don't know about it. You have to speak with our lawyer," Escobar said, when contacted by The Black Star News by telephone and asked about Persaud's allegations that her signatures had been forged on the contracts.

When reminded that he had signed an affidavit dated April 14, 2009, submitted to State Supreme Court in King's County in support of Klein's motion to have the Neiman award confirmed, he said, before hanging up the phone: "I don't know what you're asking. Goodbye."

Persaud says Escobar had been able to use her signature without her knowledge because he had once had her sign a one-page power of attorney, so he could handle Caring's taxes with the Internal Revenue Service. She says when she discovered the alleged Escobar thefts, she wrote to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on April 20, 2009, asking that Escobar's work papers be revoked.

Homeland Security wrote back on April 29, 2009 to inform Persaud that Escobar's work visa had been revoked, the record shows.

"Then I got a contempt order from Judge Schack saying I should have Escobar's work status restored within 24 hours," Persaud says, adding that she did not comply. "I thought the right thing to do is to report a theft."

"This judge is totally against me," Persaud said. "I don't know why he won't recuse himself. Don't I have any rights?"

During a recent hearing before in his chambers, in the presence of Persaud and the opposing counsel Judge Schack noted that Persaud had filed a complaint about him so everything would now have to be done by the book, she said. He was referring to a letter a friend wrote on her behalf, complaining about the judge to Ann Pau, the chief Administrative Judge, New York Unified Court System, Persaud said.

Persaud has been holed up at Liberty Home Care since Klein took total control of Caring a year ago. She says in the last few weeks, Klein's attorneys have been garnishing money from Liberty's clients --even though Neiman had awarded him a 50% claim and total control was to revert to Persaud once Klein was in control of Caring. She says Klein has been
sending letters to Liberty's clients, garnishing funds for services that her workers have already performed.

One of the notices to garnishee that Persaud says is being sent to Liberty's clients bears the letterhead of a City Marshall in Queens, Bruce Frankenberg; with Christine Persaud, and Caring Home Care Agency, as the debtor; Abraham Klein, as the creditor; and, Mendel Zilberberg & Associates, as attorneys for the creditor.

Persaud says if Judge Schack ordered an accounting, the records would show that Klein has more than recovered the $2,172,607.58 "wrongfully awarded" to him, through Caring's revenue. "There was $2.5 million in receivables when the business was taken from me, which more than pays for the gift Neiman gave to Klein," Persaud says. "Why is Judge Schack still allowing Klein to divert my clients when he should have no more interest in Liberty Home Care?"

Neiman's March 31, 2009 decision and award states, "..at such time that Klein is approved as the operator of Caring by the agencies with jurisdiction, Persaud shall then become the owner of Liberty free and clear of any equity claims of Klein therein."

It's unclear under what jurisdiction or authority that Klein continues to interfere with Liberty's business, Persaud says. "He places illegal garnishes on money due to Liberty," she says. "He is making me more determined to expose the truth."

Another attorney who is working on Persaud's case, Lawrence E. Kaye, says, of Schack, "The judge is essentially punishing her for the mistakes of her lawyer."

Persaud says the year-long tussle with Klein has ruined her health. She says since having intestinal surgery last July, she hasn't been able to heal due to the stress. Persaud takes 650 milligrams of Percocet (oxycodone) every four to six hours, to deal with acute severe pain. Still, even though her doctor, Usukumah E. Usukumah, wrote a note on May 10, 2010, Judge Schack has ordered Persaud to appear for deposition before Klein's attorney Zilberberg, who is seeking to uncover assets; the deposition, which started last week, continues tomorrow at the court house in King's County.

Dr. Usukumah, an obstetrician and gynecologist, wrote that "the medication, a narcotic, will definitely interfere with her sensorium and ability to rationally reason. She should be excused from any legal responsibilites until she is clinically well to do so."

In the meantime, another attorney, Stephen Preziosi, filed an appeal on May 3, 2010 to the Second Department, seeking a reversal of Judge Schack's refusal to vacate his confirmation of the Neiman award to Klein.

"He issued a default judgment saying the other side didn't show up when the other side had sent a sworn statement saying I'm engaged in the court room," Preziosi said. "Generally any judge or another attorney would extend the courtesy to
another attorney saying 'okay, you're engaged in anther case, okay so we'll adjourn. We'll put it over to another date when you can be here and litigate on the merits rather than find by default.' Default judgments are frowned upon by all the courts in New York. The courts prefer to judge and decide cases on their merits based on the arguments of both parties not by
default. That's right out of the case law."

Persaud is popular in the Richmond Hill, Queens, neighborhood where she runs her businesses and a few years ago, she started a food pantry, handing out groceries to needy families every Friday afternoon, in front of her business. She says in the beginning, about 20 people showed up; now she hands out food to about 500 people each Friday afternoon.

Last Friday, several of these families showed up to demonstrate in her support, with some men and women on wheelchairs, holding signs that read "Hands off Liberty," and "Stop Feasting On Other People's Labor."

Persaud said: "I don't know how I can help them if they steal all my businesses."

The Black Star News is an investigative newspaper. Please send e-mail messages to milton@blackstarnews.com or call (212) 481-7745 if you have documentation about cases that need to be investigated.

"Speaking Truth To Empower."

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Senator John Sampson, Now Also "Of Counsel" To Belluck & Fox, Has Reached Past The Middle Towards The Top


Albany
Senate's John Sampson Scores Big With Law Firm
By Tom Robbins, Monday, Jan. 4 2010 @ 10:02AM
LINK

It's good to be the king! State senate leader John Sampson - who only a few months was just another Court Street lawyer scurrying for cases in Brooklyn - has hit the big time. The Post reports that the Democratic majority leader is now "of counsel" to one of the state's biggest personal injury law firms, Belluck & Fox.

As the Post's Brendan Scott points out, this gives the powerful state Trial Lawyers Association a pair of bookends at both sides of the state legislature: Assembly speaker Shelly Silver has a similar gig with another P.I. giant, Weitz & Luxenberg.

Sampson spokesman Austin Shafran told the Post that his boss's new gig "never will be in conflict with his official duties." But he declined to talk turkey about the size of Sampson's new paycheck. Under current state ethics laws, Sampson doesn't have to say. But if the ethics reform package now pending in the senate passes, both Sampson and Silver will have to disclose the range of their incomes, including a new category for those earning over seven-figures. Any clients who do state business must also be disclosed. The current porous ethics disclosure rules allowed Sampson's predecessor, former Republican senate boss Joe Bruno, to secretly pull in millions, a scheme that led to his conviction in Albany federal court last month.

There also could be some political tea leaves to be read here: Sampson has been trying to duck questions about his preferences for this year's gubernatorial race, but Joseph Belluck, the lead partner in Sampson's new firm, has already voted - and heavily - with his pocket book. Campaign records show the lawyer has already anted up $55,900 to Cuomo's swollen campaign chest, which is expected to show a total of some $16 million when disclosed later this month. Belluck is also a major donor to the Democratic Senate Campaign committee, now headed by Sampson, giving $22,500 since 2006. Belluck was also a big booster of ex-gov Eliot Spitzer, donating $60,000 to him between 2004 and 2007. He gave another $16,200 to Paterson back in May 2006 when the former state senator was running as Spitzer's number two. Records show Belluck hasn't contributed directly to Paterson since then.

Albany
And Now Introducing State Senate Leader John Sampson ...
By Tom Robbins, Tuesday, Jun. 16 2009
LINK

Here are a few highlights on the career of John Sampson, the south Brooklyn state senator who is taking the reins from now-deposed state senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith.

- Like Smith, Sampson is a soft-spoken pol who hasn't made a huge impression since he was elected to the senate in 1996. Also like Smith, Sampson has long held a large warm spot in his heart for the real estate industry, whose clout remains undiminished in Albany, be it Democrats or Republicans.

- A former Legal Aid attorney, Sampson figured out early in his career that there was more money to be made representing landlords than tenants. He hooked up with the law firm of Alter & Barbaro, headed by another ex-tenant lawyer who had seen the light, B. Mitchell Alter.

- Alter, a true wild man of the Court Street bar, recognized talent when he saw it. "Yeah, I encouraged him to think about politics," Alter told the Voice in 2005. "I said, 'You are a good-looking guy, you talk well. Politics might be a good thing for you.'"

- Sampson beat longtime incumbent Howard Babbush, a hack from the Thomas Jefferson Democratic club. It helped that Babbush had been a notorious semi-show in Albany for years; also that the senator had claimed for a decade that he was too ill to face larceny charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in a wide-ranging case against Albany pols.

- Sampson, whose father came from Guyana, won handily with the backing of then Democratic county leader Clarence Norman.

- Fast forward to 2005 when Norman himself faced indictment on multiple charges of embezzlement by District Attorney Joe Hynes, and Sampson decided to run for D.A. Norman was busy going to trial all through the primary season but he still rooted for his candidate. "I will be doing everything in my power to get rid of Joe Hynes by telling all of the people I can to vote for John Sampson," Norman told the Voice as he entered criminal court shortly before the primary election.

- Hynes' aides were so worried about Sampson winning and moving to quash all of the pending Norman investigations that they planned to bar him from the office until his inauguration, sources said.

- Sampson's resume didn't impress everyone. The Bar Association found him unqualified, saying he just didn't have the experience for the job. It hardly mattered. Sampson, the only African American in the campaign, finished a close second to Hynes in a four-way race, giving the D.A. (who has no significant primary opponent so far this year) a good scare.

- One more special highlight from the D.A. race was Sampson's trip to Israel with another wild man supporter, Democratic Assemblyman Dov Hikind from Brooklyn's Borough Park. There, Sampson saw something he really didn't like: orthodox Jewish settlers being ousted from illegal settlements in Gaza. "This in certain ways is like slavery in America," said Sampson.

- Finally, Sampson could use the exposure his new post will bring: His current senate campaign committee lists just $1,041 in the bank.

Attention, ladies and gentlemen of the Greater Albany League of Lobbyists: The bar is now open!

Cuomo Said to Have $16 Million to Oust N.Y. Governor Paterson
LINK

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has raised $16 million in a campaign to challenge Democratic Governor David Paterson in 2010 for the state’s top job, according to a person familiar with his plans.

Cuomo, 51, also a Democrat, has hired five professional fundraisers since January and has set a goal of taking in $20 million by Jan. 15, a person familiar with his plans said. He had amassed more than $10 million in campaign funds as of July, according to the state Board of Elections.

“Twenty million dollars -- that’s the number that gets you in the door, and it will probably dwarf what Paterson has available,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Manhattan-based political consultant who ran statewide campaigns for H. Carl McCall in the 2006 governor’s race and for Eliot Spitzer in 1998 in his state attorney general contest.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has decided not to run for governor, according to a person familiar with his plans. That makes it more difficult for Cuomo to argue Paterson should step aside, as White House officials had asked him to. Paterson, 55, was under pressure not to run, partly because polls showed he would lose to Giuliani, an unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

A Nov. 16 Siena Research Institute poll showed Giuliani beating Paterson in a governor’s race, 56 percent to 33 percent. The poll showed Cuomo would beat Paterson, 75 percent to 16 percent in a primary election. The survey of 800 voters had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Paterson’s Unpopularity

“I have a hard time seeing Paterson survive a Democratic primary challenge if he had to face one from Cuomo,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College in Manhattan. “I don’t think Paterson’s unpopularity can turn around that easily.”

The Democrats’ gubernatorial nominee may affect the success of other politicians on the ticket, including those running for the Legislature, which will determine new boundaries for U.S. congressional districts based on the 2010 census. The next governor will also take the lead in solving the state’s deficit, now estimated at $10 billion through March 2011, through spending cuts or tax increases.

“There’s a lot at stake nationally here,” said Douglas Muzzio, a professor of urban politics at Baruch College in Manhattan. “A disaster at the top of the ticket could bring some of them down.”

By March Cuomo, who was a U.S. Housing & Urban Development secretary under President Bill Clinton, intends to announce his candidacy by the end of March, according to two friends who described private conversations with him this month and last and asked not to be identified because the talks were confidential.

The attorney general’s strategy is to build on goodwill won since becoming the state’s chief prosecutor, the friends and political professionals said. The attorney general’s probes have targeted alleged abuses among student-loan companies, executive bonuses and alleged collusion among health insurers.

In an e-mailed statement released through Richard Bamberger, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, Cuomo declined to discuss his political intentions for 2010.

“The attorney general has been clear that his focus remains doing the best job possible for the people of New York as attorney general,” Bamberger wrote. “Next year is an election year, and he’ll deal with the politics then.”

Jennifer Bayer, one of Cuomo’s fundraisers, denied there was a plan to run for governor.

“The only discussion there has ever been is about an attorney general campaign,” she said in an e-mail.

Paterson’s Funds

Paterson’s funds total about $5 million, said Richard Fife, his campaign manager. “We will have all the money we will need to win this race.”

The governor began advertising on television in early November, Fife said in a phone interview.

Fife declined to say whether Paterson expects a challenge from Cuomo.

“Andrew Cuomo has said he’s running for attorney general, and we take him at his word,” Fife said. “We’re planning our campaign around the governor’s record. We’re getting the message out, and we’re moving forward.”

Spitzer had raised $19 million by January of 2006, the year he ran for governor, according to state campaign records -- about $1 million less than Cuomo’s goal.

Paterson, who took office after Spitzer resigned amid a call-girl scandal in March 2008, has a job-approval rating that’s been stuck at about 30 percent or below since May, according to public opinion surveys.

Historic Lows

“His ratings have dropped to the lowest point of any governor in New York history, including Spitzer at the height of the sex scandal, since we started conducting surveys in 1983,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, New York.

In a Sept. 24 survey, Marist reported that only 17 percent of state voters rated Paterson’s performance positively, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

The White House political director told Paterson that President Barack Obama had lost confidence in the governor’s ability to win the 2010 election, especially if Giuliani were to be the Republican candidate, the New York Times said, citing two unidentified Democrats.

Even without a Giuliani threat, Paterson would have to overcome the popularity of Cuomo, whose “favorability” rating is 70 percent among Democrats, according to the Nov. 16 Siena Research poll.

Cuomo’s entry into the governor’s race would begin a battle between scions of two New York Democratic dynasties.

Two Scions

The attorney general is the son of three-term former Governor Mario Cuomo while Paterson is the son of Basil Paterson, an attorney and a member of the Harlem-based political organization that produced former New York Mayor David Dinkins and U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, both Democrats.

Cuomo’s unannounced campaign has featured fundraisers at which talk of the governor’s race has been muted.

On Nov. 3, about 70 supporters paid $1,000 to $5,000 at an event in an 18th-floor apartment with terraces overlooking Central Park in the 37-story art-deco Sherry-Netherland hotel on Fifth Avenue. Cuomo spoke about the need for public integrity and his opposition to higher taxes at the Election Day fundraiser.

“It was a mesmerizing venue with breathtaking views that showed New York at its best,” said Ravi Batra, 54, a New York attorney who said he donated $5,000 that night to Cuomo’s campaign committee, titled “Andrew Cuomo 2010.”

$75,000 Raised

At the cocktail party, which two organizers said raised about $75,000, Cuomo “didn’t talk about running” to unseat Paterson, said New York billionaire John Catsimatidis, 61, who hosted the event in the apartment of Liberty Travel Inc. founder Gilbert Haroche. Another person who attended and asked, like the organizers, not to be identified said the attorney general told him privately he may announce plans as early as January to seek the governor’s job.

“He hasn’t publicly said he’s running,” said Sheinkopf, the McCall adviser. “He’s only making certain he’s ready to go.”

In 2002, Cuomo opposed McCall, who is black, for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Cuomo abandoned the effort after black Democratic leaders warned they wouldn’t support him if he won the nomination. McCall, 74, a former state comptroller, was aligned with the same Harlem-based political organization that helped Paterson, who is black, become a state Senate minority leader and Spitzer’s choice for lieutenant governor.

Experience Counts

Batra said he backed Cuomo because of his experience, first as a political adviser to his father, Mario, who was governor from 1983 to 1994, and later as HUD secretary from 1997 to 2001.

Andrew Cuomo became attorney general in 2007 and immediately generated headlines with investigations revealing kickbacks, gifts and free trips to colleges and financial aid officers by firms in the $85 billion student-loan industry.

He got AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Inc., two of the largest U.S. Internet service providers, to sign agreements to remove child-pornography Web sites from their servers and to block access to child-porn newsgroups. He forced companies such as American International Group Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. to disclose bonuses received after they received taxpayer aid.

In 2008, Cuomo and other regulators got Citigroup Inc., UBS AG and Merrill to agree to buy back billions in debt to settle claims they improperly touted auction-rate securities as safe, cash-like investments. Banks managing the auctions abandoned the $330 billion market in February 2008, stranding investors who could no longer sell the securities.

Guilty Plea

Last month, Cuomo obtained a guilty plea from Raymond Harding, former chairman of the state Liberal Party, who admitted he took more than $800,000 to do political favors for Alan Hevesi, 68, a former state comptroller. Cuomo is investigating fees paid to a Hevesi associate by investment firms seeking business with the state pension fund, which Hevesi oversaw.

An outgrowth of that investigation has been a Cuomo-drafted code of conduct barring use of so-called placement agents, middlemen who receive payments from investment firms to help them get contracts managing public pension funds.

Cuomo’s successes and poll ratings stand in contrast to his status in 2002, when he backed out of the race against McCall and then was the subject of news reports detailing his divorce from Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, the U.S. senator from New York who was assassinated while campaigning for the U.S. presidency in 1968.

Low Polls

Paterson has blamed his low poll ratings on the state’s budget crisis, which has required him to recommend unpopular spending reductions. Unions responded to proposed cuts to health programs and school aid last year with a television ad campaign directed against him.

In recent weeks, Cuomo has traveled the state, attracting headlines in local newspapers by making appearances to help Democrats raise money. Since Labor Day, he’s held fundraising events at the rate of about one a week.

They included an Oct. 20 gathering of real estate industry backers at the Princeton Club hosted by John Zuccotti, chairman of Brookfield Financial Properties Inc.; a Nov. 16 luncheon in Washington, D.C., organized by Anthony Podesta, a lobbyist whose brother, John, headed Obama’s transition team; and a Nov. 18 breakfast at Manhattan’s Sheraton New York for attorneys. Another Sheraton event, a “birthday celebration for Andrew,” is planned for Dec. 17.

No Doubt

“I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s running for governor,” said Peter Harvey, a partner in the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, as he walked out of the Nov. 18 Sheraton fundraiser.

Cuomo no longer makes his pitch for money by telling supporters he needs funds to get re-elected attorney general. When a reporter asked him on Oct. 29 if he was running for governor, he said: “Next year we’ll talk about next year.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Henry Goldman in New York City Hall at hgoldman@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 20, 2009 00:01 EST