Wednesday, February 26, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Victims of Allen Sanford's Ponzi Scheme May Sue

Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who is serving 110 years in prison for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme,
arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012.


U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers

LINK

Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue to recoup losses from lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with the convicted swindler, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
 On a 7-2 vote, the court held that lawsuits filed in state courts can go forward. The majority said the ruling would not affect the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to enforce securities law as some had feared.

Stanford's fraud involved the sale of bogus certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. He is serving a 110-year prison sentence.

New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments Co and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

"It's clear the justices understood that ruling for the defendants would create an immunity that Congress never imagined," said Tom Goldstein, a lawyer representing the former Stanford clients.

Representatives from the two law firms said that when the case returns to the lower court the defendants would move to dismiss the suit on other grounds.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security, which is defined as a security listed on a national exchange at the time the alleged unlawful conduct occurred.

As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, "it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be - or should be - concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits," Breyer wrote.

IMPACT ON SEC

The Obama administration, representing the SEC, had sided with the defendants to try to protect the agency's authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.

The administration said the "in connection with" language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion that the ruling would have a negative impact on the SEC because it "casts doubt on the applicability of federal securities law to cases of serious securities fraud." Kennedy was joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.

Securities law experts backed the majority's view that the ruling was relatively narrow.

Donald Langevoort, a professor of law at Georgetown University, said he was "very surprised" the SEC tried to argue that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could diminish the government's enforcement powers.

"The opinion is imminently correct as a matter of common sense and legal policy," Langevoort said.

Charles Smith, of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP who represents clients before the SEC, said the agency would be comforted by the limited scope of the ruling.

"The decision is crafted in a way that is intended not to interfere with the SEC's enforcement authority," he said.

The SEC, via a spokesman, declined to comment.

The defendants had sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.

The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court previously held that similar "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.

The class-action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a SEC probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing byHoward Goller, G Crosse and Amanda Kwan)

Obama Campaign Pocketed Ponzi Schemer Cash

The Center for Public Integrity | Posted 01.23.2014 | Politics
The Center for Public Integrity Obama isn't the only politician who has declined to return Stanford campaign contributions to help make Stanford's defrauded investors whole. A total of 39 candidates and committees have kept their campaign funds despite the pleas by the receiver.

Ponzi Schemer's Alleged Cohorts Face Charges

Reuters | Posted 10.31.2012 | Business
WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators charged former officials of Stanford Group Co for their role in the demise...

VOTE: The Worst Financial Scandal Of All Time

The Huffington Post | Mark Gongloff | Posted 08.13.2012 | Business
Lots of people out there are saying the Libor scandal is the worst financial scandal of all time. But how can we even know such a thing? There's only ...

110 YEARS IN PRISON

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 08.14.2012 | Business
HOUSTON -- Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford had plenty of things to say Thursday before a federal judge sentenced him to 110 years in...

Convicted Ponzi Schemer Blames U.S. For Destroying His Business

Reuters | Posted 06.14.2012 | Business
Allen Stanford, facing sentencing for running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, on Thursday blamed the U.S. government for ruining his business and said he n...

Politicians Won't Return Ponzi Payoffs

Michael Winship | Posted 05.09.2012 | Politics
Michael Winship Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford was convicted on 13 out of 14 criminal counts of fraud. But what most stories failed to mention was the large amount of his clients' cash that was spent on campaign contributions, greasing the corrupt nexus of money and politics for personal gain.

Victims: Ponzi Schemer's Conviction Is 'Bittersweet'

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.07.2012 | Business
HOUSTON — A prosecutor asked jurors on Wednesday to allow federal authorities to seize $330 million from nearly 30 accounts controlled by convic...

The Wheels On the Justice Bus Go Slowly Round And Round

The Huffington Post | Mark Gongloff | Posted 03.07.2012 | Business
You need eight ounces to make a cup, but only seven and a half things are necessary for knowing each day. Here's your daily allotment: Thing One: S...

Houston Financier Convicted Of $7 Billion Investor Fraud

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.06.2012 | Business
HOUSTON — Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford spent more than 20 years charming investors, who handed him billions of dollars they had spent their li...

Marcus Baram

Volcker Rule Limps To Finish Line

HuffingtonPost.com | Marcus Baram | Posted 01.18.2012 | Business
"The Watchdog" is back off the leash, with more bark and bite. After a six-month break to focus on some other duties here at HuffPost, I'm happy to be...

SEC Ramping Up Efforts To Stop Hedge Fund Fraud

The Huffington Post | Alexander Eichler | Posted 12.28.2011 | Business
Memo to hedge fund managers: It's a bad time to try to overachieve. The Securities and Exchange Commission is cracking down on hedge fund fraud, and t...

Former S.E.C. Official Subject Of Criminal Probe

Reuters | Sarah N. Lynch | Posted 07.14.2011 | Business
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal criminal authorities are investigating whether a former U.S. securities regulator inappropriately represented alleg...

PRISON MATES

Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
Jailed financier Allen Stanford has been moved to a prison hospital in Butner, North Carolina, to treat his addiction to anti-anxiety medication, ac...

Accused Ponzi Schemer Stanford Sues Fed For $72 Billion

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
HOUSTON — Jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford has filed a lawsuit accusing prosecutors and federal agents of depriving him of his constitutiona...

Accused Ponzi Schemer Stanford Heads To Prison Hospital

Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
Allen Stanford, accused of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, is on the way to a prison hospital to receive treatment for addiction to anti-anxiety medica...

Alleged Ponzi Schemer Stanford Ruled Unfit To Stand Trial

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
HOUSTON — A judge has ordered that former Texas billionaire and financier R. Allen Stanford, awaiting trial on charges he bilked investors out o...

SEC May Charge Allen Stanford's Brokers

Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
HOUSTON: U.S. regulators have notified some brokers who worked for indicted financier Allen Stanford that they may face civil fraud charges, the Fina...

Allen Stanford's Execs Knew He Was Bilking Investors, Witness Says

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
HOUSTON — Executives who worked with Texas financier R. Allen Stanford were aware of problems at his now defunct Caribbean bank, including fabri...

Madoff: "Screw the Victims"

Norb Vonnegut | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
Norb Vonnegut I just returned from Nino's in Manhattan, where the authors of The Club No One Wanted to Join gathered to discuss their book. They are a group of twenty-nine investors in Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Jason Linkins

SEC IG's Report On Allen Stanford Investigation Underreported

HuffingtonPost.com | Jason Linkins | Posted 05.25.2011 | Media
As big a fan as I am of strong financial regulatory reform, I'm also something of an SEC skeptic, dating back to that time President Barack Obama appo...

Stanford, Texas Billionaire, Attempts To Get Out Of Jail A Third Time

AP | JUAN A. LOZANO | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
HOUSTON — Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's attorneys said Tuesday that jail has reduced their client to a "wreck of a man" who is severely de...

Pete Sessions Spokesman Defends 'I Love You' Email To Allen Stanford

Posted 05.25.2011 | Politics
The Miami Herald reported on Sunday that Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) once penned a love note of sorts to jailed financier Allen Stanford. "I love yo...

The Most Scandalous White-Collar Cases Of 2009 (PHOTOS)

Huffington Post | Mallika Rao | Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
Bernie Madoff is only one of the white-collar offenders exposed this year for bilking the country out of millions. Whether stealing from dying family...

AP: Ponzi Busts Nearly Quadrupled In 2009

Posted 05.25.2011 | Business
(AP -- CURT ANDERSON) - It was a rough year for Ponzi schemes. In 2009, the recession unraveled nearly four times as many of the investment scams as ...

Rep. Gregory Meeks Travelled On Tab Of Conman Allen Stanford

on the tab of con artist | By Greg B. Smith | Posted 05.25.2011 | New York
Queens Democrat, Rep. Gregory Meeks, sometimes accompanied by his wife, Simone-Marie, took six trips to sun-drenched locales from Antigua to St. Lucia...


                          

Friday, February 14, 2014

Mayor Bill Makes A Call To the NYPD, Gets A Friend Set Free and Would Do It Again

Mayor Bill De Blasio and Reverend Orlando Findlayter
 

de Blasio on pastor arrest: Phone call was ‘absolutely appropriate’

, Feb 13, 2014

Mayor de Blasio on Thursday defended his decision to ring an NYPD boss about a pastor pal’s arrest, saying the controversial call was “absolutely appropriate.”
De Blasio also wouldn’t rule out making similar calls in the future, saying such decisions are “made on a case by case basis.”
“It’s absolutely appropriate if I make an inquiry,” de Blasio told reporters, addressing for the first time the criticism that he’d used his influence to help a political benefactor who’d been instrumental in delivering black votes for the mayor.
De Blasio insisted that the phone call he made to a police spokeswoman on behalf of pastor Orlando Findlayter — who was sprung from jail soon after the call — was merely an above-board request for information.
“A prominent member of the clergy was facing an unusual situation,” he said of Findlayter, who’d been pulled over Monday night in East Flatbush for turning without signaling.
Findlayter was being kept in custody due to his having a suspended license and two open arrest warrants for failing to go to court after an October bust at an immigration protest.
De Blasio appeared impatient and dismissive in turn as he spoke to reporters during a press conference on the snow emergency, held at the Office of Emergency Management in downtown Brooklyn.
The mayor said he had found out about Findlayter’s arrest from an aide, Emma Wolf, and then “made an inquiry’ with NYPD spokeswoman Kim Royster.
He stressed that the decision to release Findlayter came from the precinct commander. “The precinct commander made a professional decision,” based on the fact that the open warrants were only for a civil disobedience arrest, he said.
The precinct moved independently and quickly, the mayor said. “By the time I even got an answer the decision had been made,” he said.
“I thought the police commander handled it well,” he added.
De Blasio also stressed that he did not call Police Commissioner Bill Bratton over the matter.
The mayor’s call on behalf of Findlayter — essentially a pastor without a bricks and mortar church after he fell behind in his rent at his New Hope Christian Fellowship church in East Flatbush — has been widely condemned as a tacit instruction to cops to let his buddy go.

Mayor de Blasio calls a top cop after pal arrested — and then the friend is freed

Mayor de Blasio spokesman Phil Walzak confirmed that the mayor called a top police official early Tuesday morning to find out more about the arrest of Bishop Orlando Findlayter, a member of Mayor de Blasio’s transition team, who was wanted on two outstanding warrants.

 
 LINK
Comments (142)
Updated: Wednesday, February 12, 2014, 11:20 AM
A church pastor with outstanding warrants — and a position on Mayor de Blasio’s inaugural committee — dodged a night in the slammer after Hizzoner made a call to one of the city’s top cops.
Bishop Orlando Findlayter, 50, was released from custody early Tuesday after de Blasio inquired about his status.
RELATED: PASTOR, BISHOP, NUN AMONG 10 ARRESTED AT NYC IMMIGRATION REFORM RALLY

It was not clear how many other prisoners were released without seeing a judge that night, but people with warrants are usually held until the matter is cleared up in court.
Sgt. Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, said the minister should have gone to jail.

RELATED: OBAMA URGES CONGRESS TO COMPLETE WORK ON IMMIGRATION BILL

Bishop Orlando Findlayter is out of jail after his arrest Monday on outstanding warrants
stemming from the clergyman's involvement in an immigration reform protest.


“We don’t let you go. You’re not supposed to let them go. It’s a court order from a judge,” he said. “We can’t circumvent that. This is not a common practice. But I get it. I realize you’re the mayor and you got all kinds of friends.”
Still, cops and de Blasio deny Findlayter got special treatment in this bizarre story that reads like “A Jail of Two Cities.”
RELATED: IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD BE YEARS OFF

Pro-immigration reform activists Bishop Orlando Findlayter and Sister Susan Wilcox are led to a police
van after being arrested in October during a protest outside the ICE Immigration Detention Center.
“Did the mayor call me last night about this particular person and his status?” Deputy Chief Kim Royster told the Daily News. “Yes he did.”
The mayor made the call after members of a local clergy council contacted him and the NYPD after Findlayter’s arrest.
RELATED: TIME TO PRESS GOP ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
Bishop Orlando Findlayter (left) was arrested Monday for outstanding warrants related to his
immigration reform protests in October.
 


The church of Bishop Orlando Findlayler, who was arrested Monday after a traffic stop, leading to
cops discovering two outstanding warrants.
While running a check, police learned Findlayter had an aggravated suspended license due to a lapse in auto insurance, Royster said. Cops took Findlayter to the 67th Precinct stationhouse, where they discovered two outstanding warrants stemming from his Oct. 16 arrest during an immigration protest.
By then, it was too late to take Findlayter to Brooklyn arraignment court before it closed at 1 a.m.
Following de Blasio’s call, Royster spoke with Deputy Inspector Kenneth Lehr, commander of the 67th Precinct. She said Lehr had also been contacted by local clergy. The inspector was already at the stationhouse preparing to give the pastor a desk appearance ticket when she spoke to him, she said. Royster said Lehr told her: “‘Why have a clergyman in the command in jail overnight?’” Lehr, who has worked with Findlayter on community issues, personally released him.
“Did the mayor in any way persuade or say anything to whether or not this person would be arrested or released? Not at all,” Royster said. She added “it’s not unusual” for her to get calls from city officials about individuals taken into custody.
Findlayter, who could not be reached for comment, appeared in court Tuesday and the warrants were vacated, officials said.
With Chelsia Rose Marcius and Kerry Burke


NYPD Denies Access To FOIL Unit Training Manual



NYPD rejects request for its freedom of information handbook

Records access officer claims all FOIL training materials fall under attorney-client privilege

FOI Requests:
I have written a number of times about ongoing difficulties with the New York Police Department's FOIL Unit. From rejecting routine requests to claiming "inability to locate" documents even when provided with a form number, NYPD seems hellbent on obstructing access to its records.
But this latest rejection beats all, and flies in the face of Commissioner Bratton's numerous public statements since assuming office that "there should be no secrets in the NYPD."
Last week, NYPD's freedom of information squad determined that its own handbook is exempt from disclosure under FOIL, New York's public records statute.
NYPD FOIL guide rejection letter
In an interesting interpretation of the attorney-client privilege, NYPD claims that it has no obligation to disclose its methods of processing requests for public documents. As I explain in my appeal letter, printed below, this line of reasoning plumbs concerning depths of absurdity.
I very much hope that a competent lawyer who is familiar with NYPD's obligations under FOIL prepared the department's records request manual and training materials. But just because something was prepared or reviewed by an attorney does not mean that an agency can withhold it. If this were true, the vast majority of policy documents prepared by any agency counsel would be immune from disclosure, as would most talking points memos, reports and communiques that endure lawyerly vetting. This is simply not how attorney-client privilege is meant to work.
Of all the divisions that make up NYPD, the Freedom of Information Law Unit ought to be the most transparent. Its policies and protocols are not "confidential communications." Such secretive agencies as the NSA, FBI and the Department of Defense have released their FOIA handbooks and request processing guides with minimal redactions, and even posted them online proactively.
That this latest rejection undercuts Commissioner Bratton's commitment to "do more to open up the organization, to make it more inclusive, to make our information more readily available to the public." That it would come from the public records office speaks to the department's seeming impression that NYPD is above public accountability entirely.


From Shawn Musgrave to New York City Police Department on Feb. 12, 2014:
Jonathan David
Records Access Appeals Officer
New York City Police Department
One Police Plaza - Room 1406
New York, NY 10038-1497


February 12, 2014 


Mr. David:
I am writing to appeal the rejection of 14-PL-0006, in which I requested "Any manual, training reference or other guide by which members of the NYPD FOIL unit are trained on the application of FOIL and processing of FOIL requests."
By the attached rejection letter, Lt. Mantellino of the FOIL unit asserts that NYPD's FOIL manual itself is exempt from release under the attorney-client work privilege, as are the department's FOIL training materials. To put it lightly, Lt. Mantellino's is not the appropriate application or interpretation of the attorney-client work privilege. Just because something was prepared by an NYPD attorney does not mean that it qualifies as an attorney work product and thus exempt from release under FOIL. I would expect that most documents, particularly policy and protocol documents as I have requested, were prepared or at least reviewed by an attorney. Just as having an investigator review a particular document does not make that document exempt as an investigative record, lawyerly involvement does not magically render these documents exempt by virtue of having crossed an attorney's desk.
Rather, it is the content of the requested document that determines whether it is exempt. The attorney-client work privilege is meant to guard frank assessments of law as applicable to sensitive issues, particular incidents and litigation. This exemption does not apply to general documents that outline a department's protocols and policies. Such secretive agencies as the NSA, FBI and the Department of Defense have released their FOIA handbooks and protocol guides with minimal redactions, and even posted them online in full. I would assume (and hope) that teams of attorneys from each agency compiled and scrupulously reviewed these guidebooks, but their records officers would never dream of invoking attorney-client privilege as NYPD has done here.
I would be remiss if I did not highlight the symbolic significance of this particular rejection, especially in the context of so many absurd rejections that have issued from the NYPD FOIL unit over the past year. Out of all NYPD's offices, one might assert that the Freedom of Information team ought to be among the more transparent. This latest rejection belies this assumption even more than previous ones. In past rejections, the FOIL unit has claimed "inability" to locate documents even when I have painstakingly described them down to precise form number. Lt. Mantellino has also invoked exemptions for documents that New York courts ordered releasable in the past two or three years. In this case, NYPD's Records Access Officer has rejected a request for documents about the very process of transparency itself within the department. Rejecting such requests in slapdash fashion does little to inspire confidence in NYPD's competence or good faith in fulfilling its obligations under FOIL.
I would respectfully request an immediate reversal of this rejection and prompt delivery of the requested documents. Please let me know if I can clarify the request in any way.
Best,
Shawn Musgrave
MuckRock

Want to submit a records request to NYPD or any other government agency? Join MuckRock today and stay up-to-date on FOIA news by signing up for our mailing list, or by following us on Twitter and liking us on Facebook.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

NY Senator John Sampson is Indicted Again For Lying To The FBI About a Brooklyn Liquor Store

From Betsy Combier:

Question: Former Senate Judicial Committee Chair John Sampson lying again to the FBI? Who would have thought that this elected official, with the NYS judiciary and Attorney General on speed-dial would be so corrupt?

Answer: everyone in New York State

LINK
Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn announced a new indictment of Sen. John Sampson on Monday. It alleges he lied to the FBI concerning questions about directing members of his Senate staff to take actions to benefit a Brooklyn liquor store in which Sampson secretly held an ownership interest.
Jimmy Vielkind, now of Capital NY, first reported on Sampson’s involvement with the retailer for the TU last May.
He already was facing charges of embezzlement and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The former leader of the Democratic Conference allegedly stole money to fund a bid to become Brooklyn’s top state prosecutor, then engaged in an elaborate obstruction scheme to hide his illegal conduct, going so far as to counsel lies and the hiding of evidence, according to the announcement.
Here is the indictment:
 
 
Senator John Sampson Indicted Again
Brooklyn State Senator John Sampson, already facing corruption charges, is facing a new set of allegations from federal prosecutors this afternoon involving lying and a local liquor store.
The U.S. Attorney’s office today announced that Mr. Sampson, who once led the Senate Democrats, is accused of “making false statements to FBI agents about directing members of his Senate staff to take actions to benefit a Brooklyn liquor store in which Sampson secretly held an ownership interest.”
According to prosecutors, Mr. Sampson was recorded hiding his stake in an unnamed liquor store in its license application.
“During a series of telephone calls that were captured on the Sampson Wiretap, the defendant … told the Partners that [his] ownership interest should not be disclosed in the Application” today’s indictment reads.
Mr. Sampson was also recorded instructing an anonymous government staffer to help the store deal with outstanding tax obligations. The senator even appeared to be aware of the potential illegalities involved, telling the staffer to “do it on your own cell phone and do it on your own time.”
He is further accused of lying about these incidents and others when speaking to federal agents.
Mr. Sampson is scheduled to be arraigned on the new charge tomorrow in federal court. His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment on the latest charges.
Mr. Sampson was kicked out of the Democratic conference after the first set of corruption charges. He currently caucuses with no group in the complicated politics that govern the State Senate.
Update (2:28 p.m.): Mr. Sampson’s attorney issued the following statement in response to the new indictment, insisting the lawmaker “has not betrayed the public’s trust while acting as an elected public official.”
“As we stated when the initial indictment was filed, Senator Sampson has been fully cooperative with the government since we were contacted some months prior to the initial indictment. We will respond fully to the charge brought today in the course of the proceedings to follow,” said lawyer Joshua Colangelo-Bryan.
 
“We can, however, state categorically that Senator Sampson has not betrayed the public’s trust while acting as an elected public official. Indeed, after years of investigation and two indictments, the government has not charged Senator Sampson with a crime relating to the misuse of his public office. The new charge in the superseding indictment simply alleges an unrecorded statement to an agent of the FBI, which the government chooses not to believe, with respect to a matter for which the government fails to charge any substantive crime,” he added. “Also, there is no good reason why the single new charge in the superseding indictment was not included in the initial indictment.”
 
“We will have no further comment,” he said.
Additional reporting by Jill Colvin.
 

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Ernest Collazo Takes Over the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC)

The post from Ethicsgate on December 30, 2013 was re-posted here, and then I received a DCMA complaint notice from Google. Frank Brady/AKA Kevin McKeon/AKA 1000 other names at work?

I have been asked to edit this. What do I edit out, Mr. Complainer? Your post remains up in its' entirety. I simply re-posted it with the link. Please let me know how I am violating any rights, rules, regulations or laws. I will post your reply here on this blog.

Please let me know .

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Here is the notice I received. Please note that none of the post below is original content by me, and therefore I am not the original reporter and will not be threatened.

support@blogger.com
Jan 29 (4 days ago)
to me, blogger-dmca-n.
Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to \"draft\" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. In order to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_counternotice&product=blogger.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page athttp://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. DMCA notices concerning content on your blog may also result in action taken against any associated AdSense accounts. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-chairman-of-manhattan-attorney.html
Ernest J. Collazo
Ethicsgate
December 30, 2013
LINK

64-Year-Old Bronx Native Provides Hope for Corruption Clean-Up
Again, hopes spring eternal, and a new chairman of the corrupt attorney "ethics" committee has been named….. more....
Ernest J. Collazo is a respected Columbia Law School graduate (class of 1974), and a managing partner of Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP. Mr. Collazo formally takes over on January 1, 2014 as the head of the disgraced court group charged with ethics oversight of attorneys with offices in The Bronx and Manhattan- the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC").

Mr. Collazo has been active with the DDC since 2008, and has been a member of the DDC Policy Committee since 2012. His tenure at the DDC has provided him with first-hand knowledge of how dysfunctional the DDC is, and the urgent need that the first order of business be to remove Jorge Dopico as chief counsel. Mr. Dopico began his tenure with positive action, but quickly succumbed to political pressures and became another soul-less and corrupt hack with predecessors Thomas Cahill and Alan Friedberg.

While some insiders are concerned over Mr. Collazo's ties to the former DDC chairman Roy Reardon, Mr. Collazo has privately expressed his dismay at how ethics investigations by the DDC have been routinely covered-up for connected insiders, and that have tarnished the DDC's credibility for years. Mr. Collazo has confided with associates that he will make the long-overdue changes necessary to restore trueethics back to the ethics oversight committee.

Chairman Collazo had been employed from 1977-1991 at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, the law firm of Roy Reardon, and the group long-rumored to stall legal ethics accountability at the DDC and at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is hopeful that the Mr. Collazo will be guided by another Bronx-born-attorney-turned Presiding-Justice, the Hon. Francis T. Murphy, Jr., who sent armed officers to lock down the offices of the DDC when it was corrupt under his authority. (CLICK HERE TO SEE THE MURPHY REPORT)

CLICK HERE TO SEE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND,"Governor Cuomo Asked to Shut Down NY's Corrupt Court "Ethics" Committees"