Proskauer Rose LLP, Proskauer Law Firm, Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud.. IViewit is Next. 13 Trillion Dollar Scandal, USPTO, DOJ, SEC, knows of Massive Shareholder Fraud.

"Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud in R. Allen Stanford Ponzi by Court Receiver for Victims Ralph Janvey.

Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Publishes Draft Motion to US Appeals Court involving direct ties to the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Sir R. Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff, Galleon, Dreier, MF Global scams and more.

Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud in R. Allen Stanford Ponzi by Court Receiver for Victims Ralph Janvey.

Stanford Trial Drags Former Proskauer, Chadbourne Partner Back into Spotlight
Brian Baxter The American Lawyer February 8, 2012

View Article Click Below
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202541880071&slreturn=1

—–
Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Publishes Draft Motion to US Appeals Court involving direct ties to the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Sir R. Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff, Galleon, Dreier, MF Global scams and more
—

IVIEWIT DRAFT MOTION TO SECOND CIRCUIT COURT 

OF APPEALS OF CONFLICTS

Case No. 08-4873-CV

—-

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
Justices: Debra Ann Livingston, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall and- Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

—-

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Pro Se Plaintiff – Appellant

–v–

Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee et al. Defendants / Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE 07 Civ. 11196 (Shira Anne Scheindlin)

LEGALLY Related Case to Iviewit RICO by Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin to:

(07 Civ. 9599) (SAS-AJP) WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT of Christine C. Anderson, Esq. v. the State of New York, et al.
(Anderson, a Former New York Supreme Court Attorney)

Cases Legally Related to Anderson / Iviewit:

1. 08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

2. Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

3. Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

4. McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

5. Related Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY

6. 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin

7. 07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

8. 07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

9. 08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

10. 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

11. 08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.

12. 08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

13. 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

14. 08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

15. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

16. 06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al.

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE
2753 N.W. 34TH STREET BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o) / (561) 886.7628 (c) / (561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv / www.iviewit.tv

Table of Contents

Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure Form… 6

Motion to.. 22

I. Introduction.. 23

a. Christine c. Anderson, Esq., new york supreme court attorney Whistleblower Testimony Reveals a Criminal RICO Cartel Coup D’ÉTAT on government at the highest outposts of law and regulation.. 23

b. Meet the coupsters.. 26

c. The Controlled Demolition of World Markets by Attorneys at Law operating as a criminal rico enterprise and infiltrating senior pUBLIC offices, including within the department of justice and the courts.. 39

d. Where is the Justice? THe CRIMINAL role of this court in AIDING AND ABETTING the criminal rico enterprise.. 48

II. IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY ALL Justices and other Members of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals ( this Court ) whom have currently acted in this Lawsuit in anyway whatsoever, for their part in Aiding and Abetting Fraud on the Court, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and more.. 69

III. Remand, Halt and Rehear this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit due to the New York State Attorney General’s now Admitted and Acknowledged Conflicts of Interest, both past and present, in acting ILLEGALLY as Counsel their office and additionally for 39 plus State Defendant/Actors in this Lawsuit, by Violating Public Office Rules & Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and State & Federal Law 83

IV. Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s Felony Criminal Allegations against SENIOR Court Officials, Public Officials and more. 92

HALT THIS LAWSUIT and the “Legally Related” Lawsuits, pending investigations of Whistleblower Anderson’s FELONY CRIMINAL Allegations against Members of, the New York Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the New York District Attorney’s Office, Justices of the courts, Officers of the New York Supreme Court, the New York Supreme Court Disciplinary Departments, officers of the new york supreme court disciplinary departments and others, based on FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS in US Federal Court and before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee.

 The Felony Crimes alleged by Anderson, directly relate to this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, including having several identical New York State Public Official Actor/Defendants and the allegations are wholly germane to the nexus of the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit Crimes alleged. Further the two lawsuits are “Legally Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. 96

V. Remove and report ALL other Conflicts of Interest, violations of public office rules, violations of judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes and state and federal law, currently in place in this RICO Lawsuit and related cases, in order to impart fair and impartial DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW… 96

VI.   DEMAND that ALL parties to this Lawsuit going forward, including but not limited to, Court Justices & Officials, Attorneys at Law, Prosecutors, Clerks, etc. sign Affirmed Conflict of Interest Disclosures, identical to the one attached herein, acknowledging PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITIES for any violation, prior to, ANY further Action by ANYONE in this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit. 97

VII.   Demand for Justices of the SECOND CIRCUIT to turn themselves in to State and Federal Criminal Authorities to ANSWER to filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against them and served upon them.. 97

VIII.   Alleged crimes ongoing by p. stephen lamont et al. both known and unknown and fraud on this court, the us district court and now other courts including the supreme court and more. 98

IX.   PLAINTIFF SEEKS LEAVE TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ADD NEW DEFENDANTS AND NEW ALLEGED CRIMES NEWLY DISCOVERED.. 98

X.   Relief.. 99

Exhibit 1 – conflict of interest disclosure PARTIAL LIST OF KNOWN CONFLICTED PARTIES. 100

Exhibit 2. 106

EXHIBIT 3 – Criminal Complaint S. 108

Exhibit 4 – Ethics Complaint. 108

MOTION TO:

· Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Attorney General’s now Admitted and Acknowledged Conflicts of Interest both past and present, in acting ILLEGALLY as Counsel for 39 plus State Defendant/Actors in this Lawsuit by Violating Public Office Rules &; Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and State & Federal Law.

· Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Supreme Court’s Attorney Whistleblower, Christine C. Anderson’s (“Anderson”) Felony Criminal Allegations against SENIOR Court Officials, Public Officials et al.

· HALT THIS LAWSUIT and the “Legally Related” Lawsuits, pending investigations of Whistleblower Anderson’s FELONY CRIMINAL Allegations against Members of the New York Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the New York District Attorney’s Office, New York State Supreme Court, the New York Supreme Court Disciplinary Departments and others.

FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS EXPOSED in US Federal District Court, THIS COURT and before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee by the HEROIC TESTIMONY and SWORN STATEMENTS of NEW YORK SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY WHISTLEBLOWER, CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON.

· IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY ALL Justices and other Members of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals ( this Court ) whom have acted to this point in this Lawsuit in any capacity whatsoever, for Aiding and Abetting Fraud on the Court, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process and more.

· Remove ALL other Conflicts of Interest currently in place in this Lawsuit in order to implement FAIR & IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW.

· DEMAND that ALL parties to this Lawsuit going forward, including but not limited to, Court Justices & Officials, Attorneys at Law, Prosecutors, Clerks, et al. Sign and Affirm Conflict of Interest Disclosures identical to the one attached herein, acknowledging PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITIES for any violation, prior to, ANY further Action by ANYONE in this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit.

· Demand for Justices and others named herein of this Court to turn themselves in to the appropriate State and Federal Criminal Authorities to ANSWER to filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against them and served upon them.

——

Caution! if you have not signed the attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure form and returned it as instructed and you continue to act in any manner whatsoever in these matters, Criminal Charges will be brought against you, for Obstruction of Justice, Aiding & Abetting a Criminal RICO Organization and More. see the attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for further information regarding your potential personal and professional liabilities.

—–

I. Introduction

“What country before ever existed a century &; a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon &; pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The “Tree of Liberty” letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

A. NEW YORK SUPREME COURT WHISTLEBLOWER ATTORNEY, CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, ESQ. (“Anderson”) MAKES FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS IN US FEDERAL COURT AND BEFORE THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SENIOR RANKING OFFICIALS OF THE US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENTS, “FAVORED LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS” [Footnote 3] and names a “CLEANER” [Footnote 4] , as revealed in federal court testimony, a one Naomi Goldstein.

THESE ALLEGATIONS DEMAND IMMEDIATE REPORTING, INVESTIGATION AND HALTING OF THE LEGALLY RELATED IVIEWIT RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO BEGIN INVESTIGATIONS TO IDENTIFY AND PROSECUTE THOSE FINGERED BY WHISTLE BLOWER ANDERSON and OTHERS.

—

[3] From Anderson’s Sworn Statement to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, “Specifically, I discovered and reported that employees of the DDC had engaged in, inter alia, the “whitewashing” [of] complaints of misconduct leveled against certain “select” attorneys and law firms.

This “whitewashing” sometimes involved burying cases or destroying evidence, so that certain complaints were inevitably, unavoidably, dismissed. I witnessed this destruction of evidence myself. Other reported misconduct involves victimizing attorneys lacking privileged positions or connections.”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=365

[4] “Legal Document: Request for Discovery” Posted on July 22, 2011 by Fred Celani

http://fredcelani.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/request-for-discovery/

—
The “Legally Related” Federal Lawsuit of New York Supreme Court Veteran Senior Supreme Court Disciplinary Department Attorney and Expert in Attorney Criminal Misconduct Complaints, Whistleblower Christine Anderson, Esq., by Federal Judge Shira Anne Scheindlin to this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, exposes from the inside, a legal conspiracy of corruption involving the highest levels of Regulatory, Prosecutorial and Judicial Public Offices both State and Federal. Heroism is a word earned through action. The Whistleblowing Efforts of Anderson, another New York Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower and Hero, Nicole Corrado, Esq., and, a Sitting New York Supreme Court Justice, Honorable Duane A. Hart, Esq., all cited herein, should be the Moniker of HEROISM for others in the legal profession to follow.

These Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the Top of Government, including the Courts, this Court, the Department of Justice, the New York Attorney General and others.

They further provide the World with an understanding of how America’s Financial System has melted top down, from rigged economic breakdowns and controlled demolition of world markets through fraud, with no Regulators or Prosecutors or Courts to stop it, in fact, all of them Aiding and Abetting the crimes.

Nobody attempting to RECOVER the stolen funds for the PEOPLE, as all of the Top Government Officials charged with enforcement of the Law, appear on the take and part of the crimes according to these Whistleblowers. These Whistleblowing efforts expose how and why no one on Wall Street/Greed Street/Fraud Street has been charged with Criminal Acts, despite massive and overwhelming evidence of CRIMINAL ACTS and FRAUD.

Further exposed, is why none of the Stolen Loot from these Economic Crimes have been recovered back to the People. What is unveiled is a COUP D’ÉTAT on the HIGHEST OUTPOSTS OF LAW & ORDER in the United States and yet not a single story in the Mainstream Media aka US Pravda Press, regarding these shocking allegations by inside Whistleblowers.

Exposed by these HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWING EFFORTS is a REVOLVING DOOR between a licentious GROUP OF LAW FIRMS and ATTORNEYS AT LAW, acting in both PRIVATE PRACTICE and PUBLIC OFFICE, working together in CONSPIRACY and forming a RICO CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION with tentacles embedded at the highest outposts of the US Government in order to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE for the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

Anderson, Corrado and Other Public Office Whistleblowers cited herein, also provide explanation for why Judges and Attorneys at Law are now desperately trying to grant themselves immunity for felony crimes and attempting to use the State Attorney General Offices and other Government officials as accomplice in the cover-up.

Immunity for ATTORNEYS AT LAW for their role in TORTURE CRIMES, WAR CRIMES and ECONOMIC CRIMES, crimes that include the CREATION OF ILLEGAL/FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE CONTRACTS that led to the RIGGED HOUSING and MARKET COLLAPSES, that led to MILLIONS OF VERY ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES and left MILLIONS UNEMPLOYED AND STARVING. Seeking immunity for crime, as a legal defense is both futile and an obvious admission of guilt, which will never hold in a fair and impartial court of law?

The attempts to gain immunity for FELONY CRIMINAL ACTS shows culpability in the crimes, exposing fear by the guilty of retribution of the day when the “long arm of the law” swings back.

Fear that they will hang for their crimes against Humanity, their War Crimes (Illegal Undeclared Wars of Aggression, Torture, Misappropriation of Public funds by Congress for Undeclared Wars, Economic Terrorism and more) and they must hope for dirty courts to clear them forever.

Whistleblowing comes at a price to Whistleblowers in this new environment of a CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT.

Christine Anderson, Corrado, Hart and others, including PLAINTIFF have been through hell to bring this INFORMATION TO LIGHT and where this Court should acknowledge Anderson, Corrado and the others who have come forth for their HEROISM, suspiciously, they do not.

These are TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS, HEROES and ROLE MODELS OF ETHICS shunned by the very legal system they work in.

We instead find this Court currently attempting to ILLEGALLY DISMISS Anderson’s WHISTLEBLOWER Lawsuit and the “legally related” cases prior to investigations and hearings of the criminal acts exposed by government officials against other Senior Ranking Officials.

We find THIS COURT attempting to BURY THE FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES EXPOSED BY CREDIBLE WITNESSES in a FEDERAL COURT by “SWEEPING THEM UNDER THE RUG,”

PRIOR TO INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED BY LAW, as more fully defined herein. Therefore, Plaintiff starts this Motion in Honor.

A Tip of the Hat to the TRUE PATRIOTS NAMED HEREIN AND THEIR HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWING EFFORTS TO BLOW THE LID OFF ONE OF THE LARGEST CORRUPTION STORIES OF ALL TIME, PLACING MEMBERS OF THIS COURT RIGHT IN THE CENTER of world market fraud and more, A ROOT OF THE PROBLEM."

Source and Full Article

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

More on the iViewit Story

http://iviewit.tv/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

New York Corruption - Motion to Re-Open - Court had NO Juristication Due to Appeal. Where is Andrew Cuomo?

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein Supports Kevin McKeown aka Frank Brady Federal
Lawsuit Regarding Stolen 9.11 Red Cross Funds Legally Related by Federal Judge Shira
Scheindlin to New York Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Lawsuit. READ

ALL ABOUT IT @ EXPOSE CORRUPT COURTS!!!

Article Courtesy of Expose Corrupt Courts @
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/09/federal-court-asked-to-reopen-another.html

Thursday, September 16, 2010
Federal Court Asked To Reopen Another NY State Corruption Case

Plaintiff,

-against- 08 Civ 2391 (SAS)
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO REOPEN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;
THE N.Y. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT;
THE N.Y.S. 1ST DEPT., DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;
THE N.Y.S. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT;

THOMAS J. CAHILL, in his official and individual capacity; AFFIRMATION

SHERRY K. COHEN, in her official and individual capacity; IN SUPPORT OF
GARY L. CASELLA, in his official and individual capacity; MOTION TO
NANCY J. BARRY, in her official and individual capacity;

REOPEN
FRANCIS A. NICOLAI, in his official and individual capacity;
JOSEPH M. ACCETTA, in his official and individual capacity,
ROBERT M. DIBELLA, in his official and individual capacity;

ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, in his official and individual capacity;
ROBERT A. KORREN; JEFFREY A. MCNAMARA;

PATRICIA BAVE-PLANELL; GIULINI & GIULINI, ESQS.;
CHARLES A. GIULINI, individually and as a partner of
Giulini and Giulini; CHRISTINE GIULINI, individually and
as a parter of Giulini and Giulini; CATHERINE M. MIKLITSCH
MCQUADE & MCQUADE, ESQS.; JOSEPH F. MCQUADE,
individually and as a partner of McQuade & McQuade;
MICHAEL D. MCQUADE, individually and as a partner of
McQuade & McQuade; and JOHN and JANE DOES, 1-20,
Defendants.

————————————————————————x

Plaintiff Kevin McKeown, pro se, respectfully moves this day, September 11, 2010, for an order reopening the above captioned matter based upon new facts, a fraud upon this Honorable Court and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60 (b) and (d)(3), inter alia.

As this Honorable Court is aware, this case concerns $140,000.00 stolen from American Red Cross 9/11 donation money- still unpaid; What this court has not known, until now, is that the defendants have defrauded this court as they have knowingly acted without required jurisdiction, inter alia, thus void of any immunity.

Background

1. The operative 1st Amended Complaint was filed on May 12, 2008 (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”) On August 8, 2008, this Honorable Court dismissed the action (EXHIBIT “B”).

On May 12, 2009, this Honorable Court found that the Court had no jurisdiction since the matter was on appeal; the appeal was only finalized on August 12, 2010 (See attached 08cv2391 Docket Sheet EXHIBIT “C”).

All filings in this application are respectfully herein incorporated as if fully annexed. As this Honorable Court has only again had jurisdiction less than 30 days, the herein request is timely and, in the interest of justice, must be granted.

A Knowing and Deliberate Fraud Upon This Court

2. The defendants were stripped of jurisdiction in the underlying action on November 4, 2003 by well-settled New York State Law. Their filings and actions are VOID under New York State law. And since they acted without jurisdiction, they cannot by law assert any type of immunity.

CLICK HERE TO SEE FILED DOCUMENT WITH EXHIBITS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
————————————————————————x
KEVIN MCKEOWN,

3. The defendants were aware that as a matter of New York State law, all proceedings had been stayed since November 4, 2003 when a party interested in the underlying proceeding committed suicide. Defendant attorneys Patricia Bave-Planell, Frank Streng, Robert Korren and Joseph McQuade, among others, have knowingly failed to file the only Motion that could ever be filed or accepted: a required on-notice substitution of party papers. (Weber v Bellinger, 124 AD2d 1009). It is uncontested that the required substitution has never been filed.

The New York State law is simple: without party substitution upon the death of an interested party, there is no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Immunity of any kind does not apply in this matter. All attorneys and State actors had an ethical obligation to advise this Court.

4. Even the state defendants, and their attorneys, have ignored their own obligation to follow state law and to report or take action against those who were violating state laws and attorney ethical codes and, further, who were improperly acting without jurisdiction.

5. This Court must look very dimly upon the attorneys in this action who have failed to bring to this Honorable Court’s attention the fact that laws and ethical codes of conduct had been violated by attorneys and state actors in this very proceeding.

All attorneys were aware that the state law has always been clear regarding the lack of jurisdiction upon the death of an interested party. But these attorneys advanced known void rulings to this Court, or fraudulently asserted immunity claims when such protection had been stripped by the lack of jurisdiction.

6. As alleged in the 1st Amended Complaint, and as accepted as true in the Court’s August 8, 2008 dated order of dismissal, a wide-range cover-up was put in place to hide the improper filings of attorney Frank Streng- a publicly advertised friend, supporter and insider of the judge who accept his improper filings and who himself would subsequently make rulings without jurisdiction.

Without the Proper Substitution of a Party, The State Actors Lacked Jurisdiction

7. It is well-settled law that the lack of the proper substitution of a party in an action renders all subsequent orders null and void as the court lacks jurisdiction (see, Bossert v Ford Motor Co., 140 AD2d 480; Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Employees Mut. Aid Socy., 112 AD2d 819) None of the state actors had jurisdiction since November 4, 2003.

Each and every order since November 4, 2003 is VOID as a matter of law (see, Byrd v Johnson, 67 AD2d 992). The defendants’, and their attorneys’, knowing failure to act without jurisdiction is the essence of the denial of due process. And their silence of the violations of the known laws are a fraud.

8. I have no other remedy of law. My filings to: state administrative judges; all higher state courts; all court, attorney and judicial ethical bodies have only resulted in retaliation and threats against me.

Meanwhile, not one entity, including the New York State Attorney General’s Office, has disputed the lack of jurisdiction since November 4, 2003.

The collective silence by the defendants, state actors and attorneys on what I now know as basic New York State Required Party-Substitution law begs this Court’s immediate action.

9. The state actors improperly continued proceedings with the full knowledge that as a matter of law all proceedings were stayed upon the death of an interested party- all in complete violation of my rights concerning due process.

(Brown v Konczeski, 242 A.D.2d 847; CPLR 1015, 1021). Indeed, the attorneys involved have never disputed their collective failure to file On-Notice Substitution of Party papers since all matters were stayed, by law, on November 4, 2003. Notably, not one defendant disputes that all matters have been stayed since November 4, 2003, and by operation of well-settled state law.

10. If the 1st Amended Complaint is taken as true, then the thereto-annexed timeline of the illegal court filings confirms the lack of the required party-substitution submission.

While I am not an attorney and did not know this law when I filed my complaint, surely the defendants were aware of the state law requiring party substitution. Indeed, the involved attorneys (who financially benefited from the fraud), court clerks (who were friends of the attorney who filed the fraudulent assignment) and the Surrogate Judge (who would later recuse himself because of his admitted and advertised closeness with the attorney who filed the fraudulent assignment)– were aware of the state law requiring party substitution.

THE UNDERLYING FRAUD

11. Ronald P. McKeown, Jr., purportedly executed an “Assignment of Share in Estate” and an “Affidavit Re Assignment of Share in Estate” (hereinafter collectively as the “ASSIGNMENT”), dated October 30, 2003, with knowledge that its purpose was to defraud creditors of the assignor, the IRS, the State of Texas, to advance a deception upon the Surrogate’s court, and violate various state laws of New York and Connecticut.

12. In is uncontested that within days after Ronald’s death on November 4, 2003, Frank W. Streng, Esq., attorney of record for Ronald, presented the purported assignment for filing in the Surrogate’s Court. In Addition, Mr. Streng subsequently filed his own attorney affidavits in the Surrogate’s Court referencing and relying upon that fraudulent assignment.

13. Irrefutable evidence exists of collusion between the state actors, state agencies, and certain “influential” lawyers who sought to improperly profit at my expense, and who have damaged me and violated various federally protected rights. The lawyers against whom damages are sought had numerous ethical complaints filed, all of which asserted similar violations of the mandatory disciplinary regulations. But they were protected by Corrupt NYS Attorney Ethics bodies.

14. Testimony before this Honorable Court in Anderson, began the process of unmasking State employees, and others, who have improperly acted under the color of law. Without a fair and objective trial in U.S. District Court of the substantive Constitutional and Civil Rights issues, including demonstration of offenses with the evidence, systemic State corruption becomes Law of the Land, superior to all Constitutionally guaranteed rights and contrary to all U.S. Codes.

15. The actions of the defendants violate my equal rights and other guaranteed rights that are explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws cited in the complaint and herein. Such violations are federal questions correctly before this U.S. District Court. The Eleventh Amendment no longer applies as the new fact of action by state actors without jurisdiction is now known to this Honorable Court.

16. I respectfully requesting that in addition to re-opening the instant case, that the Honorable Court sua sponte appoint a federal monitor to oversee the day-to-day operations of the New York State Attorney and Judicial Ethics bodies for an indefinite period of time.

Continuing Evidence of Plaintiff’s Allegations of Widespread Corruption

17. Plaintiff also respectfully renews the request for this Honorable Court to immediately schedule a hearing to take the testimony of two New York State judges, and who at all times have wanted to appear before this Court to discuss the widespread corruption as herein alleged. (The Judges’ affidavits are attached hereto as EXHIBIT “D” and EXHIBIT “E”)

18. Taking all the allegations in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as true, plaintiff has properly alleged that the individual defendants acted in numerous instances to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection of the law, and other constitutional violations. Because these individual defendants are state actors, and have blatantly used “the badge[s] of their authority to deprive [plaintiff] of [his] federally guaranteed rights” under the United States Constitution, § 1983 is the vehicle by which plaintiff may seek and obtain his much-needed relief. Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 161.

Because § 1983 is a federal statute, this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s claims. And because it is now known that the state actors knowingly acted without jurisdiction, this case is now ripe for immediate discovery and trial.

19. Indeed, just like this federal court, the courts of New York State (including the DDC) are entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating the merits of cases without self-dealing, corruption, and illegality.

However, plaintiff’s complaint states that such courts have not so performed their duties; rather, plaintiff’s complaint alleges numerous acts of corruption, illegal activity, and obstruction of justice in the operation of the courts of New York State.

Given that the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true, plaintiff’s allegations state legitimate claims for relief, and ones now known to have been void of any immunity.

20. Indeed, because this Court has already stated that the DDC is “an arm” of the NY State Courts, and is “the court” itself, plaintiff maintains that he merely requested an unbiased, fair and honest court system to adjudicate his claims. Simply put, plaintiff simply requested that the courts of New York State honestly do their job.

Plaintiff has alleged that he was deprived of this very basic right, which necessarily deprived him of his right to due process of law, a free and fair court system, and the right to petition his government. These constitutional violations demand federal redress, and plainly provide this Court with federal jurisdiction.

21. The United States Constitution does permit this Court to review the decisions of the EMPLOYEES of New York State (and other lawyers).

The Supreme Court found in Jett v. Dallas Independent School_District (491 U.S. 701 (1989)), that 42 U.S.C. §1981 by its terms prohibits private discrimination as well as discrimination under color of state law.

The Court considered whether §1981 created a private right of action to enforce that prohibition against state actors.

The Court concluded that, “the express cause of action for damages created by §1983 constitutes the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in §1981 by state governmental units.” (Id. at 720-721, 733).

22. “A plaintiff may sue a state official acting in his official capacity - notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment - for prospective, injunctive relief from violations of federal law.” (Opinion and Order, p36). And as now known, the Eleventh Amendment does not apply here.

23. The U.S. Supreme Court in Scheuer v. Rhodes (416 U.S. 232 (1974)) held: “The Eleventh Amendment does not in some circumstances bar an action for damages against a state official charged with depriving a person of a federal right under color of state law, and the District Court acted prematurely and hence erroneously in dismissing the complaints as it did without affording petitioners any opportunity by subsequent proof to establish their claims.”

24. Further in Scheuer v Rhodes, the Court noted “If the immunity is qualified, [416 U.S. 232, 243] not absolute, the scope of that immunity will necessarily be related to facts as yet not established either by affidavits, admissions, or a trial record.

Final resolution of this question must take into account the functions and responsibilities of these particular defendants in their capacities as officers of the state government, as well as the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983″. Now known is the fact that even qualified immunity cannot now be asserted as jurisdiction had been stripped.

25. “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818 [73 L.Ed.2d 396, 410]). Here, state actors knew they lacked jurisdiction.

26. I assert violations of civil rights and other rights of which so-called “legal professionals” “would have known”. The state actors and the “legal professionals” also should have known that their jurisdiction had been stayed upon the death of an interested party.

I also asserted evidence to demonstrate that such violations of guaranteed rights are planned, intentional, and organized for profit to the chosen few who are lawyers and officials benefiting at my expense. I also assert that discovery would further verify the civil and criminal allegations made by me are already confirmed as plausible.

27. Title 42 U.S.C. §1988 in relevant part confers on the district courts “protection of all person in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause” (emphasis added).

28. This Court was not asked to review State of New York court decisions. The acts, without jurisdiction, of State employees were described to demonstrate such actions resulted in the conspiracy against my rights.

Title 42 U.S.C. §1985 (2) applies to obstructing justice; intimidating a party, or witness if “two or more persons in any State … conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State”.

29. In Zahrey v. City of New York, (No. 98 Civ. 4546(LAP), 1999), on a motion to dismiss, the District Court dismissed the claims against defendant Coffey on the ground of qualified immunity.

Without determining whether a prosecutor’s fabrication of evidence violated a constitutional right, this Court ruled that Coffey was entitled to qualified immunity because “the law was not `clearly established’ in 1996 that a prosecutor’s fabrication of evidence violated a person’s constitutional rights.”

30. On appeal to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Zahrey v. Coffey, No. 99-9119), this Court’s dismissal was reversed and remanded: “We hold that there is a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer acting in an investigatory capacity, at least where the officer foresees that he himself will use the evidence with a resulting deprivation of liberty. … [W]e conclude that the allegations of the complaint suffice to indicate that a qualified immunity defense may not be sustained without further development of the facts.”

31. In Gloria Perez, et. al v. Jesus Ortiz, et. al, 849 F. 2d 793 (2nd Cir. 1988), the court, “held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims sua sponte without giving plaintiffs notice and an opportunity to be heard, and abused its discretion in dismissing the official capacity suits against appellees without giving appellants an opportunity to amend their complaints to conform to the requirements for such a suit.”

ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE IS INAPPLICABLE

32. There are not State proceedings dealing with the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint, or with these Defendants; the relief sought (injunctive relief against the state and money damages against individuals) has not been sought in State courts. This District Court has not been asked to change any State decisions.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not concern actions properly “judicial in nature” since Plaintiff asserts lack of Eleventh Amendment Immunity and the fact that acts by individuals beyond the legal limits of their official positions occurred, thereby harming Plaintiff by deprivation of substantive and material guaranteed rights under U.S. laws.

33. The Supreme Court case of Exxon Mobil Corn. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (544 U.S. 280 (2005)) clearly shows that claim preclusion is a separate doctrine entirely. In Exxon the requisite elements that must be met for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply are defined as:

(a) First: The case must be brought in District Court by a party that has already lost in state court.

(b) Second: The injury claimed must be as a result of the judgment itself. There is no “judgment” in my case. The complaint in District Court concerns on-going abuse of civil rights under color of state law without jurisdiction, or state authority, by state employees and other lawyers causing damages to Plaintiff;

(c) Third: A final judgment on the state court proceeding must have already been rendered before the federal action is brought. This does not apply here.

(d) Fourth: The federal case must invite review and rejection of the state law claim; if the claims are not identical, the Federal claim must be inextricably intertwined with the state law claim, so as to implicate common facts pertaining to the same transaction or occurrence. (District of Columbia Court of Anneals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,483 n. 16 (1983)).

This does not apply to my case. Since official corruption causing deprivation of civil rights was not part of any State proceeding, there was no previous injury from judgment since there was no final State court judgment, therefore Rooker-Feldman does not apply.

STANDING

34. I asserts widespread and systemic corruption by State employees acting in violation of their oaths of office and without jurisdiction. I believe that such abuses of official positions should be immediately stopped by injunctive relief and by appointing a Federal Monitor.

35. Three tests determine if a would-be plaintiff has standing: the litigant must show: (a) that he has suffered personally some actual or threatened injury; (b) that the injury must be fairly traceable to the alleged illegal conduct of the defendant, and (c) that the injury must likely be redressed by a favorable decision.

(Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)). Causation and redressability are required (Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41-43 (1976)). The Supreme Court has referred to the “injury-in fact” standard as the “irreducible minimum” required by the Constitution.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8, 9 & 12

36. My complaint presented substantive facts without “bald assertions”. Such facts, must be taken as true (Opinion and Order, p.30). The revelations of organized and systemic corruption substantiates the statements that might have been otherwise labeled implausible.

The now-known lack of jurisdiction confirms the planned, improper and damaging actions by the defendants against me. Discovery will further substantiate the preliminary facts asserted. I made statements of fact and attempted to provide enough details (pursuant to Rules 8, 9, and 12) to demonstrate that the claims were not speculative and should not be summarily dismissed sua sponte without discovery.

37. I have state and federal constitutional rights of, inter alai, due process, which has been undisputedly denied me, and which begs this courts intervention.

38. Finally, and also new to this Honorable Court, are the words of the Honorable Joseph W. Bellacosa, former Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals and Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Court System (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “F”) .

Judge Bellacosa asks, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will watch the watchdogs?”) Briefly, Judge Bellacosa speaks directly to the need of this Court to take immediate and substantive action regarding the federal violations of law by New York State actors, and as herein complained of by plaintiff.

39. WHEREFORE, based on the facts, new information, fraud upon this court and the decisions cited above, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: grant the requested motion, REOPEN the instant 08cv2391 case, direct the Clerk of the Court to return the case to active status, and appoint a federal monitor to review the herein allegations and any and all such asserted allegations by those similarly situated.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that he is the plaintiff in the above action, that he has read the above and that the information contained therein is true and correct, 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C § 1621.

Dated: New York, New York
September 11, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN MCKEOWN
Kevin McKeown, Pro Se
P.O. Box 616, New York, New York 10156
(212) 591-1022 tel - kmck22333@aol.com

TO: ANDREW M. CUOMO

Attorney General of the State of New York
Attn: Anthony J. Tomari, Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway, 24th Floor,New York, New York 10271

Joseph F. McQuade, Esq.,Michael D. McQuade, Esq.,McQuade & McQuade
390 Fifth Avenue – Room 711,New York, New York 10018

Comments to the Above:

Shira’s conscience said…

Shira, Shira, Shira. What say you?

What say you, Shira, to federal prosecutors?
Can’t hear you. Please speak up.
Wait. Just not yet.
First, think of your judicial oath.
Yeah, yeah. That’s it.
Then speak up.
And speak loudly Judge Shira Scheindlin.

September 16, 2010 12:54 PM


Anonymous said…

good comment. my thoughts exactly.

September 16, 2010 12:59 PM


Anonymous said…

you see, there’s always a silver lining. sherry can now go drinking with the former chief counsel drunk- cahill, forget his first name right now, think it was shotglass. yeah, SHOTGLASS CAHILL.

September 16, 2010 1:21 PM


Anonymous said…

Sherry’s not alone. The rumor is that about 8 lawyers are leaving the DDC. Friedberg’s been acting especially paranoid lately. Maybe he should start drinking and take over where Sherry left off. Dont’ forget that Alan’s a corrupt chump like Sherry, actually bigger in some area.

September 16, 2010 1:37 PM


Anonymous said…

Does anyone see how sad all this is? Does anyone see these orders for these people to commit such hainous acts must have come from above and now they are all afraid……..sad……I thought her name was
Seltzer Cahill!One Seltzerra
Two Seltzerra
Three Seltzerra

FLOOR!

September 16, 2010 1:47 PM


Anonymous said…

Are the other litigants who had their cases thrown out going to refile?If there are more cases attacking these individuals and their corrupt actions, it should provide more evidence of a pervasive, systematic and long term pattern of corruption.Maybe then the DOJ will take action.

September 16, 2010 1:55 PM


LE said…

Sherry Cohen, Thomas Cahill, Naomi Goldstein, Alan Friedberg, David Spokany, all need to go directly to Jail!! Hey, do any of you guys know Attorney Allen H. Isaac, Esq. (GOD). I’m sure you do!!!!! How much did he pay you guys to protect him?ALLEN H. ISAAC, Esq. (Docket No: 2005.3074).

Isaac is a SEXUAL PREDATOR, WHO COMMITTED FELONY LEVEL CRIMES, received a mere slap on the wrist by the Appellate Court, First Dept. What a freaking JOKE that was!!!Court transcripts were altered, they withheld crucial evidence, they tampered with evidence.. and denied Esposito an attorney during the disciplinary hearings against Allen Isaac!!!

Naomi Goldstein, Esq. was promoted soon after the disciplinary proceedings against Allen Isaac. I’m sure she was handsomely rewarded for protecting him!!!!

Hey, what a stinking minute…How the HELL did the Appellate Court, First Department RULE on Allen H. Isaac’s fate in the first place when they are TOTALLY CONFLICTED!!!! Didn’t they hear Esposito’s A/V DVD tape?

September 16, 2010 2:17 PM


WOW said…

JUDGE SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR ALL THE RELATED CASES…RE-OPEN THEM IS THE ONLY RIGHT THING TO DO..AND ASAP!!GOOD LUCK TO KEVIN MCKEOWN, ANDERSON, ESPOSITO, STEPHEN LAMONT, ELIOT BERNSTEIN, CAPOGROSSO, MCCORMICK, CARVEL, ETC……….

MAYBE NOW THEY’LL FINALLY DO THE RIGHT THING..JUDGE, THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL….CRIMES, CRIMES, CRIMES….JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!!!!!!JUDGE SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN CAN YOU HEAR US!!!!!!!!

September 16, 2010 2:23 PM


Anonymous said…

Luisa C. Esposito, Plaintiff, pro-se, filed her motion to reopen her FEDERAL COMPLAINT (07- Civ-11612 (SAS),last week. The Court issued an Order directing her defendants to reply by Sept. 17, 2010..DO YOU THINK they’re getting nervous?HOW and WHY did Esposito and the related cases get dismissed?

September 16, 2010 2:36 PM


T Finnan said…

Notice,the attorney for most of the defendants is Andrew Cuomo. Notice that many of the acts are federal and state crimes. Note that Andrew Cuomo has used NY State funds and employees to defend criminal acts. Did Andrew Cuomo obstruct Justice by interceding to defend criminal acts by some defendants?

Andrew Cuomo’s duty is to defend NY State interests and not the criminal acts by State employees.Luke 16:13 “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”Andrew Cuomo, you cannot serve the People of NY and Mammon’s corrupt NY courts.

September 16, 2010 6:41 PM

Anonymous said…

I don’t get it. Cuomo only serves one master. Himself.

September 16, 2010 7:32 PM


Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Inventor said…

Where are the beefy exhibits Frank E Baby? Anyone got beef with my hero Scheindlin for what she already did for you all by having Anderson sing death lullaby to Cahill, Sherry, AG Cuomo, Spookany, etc. must take it up with me, her soon to be Supreme Court chauffeur.

You never know what gun is put to the head of those who do the right thing immediately after and what it may cause them to do after, like gun to granddaughter head can be swaying to some but you can never forget that pristine moment of heroism.

You must worship it forever, despite what the future holds. Now be prepared in that scenario of Scheindlin acting off to fire off complaints against her if she does not follow the law but file them with love and pain, as I do with Catherine Wolfe and others.

To all those waiting for her, stop and do something bold with what is already before you, be proactive stop waiting for Frank or Shira or Cuomo, fire off some criminal complaints against all those Anderson fingered with everybody, the more the merrier.

And to those most unethical ethics officers who have cast an evil upon this land filled with pain and suffering and death, take comfort that I, Eliot and I A-m That I A-m have a special place for you in hell. I personally will be your eternal tour guide, if you think my writing is long wait until you hear my voice eternally damning you, 24.7.Eternally. Ask Cahill if his soul has been sucked from his being, ask him my name and you will see fear.

Sherry K. Cohen, I already have sucked the lifeblood from your soul. Remember me in Scheindlin’s court, the devilish looking angel that your eyes were fixated upon? Your breath sucked dry, as I sat directly in front of your lying and evil soulless body, remember the conversation that only you could hear?

I already hear your prayers, your whiney begging and know they will not be answered as that conversation was had, the jury out. This sentence will be long, slow and eternally painful, you will pray more and more for swift death but the beginning is now, death will not help, it is when the fun with you really begins.

Your Travel Guide to Hell
Bat Out of Hell
Mad Inventor
Eliot Ivan Bernstein

September 16, 2010 7:37 PM


Anonymous said…

Is this guy Bernstein for real????

September 16, 2010 7:51 PM


Anonymous said…

of course Eliot is real, read the last three salutations again, therein lies your answer!

September 16, 2010 8:02 PM


CLICK HERE TO SEE FILED DOCUMENT WITH EXHIBITS

EDNY & Valley Stream FOIA / Both Destroyed all original case file and documents. Kevin Chesney Whistleblower - Ruth Pollack Attorney.

" FEDERAL COURT AND CONFIRMED CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT SCHOOL DISTRICT DESTROY CASE FILE, DOCUMENTS AND ALL EVIDENCE TO TRY TO AVOID CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND FORENSIC EVALUATION!!! "

Coming Soon To Our Industry Whistleblower and Expose Court Corruption Network - the Story of Kevin Chesney Whistleblower.

Coming soon.. "Proof of the theft and misappropriation of Hundreds of Millions of LOCAL, STATE and FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS!!! "

" NEW YORK STATE IS BROKE!!! "

"Where is our Attorney General???
This is not only a crime but a cover up. "

Stay Tuned as We Explore all the Parts and Pieces of


www.ConcealingDocuments.com will Soon Explore the Depth the - Pollack and Chesney V. EDNY et al on SDNY, New York Judiciary Committee Hearing First Dept , Plaintiffs Kevin Chesney, Kevin Chesney Whistle Blower, Ruth Pollock, Ruth M. Pollack, Esq., Andrew Cuomo, Cuomo Family Secrets, Human Rights Laws, Judge Hurley, Hundreds of millions of tax dollars misappropriated / stolen, and more..


"" CUOMO and the Crotty family, are close friends and political allies.

Our federal judge Harold Baer was illegally taken off the case to cover up mammoth state and federal judicial scandal involving school districts and bribes and payoffs we have not yet proven.

But they can't hide it forever!!!

The state of new york is broke and Cuomo has an enormous amount of $$$ in his campaign coffers!!! We need the F.B.I. and an independent investigation .. ""


Research Links

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29297423/Kevin-Chesney-Whistle-Blower

http://www.websupp.org/data/EDNY/2:05-cv-05106-78-EDNY.pdf


Got a Tip on This Story ?
Email Me at
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Is Judith Kaye Independent or being used by Cuomo to hide Cuomo family secrets?

""what Judith Kaye needs to hide and whom she needs to protect.

Andrew Cuomo's selection of Judith Kaye has been widely praised due to Ms. Kaye's alleged independence and integrity. In fact, Cuomo's selection of Kaye could possibly raise later ethical questions for Cuomo.

I, too, would appoint someone as an independent counsel who has an obvious and understandable indebtedness to Mario Cuomo for her own professional/judicial standing and social status if I needed to keep the Cuomos' long held knowledge of corruption in the OAG and Mario Cuomo's own protection of that corruption secret

One has to wonder if there could ever be any convictions in the Paterson matter when all any defense attorney would have to do is call either Mario or Andrew Cuomo as a witness and then easily destroy Mario and/or Andrew's own credibility? Is the OAG alleged investigation really being done in good faith?.

.... emails sent Ms. Kaye. As you read this first one, keep in mind recent polls showing Cuomo's own drop of 22% in favorability among blacks due to his involvement in the Paterson matter and then ponder what that drop would have been had Paterson remained a candidate for Governor and had the independence necessary to expose the scandals described below.""

Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 2:07:37 AM
Subject: Cuomo's own secrets--Corruption in the OAG involving the NYSP

Ms. Kaye,

Andrew Cuomo's appointment of you as independent counsel to the OAG in the probe of David Paterson, the NYSP, and others does not entirely eliminate any conflict of interest/ appearance of impropriety on the part of Andrew Cuomo and the OAG. In fact, legitimate questions remain whether anyone connected with the OAG should even participate in your own alleged "independent" investigation.

Additionally, your own close relationship with the Cuomo family could give rise to appearances of impropriety on your part. The indebtedness you owe Mario Cuomo for your current professional standing/social status is both considerable and understandable.

Certainly, Andrew Cuomo had every reason to believe that I would contact you about NY's hidden political scandals once I learned about your appointment as independent counsel. These scandals involve the NYSP, corruption in the OAG under Robert Abrams, Mario Cuomo's protection of that corruption while Governor, and Andrew Cuomo's own refusal to follow the mandates of his current office. Other than Andrew Cuomo's appointment of Robert Abrams as special prosecutor, I doubt that he could have appointed anyone who could be perceived as more indebted to the Cuomo family than you. Perhaps that's why he chose you.

Enclosed in this email is the first of three emails I am sending you. This email and the two
emails that follow are lengthy so you may wish to print them out first. They were being circulated among select NY State Democrat Party officials and political operatives prior to Governor Paterson's recent decision not to seek a four-year term for governor. This circulation was designed to prevent Andrew Cuomo from entering the gubernatorial primary. Andrew Cuomo and his top deputies have already been sent the emails.

The three emails basically cover three separate areas --(1) NY's secret political scandals arising from the corruption in the OAG, (2) how the political arena was used to expose corruption in the OAG, and (3) how Andrew Cuomo's entry into the 2010 gubernatorial Democratic primary could have reopened old racial wounds because of his father's protection of former NYAG Robert Abrams during the Tawana Brawley matter. This third area/email also summarizes Andrew Cuomo's self-inflicted liabilities as a candidate for Governor and also quotes portions of certain relevant letters.

Since this third area/email was the most currently politically relevant, I am including it with this email. However, you may find the first email re: NY's hidden political scandals much more interesting since it details the political circumstances occurring at the the time Angel Diaz was found hanging in his jail cell and afterward. You, yourself, wrote the majority opinion affirming the right of a governor to supersede a district attorney in order to seek the death penalty. Perhaps you would have ruled differently if you had known of the enclosed.

Re: Andrew Cuomo:

Any attorney general in any state can hold his finger to the wind and determine what issues are important to voters and what issues will get him positive press coverage and high approval ratings. It would be hard to name one politically ambitious state attorney general who wouldn't go after child predators on the Internet, excessive bonuses paid to executives of bailed-out companies, and that old and dependable standby, Medicaid fraud.

An attorney general may even make a reputation as a reformer by prosecuting public corruption, concentrating efforts on abuses of pension funds while ignoring abuses of tort funds and operational funds.

Attorney generals also defend state employees and agencies when they are sued. It was the abuse of this constitutionally-mandated responsibility that first gave rise to NY's secret political scandals. Andrew Cuomo should not have spent a minute's time contemplating whether or not to recuse himself from investigating Governor Paterson and the NYSP. His recusal should have been immediate given his reasonable expectation that Paterson already knew about NY's hidden political scandals. Andrew Cuomo's defense that Paterson asked for the investigation is no legitimate excuse for going ahead with an investigation rife with all kinds of conflicts of interest on his part.


PS: As you read the enclosed, please keep in mind that the trial that exposed the corruption in the OAG involved an out-of-jurisdiction arrest by the NYSP who came to a private residence in the Town of Hamburg, NY to effect an illegal arrest meant for the personal benefit of the father of a NYSP trooper.

The Town of Hamburg police (who had jurisdiction) were never involved in the arrest and the NYSP never sought/received permission from the Hamburg Town Police to be involved. After being arrested in Hamburg by a NYSP trooper who was assigned to the Clarence NYSP barracks and who came from Clarence, NY to Hamburg at the behest of his father, the defendant was taken out of district to the NYSP barracks in Orchard Park, NY and was also arraigned out of district in Orchard Park.

The alleged arraignment took place in the back room of an Orchard Park magistrate with only the magistrate and a NYSP investigator present. The magistrate, knowing how much money the defendant had on her, set bail high enough so it couldn't be reached and signed commitment papers in that backroom before the defendant, having been denied a lawyer, appeared before him.

The defendant's first lawful arraignment was held in Hamburg, NY after being incarcerated at the Erie County Holding Center for two days. All criminal charges were later dismissed with a judicial apology from the Hamburg Court magistate.

The OAG had no qualms about defending the NYSP members, even committing felonies in its defense and the NYSP have a history of ignoring jurisdictional boundaries and doing favors for others--all with the blessing of Andrew Cuomo and his predecessors in the OAG..

Below is the email re: Andrew Cuomo's entry into the 2010 gubernatorial Democratic primary:.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One line in the Spin v Truth --Andrew Cuomo and the Myth of a Cuomo Dynasty section, page 5 of the 2nd email, requires further explanation:
"At the time of the (1992) Illinois primary, I had written to your father only once".

That one time couldn't be worse for establishing any future Cuomo Dynasty since this initial contact was during the racially charged and divisive Tawana Brawley matter.

Andrew Cuomo's entry into the primary for Governor could reopen old racial wounds and provide further racial polarization. Andrew Cuomo already has residual problems with some black voters due to his challenging Carl McCall in the 2002 NY State Democratic primary for governor. Now it's rumored he wants to challenge another prominent black for governor in the 2010 primary.

His racially insensitive and unapologetic "shuck and jive" comment during the last presidential primary campaign doesn't help either. His attempts to explain away his usage of this term was just more "jive talking" on his part.

What could prove to be especially damaging or even fatal to Andrew Cuomo's political ambitions is his father's own conduct during the Tawana Brawley matter since Governor Cuomo's conduct raises questions as to how far the apple falls from the tree--a legitimate concern for both black and white voters.

My first communication with Andrew's father occurred in late August 1988. At that time, Mario Cuomo received an extensive mailing sent certified mail from me criticizing his appointment of NYAG Robert Abrams as special prosecutor in the Tawana Brawley matter and the problems he faced with that appointment (due to what occurred during Rojicek v Cooley, Bell, and Buczkowski). At the time of Cuomo's receipt of the information, Brawley's black attorneys (Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason) were refusing to cooperate with Abrams and his Grand Jury and would not allow Tawana Brawley or her mother to testify before it. Among the myriad charges hurled at Abrams by Al Sharpton and the Brawley attorneys was the charge that white officials like Abrams automatically covered up crimes of white officials. They were demanding that Cuomo replace Abrams and appoint another special prosecutor instead.

What Mario Cuomo did not expect or need during the Tawana Brawley matter was to be informed of a federal civil rights trial involving truthful charges of sexual assault by a white NY State Police investigator. The trial of Rojicek V Cooley et. al., proved unequivocally that Abrams and his office not only covered up crimes by white officials but also committed crimes (felonies) in order to cover up.

In my August 27, 1988 letter to Mario Cuomo, I warned him "not to be lulled into a false sense of security by Abrams' disclaimer . . . that my case was not the only case lurching luridly in Abrams' background . . . and that he had a potential scandal in Abrams' administration".

On September 8, 1988 Cuomo's Director of Criminal Justice, John Poklemba would respond via letter to me:

"Governor Cuomo has asked that I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 27, 1988, regarding your case. As you correctly noted in your letter, the Attorney General is a constitutionally elected officer and not subject to the direct control or supervision of the Governor. . . .Thank you for writing the Governor and sharing this matter with us."

John Poklemba was handling the Tawana Brawley matter for Governor Cuomo and had previously met with the Brawley forces who were demanding the removal of Abrams.

Mario Cuomo had a decision to make at that time--whether to act as a Governor or act as a politician. Instead of protecting his constituency of white, black and other racial origins, Cuomo protected his white Attorney General and the white lawyers involved in my trial.

He could have used Rojicek v Cooley, et al. to heal the racial divisions caused by the Brawley matter since my case came to his attention before the Brawley grand jury was disbanded (one month later) but he chose not to do so. He could have granted the Brawley request for another special prosecutor but he chose not to do so.

He could have gone public with Rojicek v Cooley, et al to reassure his constituents that he would not tolerate obstruction of justice by any attorney, black or white, but he chose not to do so. He could have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate corruption in Robert Abrams' office but he chose not to do so.

Instead, Governor Cuomo, too "tawana'd out" by the Brawley matter, entered into a conspiracy of silence with his white Attorney General not caring whether his constituents and others who use the courts in NY had fair trials when they were adversaries of Robert Abrams and his office. Both Cuomo and Abrams turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to already proved accusations against white attorneys.

Abrams, with Cuomo's apparent blessing, then proceeded to go after Brawley's black attorneys with a vengeance for violations of the professional conduct code for lawyers--violations that were far less egregious than the violations (both civil rights violations and violations of criminal statutes) committed by the white attorneys involved in Rojicek v Cooley, et al. Alton Maddox has had his law license suspended for over twenty years (a record) for refusing to appear before the Grievance Committee to answer questions related to his representation of Tawana Brawley. Mason was disbarred for refusing to answer questions regarding the Brawley matter and other alleged unrelated acts of professional misconduct.

Because of the disparate treatment given black and white attorneys by Cuomo and Abrams, voters can reasonably view both Cuomo and Abrams as racists. The ability to paint Cuomo and Abrams as racists is not only possible but even justified given today's racially sensitive political environment when even words such as "Negro dialect" leads to charges of racism when used innocently by an older white politician who grew up in an era where the word Negro was acceptable (and still is).

NY voters, whether logical or not, could legitimately view Andrew Cuomo's desire to defeat prominent black candidates and his prior usage of a racially insensitive term as proof of racial animus learned from his father, answering for themselves just how far the apple falls from the tree.

Parenthetically, NY voters could simply vote Andrew Cuomo out of any office if they learn what hypocrites and frauds the two Cuomos really are.

Relative to Paterson v Cuomo, it remains to be seen whether or not a black man, in a reversal of history, finally keeps a white boy in his place.

While I would love to see such a public reversal of history, I doubt Paterson will risk political suicide by going public re: Andrew Cuomo and the Cuomo legacy--not when he or his operatives can work quietly behind the scenes to keep Cuomo out. A quid pro quo arrangement such as a later lucrative appointment by a then Governor Andrew Cuomo could also be promised to both entice Paterson to drop out of the primary or as a reward for remaining silent about NY's hidden political scandals.

Paterson, as do others, also has the option of using black activists or others to destroy any Cuomo dynasty.

In the event Andrew Cuomo doesn't enter the primary, I would expect a statement from him similar to the one given by his father when he was forced to remove his name from consideration as a US Supreme Court Justice nominee, i.e. he loves being the peoples' lawyer, he's not finished with important NYAG business, ad nauseum.

Reporters attending any press conference where Cuomo announces his decision not to enter the primary race for governor could then take out their pens and stenographer pads and record Andrew Cuomo's spin for not entering the primary as fact. A few polite, perfunctory, and irrelevant questions may even be asked.

The only question reporters should ask is "Is there anything in your background or father's background that prevents you from entering a gubernatorial primary when a majority of state and national Democrats want you and polling numbers show you easily beating both Paterson and Lazio?"

With that question, reporters would actually witness a white boy "shucking and jiving" his way through a press conference--even if that press conference were being held in an Iowa or New Hampshire living room.

Cuomo's not entering or dropping out of the gubernatorial primary does present a problem for him with the state and national Democrat Party and President Obama since he, rather than Paterson, is viewed as the party's savior and not the liability he really is.

Politician and savior are incongruent occupations.

According to a newspaper article, Tawawa Brawley's mother and stepfather allegedly wrote letters to then Governor Spitzer and NYAG Andrew Cuomo asking that the Brawley matter be reopened. Irrespective of whether the Brawley matter was a hoax or not, Andrew Cuomo will never reopen up the matter since doing so could possibly result in damage to both his political career/ambitions as well as damage to his father's reputation/legacy.

Personally, I think Andrew Cuomo should view me as more of a threat than anyone connected to the Brawley matter. In a letter dated August 26, 1988 sent certified mail to Abrams (included in Cuomo's mailing), I wrote: "You may or may not be successful in denying me my lawful right to justice by riding on the coattails of the Brawley case. We both know, however, there will be other coattails to ride".

Never did I expect that same coattail would be available to ride years and years later.

Andrew Cuomo's rumored entry into the gubernatorial primary is one more coattail to ride.

I have no dog in the Democratic primary fight for governor unless Andrew Cuomo enters the ring. My dog remains in the NY Attorney General's office and is only let out on occasion to ride on coattails.

If I had been able to find one NYAG among the last five (Abrams, Koppel, Vacco, Spitzer, and Cuomo) who believes that fair courtroom trials are the cornerstone of a democracy, my dog could be laying contentedly in Illinois at my feet while my sister and I leisurely search the Internet for names of the last five Illinois Attorneys General. We can only recall the names of the last two.

Andrew Cuomo, despite numerous opportunities, has refused to send my dog home and I miss her.

Hopefully, NY voters won't miss the the character flaws (in addition to racial animus) demonstrated by Andrew Cuomo that prove that Andrew Cuomo is not fit to be NYAG let alone Governor of New York. To wit:

When Mario Cuomo delivered his 1984 keynote address at the National Democratic Convention, he spoke eloquently of a nation divided into two cities, one for the rich, powerful, and politically protected and one for the poor, powerless, and politically unprotected. When it came to a true test of his rhetoric, though, Governor Cuomo chose to live in the city of the rich, powerful, and politically protected.and left a powerless. but more principled victim who occupies the other city, to fight alone.

Andrew Cuomo has always resided in the same city as his father. Despite his rhetoric and public relations makeover, he is still the same Andrew Cuomo. Like his father, he also left a powerless, but more principled victim who occupies the other city, to fight alone.

While I don't know either Cuomo personally, both have been described by others who know them as petty, vindictive, mean-spirited, egotistical individuals who never let go of grudges. Such negative personality traits, combined with arrogance, leads to bad executive decisions, including ignoring the number one rule of politics: When a problem first comes to your attention, deal with it.

Andrew Cuomo received the same two lengthy emails you have received certified mail. Additionally, similar emails have been emailed to his executive secretary (Holly Levy) numerous times as well as to Mario Cuomo and Robert Abrams at their respective private law firms and top deputies of Andrew Cuomo in the OAG.

I have never been able to determine Andrew Cuomo's own OAG email address. According to Holly, Andrew Cuomo can't figure out how to print emails so all emails have to go to her for printing and delivery (although Cuomo brags about his hobby of tinkering with and fixing engines of classic automobiles).

Andrew Cuomo's liabilities are self-inflicted.

As NYAG, he allowed his arrogance to interfere with whatever intellect he has. As NYAG, Andrew Cuomo has refused to follow the law and the mandates of his office. As a government attorney paid with tax dollars, his first duty is to seek and insure justice regardless of whether an injustice occurred in either a civil case or criminal case and regardless of when that injustice occurred. This heightened obligation is due to the recognition that government can and often does abuse its power.

A victim who for years has stood on principle and who has refused to be the first one to motion a Court for redress does not negate any NYAG's responsibilities.

Evidently, game playing is another hobby of Andrew Cuomo's. He's not paid by taxpayers to play a waiting game. Any motion by Cuomo would have only required a simple, short statement requesting the District Court in Buffalo to set aside the judgment in Rojicek v Cooley, et al due to Fraud Upon the Court and in the interest of justice--a motion that would have automatically been granted. Rather than admitting to fraud and criminal acts that included bribery, he could have taken an even more ambiguous route, simply claiming that lawyer over-zealousness has resulted in an unreliable judgment.

I am persona non grata in Buffalo where federal magistrates laugh with lawyers over kitchen sinks and US attorneys slander and maliciously prosecute US citizens engaged in lawful protest--protest designed to protect the public, to expose corruption in the District Court and the NY Attorney General's Office, and to send a message to other victims that going to the US Attorney's office is a complete waste of time.

Furthermore, as Andrew Cuomo is well aware, I have been adamant about the OAG motioning for a new trial and not me and I have no intention of ever changing my position about this since it was the OAG that colluded with my attorney, committed the criminal acts, and paid the bribes. How much more clear could I be?

Both Mario Cuomo and I knew that in public corruption cases one always follows the money. Following the money in NY would lead to the comptroller's office--a fact acknowledged by Andrew Cuomo, himself, when he obtained a guilty plea from Ray Harding, former head of the NY Liberal Party, in October 2009.

Furthermore, Andrew Cuomo has not demonstrated loyalty to the NYS Democrat Party and his lack of loyalty should not be rewarded by the party. The true story of NY State's secret political scandals would have disappeared with settlement that included the mandatory disclaimer of any wrong doing and the obligatory agreement of confidentiality.

The NYS Democrat Party can thank Andrew Cuomo for keeping the story of NY's secret political scandals alive and in the political arena.

Politicians must laugh at the white NY establishment press. New York's version of Watergate was written by two sisters from Illinois, neither of whom have press credentials. We are capable of writing additional chapters with or without the help of NY's black press.

Perhaps Andrew Cuomo should consider breaking the sad news to his paramour, Sandra Lee, that she won't be bringing any of her great garnishes to the Governor's Mansion next year and for the three years following (unless,of course, she's visiting Governor Paterson).

On a more somber note, it should be noted that one of Mario Cuomo's daughters (Andrew Cuomo's sister) was allegedly sexually assaulted by a rapist who has never been caught. Both have dishonored her and other victims of sexual assault by their willingness to add years and years of continued victimization directed towards another sexual assault victim.

How proud she must be of her father and her brother. ""

Sent in by Reader..

Posted here by
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger

New York Court Corruption - Great Blog

http://www.NewYorkCourtCorruption.blogspot.com/

The information on this blog about the corruption in the New York Unified Court System will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier