Integrity in the
Courts
“To distrust the judiciary marks the
beginning of the end of society.” - Honoré de Balzac
“Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” - Martin Luther
King
All Members: State of New York
Commission on Judicial
Nomination
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6710
November 20, 2008
FAX (212) 336-2222
Notice of Improprieties and
Negligence by Judge Jonathan Lippman and
Apparent Corrupt Influence on a
Member of The Judicial Nomination Commission
Synopsis: My organization has compiled
overwhelming evidence of Official Misconduct and other improprieties by Judge
Jonathan Lippman. Judge Lippman has also ignored and/or abetted systemic
corruption in the First Appellate Division, some committed for the benefit of
lawyers with intimate ties to a member of the Judicial Nomination Commission,
Gerald B. Lefcourt. Judge Lippman’s improprieties must be investigated before he
is nominated. Mr. Lefcourt must be removed from the Commission on the basis of
the conflict of interest.
Dear CJN Members:
I am a co-founder of the organization “Integrity in
the Courts”, a group composed of victims of judicial corruption, who dedicate
their time and efforts to exposing and remediating New York State’s notoriously
corrupt judiciary. Our members include a six-year veteran Staff Attorney from
the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee who was fired for whistle-blowing
and has a Federal suit pending against the DDC and the First Appellate Division.
We also have affidavits endorsing our efforts from a sitting Supreme Court Judge
and a retired Justice of twenty years on the bench.
The Judicial Nomination Commission has been entrusted
with the solemn responsibility of choosing nominees for the highest judicial
position in the state. The Chief Judge is not only the final arbiter of judicial
matters in the State, he is also ultimately accountable for the behavior of
every member of the judiciary that serves beneath him, and his ethics set the
standards for the entire Judiciary.
Members of my organization possess overwhelming
evidence that one of the nominees selected by the Commission- Judge Jonathan
Lippman- falls far short of the ethical standards required by the office of
Chief Judge. This letter describes one example of abuse by the First
Department Appellate Division under Judge Lippman’s
supervision, but my colleagues and I have documented evidence of many more, some
of which are pending in federal complaints.
Justice Lippman has
Countenanced Rampant Impropriety by
Unethical Lawyers From a Law
Firm Connected to a Member of Your Commission
For the past decade, Attorney Leon
Friedman has been fraudulently
registered in the Second Department, even though his sole law office is at
148 East 78th street,
which puts him unambiguously in the jurisdiction of the First Department DDC.
Although this may appear to be a trivial infraction, it has serious
ramifications, as will be explained. More importantly, Judge Lippman’s
consistent failure to hold Mr. Friedman and the DDC accountable is illustrative
of a pattern of bending and breaking rules to allow serious ethical and legal
infractions by Friedman and his firm, The Law Offices of Richard Ware
Levitt.
In July 2006, I filed a disciplinary complaint
against Mr. Friedman with the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The
claims included destruction of evidence, perjury, conflict of interest and many
more serious charges.
In reply, then Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill, wrote me
the following: “[Mr. Friedman] does not practice in Manhattan or the Bronx
and is, therefore not within our jurisdiction”. This response was so utterly and demonstrably false
that the only explanations were corruption or incapacity on the part of Mr.
Cahill. It turns out that Cahill based his determination of jurisdiction on
Friedman’s fraudulent registration information, rather than the listing of
his sole law office address which is found on the internet, phone book, his
letterhead and over the door of 148 East 78th
street, beside the plaque that reads
“Law Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt, Leon Friedman, Richard Ware
Levitt…
When Judge Lippman appointed Allan Friedberg to
replace Cahill, he wrote: “Alan W. Friedberg’s …commitment to the highest
ethical standards render him extremely well prepared to serve as Chief Counsel.”
That sounded hopeful, so my first
letter to Mr. Friedberg was to confirm the obvious fact that Mr. Friedman
practices in, and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the First Department,
in order to re-file my complaint.
Over the past year, I have written twelve letters to
Mr. Friedberg, asking simply for confirmation of Friedman’s
jurisdiction, be it in the First
Department or elsewhere. Mr. Friedberg’s has adamantly refused to confirm or
deny Mr. Friedman’s jurisdiction, and has ignored my correspondence.
For three years the DDC has obstructed my complaint against Mr.
Friedman by refusing to acknowledge their jurisdiction over Mr. Friedman.
Moreover, they have denied me my right of redress by effectively banning me from
any communication with the Committee. When, after several months of my letters
being ignored, I visited the DDC. I was told that Mr. Friedberg had
forbidden the entire DDC staff to discuss anything with me, including the status (or existence) of my
complaints. When I asked for an explanation, they threatened to have me thrown
out by security, a threat they rescinded when told I was recording the
conversation. When I tried to make an appointment to see Mr. Friedberg, I was
told, without explanation, that I could not make an appointment in person or by
phone, and that I would have to make an appointment by mail. Several weeks ago,
I sent a letter requesting an appointment by mail, but unsurprisingly, my
request has been ignored. Denying me access to a public agency is a violation of
my civil rights. Fortunately, all of my interactions with the DDC have been
recorded and transcribed.
Clearly, Mr. Friedman’s fraudulent registration is
more than an innocent twelve-year oversight. It is a deliberate strategy to
obstruct the proceedings of the DDC, and it is abetted by Mr. Friedberg and
Judge Lippman for their own advantage as explained below. I have brought these
issues to the attention of DDC Chairman, Roy Reardon, but thus far have received
no indication of forthcoming investigation or action.
I have hand delivered seven letters to Judge Lippman,
complaining about the abuses of his appointee and the DDC in general. Most of my
letters have been ignored, and the only responses have been irrelevant “form”
letters, signed by his Clerk John McConnell, generally referring me back to
Allan Friedberg, as if he were expected to discipline
himself.
Several months ago, I wrote a letter to Judge
Lippman, explaining that according to the Rules of the Chief Administrative
Judge PART 118. Registration Of Attorneys, he was personally
responsible for holding Mr. Friedman
to account:
(e)
The registration statement shall be on a form provided by the Chief
Administrator and shall include the following information, attested to by
affirmation: (7) office addresses (including department);
[note the
plural] Failure by any attorney
to comply with the provisions of this section shall result in referral for
disciplinary action by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court pursuant to
section 90 of the Judiciary Law.
In other words, the Appellate Division (First
Department), of which Judge Lippman is the Presiding Justice, is legally and
ethically obliged to turn in
renegade lawyers like Leon Friedman to the Disciplinary Committee. If Judge
Lippman didn’t know the law before I told him, he knows it now, and yet he
willfully chooses to break the law for the sole purpose of protecting Mr.
Friedman and his friends.
[It should be noted that Mr.
Friedman’s use of the false registration address to avoid a Disciplinary
complaint puts him in violation of Penal Code § 210.40 “Making an
apparently sworn false statement in the first degree. A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn
false statement in the first degree when he commits the crime of making an
apparently sworn false statement in
the second degree, and
when (a) the
written instrument involved is one for which an oath is required by law,
and (b) the false statement contained therein is made with
intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and (c)such false statement is
material to the action, proceeding or matter involved. Making an
apparently sworn false statement in the first degree is a class E felony”].
The above is just one of numerous ways that Judge
Lippman is helping Mr. Friedman, his partners and his office mates. Mr. Lippman has also ignored written
complaints from my lawyers. Neal Brickman and Associates, regarding various
infractions by Mr. Friedman, including lying outright to the Appellate Court
judges during oral argument. It would appear that at the very least, Judge
Lippman is guilty of numerous counts of Official Misconduct and several judicial
ethical violations.
Why Judge Lippman Would Break
the Law to Help a Lawyer Like Friedman?
Why would a Chief Justice of the Appellate Division
break the law and risk losing his job and reputation (and liberty) just to help
a five-attorney law office avoid the consequences of their illegal
activities? Could it have to do
with the fact that Mr. Friedman and his partner Richard Ware Levitt share
their offices, secretary, phone number, fax machine, clients and cases with Mr.
Gerald B. Lefcourt, and that Mr.
Lefcourt is a member of the very Judicial Nomination Commission in whose hands
lies Judge Lippman’s potential future as Chief Judge?
Life would be much easier for Mr. Lefcourt and his
friends if they had a friend like Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of New York State
who would allow them to break ethical rules with impunity, as he has done up to
now. And life would be much easier for Lefcourt’s clients, who include gentlemen
named Bonnano, Gambino and
Gotti and
Gigante, among others. My guess
is that Mr. Lefcourt is a big proponent of Judge Lippman for the job of Chief
Judge. If I am wrong, the myriad improprieties of Judge Lippman on behalf of Mr.
Lefcourt’s friends are still a sound basis for his
disqualification.
The fact that Judge Lippman has broken the law for
the benefit of select lawyers is grounds enough to have him removed for
consideration by the Commission and should be grounds for his arrest. The fact
that Mr. Lefcourt’s partners are the beneficiaries of Judge Lippman’s illegal
largesse is grounds for Mr. Lefcourt’s immediate disqualification from the
commission and an investigation into illicit influence on the Nomination
process. Mr. Lefcourt should also
be required to explain how it is that he is registered in the First Department
while his colleague down the hall is registered in the Second. The excuse that
Mr. Friedman teaches at Hofstra does not wash, because the registration applies
to law practice only, not
teaching offices. In any case, registration of all law office addresses are required by §118. It is Mr.
Lefcourt’s ethical obligation under the LCPR to report and rectify this
fraud.
Clearly, Judge Lippman is totally unaccountable for
the abuses of his own appointees in his own Division. His choice of Allan
Friedberg as Chief Counsel to the DDC is a testament either to his appalling
judgment or corrupt intentions- or both. It would be foolish to expect that he
will serve the public any more honorably as Chief Judge.
I have distributed copies of my evidence among
numerous people, including law enforcement officials, elected officials and
members of the local and national press. My webmaster is preparing a website
that will publish all of the pertinent documents as well as the audio and video
recordings of official misconduct by Friedberg and
others.
I am hoping that at least some members of your
Commission have retained an ember of integrity and interest in the well-being of
New York State. I urge you all to respond to this letter with any questions or
requests for documentation of the complaints against Judge Lippman by me or the
other members of Integrity in the Courts. Your failure to investigate our documented claims
against a candidate under your consideration would be an obvious dereliction of
your duties as Commission members.
Fortunately, the winds in Washington have changed;
improprieties overlooked by Mr. Mukasey will not be tolerated by Mr. Holder.
Several members of my group and I have connections high in the
administration-elect and we are very encouraged by their concern regarding
corruption in the New York Judiciary.
It is your Committee’s responsibility and privilege
to help select a Chief Judge that will improve the Judiciary for ALL decent New
Yorkers, not only a select few.
I look forwards to answering your
questions.
William
Galison
Integrity in the
Courts
917 517
7344