Official Criminal Complaint Against Judge Lippman,
Received by Preet Bharara April 6th, 2013
William Galison
Blackstar
News
32
Broadway, suite 511
New
York NY 10004
To: Preet Bharara
United States Attorney
Office
Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, NY 10007
April 3, 2013
April 3, 2013
COMPLAINT REGARDING FRAUD IN
THE NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF
NEW YORK CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN BY
MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
This
complaint regards crimes and corruption by Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of New
York State, members of the NY State Senate Judiciary Committee and members of
the NY State Judicial Nomination Committee, with the complicity of other
government officials. These acts
constitute legislative election fraud among other crimes.
If any of the statements herein are false, Title18 USC; Section 1001, obliges you to arrest me for making false statements to a Federal Officer. Your failure to arrest me will represent your acknowledgment that the statements herein are true, in which case a failure to investigate these allegations would represent a dereliction of your duty.
The NY Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on
Judge Lippman’s
Confirmation Was Fraudulent and Invalid.
The process of Lippman’s nomination and confirmation
to the Chief Judgeship of New York was illegal; rife with conflicts of interest, official fraud, and
rampant violation of the laws and rules of the Constitution of the State of New
York.
The New York Senate
Judiciary Committee Failed to Uphold
Any of Its Duties in
Regard to the Confirmation of Judge Lippman.
All Senate Committees, whether federal or state, have
four cardinal duties in regard to public hearings:
1)
to announce hearings to the public with reasonable notice
2)
to gather information or evidence from the public and other sources
3) to evaluate the information and evidence and reach
findings based thereon
4) to present their findings to the full senate to
inform their vote
In their disposition of the confirmation of Judge Lippman, members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee failed to uphold every one of these duties. Specifically:
In their disposition of the confirmation of Judge Lippman, members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee failed to uphold every one of these duties. Specifically:
1) The “Public Confirmation Hearing” was not announced until one
day before the hearing, in
violation of NY Senate rules which require a five-day notice. The
announcement also did not mention that the public was invited, despite its
being a “public hearing”.
The NY Senate FAQ page states:
“All Standing Committees may hold public hearings. Assembly rules require that not less than two days notice of such hearings be given, and the Senate rules require five days notice.”
[NOTE: SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS BLOG, THE FAQ PAGE CONTAINING THIS RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED, AS HAS AN ALTERNATE LINK TO THE SAME URL. APPARENTLY ALL MENTION OF THE 5 DAY RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE NY SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. THE RULE HOWEVER STILL STANDS AND CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET ONLY AT THIS ADDRESS:
http://www.abateny.org/leg/confused/details.html
FORTUNATELY, A SCREENSHOT OF THE FAQ PAGE WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE PAGE WAS REMOVED AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE.
The February 11th, 2009 hearing was announced exclusively on the webpage of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 10th, 2009 , with no mention that the hearing was public. The hearing was not announced in any newspapers, or any radio or television broadcasts in New York State.
“All Standing Committees may hold public hearings. Assembly rules require that not less than two days notice of such hearings be given, and the Senate rules require five days notice.”
[NOTE: SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS BLOG, THE FAQ PAGE CONTAINING THIS RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED, AS HAS AN ALTERNATE LINK TO THE SAME URL. APPARENTLY ALL MENTION OF THE 5 DAY RULE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE NY SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. THE RULE HOWEVER STILL STANDS AND CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET ONLY AT THIS ADDRESS:
http://www.abateny.org/leg/confused/details.html
FORTUNATELY, A SCREENSHOT OF THE FAQ PAGE WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE PAGE WAS REMOVED AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE.
The February 11th, 2009 hearing was announced exclusively on the webpage of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 10th, 2009 , with no mention that the hearing was public. The hearing was not announced in any newspapers, or any radio or television broadcasts in New York State.
In
fact, the February 10th announcement
does not mention that anyone was
invited, yet at least ten friendly witnesses were invited by the SJC to testify before the committee -
none of them members of the Committee or the Senate - and dozens of
Lippman’s supporters were present. Their
testimony of the friendly witness unequivocally establishes that this was
indeed a “public hearing”, despite
the Senate’s violation of applicable rules.
There are two kinds of hearings “Public” and “Not Public”. There is no provision in the Constitution for a hearing that is only “public” to selected individuals.
There are two kinds of hearings “Public” and “Not Public”. There is no provision in the Constitution for a hearing that is only “public” to selected individuals.
Tim Spotts, the assistant to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson tried to convince this reporter that Lippman’s confirmation was “not a public hearing”, although the public was invited to testify. He went so far as to
say that the confirmation hearing was not even a hearing. “It’s not a “hearing hearing” said Spotts, “it’s just a confirmation”. Spotts
was only truthful in his acknowledgement that Lippman’s confirmation was a fait
accompli, and the confirmation hearing
a sham. As transparent as his ruse was, Spotts must be prosecuted for
misleading the public about the nature of the hearing.
The “five-day rule” is no mere technicality; it exists to ensure that the public has enough prior notice to prepare statements and attend “public hearings”; a fundamental tenet of our democracy.
The “five-day rule” is no mere technicality; it exists to ensure that the public has enough prior notice to prepare statements and attend “public hearings”; a fundamental tenet of our democracy.
It is in violation of state senate rules to hold a public hearing with less than five days notice, and/or without public invitation. On these ground alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.
2)
The SJC failed to investigate allegations by opposing witnesses at the hearing.
Despite the absence of notice, three New York citizens, including Elena Sassower, Director of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), and Will Galison, CJA member and Black Star News Journalist, learned of the hearing two days prior through an inadvertent leak by a Senate employee and attended the hearing as witnesses in opposition to Lippman’s confirmation.
The testimonies of Sassower and Galison were videotaped. and were posted on the NY Senate website, before being expunged from the official record. Fortunately, the videos were copied and are now posted on Youtube and elsewhere. The bias, bullying and intimidation against the opposing witnesses by the SJA are shockingly evident in these clips.
Despite the absence of notice, three New York citizens, including Elena Sassower, Director of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), and Will Galison, CJA member and Black Star News Journalist, learned of the hearing two days prior through an inadvertent leak by a Senate employee and attended the hearing as witnesses in opposition to Lippman’s confirmation.
The testimonies of Sassower and Galison were videotaped. and were posted on the NY Senate website, before being expunged from the official record. Fortunately, the videos were copied and are now posted on Youtube and elsewhere. The bias, bullying and intimidation against the opposing witnesses by the SJA are shockingly evident in these clips.
3) Selected Witnesses and reporters “friendly” to
Lippman were secretly invited to the hearings in advance of, and to the
exclusion of, the general public and press.
As
mentioned above; aside from these three citizens, the hearing was attended exclusively by over 50 officials and citizens personally invited
by Judge Lippman and Senator Sampson to either testify in Lippman’s favor or to
applaud favorable testimony. As the
announcement of the hearings did not mention that anyone was invited, the friendly witnesses must have been personally
invited by the Committee in advance
of (and to the exclusion of) the general public.
Likewise,
there was also no Senate press release informing the media of the hearing. Only journalists
from select newspapers were invited, virtually all of whom neglected to report
on the testimony or even the presence of
the opposition witnesses.
It is unconstitutional to secretly invite “friendly” witnesses and “friendly” reporters to a public hearing without notifying the general press - and the general public - that the hearing is public.
4) The Senate Judiciary was denied access to criminal allegations and judicial conduct complaints against Lippman, which were under investigation at the time of the hearings.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose sole duty is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by NY judges, withheld from the Senate Judiciary Committee pending complaints alleging crimes by Judge Lippman.
At least one and possibly more, judicial complaints against Lippman were pending before the CJC at the time of the hearings. It was the duty of the CJC to inform the SJC that these complaints were pending, and must be adjudicated before a confirmation decision could be reached.
Robert
Tembeckjian, the Administrator of the Commission on Judicial Conduct was
personally present at the
confirmation hearings, but failed to inform the SJC about complaints of
criminal acts by Lippman that were pending before his commission, even when
they were referenced by the witnesses. [Tembeckjian also applauded at the
testimony of the friendly witnesses and mocked the opposing witnesses, in a
display of bias in favor of the judge he is required by law to investigate.]
Without
the benefit of the officially filed evidence against Lippman, the SJC was
unable to render an informed decision on his qualifications for Chief Judge.
Hence, their report to the full Senate was incomplete, inadequate and invalid.
[One month after Lippman’s confirmation, the CJC complaint was “dismissed without investigation” by Tembeckjian.]
[One month after Lippman’s confirmation, the CJC complaint was “dismissed without investigation” by Tembeckjian.]
5)
The Senate Judiciary Committee failed to investigate evidence against Lippman
which had been submitted directly to all members of the committee prior to the hearing.
Two weeks prior to the confirmation hearings, documents supporting allegations of criminal activity by Lippman were sent to all 21 members of the SJC by opposing witness Will Galison. At the hearing, Galison asked which of the Senators on the SJC had reviewed the documents and allegations. The Senators refused to answer; one Senator leapt from his chair and yelled “That question is inappropriate!”, to which Chairman Sampson added “We’re the ones asking the questions here!”
Two weeks prior to the confirmation hearings, documents supporting allegations of criminal activity by Lippman were sent to all 21 members of the SJC by opposing witness Will Galison. At the hearing, Galison asked which of the Senators on the SJC had reviewed the documents and allegations. The Senators refused to answer; one Senator leapt from his chair and yelled “That question is inappropriate!”, to which Chairman Sampson added “We’re the ones asking the questions here!”
Moreover, in violation of Senate rules, the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to review or investigate documentation of allegations against Lippman presented by the opposing witnesses who testified at the hearings. In addition to their 5-minute testimonies, the opposing witnesses offered the SJC copious documentation of their allegations against Lippman. In violation of their mandate, the SJC failed to review or investigate any of these documents before voting on Lippman’s confirmation.
No
Time Was Allotted to Evaluate Opposing Testimony
In
fact, so certain was the SJC that
no opposing witnesses would appear or present evidence, (because they were not
invited) that they did not allot any period of time to review or investigate
potential opposing testimony. The record shows that the hearing was
allowed to continue until just before 11:00 - the final speaker being Lippman
himself – and that immediately after Lippman spoke, the handful of committee
members, Lippman and his admirers marched from the hearing room to the senate
chamber, to address the full senate on the findings of the committee. Hence, none
of the documentary evidence presented by the opposing witnesses was
investigated or considered in the full-senate vote, as required by law..
6)
The SJC failed to report the fact or substance of opposing witness testimony to
the full Senate prior to the full Senate confirmation vote.
The
transcript of Senator Sampson’s presentation to the full senate proves that he
failed to inform the senate of any testimony by the opposing witnesses. Hence,
the full senate was ignorant of the pending criminal allegations against Lippman
and thus voted on incomplete and biased information.
On each and all of the grounds cited above, the NY Senate confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid, hence, Lippman is not the lawful Chief Judge of New York, and is not eligible for nomination for the SJI by the President in that capacity.
On each and all of the grounds cited above, the NY Senate confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid, hence, Lippman is not the lawful Chief Judge of New York, and is not eligible for nomination for the SJI by the President in that capacity.
The New York Senate Judiciary Committee was Aware
of
Fraud in Lippman’s Confirmation and
was Complicit in That fraud
Every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that attended the hearing
knew that it was in violation of
Senate Rules, yet every one went
along with the unlawful hearing without objection. Perhaps that is why more
than half of the Committee members failed to attend this critically important
hearing, and why no quorum of SJC members were present throughout the entire
hearing.
The
NY Senate Judiciary Committee Also Disregarded
Documented
Evidence of Corruption in the Nomination of Jonathan Lippman.
The
first step of an investigation into a nominee would be to examine the questionnaires
he is required to fill out in application for his nomination. The
questionnaire provided by the New York Commission on Judicial Nominations
to all nominees asks the following question:
30(a) has any complaint or charge ever been made against you in connection to your service in a judicial office? Include in your response any question raised or inquiry conducted of any kind by any agency or official of the judicial system?
If the answer to subpart (a) is “yes”, furnish full details, including the agency or officer making the inquiry, the nature of the question or inquiry, the outcome and relevant dates
If Lippman filled out this sworn questionnaire honestly, he would have had to report the complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct by Will Galison. Receipt of this complaint was acknowledged by the CJC in a letter of January 28th, 2009; two weeks before the Confirmation hearing.
30(a) has any complaint or charge ever been made against you in connection to your service in a judicial office? Include in your response any question raised or inquiry conducted of any kind by any agency or official of the judicial system?
If the answer to subpart (a) is “yes”, furnish full details, including the agency or officer making the inquiry, the nature of the question or inquiry, the outcome and relevant dates
If Lippman filled out this sworn questionnaire honestly, he would have had to report the complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct by Will Galison. Receipt of this complaint was acknowledged by the CJC in a letter of January 28th, 2009; two weeks before the Confirmation hearing.
The allegations in
the complaint that was pending before the CJC at the time of the confirmation
hearing are extremely serious.
They regard Lippman’s abuse of authority as Presiding Judge of the First
Department, and blatant conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in
the process of Lippman’s nomination.
The complaint alleges that as Presiding Justice of the First Department, Judge Lippman used his office to illegally protect a lawyer from disciplinary action. The protected lawyer was later found to be an intimate friend and business partner of one of the twelve members of the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC); the body that nominated Lippman.
Corruption of the New York State Judicial
Nomination Commission
When this appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest was exposed to all twelve members of the JNC in a letter of 11/20/08, the only response from the commission was a recorded phone message left on Galison’s answering machine by JNC member Fred Brewington: “This is Fred Brewington. You sent me an email concerning… the JNC… Please do not send me any more information concerning this, and the information you did send me I’m going to shred at this point. Thank you.”
The letter that Mr.
Brewington shredded alleges that:
- Judge Lippman knowingly violated Part 118 of the New
York State Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge and section 90 of the
Judiciary law
- Judge Lippman refused to fulfill his duty to oversee
the DDC
- Judge Lippman ignored [Galison’s] lawyers’ letter
proving that Mr. Friedman lied
to a panel of Appellate Court
Judges
- Judge Lippman failed to enforce rules of the First
Department which were altered byAlan Friedberg at the DDC.
- Judge Lippman ignored criminal
complaints against his Court Clerk, Ron Uzenski
- Judge Lippman’s illegal favors to Leon Friedman were
an effort to Influence the Commission on Judicial Nomination which in turn
nominated him for the Chief Judgeship.
- CJC Staff member Mr. Richard Emery is also a friend
and colleague of Leon Freidman and must be recused from the adjudication of his
case.
Why Lippman Needed to Subvert the Confirmation
Process
There is a very good
reason that Lippman and his conspirators in the SJC had to illegally limit the
attendance of his confirmation hearings to Lippman’s friends and
colleagues. Had the confirmation
hearing been announced to the public, the room would have been packed with
citizens testifying of Lippman’s corruption and Lippman would have been
rejected.
This was proven on 6/8/09 and 9/24/09, when hearings in Albany and Manhattan respectively were filled to capacity by victims of corruption by the attorney grievance committees and Committee on Judicial Conduct. Dozens of documented complaints were filed against Lippman personally, and hundreds more against the agencies he supervised as Administrative Judge and Presiding Judge of the First Department. These complaints have never been investigated.
This was proven on 6/8/09 and 9/24/09, when hearings in Albany and Manhattan respectively were filled to capacity by victims of corruption by the attorney grievance committees and Committee on Judicial Conduct. Dozens of documented complaints were filed against Lippman personally, and hundreds more against the agencies he supervised as Administrative Judge and Presiding Judge of the First Department. These complaints have never been investigated.
In light of the
above, your office must undertake and investigation into the nomination and
confirmation of Jonathan Lippman as Chief Judge of New York State.
I look forward to hearing your response to my allegations and evidence above.
I look forward to hearing your response to my allegations and evidence above.
Sincerely,
Will Galison
Reporter, Truthout.org, Blackstar News
cc: Milton Allimadi,
Publisher Blackstar News
Leslie
Thatcher, Editor Truthout.org
General Mediahttp://senwww.senate.state.ny.us/sws/aboutsenate/faqs.html
