More Filings in NY's Federal Ethics Scandal Case

Attorney Christine Anderson Files Amended Papers to Re-open Case
An Ethics Rouser EXCLUSIVE by Abe King - July 5, 2012
Widespread 'Ethics' Corruption Now Includes Threat on Witness in a Federal Proceeding
 

The Corruption at Manhattan's so-called 'Ethics' Oversight Committee is before Federal District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Christine Anderson, a New York attorney for nearly 30 years, filed her latest papers on June 25, 2012. Anderson has requested that Judge Scheindlin reopen her case as details recently revealed in another federal proceeding showed that an Anderson witness was threatened. It was a federal crime to engage in witness tampering or to threaten a witness in a federal proceeding. Recently, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals guided Anderson to the District Court: "At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of May, two thousand twelve. Present: Chester J. Straub, Robert D. Sack, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges - FILED MAY 11, 2012 Appellant, pro se, moves to recall the mandate. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Appellant has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances that would entitle her to the requested relief. See British Int'l Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 354 F.3d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 2003). Moreover, the argument in Appellant's motion, which relies on "newly discovered evidence," is more appropriately raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 18-19 (1976) (holding that a party may pursue in the district court a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a judgment that an appellate court has upheld, because the district court "is not flouting the mandate by acting on the motion" where "the appellate mandate relates to the record and issues then before the court, and does not purport to deal with later events"); DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1270 (2d Cir. 1994) (interpreting Standard Oil to stand for the proposition that "a district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion when 'later events' arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court")." ----- Here is Anderson's Amended Filing:


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________

Christine C. Anderson, Plaintiff, 

-against –  
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, 
 Amended and DAVID SPOKONY, 
 Defendants.
07-cv- 09599 (SAS) 
 ______________________________________
Amended Affirmation in Support of Motion To Reopen

I, Christine C. Anderson, make the following affirmation under penalties of perjury: 

I, Christine C. Anderson, am the plaintiff in the above entitled action, and respectfully move this court to issue an order granting a new trial pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60 (b) and (d)(3), inter alia. The reasons why I am entitled to the relief I seek are the following:

1.     This Court should be brought to the realization, in its full entirety, of the knowing cruelty meted out to myself, when the state court consented to terminate my employment of six and one-half years. This Court should be cognizant of the fact of my employment record lauded with glowing evaluations over that time.

2.     This injustice has left me blacklisted by the legal profession. Unable to obtain employment in my field, I, a two-time cancer survivor, am essentially destitute.

3.     I was unjustly deprived of health and other benefits and forward pension and social security sums, since my termination in June of 2007, thus further aggravating the state of penury to which I have been reduced.

4.      Plaintiff moves for the herein relief on the extraordinary and newly discovered basis of the fact that a witness in plaintiff’s herein district court case, a defendant-employed attorney Nicole Corrado, has filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, Corrado v. The New York State Unified Court System (EXHIBIT “A” - EDNY 12cv1748) now corroborating the fact that she was threatened as a witness in plaintiff’s trial. (See attached Corrado complaint at paragraphs 27-31) Ms. Corrado was so chilled by the deliberate witness tampering that she did not testify in plaintiff’s district court trial. In the interest of justice, this illegal atrocity must be corrected.

5.     The confirmation of witness tampering by defendants in this matter, and as supported by the recent Corrado filing, is such a miscarriage of justice so to require this Honorable Court to reopen the case and schedule a new trial, inter alia.

6.     This Court must insure that any plaintiff such as myself can have a fair trial without witness tampering or such threats upon witnesses so as to prevent their testimony for the court or jury. Corrado’s recent filing in the Eastern District fully supports the fact that the defendants acted improperly so to defraud the Honorable Court and plaintiff.

7.     The “interests of justice” clearly requires a new trial. See e.g., Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc., 901 F.2d 1373, 1379 (7th Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of new trial after a three-week jury trial).

8.     This newly-discovered evidence from the Corrado case, only filed April 10, 2012, clearly shows that plaintiff’s witness, attorney Nicole Corrado, was threatened and chilled into not testifying at plaintiff’s trial- a manifest attack on our system of law and a clear denial of plaintiff’s right to a fair trial. The Clear Need For a New Trial

9.     Witness tampering cannot be condoned or left uncorrected. The Corrado filing now shows plaintiff's denial of due process and equal protection guarantees, and right to a fair and impartial trial. See Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934) ("if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental") and Eldridge v. Williams, 424 U.S. 319 335 (1974).

10.     In fact, federal law again mandates that a special prosecutor be substituted into this case over defendants’ “ethics” entities.

11.     Plaintiff’s allegations of systemic discrimination and retaliation, now supported by the newly filed Corrado case, have substantial impact on the public, the bench and bar, and can no longer be ignored, or left unaddressed by this District Court.

12.     Plaintiff’s trial, it is now revealed by the Corrado filing, left plaintiff with a lawless burden that could never be overcome- that a witness had been threatened, and to an extent to insure that no trial testimony would be given. This, at a minimum, warrants the reopening of the herein case and the scheduling of a new trial.

13.     The unfair burden of witness tampering and threats on witnesses in plaintiff’s federal proceeding is made even more outrageous by the fact that the threat was made by an attorney-supervisor of the defendant-state’s “ethics” committee.

14.     A court is under a continuing obligation to supervise the members of its Bar. E.g., In re Taylor, 567 F.2d at 1191; see Musicus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 621 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (district court obligated to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in proceedings before it). Trial courts have a duty "to exercise that degree of control required by the facts and circumstances of each case to assure the litigants of a fair trial." Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 900-01 (2d Cir.1970); see ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4).

15.     Attorneys are officers of the court, Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 12, 53 S.Ct. 465, 468, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), and are obligated to adhere to all applicable disciplinary rules, ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A), 1-103(A); see In re Walker, 87 A.D.2d 555, 560, 448 N.Y.S.2d 474, 479 (1st Dep't 1982).

16.     Importantly, Courts have an obligation to report and order investigation into official and at times criminal misconduct. This is a duty of a Court.

17.     This Honorable Court is now obligated to report allegations in plaintiff’s case involving threats on a witness in a federal proceeding, and as now supported by Corrado, to federal law enforcement.

18.     The new Corrado evidence further established that in the view of the District Court, Defendant Cahill, the head officer of the DDC and the supervisor of the other defendants, had full knowledge of the practice of whitewashing as alleged by plaintiff, and that led to the parallel conclusion that whitewashing was accepted as a common practice by the defendants, and presumably other staff members of the DDC. It is now fully revealed by Corrado that the unlawful acts also include physical threats on witnesses in federal proceedings.

19.     A further source of concern to this Court should be that Corrado supported plaintiff’s charges of harassment and retaliation. The plaintiff charged that she was singled out for disparate treatment and ultimately illegally terminated after internally reporting the practice of whitewashing of cases to defendants Cahill and Cohen. Plaintiff was physically assaulted in her office by defendant Cohen, a fact admitted by Cohen. That physical abuse by Cohen never resulted in her demotion or transfer. However she was ordered by the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) to attend an anger management course. That failure to discipline served only to embolden Cohen’s daily harassment of plaintiff.

20.     By preempting Corrado’s testimony at trial, she was effectively silenced in attesting to the harassment and retaliation meted out to myself, a fate that she also later was subjected to. The Witness Tampering – Threat on Witness - in a Plaintiff’s Federal Proceeding MUST BE ADDRESSED

21.     It is now established that in August of 2008, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, DDC staff attorney Nicole Corrado, was threatened. Two days prior to her deposition testimony, state employee, and DDC Deputy Chief Counsel, Andral N. Bratton, and who had been her immediate supervisor for approximately 5 years, confronted Corrado. Bratton advised Corrado that in 2007 he had admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital for serious emotional problems, that he had “suicidal tendencies,” and that he was “warning” her accordingly. When Corrado asked Bratton why he was warning her, Bratton simply repeated several times in a very serious and stern tone by saying, “I’m just warning you.”

22.     Following Corrado’s deposition testimony on August 21, 2008, Bratton’s behavior toward Corrado became more harassing, troubling, frightening and threatening as he began to follow her inside and outside of the state office where they both worked. Corrado subsequently reported these serious issues to DDC chief counsel Allan Friedberg, who took no requisite action.

23.     Plaintiff’s former counsel, John Beranbaum, was also chilled by intimidation. He advised the court, and by copy, the Attorney General, of this incident in a letter to the court dated October 24, 2008. In the Beranbaum submission, it was made clear to the court and the Attorney General that Ms. Corrado was given a ‘“warning’ about the testimony she was to give at the deposition[,]” and further advised that “Ms. Corrado is very upset about the entire experience.” But Ms. Corrado was so chilled by the threat upon her as a witness in this proceeding that she did not personally come forward until recently by her Eastern District filing.

24.     As a result of the threat made upon her in plaintiff’s case, Nicole Corrado could only come forward, and the full facts were to be known to plaintiff by her federal filing on April 10, 2012. Corrado could only come forward after the three defendants had left the DDC and thus no longer a daily source of harm to Corrado.

25.     Plaintiff’s former attorney was also chilled by the threat upon Corrado but could not rely on Corrado’s testimony of the threat upon her as a witness because she was so frightened. Mr. Beranbaum was barely able to again raise the issue on the record four days later on October 30, 2008. (See Exhibit, “B” – Transcript of October 30, 2008 hearing, Page 26 (lines 17-25), and page 27 (lines 1-8). The court, in responding to the letter advising of the alleged threat on plaintiff’s witness, commented, “You [Mr. Beranbaum] seem to want to tell me something or report it to me. Okay. You report it to me.” Mr. Beranbaum was so chilled that he was left speechless, unable to demand the Ms. Corrado be summoned before the court for a hearing on the matter.

26.     It is plaintiff’s belief that the court had an obligation to report the matter to federal agents and, further, to interview Ms. Corrado concerning the incident. In addition, the Attorney General also had such an obligation as the state’s top enforcer of the law.

27.     Plaintiff believes she has been severely prejudiced by the threat upon her witness, Ms. Corrado, and, as the court and Attorney General were aware, Ms. Corrado did not appear as a witness in this proceeding. Only now, through Corrado’s EDNY filing on April 10, 2012, are the full details known.  Physical Threats on a Witness, Then Offers of Reimbursement to Involved Counsel

28.     Plaintiff is aware that counsel within the Office of the New York Attorney General’s office offered to “fully” compensate Mr. Beranbaum for ALL of his legal fees, expenses, etc., if plaintiff settled her case. While plaintiff is unaware of the exact timing of when the compensation offer, believed to be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00, was actually made, there was no offer of any compensation to plaintiff.

29.    Plaintiff is, and always has been, deserving of a constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial. This denial of basic rights must now meet correction, in the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION 

     WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reopen the herein case, appoint a federal monitor, schedule further proceedings including a new trial, and for a fair and impartial jury trial as the law may deem just and proper- Justice demands no less.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY - The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that she is the plaintiff in the above action, that she has read the above and that the information contained herein is true and correct, 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C § 1621.
Dated: New York, New York June 25, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
Christine C. Anderson, plaintiff, pro se
227 Riverside Drive New York, New York 10025 
917-817-7170 tel
TO: The Office of the NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24th floor
New York, New York 10271
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE - I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to defendants this 25nd day of June, 2012, by U.S. Priority Mail # 0300 6000 0002 1518 9674 to: The Office of the NYS Attorney General, 120 Broadway, 24th floor, New York, New York 10271.
Christine C. Anderson, plaintiff, pro se

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE RECENT ANDERSON FILING