Judges impose secrecy on ethics-rules revision

FEDERAL COURTS

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/285048.html

Judges impose secrecy on ethics-rules revision

Secrecy on the rewriting of federal misconduct rules is only deepening suspicions among critics who say judges have failed to police themselves adequately.

Posted on Fri, Oct. 26, 2007
By MARISA TAYLOR
mtaylor@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON --
Judiciary Committee, calling a mistake the decision to keep rule-change comments secret.
As the federal judiciary embarks on a historic revision of its rules against judicial misconduct, the panel of judges that is overseeing the drafting of new regulations refuses to disclose the public comments that could help shape the overhaul.

After requesting public comments about the proposed rules, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability refuses to say how many responses it received, who commented or what was said.

''I have never heard of public comments being made confidentially,'' said Abner Mikva, a retired chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ``I'm trying to think of an explanation, but this strikes me as very strange.''

What's known is that several chief circuit judges across the country are among those who weighed in, sparking speculation that the judiciary is debating the merits of the proposed rules, which would impose unprecedented oversight over how federal courts handle complaints.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Legal experts said they weren't surprised by the reticence to release the information. By tradition and necessity, the federal judiciary often weighs some of its most important decisions behind closed doors and without public input.

Such secrecy, however, threatens to overshadow what's supposed to be the most sweeping tightening of federal judicial-misconduct policies in a quarter of a century.

Some watchdog groups questioned whether the panel's decision to withhold the comments was intended to prevent the disclosure of details of misconduct or to hide unhappiness among judges about having to comply with new rules.

The proposed rules provide strict oversight from Washington and require judges to leave much more detailed paper trails explaining their decisions about whether to investigate misconduct, experts said.

HABIT OF SECRECY

The judiciary previously has been criticized for imposing secrecy in matters that would more appropriately be discussed openly.

Earlier this year, court officials initially refused to disclose details about the sponsors of expenses-paid trips for judges, as new ethics rules require.

''It shows how difficult it is to wean the judiciary off its habits of confidentiality and keeping things to themselves,'' said Arthur Hellman, a professor who specializes in federal judicial ethics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. 'It's so deeply engrained that their first reaction is always, `No, no, that's not for public circulation.' ''

The decision to keep the written responses under wraps comes as the judiciary is under growing pressure from Congress to provide a better public explanation of how it handles misconduct complaints.

Legislators, advocacy groups and legal experts said that withholding the written responses would only add to suspicions about the often-secretive misconduct proceedings.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, called the decision a mistake.

''By releasing them, the judicial branch would have credibility that it is responding to the failure of its own procedures,'' he said.

The changes come in response to criticism that federal judges have failed to police themselves adequately. Last year, a panel overseen by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded that judges who handled five of 17 high-profile complaints had failed to investigate them properly, although it didn't find the problem to be systemic.

COMPLAINTS REJECTED

In the last five years, the judiciary closed 3,532 complaints but took action against judges in only four cases. In defending the high dismissal rate, judges point out that a large number of misconduct complaints are filed by people who misunderstand or abuse the process. Often, litigants who have lost their cases file misconduct complaints when they should be appealing the decisions to higher courts. Accusations of conflict of interest also are generally handled separately in recusal requests.

But critics said they thought that the judiciary might be failing to punish some judges either because the threshold for misconduct was too low or because matters weren't being investigated thoroughly.

Sensenbrenner and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa have proposed legislation to create an inspector general's office that would independently investigate allegations of judicial misconduct. The judiciary opposes the idea, which Grassley said demonstrated that some judges ``see themselves like gods who are above criticism.''

INCOMPLETE DETAILS

Pittsburgh's Hellman praised the new rules but told the committee that they don't go far enough in requiring details about complaints.

In several cases, circuit courts have provided few details or written vague opinions about judges who are punished for misconduct. In September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent in Galveston, Texas, but didn't specify his punishment or detail what he did wrong. Publicly, at least one female court employee has accused him of sexual harassment.

Public Comments on Committee's Draft Rules

Coalition for Judicial Accountability


October 15, 2007


The Honorable Circuit Judge Ralph Winter
Chair, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Washington, D.C. 20544
Sent as Directed by Email to:
JudicialConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov

RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS to the
Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings

Proposed by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee:

On July 16, 2007, your Committee requested public comment upon the Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings, which are being considered for promulgation by the Judicial Branch under the legislative authority delegated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Act of Congress to implement the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.

The organizations and individuals signing below hereby submit these comments jointly and ask you to seriously consider them. These organizations regularly work for the legal rights of citizens and reform of the legal system.

The “Coalition for Judicial Accountability” is an umbrella project created to facilitate the joint submission of the individual (actual) organizations named below, each of which join in this submission together, along with individuals who have also affixed their name.

The individual organizations signing below may also submit further, individual comments separately. Each of these organizations has a broad range of concerns about the availability of legal services and the fairness and justice of the legal system to Americans, but they join here on areas of agreement to attempt to emphasize the importance of these matters and to ask for your very serious consideration of these joint comments.

Of course, for those in the legal profession, it is an ethical responsibility to work for the improvement of the legal system and to encourage the continuing development of a reliable, fair, and accessible legal system to benefit the public and a society maintained by the rule of law. We are pleased to assist the Committee by this response to the Committee’s request.

We applaud not only the value of good governance in this public comment period provided by the Committee, but also the Committee’s wisdom in accessing the broadest range of experiences, ideas, perspectives, and insights possible during this process to arrive at the best possible rules governing the Federal Courts across the nation.


SUMMARY

We submit that (a) conflicts of interest among judges presiding over a case (refusal to recuse) create some of the most serious examples of judicial misconduct, (b) the Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings must be changed to define a failure to recuse (proceeding under a conflict of interest or appearance) as a very serious category of misconduct, (c) the Court’s Rules must require automatic recusal, whenever an alternate judge is available and the motion is made in a way that will not cause disruption or dilatory delay, (d) the Committee’s Rules must aggressively regulate, enforce, and prosecute requirements of judges to avoid not only the reality but also the appearance of a conflict of interest. In short:

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONG JUDGES PRESIDING OVER A CASE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE and must never be tolerated.

Therefore, proposed Rule 3(b)(A) “EXCLUSIONS” as currently drafted is wholly unacceptable and inadvertently confirms the worst suspicions of a cynical public and of critics of the Judiciary. Rule 3(b)(A) as drafted reinforces and confirms everything that cynics and critics believe is wrong with our nation’s courts.

Draft Rule 3(b)(A) currently provides that no substantive decision can be counted as “misconduct” by a Federal judge – including a failure to recuse (which would be relevant only if actual grounds for recusal had in fact existed, otherwise there would be no failure to act).

In other words, the Draft Rules provide that a failure to recuse can never be misconduct. A failure to recuse could only be considered as wrongful – and potentially misconduct – if the judge in fact had a conflict of interest in hearing the case. Thus, when placed in context, the Draft Rules effectively provide that a Federal Judge may hear a case in which the judge has a direct financial or personal interest – and yet this will not be considered as misconduct.

Thus, the Draft Rules actually provide that it is not misconduct for a Federal Judge to preside over and decide a case in which the Judge has a direct personal or financial interest, or perhaps the appearance of a conflict. Under the Draft Rules, a Judge could actually be an owner of a company involved in a case, and preside over the case, and this could never be misconduct.

STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE

We arrive at the comments below based on the following beliefs:

· The tasks and duties of judges, particularly in the Federal Judiciary, are of enormous mportance to the nation and to American society, including promoting a society governed by fairness, public safety, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

· The Federal courts have the power to improve or destroy the lives of individuals, including – through precedents – the lives of millions of Americans.

· One who serves well as a Federal judge deserves enormous honor and respect.

· Public confidence that the nation is governed impartially and well by the rule of law, in which all persons are under the same law, is crucial to the preservation of civil society.

· Public confidence in the Judiciary can only be produced by the actual reality of fairness, respect, consistency, impartiality, and effectiveness in the Courts. It can never be ‘faked’ by public relations efforts or attempts to limit information to the public. As demonstrated by the recent crisis within the Catholic Church, hiding problems can prove catastrophic.

· Even the appearance of bias or conflicts of interest among judges can be as poisonous to society as the reality. Those who fervently believe that judges are impartial and fair should desire transparency to clearly demonstrate to the public that courts are fair.

· The great importance of the courts and judges to American society demands that only those who are very successful and highly qualified as judges should wield tremendous power over fellow citizens and the ability to preserve order or create chaos and ruin lives.

· Public confidence in the courts has in fact reached crisis proportions. In our interactions with the public, most people who have been to court tell us they are extremely dissatis-fied and disappointed. Nearly everyone complaining about their court experience insists that the judge was overtly biased and judged recklessly in disregard of the evidence.

· Addressing and resolving problems within the courts or inadequate performance of a judge is essential because of the great importance of the courts in society. The Committee should never permit the idea that the courts are too important to have real problems fixed.

· Performing successfully as a judge requires extraordinary mental concentration and attention to detail, enormous patience suited to a saint, a judicial temperament able to show respect to a vast diversity of individuals who may often be difficult or even unpleasant themselves, and the unusual psychological ability to set aside personal opinions and beliefs in favor of impartially applying governing laws and rules.

· As a result, those suited to the post of judge are rare and few, and the Court system must assertively detect and remove anyone who is not successful in the position of judge.

· Meanwhile, any attorney at such a level enjoys many wonderful professional opportunities far more profitable than serving as a judge. American life affords a variety of opportunities to suit the personalities and abilities of different types of individuals. To serve in a different occupation cannot be considered a loss. The Committee should consider only the needs of the country and should never consider a judgeship to be the personal property or right of any individual person.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT

#1 RULE 3(b)(A) FAILS TO REGULATE SERIOUS AND MOST FREQUENT INCIDENTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT – CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

An impartial decision-maker is the heart and soul of due process. Indeed, the very symbol of the courts in the United States is a statue of a blind-folded woman, meant to signify that law and justice are applied equally and impartially to all persons regardless of whom they are.

A conflict of interest, real or perceived, strikes at the very heart of the legal system of the United States, and threatens to destroy public confidence in the government of the nation and of the states and the rule of law which preserves a modern civilization.

The proposed Draft Rule 3(b)(A) is wholly unacceptable.

Draft Rule 3(b)(A) would define “misconduct” to exclude a judge’s failure to recuse himself or herself upon an allegation of a conflict of interest

Thus, the Committee proposes to announce to the entire nation that presiding over a case in Federal court when the judge has a conflict of interest is not “misconduct” in the eyes of the Committee or the Federal Judiciary.

This message will be regarded as nothing short of shocking to the average American who looks to the Federal Courts as the guardians of his rights and liberties.

It will be sensational that any agency of the Judiciary would suggest that hearing a case while having a conflict of interest is not “misconduct.”

Therefore, the phrase in Rule 3(b)(A) must be modified so that misconduct includes an improper refusal or failure to recuse including for actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

#2 RECUSAL SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED ON REQUEST

Every Court has a process for assigning various cases to different judges. Thus, it is no burden for a court to assign a judge without a conflict of interest, because the Court must already go through a process of case allocation.

The Draft Rules should be modified so that every Federal Judge is obligated to recuse herself or himself upon the slightest showing of even the appearance of a conflict of interest…. unless (a) an alternative judge is not available, (b) the recusal motion is brought at a time that is disruptive or (c) the motion is interposed purely for delay such as the week before the trial.

It must be a bedrock principle of the Federal Judiciary that ANY judge hearing the same case would produce the same result.

If Judges hearing the evidence and applying the law produce the “correct” result, then it must necessarily be true that every Judge would produce exactly the same result in a case.

Therefore, there can be no valid reason for opposing a motion for recusal. The Judiciary should never suggest that which Judge hears a case will change the outcome of the case!

Because – as a matter of public policy and law – it could not make any difference which Judge hears a case, the great need for public confidence in the courts requires that the public be assured that any Judge with the slightest appearance of any conflict will always recuse himself or herself to reassure all parties and the public that the courts will be fair.

For the Federal Judiciary to admit that a different Judge would produce a different result in the case is to admit that Judges do not apply the law to the facts impartially and accurately. For the Federal Judiciary to oppose automatic recusal is to admit that Judges decide cases based upon personal opinions, personal biases, and individual views. This would be an intolerable message to send to the American people. It must be made clear that all Judges are equal.

Of course, there may be occasions when an exception is necessary. (a) A party calling for recusal must do so promptly, before a particular judge has invested significant time and effort in a case (unless the cause for recusal arises during the case). (b) A motion for recusal should not be heard so as to create an excuse for delay, such as waiting to file the motion before a scheduled trial. (c) In extremely rare occasions, there may be no other judge available.


#3 AVOIDING THE PROBLEM IN ADVANCE – AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE

As mentioned above, every Court must already go through a process of allocating cases to various judges. Public confidence in the Courts should be upheld by avoiding the problem before it arises. Once a question of a conflict of interest arises, some of the damage is done.

The Committee should address the clear misconduct of deciding a case under a conflict of interest by defining measures necessary to avoid the offense of misconduct, perhaps in the form of a safe harbor. Again, we believe that the Committee is authorized to – and should – implement the Act by making it practical and effective in the real circumstances of the Court system, even if that means adding on further methods and procedures consistent with the Act.

Avoiding the misconduct of a conflict of interest should be addressed in two parts:

First, every Judge and the Judge’s law clerk(s) should place on file with the Clerk disclosures that will assist in allocating cases to Judges while avoiding any conflicts of interest arising in the first place, including (a) former law clerks practicing in law firms in the region, (b) relatives practicing law or serving as paralegals in law firms in the region, (c) companies in which the Judge or law clerk (including a spouse) has a financial interest, other than through a blind trust or mutual fund, (d) any organization or official who lobbied or assisted in the Judge’s appointment or confirmation to the bench, [1][1] (e) the Judge’s former employers or business associates, (f) relatives living in the region who are owners or managers of companies in the region, (g) organizations or clubs of which the Judge is a member (excluding in his or her official capacity as a Judge), and (h) the Judge’s and law clerk’s alma mater(s).

Second, the local rules of some circuits should be made universal and expanded: Upon assignment of a case, the parties should file a form with the initial pleadings to be reviewed by the judge, his deputy, his law clerks, his staff, that requires full disclosure as to any connection that the Judge or judge’s staff has to any of the litigants and/or their counsel directly or indirectly as a result of a family member and/or business associate to the named parties and their counsel. That completed form should then be sent to the parties in the litigation stating that a connection exists or doesn’t. At the initial stages, the litigants should be given the opportunity to challenge whether the disclosure form filed by opponents provides full disclosure and to raise any objections. To avoid the case progressing and wasting efforts before discovering a conflict, a fair hearing should be obligatory at the outset of a case.

#4 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SHOULD BE BROADENED

The Draft Rules should be modified to recognize the full range of concerns held by a highly cynical and skeptical public. The narrow range of circumstances that the Courts officially recognize as conflicts of interest bear little or no relationship to the actual concerns of real people. It ought to be obvious to everyone that conflicts of interest include cases in which (a) a member of the Judge’s family works for one of the law firms in the case (except perhaps with large multi-city law firms) or for a company who is a party in the case, (b) a Judge’s former law clerk is one of the attorneys in the case or works for a small law firm in the case, (c) the Judge is a personal friend, neighbor, or fellow club or church member with one of the attorneys, or (d) a litigant is a lobbying organization or person with influence over whether the Judge is nominated or confirmed for a higher Judgeship (assuming an appointment is under active consideration), or actually did influence the Judge’s appointment or confirmation.

#5 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL COMPLAINTS ESSSENTIAL

One of the most damaging injuries to public confidence in the courts is secrecy concerning complaints against Judges. While the Judiciary expects that confidentiality protects the reputation of Judges, precisely the opposite is true. Confidentiality and secrecy casts an air of suspicion and accusation upon all of the Judiciary and severely injures public confidence.

Of course, when a complaint is publicized months or years before the results of the investigation, incomplete disclosure can be unfair, leaving a false impression. Postponing disclosure until the final results can be disclosed with the complaint is fair. However, when the results are never disclosed, the public will assume that allegations are true but hushed up.

Rules 23 and 24 of the Draft Rules attempt to create confidentiality, until a final decision has been reached, followed by mandatory disclosure.

However, Rule 24 should be modified to remove the exceptions and to require disclosure of all information relating to a complaint (perhaps with private identities redacted). Disclosure that a complaint has been fully investigated and the facts found to be untrue would be more protective of the Judiciary than throwing a cloak of secrecy over complaints.

Even where complaints are resolved with minor reprimands or warnings, or on a summary basis, confidentiality is still not appropriate. A Judgeship is a position of public trust, not personal property. The public has a right to be aware of even minor transgressions and be vigilant of relapses. Although there is a danger of copy cat complaints, this should be carefully considered when reviewing any subsequent complaints. A condition of reprimand or warning is avoiding relapses, and therefore public knowledge and vigilance is appropriate.

#6 COVERING UP KNOWLEDGE OF MISCONDUCT

We believe that the Committee has authority to provide for mechanisms necessary to implement the rules. The Committee should define misconduct to include concealing or failing to report evidence of suspicious circumstances or possible misconduct by any judge. It should be obvious that the person so reporting will not necessarily know all of the facts nor be aware if any misconduct has occurred. Because such information may not necessarily form an actual complaint, a method of reviewing irregularities may be required. The Congress might be asked to explicitly provide for such a rule.


#7 BROADER DEFINITION OF DISABILITY

Proposed Draft Rule 3(c) defines “Disability” but the Committee might consider a slightly broader definition. The tasks of a Judge are primarily intellectual. The benefits of wisdom, learning, and perspective for a Judge’s duties have traditionally favored Judges continuing to serve at very advanced ages, when they can still contribute a lifetime of valuable experience. However, medical science has also uncovered medical conditions such as Alzheimers which sometimes have implications for the ability of a Judge to remember, reason, and remain balanced. Emotional irritability and intermittent memory loss can be symptoms.

Curiously, Draft Rule 3(c) explicitly includes an inability to stay awake during proceedings as a disability under the Rule, but fails to include as a recognized disability an inability to remember the facts of the case, such as due to a stroke or Alzheimers, emotional imbalance and irritability (which can be a symptom of the early onset of even undiagnosed Alzheimers) impacting a Judge’s required judicial temperament , etc.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
THE FOREGOING IS SIGNED JOINTLY BY THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WORKING FOR THE REFORM OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Unless Specially Noted, all the signers below are not employees of the Judiciary or attorneys, but are private citizens working for the reform of the courts and the legal system and advocating for the rights of litigants, parents, and others affected by the law.

Jonathon Moseley, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Executive Director
Legal Affairs Council
3601 Jean Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(703) 850-3733 Fax (703) 783-0449
Representing 14,000 Members.
LAC has frequently operated legal defense funds for the defense of police officers, public officials, and others in landmark or potentially precedent-setting prosecutions.

Meryl M. Lanson
Victims of the System and
Legal Victim Assistance Project
Post Office Box 880401
Boca Raton, Florida 33488-0401
(561) 488-7678 Fax: (561) 488-2861
E-mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net

http://www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com/

http://www.victimsofthesystem.org/

Note that appearing pro se, Meryl Lanson was successful in re-opening a multi-million dollar bankruptcy proceeding on related issues and is maintaining a related multi-million dollar legal malpractice case.

National Coalition for Family Justice
Coalition for Family Justice
821 Broadway
Irvington on Hudson, New York 10533
Contact: Renee Robertson or
Paula Cornacchia, Operations Coordinator
At least 10,000 members
Office: (914) 591-5753 Fax: (914) 591-6981
E-mail: cfjmailbox@aol.com

Dorothy Mataras
Legal Reform Activist
4342 Loveland Drive
Liverpool, New York 13090
Founder & Publisher of Victims-of-Law, Inc.
A New York non-profit corporation
http://victimsoflaw.net/
email: justice96@msn.com

Betsy Combier
"ParentAdvocates.org"The E-Accountability Foundation 315 East 65th Street, Suite 4CNew York, New York 10021
E-mail: Betsy
http://www.parentadvocates.org/
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=488

Thomas M. Saunders
Bill of Attainder Project
4360 Platter Road
Calera, Oklahoma 74730
Advisor to the National Judicial Conduct Disability Law Project

Dale Nathan, Esq.
Author, Minnesota Injustice, and representing:
(1) The Justice Committee; (2) Judge Our Courts; and (3) The Truth About America Coalition, (4) Minnesota Court Reform
Post Office Box 211284Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(651) 454-0505 Fax: (651) 454-0507
E-mail: DaleNathan@USFamily.net
http://www.mncourtreform.org/about.html
Note that one of Dale Nathan's lawsuits was chosen by Law & Politics Magazine as one of the eleven lawsuits of the year for 2000.

Krstafer Pinkerton
Post Office Box 1643
Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii 96756
(808) 742 6827
http://www.kpinkerton.com/
http://k-pinkerton.livejournal.com/
Victim of Prosecutorial Misconduct/Non-Attorney

Frank Simard
Past President, New England Coalition for Family Justice
Post Office Box 1546
Plaistow, New Hampshire 03865
Email: SimardRxImages@earthlink.net

Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T.
Legal Abuse Syndrome
(702) 528-9588
E-mail: mailto:legalabusesyndrome@adelphia.net

http://www.legalabusesyndrome.com/

Ms. Huffer is author of the book “Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome.”

Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA
P.O. Box 1078
Valrico, Florida 33595
E-mail: markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com


Caroline Douglas, Esq.
Attorney and Author, Sneaky Judge Tricks and Lexis-Nexis’ Family Law (Equity Pub. Co.)
Email: oxford92748@mindspring.com


Mr. Mike Blodgett
Paralegal, private law firm
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
E-mail: lawview_inc@yahoo.com
(215) 290.8038

Mr. Lesley Winston
13095 Biscayne Island Terrace
North Miami, Florida 33181
E-mail: lwinston@winifs.com


Mr. Martin Salazar
1341 Freeman Harris Road
Harlem, Georgia 30814
Legal Reform Activist (not employed by Judiciary or attorney)

Meredith Taggart
Miami Shores, Florida
Email:

Mr. Laser Haas
Delmar, Delaware

Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.
Delray Beach, Florida

Norman Lanson
Boca Raton, Florida

Carol Reeth
Westhampton, New York

Sid Soloway
Boca Raton, Florida

Stephanie Ricottone
Oceanside, New York

Christine Carlile and Brian Carlile
Wyckoff, New Jersey

Roseanne Mauro
Frank Mauro
Lake Worth, Florida

Frederick Nielsen
Nielsen & Associates
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 251-1620
E-mail: nielsenassoc@aol.com

Jenny Johnson
Creative Funding Solutions
Houston, Texas
[1][1] Not those carrying out their official duties, such as the President or his staff nominating a Judge or Senators voting on the nomination, but those actually advocating for or promoting the Judge’s nomination or confirmation.

Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct and Disability Complaint Proceedings

Attention: The Honorable Ralph Winter

VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Judge Winter:

I am the Moderator for the blog at www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com. I disseminate news to the public, for the public, in their best interests. I have also been very fortunate to have members of the legal profession offer praise and support of my efforts in hopes that positive and constructive change will result, much needed change (reforms) I might add. If you take some time to review the blog, I am confident that you will get a real sense of my determination to keep the public informed as to my efforts, and those of other conscientious, credible advocates for legal and judicial responsibility.

This past August, I posted the U.S. Courts’ request: For Public Comment: Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings. I urged the participants viewing the blog to take an active role in the Courts’ request and to voice their comments no later that the requested submission date of October 15, 2007. I, personally, and on behalf of my organizations, Victims of the System, and Legal Victim Assistance Project, participated with a Coalition to bring to your attention, and that of the Committee, our suggestions. Also, I have been following Dr. Richard Cordero’s ongoing efforts, and his participation at the hearing held on September 27, 2007 in the U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Those posts relevant to Dr. Cordero are also on the blog.

I must assume, by your role as the Chair of this esteemed Committee that you share my vision, and I trust that you, too, support what I am doing. Educating the public and keeping the public informed is what we must do. In that regard, I request a copy of the audio/visual tape and stenographic transcript of the hearing that the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. held on its draft rules governing judicial misconduct and disability complaint proceedings this past September 27, 2007. Please advise when my request will be available.

The Federal Courts have the power to improve or destroy the lives of individuals, including through precedents, the lives of millions of Americans. The public’s trust must begin to be restored. You have taken the first steps in that endeavor, and I commend you. Have faith that I, too, will continue to diligently pursue this matter with the utmost integrity. I stand ready to assist you and the Committee in our mutual desire to protect the public and keep the public informed.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Meryl M. Lanson
1-561-488-7678 Office
1-561-488-2861 Facsimile

Victims of the System
Post Office Box 880401
Boca Raton, Florida 33488-0401

www.victimsofthesystem.org

www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com

cc: Mr. Richard Carelli
Administrative Office of The U.S. Courts

PRESS RELEASE - DUE PROCESS DEFENDERS - RECONCILING THE 110TH CONGRESS

Following a March 26th trip to Washington DC, and an additional trip on May 15th, providing Congressman John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy with replete and repetitive violations of due process, perpetrated by court employees, government workers, and elected officials, individuals known as the Due Process Defenders, have sought to make their voice heard, demanding accountability, and Constitutional Law be restored to this nation. While violations of law are being repeatedly carried out against citizens across this nation, one collective group is standing in unison demanding our country be solvent and accountable, even our judiciary. On September 27, 2007, the Due Process Defenders after months of follow-up with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees spoke with the latest contact from Congressman John Conyers Office, Mr. Burt Wides, replacing prior designee Ted Kalo. Mr. Wides has a long and prestigious history of service with the House, Senate, and foreign nationals.

As a result of the ongoing and relentless effort to ensure the 110th Congress addresses a more critical issue than Mattel toys, the Defenders continue to demand as assured during the March 26th, meeting with Congressman John Conyers, an investigation of rampant due process violations against law abiding citizens. Thus, dedicated Due Process Defenders, via a conference call, spoke directly to Mr. Wides regarding pressing and critical concerns affecting EVERY American, in addition to posting the conversation at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc. The Defenders spoke directly with Mr. Wides, voicing their outrage and demand for justice, for which Congress clearly bears the ultimate jurisdiction, and responsibility to act upon. Apologies were offered by Mr. Wides concerning unreturned calls and ongoing delays.

You see, 5 groups (Family Rights Radio, AHRC, AIB, Private Attorney General, & We the People), initially joined together in order to heighten the focus and demand for due process protections (Due Process Defenders) for ALL Americans. Specifically during the March 26th Meeting, Rod Class of NC started off with a presentation, providing Congressman Conyers and Staff with rules and legal guidelines, as well as a copy of the 1996 Conference for Chief Justices, sponsored by the State Justice Institute, (http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/tagh.html ). This video contained instructions and comments by Ohio Justice Thomas Moyers http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/2004/12/half-truth-ap-fails-to-report-diebold.html, and guest speakers to include the Southern Poverty Law Center, indicating citizens in American Courtrooms, asserting Constitutional rights should be labeled ‘freeman’ or ‘terrorists’ under the (UN)Patriot Act! The preeminence of ‘judicial independence’ and protection of state judges by their federal counterparts, were open topics of discussion.

This treasonous behavior or orchestration of insurrection demonstrated during the State Justice Institute video www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us, was NOT ‘interpreted’ but clearly stated, as evidenced on the CD provided to Conyers and Staff. The gravity did not require a subpoena, a separation of power, or any outstanding factor! You see the State Justice Institute http://www.statejustice.org/ by its own admission, seeks to “facilitate better coordination between State and Federal courts,” among other things using public funds to the tune of “$127,000 million to support more than 1,400 projects.” And while you might wonder how this group is able to obtain public funds, the answer is, “SJI is a non-profit corporation governed by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, the President must appoint six State court judges, one State court administrator, and four members of the public (no more than two of whom may be of the same political party).”

And for those, enduring and ultimately recognizing the replication of tyranny carried out by judges, who refuse to overturn overt violations of law, rest assured that assessment was not your imagination. Accordingly the State Justice Institute website reveals, “Only SJI has the authority to assist all State courts - criminal, civil, juvenile, family, and appellate - and the mandate to share the success of one State’s innovations with every State court system as well as the Federal courts. Key areas of interest include court budgeting, court-media relations, access to the courts, intellectual and physical threats to courts, and the relationship between State and Federal courts.” So there you have it!

An organization you fund with public funds REALLY is, working in concert to deny the rule of law is upheld, by those challenging or documenting violations of law and jurisdictional issues. And don’t forget the Senate and President are hand picking them! Maybe that’s why the Due Process Defenders have NOT heard anything from Senator Leahy’s Office, you think?

So with disclosures including not only members of the court acting in violation of law, conspiring, but literally engaging in racketeering for the sack of uniformity, is there any question, America is being destroyed from within. But for the first time in history, a group, Due Process Defenders has documented this issue, wiretapping akin to the NSA effort initially condoned by Congress, and election fraud, to name but a few. And now you wonder, will Congress REALLY investigate and stop the madness? The future of our nation, government, economy, and very lives depend upon it, (http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=380) !

As the Due Process Defenders continue to join with others in demanding justice, we ask that you stay tuned, sign up, make your voice heard, and DEMAND JUSTICE. To have your due process violations heard, simply phone the Due Process Defenders Media Contact 770-605-5921, send an email or click ‘Contact Us’ via the website www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us, or Mr. Wides directly. So if you are ready to have your due process rights heard and violations known, contact Mr. Wides at 202-225-2825 or fax him a summary of facts to 202-225-7680. These contact numbers are available online and also included in the ‘Talkshoe’ replay of phone conversations and conference calls with the House Judiciary Committee and related members of Congress, (http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc).

It is TRULY time for Americans to DEMAND JUSTICE, and protect the rights you expect your children to benefit from. For without strong voices and hearts, America will continue to solidify a British Colony status, by a population of Serfs, enslaved by those given a title of British Nobility (BAR-British Accreditation Registry), sent to rob and control the very lives and fruits of American labors.

Won’t you stand with the Due Process Defenders, supporting the Constitution and ‘rule of law,’ despite the void created by connected judges and ‘elected officials,’ using Diebold deception among other tools? Feel free to contact Private Attorney General, Family Rights Radio, or Media Contact Taffy Rice (770-605-5921), for more information. May God Bless those who persevere with the will ONLY to do what they know is right, while being forced to live with fear, deception, injustice, and tyranny, by those seeking omnipotent control through any means without regard to law or conscience, (http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm).


Related Links Include:

*Prior relationship by State Judiciary with Federal Judiciary; as Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyers invites and affords Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, a trip to his district as a supporter, provided via private jet flight owned by American Electric Power, who at the time was being sued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Justice Department (DOJ), for allegedly violating the Clean Air Act, (http://ohio.sierraclub.org/central/07_2004_Rehnquist.asp ). No conflict or 'quid pro quo,' according to Moyers, but certainly a common bond and lack of separation between the state and federal 'unbiased triers of fact,' it would appear! Do corporations have more rights and legal standing than an American, law abiding citizen, even the ones being sued for violations to federal guidelines affecting others?! In the words of ALEC, another legislative 501c3 corporation, 'Show Me the Money,' which probably answers more questions than even need to be posed or asked!

**Chief Justice Moyers dismissed an election challenge involving the President and HIS OWN judicial race challenge (!), without considering a recusal! In so doing Diebold vote tampering testimony was conveniently suppressed by Judge Moyer as noted in the link, while President Bush, afforded protection, appointments, and funding, to members, contributors, and participants, in the State Justice Institute (SJI), (http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/2004/12/half-truth-ap-fails-to-report-diebold.html )

*** The Federal Judges Association (FJA) according to this site is a 'voluntary association of Article III judges devoted to protecting the independence of the judicial branch'… (http://www.federaljudgesassoc.org/ ). Wasn't that what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (formerly of the US Supreme Court - highest court in the land!), purported was required along with electing lawyers to the legislature, in order to preserve the system, at the National Governors Conference, when discussing the willful effort to defeat or derail the Judicial Accountability Initiative Legislation (JAIL)?

Wrong must NOT win by technicalities. *

Aeschylus


Taffy RiceMedia Contact770-605-5921

"Justice too long delayed is justice denied….Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

***

Is there any question, it's time for Georgians and Americans to DEMAND JUSTICE?!

May God Bless, those who thirst for the light of truth and the courage to live it!

>>Seven years of injustice at the hand of a British Judge, I have learned the same lesson, like those who heard verified testimony in 1933 before Congress regarding the Facist attempt by key members of the Bar Association and FDR's Administration to overthrow the American core fundamentals on behalf of J. P. Morgan and company, using government as well as a network of other wealthy industrialists, best explained in the quote:

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war [business/enterprise] a few people make huge fortunes."

Brigadier General Smedley Butler USMC

(The most highly decorated Marine in US History, a double-winner of the Medal of Honor)

Make no mistake, we as Americans have become openly and forcibly engaged via our Courts, on United States soil for our lives, children, property, liberty, justice, and labors!«

* It's high time for ALL of us to stop paying for and furthering sin, corruption, and fraud upon the innocent*

***Demand JUSTICE - Make your voice heard!***

Oral Argument - September 11, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 07-60770-CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff
IN RE: BARON’S STORES, INC.

September 11, 2007

Good morning, Your Honor.

I requested that I be heard in this Court as a matter of public importance. I want to thank you for signing the Order which has now allowed me the opportunity to do so. I want the record to reflect that the request to address the Court was also made and granted in the Evidentiary Trial that took place in January, 2007. In reliance upon that Court’s Order, I prepared a statement which was never read because the Court said it did not have to hear opening statements. With the utmost respect for this Court, I thank you for fulfilling your judicial responsibility by adhering to the Order which you signed.

Attorneys Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin’s scheme compelled them to violate Rule 2014. These attorneys, officers of the court, each filed an Affidavit, under the penalty of perjury, whereby they each denied having any connection with any party in interest in the bankruptcy of Baron’s when, in fact, more than fifty connections were present. More than fifty connections that needed to be explored by the Court. The evidence was and remains overwhelming that many of the connections rose to the level of a conflict of interest, whether potential or actual. Such disclosure would have prevented Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin from being appointed in the bankruptcy of Baron’s. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin must have known that mandated disclosure under Rule 2014 would have caused their disqualification. Thus, their intention was not to comply with the rules in order to achieve their desired result. A result obtained by defrauding the bankruptcy court and preventing interested parties their right to be heard. An unjust result that placed them in a position to negotiate a settlement and fees that inured to their benefit, other professionals, and the Chairman of the Creditors Committee, another undisclosed connection. Such an unconscionable scheme is what ultimately caused damage to the unsecured creditors, the debtor, the destruction of a fifty-year old company, the loss of two hundred jobs, and the loss to the community who benefitted by the philanthropy of Baron’s and its owners.

You cannot imagine what these almost fourteen years have been like in our pursuit for justice. My wonderful husband, Norman, at almost seventy-six, has been deprived of what should have been his golden years reaping the fruits of his labor. Our beautiful son, Trace, is now sixteen years old. He has been denied financial security that his grandparents and parents worked so hard to bequeath and provide for him. He has been denied my undivided devotion as a mother since he was two. I have been denied a normal life forced to understand why and how things like this happen, and then working towards getting back what was taken from us so cruelly and inhumanely.

Your Honor, I now want to move from the issues in my case to the core of the process that is dictating the dynamics of my case which is a matter of great public importance. The behavior of Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin is glaring in its contempt for the rights of the citizens who must use the courts to maintain a civilized problems-solving process in society. It is glaring in its contempt for the intent and purpose of the rules and laws governing the professional behavior of lawyers who practice in our courts. But worse, is the use of such tactics that drive the pertinent issues of a case into a realm of irrationality, and disorientation, that is not accidental or “just legal game playing.” It is intentionally denying justice to the citizens for the warped benefit of a few who have grabbed power over our courts at any price. Tactics that use misinformation to distort the reality of a situation and deny the responsibility where it falls, are the interrogator’s tools for breaking the psyche of terrorists and others who may threaten our civilized society. Your Honor, I know that might sound like quite a radical leap. However, consider that I have walked into court with an apple. It was grown from an apple seed, produced by an apple tree; tastes like an apple, cuts like an apple and meets all known scientific criteria for being an apple. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin tell me and the Court it is an orange. Regardless of the evidence and sound scientific proof I can supply and have supplied that it is an apple, these attorneys stand firm that it is an orange and cause the Court to concur through falsehoods, manipulations, and a host of unsavory, unprofessional, unethical and criminal machinations.

By the time the trier of fact has agreed that the pure apple may be an orange, my entire orientation to life, rational belief system based on a balance of truth and principles is shattered. My psyche is assaulted. Many who cannot verbalize, or who are not educated simply collapse at this point of clandestine attack on the foundation of citizens’ trust that they have an avenue to pursue justice through our courts.

Your Honor, my case was reopened on April 7, 2005 for fraud on the court for failure to disclose under bankruptcy rule 2014. That remains the issue and the violation of that plain and simple rule by attorneys Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin could not be any clearer. In the legal process, I can think of nothing more heinous, and I pray the Court concur, than the deprivation of ones due process rights by officers of the court. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin impaired my right to due process by ignoring the rules, failing to adhere to the court’s orders, failing to provide honest representation, failing to carry out the duties of their contracts, and failing to make honest and complete disclosure to the court. The court, thus far, has failed to protect my due process rights by allowing the rules to be manipulated, allowing its orders to be ignored, and allowing officers of the court to place their interests ahead of those they are duty bound to protect by not only giving Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin a pass for perpetrating a fraud on the court but allowing them to profit by their scheme.


What I have come to learn, as a Pro-Se advocate, is that precedent is supposed to be set by previous rulings and that those rulings are the Court’s interpretation as to how to apply the law. I also have come to learn that “fraud on the court” is a particular species of fraud that is extremely difficult to prosecute because of cronyism, fraternalism, and protectionism, that the legal community affords its members.

On January 29, 30 and 31st of this year, I participated in the Court’s evidentiary trial. I thought the Court would diligently explore the facts presented in light of its pre-trial order and its order would turn thereon. I firmly believed, upon completion of the trial, that justice would finally be served. What I did not recognize and could not comprehend was the effect that a “fraud on the court” determination would have on the bankruptcy bar in South Florida, and also the unraveling of all of the final rulings made as a result of that “fraud on the court.” Please note that Judge Hyman, who made all the rulings in the 1997 bankruptcy of Baron’s, is the same Judge who reopened the case, denied Summary Judgments and presided over the evidentiary trial. And so the same Judge who was defrauded now faced the huge burden that would be created by a “fraud on the court” ruling. In addition to that burden, I believe that because of the close knit relationships developed in the bankruptcy bar, it becomes very difficult to effect the prosecution of people who appear before you on a regular basis. Whether this is difficult is not the issue - what is just and right is! Judges must have the courage to correct wrongs that are against public policy in spite of relationships.

Perhaps, in reopening the bankruptcy, Judge Hyman opened Pandora’s Box, realized what lay inside at the evidentiary trial, and then chose to close the box rather than release the secrets. Judge Hyman was able to close the box by “re-interpreting” the disclosure rules and making his own judgment of the intentions of the parties. “Fraud on the court” should not be left to interpretation by anyone. The actions of the officers of the court must speak for themselves. Re-interpreting the rules to protect officers of the court to the detriment of the public destroys the entire judicial system.

What happened in our case is rampant in bankruptcy cases around the country. The Courts rely on attorneys to act with honor and trustworthiness. To tell the truth, know the law, and protect the sanctity of the process is the responsibility of these officers of the court. To allow violations of any of these tenets to obstruct justice cannot and must not be tolerated.

The very protection the court has from appointing professionals in bankruptcy cases are the Rules of Disclosure enacted by Congress to protect honest debtors and creditors from professionals who choose to play fast and loose with the court. Examining the history of Congress reveals that it knew the problem existed, especially in the bankruptcy courts, and thus stated its concern in the Matter of Arkansas Co., (3d Cir. 1986)).

“It is significant that Congress chose to place the requirement of court approval for the employment of an attorney, accountant, or other professional directly in the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. 11 U.S.C. 1103(a). The legislative history makesclear that the 1978 Code was designed to eliminate the abuses and detrimentalpractices that had been found to prevail. Among such practices was the cronyismof the “bankruptcy ring” and attorney control of bankruptcy cases. In fact, the House Report noted that “in practice...the bankruptcy system operates more forthe benefit of attorneys than for the benefit of creditors.”

When such Rules are intentionally violated in spite of numerous opportunities to comply nothing less than the harshest of punishments should be imposed. The fact that there is no statute of limitation for fraud on the court is somewhat of a comfort to the public as to their right to redress and the vitiation of all judgments and orders procured by such an act.

In closing, Your Honor, I refer to a 1944 United States Supreme Court case, Hazel Atlas. “Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely, it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.”

Your Honor, apples cannot be oranges. Only a fair hearing will allow that truth.

Thank you.

Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se

Bankruptcy Fraud eToys

Did eToys commit fraud against its shareholders when its corporate officers paid themselves millions of dollars and then filed bankruptcy?
The shareholders say yes and are yelling foul about every one washing their hands of the crime in bankruptcy court while the Wilmington, Delaware U.S. Trustee turns a blind eye to the mouns of evidence given them that the fraud continues in the bankruptcy case with sweetheart deals between the bankruptcy trustee and liquidation companies.
A small group of the shareholders organized to fight back when they learned that the attorney that was supposed be representing the creditors was in bed with the bad guys. As they investigated eToys, they uncovered layers of fraud within the Delaware Bankruptcy System, where lawyers and bankruptcy trustees conspire with each other to benefit at the expense of the victims; and that justice from the U.S. Trustee is just a word with no meaning.

The Shareholders Revolt

In the late 1990s, eToys growth was staggering and investors dumped millions into the on-line retailer giant.

But like so many of the dot.com companies, it was an illusion. In this case, Merrill Lynch cooked the books to make eToys look profitable.

By 2001, eToys, like so many other dot.coms, collapsed. Months before filing bankruptcy, the corporation's officers gave themselves millions of dollars and then quit. An interim chief was appointed to manage the company through its asset liquidation in bankruptcy.

The eToys shareholders have found themselves in the position as other victims of bankruptcy fraud, when they gave the U.S .Trustee in Wilmington, Delaware, the criminal complaint and evidence goes into a black hole and no justice.

"I have been trying to get the FBI and the Dept of Justice to clean up the corruption and I am always sent to a party of authority that places the investigation in a dead end, with no results," said Stephen L. Haas, one of the eToys victims seeking justice. "I alleged possible corruption, failure to perform by the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee Mark Kenney, who has sat idle while these crimes against us all continue to be rampant, blatant and flagrant."

Below is a Wall Street Journal article about the eToys bankruptcy scandal. The victims say the story is from a business publication standpoint and misses the big story, which is hedge fund corruption (big money, power and influence) on the Bankruptcy Court.

Shareholder's Issues:

eToys bankruptcy trustee, Mark Kenney, hired John Traub, a lawyer from the firm Traub Bonacquist & Fox to be legal counsel for the Kmart Shareholders.

Traub Bonacquist & Fox are involved in an extremely large percentage of all retail bankruptcies over $10 million such as Office Max, Montgomery Wards, Sears Homelife, KB Toys, Standard Living, Brueners, Finova and many more.

The Kmart shareholders received $0 and yet Kmart was able to acquire Sears just a few months after exiting from bankruptcy.

1 - US Trustee Robert DeAngelis replaced by Kelly B Stapleton in Phil Region 3 on Dec ( the date of the hearing on the original allegations).
2 - RR Donnelley and Goldman Sachs dissolve themselves of one another on Jan 5th 2005. ($300 million suit of Sachs that RR Donnelley voted on.)
3 - The US Trustee has sought sanctions, (due to the responses of Jan 25 2005, in the public record, the Hearing of Feb 1, 2005 where we were permitted to place the attorney's on the stand, the Depo's of Feb 9 2005, where we were permitted by the Court to depose the Attorney's and Barry Gold) where the sanctions were for $1.6 million and $750,000 ( the 750 was agreed to by Traub).
4 - The March 1 2005 hearing where James Garrity (former Fed Justice NY, who is of the firm Sherman Sterling and was hired by Traub to negotiate the Trustee settlement) -- where the Court (Her Honor Walrath) rejected approving the settlement, took all matters under advisement and most importantly, when Garrity raised the issue that I could no longer be Pro Se as my claim was by a Corporation, the Court did the depose of Traub, Barry Gold etc, on the Stand, under Oath, on the details of the Payments by Traub's firm to Barry Gold and gave us the terms, in Her Court room discussions, of void "ab initio" and removal of Mark Kenney by USC 324 for "failure to do and continued failure to perform". (the fact that brought light to the legal terms was the way counsel(s) went quite on the subject when the terms were stated.)
Lawrence A. FriedmanFormer Chief AdministratorU.S. Trustee Office Washington, D.C.
5 -Lawrence Friedman -- the Chief Administrator in Washington DC of the Dept Of Justice US Trustee Office (who had personally corresponded with Haas and assured him that corrective measures would be taken) -- RESIGNED for personal reasons shortly afterwards.
6 - The Judge in the KB case did strike and expunge Haas notes in the public pacer system of the same conflicts ongoing in that case where Paul Traub partner with Barry Gold, who worked at Stage Stores with Michael Glazer (CEO of KB) -- where Traub asked the Court for permission to prosecute the $100 million payment Michael Glazer paid himself and others prior to filing Bankruptcy of KB.
7 - 5 days after Judge Sullivan did strike and expunge my notes to him and the public he was removed from the Case and replaced by His Honor Shapero. ( I feel it was most likely the corny consistent references to the "concern" about the 8000 employees for Christmas.)
8 - The firm of Traub Bonacquist & Fox is now just the firm of Traub as Bonacquist is out of touch and Michael Fox has gone to Olshan & Frome for better business opportunities, where Frome does no Bankruptcy work and TBF was doing mega millions a year in billings.

Kentucky Trial Derby

Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2007

How's this for a legal bestseller? Three tort lawyers are accused of defrauding their clients of $62 million. A state judge signs off on the scam, and is rewarded with a cushy job. When the scandal comes to light, the bar association looks the other way and another state judge fails to force the men to return the money. A federal judge finally intervenes and jails all three as flight risks.

Welcome to Kentucky, where this thriller is unfolding in real life. Scholars are calling it one of the biggest legal frauds in U.S. history, but it's better viewed as a case study in how hard it is to hold trial lawyers accountable for their low crimes and misdemeanors.

The facts are largely undisputed. In 2001, American Home Products reached a $200 million settlement with 440 plaintiffs for claims that they'd suffered heart damage using the fen-phen diet drug. The lawyers -- including William Gallion, Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and Melbourne Mills, Jr. -- were supposed to get one-third of the payout. Instead, the lawyers kept $106 million, put another $20 million into a charity they established, and left the plaintiffs with a mere $74 million. Plaintiffs say they were told by their lawyers that if they complained they could be sued or go to jail.

Some plaintiffs complained nonetheless, and the circus that has followed has become a black eye for Kentucky's legal establishment. In court papers, the three men denied wrongdoing, and said they deserved the extra money. They noted that the judge who'd signed off on the original settlement, Joseph F. Bamburger, had said the lawyers were due this windfall "for their services and for the incredible risks they took," as well as for various "administrative headaches."

Maybe. Then again, when Judge Bamburger retired from the bench in 2004, he was made a director of the very same charity the lawyers had established with that $20 million. The judge was paid $5,000 a month, money he later returned. He was also reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Commission of Kentucky for "misconduct in office."

Complaints were made to the state bar association soon after the 2001 settlement, yet six years and a criminal indictment later the organization hasn't held a full hearing on permanent disbarment. Meanwhile, Lexington attorney Angela Ford filed a civil lawsuit asking that 414 of the fen-phen plaintiffs get their money back. After a prolonged proceeding in which the defense was accorded great deference, state judge William Wehr found that Ms. Ford's clients were owed as much as $62 million.

Yet he has so far refused to require a return of the money. The three attorneys have instead had 18 months to hide, spend, or transfer it offshore. Two of the lawyers were splashed across newspapers in May as co-owners of Curlin, winner of the Preakness Stakes. Judge Wehr also inexplicably separated a fourth attorney, Stanley Chesley, from the proceedings. Mr. Chesley happens to be a powerful national tort lawyer, whose wife is a federal judge.

Messrs. Gallion, Cunningham and Mills might have got away with all this were it not for higher authorities. This June a federal grand jury indicted them on charges of fraud. Recently, in the face of endless stalling, federal judge William Bertelsman granted the defendants' motion to move their trial to January, but at the same time ordered them to jail.

He voiced his suspicion that since the three were all in "their 50s and 70s," and that under federal sentencing guidelines they faced 20 years in jail, they had a "tremendous motive to stonewall." He also felt that there was a "serious risk that the funds will be moved offshore and that with these funds at their disposal the defendants will flee to a country with which the United States has no extradition treaty. . ." The judge said he wanted a speedy proceeding because "not only these three gentlemen are on trial, the whole legal profession is on trial in this case."

For this bit of candor, Judge Bertelsman has been assailed, with law professors publicly complaining that it was inappropriate to impugn the whole profession, or to jail the poor millionaire attorneys. We'd say Judge Bertelsman has been the only one clear-eyed enough to realize that the foot-dragging and wink-winking that has characterized the treatment of these attorneys has already left a bad taste about the way some lawyers and judges protect their own.

Other judges should pay attention. A New York law firm also faces trial over accusations it conned its clients out of fen-phen money, while firms across the country are facing scrutiny for manipulating silicosis and class-action securities suits. The trial bar has too often become a law unto itself, and the only way to stop such behavior is for judges and prosecutors to hold the lawyers accountable.