SharonsSlideShare

SharonsFacebook

www.facebook.com

Sharon's Favorites

Loading...

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Notice to the President: Your Nominee to the State Justice Institute Is Corrupt

Notice to the President: Your Nominee to the State Justice Institute Is Corrupt
September 10th, 2012
URGENT NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FBI AND CONGRESS REGARDING CRIMES AND MISCONDUCT BY JONATHAN LIPPMAN: NOMINEE FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS: STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
On May 23rd, 2012, President Obama announced his nomination of New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to serve on the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute.

Opponents of judicial corruption in New York State, were shocked by the announcement, having witnessed Lippman’s relentless, corruption-ridden rise to power in the New York State Judiciary, culminating in his illegal ascension to Chief Judge in 2009.


The object of this report is to inform the President, the Congressional Oversight Committees, and the FBI of Judge Lippman’s legacy of corruption, in order to convince them that the confirmation of Judge Lippman would be detrimental to justice for all Americans.

Specifically, this report calls for:
  • The President to withdraw the nomination, and in lieu of that;
  • The Congressional Oversight Committees to examine the evidence and testimony against Judge Lippman and his administration, and addition to the above;
  • The FBI to investigate Judge Lippman and his colleagues for corrupt and criminal acts against the people of New York and the United States.

The Urgency of this Matter

The urgency of this notice lies in the fact that Lippman has been “fast-tracked” through the confirmation process, and is scheduled to be confirmed by a cursory “voice vote” without scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee during this session of the Senate. The confirmation vote could be held as early as September 11th.

What is the State Justice institute?
According to the SJI webpage:
“The State Justice Institute (SJI) was established by Federal law in 1984 to award grants to improve the quality of justice in State courts, facilitate better coordination between State and Federal courts, and foster innovative, efficient solutions to common issues faced by all courts.”

Insofar as corruption is one of the most common issues faced by all courts, Judge Lippman is uniquely unqualified to foster innovative, efficient solutions.
SJI Executve Director Jonathan has refused to accept evidence of crimes and corruption by Jonathan Lippman
On August 31, 2012, The Center for Judicial Accountability asked if the SJI would like to receive documented evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Judge Lippman, including official complaints and pending lawsuits alleging criminal acts. After a moment of reflection, Matiello replied “no”, explaining that the FBI had done a background check on Lippman, and “if the FBI cleared him, that’s good enough for me”.
With all due respect to Mr. Mattiello’s confidence in the FBI, and with sincere appreciation of the FBI’s extraordinary record of law enforcement, disasters have occurred because the FBI either overlooked, ignored, or suppressed information provided by the public. Some recent examples include the Fort Hood Massacre, the Madoff Scandal and the training of the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center. The FBI depends on tips and evidence from citizens, which is why there are “wanted posters” in post offices and a “tip line” on the Bureau’s website.
The FBI Either Overlooked or Suppressed Reports of Fraud
in the Nomination and Confirmation of Lippman for Chief Judge of New York

In fact the FBI has been apprised, repeatedly, of rampant corruption by Lippman and his administration. In a January 10, 2010 phone call and a letter sent five days later to Manhattan FBI Supervising Agent of Public Corruption Brian Nadeau, reporter Will Galison not only spelled out corruption by Lippman but offered to provide hard evidence to the FBI. Agent Nadeau’s refusal to accept evidence or to follow up on Galison’s allegations indicates either a stunning lack of diligence or an intentional enabling of the corruption:

Agent Brian Nadeau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
1/15/10

“Dear Agent Nadeau


I was pleased to receive your phone call on 1/10/10… but our conversation left me with several questions and concerns…. I informed you that I possess direct evidence and documentation that the Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman had engaged in quid pro quo exchanges of illicit favors with members of the Judicial Nominating Committee responsible for his nomination. You fell silent for a moment but did not even ask me what evidence I have.”
Murdered Whistleblower Sunny Sheu’s report to the FBI

Galison was not the only person to report Lippman’s corruption to the FBI. In the fall of 2009, Queens resident Sunny Sheu sent documentation to the FBI regarding a mortgage fraud that resulted in the loss of his home, and mentioned Lippman in connection to the case.
The FBI did not investigate Sheu’s allegations against Judge Lippman. Nor did they investigate Sheu’s brutal murder several months later, the theft of his body by the NYPD, his illegal cremation, or the NYPD’s cover up of the Queens Medical Examiner’s determination of death by “Blunt force trauma to the head with skull fractures and brain injuries” and his ruling of the manner of death as “undertermined”, mandating an investigation.
Had the FBI investigated official complaints against Lippman, what would they have found?

A cursory FBI investigation of Lippman would have discovered, at the very least, the evidence of misconduct by Lippman that are detailed in this report:

  • Proof that Lippman’s nomination and confirmation to the Chief Judgeship of New York State were achieved by fraudulent and illegal means.
  • Scores of uninvestigated, documented complaints submitted to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee regarding corruption by Lippman, the officials he appointed, and the agencies he oversaw.
  • At least seven sworn affidavits documenting crimes and corruption by Lippman, the officials he appointed, and the agencies he oversaw, filed with the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, at their request.
  • At least one complaint alleging election fraud by Lippman, filed with the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, and never investigated.
  • Over 40 pending federal lawsuits against Lippman - in his official capacity -citing corruption and/or official misconduct, and scores more that had been dismissed on technicalities rather than on their merits.
  • Implication of Lippman in the mortgage fraud case of Sunny Sheu, an anti-corruption whistleblower whose violent death has been covered up by the NYPD, FBI and others.
  • Implication in a scandal involving a $40 million theft of property and funds
  • A report by the judicial watchdog group, the Center for Judicial Accountability, demonstrating unconstitutional abuse of power by Lippman as Chief Judge.
  • Allegations of unethical behavior by Lippman in the New York media
The US Senate Judiciary Committee and House
Oversight Committee Must Review the FBI Files on Judge Lippman.
If the following information is not in the FBI file, it means that either:
  1. a)the FBI did not diligently investigate public complaints against Lippman , or;
  2. b)the FBI concealed information from the Whitehouse, Congress and the SJI

The New York Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on
Judge Lippman’s Confirmation were Fraudulent, Criminal and Invalid.

All Senate Committees, whether federal or state, have four cardinal duties in regard to public hearings:

1) to announce the hearing 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, 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. The announcement also did not mention that the public was invited.
In violation of New York Senate rules, which require a five-day notice for public hearings, the “Public Hearing” on Lippman’s Confirmation was not announced until one day before the 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.”


  1. 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.

  1. In fact, the February 10th announcement does not mention that anyone was invited, yet 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 presence establishes that this was indeed a “public hearing”, despite the Senate’s violation of applicable rules.
  2. It is in violation of state senate rules to hold a public hearing with less than five days notice, and/or without public invitation.
  3. On these ground alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.

  1. 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. Fortunately, the videos were copied and are now posted on Youtube and elsewhere. The bias and bullying against the opposing witnesses by the SJA is shockingly evident in these clips.

Although Lippman addressed the Judiciary Committee after the testimony of opposing witnesses (for which he was present), he failed to respond to any of the allegations made against him by opposing witnesses.
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.
Other than these three citizens, the hearing was attended exclusively by about 50 officials 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.
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.

On these grounds alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.

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 (that of Mr. Galison) 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.
Incredibly, 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 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 and invalid.

On these grounds alone, the confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.

[One month after Lippman’s confirmation, the CJC complaint was “dismissed without investigation” by Tembeckjian. Dismissing a factual complaint without investigation comprises official misconduct, a crime under New York law]
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!”

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.

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.
On these grounds alone, the SJC vote confirming Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.
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 these grounds alone, the full senate confirmation of Jonathan Lippman is illegal and invalid.

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

Sharon4Judge