Margarita Lopez for New York State Chief Judge

September 2, 2008

Margarita Lopez Torres for New York State Chief Judge

Integrity in the Courts, a grassroots public interest organization based in Manhattan, today announced the formal movement to ensure that Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Margarita Lopez Torres becomes New York’s next Chief Judge. “The groundswell has been enormous,” said Frank Brady, one of the founding members of the year-old group, Integrity in the Courts. “New York needs a change- away from the corrupt, political favor-type system- to an impartial process that citizens, judges and attorneys can trust.”

Margarita Lopez Torres is nationally known as the maverick judicial candidate who fought New York’s corrupt, make-believe election process. She took her cause to ‘take the political clubhouse out of the courthouse’ all the way the United States Supreme Court. The Nation’s highest court told New York to clean up its own mess, and Judge Margarita Lopez Torres is just the person to get the job done.

New York’s Constitution requires that “Supreme Court” judges (state trial court judges) be elected. But the candidates for election are nominated by a byzantine convention system mandated by statute. The only way to become a Supreme Court judge is to gain the nomination at the convention, and the only way to gain the nomination at the convention is with the approval of the local leader of the dominant political party. And we all know how corrupt that can be.

As U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson put it in Lopez Torres’ federal district court case, “[t]he labyrinthine, burdensome procedures … ensure that the entrenched party leaders can install as delegates persons who will do their bidding…. Faced with an inability to get supportive delegates elected, it is cold comfort for a challenger candidate to be told not to worry, she can try to convince the delegates selected by the party leaders. The current system for selecting judges does not work that way and is not structured to work that way.” (Dist. Ct. Opin. p. 32. )

And the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, “‘the uncontested evidence…is that across the state, the system for selecting candidates for the Supreme Court [in New York] vests almost total control in the hands of local political leaders.’ … The Commission is hardly the only entity to reach this conclusion—it merely is the latest. Since 1944, New York’s judicial nominating system has been described as exclusionary and boss-dominated; reports and newspaper editorials from that time forward have decried an electoral practice ‘that mocks choice,’ and criticized a system in which ‘voters can never know the candidates and have to accept party slates,’ while the ‘real choice is … left to political bosses … who control nominations.’”

Attorneys appearing for Judge Lopez Torres before the United States Supreme Court called the New York Courts the “worst of all worlds.” And most non-political-hacks agree. The time is now for a Chief Judge of New York with courage, and that person is Judge Margarita Lopez Torres.

By law, New York State Governor Paterson must pick a Chief Judge from a list of seven candidates presented by the state’s 12-member Commission on Judicial Nomination.

“We are calling on Governor Paterson, the legal profession, all statewide elected officials and the public to become actively involved in the Chief Judge Lopez Torres movement,” says Mr. Brady, adding, “No one is more qualified.”

Additional details are to be announced later in the week.


CLICK HERE to see Integrity in the Courts

Clone This Judge !

September 2, 2008

Surrogate Slashes Attorney’s Fees For Bid to Probate Rejected WIl

The New York Law Journal by Mark Fass – August 21, 2008

Two days before 83-year-old Faye Mancuso died in January 2000, she signed a new will disinheriting her family and naming a man she hardly knew as the sole beneficiary of her $1.68 million estate.

 

Ms. Mancuso’s friend, Mary Pizzi, had suggested that her son, Michael Pizzi, could assist Ms. Mancuso in her efforts to relocate to a nursing home.  Instead Mr. Pizzi, a private investigator and former marshal in the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, facilitated the drafting of the new will, which left him everything.  In court papers, Mr. Pizzi claimed his relationship with Ms. Mancuso dated from his relationship with Ms. Mancuso dated from his early childhood when he says she was named his godmother.  Now,two years after a jury threw out the will on the basis of Mr. Pizzi’s undue influence, Brooklyn Surrogate Margarita Lopez Torres has refused his request for the $32,283 he claims he earned as preliminary executor to her estate.  Surrogate Lopez Torres also rejected the application for $136,618 filed by the Bay Ridge law firm Connors & Sullivan, which represented Mr. Pizzi, awarding it a flat sum of $10,000 instead.

 

The judge concluded that justice precluded either Mr. Pizzi or Connors & Sullivan from benefiting from their own wrongdoing.  “Where a fiduciary has sought to probate a will procured by undue influence, not only is the fiduciary not entitled to commissions but ‘allowing the proponent of the will to recover his attorney’s fees from the assets of the estate would be a perversion of justice because it would allow the proponent of the will to profit by his own wrong,” Surrogate Lopez Torres wrote in Matter of Mancuso, 181/2000, citing Matter of Winckler, 243 A.D.2d 307.  Ms. Mancuso and her older brother, Carmine, lived their entire lives in the same two-story house in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn.  Neither married or had children.  By the time they reached their 80s in the late 1990s, Mr. Mancuso suffered from chronic lung disease and kyphosis, the curving of the spine associated with so-called “hunchback.”

 

Although the siblings’ home and other assets were valued at more that $1.5 million, neighbors later said they lived like “poor people.”  Mr. Mancuso was known for being angry and disheveled, and the two reportedly communicated largely through screaming.  Mr. Mancuso became ill around Christmas Eve 1999, at approximately the same time that Ms. Mancuso followed up on her friend’s suggestion and engaged Mr. Pizzi, then 58, to help her find a nursing home.  Court papers show that Mr. Pizzi instead focused his efforts on completing a new will for Ms. Mancuso, even though she had completed one in 1987 that left her estate to a first cousin in Florida and his wife.

 

Mr. Pizzi engaged Michael N. Connors of Connors & Sullivan to draft the will.  Based in Bay Ridge, the firm has four offices and considers itself the “largest firm in Brooklyn specializing in elder law.”  The firm employs nine attorneys and was founded in 1980, according to Martindale.com.  Mr. Connors later testified that he met with Ms. Mancuso exactly once and for less than an hour.  He did not ask to see her previous will, nor for a family tree, a summary of assets or a list of the original will’s beneficiaries.  He did not take notes at the meeting, he said, as he did not originally intend to draft a will based on the single encounter.  Shortly after that meeting, on January 7, 2000, Ms. Mancuso’s brother, Carmine, died of cardiac arrest.  “Carmine was dead less than a day when a team from [Connors & Sullivan] appeared at Mancuso’s residence to have her execute a new will,” according to a memorandum filed by Ms. Mancuso’s cousin.

 

New Will Questioned

 

Two days after Ms. Mancuso signed the new will, Mr. Pizzi reportedly found her dead, sitting in a chair in her upstairs bedroom.  Ten days after that, Mr. Pizzi petitioned to become the preliminary executor of Ms. Mancuso’s estate.  In October 2000, when Ms. Mancuso’s cousin, Sebastian Grassi and his wife, Gloria, who were the primary beneficiaries of the 1987 will, learned of her death and her new will, they contacted the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office.  According to news reports, the city Medical Examiner’s Office exhumed Ms. Mancuso’s body and performed an autopsy to determine whether she had died as Mr. Pizzi claimed.  The office found insufficient information to determine the cause of death, and changed the official cause from cardiac arrest to “undetermined.”  Mr. Pizzi was not charged with any crimes.  A spokeswoman for the Medical Examiner’s Office said earlier this week that the file on the case is now in storage.  

 

The Grassis also contested the 2000 will in Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court, where a jury ruled in 2005 that Mr. Pizzi had exerted undue influence to procure the will.  Mr. Pizzi and Connors & Sullivan then initiated a series of motions and appeals that has thus far extended the probate of the estate of Ms. Mancuso, who died more than eight years ago, by another three years.  Mr. Pizzi and Connors & Sullivan first moved to set aside the jury’s verdict, which Supreme Court Justice Albert Tomei, then sitting as an acting surrogate, denied in October 2005 (NYLJ, Oct. 3, 2005).  They appealed that ruling to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which affirmed Justice Tomei.  The firm next moved for reargument, which the Second Department also denied, then for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which both the Second Department and the Court of Appeals rejected.  On three separate occasions, the firm unsuccessfully sought to stay the probate of the original 1987 will.  In 2006, Justice Tomei sanctioned Connors & Sullivan associate Marc Monte $500 for filing objections to the probate of the 1987 will.  “In the instant case,” Justice Tomei wrote, “the motion is not only frivolous but in bad taste.”

 

In the present proceeding, Mr. Pizzi and Connor & Sullivan sought compensation for the work they performed during Mr. Pizzi’s tenure as preliminary executor.  According to an Affirmation of Legal Service submitted by the firm in support of the motion, Mr. Pizzi served as the preliminary executor from January 18, 2000, until March 1, 2006– from 11 days after Ms. Mancuso’s death until shortly after Justice Tomei refused to overturn the jury’s decision to throw out the 2000 will because of Mr. Pizzi’s undue influence.  Prior to his removal, Mr. Pizzi agreed to pay Connors & Sullivan $200,000 for its work– nearly one-eighth the total value of the estate– associate Giovanni Silvagni stated in the firm’s affidavit.  That agreement notwithstanding, the firm sought only $134,618, or about 8 percent of the gross estate.  The total represented, per the firm’s own calculations, about a $40,000 premium for the “extraordinary” services it provided.  For his work on behalf of the estate, Mr. Pizzi requested $32,283.

 

The Grassis, who were in their late 70s at the time of Ms. Mancuso’s death and are now in their mid-80s, opposed compensating either Mr. Pizzi or the firm.  “[T]he Second Department has stated that it would be a ‘perversion of justice’ to award fees to an attorney who represented the proponent of a will denied probate on the basis of undue influence,” the Grassis argued, citing Winckler.  “Here, several C&S employees, including Connors himself, exerted undue influence over Mancuso.”  The Grassis argued that at most the firm should be paid a fixed sum of $5,000.  Surrogate Lopez Torres Granted the Grassis’ motion for summary judgment.  She denied Mr. Pizzi any compensation and awarded the firm a fixed fee of $10,000 for services “unrelated to the probate contest and which would have been performed whether or not the will was admitted to probate.”

 

“Pizzi was the sole beneficiary of the Will, which was executed two days before Faye’s death,” Surrogate Lopez Torres wrote.  “He was neither a relative nor a friend of the decedent.  Under applicable law, Pizzi’s bad faith prevents him from recovering executor’s commissions.”  The same principle, Judge Lopez Torres wrote, applies to the attorney’s fees.  Manhattan litigator Kevin J. Farrelly and his associate Jeffrey H. Weinberger represented the Grassis.  Mr. Farrelly called Surrogate Lopez Torres’ decision yet another vindication of his clients and the original will.  “what I think is important is that over an eight-year period my clients’ rights have been consistently upheld by six jurors, three surrogate judges, two Appellate Division panels and the Court of Appeals,” Mr. Farrelly said.  “It shows that the will offered by Mr. Pizzi should never have been admitted to probate.”  Three of the key attorneys for Connors & Sullivan in Matter of Mancuso– Mr. Connors, Mr. Silvagni and Edward R. Dorney– did not return repeated calls for comment.    Mark.Fass@incisivemedia.com

New York Daily News on Corrupt Surrogate Courts

August 31, 2008

To clean up corrupt Surrogate Courts, wake up and vote

The New York Daily News Errol Louis  - August 14th 2008 

Every couple of years, like clockwork, scandal hits New York’s Surrogate Courts, which sort out the estates of people who die without a will or leave a will that’s unclear or contested. In the wrong hands, the system lends itself to abuse. The elected surrogates have the power to appoint private attorneys to look after large sums of money. A rogues’ gallery of chiselers and crooks has flocked to the courts over the years, running up bills and draining money that rightfully belongs to the heirs and descendants of the dead. That’s why Manhattan Democrats need to pay attention to the upcoming primary for surrogate.

Most people don’t think about the court until the headlines report high-profile cases like Brooke Astor’s $132 million estate or the late Leona Helmsley’s nutty attempt to leave $12 million to her dog. But the reality is much less glamorous than those headlines. Last month, Daily News investigative reporter Nancie Katz uncovered a mess in the Bronx, where Surrogate Lee Holzman allowed politically connected lawyers to run up more than $2 million in fees while 37 heirs waited – some for more than a decade – and collected nothing. To make matters worse, some of the Bronx estate money was improperly placed in risky investments that tanked. Taxpayers may end up covering the $20 million loss. And then there’s Brooklyn, where ex-Surrogate Michael Feinberg was removed from office in 2005 for improperly allowing one of his pals to take excessively high fees from estates of the dead.

The scandals are nothing new. As far back as the 1930s, corruption problems led the city Bar Association to call for the Surrogate’s Court to be folded into the general court system – an idea still worth considering. Sen. Robert Kennedy mounted his own reform effort in the 1960s. And 40 years after his death we’re still trying to protect widows, orphans and the dead from predatory pols and lawyers. Which brings us to the Democratic primary for a 14-year term as Manhattan surrogate. All three candidates for the office describe themselves as reformers, although none has a clear claim to that title.

John Reddy, who has worked in the Surrogate’s Court for 29 years, was the protégé of a lawyer who got mixed up in a court scandal, but claims he was part of making things better and says “a pro-active surrogate who knows the system can make the court run better.”

Nora Anderson, an attorney in private practice, has been running a spirited campaign with the help of campaign manager Michael Oliva, a savvy strategist who has won several insurgent judicial races in recent years. But Anderson’s outsider/reform credentials have taken a serious and perhaps fatal hit in the form of a $225,000 campaign loan from Seth Rubenstein, a Brooklyn trust and estate lawyer with deep family ties to the business (his father served as Brooklyn surrogate in the 1950s, and his grandfather worked in the same court). Anderson will have to work hard to prove that, if elected, she will not be politically and financially indebted to Rubenstein.

The third candidate, Milton Tingling, is a Supreme Court justice endorsed by Harlem powerbrokers like ex-Mayor David Dinkins and Manhattan Democratic boss Denny Farrell. Tingling also snagged Gary Tilzer, a longtime gadfly and reformer, as a campaign strategist. “The two other candidates represent firms that have controlled the court for the past 50 years,” said Tilzer, who has campaigned against court corruption for decades. “It’s not Tammany Hall controlling the Surrogate’s Court, it’s families and connected friends.” Actually, it’s the people who have ultimate control in a democracy. All the more reason Manhattan Dems should think long and hard before picking the leader of a court that has eluded reform for generations. elouis@nydailynews.com

June 23, 2007

Add to Technorati Favorites

Judge Denies Cancer Patient Monies From Mother’s 17-year-old Estate

June 21, 2007

Judge Denies Cancer Patient Monies From Mother’s 17-Year-Old Estate

Westchester Surrogate Judge Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr. Denied Cancer Patient, and Retired Attorney, Monies From Her Mother’s 17-Year-Old Estate.

Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz found out she had cancer last May. And most people know that stress is not good for cancer patients. But perhaps someone needs to tell that to Westchester County Surrogate Judge Anthony A. Scarpino and The Bank of New York who together tried to crush the Bank’s cancer-victim opponent.

Lefkowitz, a retired New York State attorney is only too familiar with stress as a way of life, a horror involving her mother’s Westchester County estate that has been going on since Irene Marsh’s death 17 years ago. Westchester County Surrogate Court records indicate that Irene Marsh’s other distributees timely received their monies years ago. However, Ms. Lefkowitz and her daughter did not. (Incidentally, Ms. Lefkowitz’s father’s 19-year-old New York County estate is also still pending.)

For many years Ms. Lefkowitz’s estate distributions were often seized in secret by the estate executor, the Bank of New York. The Bank even refused to release her monies (almost $200,000.) after she made a special request related to her cancer diagnosis. And that medical request also didn’t matter much to Westchester County Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino who not only denied the emergency medical request but failed to even mention the medical need in his decision. (Matter of Irene B. Marsh, New York Law Journal, October 20, 2006, page 28)

Though Lefkowitz provided evidence from her doctor concerning the cancer diagnosis, and her own affidavit seeking an “expedited resolution” to her request for the release of the undistributed funds withheld from her for years, the judge denied her request in a September 28, 2006 ruling. One attorney who reviewed the public file said, “It’s quite clear that Ms. Lefkowitz presented evidence to the court concerning her cancer diagnosis, and her urgent need for special care and treatment. I can’t understand or explain why the request was denied, and without the court even commenting on her need for monies for immediate cancer treatment.”

A review of the filed documents reveal that while rejecting the original grounds asserted by the bank-executor for withholding Lefkowitz’s distributions, the judge refused to release the funds to Lefkowitz because of the bank’s new argument of anticipated future litigation expenses, and a potential estate insolvency. The Bank of New York concealed from the court that it has refused to pay any more legal bills since January 2004.

“But only Lefkowitz, of the 5 beneficiaries was, in effect, being required to “post a bond” for future estate legal expenses,” says another legal expert after a review of the file. “The denial of monies to a cancer patient is reprehensible on its own, but given the bank’s admission to criminal activity, the Bank of New York is hardly a suitable fiduciary in any estate.” He added, “Under New York State Probate Laws, Article 7 of the SCPA, “dishonesty” is grounds for removal of The Bank of New York as it cuts directly to their ineligibility as a fiduciary. This estate should have been finalized years ago, and the denial of money for a cancer patient by the judge and the fiduciary are shocking- beyond words.” (See The Bank of New York non prosecution agreement with the FBI on this forum, to the right)

Instead, the court has left The Bank of New York in place as the fiduciary of Lefkowitz’s mother’s estate, with the clear message that Lefkowitz would get no money for cancer treatment or care, or anything else, because of her plans to finally hold the bank accountable for its failings over the past 17 years, which include their dereliction in securing the Marsh family furnishings, art and jewelry. Lefkowitz is also opposing the huge attorney bills to the estate from McCarthy Fingar LLP. (The reader may recognize the McCarthy Fingar law firm from other stories on this forum, including the Thomas and Agnes Carvel estates) (click “JUDGE TO CANCER PATIENT…” icon on right to view the Court Decision and Lefkowitz’s Affidavit),

The FBI has been investigating why over $300,000 of Lefkowitz’s daughter’s trust funds had been wrongfully retained in trust by the Bank of New York over 2 years after the termination date as set forth in the Marsh wills. The FBI probe follows the 2005 non-prosecution agreement where the Bank of New York agreed not to commit any more crimes, as reported in The New York Times on November 9, 2005. The bank’s non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorneys’ Eastern and Southern Districts of New York involved criminal activities which implicated the bank’s corporate counsel’s office and high-level Bank of New York executives.

Ms. Lefkowitz repeatedly declined to comment on this story.

(This forum will carry other examples of abuse of the cancer patient by The Bank of New York)

Memo #1 to Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau

June 21, 2007

Memo #1 to Chief Administrative Judge Pfau

**UPDATED June 19, 2007** On June 14th we began the collaborative process of memoralizing our constructive thoughts to Chief Administrative Judge Pfau. And continuing on a regular basis, we will send Judge Pfau a collection of suggestions intent on improving our courts. Also, included in our memos will be various subjects, including our request for updates as to issues addressed in this forum. Your constructive comments will be sent along with the memo. In commenting on this post, please keep it clean and constructive; vent, etc. on other posts, please. Our Memos are meant to HELP the court system for everyone. (this is a work in progress, and information is taken from positive comments and suggestions emailed to us)

**UPDATED June 19, 2007 – FINAL MEMO #1 sent to Judge Pfau June 18, 2007**

MEMO #1

To: Hon. Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007
RE: SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Dear Honorable Chief Administrative Judge Pfau:

Every law-abiding and honest attorney, court employee and judge, has
cheered your recent appointment as the New York State Chief
Administrative Judge for the Courts. And your presence at the top
brings a sense of hope to every honest citizen, who looks forward to
overall court reform, and the restoration of integrity to the New York
Court system. We urge, and support, your immediate action, and we
respectfully present suggestions for consideration:

1. Amnesty for Judges, Lawyers & Court Employees

SUGGESTION: Establish a 60-day Amnesty period during which judges,
attorneys (court employed and private) and court personnel may come
forward with information regarding improper activity, either known to
them or with which they have been involved. (It’s the only way to see
any true reform.)

2. Direct Access to the Offices of the Chief Administrative Judge

SUGGESTION: Establish Public access computers in every court in the
state, allowing for direct communication to the Chief Judge’s
Administrative Offices, so as to provide top administrators (above
district levels) with timely information from the public concerning
suggestions and/or concerns.

3. Complete Court Employee Accountability

SUGGESTION: The name of all court employees should be easy to
ascertain: name tags, id numbers, or the public posting of all
employee photos with identifying name and position/title.

We appreciate your consideration of the herein respectfully submitted
suggestions.

…more to follow… ###

Former NY State Chief Court Clerk Sues Judges in Federal Court

June 21, 2007

Former NY State Chief Court Clerk Sues Judges in Federal Court

The former chief clerk for Onondaga County Family Court has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was forced from her job because she would not conspire to spread negative information about a State Supreme Court candidate. (Click on Story to the right)

Seems the former chief court clerk, Ms. Morin, didn’t like that Administrative Judge James Tormey and former Executive Assistant John Voninski wanted her to spy on and provide dirt about State Supreme Court candidate David G. Klim who was a Family Court Judge at the time.

She alleges that her life was made unpleasant when she refused to conspire with the judges, including being made to fill-in for vacationing clerks in far away places. She was apparently asked whether or not she was a “team player.”

This latest peak at procedures on the inside of a New York State Judicial District’s administrative office follows The Westchester Guardian report just a few weeks ago that a criminal investigation was called for involving the alleged improper actions of Westchester County Surrogate Judge Anthony A. Scarpino and New York City Administrative Judge Jacqueline W. Silbermann.

Seems like honest people are feeling a little bit more empowered by the presence of Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau.

Update: Stories We’re Working On

June 21, 2007

*** 1 *** Sources reveal Westchester Feds have appealed to Washington for HELP. Manhattan FBI has added additional agents to focus on corruption in New York courts. Westchester complaintants have been summoned to 26 Federal Plaza to meet with FBI agents. “Westchester is a mess,” says a source, revealing that the federal government was OVERWHELMED when they set up a federal corruption hotline in White Plains last year. “People -important people– who have been on the inside for years, are now talking. The coming shake-up will change all of Yonkers, White Plains, Mount Vernon and most of Westchester….for the better.” ****LOOK FOR DETAILS, NAMES…..Connecting the dots with Albany, Spano, Bruno, Pirro, party bosses, judges, the Yonkers machine & Westchester and NYC “politics” …. Full Story Coming Soon……….DEVELOPING……..*****

*** 2 *** We’re finalizing collection of documents to support findings on story that may go down as one of the most DISGUSTING judicial beatings in memory: JUDGE DENIES CANCER VICTIM PARENT’S $LEGACY$ FOR TREATMENT AND CARE !!!
******* THIS STORY WILL BE POSTED SOON *******

****IMPORTANT ****** If you have informaton regarding any complaints largely ignored by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Inspector General and/or any attorney disciplinary committee, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU ….we have 42 to date…. send info via email or pdf. ******

Hope Against Court Corruption Has Arrived. Her Name is Ann T. Pfau.

June 21, 2007

Hope Against Court Corruption Has Arrived. Her Name is Ann T. Pfau.

Hope in the Fight Against Corruption in Our Courts Has Arrived. Her Name is Ann T. Pfau.

It was announced on Friday, May 25, 2007, that Ann T. Pfau would take over as New York State’s Chief Administrative Judge, effective immediately.

Albany insiders report that the appointment, though largely welcomed, is somewhat surprising since Judge Pfau is not the traditional “inside player.” One state employee said, “Judge Pfau is probably one of only a few people who can correct the widespread problems and abuses in our courts. Someone like Ann Pfau is long-overdue.”

Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s appointment comes at the end of a week when The Westchester Guardian reported on a request for a criminal investigation involving the alleged improper actions of Westchester County Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino and New York City Administrative Judge Jacqueline W. Silbermann.

Another Albany insider says, “Even Chief Judge Kaye is ready for a shake-up, and Judge Pfau is the person who can get the job done. Judith Kaye doesn’t want to be remembered as being the top person over the type of wide-spread abuse and corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush. It’s about the Kaye legacy at this point.”

One top state official said, “the appointment of Judge Pfau has [Governor] Spitzer’s and [Attorney General] Cuomo’s fingerprints all over it. [Judge] Pfau is how the Governor and the A.G. clean up the mess in the courts.”

As nice as the name Ann T. Pfau sounds, it’s been around for a few years.

As Sam Roberts reported on March 2, 2006 (New York Times: “State Bars a Bronx Lawyer From Receiving Court Appointments”), it was First Deputy Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau who permanently barred Bronx political heavy-weight Stanley K. Schlein from ever accepting Guardianship and other high-paying judicial appointments.

And the name Ann T. Pfau comes up in a February 23, 2002 New York Times article (“Another Brooklyn Judge Said to Be Reassigned”) as taking action in a Brooklyn State Supreme Court bribe scandal, and where the ethical actions of 5 other judges were being investigated. While censuring one judge, the Commission on Judicial Conduct commented that one judge showed “remarkable insensitivity to his ethical responsibilities.”

And, most heart-warmingly, is the sound of the name Ann T. Pfau as presented in a November 11, 2003 New York Times Metro Briefing (“New York: Brooklyn: Administrative Judge Promoted”) announcing her appointment as First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, noting that Judge Pfau was then brought in to oversee the corruption probes in the Brooklyn courts, which included her overseeing investigators’ placement of hidden cameras to catch corrupt judges.

Note to Judge Pfau: Honest judges cheer your appointment; honest lawyers cheer your appointment; and honest state employees cheer your appointment. Your employees, the public and the rule of law have been waiting for you.

Developing

June 21, 2007

*** 1 *** Sources reveal Westchester Feds have appealed to Washington for HELP. “Westchester is a mess,” says the source, revealing that the federal government was OVERWHELMED when they set up a federal corruption hotline last year. “People -important people– who have been on the inside for years, are now talking. The coming shake-up will change all of Yonkers, White Plains, and most of Westchester….for the better.” ****LOOK FOR DETAILS, NAMES…..Connecting the dots with Albany, Spano, Pirro, party bosses, judges, the Yonkers machine & Westchester and NYC “politics” …. Full Story Coming Soon……….DEVELOPING……..*****

*** 2 *** We’re working on collecting full documents to support initial findings on story that may go down as one of the most DISGUSTING judicial beatings in memory: JUDGE DENIES CANCER VICTIM PARENT’S $LEGACY$ FOR TREATMENT AND CARE !!!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.