" Christine Anderson NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Swinging @ New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Claims Cuomo Violating Public Office & Aiding Abetting Criminal Obstruction of Justice! Iviewit Technologies
Christine C. Anderson Moves to Disqualify NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo! UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Case No.: 07cv9599 Fed Judge Shira A. Scheindlin Legally "related" to Iviewit Suit.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) September 17, 2010 -- Christine C. Anderson, New York Supreme Court Wistleblower Comes Out Swinging at New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, claims Cuomo Violating Public Office Duties Aiding Abetting Criminal Obstruction of Justice?
Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Supports Anderson’s Heroic Claims of Corruption in the New York Supreme Courts and Prosecutors Offices. READ ALL ABOUT IT @ Expose Corrupt Courts!!!@
Excerpts from Anderson's Motion in Fed Court and Keep in Mind Anderson worked in the NY Supreme Court Ethics Department so her opinion on law and ethics is steeped in experience.
"I, Christine C. Anderson, make the following affirmation under penalties of perjury: I, Christine C. Anderson, am the plaintiff-appellant in the above entitled action, and respectfully move this court to issue an order disqualifying the Office of the New York State Attorney General from representing defendant-employees of the State of New York in any legal proceeding involving the herein before any federal or state court, agency or any other tribunal."..."
Thus, while the plaintiff charged the defendants with serious violations of law, the Attorney General stood before the jury defending these very same actions as proper and within the law. This arrangement seriously prejudiced the plaintiff, as jurors could and likely did conclude that the State of New York supported fully the conduct of the defendants.
Ongoing Conflict of Interest
5. Representation by the New York Attorney General’s office in the pending appeal continues the improper prejudice against plaintiff. Furthermore, not only did the Attorney General’s representation of the defendants unduly prejudice the plaintiff, but it also raised serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the defendants themselves.
To protect their own rights, each of the defendants had to have their own attorneys in order to permit them to cross claim or make admissions, including their own right to protect their own individual rights in this appeal.
Under New York State and federal conflict of interest rules, each of the defendants must be free to undertake these independent actions.
To do so, they must have their own counsel. (See NYS Code of Professional Conduct Cannon 5 Conflict of Interest Rules.) The Attorney General as a state attorney is bound by these rules as well.
6. This constitutes New York State law, and the attorney who violates these safeguards must be immediately removed from the case.”
“Without question, the Attorney General violated its ethical rules and the public trust in undertaking to represent all of the defendants.
The Attorney General continues to violate its ethical rules by appearing before this appellate body.
This would be the case, even were it established that the defendants had sought to consent to such representation.”
“The conflict here is particularly acute given the nature of the claims brought by plaintiff Anderson. Plaintiff’s charges warranted an independent investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office to review the basic claims given that Anderson was formerly a Departmental Disciplinary Committee staff attorney with considerable experience and over the years received excellent evaluations.
The fact is that these are not allegations from a lay person.
10. While at the DDC, Plaintiff Anderson was charged with investigating cases involving possible criminal and civil misconduct by attorneys.
She carried out her duties as a duly authorized officer of the Court. The New York State Attorney General’s Office was therefore obligated to protect her and to investigate her claims of serious misconduct against the named parties. To the Contrary, the New York State Attorney General’s Office failed to do so.
11. The Attorney General is a publicly funded arm of the State. It was conflicted from the outset of this case because it could not possibly defend any of the defendants, while simultaneously investigating plaintiff’s claims of serious ongoing misconduct by the defendants.
Indeed, no explanation has ever been provided as to why the Attorney General did not represent plaintiff Anderson against any of the original defendants. This was itself a misappropriation of public funds by a state investigative agency with prosecution powers.”
“36. The court gave the jury above-referenced instructions and its members adjourned to the jury room to deliberate at approximately 1:25 pm on Thursday, October 29, 2009.
After the jury left the courtroom, the court first announced that she had denied the defendants’ pending motion for a directed verdict.
She next stated words to the effect that she found that , “….Cahill was aware of the whitewashing allegations…” (Exhibit A, pages 808-809) The judge read this statement related to defendant Cahill’s conduct into the record as part of her order denying defendant’s directed verdict.
This fact alone requires a new trial, and should have resulted in the Attorney General’s office immediately withdrawing from the case.”
38. The Court’s finding of culpability on the part of Defendant Cahill constitutes newly discovered evidence, which directly supports the fundamental allegations of Plaintiff.
Remand to the District Court for a new trial is highly likely as the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial. The Attorney General’s failure to withdraw is, in fact, sanctionable and worthy of referral to the attorney ethics committee.”
V. Witness Tampering – Threat on Witness in a Federal Proceeding
42. The Attorney General and the trial court were aware that in August of 2008, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, DDC staff attorney Nicole Corrado, was threatened.
Two days prior to her deposition testimony, state employee, and DDC Deputy Chief Counsel, Andral N. Bratton, and who had been her immediate supervisor for approximately 5 years, confronted Corrado.”
“43. Following Corrado’s deposition testimony on August 21, 2008, Bratton’s behavior toward Corrado became more harassing, troubling, frightening and threatening as he began to follow her inside and outside of the state office where they both worked. Corrado subsequently reported these serious issues to DDC chief counsel Allan Friedberg, Deputy chief Counsel Sherry Cohen, a defendant in the current proceeding, and DDC Chief Investigator Vincent Raniere- all of whom who took no required action.”
Other Iviewit News
"Another One Bites the Dust! Defendant in Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s Federal Lawsuit, Sherry K. Cohen of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee joins Thomas Cahill in early retirement.
Iviewit Inventor, Eliot I Bernstein Supports Criminal Actions Against Cohen, Cahill and other Members of the New York Supreme Court. EXTRA — READ ALL ABOUT IT @ EXPOSE CORRUPT COURTS!!!" @
Source of Post