Site Meter Lawyers Unregulated: Lawyers & Lawfirms Are A Cancer Eating Our Nation From Within

Monday, March 10, 2008

Eliot Spitzer: Both Customer And Defender Of Organized Crime

"I'm not just a defender of organized crime, I'm also a client"

Eliot Spitzer has used his power as the Attorney General for the State Of New York to protect certain members of the most sophisticated and profitable networks of organized crime in modern history.

No surprise. None at all. Eliot Spitzer has been a staunch defender of organized crime, so now we see he is also a client.

Eliot Spitzer was intentionally derelict in his duty to investigate an organized crime network involving powerful law firms operating bankruptcy rings, a type of organized crime which Congress sought to eliminate over 100 years ago but which instead has grown in strength and resulted in the modern era of mega corporate malfeasance including Worldcom, Enron, Adelphi, Global Crossing, eToys, and the Asbestos Ring.

The U.S.A. is a Third World Country

Yes ladies and gentlemen, our highest and most powerful members of "law enforcement" and the judiciary are corrupt. Organized Crime gets dirt, or creates dirt, on the powerful public officials -- and then these neo-mafia lawyers get away with breaking the law with impunity.

A press release years ago - from a website which is now under attack by the same elements of organized crime - highlighted Mr. Spitzer's failure to enforce New York State Law when it came to the action certain law firms. Here is a copy of the press release:


Lawyer Practicing in New York Admits Advising That Death Threats Are Legal;
Eliot Spitzer Snoozes According to

NEW YORK, Nov 02, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- A lawyer admitted to practice in New York and Federal Courts conceded a transcript filed in court contained an accurate portrayal of a conversation in which the lawyer advised his client that it was perfectly fine to threaten to kill someone.

Eliot Spitzer was the elected Attorney General for the State of New York, with ultimate responsibility to enforce the law as well as to uphold the purported ethical standards for attorneys in New York State by following and supporting The Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility. Eliot Spitzer has managed an office which rattled the boardrooms of big business throughout the state as he delighted a skeptical citizenry with numerous assaults on corporate misdeeds. Countless industries have had their often secret business practices brought before the courts and thrust into the light of day; except of course, for perhaps the most secretive and lucrative "profession."

Powerful law firms continue to operate above the law and beyond scrutiny. Sadly, Mr. Spitzer's talent for appearing as a zealous foe of corruption and wrongdoing ceases where brethren of the bar are concerned. Apparently Mr. Spitzer believes every business is bad except his own.

Do voters want an Attorney General who protects his partners and associates while prosecuting only those unworthy of special protection? If elected, will Andrew Cuomo continue the Spitzer legacy of Law Firm Protectionism? What could voters expect from Mr. Spitzer as Governor?

This release was authored by and was not sponsored, advised, or funded by any candidate for office. Statements herein other than fact are opinion and readers are urged to become fully informed of the issues. Documents evidencing factual elements of this press release are public record at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan SDNY 02-13533 docket numbers 17315, 17315A copies available at

= = =

We received some comment from the media questioning the accuracy of the above press release. While we agree that it seems unbelievable, it is true and fully verifiable. Immediately below is an excerpt of the hearing in front of U.S. Bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez during which the attorney admits that the transcript which was filed was accurate, in fact the attorney surmises that the conversation was recorded. click here ( for a view of the hearing transcript from the Worldcom / MCI bankruptcy case. While admitting that the transcript of the conversation was accurate, the lawyer and the federal judge surmise that the conversation was recorded. The original motion was filed as docket number 17315 which you can get here, and docket number 17315A has the exhibits which you can get here. If you want only the coversation transcript, which was not originally made during an official proceeding but was conceeded as accurate by the lawyer, it was exhibit C to the motion which you can get here. Following is a highligted excerpt. The attorney's remarks certainly suggest a 3057 referral, unclear is whether the "I" highlighted in red below was a referrence by the attorney to another party who would be hired to perform the killing, or that other parties are threating a killing.


Sunday, April 01, 2007

It's the Cover Up, Stupid!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Exhibits ACPOC Syndrome

The DOJ continues to be in the news, with a current focus on the firings of some 8 District Attorneys (DA) by the Bush Administration. As with many public scandals, the issue is not so much the act, but the coverup. As experts have stated, these DA appointments "served at the pleasure of the president". So in theory there should be no serious issue, or at least no criminal issue with respect to there firings. Why were these District Attorneys fired? Some have claimed that the administration was not pleased with the prosecutorial focus of the DAs , that they investigated / prosecuted politicians (a/k/a lawyers) which the Administration desired to protect.

Apparantly the supreme Attorney General for the nation Alberto R. Gonzales, the protector of "we the people", has chosen to abandon us through the firing of the DA's who were going after attorneys even if they had broken the law. This is similar to when a judge will allow a client's attorney to resign from a case because that attorney does not want to disclose facts which could get his brethren attorney, the opposing counsel, in trouble. Abandonment of the Client for the Protection of Opposing Counsel (ACPOC) Syndrome can rear its ugly head in a variety of circumstances.

The issue here is not could the DAs be fired, or why they were fired. The issue is the cover up. At most, it was cheezy to fire them. But to lie to the public about the acts is a cover up. Alberto Gonzalez number one problem for now is the cover up issue. Let's remember about the tolerance in the U.S. for a cover up:

  • Scooter Libby / Valerie Plame - The bad act of the exposure of Ms. Plame's identity was apparently made by someone other than Libby and was not even a crime because Ms. Plame's role at the CIA was not protected as secret under law. However, the cover up was that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. was found to have lied during the investigation, and thus he is now a convicted criminal.

  • Martha Stewart Scandal - A stock trade was possibly a bad act if made with the benefit of insider information, perhaps not a criminal act but could have subjected Ms. Stewart to civil penalties. A cover up was inferred by a jury concerning Ms. Stewart and one of the most powerful and successful women in business and media did real jail time as a result.

  • Lewinski Scandal - Bad acts by President Clinton in having an adulterous sexual relationship with a subordinate, but not illegal. cover up includes several crimes such as subornation of perjury in having Lewinski sign a false affidavit and President Clinton lying under oath a deposition. President Clinton was not merely impeached, he was disbarred as an attorney for the crime of lying under oath.

  • Watergate Scandal - Bad acts performed by very junior campaign workers, but the cover up brought down President Nixon.
  • Tuesday, January 16, 2007

    Lawyers Are Unregulated: Unless You Have Faith In Attorney Self-Regulation

    Does anyone believe that lawyers are regulated - that when a lawyer has been shown to have told lie in court, that he will receive a punishment for the crime? That only happens in fantasy world. Lawyers are "self-regulated". That is another way of saying "Not Regulated".

    Why did Martha Stewart go to prison for lying? She was not a lawyer. Why did Bill Clinton escape a prison sentence for lying under oath? He was a lawyer, and they are above the law and only get a slap on the wrist when they commit a crime like that.

    Wikipedia (as of Jan 16, 2007) says it well:
    [T]he concept of the self-regulating profession has been criticized as a sham which serves to legitimize the professional monopoly while protecting the profession from public scrutiny.[*] Disciplinary mechanisms have been astonishingly ineffective, and penalties have been light or nonexistent.[**][***]

    That Wikipedia excerpt referenced these academic sources:
    a/k/a Books We Ought To Read

    * Richard L. Abel, American Lawyers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 246.

    ** Abel,American Lawyers, 147;

    Richard L. Abel, The Legal Profession in England and Wales (London): Basil Blackwell , 1989), 135 and 250;

    Harry W. Arthurs, Richard Weisman, and Frederick H. Zemans, "Canadian Lawyers: A Peculiar Professionalism," in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 123-185 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 146;

    Alan A. Paterson, "The Legal Profession in Scotland: An Endangered Species or a Problem Case for Market Theory?" in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 76-122 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 104;

    David Weisbrot, "The Australian Legal Profession: From Provincial Family Firms to Multinationals," in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 244-317 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 284.

    *** William T. Gallagher, "Ideologies of Professionalism and the Politics of Self-Regulation in the California State Bar," 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 485, 490-491.(1995).

    More Good Reading:

    Leslie C. Levin, The Emperor's Clothes and Other Tales About the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline Sanctions, 48 American University Law Review 1 (1998).

    Paula A. Monopoli, Legal Ethics and Practical Politics: Musings on the Public Perception of Lawyer Discipline, 10 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 423, 425 (1997).

    Friday, January 12, 2007

    Nifong Shows Common Dirty Little Lawyer Tricks

    Objective: Conduct litigation without regard to truth
    Motive: Money and or Power
    Method: Conceal evidence, make false statements in court
    Case: NC Superior Court 06 CRS 4331

    We must wake up from our slumber. We non lawyer citizens, as well as the media, have deluded ourselves into the belief that:

  • lawyers should be assumed trustworthy

  • the conduct of lawyers is scrutinized by authorities

  • and when misconduct is found that lawyers are punished.

  • The sad truth is that lawyers lie and cheat all the time, as it suits them for their own benefit. It is all about money. Remember: power is just another form of money.

    What Crimes Did Mike Nifong Commit?

    The rape of the Duke Lacrosse team, and in particular the random threesome of David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann, by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was deliberate for the benefit of Mike Nifong. Nifong conspired with the professional (DNA) hired for the case to withhold information, then he lied when he declared before the court that he did not know of any exculpatory evidence. Thus: Lawyer Mike Nifong hid evidence which he was obligated to disclose, and lied about the facts in the proceedings in open court. It is the "Oldest Trick" in The Big Book Of Dirty Little Whore Lawyer Secrets.

    Misconduct by Nifong in Duke Criminal Case Reflects Pervasive Attorney Misconduct in Civil Cases

    Without detracting from the suffering of all of the Duke players and their families, we only learned of Nifong's dishonesty and fraud because the accused where from wealthy families and they faced 30 years in prison apiece. Those families undoubtedly spent a lot of money on their own lawyers in order to protect their innocent sons from severe consequences. Such scrutiny is not applied when people lives are not on the line, and it is "only" about money. Sadly, the cheating by Nifong in this criminal proceeding was merely par for the course for the conduct of lawyers in civil proceedings. When a lawyer is caught in a fraud on a civil matter, his opposing counsel won't seek justice in the punishment of his criminal opposing counsel.

    Like A Doctor Who Intentionally Harms A Patient For Money

    This is like a Doctor not telling a patient important test results, then prescribing medicine to make the condition worse because, all because it would make the Doctor richer. If the public learned of a Doctor who did such a thing, we would never allow such a Doctor to practice medicine again. Why do we allow a dishonest lawyer to continue to practice law? We have absolutely no say. Questions of lawyer misconduct are dealt with only by other lawyers, and almost always in private. Do we grant police officers with the sole authority to investigate themselves?

    Lawyers Are Not Punished For Their Crimes, But Martha Stewart Goes To Prison

    The essential result is that lawyers are not punished for concealing evidence or lying in court. Ironically, the dishonest conduct of one lawyer merely generates additional business for another lawyer. But don't forget that if any of us non lawyers did the same, we'd find our ass in jail! Take Martha Stewart, her incorrect recollection of her stock trade, which she corrected after reviewing her notes, was still enough to put her in prison.

    Happens All The Time

    Lawyers make false statements in court and conceal evidence in discovery all the time despite the fact that both actions are not just ethical violations but also crimes! Take this case for example:

    Objective: Conduct Litigation, ignoring ethics rules and law
    Motive: Money, Power, Ingratiate with Conflicted Client
    Method: Conceal facts & evidence, false statements to court
    Case: [ coming soon ... ]

    Friday, November 03, 2006

    Eliot Snoozer

    Eliot has been renamed. And quite appropriately, because it seems that Eliot Spitzer is not the true valiant night battling for the protection of the people as he wants us to believe. Furthermore, Spitzer demonstrates that it ain't just the Feds sleeping at the switch when it comes to attorney misconduct.

    Apparently, Mr. Spitzer ignores the conduct (unethical and probably illegaly) of fellow attorneys in New York State, notably when such actions relate to a scheme to suppress a line of inquiry into possible conflict of interest in which New York law firms earned hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Eliot Spitzer looks the other way when one of his brother lawyers commits conduct which at a minimum is the rendering of advice to a client that it is OK to threaten to kill someone and which may in fact have been the delivery of an actual death threat on behalf of the de facto organization of firms which continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars while their web of conflicts remains unnoticed, untouched, and unwoven.

    You must read this: DougTranscript.pdf

    Could it be any more obvious? Why did this attorney introduce the subject of a death threat? If the lawyer in question was instead merely an ordinary business person, he would be prosecuted. Italian Americans have been prosecuted for saying obtuse things like "I wish he would disappear".

    Conflict of Interest - Eliot Snoozer Protects His Own

    Mr. Spitzner simply won't investigate his brethren. The Snoozer is unable to stay awake while reading anything suggesting unethical or illegal conduct on the part of one of his fellow lawyers. It seems to be the quid pro quo among them whereby they
    protect each other. So, while Spitzer has gone after quite a few corporations, it has only been those businesses which lacked an extremely important feature in the eyes of Eliot Snoozer:

    Profit Alignment - The Commonality Of Purpose

    It should not surprise you to notice that the corporations which Eliot Spitzer attacks are not law firms, as there is is no commonality of business profit model between the targets of Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Spitzer's own profit seeking past. Thus, the targets of Mr. Spitzer have no inside knowledge of the ethos of protectionism which Mr. Spitzer dutifully inhaled upon his entry into the legal profession. But actions speak louder than words. Spitzer will attack non lawyers with the ultimate zeal and "creativity". In contrast, when considering the investigation or prosecution of one of his brethren attorneys, Eliot Spitzer follows the teaching: "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone".

    Mr. Spitzer started his career as a lawyer in some powerful law firms. Is there any reason why we should think that Mr. Spitzer would be any different from the majority of lawyers, that he would not wear blinders when "viewing" the misconduct of his brethren? Lawyers all make their money playing the same game, and it seems one of the strongest forces in nature is that of one attorney protecting another, kinda like "Ape shall never kill Ape". What exists among attorneys is an Honor Among Thieves . Sadly, you can take such a lawyer and put him in the role of prosecutor, but certain loyalties will never die and he will only prosecute people outside of the family.

    Oh what a Tangled Web We Weave

    Tom Kirkendall's interesting blog item Spitzer: Populist Warrior or Reckless Business Foe? pointed me to this article and I quote:

    "... Mr. Spitzer stunned Wall Street by using a little-known state law to win a court order requiring Merrill Lynch to disclose potential business conflicts involving its stock analysts."

    Conflict Of Interest - Will incite the wrath of Spitzer

    How creative, resourceful, and unstoppable is Eliot Spitzer when it comes to ferreting out and fighting conflict of interest when it comes to stock analysts. But is seems instead we have Eliot Snoozer in charge when it comes to conflict of interest on the part of brethren attorneys. How ironic that Mr. Spitzer is forced to employ an obscure law to support his novel concept that a brokerage firm's stock analysts are subject to conflict of interest doctrine.

    Conflict Of Interest - By Brethren Attorneys Bores Spitzer To Sleep

    Conversely, this issue of conflict of interest is a well known and well defined fundamental concept as it applies to attorneys. There are clearly codified rules and regulations regarding conflict of interest for attorneys including statutes and ethical rules. The duty to disclose a conflict of interest by an attorney is so strong and well settled that the failure to do so can result in 1) the disgorgement of fees and 2) criminal prosecution.

    A criminal prosecution of an attorney is extremely rare. It seems it only happens when there is an obvious and eggregious incident like taking client money from an escrow account. But it is almost always the small practitioner and almost never a lawyer from a large firm, or the firm as a whole. And so it is with Eliot "the Snoozer" Spitzer: since pursuing the multiple ethical and likely criminal violations related to the attorney's desparate attempt to thwart an inquiry into possible conflict of interest violations as described and linked above would by definition affect his brethren, Mr. Spitzer "the Snoozer" is forced to ignore the conduct.

    But just because district attorneys and an Attorney General seemingly embraces the notion that a brother attorney should never be prosecuted doesn't change the law. Citizens need only become aware and demand this to be fixed.

    Monday, August 28, 2006

    Got Fetish?

    Prelude To:

    A Criminal Organization Too Big To Prosecute

    Our government does attack organized crime.
    Now and then.
    More or less.

    But not the really organized, just the really obvious.

    RICO & The Man

    (Not to be confused with Chico & The Man)

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 1961-68 (1994)

    Feds love to use RICO against an adversary that they want to eliminate. But is seems that they generally just won't use it against certain "influential" parts of our society such as political parties, teachers unions, churches, white collar professionals, or the most effective and profitable distributed crime groups in this country. Feds only use RICO - certainly their most powerful weapon - in politically correct and motivated circumstances against adversaries with no effective connections to the powers that be and no effective recourse in the media against the powers that be.

  • Why the focus on Racketeering (RICO) charges against all things associated with Italian-Americans?

  • Why isn't RICO pursued in all instances in which it is appropriate?

  • Could there be some anti Italian-American bias here? Might the media, themselves no strangers to the corrupting influence of money, have been too successful in their narrow depiction of Racketeering along racial lines such as with The Godfather movies and The Sopranos on HBO?

    Well, we aren't going to "go there" today. But there clearly appears to be a different type of bias on the part of Feds and the Media. And this bias costs our nation BILLIONS of dollars a year, as the organized criminal element enriches themselves at our expense while the Feds are spending all of their resources chasing Hollywood and Media stereotypes .

    Gotti Fetish?

    Like how many bazillion dollars have the Feds spent trying to get John Gotti and his friends, family, and associates? And how about the Gambino fixation? How many federal agents and district attorneys have been trying to make something stick on them for how many years? Does anyone know how many tax payer dollars they have spent litigating, how many different charges were brought against them? Which criminals and criminal activities did the Feds relegate to lower priority in order to satisfy their Italian-American fetish?

    Let's put this all in perspective. What is the total dollar amount of criminal activity that is attributed to these people that they should garner so huge a slice of tax payers money, and such a huge slice of attention in the media? Why is it that organized crime associated with Italian names exclusively draws so much of our Federal resources related to Racketeering?

    OK, to be fair, the feds also go after certain Unions from time to time. Unions and Italian-Americans, they are seemingly the only RICO criminals in the eyes of our Federal Government. Let me restate that. For reasons unbeknownst to the casual observer:

    "Italian-Americans and certain Unions are the only categories of RICO criminals that our Federal Government cares to prosecute."

    Just to be clear, I don't have anything against Curtis Sliwa, the well known voice of the Guardian Angel's and WABC talk radio . If someone is guilty of trying to shoot someone, the guilty party should be punished. This blog entry is about the RICO blinders worn by the Feds and is not intended undermine Mr. Sliwa's right to expect that the government performs its duties with respect to the attempt upon his life. But what about the millions and billions of dollars of organized criminal activities that don't include a shooting of a famous spokesperson or allegations against Italian-Americans?

    Take a step back and think: Who is guarding the hen house?

    Who are the "Feds" that are supposedly going after all crimes? It would be simple to point out that these "Feds" are merely human beings. But let's be a little more accurate. These "Feds" are in actuality something much more significant than just homo sapiens. These "Feds" who are supposed to be prosecuting organized crime are in fact attorneys themselves.

  • How many of these Federal investigators and prosecutors were in private practise before becoming a "Fed", or go into private practise after being a "Fed"?

  • Does anyone out there think that our taxes are paying for impartial government attorneys?

  • Might anyone suspect that these Fed lawyers have a bias towards protecting their brethren attornies in private practise, perhaps related to their careers in the legal industry?

  • Do the white collar professionals, their organizations, and their respective lawyers who engage in any form of organized crime regularly escape investigation and prosecution?

  • Might anyone suspect that these Fed lawyers have a bias towards protecting their brethren attornies in private practise, perhaps related to their careers in the legal industry?

  • Well, one of my next blog entries will undoubtedly mention KPMG, LLC.

    And does anyone out there know what the title of the prior blog entry means?

    Thursday, August 03, 2006

    Agentes, et consentientes, pari poena puniendi.

    Our tax dollars are hard at work trying to protect us from being preyed upon by corrupt organizations, also known as organized crime. But are there only some forms of organized crime which concern the Feds? Stated another way: Are there some types of people, or industries, against whom the Feds simply won't consider enforcing laws related to organized crime?

    Let's check out their Website at
    Here is an excerpt from their site as of 8/3/2006:

    What We Do
  • Combat Terrorism

  • Foster Safe Communities

  • Prevent Youth Violence

  • Help Victims of Crime

  • Uphold Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

  • Apprehend Fugitives and Locate Missing Persons

  • Assist Americans with Disabilities

  • Promote Dispute Resolution

  • Halt Domestic Violence

  • Investigate Fraud

  • Manage Prisons and Inmates

  • Combat Trafficking in Persons

  • Fund Grants for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

  • Whatever.

    I mean, it looks like a list of Politically Correct topics to give Soccer Moms -N- Dads that warm cozy feeling. It would be nice if they had something to say about combating corruption within our system of justice. Do they do anything when they see an attorney lying in a Federal court? Do they ensure that an appropriate investigation is done, or at least referred, when suspicious evidence is brought before them? Or are they allowed to pick and choose which crimes concern them based upon the polls, focus groups, or some other relationships deemed significant to whichever government employee happens to be at the helm?

    Alright, we should acknowledge that the DOJ must be busy. Certainly, they have stood up against some large businesses. But does anyone really believe that the DOJ stands up against, or even investigates, large law firms?

    And on an entirely different topic, does anyone know:

  • How long does it take to qualify for a Federal pension?

  • What percentage of DOJ employees whose job includes the oversight, referral or enforcement against private practice attorneys and law firms eventually become employed by these same law firms after leaving the DOJ?