To: House and Senate Judiciary and Ethics Committees
and to the Department of Justice:
"" Corrupt Judges and Lawyers
Background:
In a letter from some very respected Cornell Professors written to Chief Counsel for NYS’s Fourth Department concerning an ethics complaint filed against Cornell University’s Deputy Counsel Nelson Roth and Cornell University’s Chief Counsel James Mingle Dr. Campbell, Professor Emeritus Gould and others states:
I am puzzled, and I am sure that many more will be puzzled by the inaction on the part of the ethics committee.
I know firsthand what Mr. Roth [Cornell's Deputy Counsel] did.
I knew that he had consulted with Dr. Demas when he was still in private practice because I was the one who brought her case to his attention.
After expressing interest in consulting with her and after gathering considerable information from her, he then took his position at Cornell and became the lead attorney against her.
For those of us, who knew of Mr. Roth’s extensive contact with Dr. Demas, we were certain that he would not have involved himself in her case on behalf of Cornell for that would have constituted a serious breach of ethics.
Nonetheless, he became the lead attorney against her and despite strong protest from her attorneys, Mr. James Mingle [Cornell's Chief Counsel] supported his doing so.
This conflict was especially serious when he personally advised Cornell administrators during an investigation on campus arranged by a senior staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.
Many of us were absolutely appalled that he did not recuse himself.
Mr. Roth and Mr. Mingle continued to defend this stance even when Dr. Demas brought her legal action against Cornell University and Levitsky. Cornell and Cornell’s legal department were given ample opportunities to isolate Mr. Roth from any involvement but refused to take action.
Eventually, as you know, two subsequent court hearings barred not only Mr. Roth from defending Cornell in this case but also barred the entire Cornell Counsel’s office from any involvement whatsoever, including talking to anyone about the case.
Roth’s misrepresentations were brought to light because his private office records had to be obtained under court order to determine whether he was telling the truth in his affidavit.
Roth stated in his affidavit that he only met with Dr. Demas once for a few minutes and that he did not talk about the case.
Once his time sheets were obtained, it was clear that he had met with her twice for almost four hours and that he had retained all of her documents about her case.
Is it really acceptable for a lawyer to obtain extensive information from a client and then jump to the other side to represent them and attack the person they had gained confidence from?
If these attorneys [representing Cornell University] are allowed to behave in such a way, we are in the depths of Hell in academia and in our society in general . . . especially when the University takes the position in this case of saying that they have NO policy to protect students from intellectually misbehaving faculty.
Not only did Roth remain the attorney in the Demas case until the Judge had him removed, Roth, according to Dr. Demas lied to the court under oath, in an attempt to minimize the time he spent with her on her case and made it seem as if he had the most casual and fleeting meeting and no attorney-client relationship.
He continued to persist in those lies until my attorneys successfully subpoenaed his time sheets from his former law firm, which clearly showed that he was lying.
Within an hour of Dr. Demas’s attorney’s receiving the damning evidence, Roth “voluntarily” withdrew from the case in an attempt to forestall the judge from rendering an opinion on his conduct.
At the time of his ethical breach, Mr. Roth was a member of the Disciplinary Committee of the Third Department. After Ms. Demas’s attorney’s were successful in having Roth and Mingle and the entire Cornell legal department dismissed from the case due to conflict, Mr. Mingle [Chief Counsel for Cornell University], fearing that his conduct would be reported to the ethics Committee, told one of Dr. Demas’s attorneys that he would agree not to appeal the dismissal if Demas’s attorneys agreed not to complain about Roth and Mingle to the ethics committee.
The ethics complaint against Mr. Roth and Mr. Mingle had to be submitted to the Fourth Department even though Mr. Roth practices in the Third Department because at the time of the ethical breach, Mr. Roth was on the ethics committee of the Third Department.
After breaching his ethical responsibility to Dr. Demas, Mr. Roth was hired by Cornell University and is currently the Deputy Attorney in Charge of Litigation and an adjunct professor at Cornell University’s Law School along with James Mingle.
Nelson Roth who is Cornell University's defense counsel for Relator's Quitam is an adjunct professor of law at Cornell University's Law School (whose students work or intern with the Department of Justice for the Northern District).
Mr. Roth is also married to the Associate Dean and Dean of Students at Cornell University’s Law School, Anne Lukingbeal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27417137/Ethics-Complaint-against-Cornell-University-s-Deputy-Counsel-Nelson-Roth
On August 18, 1999, Hon. Phillip Rumsey, Justice of Supreme Court ordered that Nelson E. Roth and the entire University Counsel's Office for Cornell University was disqualified from representing defendant Cornell University.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28677803/New-York-Court-Disqualifies-the-Cornell-Office-of-University-Counsel-For-Conflict-of-Interest
Other unethical Behavior.
The above is not the first time Mr. Roth has run ethically afoul. Before Nelson Roth was Cornell University's in-house litigation counsel he was appointed by Former Governor Mario Cuomo to be a Special Prosecutor to investigate suspected evidence tampering by State police.
This document is the transcript of the trial of David Beers where the Special Prosecutor, Nelson Roth, was so intent on convicting a police officer of evidence tampering, that he himself withheld exculpatory evidence thus himself engaging in the very behavior he was appointed by the Governor of NYS to weed out.
In the matter of David Beers, it was discovered by the evidence tampering investigation team that a fingerprint that was taken from a gun was faked.
It was determined that the fingerprint found on the gun was actually taken from a knife that was in police custody.
The question then became who in the police department had access to the knife, who could lift the fingerprint off of the knife and place it onto the gun.
While investigating access to the vault that safeguarded the knife, the prosecution discovered a crucial document which specified what authorized persons from the police department had access to the knife.
During the Beers trial, the Special Prosecutor, Nelson E. Roth, admitted that he had known about the document identifying who at the police department had access to the knife.
Under well-established principles of criminal law, the prosecution must disclose to the defendant evidence that is favorable to the defense "Brady Evidence."
Rather than disclosing the document, the Special Prosecutor tried to suppress it.
Indeed, Beers' defense was that it was one of the persons listed on the memo, Harding, that lifted the fingerprint.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27493218/Cornell-University-s-Litigation-Counsel-Nelson-Roth-Trial-Transcript-when-Mr-Roth-was-appointed-as-a-Special-Prosecutor-for-David-Beers
Nelson E. Roth, Adjunct Professor of Law, serves as Deputy University Counsel and has been the Chief of the Litigation Section of Counsel's Office at Cornell University since 1997.
In 1993 he was appointed by Governor Mario Cuomo to serve as New York State Special Prosecutor & Deputy Attorney General to investigate and prosecute allegations of perjury and evidence tampering by members of the New York State Police, an assignment which he completed in 1997.
This is an excerpt from the Tompkins County DA's Report summing up the results of the investigation into police evidence tampering .
The report included a reference to the behavior of Mr. Nelson Roth, currently Cornell's Deputy Counsel, withholding (aka tampering) with evidence. The Tompkins County District Attorney noted "it is ironic that we have a Special Prosecutor appointed to ferret out evidence tampering, and he himself is caught red-handed trying to convict [a defendant] on a distorted set of facts."
The Tompkins County District Attorney describes Nelson Roth, former Special Prosecutor and current in-house counsel for Cornell University, as having both a "lack of experience and [lack of] prosecutorial ethic."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27374978/Cornell-Deputy-Counsel-Nelson-Roth-Withholds-Exculpatory-Evidence
Bringing It Current
In a recent case brought in Cornell Country, the same conflict of interests and questionable ethics appear once again, only now it is not just Cornell.
Ex-parte Communications
A letter written to the Department of Justice states:
First, we want to inform you [Department of Justice] that our lead counsel on the case has fallen seriously ill.[1] We have been informed that he is dying.
We found this out earlier this week, and we believe opposing counsel was informed and also somehow informed the Judge ex-parte.
We believe this is the case for several reasons not the least of which includes an unusual coincidence that motions to dismiss which have been pending for over three years, were recently dismissed, not two days after we find out our lead counsel is dying. This is not the first time in this matter that we have been suspicious of ex-parte communications.
We have notes on comments made by opposing counsel proclaiming knowledge of the inner workings and thoughts of the Judge and his chambers.
Including the following statements:
(1) Defendant's counsel informed us that he would contact the Judge to advise him about Plaintiffs' attorney's ill health, subsequent passing, and discovery issues.
This is an improper ex-parte communication. How is defendant's counsel discussing discovery matters and Plaintiffs' counsel's health with a Federal Judge without Plaintiffs being involved in the conversation?
(2) Defendant's counsel informed Plaintiffs that he had conversations with the Judge/Judge's chambers who expressed their opinion without even having received opposition papers on their predisposition regarding a res judicata motion.
(3) Defendant's counsel informed Plaintiffs that he had conversations with the Judge on the Judge's opinion as to what should/would be the outcome of the case.
Plaintiffs have had four attorneys all independently remark and independently raise their suspicion that the Judge was/is having ex-parte communications with Defendant's counsel.
The Potential Conflict with the U.S. Attorney's Office
In this letter to the Department of Justice it was stated that the Plaintiff is very concerned about the impact the conflict between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USA's Office) and Defendant Cornell University has had on USA Office's oversight of this action.
A current member of the U.S. Attorney's Office (and apparently one who has handled qui tam matters before) is currently an adjunct professor at Cornell Law.
Soon after the original qui tam action was filed, Plaintiff's counsel was in touch with the U. S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York.
Counsel was told by Assistant U.S. Attorney that their principal Assistant U.S. attorney who handles qui tam matters had a conflict in the case and had to recuse himself because he was going to "work for Cornell University," one of the defendants.
Plaintiff's counsel thought nothing further of the matter and understood that Mr. Charles Roberts was in fact going to be employed directly by Cornell University and, therefore, would no longer be employed in the U.S. Attorney's office. It turns out that is not the case.
Instead, however, Mr. Roberts became an adjunct Professor of Law at the Cornell University School of Law while maintaining his position as the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
In addition to being an AUSA, Mr. Roberts is in charge of a clinical trial program with Cornell University law student students in which they assist the U.S. Attorney's Office in various matters.
The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District hires 8-9 Cornell law students each semester (fall and spring) in the Syracuse office. Each student is assigned to one Assistant United States Attorney.
This is not a case of one attorney having a conflict, the entire USA's Office has a conflict of interest as they work for and are paid by the very same entity it should be investigating.
Further, they have defendants that they should be investigating privy to the entire investigatory file that Plaintiffs provided unknowing of this significant conflict.
The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General.
United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/
The action that involves Cornell University involves tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer monies.
How exactly can the U.S. Attorneys in the Northern District of New York claim to be performing their required obligations to the people of the United States when they are getting paid by and are employing the very people they are responsible for investigating?
This conflict of interest is so great in magnitude, that by every code and rule of conduct requires the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of New York to have recused their entire office.
It is not the responsibility of the Plaintiff to conduct a conflict check for an attorney employed by and duty bound to protect the interests of the people of the United States.
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio.cfm?id=196
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clinicalprogram/us_attorney.cfm
The Potential Conflict Between Cornell University and the Presiding Judge
Not only should the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District recused itself, the action should have been moved to another venue entirely as the presiding District Court Judge overseeing the action has conflicts of interest with Defendants including Cornell. Some of these conflicts include:
(1) the District Court Judge on this action is an alumni of Defendant Cornell University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_N._Hurd;
(2) the District Court Judge is an honorary donor to Defendant Cornell University, meaning that he has donated over $1,000 to the Defendant in one lump sum and has done so on more than one occasion (his prior donations are no longer available for viewing on the web) http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/alumni/giving/honorroll.html;
(3) the District Court Judge's wife (Constance Hurd) is an employee of another defendant in this action
(4) The District Court Judge was asked to serve on Cornell University Law School's moot court panel shortly after the seal on Plaintiffs'/Relator's False Claims Action was lifted and Defendant Cornell University was made aware of the action's existence http://eforum.lawschool.cornell.edu/Vol4-No3/LawSchool-Events_vol4_no3.cfm.
(Again, dates showing the quid pro quo and connection between Cornell University's Law School only go back until 2008, the earlier connections are not longer available for viewing on the web)
(5) Cornell University Law School (where the wife of Cornell University's Counsel, Nelson E. Roth -- the attorney that got his job at Cornell by selling out his client --who is handling Cornell University's defense in this action -- is also an associate dean and dean of students for Cornell's Law School) asked the presiding judge on a case that Cornell University is defending, to sit as a Judge on Cornell Law School's moot court panel right about the time Cornell University was made aware of our action; and
(6) Anne Lukingbeal (wife of Nelson E. Roth, defense counsel for Cornell) is the Associate Dean of Defendant Cornell University's Law School and its Dean of Students.
http://nobidcontracts.wordpress.com/category/cornell/%20%20(see supra for how Nelson Roth obtained his position as Deputy Counsel for Cornell University); and
Resulting Lack of Due Process and Judicial Bias:
These conflicts combined with several of the Judge's substantive decisions leads to the supported impression and conclusion that there is a lack of due process and extreme judicial bias.
Some examples of improper judicial conduct engaged in by this District Court Judge includes:
(1) Finding facts contrary to those facts alleged in a complaint on a motion to dismiss where the defendants even admitted to the veracity of the facts;
(2) Suspicions have been raised by four attorneys that this District Judge has engaging in numerous ex-parte communications, including discussions on his predisposition as to the outcome of the action;
(3) Dismissing an action that had been pending for three years, days after Plaintiffs' attorney falls terminally ill.
[1] Since the time the initial letter was written to the Department of Justice, lead counsel has since passed away. ""
Sent in By A Reader...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.