Lincoln County Montana Commissioners Marianne Roose, Tony Berget and John Konzen IGNORE Death Threat

Lincoln County Montana Commissioners Marianne Roose,Tony Berget, and John Konzen were notified of my Death Threat and the Conspiracy of Corruption in Lincoln County Montana and THEY did nothing. It has been over a year Now and Lincoln County Montana Commissioners Marianne Roose,Tony Berget, and John Konzen have not even tried to assist in any way.

Lincoln County Montana Commissioners were notified over a year ago of the serious situation of Rapes in Eureka Montana and Lincoln County Montana Commissioners were notified by me Crystal L. Cox that My Life was in Danger, and I emailed them proof of why I felt this way. Not One of the Lincoln County Montana Commissioners reached out to me in any way.

Tony Berget told me BEFORE elected to contact him anytime for any reason. .well I had a serious issue with a Corrupt Cop after me, and a Death Threat and NONE of the Lincoln County Montana Commissioners offered any advices, assistant in ANY Way.

more on this Serious Crime IGNORED by Lincoln County Montana Commissioners Marianne Roose,Tony Berget, and John Konzen at www.MontanaCorruption.com

Posted here By
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Montana Justice Of The Peace Robin Clute Uses Illegal Protective Order To Cover for Montana Corrupt Law Enforcement

Judge Robin Clute of Hamilton Montana Must of Owed Sheriff Anderson of Libby Montana Big Time. Because Justice of the Peace Robin Clute gave a Protective Order without the Law Behind her, Montana Code is Clear on Who can get a Protective Order and Who Cannot and Judge Robin Clute of Hamilton Montana Ignored Montana Law and Gave a Protective Order just to Silence a Blogger and Protect Massive Montana Corruption.

Robin Clute Montana Judge Denied all rights to a Montana Blogger, Judge Robin Clute Endangered My Life, Robin Clute Denied my Due Process, Robin Clute Would not allow any Evidence to be submitted, Judge Robin Clute Gave my Stalker my Social Security Number, Threatened a Permanent Protect Order, Justice of the Peace Robin Clute Threatened my Arrest if I Spoke to anyone about any of it, accused me of emailing a death threat to myself, violated my civil right and my Montana Rights and Broke Montana Law on the RULES that ALLOW a Protective Order to BE Granted.

Justice of the Peace Robin Clute Owes me My Successful Real Estate Career, My Online Revenue, a year of Hell, and has cost me everything I knew to be my life before I stepped into the corrupt unjust court room of Justice of the Peace - Montana Judge Robin Clute.

Corrupt Justice of the Peace Robin Clute, Set Me UP.. gave an Illegal Protective Order against me, YELLED at me, Stripped me of my Rights.. Endangered my life and ran me from my home and business in Fear of My Life..

I am NO longer Afraid of YOU Judge Robin Clute, you have already taken EVERYTHING.. and NOW I will Find out Everything there is TO know about YOU and Post it Everywhere, it will NOT Be Defamation .. IT WILL BE FACT ... as YOU Gave My Social to My Stalker..

You Let Me Be Defamed, Humilated, Reputation and Business Ruined and have put me under a years worth of HUGE Stress for over a YEAR.. you Ran me from My Home, My Life, My Job and put my life at severe risk.. and I Was NOT breaking ANY Law.

So Robin Clute - Hamiltion JP go ahead Charge me, Jail me like you seem to do to those who stand against you.. Go ahead and have me beaten or killed.. as well you Threatened me in your court and denied my due process and told me I could not talk to anyone about any of it.. YOU already TOOK my Life as I knew it away. .So

Now What? I have No Money, No Home.. I am in Fear of My Life everyday.. what are you going to do know. Kill Me.. oh WELL at Least I know I was on the Right Side of the Law and the Right Side of the Moral Compass...

Got a Tip on Judge Robin Clute Hamilton Montana?

Email Me Crystal@CrystalCox.com
for my New Blog
www.RobinClute.com -
a Robin Clute Blog to
Expose the Illegal Actions of Judge Robin Clute ...

Fraud Experts Decry Federal Self-Dealing After $3.6 Billion Ponzi Aftermath - Bankruptcy Corruption.

"Corporate turn-around expert William Procida and hedge fund founder Thane Ritchie were DC Update guests Sept. 2 on the My Technology Lawyer Radio Network as they provided first-hand accounts of federal court irregularities in Minnesota that they claim victimize lenders and investors in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

During the show, they told co-hosts from the Justice Integrity Project and network founder Scott Draughon about why they’re speaking out against federally orchestrated injustices hurting the fraud victims of Minnesota businessman Thomas J. Petters.

The latter’s Ponzi scheme discovered in 2008 caused estimated damages of $3.65 billion ─ including to lenders and investors in such Petters-controlled companies as Polaroid, Sun Country Airlines and the distributor Fingerhut. Ritchie claims more than $220 million in loans and interest at serious risk.

“I’ve never seen a criminal’s attorney be a receiver,” Procida says of disputed court orders that made former Petters defense attorney Douglas Kelley receiver and also the U.S. trustee.

The court also gave Kelley “judicial immunity,” thereby limiting victim oversight of his controversial decisions.

-- Andrew Kreig "

Source
www.Justice-Integrity.org

Also Check Out Site on Tom Petters Bankruptcy Fraud
www.Petters-Fraud.com and

Check out the Tom Petters Fraud Movie
www.SecondFraud.com

Who is Kevin R. Hall Esq. ? What Does Kevin Hall Really have to Do with the iViewit Stolen Technology? Kevin R. Hall Steps in Blogger Scat !!!

What is Going on with the Iviewit Stolen Technology Scandal?

Question: Is or has Crystal L. Cox EVER written Anything that would Harm or Help Iviewit Technologies or Iviewit Investors? Whose side is Kevin Hall really on... ??

After a decade it seems that those on the Inside who seemed to be all buddy buddy for years are now back biting.. flinging accusations.. threatening and well even making Demands of Me.. Threatening Me, Sending Hate my Way and Why?

Over the last 8 months I have written on iViewit as to Expose the Massive Corruption involved in the Iviewit Stolen Technology. Which involves the Highest Courts in the US, involves Major Political Corruption, SEC and USPTO Cover Ups, involves Major Technology and Media Companies, and involves the Biggest Law Firms in the World.

I had written mainly at www.DeniedPatent.com - and oftentimes over months I quoted Stephen Lamont and linked to the source at www.Iviewit.TV , which is Eliot Bernstein's Website on the iViewit Stolen Technology. This website is still something that Stephen Lamont refers to in his eMail Signatures and "Official" yet "Illegal" iViewit Business he is conducting to this day.

I was promoting all this.. and yet Stephen Lamont threatened me, the reason remains to be a mystery as I was writing in Support of Him when he told me to "get my affairs in order".

I have supported Frank Brady's Exposing Corruption Site in New York which seemed to be exposing the Corruption in New York Politics, the New York Supreme Court, the NYAG - Andrew Cuomo and More and Yet Now this Site Too as Turned on me. And the Reason, well I am not sure what changed ... Possibley Steven Becker, Stephen Lamont, Foley and Lardner, Proskauer Rose, Intel and many others involved in the Massive - Blatant Shareholder Fraud over the iViewit Stolen Technology.. perhaps they are feeling the Sting of New York Attorney Andrew Cuomo being thoroughly Exposed for Massive Corruption and Cover ups .. which will STOP the Decade of Protection that those involved in the Iviewit Scandal have been happily reaping the rewards from.

In the Last Couple of weeks Stephen Lamont FORMERLY of Iviewit and his Foley and Lardner Connection have been on my Blogs more then Usual, it seems that something is cooking for these Crooks and well they seem to be getting a bit nervous...

I did not have anything to do with Iviewit, I did not make up iViewit information, nor did I deliberately lie about anything.. I linked to the Documents, the Source and Interviewed the actual Founder and Inventor of Iviewit Technologies ~ Eliot Bernstein.

Why make Me Collateral Damage in Your Game, Corruption and Cover Ups... All I did was Walk into a Room and Turn the Light on.. what was going on in that Room had been going on long before I showed up and used my "Hobby" - Investigative Blogging to Help Get the Iviewit Victims Heard and Found in the Search Engines.... I did not Create any of it.. I simply told the Story.. and So For This you Want me to Die. You Threaten My Life and Send me Hate, post hate on me...

Stephen Lamont is so nervous at his Crimes that He Threatened my Life a few months back and now he sends me what he thinks is secret threats in Search on My Stats and Works with.. "Others" to Form Hate Groups against me.. yet all I have been doing is writing on the Corruption that Hurt Iviewit.. and he was Supposedly on the Side of "Iviewit" - WELL it certainly does not look that way now. ~ Not one Thing Stepen Lamont does in Regard to Iviewit is Legit or Legal according to what I have read.. heard..

Stephen Lamont has no Legal Right to Speak for Iviewit and yet Still files court documents and sends out emails of "official" iViewit business ... along with Hateful Attacks toward the iviewit founder and one of the Iviewit inventors Eliot Bernstein. I Post that Hate and well then another party surfaces to attack me for posting "Confidential" information... Yet all I had posted was the HATEFUL email that Ex-Iviewit CEO Stephen Lamont had Sent iViewit Found and Owner.. Eliot Bernstein... So up Pops Kevin R. Hall to Defend Stephen Lamon'ts Supposedly Confidential Hate eMail.... Hmmm...

Today Disbarred Kevin R. Hall - who was Supposedly Helping Iviewit with Legal Advice.. has suddenly turned on Iviewit and seems to have "Sided" with Stephen Lamont..

What? It all makes your head Spin.. ..

So is Kevin Hall PAID to KEEP iViewit FROM Justice?
I WOULD Bet MONEY on IT !!! ~ just My Opinion of Course,
I have been Writing Heavily on Iviewit fo rover 8 months and well
what is happening RIGHT now is VERY Different indeed.

Why is Stephen Lamont emailing so much
Hate and Misinformation to Iviewit Insiders
Right Now...

Check out www.CEOpaulOtellini.com/ ~ where Intel Investigator reports that Intel is spreading misinformation now faster then ever... he believe to do with an FTC ruling that is coming this Fall. .. So maybe there is a Crunch Time to Hold on to those Covering for the Iviewit Crime Ring... whatever is going on .. there is certainly a number of folks jumping ship on Iviewit and well making odd demands of me.. One of those a woman named Kathryn Jordon who emailed me this week as well to STOP sending her eMail and I NEVER had.. she demanded to be taken off my Email list and I never had her on ANY list or even knew who she was... So Now I do..

I mean Come On .. It Makes good old fashioned business sense to me TO get my Facts from the Owner of a Company.. from the Inventor of a Technology and not from the "Peanut Gallery" .. the "Greedy Sideliners" ... Why in the World are these guys continuing to attack me when I am promoting their "Cause"... Only thing that makes since is they Jumped the Fence RIGHT Now or had ALWAYS been on the Wrong Side of the Law and the Moral Compass... and was a Major part of Keeping the Iviewit Inventors and Investors Down..

Eliot Bernstein - Founder of Iviewit Technologies and One of the Iviewit Inventors is the Only Source that is Needed, in My Opinion.. why in the World do these Guys think they Speak for iViewit.. ?? Makes No Sense to Me.. and seems Riddled with Conflicts of Interest, Corruption, Side Deals Pay Offs..

Well From This Last 10 days I would say that Kevin Hall, Stephen Lamont, and Steven Becker are having some drinks together and forming some half ass - illegal plan to Do things THEIR Way in the Massive Shareholder Fraud of the Stolen Iviewit Technology.

Maybe what is going on now is the Masssive Fraud in Florida and New York Courts is REALLY being exposed by so many that the Corrupt.. well they are squirming... has NOTHING to do with me.. but I guess threatening me is Easier then Standing up and Telling the Truth..

The Facts to the Iviewit Stolen Patent are Simple www.Iviewit.TV is it not Rocket Science... if you can Read then you can Plainly See the Supreme Court Fraud, the License Agreements NOT Honored, the Patent Fraud, the Massive Shareholder Fraud and well a Major Scandal that will Cost Investors Trillions and the DOJ, FBI, and SEC certainly know about it...

So Stephen Lamont Threatens Eliot Bernstein... and The "iviewit grapevine" sends the Email to me.. so I post it and hmmm.. Kevin R. Hall makes Demands of Me.. .. hmmm. Why is Kevin R. Hall protecting Stephen Lamont... I mean not that I would NOT post Confidential Information BECAUSE I WILL POST ALL SENT to me.. Don't Send an Investigative Blogger something you Don't want Blogged, Duh...

Thing is I had not Posted "Confidential" information when Kevin Hall demanded I NOT post "Confidential" information.. I had posted this..

http://www.investigativeblogger.com/2010/09/stephen-lamont-is-working-on-wrong-side.html

I am an Investigative Blogger, Kevin Hall Sends Me information then says it is Confidential.? What? Why in the World is he Forwarding me information I did not Previously have and then whining about me getting "Confidential Information" ?

This Makes No Real Sense to Me?

Maybe the Iviewit Insiders are Jumping Ship because many of them Believe that one of them... was murdered.. thing is Sorry .. I feel bad and all however.. Iviewit has Ruined my Life.. in a way.. Writing on Iviewit.. posting information that was already out there and getting it found in the search engines for the names, companies and law firms GUILTY of the Massive Shareholder Fraud in the Iviewit Technologies theft.. well this Changed My Life forever...

I get Death Threats.. as many of you do.. I Get Economic Terrorism as Many of you do.. and yes.. people have been bombed, stabbed, murdered, and set up.. However this Does NOT change the Truth.. and Well Now My Life or way of Life is just One more Collateral Damage in the Dark Deeds, Crimes, Cover Ups and Massive Fraud surrounding the Stealing of a Multi-Trillion Dollar Patent.. - oh Well ... I Choose to Continue to Give Voice for Victims.. though my life is threatened weekly and well there have been attempts on my life.. by those involved..

So Do I Run, Hide, Give UP on the TRUTH.. No.. I Stand with the Truth, I Stand with the Victim... And If I Give my Life for it... Oh well.. the Truth I write Lives on..

I will NOT hide under my Bed While Bad Things Happen to Other People.. as I am quoted as saying in a Documentary on Montana Corruption at http://www.beneaththebeauty.com/

It is Your Story... Stand Up for It...

The Hate is Spewing in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case.. and coming from the Oddest sourcs.. as those who Were seemingly helping iViewit have reduced to school yard name calling.. and well the oddest display of gibberish.. yet to surface on something that is so important .. so major in bringing down corruption and seeking justice.. yet the petty hate such as the comments here..

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/09/federal-judges-impeachment-lawyers.html
Site: won't let me Comment so here is my Comment to these .. well Nonesensically hateful gibberish...

"" Let's Focus on Proving Who the Corrupt are Factually.
And Getting Justice for those Affected by the Iviewit Scandal.
As far as Naked Pictures of Me and What Goes on in My Bedroom
well that is really not that interesting.
Peace and Love to You All.
Crystal L. Cox
http://www.deniedpatent.com/ ""

Posting Silly Comments such as this.. .. Well it Makes No Sense.. One must take the High Road and Continue to pour out the Truth.. even if Disbarred Attorneys threaten to sue me.. and insiders threaten to kill me.. The TRUTH Remains to Be the Truth !!!

Here is Some Email Rants to Me today from Kevin R. Hall Esq. - Oh Please Keep this Confidential or the Corrupt Kevin R. Hall may get upset...

"" ATTN: Crystal Cox, Blogger for Eliot I. Bernstein

Crystal Cox:

As you will note in the Email Distribution List below, your email address was incorrectly listed and thus the below message was not sent to you and is being corrected herein. Please take strict Notice of the Confidentiality and Disclosure requirements of this email herein.

Since there is and has been an acknowledgement of the obligations and debt herein with a stated Plan for repayment and considering this matter should have been a purely Private matter not involving the Internet World of Bloggers et al, it would also seem truly an inappropriate and unnecessary trip into wasteful and improper areas for any further time to be spent in this matter either by Mr. Bernstein, myself or others and I hope you have the wisdom to see and realize this as well.

Thank you and my contact information is clearly posted below should you ever wish to converse or discuss or investigate any matters.

Kevin R. Hall
Offices of Kevin R. Hall
krhall007@aol.com
Sept. 20, 2010 ""

And on the Bottom of the Above Un-Solicited Email was a WHOLE BUNCH Of Confidential Information on OTHER People of Which was NONE of My Business, He Made it My Business and then Seems to.. Well Attack me for HIS mistake.. hmmm.

So Kevin Hall sends an UnSolicited Email to Me.. I Deem Threatening and then Demands I Keep it Confidential? Are you Kidding ?

Especially when it is NOW Obvious to me that Kevin Hall is Connected to Stephen Lamont who TOLD me to Get my "Affairs in Order" .. gee we WILL threaten you for Writing the TRUTH on Iviewit and then we will Threaten to SUE you if you Post our THREAT ??? WHAT ???

I am not a Blogger For Iviewit, I am a Blogger for the Truth.. it is Something I Love to do and I do it.. I am NOT Paid by Iviewit in ANY way to Blog for Iviewit.. no matter what NONESENSE you have heard..

So Who WAS Kevin R. Hall Esq., in association with Iviewit? Who is Kevin R. Hall Connected To Now? Was Kevin R. Hall part of what has kept Iviewit Inventors FROM Getting their Legally Rightful Patent? IS Kevin R. Hall in "bed with" Foley and Lardner and Stephen Lamont? ( I think SO !!! )

What We Can Be Sure of is that Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger is Telling you the Truth on Iviewit.. The Truth is My Motive !!!

I am Nobody and Of Course this is Speculation.. OPINION on my Soapbox aKa MY BLOG.. but after Kevin Hall's Blather at me TODAY.. ...

I Firmly Believe that Kevin Hall has been a Part of the Wall of Corruption KEEPING the Iviewit Investors and the Iviewit Inventors FROM the Very Justice He "Pretended" to be Helping them to Get.

So no wonder the Big Corporations never took any of this serious.. Kevin R. Hall Esq being involved must have made it seem like a joke.. or some sort of game.. and well If you can read . ... you can easily see that Iviewit DID invent the Multi-Trillion Dollar technology that Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., AOL and lots more have been Illegally Using for over a Decade.

I Say that Kevin R. Hall Esq, Stephen Lamont, Steven Becker.. and Foley and Lardner are at the Gates of Justice.. .KEEPING iViewit from the Justice they Seek and are Responsible for Covering for the Corruption that has Ruined the Quality of Life of many involved with Iviewit for over a Decade. .. Just My Opinion of Course..

Got a Tip on Kevin R. Hall Esq. ?
Email your Kevin R. Hall Tip to Me
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Ok .. so Later that Same Day I get this Email from Kevin Hall

"" Crystal Cox:

It sounds as though you are having a pyschotic Episode or SOMEONE OTHER THAN Myself has Caused you Serious Harm.

So, Find the Truth in That. Eliot Bernstein is the one who has Promoted you as a Blogger for Iviewit so what is the Harm in That? A Little bit Sensitive is all.

I WORK for MYSELF. I go to bed with myself, not that my personal life is ANY of your business. Your email makes you sound like a Deranged Lunatic.

I did NOTHING to THREATEN YOU in ANY Way.

I have NEVER NOT Called you. YOU Never Asked me to call you.

Eliot asked that I call you but then I never had a Number. You are MORE THAN WELCOME to CALL me at Anytime you wish. If I HAD YOUR Contact Info I would call you.

Since Eliot Copies you on ALMOST Every Email I have received from him over the Last Year I Simply Copied you on these Emails so YOU WOULD have the TRUTH. And this is HOW YOU INVESTIGATE?

By Making INSANE and DERANGED REMARKS Totally Uncalled for and Unjustified? In WHAT WAY did I EVER THREATEN you? Please Explain.

The Only thing I did was to MAKE SURE you NOTICED that the prior Email was CONFIDENTIAL and NOT FOR Public Dissemination at a blog. Destroy the Emails if that is what you like.

I Notice that you did NOT ASK to Be Removed from Any further Emails???

Well, if that is so, then the ONLY way I would send YOU ANY information is with Intelligent, Calm, Rationale, Mature, Normal Manner of Addressing issues and life in general. There is therapy, counseling and medication and institutions for anything else.

Feel free to Investigate me. I will help you out all you want. I have NO ILL WILL torward YOU or Most anyone for that matter although trying to gain truth and justice for many is part of a cause I have participated in for years.

So ask away, Call away, email away, that is fine. I will simply Not include you on any emails when CONFIDENTIAL if you are NOT able to do so and will take whatever steps are Legally Allowed in a Civil Honest and Just Society to seek Redress for any harm that may Actually be caused if the request is not honored. That is all.

Otherwise I have no time or desire for Non Sense. Thank you Crystal Cox.

And my apologies if you are not an Active Blogger for Eliot Bernstein or never were. If that was a misunderstanding on my part, so be it and apologies.

Kevin R. Hall
Offices of Kevin R. Hall
krhall007@aol.com
Sept. 20, 2010 ""

This is NOT True, Kevin Hall had my Numbers Months and Months Ago .. he saw my posts and said NOTHING until the day came when he decided to Protect Stephen Lamont.

Kevin Hall did Interact with me over the last 8 months and now .. ??

Kevin Hall IS "in bed with" someone or why wish to hide anything?

The iViewit Stolen Technology is Transparent.. and well after a Decade of HELL that the Inventors and investors have been through. ...I DO NOT believe there needs to be Secrets. .not NOW.. far too late for that..

so what is Kevin Hall really Up to? and What is "Actionable Conduct" ? WHO cares. . Corruption is Running Rampant all the Way to the Supreme Court in many States on the Iviewit Case.. and Well that is Certainly "Actionable Conduct" and Nothing is Done..

We Have ALL had Threats Kevin.. Get Over IT..
Some of US have had WORSE then THAT !!

Why do you want things to Be Confidential?

You think that will STOP Murders, Set Ups, Side Deals.. and Economic Terrorism on those on the Inside? BULL - them Staying Visible is the Best Thing.. Period... .. Collateral Damage... WELL all who Speak out on Behalf of Iviewit in ANY way Seem to suffer that.. get over it..

The Words, Deranged, Psychotic Episode, INSANE and DERANGED, Lunatic.. hmmm. sounds like Kevin Hall was part of that Hate Blog about me last winter.. ..

Civil, Honest and Just Society.. .??? .What is this Blather. .Kevin has not had anything to day to me.. why Now? Makes No Sense...

Why in the World would I want "Confidential" Emails.

I am an Investigative Blogger.. Makes NO Sense...

If you need to "Vent" send your Confidential Gibberish to ANYONE.. not to a Self Proclaimed "Industry Whistleblower" ~ "Investigative Blogger" ~ "Mad Dog Blogger" ...

Kevin Hall says he noticed I DID NOT ASK TO BE Removed from Future Emails..??? What sense does this Make ? I never EVER asked to Be Included in the FIRST PLACE.. he Sends Stuff.. I post it.. Why Should I ASK to be Removed? Either Send it or Don't..

You are Either Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution.

the TRUE - Truth Seekers on Iviewit !!!
~ Una Stamus ~

I Stand with the TRUTH
Eliot Bernstein is the TRUTH on iViewit ~ Period
I STAND with Eliot Bernstein... PERIOD...

~ Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger ~
www.InvestigativeBlogger.com

Some Links on Kevin Padrick and Iviewit

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100108%20Letter%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

http://www.matthewtriggs.com/2010/02/warner-bros-signed-agreements-with.html

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4607940-us-federal-whistleblower-lawsuit-07cv09599-anderson

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-crime-against-family-by-new.html


So Got a Tip on Corruption, Cover Ups, Back Alley Deals
involving Kevin R. Hall ... ?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

I Believe that Kevin Hall is Connected to Judith Kay, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley, Stephen Lamont and More on the WRONG side of Iviewit Justice..

More on the TRUTH of How Kevin Hall got involved with Iviewit in the First Place, more on Connections to Andrew Cuomo ... to Judith Kaye ... ALL Coming Soon..

Andrew Cuomo NYAG Under Citizens Arrest? Andrew Cuomo, New York Attorney General Disqualified in Major New York Corruption Case.

Time to Expose ALL Dark Corners, Secret Hand Shakes, Back Alley Deals in New York Corruption. Email Your New York Corruption To ~Crystal L. Cox .. Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Anderson Moves to Disqualify NY Attorney General

CLICK HERE TO READ ANDERSON’S FILING TO DISQUALIFY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

——————————————————————X
Christine C. Anderson,

Case No.: 07cv9599
Plaintiff-Appellant, (SAS) (AJP)

2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv v.

The State of New York,
Defendants-Appellees.

——————————————————————X

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying affirmation, Plaintiff-Appellant Christine C. Anderson will move this Honorable Court, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order:

(1) DISQUALIFYING the Office of the New York State Attorney General from representation of defendants; and

(2) for such other and further relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

September 14, 2010

Christine C. Anderson, plaintiff, pro se

227 Riverside Drive – Suite 2N

New York, New York 10025

917-817-7170 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 917-817-7170 end_of_the_skype_highlighting tel

To: Monica Wagner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the NYS Attorney General, 120 Broadway, 24th floor, New York, New York 10271

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



——————————————————————X
Christine C. Anderson,

Case No.: 07cv9599
Plaintiff-Appellant, (SAS) (AJP)

2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv

v.

The State of New York,

Defendants-Appellees.

——————————————————————X



AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

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. The reasons why I am entitled to the relief I seek, and pending remand to the district court for a new trial as herein explained, are the following:

I. Introduction

1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying my request for a new trial, a reversible error, inter alia. That error continues before this appellate body and requires immediate correction. Because of the unique perspective of the trial judge, the decision as to whether to grant a new trial is committed to the district court’s sound discretion and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of that discretion. Kempner Mobile Electronics, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, 428 F.3d 706, 716 (7th Cir. 2005); Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310, 314 (7th Cir.1995). The trial judge advanced a miscarriage of justice by denying the application for a new trial. Remand is clearly indicated in this matter.

2. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 does not list the grounds for which a new trial may be granted. (Wright § 95). In federal courts, common law must be looked to in determining the available grounds. Of the numerous grounds justifying a grant of new trial, one is that the “interests of justice” require a new trial. See e.g., Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc., 901 F.2d 1373, 1379 (7th Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of new trial after a three-week jury trial). Among the grounds cited for seeking new trials are the following:

(1) Irregularity of the proceedings;

(2) Misconduct of jury;

(3) Accident or surprise;

(4) Newly discovered evidence;

(5) Insufficient evidence;

(6) Verdict against law;

(7) Error in law;

(8) Excessive or inadequate damages.

3. A court has broad discretion in considering a Rule 59(e) motion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988). Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify that “the district court possesses the power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted to correct a manifest error of law or fact, or to consider newly-discovered evidence. See Hagerman, 890 F.2d at 414.

II. The Attorney General’s Representation of the Defendants Constitutes

A Clear Conflict of Interest, and Violates Plaintiff’s Right to Due Process

4. In this action, plaintiff Anderson was confronted with an unquestionably unfair set of circumstances. She brought her complaint against three individuals, who, although employed by the State of New York, were also sued in their individual capacities. These defendants in turn were at all times represented by the New York State Attorney General. 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.[1]) The Attorney General as a state attorney is bound by these rules as well. [2]

6. This constitutes New York State law, and the attorney who violates these safeguards must be immediately removed from the case. Further, should the defendants seek to waive the conflict- they would have to submit an affidavit to that effect to the court.

Notwithstanding a defendant’s attempt to waive his right to independent counsel, the court can deny the waiver, based on a finding that ultimately this conflict cannot properly be waived. The trail court improperly ignored the obligation to address the inherent conflict up to and including the trial. This court, however, must now disqualify the Attorney General from any representation of the defendants.

7. As a result of these conflict of interest issues, the Attorney General cannot properly represent the defendants, either as a group or individually, in these appellate proceedings. Each defendant must have the right to advance his or her own position on appeal, to cross claim against the others, and to bring a counterclaim against the State.

These actions most certainly could not be undertaken in a case where the Attorney General represents all the named defendants. All defendants clearly are in conflict with each other, especially in their individual capacities. 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 Clear Need For Remand

8. The involvement of the New York Attorney General in refuting plaintiff’s allegations, which involved serious violations of federal and state law and ethical standards, and in presenting the case of each defendants, denied plaintiff’s due process and equal protection guarantees, and right to a fair and impartial trial. See Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934) (“if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”) and Eldridge v. Williams, 424 U.S. 319 335 (1974) [3]

9. 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.

12. Federal law mandates that a special prosecutor be substituted into the case, and this was not done. The actions of the Attorney General here confused, misled and confounded the jury, by creating a false impression that the acts were officially sanctioned by the state.

13. Furthermore, Christine Anderson’s allegations have substantial impact on the public, the bench and bar, and cannot be ignored by the New York State Attorney General’s Office merely because they were motivated to defend this lawsuit. This serious conflict demanded independent counsel for the defendants as a matter of fairness and high ethical conduct to all involved, particularly to Christine Anderson. Having denied independent counsel to the defendants, the Attorney General prejudiced plaintiff by making it appear to the jury that the State of New York and the New York State Attorney General’s Office supported defendants’ conduct. This was a burden Christine Anderson could never overcome and, at a minimum, warrants a new trial. The unfair burden continues before this appellate court.

14. Additionally, Remand is also certain as the trial Court was concerned about the aforestated conflict of interest and in one of its last instructions to the jury, the Court warned the jury not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their joint representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. That instruction was injurious to the plaintiff, Christine Anderson, in that it prejudiced the jury against her and in and of itself warrants a new trial for the following reasons:

a. It was one of the last instructions to the jury and thus was ingrained in the minds of the jury as a lasting impression. Furthermore, as one of the last instructions to the jury, it elevated its importance over and above all prior instructions as something that had to be considered indifference to all else.

b. There was no countervailing instruction to the jury that it could find a negative inference of the representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office favorable to the plaintiff. This failure prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff by implying at a minimum, that the state supported all of the defendants’ conduct and found that it was within the bounds of the law.

c. Had the Court even given the jury an instruction not to draw a negative inference of the representation of the defendants by the New York State Attorney General’s Office as against either or both the plaintiff and the defendants, such an instruction only demonstrates the proof that there is an impermissible conflict of interest in the manner in which this case was conducted, that can only hurt one party over another. Further, the representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office made it appear New York State supported the defendants’ conduct and that it was within the bounds of the law.

d. By the Court issuing the jury instruction not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office, the court preserved the argument to be raised in this motion and appeal.

e. Allowing all of the defendants to be represented by the same counsel and by the New York State Attorney General’s Office created an impermissible conflict of interest. Indeed, the conflict was so strong, that had the jury ruled against any one or all of the defendants, they would have been entitled to seek a new trial for impermissible conflict of interest as they would entitled to their own independent counsel.

This court is thus faced with the fact any unsuccessful litigant in this case appeal could be expected to move for and would be entitled to a new trial because of the impermissible conflict of interest, as all of the defendants are required to have their own independent counsel, and to be represented their own counsel.

15. The American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility elaborates on the duty of a public prosecutor such as the New York Attorney General to seek justice as follows:

“This special duty exists because: (1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; (2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all ….” (ABA Code of Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-13, emphasis added.)

16. Therefore, a prosecutor’s duty of neutrality is born of two fundamental aspects of his employment. First, the prosecutor, in this case the Attorney General, is a representative of the sovereign, and consequently must act with the impartiality required of those who govern. Second, the Attorney General can at all times call upon the vast power of the government, by utilizing public funds, and therefore must refrain from abusing that power by failing to act evenhandedly.

17. These key duties are not limited to criminal prosecutions, but must also be observed in civil cases as well. These safeguards are included in the ABA Code. “A government lawyer in a civil action or administrative proceeding has the responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record, and he should not use his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust settlements or results.” (Id., EC 7-14, emphasis added.)

18. In the present case, the Attorney General was under the ethical duty to withdraw in order to preserve plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial trial. In a case such as this, not only is the Attorney General’s neutrality essential to a fair outcome for the plaintiff, it is critical to the proper function of the judicial process as a whole. Our system of justice relies for its validity on the confidence of society. Without a continuing belief by the people that the system is just and impartial, the concept of the rule of law cannot survive. (See id., EC 9-1, 9-2.)

19. The New York State Attorney General is a public official elected by statewide ballot [4]. The American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility addresses the special considerations applicable to a lawyer who is also a public official as follows: “A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part-time, should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties.” (ABA Code of Prof. Responsibility, EC 8-8.) “[A]n attorney holding public office should avoid all conduct which might lead the layman to conclude that the attorney is utilizing his public position to further his professional success or personal interests.” (ABA Committee on Prof. Ethics, opn. No. 192 (1939); see also People v. Conner, 34 Cal.3d 141, 146.)

20. The government’s investigative and prosecutorial interests must be balanced against the public interest in insuring that the individuals and organizations receive effective representation, and are accorded their full constitutional rights and protections.

21. There are at least two reasons why a court should satisfy itself that no conflict exists or at least provide notice to the affected party if one does. First, a court is under a continuing obligation to supervise the members of its Bar. E.g., In re Taylor, 567 F.2d at 1191; see Musicus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 621 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (district court obligated to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in proceedings before it). Second, trial courts have a duty “to exercise that degree of control required by the facts and circumstances of each case to assure the litigants of a fair trial.” Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 900-01 (2d Cir.1970); see ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4).

22. For example, when a litigant’s statutorily appointed counsel is acting against that person’s interests because of a conflict that the party has not been informed of and cannot be expected to understand on his own, it can be concluded that the litigant is not receiving a fair trial. Cf. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981) (divided loyalties of counsel may create due process violation).

23. Attorneys are officers of the court, Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 12, 53 S.Ct. 465, 468, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), and are obligated to adhere to all applicable disciplinary rules, and to report incidents of which they have unprivileged knowledge involving violations of a disciplinary rule. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A), 1-103(A); see In re Walker, 87 A.D.2d 555, 560, 448 N.Y.S.2d 474, 479 (1st Dep’t 1982) (as officers of the court, attorneys are required to notify parties and the court of errors including conflicts of interest).

24. Occupying a position of public trust, the Attorney General, as any public prosecutor is ‘possessed … of important governmental powers that are pledged to the accomplishment of one objective only, that of impartial justice.’ (Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference (1958) 44 A.B.A.J. 1159, 1218.) The duty of a government attorney has been characterized as ‘a sober inquiry into values, designed to strike a just balance between the economic interests of the public and those of the landowner,’ is of high order.” (Id. at p. 871.)

25. Canon 9, “A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety,” has been invoked by this Court in attorney conflict cases. See, e.g., Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 234-35 (2d Cir.1977). The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the ABA House of Delegates on August 2, 1983 contain similar provisions and language. See Rules 1.7, 8.4.

26. Furthermore, and central to the issue of preventing prejudicial influence of government attorneys on court proceedings, it is common for states to adopt statutes or regulations that prohibit those holding the office of Attorney General, as well as their

deputies and staff attorneys, from participating as attorneys in private litigation matters. (see e.g. Arizona Revised Statutes §41-191[5] Attorney general; Florida Statutes, Section 27.51(3), [6] Maryland Statutes and Procedures Governing Pro Bono Services of Attorney General Office[7] .)

27. The reason for adopting these restrictions is most obvious. For the Attorney General or any member of the staff to participate in a civil trial involving a private litigant will create the prejudicial inference that the state has reviewed and approved the position advocated by the government attorney. Such an inference can and likely will influence the outcome of the matter to the detriment of the opposing party.

28. It is for the above stated reasons that no Attorney General or staff member should be permitted to represent a private litigant in any adversarial proceeding. Only such an outright prohibition will properly preserve the standards of fairness and impartiality guaranteed to all litigants under federal and state constitutions. The present lack of statutory and/or ethical policy guidelines barring the participation of state law officers from representing private litigants in civil proceedings must be addressed by courts even if not by policy makers.

III. The Attorney General’s Office Cannot Ethically Continue Any Representation

29. The irregularity of the proceedings below were confusing, misleading and prejudicial to the plaintiff enough without the involvement of the Attorney General. Indeed, remand will result after review of the Instructions to the jury, the court marked-up Verdict Sheet after a written jury question to the court concerning the whitewashing of attorney ethics complaints and wide-practiced corruption that, in fact, counsel for the defendants- The New York State Attorney General’s Office- had an obligation to investigate, inter alia.

30. Improperly, the top law enforcement officer of the state was silent and action was, and is, absent. This cannot be condoned by this appellate court.

31. The involvement of the Attorney General’s office improperly left the jury, and proceeding itself, in an unclear, puzzling and convoluted condition. This confusion resulted in a proceeding which is in a word repugnant.

32. The mere presence of the Attorney General has at all times been prejudicial to the plaintiff and, at best, confusing to the jury. It has been established that both inconsistent or equivocal instructions and incorrect statements of the law may be prejudicially erroneous, Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946); United States v. Neilson, 471 F.2d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); Bolden v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co, 468 F.2d 580; Ratay v. Lincoln National Life Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 209 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967), and that comments made by the court shortly before the jury retires are critical, Norfleet v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 355 F.2d 359, 362 (2d Cir. 1966).

33. The lower court improperly allowed representation of the defendants by the Attorney General. In fact, the court below improperly condoned the Attorney General’s presence, accordingly directing the jury that the Attorney General’s representation was proper when it was not. It is generally assumed that juries “act in accordance with the instructions given them…and that they do not consider and base their decisions on legal questions with respect to which they are not charged.” Dist. Council 37 v. New York City Dept. of Parks and Recreation 113 F3d 347,356 (2d Cir. 1997).

34. It was never up to the jury to consider the ethical failings of the Attorney General’s representation. It was the obligation of the Attorney General’s office, and upon the failure of that duty, the obligation of the court.

35. There is also no record that the role of the Attorney General as defense counsel was properly and adequately explained to the jury. While this also constitutes another reversible error by the Court which will be addressed by the appeal itself, representation of the Attorney General’s office improperly remains.

IV. Newly Discovered Evidence At Trial Required Immediate Disqualification

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.

37. In addition, Courts have an obligation to report and order investigation into official and at times criminal misconduct. This is a duty of the Court. There is no record to date as to any action having been undertaken by the Court regarding this central question. (See also recent decisions on spoliation of evidence which are state and federal crimes. Acorn v. Nassau County - cv052301 (2009 USDistLEXIS 19459) and Gutman v. Klein, 03cv1570. 2008 WL 5084182, 2008 WL 4682208.

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.

39. Clearly the newly discovered fact that defendant Cahill, as the head of the DDC and supervisor of the other named defendants, had full knowledge of whitewashing activities would in all likelihood have changed the outcome of the case. This central fact establishing the liability of all named defendants could not have been discovered earlier and is not merely cumulative or impeaching. (See Farragher v. Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 18 S. Ct. 2275 (1998) which imputes liability to supervisors in any event. In Farragher, the Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor. All defendants are jointly and severally liable here. In fact, the State of New York is liable under Faragher, all while representation of the Attorney General’s office improperly continued.

JUDICIAL FINDING KEPT FROM A DELIBERATING JURY

40. Here, the new evidence establishes that in the view of the Court, Defendant Cahill, the head officer of the DDC and the supervisor of the other defendants, had full knowledge of the practice of whitewashing as alleged by Plaintiff, leading to the parallel conclusion that whitewashing was accepted as a common practice by the defendants, and presumably other staff members of the DDC. Had such facts been confirmed during the trial stage, the jury would have come to know and understand the illegal activities that were accepted as everyday practice by the DDC staff, a finding totally consistent with a main element of Plaintiff’s case. At all times relevant, however, the Attorney General’s office improperly continued their representation of the very people the Court found had acted illegally.

41. The Court’s statement after the close of trial accepting the establishing the whitewashing activities by Defendant Cahill will demand remand for a new trial. Meanwhile, the damage to the rule of law and ethics by the Attorney General’s office must be dealt with by this appellate court.

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. Bratton advised Corrado that in 2007 he had admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital for serious emotional problems, that he had “suicidal tendencies,” and that he was “warning” her accordingly. When Corrado asked Bratton why he was warning her, Bratton simply repeated several times in a very serious and stern tone by saying, “I’m just warning you.”

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.

44. Plaintiff’s former counsel, John Beranbaum, advised the court, and by copy, the Attorney General, of this incident in a letter to the court dated October 24, 2008. In the Beranbaum submission, it was made clear to the court and the Attorney General that Ms. Corrado was given a ‘“warning’ about the testimony she was to gave at the deposition[,]” and further advised that “Ms. Corrado is very upset about the entire experience.

45. Mr. Beranbaum again raised the issue on the record four days later on October 30, 2008. (See Exhibit, “B” – Transcript of October 30, 2008 hearing, Page 26 (lines 17-25), and page 27 (lines 1-8). The court, in responding to the letter advising of the threat on plaintiff’s witness, commented, “You [Mr. Beranbaum] seem to want to tell me something or report it to me. Okay. You report it to me.”

46. It is plaintiff’s belief that the court had an obligation to report the matter to federal agents and, further, to interview Ms. Corrado concerning the incident. In addition, the Attorney General also had an obligation as the state’s top enforcer of the law.

47. Plaintiff believes she has been severely prejudiced by the threat upon her witness, Ms. Corrado, and, as the lower court and Attorney General were aware, Ms. Corrado did not appear as a witness in this proceeding.

48. While plaintiff is aware that counsel within the Office of the New York Attorney General’s office offered to “fully” compensate Mr. Beranbaum for ALL of his legal fees, expenses, etc., if plaintiff settled her case, she is unaware of the exact timing of when the compensation offer, believed to be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00, was actually made.

VI. Conclusion

49. For the reasons set forth, Moving respectfully requests that this Court in the interest of justice issue an order restraining the Office of the New York State Attorney General’s office from representing 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 grant a new trial.

50. As noted, the participation of the Attorney General in failing to investigate the charges submitted by plaintiff against the defendants, and subsequently representing these same persons in the instant court proceedings, denied plaintiff’s constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial. This denial of basic rights was compounded by unclear, confusing and convoluted instructions to the jury, discovery of new evidence and serious allegations of intimidation of witnesses, which all support the de novo pending appeal and granting of the instant motion for disqualification.

51. Wherefore, Moving respectfully requests that the court grant the within Motion, as well as such other and further relief that may be just and proper. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 14, 2010

New York, New York Christine C. Anderson

Plaintiff, Pro Se



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM ; Conflict of Interest Disciplinary Rule 5

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/

[2] As head of the Department of Law, the Attorney General is both the “People’s Lawyer” and the State’s chief legal officer. As the “People’s Lawyer,” the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York, its organizations and its natural resources.

In his role as the State’s chief legal counsel, the Attorney General not only advises the Executive branch of State government, but also defends actions and proceedings on behalf of the State. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/our_office.html


[3] The Supreme Court set out the following balancing test for applying procedural due process protections: “[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”

[4] The fact that the Attorney General is elected by the voters of New York State raises a question with respect to the qualification of the jurors. No juror in the present case was asked whether he or she had voted for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo at the last election, or, for that matter, whether they supported the actions undertaken by him since assuming office, or further. whether they, as a general matter, agree with the general or specific policies of or initiatives undertaken and/or advocated by his office.

[5] B. The attorney general and his assistants shall devote full time to the duties of the office and shall not directly or indirectly engage in the private practice of law or in an occupation conflicting with such duties, except:

1. Such prohibition shall not apply to special assistants, except that in no instance shall special assistants engage in any private litigation in which the state or an officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

2. Assistant attorney general may, but in no circumstances shall be required to, represent private clients in pro bono, private civil matters under the following circumstances:

(a) The representation will be conducted exclusively during off hours or while on leave and the attorney will not receive any compensation for such services.

(b) The client is not seeking an award of attorney fees for the services.

(c) The services are for an individual in need of personal legal services who does not have the financial resources to pay for the professional services or for a nonprofit, tax exempt charitable organization formed for the purpose of providing social services to individuals and families.

(d) The representation will not interfere with the performance of any official duties.

(e) The subject matter of pro bono representation is outside of the area of practice to which the attorney is assigned in the attorney general’s office and the activity will not appear to create a conflict of interest.

(f) The activity will not reflect adversely on this state or any of its agencies.

(g) The assistant attorney general’s position will not influence or appear to influence the outcome of any matter.

(h) The activity will not involve assertions that are contrary to the interest or position of this state or any of its agencies.

(i) The activity does not involve a criminal matter or proceeding or any matter in which this state is a party or has a direct or substantial interest.

(j) The activity will not utilize resources that will result in a cost to this state or any of its agencies.

(k) The attorney’s supervisor may require the attorney to submit a prior written request to engage in pro bono work which includes a provision holding the agency harmless from any of the work undertaken by the attorney.

[6] Florida Statutes,Section 27.51 provides:”Each public defender shall serve on a full-time basis and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law while holding office. Assistant public defenders shall give priority and preference to their duties as assistant public defenders and shall not otherwise engage in the practice of criminal law.” (e.s.)

[7] Private practice of Law and Pro Bono Representation.

Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 7:43 AM

17 comments:

Have had it with cuomo said…

I like Anderson’s vote on Election Day! Great motion!
Everyone should vote on the next election day to DISQUALIFY everyone who currently holds office of any kind. Yep, Andy, that includes you. The thuggery at the attorney general’s office must end. Andy and Elliot can go off and play golf, etc., with Tiger. New Yorkers have had it with spineless, ass-kissing-for-supporters-only corrupt bastards operating under the color of law. I’m a lifelong democrat but will NOT be voting for Andrew Cuomo ever again.

September 15, 2010 8:44 AM

Anonymous said…

The Office of Andrew Cuomo is pro pedophiles and that is why he protects his friends such as Bernadette E. Lupinetti, Esq. from Orange County New York. A pimp selling children in child custody cases to be sexually exploited.

September 15, 2010 9:08 AM

Anonymous said…

Christine Anderson you rock!

Albany, Andy, Houston

You got a problem!

Paladino won!

September 15, 2010 9:09 AM

Anonymous said…

Christine Anderson you rock!

Albany, Andy, Houston

You got a problem!

Paladino won!

September 15, 2010 9:09 AM


Anonymous said…

Andy and Eliot can take Sheldon & Lippman with them!

The baseball bats are out guys!

September 15, 2010 9:10 AM

Anonymous said…

“THERE IS NO CRUELER TYRANNY THAN THAT WHICH IS OPERATED UNDER THE COVER OF LAW AND WITH THE COLORS OF JUSTICE”

September 15, 2010 9:12 AM

Anonymous said…

Bratton advised Corrado that in 2007 he had admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital for serious emotional problems, that he had “suicidal tendencies,” and that he was “warning” her accordingly

what was this guy going to make up paperwork for her, pass it around behind her back………
that is an old one
you guys gotta think of new tricks!

September 15, 2010 9:25 AM

LE said…

Christine, you’re my hero!! Now, let’s ALL go after the AG’s Office full force with our motion’s to disqualify!!!

I can’t wait to see how the AG’s Office responds to my motion and letter to disqualify!!

Best Regards,

LE

September 15, 2010 10:45 AM

Anonymous said…

this is very interesting. will be more interesting to see some real action come from it and best of luck to Christine Anderson.

I’ve been watching these comments about Will Galison being a “plant”. Let me get this straight:

Hoffer is the son-in-law of Zbigniew Brzezinski and therefore a pawn of the CFR and the New World Order

The FBI is the organization that hasn’t done a damn thing for us all this time and has harmed many of us.

Golia is the judge who stole Sunny Sheu’s house from him and had him kidnapped according to an NYPD Officer and you can read about this at the BlackStarNews.com.

Golia may or could be involved in the death / murder of Sunny Sheu and it is absolutely clear that Golia has some serious problems with the Sunny Sheu case by permitting the Finance Company involved in Illegally “buying back” Sunny’s property from a Fraudulent Buyer that the Finance Company should have never Closed with in the first place and did so for only $1000 when Sunny’s mortgage had been at just over $200,000.

That type of great “under market price” transaction is PER SE SUSPECT to any reputable member of the Judiciary or Oversight or Federal authorities not to mention Sunny had 2 NYPD Officers who were trying to come forward before Golia with evidence from the Criminal prosecution of the Fraud - Fake buyer and Seller in the first place??

So, these three parties are “pissed” at Will Galison, and that makes Galison ……bad?

September 15, 2010 11:53 AM

Eliot Bernstein / Bat Out of Hell / Iviewit said…

Go Christine, I sat on the edge of my seat and wondered when the charge of criminal Title 18 Obstruction and Obstruction of Fed Witness and Obstruction through Conflict would be asserted against the AG Clown Cuomo but I guess it is there subtly in the call for Special Prosecutor and Obligations of those in charge.

Still I feel that Court should be put on notice that allowing the conflict is obstruction so if they continue, wham we are reporting it and their felonies to the man, right now the man with no cajones, HoldOff and other appropriate oversight and criminal authorities. Every related case should file this document with criminal authorities with jurisdiction demanding investigation. Where’s the Press???
Who is Will?

Bat Out of Hell on Bat Phone Calling the Troops.

Question for Luisa have you filed to get rid of NY AG Cuomo or filed criminal complaints against the office for their part in the gang raping of your rights and personal liberties to cover up for slimedog millionaire Isaacs?

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor

Check Out
Eliot’s Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cw0gogF4Fs&feature=player_embedded
and

Part 2 @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apc_Zc_YNIk&feature=related
and
Christine Anderson Whistleblower Testimony @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo
and

Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://www.wethepeopletv.com/

September 15, 2010 2:11 PM

Anonymous said…

Is there anyone else who is going to Federal Court to file for violation of Civil Rights for the failure of the OCA, Disciplinary Commissions, Courts, etc., to protect Constitutionally Protected rights and to do the jobs they are required to do by law and rule?

Just asking.

September 15, 2010 2:15 PM

Anonymous said…

All the Anderson info and action is great. But, if the Feds were really going to “rock” NY as stated over two years ago, you may think they would just show up to this event tomorrow sponsored by the Wall Street Journal featuring Gov Paterson and former Govs Spitzer and Pataki.

Markopoulous contacted Spitzer as AG about Madoff and we all know Frank Brady and Kevin McKeown wrote to Governor Paterson about a Special Prosecutor and Pataki’s links to corruption and likely organized crime are infamous even though the Feds never did anything about it and stuck New Yorkers with this great system

Think the G-Men will show up? Not talking about the Football Giants here either:

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/31797/spitzer-paterson-pataki-all-on-one-great-stage/

September 15, 2010 4:11 PM

Anonymous said…

Has anyone clued the Paladino campaign into this blog and Cuomo’s history of ignoring complaints?

Cuomo’s has done nothing in the four years he’s been AG, and now he is campaigning as someone who is going to clean up the mess he’s been ignoring.

I hope Paladino has the stuff to call him on this.

September 15, 2010 6:16 PM

Anonymous said…

Yes, I hope Paladino takes Cuomo’s mask off and ask him about the sexual abusers he helps.

September 15, 2010 7:19 PM

T Finnan said…

Answer to 2:15; yes within this week. Answer to 6:16; yes; Paladino is aware. AG Cuomo has covered up corruption with his office. CuomoTARP.blogspot.com exposes and will expose more about Cuomo. Check out: Two faces as Cuomo changes pay to play to indirect payment; or, Cuomo as Gollum; or, the Cuomo babuska doll and its faces of Cuomo; or, Cuomo’s silver spoon removed; or,Cuomo drenched in Albany Swamp Slime; or,Cuomo, 1.2 billion fraud, is it the Peter or Dilbert principle; or, Cuomo as Keystone cop; and Can Cuomo clean his nest.

September 15, 2010 7:25 PM

Eliot said…

Ok, if none of you NuYookers have the cojones (excuse my vulgarity) to arrest Cuomo, Spitzer and some Lawyers & Judges who are actually criminals I guess I will just have to fly there again and citizen arrest their criminal butts.

First, I would get the kids and huddle them together for a protest party. We would need signs so that we could march on their lawns first and greet them at dawn with video cameras and loud questions demanding public answers.

Then follow them to work with a set of leg iron and cuffs, demand they turn themselves in or else, when they run like the cowards they are, chase them down, tackle them and bring them in for prosecution of their felonies despite name, elitist delusion, position or title.

In New York we don’t give a damn who or what you are, if you ripped us off we want blood and all our money back. Wait, you NuYookers really want a Cubbie fan to clean your shit hole of corruption, I guess if necessary, I will but I thought more of you.

Next, once we have chained them and cuffed them and although my personal desire would be to torture them for those they have tortured and wronged in their crimes but I am not them, so I will leave that to the long arm of justice to decide and a jury of their peers.

If Justice fails to do justice claiming others above the law or immune why just grab their butt, cuff them and take them to the next available processing center for felons, you got rights NuYookers, use them.

http://www.newyorkinjurylaw-blog.com/2010/05/citizen%E2%80%99s-arrest-new-york-personal-injury-attorney

The definition is simple enough: a “citizen’s arrest” is an arrest by any civilian (not necessarily a “citizen” in some states) who does not have official government authority to make an arrest. In fact “citizen arrests” are legal in every state, though state laws with respect to the situations in which such arrests are permissible vary.

As a general rule, every state permits a civilian to make an arrest if a “felony” (a very serious crime) is being perpetrated in the presence of that civilian. Where differences among the states occur is in matters involving “misdemeanors” (less serious crimes), and where a felony is not witnessed by the civilian.

Since 2007, Karl Rove has (at least) three times been the subject of attempted citizen’s arrests. In Iowa last July, a group of four attempted to place him under citizen’s arrest when he went to Des Moines to speak at a fundraiser.

As it would turn out, the four would be citizen-constables were themselves arrested. They were subsequently cited for trespassing and released. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported that two of the four had attempted a citizen’s arrest of Rove one year previously. That time they were also arrested, but were released without charges.

In October, a Code Pink protester in San Francisco tried to slap the cuffs on Rove for treason while he participated in a panel discussion for the Mortgage Bankers Association’s annual convention. Code Pink’s official release on the incident (which contains the Arrest Complaint against Rove) states that five protesters were removed from the building but not charged.

So, can people legally perform citizen’s arrests? The short answer is yes. In virtually all states, private individuals can lawfully arrest someone whom they witness committing a felony.

New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. New York Penal Code§ 140.05 Arrest without a warrant; in general.

A person who has committed or is believed to have committed an offense and who is at liberty within the state may, under circumstances prescribed in this article, be arrested for such offense although no warrant of arrest therefor has been issued and although no criminal action therefor has yet been commenced in any criminal court.

§ 140.30 Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized.

1. Subject to the provisions of subdivision two, any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence.

2. Such an arrest, if for a felony, may be made anywhere in the state. If the arrest is for an offense other than a felony, it may be made only in the county in which such offense was committed.

§ 140.35 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; when and how made.

1. A person may arrest another person for an offense pursuant to section 140.30 at any hour of any day or night.

2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.

3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section

35.30 of the penal law.

§ 140.40 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; procedure after arrest.

1. A person making an arrest pursuant to section 140.30 must without unnecessary delay deliver or attempt to deliver the person arrested to the custody of an appropriate police officer, as defined in subdivision five. For such purpose, he may solicit the aid of any police officer and the latter, if he is not himself an appropriate police officer, must assist in delivering the arrested person to an appropriate officer.

If the arrest is for a felony, the appropriate police officer must, upon receiving custody of the arrested person, perform all recording, fingerprinting and other preliminary police duties required in the particular case.

In any case, the appropriate police officer, upon receiving custody of the arrested person, except as otherwise provided in subdivisions two and three, must bring him, on behalf of the arresting person, before an appropriate local criminal court, as defined in subdivision five, and the arresting person must without unnecessary delay file an appropriate accusatory instrument with such court.

2. If (a) the arrest is for an offense other than a class A, B, C or D felony or a violation of section 130.25, 130.40, 205.10, 205.17, 205.19 or 215.56 of the penal law and (b) owing to unavailability of a local criminal court the appropriate police officer having custody of the arrested person is unable to bring him before such a court with reasonable promptness, the arrested person must be dealt with in the manner prescribed in subdivision three of section 140.20, as if he had been arrested by a police officer.

3. If the arrest is for an offense other than a class A, B, C or D felony or a violation of section 130.25, 130.40, 205.10, 205.17, 205.19 or 215.56 of the penal law, the arrested person need not be brought before a local criminal court, as provided in subdivision one, and the procedure may instead be as follows:

(a) An appropriate police officer may issue and serve an appearance ticket upon the arrested person and release him from custody, as prescribed in subdivision two of section 150.20; or

(b) The desk officer in charge at the appropriate police officer’s station, county jail or police headquarters, or any of his superior officers, may, in such place, fix pre-arraignment bail and, upon deposit thereof, issue and serve an appearance ticket upon the arrested person and release him from custody, as prescribed in section 150.30.

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a police officer is not required to take an arrested person into custody or to take any other action prescribed in this section on behalf of the arresting person if he has reasonable cause to believe that the arrested person did not commit the alleged offense or that the arrest was otherwise unauthorized.

5. If a police officer takes an arrested juvenile offender into custody, the police officer shall immediately notify the parent or other person legally responsible for his care or the person with whom he is domiciled, that the juvenile offender has been arrested, and the location of the facility where he is being detained.

6. As used in this section:

(a) An “appropriate police officer” means one who would himself be authorized to make the arrest in question as a police officer pursuant to section 140.10;

(b) An “appropriate local criminal court” means one with which an accusatory instrument charging the offense in question may properly be filed pursuant to the provisions of section 100.55. ""

Andrew Cuomo - New York Attorney General IGNORING Massive Corruption in New York, Why?

Christine C. Anderson, New York Supreme Court Whistleblower Comes Out Swinging at New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, claims Andrew 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!!!

Expose Corrupt Courts

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere”

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court Employee, Judge or Citizen -

Report Corruption in any Court Today !!

Email me
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

New York Corruption Stories

Source Reveals Senator John Sampson Quietly Directing Feds in NY Corruption FIght

Wall Street Journal: When our Trusted Officials Lie

NY Senator John Sampson Accepting Input on Chief Judge Nomination

Massive Attorney Conflict in Madoff Scam

FBI Probes Threats on Federal Witnesses in New York Ethics Scandal

Coming to a Corrupt Court Near You: A New Administrative Judge

Governor’s Future Hinges on Chief Judge Pick

Portfolio Magazine - Why was Tom Carvel’s Death Certificate Forged?

Federal Judge: “But you destroyed the faith of the people in their government.”

Attorney Gives New Meaning to Oral Argument

Wannabe Judge Attorney Writes About Ethical Dilemmas SHE Failed to Report

3 Judges Covered Crony’s 9/11 Donation Fraud

Former NY State Chief Court Clerk Sues Judges in Federal Court

Concealing the Truth at the Attorney Ethics Committee

NY Ethics Scandal Tied to International Espionage Scheme

Westchester Surrogate’s Court’s Dastardly Deeds

New York Corrupt Courts ~ Exposed. Christine Anderson Whistleblower - Eliot Bernstein .. New York Corruption - Time TO Tell the Truth and Bring Down the Dark and Dirty Deeds of New York Corruption.

Stop Bankruptcy Fraud and Stop Bankruptcy Corruption. Watch the Second Fraud Movie - Tom Petters Fraud.

The Second Fraud Movie
Banned From Minnesota TelevisionStop Bankruptcy Fraud

www.SecondFraud.com

Polaroid Bankruptcy

Doug Kelley Petters Attorney

Bankruptcy Attorney Take the Money and Leave NONE for The Creditors.

The Department of Justice Trustee Turns a Blind Eye.

Bankruptcy Corruption is Rampant. 

Watch the Second Fraud and Learn More How Corruption Works in the Bankruptcy Courts. 

Bankruptcy Fraud Corruption seems to Be Legal, ALL you Need is a Judge, a Department of Justice Trustee and well the FBI Does not really care .. all they need is an indictment and the FBI does not even interfere Key Witnesses as we seen in the 40 Million Dollar Summit 1031 Bankruptcy. 

Bankrupty Court is Big Business and in this Business of Going Bankrupt, Everybody wins but the Victims.. the "Creditors" - the Money was there but the Corruption in Bankruptcy Take the Money, pay off the Corrupt DOJ Trustee, Pay Off local judges, set up whistleblowers and rake in hundreds of millions.. All while the US Bankruptcy Courts aid and abett their blatant White Collar Crime.

The FBI says they don't know or care about where the money goes after the bankruptcy is filed, they just go after the source company and look for illusionary indictments and never really prove where the money went. ... that the Bankruptcy Courts took after the Company Filed Bankruptcy...

Time to STOP Corruption in the Bankruptcy Courts...

Check Out

www.Petters-Fraud.com


Also

www.Justice-Integrity.org
Justice Integrity Project

Bitterroot Public Library - your Tax Dollars Used to keep YOU from the TRUTH !!

Bitterroot Public Library in Hamilton Montana Uses Every Means to Suppress the Truth.

Bitterroot Public Library - Aids and Abets Montana Corruption and Fights with all they can to Keep you from a Letter to the President on Hamilton Corruption.

More on Control, Corruption, and Cover ups at the Bitterroot Public Library
www.HamiltonMontanaNews.net

More on Montana Corruption, Bitterroot Public Library and Setting up the Innocent to Cover Up Montana Corruption.

www.MichaelSpreadbury.com

Bitterroot Public Library - Where the Truth is Suppressed, Where you have No Civil Rights, and at the Bitterroot Public Library, Hamilton Montana is Using your Montana Tax Dollars to Hide the TRUTH from You.

The Bitterroot Public Library

Montana Supreme Court Supporting Montana Corruption? SHOCKING...
all over a Tax Paying Citizen wanting a Library to NOT Suppress information, Create Victims, and Harass Innocent Montana Citizens.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_f6a11888-ab99-11df-94b8-001cc4c03286.html

The Corrupt Bitterroot Public Library in Hamilton Montana Banned a Citizen for Simply wanting you to have access to the Truth. Of Course the Corruption Hamilton Montana News makes you think that the Bitterroot Public Library is in the RIGHT.. and they are Certainly Not.

The Montana Supreme Court HAS to stand behind Hamilton Corruption, they cannot afford NOT to.. DO NOT believe me.. Find the TRUTH yourself, look at the Facts, at Documents and not at what Lies.. and Propaganda fed to you from Montana Corruption.

Here is a Link to the Bitterroot Public Library story on the Set up of who they now call an "Ex-Candidate" - funny before that he was lots of other names.. however THE Truth is that Michael Spreadbury only wants you to have access to the Truth.. and wants Hamilton Officials and the Bitterroot Public Library to obey the Laws that everyone Else has to.

""HAMILTON — The city of Hamilton has dropped a trespassing charge against a former mayoral candidate after the state Supreme Court upheld a protection order that effectively bars him from the Bitterroot Public Library.

City attorney Ken Bell said Wednesday the library only wants to protect its patrons and staff, and the Aug. 10 Supreme Court ruling against Michael Spreadbury does that. ""

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_f6a11888-ab99-11df-94b8-001cc4c03286.html

This article is Lying, the County Attorney is not telling you the Truth .. Look Deeper..

KNOWLEDGE is Power...

Michael Spreadbury was NOT endangering the Bitterroot Public Library staff or the Bitterroot Public Library "patrons" .

Michael Spreadbury was simply trying to Expose the Fact that the Bitterroot Public Library was Suppressing information at the request of Corrupt Law Enforcement and this is a Violation of Your Rights.. and the Bitterroot Public Library had no right to act how they did.. however Rights and Laws MEAN nothing in the POWERFUL Wall of Corruption in Hamilton Montana.

YOU have no Rights in Hamilton Montana and
the TRUTH means NOTHING...

YOU could have a thousand documents of Proof of your Innocence and if they say GUILTY .. well it is and ALL have to stand behind that Wall of Corruption or they are next.. and the Montana Supreme Court backs them up as there are to many secrets known..

The Bitterroot Public Library along with the Ring of Corruption in Hamilton Montana has Violated the Rights of Montana Citizens for Years.. and NO ONE can STOP them..

A Montana Supreme Court Decision to Keep YOU from the "Library" - if this Does Not Raise your Need for the TRUTH, not Sure What Will.

Demand ALL accounting of the City of Hamilton, Which is NOT a Legal City Right?

Yet the sure to Terrorize Citizens.. and have Control over the Montana Legal System.. Right or Wrong.. Who Funds the Bitterroot Public Library ? Where Do all Bitterroot Public Library Funds Go? Expose Government Corruption and Get a Whistleblower Reward under the False Claims Act.


Links to the Truth About Hamilton Montana and the Bitterroot Public Library

http://www.bitterroot-rising.org/9.html

www.MichaelSpreadbury.com

http://www.bitterroot-rising.org/index.html

www.HamiltonMontanaNews.net

http://mtjustice.info/
See What all the Fuss is REALLY about with this
BAN the TRUTH from the Bitterroot Public Library

Posted here By
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox