Maddox' s reply
ALTON H. MADDOX, JR. TELEPHONE: 718-834-9034
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
May 6, 2005
Judge Nina Gershon
Magistrate Lois Bloom
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Maddox v. Prudenti et. al., USDC,
EDNY, Cv 04-5444
Dear Judge Gershon and Mag. Bloom:
The above-captioned civil rights action was filed in this Court on December 15, 2004. I am seeking automatic reinstatement to practice law in New York and, subsequently, in Pennsylvania and Georgia based on prosecutorial misconduct, fraud and material misrepresentation of fact, grounds that are only available to either or both civil or criminal defendants but are unavailable to a suspended attorney in a post-disciplinary proceeding.
In his letter to you dated April 29, 2005, counsel for the defendants, justices of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, is seeking an extension of time until June 17, 2005 to file a response to the civil rights complaint. I am opposed to an unconditional extension of time to file a response. Defendants, response should be filed on or before May 21, 2005, the fifteenth anniversary of my suspension from the practice of law.
Although state law may require the state attorney general to defend judges, his representation of the defendants in this case should require strict judicial scrutiny. This court may find that the state attorney general has hidden his own personal interests and that of his predecessors in my suspension from the practice of law.
To be sure, the within intermediate appellate court ordered, in my case, an indefinite suspension in excess of four years to be followed by a definite suspension of five years. The state attorney general filed a false, disciplinary complaint against me with the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts which eventually led to the above-mentioned suspensions.
The Grievance Committee initially balked at a disciplinary investigation because of its published concern in the New York Times (October 7, 1988) of the attorney-client privilege. A year later and without explanation, the Grievance Committee, acting in concert with the defendants, started to vigorously prosecute the complaint of Robert Abrams coupled with the threat of defendants’ judicial authority to issue coercive orders.
The chief beneficiary of the disciplinary complaint would be the state attorney general. Amid the trial of the 67-count indictment in People v. Sharpton, the state attorney general was still seeking incriminating evidence against Sharpton. I was his pro bono counsel and, to doom Sharpton, I had to become a government informant.
The Grievance Committee demanded that I appear before it to give testimony against Sharpton and to produce the Brawley file. Any fruit of this discovery would be given to the prosecutor for use in the Sharpton trial. This testimony would, perforce, require my withdrawal as his pro bono counsel.
I refused this demand for a number of reasons including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the attorney-client privilege. The defendants summarily and indefinitely suspended me from the practice of law on May 21, 1990. I probably would have been able to lift the suspension soon after May 21 if I had agreed to undermine Rev. Sharpton’s chance of receiving a fair trial. This has now become a staple of American jurisprudence.
When the defamation trial of Pagones v. Maddox, Sharpton, Mason and Brawley commenced in November 1997, the state attorney general was allowed to act, in effect, as Pagones’ co-counsel. A deputy attorney general gave false testimony in support of Pagones and the state attorney general continuously argued and, most times, successfully, that exculpatory materials should be suppressed and kept from the jury.
I publicly stated in March 1988 that Steven Pagones, an assistant district attorney in Dutchess County, had been involved in the kidnapping and rape of Tawana Brawley. A jury of five whites and one person of African ancestry stated that I did not defame Pagones. The state attorney general in March 1988 was seeking to shield Pagones. I exposed both of them and, therefore, I had to suffer the loss of a license to practice law.
Abrams suppressed an autopsy report and falsely and publicly stated that Harry Crist, Jr., a suspect in the kidnapping and rape of Tawana Brawley, killed himself. Crist was murdered according to the autopsy report. A suicide classification would allow the guilty to go free. Homicide, on the other hand, has no statute of limitations. Obviously, Abrams has shielded the murderers.
Similarly, the FBI, the District Attorney of Dutchess County and a Dutchess County Court judge listed Pagones as a suspect in January 1988. Abrams told the public that he had no suspect in March 1988. He accused Tawana of not cooperating with a grand jury probe but never told the public that Pagones had retained a criminal defense attorney in February 1988 and had exercised rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
In October 1988, a Dutchess County grand jury purportedly issued a grand jury report which Pagones employed to draft his defamation complaint and to employ, over hearsay objection, as his chief evidence at trial. It was not known until September 11, 2000 that Abrams had authored the grand jury report in violation of Article 190 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law.
A grand juror signed an affidavit not only questioning the authenticity and authorship of the grand jury report but also whether a quorum actually existed to vote on the report. Although the state attorney general has had an opportunity to challenge this assertion, it has refused to do so.
In August 1998, two prominent, Black ministers asked me not to attack their endorsement of Eliot Spitzer for state attorney general. In return, I would be automatically and immediately reinstated to the practice of law in 1999 if Spitzer defeated the incumbent, Dennis Vacco. The two ministers made this representation as part of the campaign. Spitzer reportedly made the commitment to an audience at the House of Justice in Harlem.
Spitzer won by a razor-thin margin and the vote in the Black community made the difference. Black voters went beyond the top of the ticket. Spitzer handsomely rewarded the two Black ministers but refused to honor his commitment to drop the disciplinary complaint and demand my immediate reinstatement to practice law.
Instead, he has put a lock on exculpatory materials relating to the Brawley probe. Justice S. Barrett Hickman, in June 1988, had belatedly ordered the FBI and the state attorney general, during the defamation trial, to produce the files. When Justice Hickman realized that the files contained exculpatory materials, he ordered them sealed at the request of the state attorney general. Despite his obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, Spitzer continues to suppress the exculpatory materials.
I have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm. My reputation, even in my own community, has been tarnished because of propaganda from the media created by the state attorney general. I have been without employment since my suspension in 1990.
I have, nonetheless continued to serve my community through loans that I made and contributions that I have received to sustain the struggle. In short, I have had to personally pay my own way to sustain the struggle racially in the absence of a law license. These efforts have been very taxing to my own family.
To save my reputation and to serve my community, I have incurred debts in the six figures. Some of my creditors are in dire need of repayment of their loans. My reputation will sink further if the state attorney general is allowed to unduly delay this action.
Justice Hickman breached an escrow agreement and gave Pagones monies approaching Fifty thousand Dollars. This money also must now be repaid. The balance of the judgment is an additional issue. It must also be repaid. The defamation trial occurred in Poughkeepsie. Its costs also exceeded six figures and I had to carry most of the financial weight.
On July 30, 2004, a blue-ribbon committee styled the “Krausman Committee” issued a report describing the disciplinary procedures and practices of defendants’ Court as being fundamentally flawed. These flawed procedures and practices were utilized to investigate the within false, disciplinary complaint. Flawed disciplinary procedures and practices coupled with a false complaint will invariably give rise to an odious injustice.
I will be destitute and possibly homeless by June 17. Spitzer controls all Black elected officials and high-profile Black leaders in New York. They will do as they are told. His reign of terror over the Black community has reversed the efforts of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., Malcolm X and Cong. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
This civil rights action seeks to allow Blacks in New York to enjoy the right of competent and zealous representation in legal and political affairs. Presently, Blacks only enjoy legal and political presence. Without the right of representation, the legal status of Blacks emulates that of serfs. While the Thirteenth Amendment forbids slavery, under some circumstances, it fails to prohibit a quasi-serfdom.
Spitzer is a nominal defendant, at the very least. He should have voluntarily disclosed his legal status to the Court no later than April. His conduct raises serious questions under the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the meantime, the entire Brawley files should be declassified forthwith without any redactions and made available to the public for immediate inspection.
If you have any questions, I will be available, in-state, except from May 16-19.
Very truly yours,
AHM:sr
cc: Eliot Spitzer
State Attorney General
Charles F. Sanders
Assistant Attorney General
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
May 6, 2005
Judge Nina Gershon
Magistrate Lois Bloom
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Maddox v. Prudenti et. al., USDC,
EDNY, Cv 04-5444
Dear Judge Gershon and Mag. Bloom:
The above-captioned civil rights action was filed in this Court on December 15, 2004. I am seeking automatic reinstatement to practice law in New York and, subsequently, in Pennsylvania and Georgia based on prosecutorial misconduct, fraud and material misrepresentation of fact, grounds that are only available to either or both civil or criminal defendants but are unavailable to a suspended attorney in a post-disciplinary proceeding.
In his letter to you dated April 29, 2005, counsel for the defendants, justices of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, is seeking an extension of time until June 17, 2005 to file a response to the civil rights complaint. I am opposed to an unconditional extension of time to file a response. Defendants, response should be filed on or before May 21, 2005, the fifteenth anniversary of my suspension from the practice of law.
Although state law may require the state attorney general to defend judges, his representation of the defendants in this case should require strict judicial scrutiny. This court may find that the state attorney general has hidden his own personal interests and that of his predecessors in my suspension from the practice of law.
To be sure, the within intermediate appellate court ordered, in my case, an indefinite suspension in excess of four years to be followed by a definite suspension of five years. The state attorney general filed a false, disciplinary complaint against me with the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts which eventually led to the above-mentioned suspensions.
The Grievance Committee initially balked at a disciplinary investigation because of its published concern in the New York Times (October 7, 1988) of the attorney-client privilege. A year later and without explanation, the Grievance Committee, acting in concert with the defendants, started to vigorously prosecute the complaint of Robert Abrams coupled with the threat of defendants’ judicial authority to issue coercive orders.
The chief beneficiary of the disciplinary complaint would be the state attorney general. Amid the trial of the 67-count indictment in People v. Sharpton, the state attorney general was still seeking incriminating evidence against Sharpton. I was his pro bono counsel and, to doom Sharpton, I had to become a government informant.
The Grievance Committee demanded that I appear before it to give testimony against Sharpton and to produce the Brawley file. Any fruit of this discovery would be given to the prosecutor for use in the Sharpton trial. This testimony would, perforce, require my withdrawal as his pro bono counsel.
I refused this demand for a number of reasons including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the attorney-client privilege. The defendants summarily and indefinitely suspended me from the practice of law on May 21, 1990. I probably would have been able to lift the suspension soon after May 21 if I had agreed to undermine Rev. Sharpton’s chance of receiving a fair trial. This has now become a staple of American jurisprudence.
When the defamation trial of Pagones v. Maddox, Sharpton, Mason and Brawley commenced in November 1997, the state attorney general was allowed to act, in effect, as Pagones’ co-counsel. A deputy attorney general gave false testimony in support of Pagones and the state attorney general continuously argued and, most times, successfully, that exculpatory materials should be suppressed and kept from the jury.
I publicly stated in March 1988 that Steven Pagones, an assistant district attorney in Dutchess County, had been involved in the kidnapping and rape of Tawana Brawley. A jury of five whites and one person of African ancestry stated that I did not defame Pagones. The state attorney general in March 1988 was seeking to shield Pagones. I exposed both of them and, therefore, I had to suffer the loss of a license to practice law.
Abrams suppressed an autopsy report and falsely and publicly stated that Harry Crist, Jr., a suspect in the kidnapping and rape of Tawana Brawley, killed himself. Crist was murdered according to the autopsy report. A suicide classification would allow the guilty to go free. Homicide, on the other hand, has no statute of limitations. Obviously, Abrams has shielded the murderers.
Similarly, the FBI, the District Attorney of Dutchess County and a Dutchess County Court judge listed Pagones as a suspect in January 1988. Abrams told the public that he had no suspect in March 1988. He accused Tawana of not cooperating with a grand jury probe but never told the public that Pagones had retained a criminal defense attorney in February 1988 and had exercised rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
In October 1988, a Dutchess County grand jury purportedly issued a grand jury report which Pagones employed to draft his defamation complaint and to employ, over hearsay objection, as his chief evidence at trial. It was not known until September 11, 2000 that Abrams had authored the grand jury report in violation of Article 190 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law.
A grand juror signed an affidavit not only questioning the authenticity and authorship of the grand jury report but also whether a quorum actually existed to vote on the report. Although the state attorney general has had an opportunity to challenge this assertion, it has refused to do so.
In August 1998, two prominent, Black ministers asked me not to attack their endorsement of Eliot Spitzer for state attorney general. In return, I would be automatically and immediately reinstated to the practice of law in 1999 if Spitzer defeated the incumbent, Dennis Vacco. The two ministers made this representation as part of the campaign. Spitzer reportedly made the commitment to an audience at the House of Justice in Harlem.
Spitzer won by a razor-thin margin and the vote in the Black community made the difference. Black voters went beyond the top of the ticket. Spitzer handsomely rewarded the two Black ministers but refused to honor his commitment to drop the disciplinary complaint and demand my immediate reinstatement to practice law.
Instead, he has put a lock on exculpatory materials relating to the Brawley probe. Justice S. Barrett Hickman, in June 1988, had belatedly ordered the FBI and the state attorney general, during the defamation trial, to produce the files. When Justice Hickman realized that the files contained exculpatory materials, he ordered them sealed at the request of the state attorney general. Despite his obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, Spitzer continues to suppress the exculpatory materials.
I have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm. My reputation, even in my own community, has been tarnished because of propaganda from the media created by the state attorney general. I have been without employment since my suspension in 1990.
I have, nonetheless continued to serve my community through loans that I made and contributions that I have received to sustain the struggle. In short, I have had to personally pay my own way to sustain the struggle racially in the absence of a law license. These efforts have been very taxing to my own family.
To save my reputation and to serve my community, I have incurred debts in the six figures. Some of my creditors are in dire need of repayment of their loans. My reputation will sink further if the state attorney general is allowed to unduly delay this action.
Justice Hickman breached an escrow agreement and gave Pagones monies approaching Fifty thousand Dollars. This money also must now be repaid. The balance of the judgment is an additional issue. It must also be repaid. The defamation trial occurred in Poughkeepsie. Its costs also exceeded six figures and I had to carry most of the financial weight.
On July 30, 2004, a blue-ribbon committee styled the “Krausman Committee” issued a report describing the disciplinary procedures and practices of defendants’ Court as being fundamentally flawed. These flawed procedures and practices were utilized to investigate the within false, disciplinary complaint. Flawed disciplinary procedures and practices coupled with a false complaint will invariably give rise to an odious injustice.
I will be destitute and possibly homeless by June 17. Spitzer controls all Black elected officials and high-profile Black leaders in New York. They will do as they are told. His reign of terror over the Black community has reversed the efforts of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., Malcolm X and Cong. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
This civil rights action seeks to allow Blacks in New York to enjoy the right of competent and zealous representation in legal and political affairs. Presently, Blacks only enjoy legal and political presence. Without the right of representation, the legal status of Blacks emulates that of serfs. While the Thirteenth Amendment forbids slavery, under some circumstances, it fails to prohibit a quasi-serfdom.
Spitzer is a nominal defendant, at the very least. He should have voluntarily disclosed his legal status to the Court no later than April. His conduct raises serious questions under the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the meantime, the entire Brawley files should be declassified forthwith without any redactions and made available to the public for immediate inspection.
If you have any questions, I will be available, in-state, except from May 16-19.
Very truly yours,
AHM:sr
cc: Eliot Spitzer
State Attorney General
Charles F. Sanders
Assistant Attorney General
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 7:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home