Letter to the Grievance
ALTON H. MADDOX, JR. TELEPHONE: 718-834-9034
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
March 8, 2006
Judge Nina Gershon
United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Maddox v. Prudenti, et. al., Civ. Action No.
5444 (U.S.D.C.,E.D.N.Y. 2004)(NG)(LB)
Dear Judge Gershon:
Pursuant to Individual Rule 3(A) of this Court, plaintiff is seeking a pre-motion conference to file a motion under Rule 15 of the FRCP to amend his complaint to include a retaliatory claim for the exercise of First Amendment rights and to challenge the unconstitutional, arbitrary and subjective, investigatory standards of the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Moreover, this disciplinary investigation is unauthorized under 22 NYCRR §§ 691.1 and 691.4.
I write an opinion, weekly, for the New York Amsterdam News. In an opinion piece dated January 2, 2006, and titled “Amber Alert for Attorney Jemal Deshong,” I recounted a personal experience in a 1985 criminal trial. I was the defendant accused of assaulting two officers. A second charge was obstructing governmental administration.
I maintained that this was a frame-up for my aggressively challenging the police investigation into the police murder of Michael Stewart. I argued in court, as a pro se defendant, and afterwards, that Judge William Erlbaum erroneously and intentionally instructed the jury on the charge of obstructing governmental administration. This was my legal position in 1985 and it is my personal opinion today.
I was acquitted of all charges. The court officers association relentlessly pursued me in a disciplinary proceeding and in a defamation action. When I appeared at the disciplinary hearing with my attorney, the late Hudson Reid, he was summarily evicted from the hearing. I waited futilely for a rescheduling of the hearing. After several months, the grievance committee informed me that I had been censured after, obviously, invoking Dred Scott.
The New York Rules of Court for the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department fail to define a “Sua Sponte Investigation.” Instead of the grievance committee accusing me of making a false statement about Judge Erlbaum, it is simply asking me to explain my statements in the articles and it included, in its letter, a copy of 22 NYCRR § 1200.43 which prohibits an attorney from making “knowingly false accusations against a judge ….”
Upon receipt of my response, the grievance committee noted that it was insufficient. This is a subjective determination. Defendants’ disciplinary rules fail to outline any guidelines for filing a meritorious answer. The grievance committee’s letter stated in pertinent part, “I am in receipt of your letter dated February 15, 2006. Please be advised that it fails to adequately address the issue raised in this investigation.” This “issue” is the x factor.
If my response had been made under 22 NYCRR § 605.6 (d)(2)(ii), it would have been sufficient since I would have only been required “to state the Respondent’s position with respect to the allegations.” This objective standard is employed in the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.
In its suspension order of August 1, 1994, defendants made the following characterizations concerning “[respondent’s] unsubstantiated accusations that the courts, the Attorney General and the Grievance Committee are victimizing him because of his race.” This claim was true in 1994 and it is true today.
More than a decade later, it was discovered that the grand jury report which triggered this unprecedented suspension was admittedly achieved in violation of NY Criminal Procedure Law § 190.85. It should have been suppressed and the grievance committee, sua sponte, should have revisited the motive behind the complainant filing a bogus grand jury report.
A petit jury subsequently found me not liable for the alleged defamatory charges against Steven Pagones. These developments are of no moment to defendants or defendants’ attorney. A young Black girl was kidnapped and raped and a white police officer was murdered.
In 1987, former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler appointed a blue ribbon commission to study New York’s judicial system. The final report, in 1991, of the New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities concluded that the state’s judicial system was “infested” with racism. I believe that my prior criticisms of the judicial system, which were made known to the Chief Judge, prompted, in part, the investigation.
Since 1991, defendants have failed to take any remedial action concerning this report. To silence its critics and to maintain the status quo, defendants maintain a practice, if not a policy, of chilling the exercise of First Amendment rights. This latest attack on me is designed to chill First Amendment rights and to retaliate against me for seeking access to the courts to vindicate constitutional violations.
This current investigation is a fishing expedition and a witch hunt since no specific complaint has been publicized. Moreover, it appears that no contact has been made with Judge Erlbaum to secure his trial notes. It would take more than a fishing expedition, however, to unseal the trial record which would be the best evidence in a good-faith investigation.
In 1989, the Chief Counsel for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts publicly asserted that the disciplinary complaint, initiated by the state attorney general, would inevitably run afoul of the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants are seeking to change my legal status from suspended attorney to disbarred attorney as it represented in its initial letter to this Court dated June 16, 2005. This unwarranted reclassification would negatively affect the standard for my reinstatement to the practice of law absent the constitutional violations.
Very truly yours,
AHM:sr
Encs.
cc: New York State Attorney General
Grievance Committee for the Second and
Eleventh Judicial Districts.
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
March 8, 2006
Judge Nina Gershon
United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Maddox v. Prudenti, et. al., Civ. Action No.
5444 (U.S.D.C.,E.D.N.Y. 2004)(NG)(LB)
Dear Judge Gershon:
Pursuant to Individual Rule 3(A) of this Court, plaintiff is seeking a pre-motion conference to file a motion under Rule 15 of the FRCP to amend his complaint to include a retaliatory claim for the exercise of First Amendment rights and to challenge the unconstitutional, arbitrary and subjective, investigatory standards of the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Moreover, this disciplinary investigation is unauthorized under 22 NYCRR §§ 691.1 and 691.4.
I write an opinion, weekly, for the New York Amsterdam News. In an opinion piece dated January 2, 2006, and titled “Amber Alert for Attorney Jemal Deshong,” I recounted a personal experience in a 1985 criminal trial. I was the defendant accused of assaulting two officers. A second charge was obstructing governmental administration.
I maintained that this was a frame-up for my aggressively challenging the police investigation into the police murder of Michael Stewart. I argued in court, as a pro se defendant, and afterwards, that Judge William Erlbaum erroneously and intentionally instructed the jury on the charge of obstructing governmental administration. This was my legal position in 1985 and it is my personal opinion today.
I was acquitted of all charges. The court officers association relentlessly pursued me in a disciplinary proceeding and in a defamation action. When I appeared at the disciplinary hearing with my attorney, the late Hudson Reid, he was summarily evicted from the hearing. I waited futilely for a rescheduling of the hearing. After several months, the grievance committee informed me that I had been censured after, obviously, invoking Dred Scott.
The New York Rules of Court for the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department fail to define a “Sua Sponte Investigation.” Instead of the grievance committee accusing me of making a false statement about Judge Erlbaum, it is simply asking me to explain my statements in the articles and it included, in its letter, a copy of 22 NYCRR § 1200.43 which prohibits an attorney from making “knowingly false accusations against a judge ….”
Upon receipt of my response, the grievance committee noted that it was insufficient. This is a subjective determination. Defendants’ disciplinary rules fail to outline any guidelines for filing a meritorious answer. The grievance committee’s letter stated in pertinent part, “I am in receipt of your letter dated February 15, 2006. Please be advised that it fails to adequately address the issue raised in this investigation.” This “issue” is the x factor.
If my response had been made under 22 NYCRR § 605.6 (d)(2)(ii), it would have been sufficient since I would have only been required “to state the Respondent’s position with respect to the allegations.” This objective standard is employed in the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.
In its suspension order of August 1, 1994, defendants made the following characterizations concerning “[respondent’s] unsubstantiated accusations that the courts, the Attorney General and the Grievance Committee are victimizing him because of his race.” This claim was true in 1994 and it is true today.
More than a decade later, it was discovered that the grand jury report which triggered this unprecedented suspension was admittedly achieved in violation of NY Criminal Procedure Law § 190.85. It should have been suppressed and the grievance committee, sua sponte, should have revisited the motive behind the complainant filing a bogus grand jury report.
A petit jury subsequently found me not liable for the alleged defamatory charges against Steven Pagones. These developments are of no moment to defendants or defendants’ attorney. A young Black girl was kidnapped and raped and a white police officer was murdered.
In 1987, former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler appointed a blue ribbon commission to study New York’s judicial system. The final report, in 1991, of the New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities concluded that the state’s judicial system was “infested” with racism. I believe that my prior criticisms of the judicial system, which were made known to the Chief Judge, prompted, in part, the investigation.
Since 1991, defendants have failed to take any remedial action concerning this report. To silence its critics and to maintain the status quo, defendants maintain a practice, if not a policy, of chilling the exercise of First Amendment rights. This latest attack on me is designed to chill First Amendment rights and to retaliate against me for seeking access to the courts to vindicate constitutional violations.
This current investigation is a fishing expedition and a witch hunt since no specific complaint has been publicized. Moreover, it appears that no contact has been made with Judge Erlbaum to secure his trial notes. It would take more than a fishing expedition, however, to unseal the trial record which would be the best evidence in a good-faith investigation.
In 1989, the Chief Counsel for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts publicly asserted that the disciplinary complaint, initiated by the state attorney general, would inevitably run afoul of the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants are seeking to change my legal status from suspended attorney to disbarred attorney as it represented in its initial letter to this Court dated June 16, 2005. This unwarranted reclassification would negatively affect the standard for my reinstatement to the practice of law absent the constitutional violations.
Very truly yours,
AHM:sr
Encs.
cc: New York State Attorney General
Grievance Committee for the Second and
Eleventh Judicial Districts.
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home